From markalause at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 00:27:03 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 02:27:03 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] New U.S. Mortgage Crisis Looms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, by all means have at it..... I'll just continue to forward choice items off this list and others to coworkers and friends across the country. These are mostly on issues and critical of Obama when they touch on him. But that's all part of having what impact we know to have.... I look to the masses to draw their own conclusions and act based on their experience. Our role is to explain what they're learning from experience. On the other hand, you can take the magical approach. If you advice on reaching the masses from those who wouldn't back Nader or McKinney because those candidates wouldn't use the "s-word"--or from those who wouldn't even do that unless is was the right kind of "s-word" used by the right kind of organization--then you believe there is merit in pretending that what we say changes the masses without their having to go through the experience themselves. That is magic. But, as I say, have at it.... ML From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Dec 1 00:32:34 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:32:34 +1100 Subject: [Marxism] What's new at Links: Elections in Venezuela; Mumbai; Arabic; economic crisis and the poor; Thailand; France; environment; Comintern Message-ID: <49339312.1050306@greenleft.org.au> Subscribe free to Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 Visit and bookmark http://links.org.au and add it to your RSS feed (http://links.org.au/rss.xml). If you would like us to consider an article, please send it to links at dsp.org.au *Please pass on to anybody you think will be interested in /Links/. * * * Venezuela: US-backed right wing murders unionists, attacks revolutionary gains A statement from the *Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network* November 28, 2008 -- In the aftermath of the November 23 regional elections, Venezuela's right-wing opposition has launched, in the states it won, an all-out assault on grassroots community organisations... In the days following the elections, grassroots activists in Caracas, Miranda and Tachira have reported that the public community health clinics (part of Barrio Adentro, the free universal healthcare program), communal councils and other centres where social programs operate are being shut down or attacked by opposition party, despite the public assurances of at least one right-wing govenor-elect that the legal frameworks would be respected. * Read more Venezuela: After the regional elections, the workers propose a clean out and more revolution By *Stalin Perez Borges, *translated by *Kiraz Janicke* and *Federico Fuentes* for Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal November 25, 2008 -- I want to give some preliminary and personal impressions, in the heat of the moment, where many comrades are very preoccupied by the significance of the [Chavista movement's] loss of the Mayor of Greater Caracas and of some important or key governorships in the country. * Read more Venezuela's regional elections: Another vote for the revolution and Chavez (now with video, audio) Statement by the *Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network* November 25, 2008 -- The results of the elections for local mayors and state governors held in Venezuela on November 23 underlined the continuing mass support for the Bolivarian revolution led by President Hugo Chavez. In a clear vote of confidence in the project to build socialism of the 21st century in Venezuela, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) -- formed just six months ago with Chavez as its president -- won 17 of the 22 states in which governors were elected. The United States-backed right-wing opposition won five states with a total of about 4 million votes, compared to the 5.5 million votes for the PSUV candidates. The elections were also a victory for democracy in Venezuela. * Read more Indian communists condemn Mumbai terror attack By *Dipankar Bhattacharya*, General Secretary, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation November 27, 2008 -- The CPI (ML) strongly condemns the attacks and offers deep condolences to the families of all those killed. * Read more The Flame, November 2008 - Green Left Weekly's Arabic supplement With the help of Socialist Alliance members in the growing Sudanese community in Australia, /Green Left Weekly/ -- Australia's leading socialist newspaper -- is publishing a regular Arabic language supplement. The /Flame/ will cover news from the Arabic-speaking world as well as news and issues from within Australia. The editor-in-chief will be Soubhi Iskander, a comrade who has endured years of imprisonment and torture at the hands of the repressive government in Sudan. * Read more David Harvey on the `Enigma of capital' and the current capitalist economic crisis A lecture by Professor *David Harvey* City University of New York Graduate Center November 14, 2008 1 hour 2 minutes * Read more Thailand: PAD thugs close Bangkok airport / /By *Giles Ji Ungpakorn* November 26, 2008 -- Bangkok International Airport has now been closed by fascist thugs from the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). The PAD is demanding that the elected government of Thailand resigns. This is despite the fact that the government has the backing of the majority of the Thai population and even the majority of Bangkok citizens. This backing has been proven by repeated elections. The PAD want a dictatorship to replace democracy because it deems the majority of the Thai electorate to be too ignorant to deserve the right to vote. * Read more France's New Anti-Capitalist Party: An exchange between Alex Callinicos (British SWP) and Fran?ois Sabado (LCR) Below are two articles which first appeared in /Critique Communiste/, and in English in the November issue of /International Viewpoint/, the magazine of the Fourth International. The first is by *Alex Callinicos*, a leader of the British Socialist Workers Party. The second, "The NPA, a new experience of building an anti-capitalist party", is a reply by *Fran?ois Sabado*, a leader of the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR). * Read more Making the world's poor pay: The economic crisis and the Global South [This article is available in Spanish: `Que paguen los pobres del mundo La crisis econ?mica y del Sur del glob' .] By *Adam Hanieh* November 22, 2008 -- The current global economic crisis has all the earmarks of an epoch-defining event. Mainstream economists -- not usually known for their exaggerated language -- now openly employ phrases like ``systemic meltdown'' and ``peering into the abyss''. On October 29, for example, Martin Wolf, one of the top financial commentators of the /Financial Times/, warned that the crisis portends "mass bankruptcy", "soaring unemployment" and a "catastrophe" that threatens "the legitimacy of the open market economy itself... the danger remains huge and time is short". * Read more Sydney, April 10-13 (Easter), 2009: World At a Crossroads - Fighting for Socialism in the 21st Century World At a Crossroads: Fighting for Socialism in the 21st Century * * * Read more Rifts and shifts and Marx -- Getting to the root of environmental crises By *Brett Clark* and *Richard York* Humans depend on functioning ecosystems to sustain themselves and their actions affect those same ecosystems. As a result, there is a necessary "metabolic interaction" between humans and the earth, which influences both natural and social history. Increasingly, the state of nature is being defined by the operations of the capitalist system, as anthropogenic forces are altering the global environment on a scale that is unprecedented. * Read more Proceedings of Fourth Congress of the Communist International to be published / / In October, John Riddell, co-editor of Socialist Voice, completed a draft translation of the proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the Communist International. This ambitious effort (more than 500,000 words) will make all of the resolutions, speeches, and debates from that important 1922 meeting, together with full explanatory annotation, available in English for the first time. The work, which Riddell is preparing in collaboration with the London-based journal Historical Materialism, is planned for publication in 2010. The British newspaper Socialist Worker interviewed John Riddell (below) about this project for its November 22, 2008, issue. * Read more * * * /Links/ seeks to promote the international exchange of information, experience of struggle, theoretical analysis and views of political strategy and tactics within the international left. It is a forum for open and constructive dialogue between active socialists coming from different political traditions. It seeks to bring together those in the international left who are opposed to neoliberal economic and social policies. It aims to promote the renewal of the socialist movement in the wake of the collapse of the bureaucratic model of "actually existing socialism" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ATTENTION: Sign up for regular ``what's new'' announcement emails at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 From walterlx at earthlink.net Mon Dec 1 05:38:26 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:38:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] IKN: Venezuela: A new proposed law will silence NGOs, foreign orgs, free speech, human rights Message-ID: <17090526.1228135106070.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> INKA COLA NEWS 11/30/08 Venezuela: A new proposed law will silence NGOs, foreign organizations and threatens free speech and human rights This is an important post and a headsup for all. Venezuela has proposed a new law that is likely to see passage in its parliament in March 2009. It is a broadstroke law that seems logical enough at first reading, but effectively gives the national government the right to ban any organization that it thinks is threatening the state. I really don't know how dangerous a law can be for the state of democracy than this. Here's my translation of the article in question, recently published as a proposed law in the state gazette. Under my translation you'll find the Spanish original, because this kind of thing is open to linguistic interpretation and it's best that any Spanish speaker sees the exact language used (though I do believe my translation to be accurate). xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Article 96: Dissolution for attacks against public order and other causes. The Public Ministry may seek via the judiciary the dissolution of any association whose activities or ends are or result in being contrary to the public order, to its good custom, to national sovereignty, to state security or to the international principle of non-interference in internal affairs. ...At any time during the process the judge may dictate cautionary measures that totally or partially suspend the activities of the association, or may designate an intervenor for the same. "Art?culo 96?.- Disoluci?n por atentar contra el orden p?blico y otras causales. El Ministerio P?blico puede solicitar judicialmente la disoluci?n de la asociaci?n cuyas actividades o fines sean o resulten contrarios al orden p?blico, a las buenas costumbres, a la soberan?a nacional, a la seguridad del Estado, o al principio internacional de no intromisi?n en asuntos internos. (?). En cualquier estado del proceso puede el Juez dictar medidas cautelares suspendiendo total o parcialmente las actividades de la asociaci?n, o designando un interventor de las mismas". xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This is serious stuff, people. It basically gives the right to the state to ban any organization, NGO, international assocation or local association it thinks is being a nuisance "to the public order" or similar. Any foreign body seen "interfering" is out. All it needs to do is grab a judge, get a signature and the opposition voice is immediately closed down. No appeals, no warning, nothing. BAM! closed. Here's a Spanish language link to an organization that, fortunately, has already noted the danger this law implies. I find it incredible that nothing has been said about this proposed law already. This is a blatant contravention of democratic free speech and may even infringe on basic human rights. Those opposed to this law have three or four months to organize themselves and get the word out. THIS LAW CANNOT BE ALLOWED ON TO THE STATUTE. It's opening the door to a police state like no other. Please contact any and all political groups you can think of and stop this clampdown on free speech from happening. Oh, by the way: all the above is 100% true except for one small detail; it's Peru proposing this law, not Venezuela. Now you know why you've heard nothing about it, because the bullshit hypocritical press that fill your head with crap 24 hours a day would never pick up on a story like this from a supposedly friendly nation like Peru, but my how they'd squeal if it were really Venezuela. UPDATE: I've been asked for more links to this story in other media, so here are four. There are plenty more if you look for yourself. You'll note they're all in Spanish. And the next person who writes to me and says that "if it's not being reported in English then it's probably no big deal anyway" gets a shaman hex on their tush, ok? Dumbasses like that shouldn't be spending time away from World Of Warcraft to read blogs like this. http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2008/11/venezuela-new-proposed-law-will-silence.html ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Los Angeles, California Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From Jscotlive at aol.com Mon Dec 1 05:45:16 2008 From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:45:16 EST Subject: [Marxism] Raul Castro attends first beatification ceremony inCuba Message-ID: Walter: Neither Adam nor I said anything endorsing the beatification, but we recognized the political significance of this free expression of a religious belief in front of the world stage in the presence of the President of Cuba, Raul Castro Ruz, is a positive development. Sartesian, a religious atheist, is completely blind to all of this. Reply: This official endorsement of the medieval rituals of the Catholic Church in Cuba over 50 years after the Revolution can in no way be described as progressive. To do so is to lapse into the realms of make believe. On the contrary, and sadly, this event merely constitutes further evidence that the blockade and resulting isolation economic stranglehold and isolation it has placed around Cuba has not only stopped the progress of socialism, it has unfortunately succeeded in pushing it back. It is indeed a sad day for Cuba and for socialists everywhere to see such an event take place. That Walter even attempts to place a positive spin on it merely reflects his continued political degeneration. In this, it seems, Walter is yet another casualty of the blockade. From aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm Mon Dec 1 06:17:56 2008 From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm (Aaron Aarons) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:17:56 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. In-Reply-To: References: <6463401.1227812970494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.eart hlink.net> <20081128021234.E35DE22013@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128055000.B3B2A2D02D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128215852.3F4F4DCF7@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> This is a follow-up to the thread, "[Marxism] a thought on bombay/mumbai attacks". At 06:20 +0000 2008/12/01, Tom Cod wrote: >I think you're engaging in the straw man tactics you have been deploring so much on here. Please point to one single "straw man" that I have invoked, Tom! >the fall of apartheid, like the fall of the Tsar was a victory for the people's movement. Tom keeps on treating the "fall of apartheid" as if it were entirely separate from the deal which ended formal white rule and, at the same time, guaranteed -- as far as the ANC, SACP and COSATU could guraranteee it -- the continuation of white capitalist economic domination and white privilege. (It is apparently a congenital characteristic of opportunists to evaluate a single aspect of a phenomenon separately from other aspects of the same phenomenon, so that they can celebrate the first and ignore the others.) >Surely the black workers movement is in a better position to struggle for its interests now than it was under Botha, Please explain how! >ditto for the workers and peasants under the provisional government after the Tsar had been tossed out, The situations were very different, as can be noted by comparing the 8 months it took for capitalism to be overthrown in Russia after the Tsar was forced out with the 18 years since the ANC leadership was freed from prison and the 14 years since the ANC came to power, with capitalism -- at least until the current world meltdown -- stronger than ever. >ditto for the Germans after Hitler was defeated etc. This is so different from what happened in South Africa that there's no need to comment on it. - Aaron From rjacobs3625 at charter.net Mon Dec 1 06:21:50 2008 From: rjacobs3625 at charter.net (Ron J) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:21:50 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] New U.S. Mortgage Crisis Looms In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4933E4EE.70003@charter.net> Defending Obama is a waste of energy. The important thing to remember in this entire election cycle is that the reactionary Bush regime was defeated, several million people voted who never did before--many of them because they were convinced Obama would bring progressive change, and most importantly, the Left must take advantage of the defeat of the Bushites and the desire of a large number of voters for a more just world. There will be opportunities to push the entire agenda leftward--we should understand these opportunities and mobilize the people, not cry in alarm or say "I told you so" when Obama acts like the capitalist politician he is. ron jacobs Gary MacLennan wrote: > one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight,..... > > Look I am not imagining the rear guard defence of Obama that has been put up > on this list. Of course it morphs and is at times quite dissembling. > Frankly I would have more respect for it if it did not take such a chameleon > form. > > But y'all are united round advocating a "wait and see" approach to Obama's > presidency. > > "Wait for what?" I say. > > regards > > Gary > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rjacobs3625%40charter.net > > From daynegoodwin at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 06:33:47 2008 From: daynegoodwin at gmail.com (Dayne Goodwin) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 06:33:47 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Fred Feldman wrote: > . . . > because we are dealing with deeply consolidated sectarian phenomena on > the US left. > . . . I agree that sectarian-ism is a deeply consolidated problem on the U.S. left. I assume that Fred - as a veteran of decades within one of the deeply sectarian U.S. left organizations - is quite familiar with sectarianism. But i don't understand why Fred lodges an accusation of sectarianism in the midst of discussion on this list. The word "sectarian" is used in the marxist movement to refer to organizations which put their own organizational self-interest - their sect - ahead of the best interests of the working class generally. (Of course the validity of the charge is a matter of judgment.) If Fred thinks that it is in the best interests of the working class to have illusions about Obama, and Fred observed a marxist organization which criticized Obama and which argued that workers should join their particular organization to advance working class interests instead of putting faith in Obama then from his point of view Fred could accuse that organization of being sectarian. I think that it is ridiculous to accuse some among a loose array of marxists on a self-selected marxist discussion list of being sectarian for criticizing Obama or for pointing out widely-held popular illusions about Obama on that discussion list. We would need to know about list participants' political practice and their organizations to consider whether they're engaged in sectarian behavior. I would be interested to learn how Fred's view that it is sectarian to confront illusions about Obama impacts his actual political activism, beyond this discussion list. In regard to this issue of how to respond to widespread illusions about Obama, what are other "sectarian" marxists doing in their activism which he chooses to avoid doing? What does he choose to do in his activism which distinguishes him from these other activists who do not properly restrain themselves from criticizing Obama? Dayne From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Dec 1 06:39:55 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] New Yorker profiles Naomi Klein Message-ID: <4933E92B.9060807@panix.com> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/08/081208fa_fact_macfarquhar Profiles Outside Agitator Naomi Klein and the new new left. by Larissa MacFarquhar December 8, 2008 The marquee outside the Bloor Cinema, in Toronto, advertised ?The Last Mistress? at four, ?Naomi Klein?the Shock Doctrine? at seven, and ?Little Shop of Horrors? at nine-thirty. It was a warmish night. The falafel shop next door was doing a brisk business. A line of people holding tickets to the Naomi Klein event stretched to the end of the block and around the corner. Outside the entrance to the cinema, a middle-aged man and an elderly woman paced up and down selling copies of Socialist Action for a dollar. (The September issue included articles about capitalism?s contradictions, class war in Bolivia, and a commentary by Mumia Abu-Jamal?a regular feature.) ?We apologize for starting late, but it?s typical activist time, so I?m sure you?re used to it,? a young woman organizer said from the stage. The young woman wore a black necklace, black jeans, and black hoop earrings. She urged the audience to fight racism and poverty, and to work for education, international solidarity, justice for immigrants and refugees, and solidarity with Palestine and with the Mohawk of Tyendinaga and the Algonquin of Barriere Lake, on whose behalf the fund-raiser that night was being held. She squinted into the lights. ?I?m glad you can?t see the audience from here,? she said, ?because I don?t think I?ve ever spoken in front of eight hundred and fifty people except at a protest, and then you can always dissolve into a chant.? She consulted her notes. ?To a different audience?to those that hold capital and power in this society?Naomi Klein?s words and her ideas are seen as a serious threat,? she said. ?Her words are a source of inspiration . . . for those of us who were and are being radicalized by the anti-globalization, anti-colonial, and anti-poverty movements and the demands to change the system totally and completely.? Klein ascended the stage. ?It?s been an eventful few hours,? she said, smiling. The first bailout package announced by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had been voted down that afternoon by the House. ?The President went on television and informed us that there would be Armageddon, essentially, if they didn?t get this deal . . . but it didn?t work!? she went on, over rowdy clapping. She was wearing dark jeans tucked into tall brown boots, a crisp white shirt, and a long black blazer. She was dressed for a fox hunt. She looked terrific. She had spent the day curled up on the blue sofa in her living room, watching CNN while she waited restlessly to hear what would happen in Washington. She fortified herself with cups of coffee and a smoothie. She checked her iPhone for messages from an economist friend who was keeping her posted on what was going on behind the scenes. She followed the Dow as it pitched downward, thinking how ridiculous it was for Paulson to believe that he could control it. ?This is politicians acting like traders,? she said, staring at the television. ?A government shouldn?t play the market?it should govern.? The past couple of weeks had been a giddy time. Since her book ?The Shock Doctrine? was published last year, Klein, now thirty-eight, has become the most visible and influential figure on the American left?what Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky were thirty years ago. She speaks every few days, all over the world, and hundreds of people turn up to hear her. They visit her Web site and subscribe to her newsletter and send her passionate fan mail. She has become an icon?s icon: Radiohead and Laurie Anderson promote her books to their fans; John Cusack?s comedy ?War, Inc.? was inspired by her reporting from Baghdad. The Mexican film director Alfonso Cuar?n felt so strongly about ?The Shock Doctrine? that he made a short promotional film about it for free. Now, suddenly, she was in demand everywhere. The economic crisis had looked at first like a textbook enactment of her ?shock doctrine? theory, and everyone wanted her to go on TV and explain it. The central thesis of the book is that capitalism and democracy, free markets and free people, do not, as we?ve been told, go hand in hand. On the contrary, capitalism?at least fundamentalist capitalism, of the type promoted by the late economist Milton Friedman and his ?Chicago School? acolytes?is so unpopular, and so obviously harmful to everyone except the richest of the rich, that its establishment requires, at best, trickery and, at worst, terror and torture. Friedman believed that markets perform best when freed from government interference, so he advocated getting rid of tariffs, subsidies, minimum-wage laws, public housing, Social Security, financial regulation, and licensing requirements, including those for doctors?indeed, virtually every measure devised to protect people from the market?s harsh logic. Klein argues that the only circumstance in which a population would accept Friedman-style reforms is when it is in a state of shock, following a crisis of some sort?a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, a war. A person in shock regresses to a childlike state in which he longs for a parental figure to take control; similarly, a population in a state of shock will hand exceptional powers to its leaders, permitting them to destroy the regulatory functions of government. (clip) From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Dec 1 06:43:35 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:43:35 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Obama gets rave reviews Message-ID: <4933EA07.8050602@panix.com> http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/109160/ Neocons, Republicans and War Criminals Rave About Obama's 'Team of Rivals' By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet Posted on November 30, 2008, Printed on December 1, 2008 As Barack Obama's opus, Team of Rivals, continues its rolling debut, the early reviews are in and the "critics" are full of praise for the cast: "[T]he new administration is off to a good start." -- Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell. "[S]uperb ... the best of the Washington insiders ... this will be a valedictocracy -- rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes." -- David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist "[V]irtually perfect ... " -- Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and John McCain's top surrogate in the 2008 campaign. "[R]eassuring." -- Karl Rove, "Bush's brain." "I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain ... this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign ... [Hillary] Clinton and [James] Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for 'neo-liberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservativism.'" -- Max Boot, neoconservative activist, former McCain staffer. "I see them as being sort of center-right of the Democratic party." -- James Baker, former Secretary of State and the man who led the theft of the 2000 election. "[S]urprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush's second term and the incoming administration ... certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush ... " -- Michael Goldfarb of the neoconservative Weekly Standard. "I certainly applaud many of the appointments ... " -- Senator John McCain "So far, so good." -- Senator Lamar Alexander, senior Republican Congressional leader. Hillary Clinton will be "outstanding" as Secretary of State -- Henry Kissinger, war criminal Rahm Emanuel is "a wise choice" in the role of Chief of Staff -- Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain's best friend. Obama's team shows "Our foreign policy is non-partisan." -- Ed Rollins, top Republican strategist and Mike Huckabee's 2008 campaign manager "The country will be in good hands." -- Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Secretary of State **Team of Rivals will be playing all day, every day for at least the next four years** Jeremy Scahill pledges to be the same journalist under an Obama administration that he was during Bill Clinton and George Bush's presidencies. He is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and is a frequent contributor to The Nation and Democracy Now! He is a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute. From markalause at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 08:18:58 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:18:58 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dayne Goodwin wrote:"If Fred thinks that it is in the best interests of the working class to have illusions about Obama ..." Well, a classic straw argument probably isn't a helpful starting point. I think that Fred is using sectarian in close to its classic religious usage. I tend to see it as a kind of magical thinking. That notion that we initiates of New-Thought can change things by ritual incantations... And the corollary view that if the ritual incantations aren't changing things that people are failing to use the words loudly or often enough or with sufficient feeling. And you don't have to go back to any particular past group to see the approach, because everyday on this list we hear the assumption that somehow list members are holding back the working class by not saying the right words often enough, loudly enough or with enough feeling. True, this didn't work in the past but that's no reason not to have another ritual repetition of the bloody obvious... ....Obama's a bourgeois politician even though he's black... ....Obama's a Clinton Democrat who makes appointees like he's a Clinton Democrat... ....Obama represents the capitalist class... The masses need "socialism." The fact that almost none of them actually know know what it is is no reason for us not to use it. After all, if the masses don't actually know what we're talking about, it isn't our fault, is it? It doesn't mean we're not doing our jobs. ....Socialism, socialism, socialism. ....And class struggle. ....And socialism. (Has Jesus...or Tinker Bell...come back to life, yet? No? That's because the entire list isn't saying it... Let's try it again...) ....Obama's a bourgeois politician even though he's black... ....Obama's a Democrat... ....Obama represents the capitalist class... ....Socialism, socialism, socialism. ....And class struggle. ....And socialism. Surely that's brought us a little bit closer to its goals, right? It hasn't ? Well, maybe it's because that lurker in the back isn't saying it with real feeling. Look we really, really need to do something about Obama's appointees, so let's try again... ....Obama's a bourgeois politician even though he's black... ....Obama's a Democrat... ....Obama represents the capitalist class... ....Socialism, socialism, socialism. ....And class struggle. ....And socialism. Well, if that hasn't done it, I've done my duty and said the right prayers.... ML PS: If we agree that a religious and/or magical faith hasn't worked and that insistence on a groupthink embrace of such thinking isn't helpful....then shouldn't we try rethinking it in materialist terms? That is on what we need to DO in the real world. From Dbachmozart at aol.com Mon Dec 1 08:29:50 2008 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:29:50 EST Subject: [Marxism] Obamamania and taking Chomsky and co. off their high horse Message-ID: Chomsky is agreeable to supporting an alternative to the two factions of the US ruling class as long as that alternative is viable. Absent that, he's willing to lend his immense prestige to strengthening the most crippling illusion facing the US left - that the Democrats are the lesser evil and are thus worth supporting. But just how will that alternative arise? Will it start out with 20 - 30% support in the polls or will it, at first have much less support? As Peter Camejo used to say, "how many terrible things does the Democratic Party have to do before people say 'enough'?" Just when will it be permissible for those on the left who clearly see the role and history of the DP, to actually oppose them and propose an alternative? Nader, for all his shortcomings dared to take that step years ago and has caught hell for it ever since from the "progressive" left (including if I'm not mistaken, the Left Business Observer's own Doug Henwood, another supporter "without illusions" of Kerry). Chomsky, for all his excellent analytical abilities and great courage over the decades speaking out against the crimes of the Empire, has shrunk from it. He, Zinn, Henwood and co. gave the Democrats a major assist in '04 when they supported Kerry. Many antiwar people who were uncomfortable about supporting someone who was quite proud of voting in favor of a US President's right to start a pre-emptive war, were won over. "If Noam Chomsky was supporting Kerry, that's good enough for me." On the question of how to take on Obamamania - at this point Obama has strong support from the great majority of Americans who are so thrilled and relieved that Bush/Cheney will be leaving, that they're not paying attention to Obama's history, his Cabinet selections or our criticisms, no matter how loud and shrill they are. Attacking him head on as a betrayer of promises (that he never really made) would cause the people who we are trying to win over to say - "give the guy a chance; he hasn't even taken the oath yet". What we can do is urge his followers to petition him to undo the eight years of Bush/Cheney. As a former law professor, who better than he would understand the scope of the outgoing administration's violations of international and US law and the breaking of his oath to uphold the Constitution? Certainly a law professor understands the necessity for filing charges and putting on trial all those, including lawyers and the complicit media suspected of breaking the law. In a democracy, "no one is above the law" - doesn't Obama agree, or will he sweep it all under the rug in the name of bipartisanship? Don't we teach our children that there are consequences to misbehavior? If left unpunished, don't these crimes serve as a precedent for future presidents, much like the Democrats' letting Reagan and Bush Sr. off the hook with Iran-Contra provided Bush/Cheney with a precedent? We should ask Obama's supporters to call on him to apologize for war based on lies, withdraw totally from Iraq and Afghanistan, and help rebuild those countries; officially pledge to cease torture by any name, including "enhanced interrogation techniques" and prosecute all those responsible, especially the higher-ups; begin dismantling the 800 US military bases around the world and use the money to rebuild the US infrastructure; etc, etc, etc. Our approach - as if we are an organized political force and not a bunch of disparate graying 60s radicals - should be to act like a small gear turning a much larger one - Obama's leftist supporters. We are not strong enough to take Obamamania on directly, but we can make reasonable demands on his supporters to do that for us. "If he actually accomplishes some of these moves, we're willing to admit that we may have been wrong about him". If and when he refuses, our credibility is enhanced, and those who did not want to listen to our critique may now open their minds a little more, provided we don't have a condescending "we told you so" attitude. **************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002) From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Dec 1 08:43:49 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49340635.2090902@panix.com> Mark Lause wrote: > The masses need "socialism." The fact that almost none of them > actually know know what it is is no reason for us not to use it. > After all, if the masses don't actually know what we're talking about, > it isn't our fault, is it? It doesn't mean we're not doing our jobs. > > ....Socialism, socialism, socialism. I for one have not spoken about the need for socialism. In fact the main thing that interests me about Obama is his refusal to throw a crumb or two off the table to the liberal wing of the DP, without whose energy he never would have been elected. As Louis Godena used to say, I don't have a dog in this show (or was it a pony?) but I certainly enjoy giving ammunition to the young hotheads on Marxmail who will rub their liberal classmates' noses in the latest shocker coming out of the Obama/Clinton White House. For those who want to keep up with the latest attempts at self-deception on these questions, I heartily recommend Portside, the mailing list that was launched by the Eurocommunist Committees of Correspondence but that now is more broadly based among the piecemeal reform left. Here's an excerpt from a posting on the Obama transition that really struck me as this kind of logic taken to extremes: >>To be sure it is deeply unpleasant for rank-and-file progressives when, after an election, conventional politicians and cynical conservatives seem to push progressives to the sidelines in a way that belittles the scope of their efforts and diminishes the degree of triumph of their views. But the truth is that this is an inherent and unavoidable part of the process of progressive change and not a reflection of any specific failure or defeat. There is a compelling piece of dialog that occurs in the HBO series Band of Brothers which deals with the 101st airborne division in WW II. When the division is ordered into Bastogne, the commanding general says to their leader: "you realize that once you go in there, you're going to be completely surrounded." The officer replies simply: "we're paratroopers, sir, we're always surrounded". This is a marvelous illustration of the fact that what can often appear on the surface to be a dismaying problem or setback can actually be an entirely normal, natural and inevitable part of the situation itself.<< Since my father got a Bronze Star transporting food and water to the men in the 101st Division at Bastogne, this anecdote resonates quite a bit with me. How pathetic that a group that has its origins (as remote as they are) in the October 1917 Bolshevik revolution to be circulating an article that likens the radical movement in the U.S. to foot soldiers. Until the left in the U.S. begins to see itself as a complete alternative to the bourgeois politicians that have been abusing the American people for hundreds of years, it might as well fold up its tents and simply integrate itself into the Democratic Party clubs all across the nation that serve as the foot soldiers of the ruling class politicians. In fact, I dropped out of C of C in the 1980s after attending one meeting, only to discover that most of the business on the agenda involved reports from these very Democratic Party clubs that always symbolized the dead end of reformism in the U.S. From Dbachmozart at aol.com Mon Dec 1 09:05:51 2008 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:05:51 EST Subject: [Marxism] equating the Naqba with the immigration of Arab Jews Message-ID: Justice for Palestinians and Jews linked Jonathan Cook _The National_ (http://thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage) December 01. 2008 clip -- JERUSALEM // A broad coalition of Jewish lobby groups has made a series of breakthroughs this year in its campaign to link the question of justice for millions of Palestinian refugees with justice for Jews who left Arab states in the wake of Israel?s establishment 60 years ago. Referring to these Jews as the ?forgotten refugees? and claiming that their plight is worse than that of exiled Palestinians, the campaign has scored political successes in recent months in Washington, London and Brussels. Last week, the campaign received a major fillip when one of Israel?s largest political parties announced that restitution of property for Arab Jews was a central plank of its platform for the general election scheduled for February. full -- _http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0349.htm#Top_ (http://www.jkcook.net/Articles2/0349.htm#Top) **************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002) From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Dec 1 09:38:51 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:38:51 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult References: Message-ID: <77581765A586409A8FA2F0A070E962C6@dmsthinkpad> Come on Mark, you can do better than that. You do do better than that. Fred's using it, the word sectarian, in its religious sense? A sense that it is definitely not used on this list? The magical thinking is not being promulgated by those who aren't quite so wrapped in the near-religious ecstacy over the election of an African-American to the position of chief executive of the bourgeois state. Obama's victory is not, as some have implied, a victory for "our ideals," derived from "our struggle." Our struggle, as best I can remember it, started from ideals, but endured because it became material, became a struggle for the emancipation of labor; because it became a class struggle. Obama represents no different class, no different section of that class than Bush and the Republicans. Obama won because that same class requires different things than it required in 2004. Nobody is using incantations here... except maybe for Walter and his spin on the positive contributions of the Catholic church to the material and spiritual well-being of Cuba, except maybe those who keep repeating, Obama is black, things are different, Obama is back, things are different. Sure things are different, an African American was elected president. And that's as far as it goes. Are all those who perceive a sort of hope against hope surrounding Obama playing, like Muzak in a shopping mall, (or a dentist's office while awaiting root canal), in the background of several participants' posts, suffering from misperception? Tell us then, in materialist terms, what exactly is the opening you see in this election, as opposed to all other elections? By opening I mean, stimulus to just those masses and mass actions that will overwhelm the pledge of allegiance so fundamental to Obama and his supporters. Please don't tell me about hope, and hope for change, and new voters who want a better America. That would really be meaningless incantation-- the mantra of "progress." Here are some of my incantations designed to win the hearts and minds of all peace-loving people who bet on Obama: 1. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq. 2. Immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan 3. No missile placements in countries formerly allied with the fSU. 4. No bailouts for banks, insurance companies, money market funds, asset backed securities, etc. 5. Economic stimulus to be organized around the payment of reparations for historically unpaid, underpaid black, hispanic, asian labor. 6. No foreclosures. Immediate cancellation of all mortgage debt on primary residences. 7. Taxpayers will place on deposit with the Federal Reserve Bank of NY, $24 in trinkets, in exchange for which all bankers, financial advisers, hedge fund managers, stock, bond, currency, commodity, derivatives, traders will immediately leave the island of Manhattan. You know what? Those are exactly the same chants I placed in a sealed envelope before the election, to be opened no matter who won. How did the Who put it (got to like that How and Who juxtapositon)? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Lause" To: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult > Dayne Goodwin wrote:"If Fred thinks that it > is in the best interests of the working class to have illusions about > Obama ..." > From markalause at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 09:45:14 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:45:14 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult In-Reply-To: <49340635.2090902@panix.com> References: <49340635.2090902@panix.com> Message-ID: But surely none of us are really surprised at either Obama's appointees or at the lickspittle approach of the "mainstream Left," that is the Progressive Democratic and old-line CP currents. They've made themselves precisely, as you suggest, irrelevant. And, the pigheaded refusal to rethink their position will leave them among the last to rethink their commitment to the Democrats. As to St. Artesian, his argument against my post would be entirely correct, if it had anything to do with what I had posted. And all of his prayerful incantations are, to be sure, the right words. In fact, I've just sat here and repeated them. We any closer to socialism yet? ML From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Dec 1 09:51:43 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:51:43 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult References: <49340635.2090902@panix.com> Message-ID: <0D066533A33B4BC6A6DDA380405CF33B@dmsthinkpad> Well, then what exactly do you mean? Maybe it's just me, maybe it isn't. Gary, Dayne-- any clue as to what it is Mark is actually saying? Obviously it is beyond my limited powers of comprehension. I would ask you Mark to explain it, but I'm sure it would be unintelligible to me , or... it would be a different explanation than the one you thought you were giving yesterday or the day before. I think I recall some implicit connection, or hope for connection, on your part between the fervor surrounding Obama, Obama's response to it and the economic situation, and FDR's "positive" comments (and actions?) regarding industrial unions. I believe you wrote that the more feet we put in the street, the more "left" would be the proposals coming from the government. Do I have that wrong, Mark? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Lause" To: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Dec 1 09:53:18 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:53:18 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult In-Reply-To: References: <49340635.2090902@panix.com> Message-ID: <4934167E.1020400@panix.com> Mark Lause wrote: > But surely none of us are really surprised at either Obama's > appointees or at the lickspittle approach of the "mainstream Left," > that is the Progressive Democratic and old-line CP currents. It is not a question of being surprised. It is a question of being informed. For example, Obama has named Susan A. Rice to be Ambassador to the UN. She is an African-American member of the Brookings Institute who apparently was a strong backer of Bill Clinton's bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and a prot?g? of Madeline Albright. She is also associated with getting Western troops involved in the Darfur conflict, a cause associated with Samantha Power who has been reinstated as part of Obama's foreign policy team. From srobin21 at comcast.net Mon Dec 1 10:01:09 2008 From: srobin21 at comcast.net (Steven L. Robinson) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:01:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Marxism] =?utf-8?q?NYT=3A_Ch=C3=A1vez_Again_Seeks_to_End_Term_Li?= =?utf-8?q?mits?= In-Reply-To: <858231.1228111411996.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1362542119.686501228150869900.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> How then do you explain the Mexican experience, where one of the major demands of the revolution of 1910 was to impose term limits on the Mexican Presidency? Surely you can not say that in all cases and in all instances term limits are a reactionary thing. Even in the US, but for term limits we might have had three terms of Ronald Reagan instead of two. Arguably, in state and local US Government term limits by preventing the entrenchment of careerist pols and opened the doors to more progressive/liberal voices. The City of San Francisco is but one example. The increase in the local minimum wage, mandate of paid sick leave for workers employed in the city and the leadership role in pushing for gay marriage are the work of a newly elected liberal/progressive majority. It is something that would not have happened had the Board of Supervisors been permanently filled with hacks from Burton-Pelosi machine. The same with the California State legislature. But for term limits, Willie Brown would still be running the show and liberal/progressives like Leno, Amiano, Kuhl, Zedillo ----- Original Message ----- From: Walter Lippmann Subject: [Marxism] NYT: Ch?vez Again Seeks to End Term Limits (Term limits are a reactionary violation of the democratic right of the voters to determine who shall be elected. They originated with the Republican Party in the United States which had proven unable to defeat Franklin D. Roosevelt. That's why they imposed the term limits in the first place after World War II.) ==================================================================== From srobin21 at comcast.net Mon Dec 1 10:04:19 2008 From: srobin21 at comcast.net (Steven L. Robinson) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:04:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Marxism] =?utf-8?q?NYT=3A_Ch=C3=A1vez_Again_Seeks_to_End_Term_Li?= =?utf-8?q?mits?= In-Reply-To: <1362542119.686501228150869900.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <26433561.687071228151059185.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> Sorry the webmail feature cut off the last sentance of my prior post which should have been "and others would never have been elected." SR ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven L. Robinson To: srobin21 at comcast.net Sent: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:01:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [Marxism] NYT: Ch?vez Again Seeks to End Term Limits How then do you explain the Mexican experience, where one of the major demands of the revolution of 1910 was to impose term limits on the Mexican Presidency? Surely you can not say that in all cases and in all instances term limits are a reactionary thing. Even in the US, but for term limits we might have had three terms of Ronald Reagan instead of two. Arguably, in state and local US Government term limits by preventing the entrenchment of careerist pols and opened the doors to more progressive/liberal voices. The City of San Francisco is but one example. The increase in the local minimum wage, mandate of paid sick leave for workers employed in the city and the leadership role in pushing for gay marriage are the work of a newly elected liberal/progressive majority. It is something that would not have happened had the Board of Supervisors been permanently filled with hacks from Burton-Pelosi machine. The same with the California State legislature. But for term limits, Willie Brown would still be running the show and liberal/progressives like Leno, Amiano, Kuhl, Zedillo From markalause at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 10:07:45 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:07:45 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult In-Reply-To: <4934167E.1020400@panix.com> References: <49340635.2090902@panix.com> <4934167E.1020400@panix.com> Message-ID: Artesian wrote, "I would ask you Mark to explain it, but I'm sure it would be unintelligible to me , or... it would be a different explanation than the one you thought you were giving yesterday or the day before." It probably wouldn't be unintelligible if you actually read what I post instead of getting my position by channeling Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. St. Artesian also wrote, "I think I recall some implicit connection, or hope for connection, on your part between the fervor surrounding Obama, Obama's response to it and the economic situation, and FDR's 'positive' comments (and actions?) regarding industrial unions." Yeah, actually reading what people explicitly say before attacking what making implicit connectiosn about their position is a good plan. ML From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Mon Dec 1 10:28:07 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:28:07 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Sectarian? Re: The Obama cult Message-ID: <26C9649EFF404EF8AD78901734F76BBF@office1pc> Dayne Goodwin writes: I agree that sectarian-ism is a deeply consolidated problem on the U.S. left. I assume that Fred - as a veteran of decades within one of the deeply sectarian U.S. left organizations - is quite familiar with sectarianism. But i don't understand why Fred lodges an accusation of sectarianism in the midst of discussion on this list. The word "sectarian" is used in the marxist movement to refer to organizations which put their own organizational self-interest - their sect - ahead of the best interests of the working class generally.... I would be interested to learn how Fred's view that it is sectarian to confront illusions about Obama impacts his actual political activism, beyond this discussion list. In regard to this issue of how to respond to widespread illusions about Obama, what are other "sectarian" marxists doing in their activism which he chooses to avoid doing? What does he choose to do in his activism which distinguishes him from these other activists who do not properly restrain themselves from criticizing Obama? Fred responds: This is a simon-pure personal attack on my own political past and present, without making an attempt to answer any argument that has been made. Dayne's argument that the list is not sectarian seems to be based on the fact that the list, not being an organization, is by definition free of any self-interest that could conflict with that of the working class. Aside from the excessive narrowness of this definition, I think it is false to suggest that the list is not an organization, and therefore cannot be infected by sectarianism. It would be better to identify the list as a low-level form of organization which attempts to separate itself from, but still very much reflects, the historically prevailing sectarianism. As for my political role on the list (the list does not require me to defend my day to day political activity, which is quite limited, I seek to oppose sectarian tactics, strategies, and perspectives where they show up, inbcluding in Dayne's post which substitutes the personal for the political. Below are, in order of appearance, the recent articles in which I have best expressed my differences with left sectarian, as differentiated from what I consider a working-class oppositional approach under the given circumstances, responses to Obama's campaign and election. Fred Responses: http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2008w43/msg00401.htm http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2008w43/msg00411.htm http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2008w44/msg00310.htm http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2008w44/msg00381.htm http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2008w46/msg00173.htm http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2008w46/msg00369.htm http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2008w47/msg00169.htm http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2008w47/msg00356.htm From david at miradoiro.com Mon Dec 1 10:38:34 2008 From: david at miradoiro.com (=?utf-8?Q?David_Pic=C3=B3n_=C3=81lvarez?=) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:38:34 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] IKN: Venezuela: A new proposed law will silence NGOs, foreign orgs, free speech, human rights References: <17090526.1228135106070.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: TBH I wouldn't be so alarmed by language like that. Take this article of the Spanish penal code: Article 589. El que publicare o ejecutare en Espa?a cualquier orden, disposici?n o documento de un Gobierno extranjero que atente contra la independencia o seguridad del Estado, se oponga a la observancia de sus Leyes o provoque su incumplimiento, ser? castigado con la pena de prisi?n de uno a tres a?os. The person who publishes or executes within Spain any order, disposition or document from a foreign government which attacks the independence or security of the state, opposes the observance of its laws or causes their unfulfilment, shall be punished with a term of 1 to 3 years. --David. From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Mon Dec 1 10:49:09 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:49:09 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Kosovo demonstration against UN (US) colonialism to be held Dec. 2 Message-ID: Demonstration, 2nd December By Albin Kurti Monday, 01 December 2008 On December 2nd, the day on which EULEX officially begins to operate in Kosovo, the second demonstration against the 6 Point Plan of Ban Ki-moon and for sovereignty is being organized by L?vizja VET?VENDOSJE!, ?ohu, Thirrjet e N?nave, Rrjeti i Grupeve t? Grave t? Kosov?s, Rrjeti Rinor i Kosov?s, Aksioni Qytetar FOL'08, Iniciativa p?r Progres and many other organizations. This is the statement explaining the goal of our demonstration: Against the 6 Points, for Sovereignty The 6 point plan of Ban Ki-moon is being implemented in Kosovo. These 6 points put Serbia deep inside our territory. Kosovo is being internally partitioned, and EULEX will manage this partition. With this plan, the will of the people of Kosovo for an independent state is being violated and the territorial integrity of Kosovo is being endangered. This plan makes it impossible for Kosovo to function as a democratic state and to develop economically. The mission of EULEX will disembark in Kosovo according to the 6 Point Plan of Ban Ban Ki-moon despite Kosovo's NO. EULEX is coming to Kosovo under Resolution 1244 and under the umbrella of UNMIK. It is coming after receiving the approval of Serbia, neutral towards status, and so against the independence of Kosovo. EULEX will have executive powers over the institutions of security, rule of law and customs of Kosovo. This mission will not submit to the law and will have immunity from criminal punishment in Kosovo. It will not be accountable to us. Therefore this plan and this Mission should be refused in its entirety and without any compromise. This plan should be refused not only by saying NO, but also by fulfilling the will of the citizens of this country for an independent and sovereign Kosovo. As is defined in Clauses 1.1 and 2.1 of the Constitution where it states that the Republic of Kosovo is an independent state, united and indivisible, and respectively that its sovereignty derives from the people. We demand to be a normal country, a democratic country where for serious issues the people decide through a referendum. We demand that Kosovo be like other independent countries governed by sovereign institutions chosen by the people, of the people and for the people. The minorities of Kosovo are citizens of Kosovo, their rights are guaranteed by international conventions which apply in Kosovo in their entirety. We want political, economic and social development and progress and not partition and continual negotiations about what Kosovo should be. The institutions of Kosovo should not have the Ahtisaari Plan as a political position in a time when Serbia does not recognize the independence of Kosovo and maintains parallel structures in Kosovo. This plan divides Kosovo on ethnic lines, and in its institutions and its territory. The 6 points are a supplement to the plan and not in opposition with it. This country is ours, of all the people of Kosovo, and our responsibility. It is absolutely unacceptable for Kosovo to take permission from Belgrade. The state of Serbia should leave here and never return. The proposal of Serbia incites new partitions in the Balkans. We invite all the citizens of Kosovo to join us in a demonstration and to oppose in a peaceful manner the 6 points that threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kosovo. We will make our voice be heard! Tuesday, 2nd December, all in Prishtin?. We will defend the Republic of Kosovo as an independent, sovereign, democratic, united and indivisible state! Albin Kurti leads the Vet?vendosje! Movement, which opposes the international administration of Kosovo http://www.newkosovareport.com/200812011458/Vetevendosje/Demonstration-2nd-D ecember.html From skeyesvogt at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 11:01:54 2008 From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes-Vogt) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:01:54 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] IKN: Venezuela: A new proposed law will silence NGOs, foreign orgs, free speech, human rights Message-ID: note: this article is a trick article that is actually talking about Peru "Oh, by the way: all the above is 100% true except for one small detail; it's Peru proposing this law, not Venezuela. " From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Dec 1 11:33:20 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:33:20 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult References: <49340635.2090902@panix.com><4934167E.1020400@panix.com> Message-ID: <9EB9C55B6722443A9CDF856A30915C1E@dmsthinkpad> Actually I do ready your posts, and after this last one I went back to November 4 and reread all your posts to try and figure out what it is/was you're saying. Today. or yesterday. Part of the problem is that almost every time you provide an example and a response is provided showing how that example isn't exactly what you say it is, you respond by telling that person [not just me] "you're changing the subject," "you're using the words differently." Classic bits of equivocation, those. But again at the beginning: 1. Nov 4. You post that "We should share in the celebration," because the election, "does mark the "cumulative" achievements "for which we contended for decades." 2. Same date: "Obama [in his acceptance speech] sounded downright Lincolnesque." 3. "It almost sounded like he might use his office to compel power and wealth to accommodate the needs of the people and demand equality." 4. Then you post that those serious about engaging Obama supporters should check out the Nov5.org-- and you argue that the best bet is for linking up with the congressional watchdog organizations to pressure representatives to support a [purely] reformist policy. 5. You continue: "We should look forward to an Obama presidency because it is going to place everything we've tried to do on an entirely different level." Man, talk about delusions of grandeur, and magical thinking- this has to take the cake. 6. And "Obama is obligated to take the tried and trued approach." But he is "very intelligent" and he won't be obligated to continue with techniques of past failures. I have no idea what any of that means, other than that Obama obviously made use of his educational opportunities. He won't be obligated to contine with techniques of past failures? Neither was Nixon. Bombed ths shit out of the North Vietnamese and some, even on this list, think that ended the war in Vietnam because he got US ground troops out and forced a peace treaty. Again more magical thinking-- "I hope it's so, therefore it will be so." 7. Then we get the whole positive analogy with FDR spin... and nothing I've read since then indicates you think anything less of either FDR or Obama since then. So if I don't understand what you are saying, or what you intend, I really don't think the problem is with me. I think it's with you--- You want Obama to be something other than he is. You want this to be a moment of "deep significant social change," and on the plus side of the ledger for... yeah, for what? for what we have contended for decades? That capitalism as a system is a system of richly displayed poverty? of cultured barbarism? And that there is now a historic opening that has produced, and in turn is quickened by, the election of an almost downright Lincolnesque, Rooseveltian character? You're the one who wants to think magically. It is less of a burden an "obligation" in your words, than unrelenting criticism. And PS, I never read Chomsky or Zinn. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Lause" To: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 12:07 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult > From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Dec 1 11:41:56 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:41:56 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Request for New Yorkers only Message-ID: <49342FF4.9030205@panix.com> I got a request from Verso in NYC to put up Spain Rodriguez, the co-author of "Che: a Graphic biography" with Paul Buhle. I told them that I would be more than happy to put Spain up, but that I already had a houseguest. If you have a sofa or bed that you would like to make available for one night for a good comrade, please contact siddhartha at versobooks.com. From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Dec 1 11:43:32 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:43:32 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Request for New Yorkers only References: <49342FF4.9030205@panix.com> Message-ID: What night? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" To: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 1:41 PM Subject: [Marxism] Request for New Yorkers only >I got a request from Verso in NYC to put up Spain Rodriguez, the > co-author of "Che: a Graphic biography" with Paul Buhle. I told them > that I would be more than happy to put Spain up, but that I already had > a houseguest. If you have a sofa or bed that you would like to make > available for one night for a good comrade, please contact > siddhartha at versobooks.com. > > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net From Dbachmozart at aol.com Mon Dec 1 11:49:59 2008 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:49:59 EST Subject: [Marxism] GAZA'S DEATH THROES, AND NO ONE'S LISTENING Message-ID: By Sonja Karkar, The Electronic Intifada, 27 November 2008 The slow death that is being visited on the Palestinians in Gaza is finding its first victims in more than 400 critically ill patients who are being prevented from leaving Gaza for urgent medical attention in Israeli or Arab hospitals. Thousands of other patients are being turned away from hospitals suffering from a severe shortage of 300 different kinds of medicines. Sonja Karkar comments. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9997.shtml **************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002) From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Dec 1 11:55:11 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:55:11 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Request for New Yorkers only In-Reply-To: References: <49342FF4.9030205@panix.com> Message-ID: <4934330F.6000402@panix.com> S. Artesian wrote: > What night? Tonight. Sorry I didn't mention that. From mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com Mon Dec 1 12:14:35 2008 From: mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com (Mehmet Cagatay) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:14:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] New Yorker profiles Naomi Klein Message-ID: <726701.99634.qm@web31705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> There is central contradiction in Klein's theory that weakens its radicalism. Obviously just as every right-minded citizen, she detests ideological illusions, nothing interesting here. In her book, she zealously criticizes and ridicules a particular ideology and its consequences in reality, the free market ideology of Milton Friedman. This was really interesting at least for me since I have a profound disgust for his free-market ethics. But the whole critical radical literature misses the most crucial point. As Zizek pointed out in his recent interview (here: http://multimedia.boston.com/pub/m/20995978/slavoj_zizek_what_is_the_question.htm?pageid=26112 ), the true battlefield is the ideological one, the struggle for enforcing the predominant interpretation. Or, if I understand acceptably, it is the struggle to provide the prevailing form for any forthcoming interpretation. But what M. Klein achieves in her book is a sort of cognitive-behavioral therapy: She introduces to the reader the catastrophic costs of a particular ideological illusion and then she except from us to replace our obvious illusions with the proper perception of reality. I too detest ideological illusions. I sometimes even dislike the Marxist narrative. But how am I supposed to get rid of ideological illusions? By identification with the only ideology that aspires after a post-ideological world, i.e. communism. Unfortunately, this ideology is Marxism. At this point, I think this logic is also related with the ongoing Obama debate here. It is occasionally pointed out how Obama and the discontent among American people overlaps in the American reality but in the absence of an ideological rupture, the difference between Obama and Bush is only in context in a pre-given form and I'm suspicious whether it is sufficient or not. Mehmet ?agatay http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/ From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Dec 1 12:50:59 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:50:59 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] New Doug Henwood radio shows Message-ID: <49344023.4010304@panix.com> (Doug mentioned to me that the Richard Seymour (aka Lenin's Tomb) interview on the latest show is excellent. Plus, I assume that Bill Ayers on the same show will be interesting--I guess.) BEHIND THE NEWS with Doug Henwood podcast: iTunes: or "Best Music on an Economics & Politics Radio Show" Village Voice Best of NYC 2005 -------------------------------------------------- Recently posted to my radio archive : November 27, 2008 Richard Seymour, keeper of the Lenin's Tomb blog and author of The Liberal Defense of Murder, on liberal imperialism * Bill Ayers, author of Fugitive Days and Barack Obama's old pal, on revolution, education, and social change it joins: -------- November 20, 2008 Dan La Botz (author of this article) on the crisis in the auto industry - and the UAW * Reihan Salam, co-author of Grand New Party, great hope of the right, on the conservative movement's future November 13, 2008 Forrest Hylton on Obama's likely Latin American policy (and his top advisor on the area, Dan Restrepo) * Kate Gordon, co-director of the Apollo Alliance, on green jobs November 6, 2008 Adolph Reed on Obama's election * Maliha Safri on immigrants in the U.S. labor market - especially one that's shrinking October 16, 2008 ?gmundur J?nasson, head of the Left Green delegation in the Icelandic parliament, on that country's financial crisis * Martin Wolf, Financial Times columnist and author of Fixing Global Finance, on The Crisis October 9, 2008 David Smick, economic consultant and author of The World Is Curved, on The Crisis * Sarah Ludwig of NEDAP on foreclosures October 4, 2008 (KPFA only) Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin on the financial crisis, neoliberalism, and the American empire - the end of what, if anything, exactly? September 18, 2008 This program was devoted to fundraising for WBAI and KPFA. The content was this interview with Tariq Ali. If you like Behind the News, please consider a contribution to WBAI and/or KPFA. September 13, 2008 (KPFA only) Robin Mills, author of The Myth of the Oil Crisis, on why peak oil is a crock * Bracken Hendricks of the Center for American Progress (and co-author of Apollo's Fire), on a green jobs program August 28, 2008 Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute on The State of Working America * Mark Ames on Russia, the closure of The eXile, and his depressing return to the USA August 21, 2008 Dennis Perrin, author of Savage Mules, on the Dems as bloodthirsty imperialists * John Gulick on Russia, China, and the new configuration of imperial power August 14, 2008 Moustafa Bayoumi, author of How Does It Feel To Be A Problem?, on being young and Arab in paranoid America * Christian Parenti, author of this Nation piece, on capitalism and class struggle in China --- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 38 Greene St - 4th fl. New York NY 10013-2505 USA voice +1-212-219-0010 cell +1-917-865-2813 producer, Behind the News Thursdays, 5-6 PM, WBAI, New York 99.5 FM Saturdays, 10-11 AM, KPFA, Berkeley 94.1 FM podcast: iTunes: or ------------------------------------------------------- download my book Wall Street (for free!) at _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l at lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l From tcod at hotmail.com Mon Dec 1 12:51:40 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:51:40 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. In-Reply-To: <20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> References: <6463401.1227812970494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.eart hlink.net> <20081128021234.E35DE22013@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128055000.B3B2A2D02D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128215852.3F4F4DCF7@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: so, not living under race segregation and national oppression and having the right to vote are trivial and inconsequential because a socialist revolution has not been ushered in? What kind of muddled ultraleft logic is that? Surely any reasonable person can see the immense historic victory that that represented, a victory for all blacks, including the black working class and humanity in general. Again, I'd be surprised if this view is that of the ANC political opponents on the black left. It took only 8 months to overthrow the provisional government and capitalism still exists in S. Africa and has been restored in Russia. what does that have to do with anything? The overthrow of the Tsar was an immense victory on its own terms; that a further revolution was ushered in was due to the tenacity of the masses and their leaders in the conditions of the Great War which do not prevail in South Africa today. Similarly the end of Jim Crow in this country was a historic human rights gain for blacks and black workers and farmers whose ability to organize was less obstructive than under Bull Conner repression > > >Surely the black workers movement is in a better position to struggle for its interests now than it was under Botha,> > Please explain how! What a fatuous question! How was the apartheid fascist police state different from what they have now? Get outta here! The repression of blacks and black unions was qualitatively worse under the racist police state. How many Robben Island prisons have been set up under the ANC? How many Soweto massacres? How many people submit to the daily degradations of race segregation? Weren't the black unions outlawed? weren't its leaders abducted and murdered? Weren't strikers routinely gunned downed and killed?> This is so different from what happened in South Africa that there's no need to comment on it. not for black people it wasn't. Racist South Africa was really little different from a Nazi-Fascist state, in fact the leaders of the National Party supported Adolf Hitler and send volunteers to fight with the Nazis in Russia. No, the difference between what they had under apartheid and what they had now was essentially the difference between a fascist racist state and bourgois democracy. Thus what occurred in the 90s was an histc victory on the scale of what occurred in this 1865, thus an imperfect and incomplete revolution. > - Aaron> _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008 From david at miradoiro.com Mon Dec 1 14:28:44 2008 From: david at miradoiro.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?David_Pic=F3n_=C1lvarez?=) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:28:44 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] IKN: Venezuela: A new proposed law will silence NGOs, foreign orgs, free speech, human rights References: Message-ID: > note: this article is a trick article that is actually talking about Peru Yeah, just saying that, wherever the law is being passed, I wouldn't be all that alarmed. --David. From markalause at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 14:32:13 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:32:13 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult In-Reply-To: <9EB9C55B6722443A9CDF856A30915C1E@dmsthinkpad> References: <49340635.2090902@panix.com> <4934167E.1020400@panix.com> <9EB9C55B6722443A9CDF856A30915C1E@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Don't cherry pick quotes, Artesian. Meaning lies in context. You'd know better if you DID read Chomsky and Zinn. ML From sabocat59 at mac.com Mon Dec 1 14:57:02 2008 From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:57:02 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Q&A: "I Can't Be a Lifelong Suspect" Message-ID: <42025945-BCED-4D63-AA0A-BB97970D4DBA@mac.com> Q&A: "I Can't Be a Lifelong Suspect" ?ngel P?ez interviews imprisoned Bolivarian Committee leader ROQUE GONZ?LES LA ROSA LIMA, Nov 27 (IPS) - The prosecution in Peru has asked for a 20-year prison sentence for Roque Gonz?les La Rosa, a member of the now dismantled Peruvian chapter of the Continental Bolivarian Committee (CCB), inspired by the policies of left-wing Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez. Gonz?les La Rosa and six other activists were arrested by the National Anti-Terrorism Directorate (DIRCOTE) at the border between Peru and Ecuador on Feb. 29, on their way back from Quito where they had attended the Second Congress of the CCB, which is alleged to have links with Colombia?s FARC guerrillas. DIRCOTE informed the justice system that Gonz?les La Rosa, the leader of the delegation, had served nine years in prison for belonging to the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA), the smaller of the two guerrilla groups involved in Peru's 1980-2000 civil war (the larger group was the Maoist Sendero Luminoso or Shining Path). They also claimed he had links with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). "We are sure that he, or an emissary of his, had direct contact with the FARC," said prosecutor Julio Galindo, who is in charge of the case against Gonz?les La Rosa. Galindo's accusation was based on reports of the content of laptops that belonged to Ra?l Reyes, FARC?s international spokesman and one of the seven members of the rebel group?s Secretariat, who was killed on Mar. 1 in a Colombian bombing raid on a FARC camp across the border in Ecuador. According to these reports, "a Peruvian" was said to have received 100,000 dollars from the FARC. Galindo requested further information through the Defence Ministry, but instead of names he was given pseudonyms. This month the La Primera newspaper published a report by Interpol's International Terrorism Division, given to prosecutor Fanny Escajadillo, which indicates possible links between several left-wing activists and the FARC, again based on information from Reyes' laptops. Among those alleged to have relations with the FARC are Ren?n Raffo, the leader of Peru?s Communist Party, Alberto Moreno, of the Communist Party of Peru-Red Fatherland party, and Olmedo Auris, of Peru?s teachers? trade union (SUTEP). Nine months after the arrest of the seven activists at the border between Peru and Ecuador, Gonz?les La Rosa is the only one of the group still in jail, although the other six are still facing charges. He has asked to be released on bail too. Galindo asked the court to reject this request, and at the hearing accused Gonz?les La Rosa of defying authority because he was wearing a red t-shirt, "a subversive colour" according to the prosecutor. In an interview with IPS, Gonz?les La Rosa denied the accusations and defended his "right to full reinsertion into family life, employment and political activity." IPS: What evidence has been presented against you? ROQUE GONZ?LES LA ROSA: That I went to the CCB meeting in Quito. But I wasn't the only one, there were hundreds of delegates. That I saw a video of Ra?l Reyes, but neither I nor any of those on trial in this case ever saw it. It has also been mentioned that I was a member of the MRTA, but that was 12 years ago. It makes no sense, nor is it relevant, to dig into an event in my past for which I have served my full sentence. I have the right to full reinsertion into family life, employment and political activities. I can't be a lifelong suspect. IPS: You went to Quito as a CCB-Peru delegate. Did you know that the Colombian police are saying that there is information on Reyes' laptop that apparently indicates that the CCB was created by the FARC? RGLR: At no point in the trial has this been mentioned. Neither have the Peruvian anti-terrorist police indicated any such thing. In fact, the Colombian Attorney General, Mario Iguar?n, who is in charge of the investigations into Reyes, said on a visit to Lima in June that an alleged mention of someone on his computer is not in itself sufficient evidence for accusing anyone before a judge. This is the Attorney General of Colombia we are talking about here, and not prosecutor Galindo, who is laughable. IPS: Do you disagree with the FARC, or do you support them? RGLR: You are implying that the opposite of disagreement is support. What I say is that the FARC, independently of our disagreements or sympathies, are a moral problem that concerns all Latin Americans. The political violence that is bleeding Colombia to death will not be ended by adjectives. The FARC, the paramilitary groups and state terrorism must all disappear. IPS: V?ctor Polay, the founder and leader of the MRTA, has publicly stated that armed struggle no longer makes any sense as a means to power. Do you agree with him? RGLR: That is the reason why the MRTA is not on any list of subversive groups, and that's why no one who has been released from prison has ever faced a second trial for terrorism. It is the government and the most conservative sectors that are resurrecting the MRTA, raising ghosts from the past in order to justify their selfish and anti-democratic needs. As for Polay's reflections on armed struggle, they don't interest me in the least, because they're not a part of my personal concerns. IPS: After serving your nine-year sentence, were you subject to control by the authorities? RGLR: I fulfilled to the letter all the controls required by the National Penitentiary Institute, the judicial branch, the prosecution service and the anti-terrorist police, without fail, for over two years. And in 2007 I was fully rehabilitated. My criminal record was erased. I have no pending judicial matters. IPS: However, the anti-terrorist police took film footage of you taking part in political activities. RGLR: That's correct, but my political activities were open and public, as can be seen by the statements I made to the press. I should say that in 2006, with judicial authorisation, the anti- terrorist police tapped my telephones. And, as stated in the reports, nothing transpired from that investigation. Also, I went to live abroad in 2007. So where does terrorist activity fit in? (END/2008) From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Dec 1 15:08:26 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:08:26 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. References: <6463401.1227812970494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20081128021234.E35DE22013@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128055000.B3B2A2D02D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128215852.3F4F4DCF7@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <55417F0A379D4BC2B407BC90FEC2C5D7@dmsthinkpad> You would be surprised then. The left militants in South Africa know just how much has not been accomplished since 1994, and how in fact South Africa is still segregated-- but with a kindler, gentler, face. The end of apartheid as a great victory for humanity and the black workers and poor of South Africa? Sure. The end of apartheid without an end to capitalism, without disturbing the economic and social relations of accumulation, as an even greater victory for the bourgeoisie? Priceless. Points of fact: not all black African unions were outlawed for the entire period of apartheid rule. The history victory of 1865 to which you draw an analogy-- was a victory for the bourgeoisie, and it retreated from carry through that which would have changed it from a victory in a civil war, to a revolutionary transformation in abandoning Reconstruction and African Americans, and leaving the planter class, and planter class' property in tact. This allow for the reimposition of indentured labor on African Americans. Does this mean the Civil War was a failure? No, it means it wasn't a revolution. It means that 130-140 years later we already know what the outcome is going to be, how hollow the victories are, of those struggles that do not expropriate private property. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Cod" To: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. > From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Dec 1 15:14:34 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:14:34 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult References: <49340635.2090902@panix.com><4934167E.1020400@panix.com><9EB9C55B6722443A9CDF856A30915C1E@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <5C30F0939FC645529B349F38028A0A6C@dmsthinkpad> Cherry pick? Show me something somewhere in any of your posts to counter the overall impression that I derived from your soul-searching over Obama, your personal era of good feelings, new deal, square deals, new frontiers, Lincolnesque Rooseveltians. What exactly is your meaning and content, if not what I think it is? That's what I think Gary means when he talks about the dissembling going on here, and you have certainly shown yourself to be the dissembler guy. Haven't cherry picked a thing. I chose those quotes because they convey the whole sense of your posts. Anybody and everybody is welcome to review the whole body of your posts and see if I cherry-picked, leaving out the true revolutionary essence. If there is some other content that I'm missing perhaps somebody can point it out to me. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Lause" To: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult > From binesi at gvtel.com Mon Dec 1 15:16:08 2008 From: binesi at gvtel.com (David Thorstad) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:16:08 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Death Notice for the American antiwar movement Message-ID: <49346228.7050301@gvtel.com> ( * And to think that it took the successful candidacy of a black "liberal" Democrat to snuff it out.) *Death Notice * After a long illness and a protracted vegetative state, the U.S. anti-war movement finally died today; the joy to see president-elect Barack Obama appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense was fatal. Its peace achievements have been impressive; its stature is best measured by its indefatigable support of the Democratic Party; its understanding of the peace business has been an invaluable asset to Mr. Obama. Funeral services will be held on 20 January, 2009 in Washington, D.C. http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/2008/12/death-notice.htm -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/attachments/20081201/05993a9d/attachment.txt From christopher.hutch at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 15:28:11 2008 From: christopher.hutch at gmail.com (Christopher Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:28:11 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] General Strike: Not One More Penny... Message-ID: In CT we have been organizing like mad for an antih war march in the capitol of Hartford for Dec. 7th at 2pm. This has kept away from the computer and unable to finish many new General Strikes...hopefully next week i'll be back to a regular schedule. www.GeneralStrikecomicstrip.blogspot.com keep well, christopher From rjacobs3625 at charter.net Mon Dec 1 15:28:57 2008 From: rjacobs3625 at charter.net (Ron J) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:28:57 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Death Notice for the American antiwar movement In-Reply-To: <49346228.7050301@gvtel.com> Message-ID: <20081201172857.3DI01.653520.root@mp14> Some people allow the bosses to set their agenda and others decide that they will organize the people and set it. This epitaph is defeatist nonsense based on a negative reading of the current situation and an overemphasis on the system and its candidates. We have to build an antiwar movement that isn't beholden to the Democrats, nont allow the democrats to play taps at its funeral. ron jacobs ---- David Thorstad wrote: ============= ( * And to think that it took the successful candidacy of a black "liberal" Democrat to snuff it out.) *Death Notice * After a long illness and a protracted vegetative state, the U.S. anti-war movement finally died today; the joy to see president-elect Barack Obama appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense was fatal. Its peace achievements have been impressive; its stature is best measured by its indefatigable support of the Democratic Party; its understanding of the peace business has been an invaluable asset to Mr. Obama. Funeral services will be held on 20 January, 2009 in Washington, D.C. http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/2008/12/death-notice.htm From sartesian at earthlink.net Mon Dec 1 15:40:02 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:40:02 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] NBER Message-ID: <3155E933A97841B3864AF9923E43D81F@dmsthinkpad> The National Bureau of Economic Research finally called it a recession today, stating that the big R began in December 2007 [kind of follows after rates of return on investment peaked in 2006]. So let's see: EU, Japan, UK, US in recession. Ukraine, Iceland, Latvia, Hungary experiencing something a bit more than a recession. Russia? something more than a bit more than a recession. India? Brazil? China? Next meat in the fire. From markalause at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 15:45:15 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:45:15 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] sectarian? Re: The Obama Cult In-Reply-To: <5C30F0939FC645529B349F38028A0A6C@dmsthinkpad> References: <49340635.2090902@panix.com> <4934167E.1020400@panix.com> <9EB9C55B6722443A9CDF856A30915C1E@dmsthinkpad> <5C30F0939FC645529B349F38028A0A6C@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: In short response to your latest challenge, everyone on this list during the campaign knows how ardently I argued against a vote for Obama. Yet, you cherry pick quotes to create just the opposite impression. I guess you have nothing better to do, but it makes your seriousness and honesty suspect. As I say, have at it.... ML From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Dec 1 15:58:06 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:58:06 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Henwood and Shaikh meeting on Thursday Message-ID: <20081201225803.2944ED6BC@mailbackend.panix.com> THE DEEPENING ECONOMIC DISASTER: CAUSES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHANGE Join us for a panel and public discussion featuring: Doug Henwood: Editor of Left Business Observer and host of WBAI's Behind The News. Anwar Shaikh: Professor of Economics, Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science at the New School for Social Research. When: Thursday, December 4, 7:00 PM Where: NYU. 19 University Place, Room 102 * What is the crisis? Are its main features similar to or different from past economic crises? * In the US and globally, who are the victims of the crisis? And who or what is to blame? * What has the crisis exposed about capitalism and the US government? * What can we expect from Obama in response to the crisis? * What opportunities does the crisis offer for progressive change? OPEN TO THE PUBLIC! Please post far and wide. [Organized by the Radical Film & Lecture Series] From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Dec 1 16:13:47 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:13:47 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Dow Plunges 680 Points as Recession Is Declared Message-ID: <20081201231344.B33A9D14C@mailbackend.panix.com> NY Times, December 2, 2008 Dow Plunges 680 Points as Recession Is Declared By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM The evidence of a recession has been widespread for months: slower production, stagnant wages and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. But the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research, charged with making the call for the history books, waited until now to make it official ? and the announcement came on a day when the American stock market fell nearly 9 percent in a single session. The sharp declines on Wall Street ? the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 679.95 points or 7.7 percent ? appeared more about profit-taking than the economy. Investors have long assumed that the country was in recession, and analysts said that after last week's gains, including the biggest five-day rally in decades, a sell-off was to be expected. Still, Monday's losses were striking, and they reminded investors that nothing can be predicted in today's environment. The major indexes fell by hundreds of points from the start, led by huge declines in shares of financial firms. Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley shares all dropped nearly 20 percent. Most other major Wall Street banks were also in double-digit percentage declines. "Financials led the rally on the way up, and they're leading on the way down," said Anthony Conroy, head equity trader at BNY ConvergEx Group. The broader Standard & Poor's 500-stock index was down 8.9 percent, and the Nasdaq fell 8.95 percent. The S.&P. and the Dow are back to their levels of last Monday, erasing nearly four days of gains. Crude oil futures for January delivery settled Monday at $49.34 barrel, down $5.09. in New York trading. Some hedge fund and mutual fund managers, anticipating big redemption requests from clients, may have seen last week's rally as a good point to unload assets at a decent price. Other investors may have been spooked by a spate of poor economic news, including the worst reading on the health of the manufacturing industry since 1982. Investors may also be playing defense ahead of Friday's report on the job market, one of the most important indicators of the health of the economy. Analysts expect that employers shed more than 300,000 jobs in November, underscoring the problems facing American workers and businesses. It is also somewhat remarkable that on one of the worst days in the history of the stock market, there was no panic to be seen on Wall Street. In six and a half hours, the S.&P. declined more than 8 percent ? the type of collapse that historically has taken years to occur. But in the new Wall Street, the reaction was quiet. "Investors have slowly become accustomed to it, after seeing it day after day for month after month," said Todd Salamone, an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research. "A year ago, an 8 percent move would have raised a lot more eyebrows than it does today." The difference, of course, is that the country entered a recession exactly one year ago, at least according to the Business Cycle Dating Committee, which is made up of seven prominent economists, most from the academic sector. The group made their official announcement on Monday that the economy entered a recession in December 2007. "A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in production, employment, real income, and other indicators," the members said in a statement. "A recession begins when the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends when the economy reaches its trough." The committee noted that the contraction in the labor market began in the first month of 2008 and said that the declines in most major indicators, like personal income, manufacturing activity, retail sales, and industrial production, "met the standard for a recession." "Many of these indicators, including monthly data on the largest component of G.D.P., consumption, have declined sharply in recent months," they wrote. This is the first official recession since 2001, when the economy suffered after the bursting of the technology bubble. The period of expansion lasted 73 months, from November 2001 to December 2007. The manufacturing industry suffered its worst month since 1982, according to a closely watched index published by the private Institution for Supply Management. The index fell to 36.2 in November from 38.9 in October, on a scale where readings below 50 indicate contraction. That was the worst monthly reading since 1982, and a sign that the worldwide credit crisis was taking a serious toll on American businesses. New orders fell sharply, although export orders held steady from October. "However you look at the numbers, the message is the same: manufacturing is in free fall, with output collapsing," Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics wrote in a note to clients. "We see no prospect for near-term improvement." A separate report from the Commerce Department showed that spending on construction projects fell 1.2 percent in October, after staying unchanged in September. Private construction dropped 2 percent with a sharp drop in the residential sector, offering few signs of relief from the housing slump. The declines on Wall Street came after stocks in Europe and most of Asia moved lower, as investors refocused attention on a gloomy economic outlook. Benchmark indexes in Paris and Frankfurt were down more than 4 percent, and London's FTSE-100 dipped 3.6 percent. The declines were minor compared with the 13 percent increase that European stocks enjoyed last week. "We're giving back some of the appreciation in equities that we gained in the last few weeks," said Robert Talbut, a fund manager at Royal London Asset Management. "I think in terms of valuations there are some good deals starting to appear," Mr. Talbut said. "But valuations are never enough in themselves." Any serious market recovery would require a determined response from global governments, he said, but investors have lots of questions about how the policy measures that have already been announced will work. Investors were also troubled by mounting evidence that consumer spending in the United States would fall sharply this holiday shopping season, choking off one of the prime fuels of American economic growth. Retailers received more business than expected over the Thanksgiving shopping weekend, but the steep discounts they used to lure customers could undermine profits. Black Friday sales were 3 percent higher than the year before, according to ShopperTrak, which tracks the industry. Asian stocks ended mostly lower. The Tokyo benchmark Nikkei 225 stock average fell 1.4 percent, while the S.& P./ASX 200 in Sydney fell 1.6 percent. The Kospi index in Seoul declined 1.6 percent. But the Hang Seng index in Hong Kong rose 1.6 percent, and the Shanghai Stock Exchange composite index rose 1.3 percent. The yield on the two-year Treasury note, which moves in the opposite direction of the price, fell to a record just below 0.95 percent, while the yield on the 10-year note fell to 2.86 percent, the lowest on record. David Jolly contributed reporting. From aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm Mon Dec 1 16:15:34 2008 From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm (Aaron Aarons) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:15:34 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. In-Reply-To: References: <6463401.1227812970494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.eart hlink.net> <20081128021234.E35DE22013@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128055000.B3B2A2D02D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128215852.3F4F4DCF7@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <20081201231548.AA02A2EA7B@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> Tom Cod keeps ignoring my essential point, which is that the end of formal apartheid in South Africa happened AS PART OF A DEAL, made BEHIND THE BACKS OF THE BLACK MASSES, that STABILIZED (white) CAPITALIST DOMINATION and actually INTENSIFIED the EXPLOITATION of the Black working class, thus BETRAYING the very struggle that made the deal necessary for the white capitalists. Tom Cod not only refuses to denounce that betrayal, but even refuses to acknowledge (or deny!) that such a deal happened. And I won't, unless others show an interest in this discussion, spend any time pointing out how many times T.C. refutes what I don't say and fails to respond to what I do say, as well as other statements of his that distort history. - Aaron P.S. For those who might be interested in the entirety of this exchange, it began with the post >Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:56:23 -0800 >From: Aaron Aarons >Subject: Re: [Marxism] a thought on bombay/mumbai attacks (archived at ), where I wrote, in a response to Walter "carping" Lippman a single paragraph about the ANC sellout. >From: Tom Cod >Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:51:40 +0000 > >so, not living under race segregation and national oppression and having the right to vote are trivial and inconsequential because a socialist revolution has not been ushered in? What kind of muddled ultraleft logic is that? Surely any reasonable person can see the immense historic victory that that represented, a victory for all blacks, including the black working class and humanity in general. Again, I'd be surprised if this view is that of the ANC political opponents on the black left. It took only 8 months to overthrow the provisional government and capitalism still exists in S. Africa and has been restored in Russia. what does that have to do with anything? The overthrow of the Tsar was an immense victory on its own terms; that a further revolution was ushered in was due to the tenacity of the masses and their leaders in the conditions of the Great War which do not prevail in South Africa today. >Similarly the end of Jim Crow in this country was a historic human rights gain for blacks and black workers and farmers whose ability to organize was less >obstructive than under Bull Conner repression > >> > >Surely the black workers movement is in a better position to struggle for its interests now than it was under Botha,> > Please explain how! > >What a fatuous question! How was the apartheid fascist police state different from what they have now? Get outta here! The repression of blacks and black unions was qualitatively worse under the racist police state. How many Robben Island prisons have been set up under the ANC? How many Soweto >massacres? How many people submit to the daily degradations of race segregation? Weren't the black unions outlawed? weren't its leaders abducted and murdered? Weren't strikers routinely gunned downed and killed?> This is so different from what happened in South Africa that there's no need to comment on it. >not for black people it wasn't. Racist South Africa was really little different from a Nazi-Fascist state, in fact the leaders of the National >Party supported Adolf Hitler and send volunteers to fight with the Nazis in Russia. No, the difference between what they had under apartheid >and what they had now was essentially the difference between a fascist racist state and bourgois democracy. Thus what occurred in the 90s was an histc victory on the scale of what occurred in this 1865, thus an imperfect and incomplete revolution. >> - Aaron> From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Mon Dec 1 16:42:32 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:42:32 +1100 Subject: [Marxism] Evo Morales on addressing climate change: `Save the planet from capitalism' | Links Message-ID: <49347668.5040508@greenleft.org.au> Sisters and brothers, today our Mother Earth is ill. From the beginning of the 21st century we have lived the hottest years of the last thousand years. Global warming is generating abrupt changes in the weather: the retreat of glaciers and the decrease of the polar ice caps; the increase of the sea level and the flooding of coastal areas, where approximately 60% of the world population live; the increase in the processes of desertification and the decrease of fresh water sources; a higher frequency in natural disasters that the communities of the earth suffer[1]; the extinction of animal and vegetal species; and the spread of diseases in areas that before were free from those diseases. One of the most tragic consequences of the climate change is that some nations and territories are the condemned to disappear by the increase of the sea level. Everything began with the industrial revolution in 1750, which gave birth to the capitalist system. In two and a half centuries, the so called ?developed? countries have consumed a large part of the fossil fuels created over five million centuries. Full article at http://links.org.au/node/769 Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ - at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373 From tcod at hotmail.com Mon Dec 1 16:48:42 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:48:42 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. In-Reply-To: <55417F0A379D4BC2B407BC90FEC2C5D7@dmsthinkpad> References: <6463401.1227812970494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20081128021234.E35DE22013@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128055000.B3B2A2D02D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128215852.3F4F4DCF7@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> <55417F0A379D4BC2B407BC90FEC2C5D7@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: right, it was a bourgois democratic revolution that should be acknowledged as such and the legacy of which should be upheld, whether that of the Civil War, the 60-70s civil rights movement or the anti-apartheid struggle. The fact that what occurred in 1994 was part of a "deal" is unremarkeable, it was a "deal" that was forced from the hands of the oppressors by the mass struggle, just like the end of Jim Crow in this country, that this "intensified" the exploitation and oppression of blacks compared to what existed before is nothing but the delusion of insolent white radicals who have no real appreciation of the national question and the black liberation struggle and who simply don't know what they're talking about. Did the end of Jim Crow intensify the oppression of blacks in this country? Was the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act a betrayal of the civil rights movement, a "deal" worked out behind the backs of the masses? Where in south africa today is there legalized de jure segregation, the requirement of internal passport etc? No, people today have democratic rights to organize opposition parties and unions etc. The ANC has a lot of problems, for example Mbeki's line on AIDS was a tragic shameful joke, but to equate him or Mandela, who spent 26 years in Robben Island prison, with Botha and the apartheid regime is frivolous and simply wrong. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008 From tcod at hotmail.com Mon Dec 1 16:56:01 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:56:01 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. In-Reply-To: <20081201231548.AA02A2EA7B@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> References: <6463401.1227812970494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.eart hlink.net> <20081128021234.E35DE22013@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128055000.B3B2A2D02D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128215852.3F4F4DCF7@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> <20081201231548.AA02A2EA7B@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: > Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:15:34 -0800 > From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. > To: tcod at hotmail.com > > Tom Cod keeps ignoring my essential point, which is that the end of formal apartheid in South Africa happened AS PART OF A DEAL, made BEHIND THE BACKS OF THE BLACK MASSES, that STABILIZED (white) CAPITALIST DOMINATION and actually INTENSIFIED the EXPLOITATION of the Black working class, thus BETRAYING the very struggle that made the deal necessary for the white capitalists. NO IT WASN'T, YOU'Re FULL OF IT! IT WAS A HISTORIC VICTORY THAT SET THE STAGE FOR FURTHER ADVANCES, JUST LIKE THE END OF SLAVERY, THE ABOLITION OF SEGREGATION IN THIS COUNTRY and so forth. Obviously you don't know very much about what the real conditions under apartheid actually were. it was in essence a bourgois democratic revolution that liberated the masses from the shackles of semi-slavery and set the stage for further struggle. _________________________________________________________________ Get more done, have more fun, and stay more connected with Windows Mobile?. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642556/direct/01/ From tcod at hotmail.com Mon Dec 1 17:04:31 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:04:31 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. In-Reply-To: References: <6463401.1227812970494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.eart hlink.net> <20081128021234.E35DE22013@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128055000.B3B2A2D02D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128215852.3F4F4DCF7@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> <20081201231548.AA02A2EA7B@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: Ya know, if you said the policies of the ANC on this or that are a betrayal of the revolutionary struggle, that would be one thing, but to say that the dismantling of apartheid was a "betrayal" is breathtaking as that is something every ANC member and supporter can and should be rightfully proud of. > From: tcod at hotmail.com > Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:56:01 +0000 > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. > To: tcod at hotmail.com > > > > > > Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:15:34 -0800 > > From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm > > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. > > To: tcod at hotmail.com > > > > Tom Cod keeps ignoring my essential point, which is that the end of formal apartheid in South Africa happened AS PART OF A DEAL, made BEHIND THE BACKS OF THE BLACK MASSES, that STABILIZED (white) CAPITALIST DOMINATION and actually INTENSIFIED the EXPLOITATION of the Black working class, thus BETRAYING the very struggle that made the deal necessary for the white capitalists. > > NO IT WASN'T, YOU'Re FULL OF IT! IT WAS A HISTORIC VICTORY THAT SET THE STAGE FOR FURTHER ADVANCES, JUST LIKE THE > END OF SLAVERY, THE ABOLITION OF SEGREGATION IN THIS COUNTRY and so forth. Obviously you don't know very much > about what the real conditions under apartheid actually were. it was in essence a bourgois democratic revolution that > liberated the masses from the shackles of semi-slavery and set the stage for further struggle. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get more done, have more fun, and stay more connected with Windows Mobile?. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642556/direct/01/ > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tcod%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Proud to be a PC? Show the world. Download the ?I?m a PC? Messenger themepack now. hthttp://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642558/direct/01/ From lnp3 at panix.com Mon Dec 1 17:14:26 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:14:26 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Reminder Message-ID: <20081202001423.809C0D5DF@mailbackend.panix.com> Marxmail has a limit of 5 posts a day, which is pretty generous (LBO-Talk has a limit of 3). I don't mind if people go over the limit from time to time, but I am dead set to this mailing list turning into a branch of Usenet or Yahoo. My suggestion in fact is that comrades write lengthier but fewer posts. As a rule of thumb, you should ask yourself before posting something: will other subscribers learn something from what I posted. For example, Joaquin's post yesterday about Mumbai was excellent. Patrick Bond's response to Mamdani was also very good. But just to exchange opinions devoid of facts or substance does not seem to be a very good use of bandwidth to a mailing list dedicated to the Marxist tradition. From binesi at gvtel.com Mon Dec 1 17:51:23 2008 From: binesi at gvtel.com (David Thorstad) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:51:23 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Marriage, yes; benefits, no: the marriage oppression Message-ID: <4934868B.9040803@gvtel.com> This item ought, in my view, to give pause to the supporters of same-sex marriage, including the kneejerk self-described Marxists on this list. The options (e.g., domestic partnerships...) that have been crafted get flushed down the toilet when marriage is installed. Case in point: In Massachusetts people have been told by large employers to either get married or lose benefits for their domestic partners. But this is all of a piece with the larger gay fantasy of ?marriage equality? ? which may sound good but produces more of the same old status quo. In New Jersey after a state domestic partner law had been on the books for a year, the leader of the Garden State Equality group trashed the law as unworkable despite enabling gays and straights to get kinship recognition and said, ?Nothing less than marriage will do.? (The NJ law applies to same-sexers 18 yrs and older, different-sexers 65 yrs and up ? seniors want kinship but do not want to mess up their pensions and other matters.) That one size does not fit all is a lesson lost on such ?leaders.? These days not only are many people waiting to get a ball and chain (?marriage?) but some use private contracts (prenuptial agreements) to lighten the burden. It is time to get marriage off the law books and in the churches where it belongs; we need a variety of kinship options along with social justice ? single payer health care for all! I would like to point out also that for all our lives, gays have been confronted with the question, "Why aren't you married?" or "When are you going to get married?" Now, with the clamor for gay marriage (unfortunately abetted enthusiastically by many leftists, both gay and straight), we are being asked the same question (coming from the opposite angle): "Why aren't you married?" Many straight people probably can't appreciate the oppression involved in this question. But then, they should stop trying to force the marriage chain on all same-sexers. David ======================================================================================== http://www.rep-am.com/News/382600.txt Marriage, yes; benefits, no. Ruling to cost state workers' same-sex partners health coverage BY PAUL HUGHES REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN HARTFORD ? Same-sex partners of state employees are losing pension and health benefits because gay marriage is now legal in Connecticut. An arbitration award that established the benefits eight years ago was conditioned upon same-sex marriage remaining illegal here. The state Supreme Court's recent recognition of same-sex marriage means the state government no longer must provide this coverage to same-sex partners and their dependent children. State Comptroller Nancy Wyman notified the heads of all state agencies on Friday that the benefits will cease Nov. 30, 2009, unless the partners marry or enter into a civil union. Under federal law, unmarried partners and dependent children may continue coverage at the group rate for 18 months, and possibly longer under certain conditions. There was no immediate reaction from Love Makes A Family, a gay rights group that led the efforts to legalize same-sex marriages through the state courts and the legislature. Executive Director Anne Stanback didn't return telephone calls seeking comment on Friday. Today, there are more than 50,000 state employees and upwards of 40,000 retirees. It was unclear Friday how many same-sex partners and children stand to lose pension and health benefits. This year, Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the legislature budgeted $504.4 million for health insurance for state workers and another $500 million for retirees. Public employee unions fought for several years to win coverage for same-sex partners and their dependent children in the health and pension plans. A coalition of unions representing most state employees and the admini- stration of Gov. John G. Rowland negotiated an unusual 20-year deal on pension and health benefits in 1997. The unions and the administration couldn't agree on coverage for same-sex partners and their dependent children. It was a potential deal-breaker. The two sides agreed to revisit the issue in 1999 to salvage the 20-year agreement. The negotiations in 1999 didn't produce any agreement. The issue then went to binding arbitration. In arbitration, the unions and Rowland administration each adopted the same positions they took in the failed negotiations. The unions prevailed in arbitration in early 2000, but the arbitrator added a hitch. If same-sex marriage became legal in Connecticut, the health and pension benefits would cease within one year. On Oct. 10, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry under the state constitution. The landmark ruling took effect Nov. 12. Wyman advised state agencies that the state government stopped recognizing new domestic partner- ships for benefit purposes effective Nov. 13. She told department heads that health and pension benefits for same-sex partners and dependent children will cease effective Nov. 30, 2009, unless the partners marry or enter into a civil union. Visit www.rep-am.com to comment on this story. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/attachments/20081201/f35ec95e/attachment.txt From cbcox at ilstu.edu Mon Dec 1 19:20:13 2008 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:20:13 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Death Notice for the American antiwar movement References: <20081201172857.3DI01.653520.root@mp14> Message-ID: <49349B5D.718A5321@ilstu.edu> Ron J wrote: > > Some people allow the bosses to set their agenda and others decide that they will organize the people and set it. This epitaph is defeatist nonsense based on a negative reading of the current situation and an overemphasis on the system and its candidates. We have to build an antiwar movement that isn't beholden to the Democrats, nont allow the democrats to play taps at its funeral. I would generally agree, with some important qualifications. Many activists have from the beginning invited confusion by an overestimation of what an antiwar movement can do -- stopping a war is NOT one of those things, and some (many?) activists not seeing this drifted away from what they considered a lost cause. If you think about the anti-war movement of th '60s it obvious that from the beginning that movement owed a good deal to those who had 'failed' so dismally to stop the Korean War. That is, an anti-war movement, except under very special conditions, is to be measured primarily by its sucess in recruiting and training (or providing the context for self-training) of new left cadre. Despite the low visibility of the current movement, I think it is having some success in that. Information we don't have (does anyone?) is how many local anti-war groups are still (a) maintaining at least monthly meetings and (b) achieving _some_ minimal visibility in their communities. Carrol From walterlx at earthlink.net Mon Dec 1 20:31:49 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:31:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] Raul Castro attends first beatification ceremony in Cuba Message-ID: <29998926.1228188709811.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> What is Washington's blockade of Cuba? It's an attempt by the most powerful country on earth to isolate and starve the island of Cuba into such desperate conditions that its people will rise up and welcome back rule from the United States and Miami. The attempt to isolate Cuba from the world, and to isolate Cuba from the people of the United States, is the central prop in the blockade, which our colleague JSCOTLIVE regrettably fails to comprehend. When the Cuban leadership acts decisively to expose and defeat such efforts at isolation, some people like JSCOTLIVE seem to find reasons to fret and to fulminate. Is the Cuban Revolution degenerating as some like JSCOTLIVE suggests? I beg to Fidel Castro sat on the platform ten, nearly eleven years ago, as Pope John Paul II led the assembled audience in prayer. I doubt that the Cuban leader himself prayed, as I doubt that Raul Castro joined in prayer Saturday at the ceremony in Camaguey. Below is today's GRANMA report on Raul's attendance at the event. This article is one of only two articles on the front page of the daily today, distributed all over Cuba. As anyone can see, there is no endorsement of Roman Catholicism, beatification or any other element of Roman Catholic theology. Participation by Raul and the other members of the island's leadership, including the Communist Party's director of its religious affairs office constitutes an expression of respect, which was returned, but nothing more than that. There were many articles in the international press about Saturday's events. None claimed that Raul or anyone else in the Cuban leadership engaged in religious activity at the event. In his roman-a-clef REDEMPTION, Tariq Ali amusingly satirized the reactions to some in the world Trotskyist movement to the fall of the Soviet Union. He humorously suggested that a character who was reminscent of Ernest Mandel proposed that the Trotskyist movement dissolve and reconfigure itself in religious garb. While Raul and the Cuban leadership have a sense of humor, it hasn't gone as far as that, at least from all the facts brought out up to now. For some people, atheism seems function like a counter-religion, and not the simple "absence of God" which the very term itself actually signifies. They just can't handle anyone believing in any kind of relgious beliefe system. Walter Lippmann Los Angeles, California ================================================================= ALSO: Manuel E. Yepe on Religious Freedom in Cuba: http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs2183.html ================================================================= GRANMA December 1, 2008 (Spanish original including photo) http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2008/12/01/nacional/artic02.html Raul Castro Attends Beatification of Fray Jose Olalla Valdes CAMAGUEY.? Cuban President Raul Castro attended the beautification ceremony on Saturday of Fray Jose Olallo Valdes, a member of the Hospitallier Order of Saint John of God. Among those attending the ceremony were Vice President Esteban Lazo Hernandez; Army General Ramon Espinosa Martin; Caridad Diego, head of the Religious Affairs office of the Communist Party Central Committee; and Havana City Historian Eusebio Leal. Also present were Julio Cesar Garcia Rodriguez, first secretary of the Communist Party for Camaguey; and Jesus Garcia Collazao, president of the provincial government. Vatican representative, Cardinal Jose Saraiva from Portugal led the mass in the Plaza de la Libertad of Camaguey, which included the presence of Papal Nuncio Monsignor Luigi Bonazzi; Cardinal Jaime Ortega Alamino, the archbishop of Havana; Camaguey Archbishop Juan Garcia, and many bishops and worshipers of the archdiocese and the diocese of the country. Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins passed on the greetings of Pope Benedict XVI to the Cuban people and authorities, and read the apostolic letter proclaiming the beautification of Fray Jose Olallo Valdes, signed by the Pope on March 15, 2008. More than a hundred members of the Hospitallier Order of Saint John of God from several countries traveled to Camaguey to participate in the occasion along with thousands of Cubans. The urn with the remains of Father Olallo was transported by a procession and placed close to the altar. During the ceremony, Monsignor Juan Garcia and General Superior of the Hospitallier Order William Forkan spoke words of appreciation for the beatification of Fray Jose Olallo Valdes. Deacon Miguel Angel Ortiz of the La Soledad de Camaguey Church handed Raul Castro a polyglot bible as a gift from the archbishop of the city. When the ceremony ended, Raul greeted the Church authorities and other members of the clergy, nuns, laypersons and the people of Camaguey who applauded him. The procession then took the remains of the ?father of the poor? to the San Juan de Dios Plaza, the place where he carried out his exemplary work for the neediest and where on May 12, 1873, and at great risk, he washed the body of Maj. Gen. Ignacio Agramonte Lynaz, who died the day before fighting for Cuban independence. With his beautification, the Catholic Church can now pay tribute to Father Olallo in Cuba. ================================================================== JSCOTLIVE writes: This official endorsement of the medieval rituals of the Catholic Church in Cuba over 50 years after the Revolution can in no way be described as progressive. To do so is to lapse into the realms of make believe. On the contrary, and sadly, this event merely constitutes further evidence that the blockade and resulting isolation economic stranglehold and isolation it has placed around Cuba has not only stopped the progress of socialism, it has unfortunately succeeded in pushing it back. It is indeed a sad day for Cuba and for socialists everywhere to see such an event take place. That Walter even attempts to place a positive spin on it merely reflects his continued political degeneration. In this, it seems, Walter is yet another casualty of the blockade. ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Los Angeles, California Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From pbond at mail.ngo.za Mon Dec 1 20:43:23 2008 From: pbond at mail.ngo.za (Patrick Bond) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:43:23 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. In-Reply-To: References: <6463401.1227812970494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20081128021234.E35DE22013@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128055000.B3B2A2D02D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128215852.3F4F4DCF7@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> <55417F0A379D4BC2B407BC90FEC2C5D7@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <4934AEDB.3070202@mail.ngo.za> Tom Cod wrote: > ... that this > "intensified" the exploitation and oppression of blacks compared to what existed before is nothing but the > delusion of insolent white radicals Technically, the rate of exploitation has increased, as the profit share to wage share rose from 44-56 to 50-50 from 1995-2005 (giving SA firms the 9th highest profit rate among major countries in the world by 2001), according to insolent white radicals (like myself) and the SA government, too. The oppression of blacks is nothing like what it was during apartheid, of course that's true. In qualitative and quantitative ways, though, the oppression of poor black people has increased: ? there was an immediate post-apartheid rise in income inequality, which was slightly tempered after 2001 by increased welfare payments, but which meant the Gini coefficient soared from below 0.6 in 1994 to 0.72 by 2006 (0.8 if welfare income is excluded); ? the official unemployment rate doubled (from 16% in 1994 to around 32% by the early 2000s, falling to 26% by the late 2000s - but by counting those who gave up looking for work, the realistic rate is closer to 40%) as a result of imported East Asian goods in relatively labour-intensive sectors (clothing, textiles, footwear, appliances and electronics) and capital-/intensive production techniques elsewhere (especially mining and metals); ? the provision of housing to several million people was marred by the facts that the units produced are far smaller than apartheid ?matchboxes?, are located further away from jobs and community amenities, are constructed with less durable building materials, come with lower-quality municipal services, and are saddled with higher-priced debt if and when credit is available; ? while free water and electricity are now provided to many low-income people, the overall price has risen dramatically since 1994, leading to millions of people facing disconnections each year when they cannot afford the second block of water consumption; ? the degeneration of the health system, combined with AIDS, has caused a dramatic decline in life expectancy, from 65 at the time of liberation to 52 a decade later; ? the education system is still crippled by excessive cost recovery and fiscal austerity, leaving 35% of learners dropping out by Grade 5 (worse than neighbouring Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland) and 48% by Grade 12, and, according to the most recent (2001) survey of schools, leaving 27% without running water, 43% without electricity, and 80% without libraries and computers; ? ecological problems have become far worse, according to the government?s own commissioned research in the 2006 ?Environmental Outlook? report, which according to the leading state official, ?outlined a general decline in the state of the environment?; ? the high crime was accompanied by an arms race ? private security systems, sophisticated alarms, high walls and razor wire, gated communities, road closures and booms - that left working-class households more vulnerable to robberies, house-breaks, car theft and other petty crime (with increases of more than 1/3 in these categories from 1994-2001), as well as epidemic levels of rape and other violent crimes; additional corporate crime (including illicit capital flight) was generally not well policed, or suffered from an apparently organised penetration of the SA Police Service?s highest ranks. From stuartmunckton at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 21:16:41 2008 From: stuartmunckton at gmail.com (Stuart Munckton) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:16:41 +1100 Subject: [Marxism] Strong surge in socialist vote in Victorian council elections Message-ID: <2c6145850812012016p7c75d303y68053f461c2259ea@mail.gmail.com> Strong surge in socialist vote in Victorian council elections Socialist Alliance 2 December 2008 *"The surge in the vote for socialist candidates in the weekend Victorian local government elections shows that increasing numbers of working people are looking for candidates whom they trust to defend their interests as economic crisis looms", Socialist Alliance Victorian State Convener Sue Bolton said on December 2.* Noting that the socialist vote had grown most in Labor heartlands Bolton said that it largely came from working people who were fed up with being taken for granted by the ALP, but didn?t trust the Greens to take a forthright, pro-worker stance. "The vote is also an expression of trust in socialists who are active fighters for people's rights, and known as organisers against developer and Brumby government plans to close or privatise essential services and as bulldoze the urban environment." Bolton congratulated Socialist Party Yarra City Councillor Steve Jolly on his re-election with 29.2% of the formal vote. "Steve Jolly's vote is testimony to all the work he has done in defence of the community and the workers of Yarra City Council", she said. The Socialist Alliance spokesperson said that the socialist vote also showed that the Brumby government would have a very hard time driving ahead with the cross-city tunnel and the freeway extensions envisaged in the Eddington plan. "Votes like the 18.9% for the Socialist Alliance's Stuart Martin in Maribyrnong City Council indicate that a lot of the community is dead against the Victorian ALP model of urban vandalism." The Socialist Alliance campaign also struck a strong response in Geelong, where candidates Bronwyn Jennings and Lisa Gleeson won 10.8% and 11.8% of the vote on a platform of "making Geelong a climate action council", with a strong emphasis on improving public transport and housing and residents' democratic participation in council decision-making. Bolton added that the increase in the socialist vote was part of a wider progressive swing in politics, as the increased vote for the Greens confirmed. "People are increasingly voting against mainstream Liberal-Labor politics. The Socialist Alliance will build on these results to strengthen real worker and community resistance to the economic crisis, destruction of services and degradation of the environment. We look forward to collaborating with all other political forces that support those goals." For more information visit http://www.socialist-alliance.org. The Socialist Vote in the November 29 Victorian Local Government Elections Candidate Organisation Council % of formal vote Steve Jolly Socialist Party Yarra City 29.2 Stuart Martin Socialist Alliance Maribyrnong 18.9 Margarita Windisch Socialist Alliance Maribyrnong 12.4 Lisa Gleeson Socialist Alliance Greater Geelong 11.8 Bronwyn Jennings Socialist Alliance Greater Geelong 10.8 Sue Bolton, Vannessa Hearman, Turan Ertekin Socialist Alliance Moreland 9.0 Anthony Main Socialist Party Yarra City 5.5 Chris Johnson Socialist Alliance Queenscliff 3.2 Denise Dudley Socialist Party Yarra City 2.1 For more information or interviews: Sue Bolton on 0413 377 978 -- "The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind of dummy?" - Jarvis Cocker "Our demands are moderate ? we only want the Earth" - James Connolly From cultstud76 at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 21:30:13 2008 From: cultstud76 at gmail.com (Sean Andrews) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:30:13 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] General Strike: Not One More Penny... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4715fc3a0812012030p4ba36ebbt173914f19ace33c9@mail.gmail.com> as always a provocative comic, though it seems there is a typo: sometimes I feel like I have a 30 hour workday, but celestial forces far grander, and biological ones far meaner, than the capitalist state would prevent me from stacking more than a couple of those in any given week. s On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 16:28, Christopher Hutchinson wrote: > In CT we have been organizing like mad for an antih war march in the capitol > of Hartford for Dec. 7th at 2pm. This has kept away from the computer and > unable to finish many new General Strikes...hopefully next week i'll be back > to a regular schedule. > > www.GeneralStrikecomicstrip.blogspot.com > > keep well, > > christopher > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/cultstud76%40gmail.com > From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Mon Dec 1 21:55:53 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Interesting -- clearly non-Marxist and social-democratic -- article on US election outcome Message-ID: <359EF168E7754688A5FA6BD6C12F2419@office1pc> Full:http://www.counterpunch.org/honderich11282008.html Weekend Edition November 28-30, 2008 Obama, American Hierarchic Democracy, Humanity What is the Meaning of Obama's Election? By TED HONDERICH 1. Questions It is still said, maybe believed in Texas and Alaska, that in the American democracy the people are approximately equal and they are free in choosing and influencing those who govern them and deal with the rest of the world. In fact American democracy is hierarchic democracy. The American people, of course, like any other, is for general purposes rightly thought about in terms of classes somehow understood -- as Americans themselves have lately been saying. The fundamental classes surely are neither equal nor free in choosing and influencing their government. They are instead a hierarchy, ranked from top to bottom. So it has confidently been said. But patently the Obama election was unprecedented. More than that, it overjoyed most of the human race in America and in touch with America. It overjoyed me, along with others, to the point of tears. Next day no voice was heard against this fine thing at the common table of a London gentleman's club in which I found myself, a table whose conservatism until then was impervious to the outside world. There are questions we still don't hear about the election and questions we do. Is it now too simple to say that American democracy, like the English democracy that superimposes on itself crown, prince and little princelings, is hierarchic? If you make a judgement about this democracy, for or against, by what means do you do so, by what principle or whatever? There is also the commoner question of what will come of the Obama presidency, and the question of what ought to come of it, and the little question of whether some of us must now repent error about America. 2. Hierarchic Democracy Certainly until the election anyone capable of detaching from conventions of vagueness, and capable of registering some simple numbers and their consequences, could come to contemplate a certain proposition. This proposition is that the top 10th of the American population in terms of wealth and income, that class, has about 1,000 times the political influence and power of the bottom 10th. The first of the simple numbers in support of the proposition is that the top 10th of Americans in terms of wealth and income has about 70% of the wealth of the society. The bottom tenth has none -- it owns nothing significant and probably owes more money than it has. In income, the top 10th has about 30%. The bottom tenth has about 2%. There used to be Marxists. Whatever Marx's percipience as moralist, denied by himself in favour of his view of himself as scientist, we did not need and do not need his metaphysical, historical, economic and political theory to know the connection of the wealth and income inequality with political influence and power. What is needed is only escaping from self-admiring lesser intelligence, think-tank intelligence. What is needed is actually taking in what has been reported at least implicitly in decent newspapers about poverty, as against the profits of the finance houses and the stinking bonuses. What is reported, say, of the parents who only have time for trying to get for themselves and their unhealthy, ignorant and ill-fated children half a life. Do you say that the actual proposition on American hierarchic democracy, that the top tenth has about 1,000 times the political influence and power of the bottom tenth, is plucked out of the air? Yes it is, in a way. It rests on fact, of which you have heard a little, but it certainly is not the result of quantification by known economists and political scientists. That is their failing, not mine. It is a failing of the known members of whole professions. Whether the estimate of about 1,000 to 1 is a little overdone or not, we are right not to be intimidated into hesitancy by their weakness in academic will and the pursuit of relevant truth. Do you say Americans have been unequal in political power and inflence, all right, maybe just 500 to 1, but they have still been free? Do you have the idea, murmured by liberals for their own purposes for decades, that equality and freedom or liberty are two different things? And that they conflict -- as taxes for universal healthcare conflict with the rights of money? Do you say that inequality in missiles does not affect freedom of action, affect it long before they are launched? There has never been a greater social and political nonsense. Suffice it to say, to the perceptive reader, or even a Pentecostal, that if you and I are in competition or conflict, and you become more and more unequal to me, in cash and maybe in the end in my having a gun, your voluntariness reduces at every stage, in the end to zero. Equality and freedom, where they matter most, are one thing. They are one thing in hierarchic democracy. 3. The Election Did the Obama election refute, modify or anyway re-open the proposition that in America the top economic class has had and will have 1,000 or 500 times more political influence and power than the bottom class? Is there more to this democracy's nature? Is it changing? Do some of us have to think now that the future obligation of Americans may not be the same as their obligation until now, which has been mass civil disobedience against their hierarchic democracy? One part of work towards an answer will have to do with a fact rightly remarked on. The campaign of Obama and] the Democratic Party raised unprecedented funds, about $640 million. McCain and the Republican Party had about $360 million, partly as a result of accepting public financing, which had some effect on their private donations. The totals are important, but less important than the source of the Obama donations. Somewhere on the way to half the $640 million was raised from small donations. It was raised from people giving less than $200. It was raised, you might risk saying, from ordinary Americans. It has to be allowed, I think, that the victory showed that American hierarchic democracy has had in it certain possibilities. It had in itself the possibility, in particular, that in an extraordinary circumstance it could rise above its grotesque inequality and subjection. The circumstance, however, was not in itself the new ideas of raising money on the part of the Obama campaign, partly by means of the internet, or the military campaign of voter registration and the like. Causal explanation of anything interesting is rarely simple. Those several things can be said to have succeeded, but succeeded because of something more fundamental. They succeeded, in brief, because of two other more significant necessary conditions. One was a nearly unique national circumstance. The other was an absolutely unique candidate. The national circumstance consisted first in two wars, inane and grisly to many, at least doubtful and self-hurting to many more. There was climate change in it too, and the denial of it refuted by hurricanes. There was the dimwit President. The circumstance came to consist more dramatically in what came out of nowhere at the right time, the collapsing of the money-system, until then supposed to be a natural edifice and defended and extolled as such by the Republicans. There was something else that also came out of nowhere, a little earlier, the other significant necessary condition. That was Obama, the human drama of Obama. Because he was black, he was rightly perceived as having some humanity unknown or uncertain in previous presidential candidates. He was perceived as being bound by his own existence to humanity. He did not have to be more than black for it to be true. But he had, too, the freedom and audacity of intelligence, demonstrated where it always must be, by language. The election might turn out to be the most consequential in American history. But, to come to what you do not need telling, it did not change the simple numbers with respect to wealth and income or the resulting inequality and subjection in political influence and power. Those things are with us. Nothing has changed, for example, with respect to what may be not only a financial but an otherwise politically valuable fact in the next presidential election, an answer to this one. That would be many more small donations than had by Barack Obama, gathered by wealth on behalf of a reactionary Republican candidate. [snip -- complete article at URL above] From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 22:45:33 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 21:45:33 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Obama gets rave reviews In-Reply-To: <4933EA07.8050602@panix.com> References: <4933EA07.8050602@panix.com> Message-ID: Well the whores of the ruling class have shown their hand. What though about the workers? Will they do a second take and realise that Emperor Obama is like stark naked and that his new clothes [change we can believe in] are just so much spin? Part of me thinks it will take a while. Not because Obama will be anything other than a Democratic President, but because of the deep instinct towards loyalty of the working class. Also because no one wants to drink deep of the bitter wine of disappointed great hopes and high expectations in ruins. Another part of me recognizes though the necessity of disllusionment. The False Messiah must be exposed and that is a journey the working class will have to undergo for themselves. What may be of interest to those who characterize me as a terminal depressive is that I am convinced the working class are capable of seeing thru Obama and what he truly means with his calls for "unity and sacrifice". And when they do, that will take us into a political crisis where chronological and political time decouple and then we will have the "real state of emergency" that Walter Benjamin spoke about. It is our task to do everything we can to bring about that state of emergency and posts like Lou's, which tend to expose Obama for what he is, help to do this. Everything else seems to me to serve the cause of the powerful. comradely regards Gary From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 02:53:30 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 01:53:30 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] New Yorker profiles Naomi Klein In-Reply-To: <726701.99634.qm@web31705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <726701.99634.qm@web31705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Mehmet, Please forgive if I have misread your post. I read you as saying that we need to move beyond ideological illusions, but we cannot do so, because the alternative has to be another ideology. Yet you appear to want to say that we need to replace the current dominant ideology with Marxist ideology. I have listened to the Zizek interview and my god how he rambles all over the place. But let me take what I think you are referring to namely the question of which interpretation will predominate. Now the problem here is that Zizek equates interpretation with narrative. I would make a distinction between them. Interpretation I would like to explanation, analysis and ultimately to a notion of truth -especially Bhaskar's concept of truth as alethia or the reason for things. It is this then that enables us to judge rationally between competing interpretations . Now interpretations need to be packaged and if they are placed within a coherent narrative framework they can accumulate political efficacy or rhetorical power. But we should not reduce the moment of interpretation to the moment of rhetoric. That is why I would refuse the notion that Marxism is simply another narrative. I would argue rather that Marx's analysis of surplus value is truer than competing explanations. Now if we had a level playing field then I have no doubt we could fashion a narrative around Marxian theory which would win mass approval. But of course we live in a world where it is still dangerous for a Marxist to challenge the system effectively. Think of what happened to Allende. The CIA did not reduce the contest to a matter of competing narratives or interpretations, they went in and killed him. Of course what that did was to reveal once again the two-fold nature of bourgeois thought. It swings wildly between vulgar materialism ("Get Allende") and idealism (it's all a matter of competing narratives"). So where are we now? We leftists are of course totally marginalised. But the economic crisis has opened a small space for us to give our interpretation of what is happening. Here of course we have the advantage of the work done on crises by Kalecki, Grossman and others. Thee are real solid achievements and we should let the likes of Zizek to confuse us about this. And to return to the Obama thread, the truth of Obama will out. He will see to it personally that those who voted for him will come to realise they were deluded. I remain convinced that all the talk of ideology and narratives will not be able to withstand the power of Marxist interpretation. regards Gary From aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm Tue Dec 2 04:11:59 2008 From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm (Aaron Aarons) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 03:11:59 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Direct action planned against main U.S. ammo plant Message-ID: <20081202111205.D24A030EF9@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:19:32 +0200 To: en From: a-infos-en at ainfos.ca Subject: (en) US, Disrupt Lake City anarchist project Disrupt Lake City is creating a situation in which our friends and allies can directly confront this wellspring of US militarism. Though we've long known that our oppressors have names and addresses, we're finally going to put Lake City on the map, and expose just what the "Heart of America," looks like. ---- What is lake city ---- The US led war in Iraq has been raging for nearly six years, with wars of occupation proceeding for centuries before that. The current US anti-war movement has grinded to a near halt due to sectarianism, ineffective vigils and "speak truth to power" campaigns. The one thing that is clear to the rest of us is that those in power have a concrete understanding of their influential roles in the global military industrial complex. As people opposed to war, occupation, and state sponsored terrorism, we understand the role that logistical support operations play in perpetuating the US war effort - at home and abroad. Soldiers, supplies, transportation, communication, weaponry and ammunition are some of the components needed to maintain wars and occupation. While counter-recruitment campaigns, port resistance actions, and physical attacks on military infrastructure have all targeted some of these logistical frameworks, the ammunition supply line has been fairly ignored. Far from the coasts, and the mass movements that encompass them, the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant produces nearly 90% of the small arms ammunition utilized by the US Military at any given time. The Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (LCAAP) is capable of producing 4 million rounds of ammunition daily. This makes Lake City the largest small arms manufacturing plant in the world. Located in Independence, Missouri, about 1 hour from Lawrence, Kansas, and about 25 minutes from Kansas City, the Lake City Plant sits on 3,935 acres and encompasses 458 buildings. The facility has been in operation since 1941, making it one of the last World War II era ammunition plants still in operation. Lake City is owned by the federal government, but operated by the leading provider of advanced weapon and space systems to the US Department of Defense - Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Inc. ATK employs nearly 16,500 people and operates in 21 states within the US. ATK weapons plants, offices and testing facilities are housed across the nation. ATK's corporate headquarters are located in Edina, Minnesota about 20 minutes from Minneapolis. As the largest supplier of ammunition to the US military, and with representatives in over 50 countries, ATK is responsible for the continued violence against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Haiti, Colombia, the United States and many other countries with a US military presence. Who are we Disrupt Lake City is made up of Midwestern anarchists and anti-authoritarians enraged not only by the current wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, and "Terror," but more deeply by the pathological militarism of nation-states and the occupations they wage - both within their borders and beyond. To clarify exactly where we're coming from, we ask all participants to affirm the following points of unity: * Clear opposition to militarism and occupation. Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only wars the US wages. Globally and locally, the American empire is a habitual warmonger and occupier. On the domestic front, the cops and courts occupy all of our blocks - especially targeting people of color and poor folks. On the global front, the US military officially maintains over 700 bases in roughly 130 countries-not to mention all those they don't tell us about. Furthermore, we are against all states and empires. * Respect for a diversity of tactics. As anti-authoritarians, we will not allow the authorities to define the appropriate methods for responding to their domination. We will stand in solidarity with each other while cooperating to disrupt their ammunition shipments. * No condemnation of fellow participants in media outlets or public forums. We're not getting together to air dirty laundry or to ignite any conflicts and turn them into soap operas. All our critiques of one another should remain internal to promote cohesive and decisive action. * Non-hierarchical organizing. Actions should be organized autonomously through collective participation. Obviously that can take a variety of forms, but the consent of actual participants is the common thread tying all our efforts together. No authoritarianism or coercion tolerated. * No collaboration with the state or its agents. Organize intelligently, make your plans securely, and don't ever sell out comrades! Strategy or what we gonna do bout it The campaign itself designed to create multiple disruptions of ammunition shipments from Lake City. No one should have delusions of grandeur or the intention to "shut it down". However, if enough pressure is applied, and shipments are disrupted over a long enough period of time-there may be success in permanently stopping production. Call to action! Saturday March 21st On the 6th anniversary of the war we will descend on Lake City, as a part of a new movement - the new incarnation of the anti-war movement. From all over the Midwest and beyond, anarchists and anti-authoritarians will gather to take a physical stand against the supply line dominating their lives and the lives of those across the globe. And, you can join them. If you are interested in being a part of this action and need information to form an affinity group with the intention of tackling a certain sector, contact Disrupt Lake City and we will get you all the info you need. The disruption crew will be coordinating all committed groups and providing them with support on the ground. ATK Website www.atk.com DISRUPT LAKE CITY contacts Email: Unconventionalks at gmail.com Address: P.O. Box 277, Lawrence, KS 66044 Website: _________________________________________ A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E By, For, and About Anarchists Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list A-infos-en at ainfos.ca Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en From daynegoodwin at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 06:22:00 2008 From: daynegoodwin at gmail.com (Dayne Goodwin) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 06:22:00 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] Sectarian? Re: The Obama cult In-Reply-To: <26C9649EFF404EF8AD78901734F76BBF@office1pc> References: <26C9649EFF404EF8AD78901734F76BBF@office1pc> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Fred Feldman wrote: > . . . > This is a simon-pure personal attack on my own political past and present, > without making an attempt to answer any argument that has been made. . . . I was not responding to all your recent messages about Obama, Fred. I was responding to the most recent one (copied in full below). Although your ability to read the minds and explain the thinking of those you are arguing with is quite unbounded, here are excerpts from the message i replied to which clearly show that your basic argument is that those who don't agree with you are suffering from sectarianism: " . . . Obama is experienced as a threat because unlike any President perhaps since Kennedy-Johnson, he has a genuine popular base among the seriously oppressed and exploited, and his race is an inevitable part of that. The comrades feel threatened by this not as racists...but as sectarians. . . . Yes, they want the phenomenon to disappear very badly not for racial reasons ...because we are dealing with deeply consolidated sectarian phenomena on the US left. Only a relatively small portion of today's far left is capable under present conditions of responding as working class revolutionaries to almost any significant change in the situation. Objective conditions including the past history of the US left which is not a fact that can be changed, are responsible for that situation. . . . Radicals from a tradition which is substantially and traditionally sectarian got comfortable with the popular trend toward pessimism and hopelessness of the Bush years... If the whole thing dissolves into nothing, they will be relieved and settle back glumly into sectarian business-is-bad as usual..." and i did 'attempt to answer' your argument that your interlocutors are deeply sectarian. Dayne On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Fred Feldman wrote: Contrary to what Walter seems to suggest, there was no shortage of criticism on the far left of Bush. He was a hated figure, a figure people got used to hating and even came to loved to hate and felt. By the end, we came to feel assured that we were among friends in hating him. Now there's a president-elect who not everybody hates yet and they think this is a huge gain for reaction. Obama is experienced as a threat because unlike any President perhaps since Kennedy-Johnson, he has a genuine popular base among the seriously oppressed and exploited, and his race is an inevitable part of that. The comrades feel threatened by this not as racists, as Walter may be seen as suggesting (and I think he should get away from anything that smacks of that), but as sectarians. Their only answer to the "hope" inspired by Obama's election -- powered in part by the fact that the election of a Black president is itself a progressive change of significant scope -- is to bank on "disillusionment," despair, and abandonment of hope, which will put all of us cosmic pessimists back in the same boat as the masses, instead of floating off in our own little lifeboat while the crazed masses "drink the kool-aid" of the cult leader. Obama as Hitler. Obama as Stalin Obama as Pol Pot. Obama as Healy. Obama as Rev. Jim Jones. Well at least, people who throw around the term "cult" for Obama's supporters -- or anyone whose antagonism is even restrained -- will lose credibility for their tendency to overuse this term as a supposed explanation for all kinds of political phenomena. Yes, they want the phenomenon to disappear very badly not for racial reasons (a longing for days when whites were more supreme or something like that), but because we are dealing with deeply consolidated sectarian phenomena on the US left. Only a relatively small portion of today's far left is capable under present conditions of responding as working class revolutionaries to almost any significant change in the situation. Objective conditions including the past history of the US left which is not a fact that can be changed, are responsible for that situation. As trenchant critics, yes. As criers in the wilderness, yes. As Ambrose Bierces or HL Menckens, sort of. As the greatest minds of their generation driven howling mad by a situation they cannot comprehend -- well, that would be an excess. In this situation, the fight is to reach and to educate those who can be reached for turning toward very modest, very confused motion on our side -- rather than simply calling for the phenomena that are expressing this to vanish or be dissolved by an instantaneous wave of absolute and total disillusionment. Radicals from a tradition which is substantially and traditionally sectarian got comfortable with the popular trend toward pessimism and hopelessness of the Bush years. Its not surprising to me that many of us can see this sour mood as a gain in consciousness that is being undermined by a alight upward shift in the popular mood, based in part on an actually progressive social change -- the election of a Black president, based on the votes of Blacks, Latinos, Asians, young white workers and students and other people of relatively progressive or at least significantly less reactionary views. Although hopelessness about the future is a massive and deep obstacle to social progress in this country and the erosion of traditional privileges actually plays a part in this seemingly anti-establishment "radical" mood, a lot of comrades have come to see it as part of our common ground with the masses of people in the country. And they see it slipping away towards the "Obama cult." If the whole thing dissolves into nothing, they will be relieved and settle back glumly into sectarian business-is-bad as usual. If something more positive develops out of the process -- and we certainly can't guarantee this at this stage of the game -- well then they and we will either learn from it and gain from it or not. At this stage, continuing to argue over what is going to happen with people who are as religiously sure of everything that will happen next as those who foresee the Last Days in living color and every detail is a waste of time. No more until Obama takes office in my opinion. There are other things happening (such as Afghanistan and Palestine) which get almost no attention or are totally and wrongly subordinated to the framework of this discussion. For me, I am finished with that discussion until there is a new president. No more arguments for me over what he will or won't do. Of what this or that appointment means. Or whether this will be Bush's third term or Clinton's third term or Clinton-Bush's fifth term or Grover Cleveland's third term or Franklin Pierce's second. On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Dayne Goodwin wrote: On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Fred Feldman > > wrote: > > . . . > > because we are dealing with deeply consolidated sectarian phenomena on > > the US left. > . . . > > > I agree that sectarian-ism is a deeply consolidated problem on the U.S. > left. I assume that Fred - as a veteran of decades within one of the > deeply > sectarian U.S. left organizations - is quite familiar with sectarianism. > But i don't understand why Fred lodges an accusation of sectarianism in the > midst of discussion on this list. > > The word "sectarian" is used in the marxist movement to refer to > organizations which put their own organizational self-interest - their sect > - ahead of the best interests of the working class generally. (Of course > the validity of the charge is a matter of judgment.) > > If Fred thinks that it is in the best interests of the working class to > have > illusions about Obama, and Fred observed a marxist organization which > criticized Obama and which argued that workers should join their particular > organization to advance working class interests instead of putting faith in > Obama then from his point of view Fred could accuse that organization of > being sectarian. > > I think that it is ridiculous to accuse some among a loose array of > marxists > on a self-selected marxist discussion list of being sectarian for > criticizing Obama or for pointing out widely-held popular illusions about > Obama on that discussion list. We would need to know about list > participants' political practice and their organizations to consider > whether > they're engaged in sectarian behavior. > > I would be interested to learn how Fred's view that it is sectarian to > confront illusions about Obama impacts his actual political activism, > beyond > this discussion list. In regard to this issue of how to respond to > widespread illusions about Obama, what are other "sectarian" marxists doing > in their activism which he chooses to avoid doing? What does he choose to > do in his activism which distinguishes him from these other activists who > do > not properly restrain themselves from criticizing Obama? > Dayne From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Dec 2 07:25:54 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:25:54 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] In response to Max Elbaum Message-ID: <49354572.9010209@panix.com> Max has a piece on MRZine (http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/elbaum021208.html) that I commented on: Max wrote: Obama projects a different mix of military force and diplomacy, of unilateralism and cooperation with allies, than his predecessor. The incoming President's bottom-line goal -- maintaining "U.S. world leadership" -- remains the same. But it is apparent that Obama knows there are limits to U.S. power and that various accommodations to other countries' interests are necessary (if unpleasant) requirements in today's multipolar world. --- But in reality the Bush political/military doctrine of the 2001 to 2006 period roughly has been replaced by a more centrist one symbolized by the rise of the State Department and Gates's role in the CIA. In effect, you have a foreign policy that is more in line with George Bush '41. Since Obama is a big fan of '41, it is no surprise that he retained Gates and that Condoleezza Rice has gushed over Hillary Clinton becoming Secretary of State. If you can stomach his unctuous prose, just read David Brooks in today's NY Times op-ed: NY Times, December 2, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist Continuity We Can Believe In By DAVID BROOKS The 2008 election results did not fundamentally change American foreign policy. The real change began a few years ago in Afghanistan and Iraq. It began with colonels and captains fighting terror on the ground. They found that they could clear a town of the bad guys, but they had little capacity to establish rule of law or quality of life for the people they were trying to help. They quickly realized that the big challenge in this new era is not killing the enemy, it?s repairing the zones of chaos where enemies grow and breed. They realized, too, that Washington wasn?t providing them with the tools they needed to accomplish their missions. Their observations and arguments filtered through military channels and back home, producing serious rethinking at the highest levels. On Jan. 18, 2006, Condoleezza Rice delivered a policy address at Georgetown University in which she argued that the fundamental threats now come from weak and failed states, not enemy powers. In this new world, she continued, it is impossible to draw neat lines between security, democratization and development efforts. She called for a transformational diplomacy, in which State Department employees would do less negotiating and communiqu?-writing. Instead, they?d be out in towns and villages doing broad campaign planning with military colleagues, strengthening local governments and implementing development projects. Over the past year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has delivered a series of remarkable speeches echoing and advancing Rice?s themes. ?In recent years, the lines separating war, peace, diplomacy and development have become more blurred and no longer fit the neat organizational charts of the 20th century,? he said in Washington in July. Gates does not talk about spreading democracy, at least in the short run. He talks about using integrated federal agencies to help locals improve the quality and responsiveness of governments in trouble spots around the world. He has developed a way of talking about security and foreign policy that is now the lingua franca in government and think-tank circles. It owes a lot to the lessons of counterinsurgency and uses phrases like ?full spectrum operations? to describe multidisciplinary security and development campaigns. Gates has told West Point cadets that more regime change is unlikely but that they may spend parts of their careers training soldiers in allied nations. He has called for more spending on the State Department, foreign aid and a revitalized U.S. Information Agency. He?s spawned a flow of think-tank reports on how to marry hard and soft pre-emption. The Bush administration began to implement these ideas, but in small and symbolic ways. President Bush called for a civilian corps to do nation-building. National Security Presidential Directive 44 laid out a framework so different agencies could coordinate foreign reconstruction and stabilization. The Millennium Challenge Account program created a method for measuring effective governance. Actual progress was slow, but the ideas developed during the second Bush term have taken hold. Some theoreticians may still talk about Platonic concepts like realism and neoconservatism, but the actual foreign policy doctrine of the future will be hammered out in a bottom-up process as the U.S. and its allies use their varied tools to build government capacity in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, the Philippines and beyond. Grand strategists may imagine a new global architecture built at high-level summits, but the real global architecture of the future will emerge organically from these day-to-day nation-building operations. During the campaign, Barack Obama embraced Gates?s language. During his press conference on Monday, he used all the right code words, speaking of integrating and rebalancing the nation?s foreign policy capacities. He nominated Hillary Clinton and James Jones, who have been champions of this approach, and retained Gates. Their cooperation on an integrated strategy might prevent some of the perennial feuding between the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom and the National Security Council. As Stephen Flanagan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies notes, Obama?s challenge will be to actually implement the change. That would include increasing the size of the State Department, building a civilian corps that can do development in dangerous parts of the world, creating interagency nation-building institutions, helping local reformers build governing capacity in fragile places like Pakistan and the Palestinian territories and exporting American universities while importing more foreign students. Given the events of the past years, the U.S. is not about to begin another explicit crusade to spread democracy. But decent, effective and responsive government would be a start. Obama and his team didn?t invent this approach. But if they can put it into action, that would be continuity we can believe in. From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Dec 2 07:31:44 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:31:44 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Lengthy recession predicted Message-ID: <493546D0.2020902@panix.com> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-econ2-2008dec02,0,2587872.story From the Los Angeles Times U.S. recession could last into 2010 The group charged with making the official declaration says recession began in December 2007. By Maura Reynolds December 2, 2008 Reporting from Washington ? The economy's yearlong downturn, officially declared a recession Monday, could last well into next year or even beyond, challenging the government to devise new responses as traditional methods show limited results. The National Bureau of Economic Research, the private body charged with determining the onset of a recession as well as its endpoint, said Monday that the current downturn met its definition of a recession: "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months." The downturn began, the bureau said, at the end of last year as businesses started slashing jobs -- which they have done every month this year. The group did not say how long the recession might last, but the stock market reflected widespread pessimism. After a widely followed index of U.S. manufacturing activity fell to its lowest level in 26 years, the Dow Jones industrials tumbled 679 points, or 7.7%, and the Standard & Poor's 500 index plunged 8.9%. "This downturn promises to be the worst since the Great Depression in the 1930s," said Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at forecasting firm MFR Inc. "We've only just started. I can't see bottoming out until sometime in 2010." The slide in stock prices ended a five-day rally, the market's strongest in seven decades, built on hope that the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama could turn the economy around. "The market got ahead of itself last week," said Scott Anderson, senior economist with Wells Fargo & Co. in Minneapolis. "But we're back into our funk again. The fundamentals of the economy still look like things are going to weaken still further over the next few months." A psychology of fear has gripped businesses and consumers and is likely to prolong the recession, said Lee Ohanian, a professor of economics at UCLA. "This one has a potential to be longer and deeper than other postwar recessions," he said. "People are very, very scared and worried. In my opinion the government has created much more uncertainty about the economy than it should have done. So it's really hard to tell how long this recession could last." Government officials reiterated that they would do what was required to turn the economy around. "While we are making progress, the journey ahead will continue to be a difficult one," Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson said. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, addressing the Austin, Texas, Chamber of Commerce, pledged to use the central bank's full resources to repair the credit markets and prime the economy. But "despite the efforts of the Federal Reserve and other policymakers," he said, "the U.S. economy remains under considerable stress." Although the Fed has lowered its benchmark interest rate to only 1%, a very low level by historical measures, Bernanke said it could be lowered further. However, that rate doesn't directly affect long-term rates paid by borrowers. As a result, the Fed is considering purchasing Treasury bonds on the open market, a move that could bring down long-term borrowing costs. "I am not suggesting the way forward will be easy," Bernanke said. "But I believe that the policy responses taken here . . . will help to restore confidence in our financial system and place our economy back on the path to vigorous growth." The National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group, was founded in 1920 to study the economy and formally designate each business cycle's peak -- when an economic expansion gives way to a recession -- as well as each trough -- when growth resumes after a downturn. Since 1978, the group has had a special committee in charge of the designation process. Although a recession is commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of declines in the gross domestic product -- a measure of all goods and services produced -- the current downturn doesn't meet that yardstick. The GDP shrank in this year's third quarter at a 0.5% annual rate but showed growth of 2.8% in the second quarter and 0.9% in the first quarter. The bureau, however, uses a larger variety of indicators, including monthly measures of employment, industrial production and personal income. Economists say that's because GDP figures can mask economic woes. For instance, if firms are producing goods, GDP will go up even if no one is buying them and they are simply going into inventories. Sung Won Sohn, a professor at Cal State Channel Islands, said the economy would probably have shown two straight quarters of shrinking GDP this year if the government hadn't handed out tax rebates as part of an economic stimulus program. "The rebates resulted in a blip in the second quarter, and now that blip is gone," he said. Job losses appeared to weigh most heavily in the bureau's decision. The economy normally must create about 100,000 jobs a month to keep pace with population growth. But lately job creation has been in reverse. Through October, an average of 120,000 jobs a month have been lost this year. The unemployment rate stood at 6.5% in October, and many economists expect the rate to top 8% next year. "The committee found that economic activity measured by production was close to flat from roughly September 2007 to roughly June 2008, while activity measured by employment reached a clear peak in December 2007," the bureau said. The organization's economists "judged that the weight of the evidence" suggested that the economy peaked -- and the recession began -- in December 2007. Reynolds is a Times staff writer. maura.reynolds at latimes.com From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Dec 2 07:43:22 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:43:22 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Roosevelt's Brain Trust vs Obama's Brainiacs Message-ID: <4935498A.4090100@panix.com> Beyond the Bailout State Roosevelt's Brain Trust vs Obama's Brainiacs By Steve Fraser On a December day in 1932, with the country prostrate under the weight of the Great Depression, ex-president Calvin Coolidge -- who had presided over the reckless stock market boom of the Jazz Age Twenties (and famously declaimed that "the business of America is business") -- confided to a friend: "We are in a new era to which I do not belong." He punctuated those words, a few weeks later, by dying. A similar premonition grips the popular imagination today. A new era beckons. No person has been more responsible for arousing that expectation than President-elect Barack Obama. From beginning to end, his presidential campaign was born aloft by invocations of the "fierce urgency of now," by "change we can believe in," by "yes, we can!" and by the obvious significance of his race and generation. Not surprisingly then, as the gravity of the national economic calamity has become terrifyingly clearer, yearnings for salvation have attached themselves ever more firmly to the incoming administration. This is as it should be -- and as it once was. When in March 1933, a few months after Coolidge gave up the ghost, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated president, people looked forward to audacious changes, even if they had little or no idea just what, in concrete terms, that might mean. If Coolidge, an iconic representative of the old order, knew that the ancien r?gime was dead, millions of ordinary Americans had drawn the same conclusion years earlier. Full of fear, depressed and disillusioned, they nonetheless had an appetite for the untried. Like Obama, FDR had, during his campaign, encouraged feverish hopes with no less vaporous references to a "new deal" for Americans. Brain Trust vs Brainiacs Yet today, something is amiss. Even if everyone is now using the Great Depression and the New Deal as benchmarks for what we're living through, Act I of the new script has already veered away from the original. A suffocating political and intellectual provincialism has captured the new administration in embryo. Instead of embracing a sense of adventurousness, a readiness to break with the past so enthusiastically promoted during the campaign, Obama seems overcome with inhibitions and fears. full: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175008/steve_fraser_empire_of_depression From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Dec 2 07:52:43 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:52:43 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] William Blum on Obama Message-ID: <49354BBB.8080101@panix.com> The Anti-Empire Report December 1st, 2008 by William Blum www.killinghope.org Vote First. Ask Questions Later. Okay, let's get the obvious out of the way. It was historic. I choked up a number of times, tears came to my eyes, even though I didn't vote for him. I voted for Ralph Nader for the fourth time in a row. During the past eight years when I've listened to news programs on the radio each day I've made sure to be within a few feet of the radio so I could quickly change the station when that preposterous man or one of his disciples came on; I'm not a masochist, I suffer fools very poorly, and I get bored easily. Sad to say, I'm already turning the radio off sometimes when Obama comes on. He doesn't say anything, or not enough, or not often enough. Platitudes, clich?s, promises without substance, "hope and change", almost everything without sufficient substance, "change and hope", without specifics, designed not to offend. What exactly are the man's principles? He never questions the premises of the empire. Never questions the premises of the "War on Terror". I'm glad he won for two reasons only: John McCain and Sarah Palin, and I deeply resent the fact that the American system forces me to squeeze out a drop of pleasure from something so far removed from my ideals. Obama's votes came at least as much from people desperate for relief from neo-conservative suffocation as from people who genuinely believed in him. It's a form of extortion ? Vote for Obama or you get more of the same. Those are your only choices. Is there reason to be happy that the insufferably religious George W. is soon to be history? "I believe that Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis." That was said by someone named Barack Obama.1 The United States turns out religious fanatics like the Japanese turn out cars. Let's pray for an end to this. As I've mentioned before, if you're one of those who would like to believe that Obama has to present center-right foreign policy views to be elected, but once he's in the White House we can forget that he misled us repeatedly and the true, progressive man of peace and international law and human rights will emerge ... keep in mind that as a US Senate candidate in 2004 he threatened missile strikes against Iran2, and winning that election apparently did not put him in touch with his inner peacenik. He's been threatening Iran ever since. The world is in terrible shape. I don't think I have to elucidate on that remark. How nice, how marvelously nice it would be to have an American president who was infused with progressive values and political courage. Just imagine what could be done. Like a quick and complete exit from Iraq. You can paint the picture as well as I can. With his popularity Obama could get away with almost anything, but he'll probably continue to play it safe. Or what may be more precise, he'll continue to be himself; which, apparently, is a committed centrist. He's not really against the war. Not like you and I are. During Obama's first four years in the White House, the United States will not leave Iraq. I doubt that he'd allow a complete withdrawal even in a second term. Has he ever unequivocally called the war illegal and immoral? A crime against humanity? Why is he so close to Colin Powell? Does he not know of Powell's despicable role in the war? And retaining George W. Bush's Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, a man against whom it would not be difficult to draw up charges of war crimes? Will he also find a place for Rumsfeld? And Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, a supporter of the war, to run the Homeland Security department? And General James Jones, a former NATO commander (sic), who wants to "win" in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who backed John McCain, as his National Security Adviser? Jones is on the Board of Directors of the Boeing Corporation and Chevron Oil. Out of what dark corner of Obama's soul does all this come? As Noam Chomsky recently pointed out, the election of an indigenous person (Evo Morales) in Bolivia and a progressive person (Jean-Bertrand Aristide) in Haiti were more historic than the election of Barack Obama. He's not really against torture either. Not like you and I are. No one will be punished for using or ordering torture. No one will be impeached because of torture. Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says that prosecuting Bush officials is necessary to set future anti-torture policy. "The only way to prevent this from happening again is to make sure that those who were responsible for the torture program pay the price for it. I don't see how we regain our moral stature by allowing those who were intimately involved in the torture programs to simply walk off the stage and lead lives where they are not held accountable."3 As president, Obama cannot remain silent and do nothing; otherwise he will inherit the war crimes of Bush and Cheney and become a war criminal himself. Closing the Guantanamo hell-hole means nothing at all if the prisoners are simply moved to other torture dungeons. If Obama is truly against torture, why does he not declare that after closing Guantanamo the inmates will be tried in civilian courts in the US or resettled in countries where they clearly face no risk of torture? And simply affirm that his administration will faithfully abide by the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, of which the United States is a signatory, and which states: "The term 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession ... inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other person acting in an official capacity." The convention affirms that: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." Instead, Obama has appointed former CIA official John O. Brennan as an adviser on intelligence matters and co-leader of his intelligence transition team. Brennan has called "rendition" ? the kidnap-and-torture program carried out under the Clinton and Bush administrations ? a "vital tool", and praised the CIA's interrogation techniques for providing "lifesaving" intelligence.4 Obama may prove to be as big a disappointment as Nelson Mandela, who did painfully little to improve the lot of the masses of South Africa while turning the country over to the international forces of globalization. I make this comparison not because both men are black, but because both produced such great expectations in their home country and throughout the world. Mandela was freed from prison on the assumption of the Apartheid leaders that he would become president and pacify the restless black population while ruling as a non-radical, free-market centrist without undue threat to white privilege. It's perhaps significant that in his autobiography he declines to blame the CIA for his capture in 1962 even though the evidence to support this is compelling.5 It appears that Barack Obama made a similar impression upon the American power elite who vetted him in many fundraising and other meetings and smoothed the way for his highly unlikely ascendancy from obscure state senator to the presidency in four years. The financial support from the corporate world to sell "Brand Obama" was extraordinary. Another comparison might be with Tony Blair. The Tories could never have brought in university fees or endless brutal wars, but New Labour did. The Republicans would have had a very difficult time bringing back the draft, but I can see Obama reinstating it, accompanied by a suitable slogan, some variation of "Yes, we can!". I do hope I'm wrong, about his past and about how he'll rule as president. I hope I'm very wrong. Many people are calling for progressives to intensely lobby the Obama administration, to exert pressure to bring out the "good Obama", force him to commit himself, hold him accountable. The bold reforms of Roosevelt's New Deal were spurred by widespread labor strikes and other militant actions soon after the honeymoon period was over. At the moment I have nothing better to offer than that. God help us. Notes 1. Washington Post, August 17, 2008? 2. Chicago Tribune, September 25, 2004 ? 3. Associated Press, November 17, 2008 ? 4. New York Times, October 3, 2008 ? 5. Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom (1994) p.278; William Blum, Rogue State, chapter 23, "How the CIA sent Nelson Mandela to prison for 28 years" ? full: http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer64.html From tcod at hotmail.com Tue Dec 2 08:31:48 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:31:48 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. In-Reply-To: <4934AEDB.3070202@mail.ngo.za> References: <6463401.1227812970494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20081128021234.E35DE22013@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128055000.B3B2A2D02D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128215852.3F4F4DCF7@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> <55417F0A379D4BC2B407BC90FEC2C5D7@dmsthinkpad> <4934AEDB.3070202@mail.ngo.za> Message-ID: Yes, that may be true, but that doesn't address the issue of the dismantling of apartheid, an historic political victory, apartheid having been a system of throroughgoing instituionalized race segregation in which blacks-80% of the population- were excluded from whites only areas by law including the heart of many cities (unless they were working there as servants) and in which blacks had no political rights, being deemed citizens of shitty little "Bantustsans" that comprised 13% of the land area and being required to carry internal IDs like the blacks under Andrew Johnson's "Black Codes". Thus the abolition of this system, like of Jim Crow in the South was a big victory etc that established basic democratic rights. Does that make the ANC perfect? NO. economic times are tough there as they are throughout the third world and getting worse, including this country but that begs the question at issue here. The passage of the 13, 14 and 15th Amendments, could be viewed as a deal brokered by politicians, in a historic situation of mass struggle, but does that make them bad? No, they are bulwarks of our democratic rights that should be recognized as such and upheld on that basis. I think you are confusing and conflating national oppression, racial discrimination and economic explotiation in your analysis. Zionists for example often point to economic figures to try and show that arabs are better off in Israel, that analysis, even if true, begs the national question. > The oppression of blacks is nothing like what it was during apartheid, > of course that's true. In qualitative and quantitative ways, though, the > oppression of poor black people has increased:> >> > > ________________________________________________> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tcod%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/ From Dbachmozart at aol.com Tue Dec 2 08:39:52 2008 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:39:52 EST Subject: [Marxism] Jeremy Scahill | Barack Obama's Kettle of Hawks Message-ID: Jeremy Scahill, The Guardian UK: "Barack Obama has assembled a team of rivals to implement his foreign policy. But while pundits and journalists speculate endlessly on the potential for drama with Hillary Clinton at the state department and Bill Clinton's network of shady funders, the real rivalry that will play out goes virtually unmentioned. The main battles will not be between Obama's staff, but rather against those who actually want a change in US foreign policy, not just a staff change in the war room." <_http://www.truthout.org/120208J_ (http://www.truthout.org/120208J) > **************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002) From pbond at mail.ngo.za Tue Dec 2 08:47:41 2008 From: pbond at mail.ngo.za (Patrick Bond) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:47:41 +0200 Subject: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. In-Reply-To: References: <6463401.1227812970494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20081128021234.E35DE22013@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128055000.B3B2A2D02D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081128215852.3F4F4DCF7@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com> <55417F0A379D4BC2B407BC90FEC2C5D7@dmsthinkpad> <4934AEDB.3070202@mail.ngo.za> Message-ID: <4935589D.4000205@mail.ngo.za> Tom Cod wrote: > Yes, that may be true, but that doesn't address the issue of the dismantling of apartheid Dismantling? We now call it "class apartheid". The new arrangement works much much better for big capital, no doubt about it, as well as for the few hundred black elites and also the new black middle class (that is, until the property market crashed and credit got called in, a few months ago, and getting worse by the minute). From sartesian at earthlink.net Tue Dec 2 08:52:52 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:52:52 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. References: <6463401.1227812970494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net><20081128021234.E35DE22013@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><20081128055000.B3B2A2D02D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><20081128215852.3F4F4DCF7@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com><55417F0A379D4BC2B407BC90FEC2C5D7@dmsthinkpad> <4934AEDB.3070202@mail.ngo.za> Message-ID: <901C975C6BB441F58EA1DED9C0022603@dmsthinkpad> You're missing the key point in this discussion-- and that is the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments to the Constitution lacked an AGENT of execution, a class willing and capable of carrying through the content, and as such the amendments were defeated in practice, in the social relations of production for 100 years. The South reimposed the terms of indentured labor upon African-Americans-- in short, the South lost the war, but won the battle of the post-war. Once again on the ANC-- not as a traitor, but as a non-agent, not capable of finishing what the National Union of Miners, the black workers of South Africa started, and therefore creating a path for near permanent reversal of temporary gains. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Cod" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Once again on the ANC betrayal of South Africa's poor. From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Dec 2 08:57:22 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:57:22 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] ANC debate In-Reply-To: <901C975C6BB441F58EA1DED9C0022603@dmsthinkpad> References: <6463401.1227812970494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net><20081128021234.E35DE22013@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><20081128055000.B3B2A2D02D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><20081128215852.3F4F4DCF7@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com><55417F0A379D4BC2B407BC90FEC2C5D7@dmsthinkpad> <4934AEDB.3070202@mail.ngo.za> <901C975C6BB441F58EA1DED9C0022603@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <49355AE2.8080809@panix.com> From what I can gather, Tom Cod is repeating the same arguments we have heard countless times from Walter Lippmann. I don't think that pro-ANC politics has very much traction here, so I would advise a repeat of battles we have had in the past. For newcomers who are curious about past threads on the ANC, go to http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/index.htm and enter "ANC". I just don't see any point to rehashing it again. From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Dec 2 09:04:16 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:04:16 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] ANC debate correction In-Reply-To: <49355AE2.8080809@panix.com> References: <6463401.1227812970494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net><20081128021234.E35DE22013@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><20081128055000.B3B2A2D02D@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><20081128215852.3F4F4DCF7@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><20081201131804.828232261E@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com><55417F0A379D4BC2B407BC90FEC2C5D7@dmsthinkpad> <4934AEDB.3070202@mail.ngo.za> <901C975C6BB441F58EA1DED9C0022603@dmsthinkpad> <49355AE2.8080809@panix.com> Message-ID: <49355C80.1070308@panix.com> Louis Proyect wrote: > From what I can gather, Tom Cod is repeating the same arguments we have > heard countless times from Walter Lippmann. I don't think that pro-ANC > politics has very much traction here, so I would advise AGAINST a repeat of > battles we have had in the past. From jbustelo at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 09:04:23 2008 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:04:23 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta> Rather than insist on beating the dead horse of how his appointments show just how evil Obama is, I think we should instead focus on why Obama is having some success in assembling such a broad coalition of ruling class operatives behind him. And we should be clear in judging this. This "team of rivals" is not being assembled so that the vector sum of clashing tendencies can write on the tabula rasa of the incoming administration's policy agenda. It is being put together to carry out the policies of Obama. When Obama was first running and right through the primaries, it seemed very evident that he was quite genuinely proposing "change" -- not the sweeping radical reforms some of his supporters imagined, but real change in terms of ruling class policy. It may seem disingenuous to bring that up now, in large part because his bourgeois political approach has moved towards becoming the dominant, "mainstream" wing over the past few months. Take the "Obama-ite" withdrawal of combat units from Iraq (that is ALL he ever promised, even when framed in terms of "ending the war." He never promised to end the occupation or "U.S. involvement," on the contrary, he ALWAYS insisted on the opposite). But the withdrawal will now be carried out by Gates under the terms of an agreement negotiated and accepted by the Bush administration. Likewise, the "liberal" (in U.S. terms) interventionist approach to the economy is accepted as necessary under current circumstances by even the most "neo-liberal" (anti-interventionist) elements of the old administration. And you can see this shift in overall ruling class opinion or approach in how the courts are handling the Guantanamo cases. After five or six years of temporizing, the judicial branch is pretty clearly turning away from the extreme presidential absolutism Bush tried to impose after 9/11, and largely got away with throughout his administration. But for this reason, Obama's incoming administration is increasingly being shaped/seen as a "bipartisan" government of national unity. The collection of praise for Obama and his appointments by various and sundry Republicans and their hangers-on in the bourgeois media is actually quite impressive. But those feeling betrayed should consider that this was *always* a core part of Obama's campaign message: that "we are one people," that "we are one nation" and that "we are not as divided as our politics suggests." All it took for the word to become flesh was for "change" to come to Washington. And Obama, I believe, won. He won not just the presidential race, he won (or rather, his side is winning) the debate about a change in the stance of ruling class policy, and it is now recognized generally in ruling class political and commentator circles that a shift, a turn (but not AT ALL a 180 degree turn) is necessary. We should not make the mistake of imagining the ruling class or Obama conceives of politics as we might, an internally coherent series of measures. Their philosophical outlook is pragmatically balancing between various "interest groups" and "constituencies" within the strategic framework of what they conceive of as a strong market economy and strong U.S. world leadership. Given that the real meaning of those things are exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few, both at the level of people as well as peoples, bourgeois policy is bound to be a hodge podge. Which is why for some of us it may not be clear that in fact, the turn began some months ago, both in foreign and domestic policy. But it will become clearer with Obama in the White House. On some --a few-- things it will present as a 180-degree turn. The Guantanamo concentration camp and torture center will be closed. In others, it will be less but still sizable: the Iraq War will be de-escalated and that will ALSO be the strategic approach in Afghanistan, to seek and accommodation and modus vivendi with as much of the insurgency as possible, even though the first step will be escalation to try to stabilize the regime (obviously, a compromise will not look very enticing to the insurgency as long as they are making steady progress towards winning). The economic recovery package in January is likely to be massive and much more oriented to restoring the real, material economy as opposed to the financial sector. (The official guardians of the word "recession" have just gotten with the "change" program by declaring the U.S. to be officially in one, starting a year ago last December. This will further legitimize and give "scientific" economic cover to Keynesian budget-busting pump-priming that will certainly be an element of Obama's recovery package.) All that said, I would not be surprised by Obama serving up a particularly mild version of his "change" come January, disappointing not just radicals but even the liberal wing of the democrats in Congress. But I would also not be surprised by his following the opposite tack and going much further than many of his moderate and conservative now-allies are willing to countenance, though I think this is less likely. The reason is that with the Bush administration having persisted on its course for so long and with such evidently bad results, Obama has a broader than ordinary degree of freedom within, of course, the universe of U.S. bourgeois politics. My *guess* is I think like Mark Lause's, if I have understood him right, that we'll get two successive versions of Obama change, the mild, broad consensus one at first, and then later, a more aggressive version, after the first round proves lacking. Whether a broad consensus among ruling class political operatives and opinion makers accompanies him into the second round is impossible to know. The main thing we should focus on is how all this impacts regular working people and most especially the younger layer of Obama supporters. It is likely to take a while, perhaps quite a long one, before disappointment with his performance crystallizes into opposition to his administration as such. In the meantime, the political axis of broader activity should be around concrete *issues,* such as foreclosures and evictions, raids and deportations, and so on, rather than projecting protests and events pitched in such a way as to inherently incorporate a confrontational, hostile or denunciatory stance towards the administration, as was common under Bush. In the course of actual movements, people will much more readily come to understand what interests Obama is really defending, something that will never happen on a broad scale merely as a result of preaching. Joaquin From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Dec 2 09:48:32 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:48:32 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Kettle of hawks Message-ID: <493566E0.20803@panix.com> Counterpunch, December 2, 2008 Not One Anti-War Voice Obama's Kettle of Hawks By JEREMY SCAHILL Barack Obama has assembled a team of rivals to implement his foreign policy. But while pundits and journalists speculate endlessly on the potential for drama with Hillary Clinton at the state department and Bill Clinton's network of shady funders, the real rivalry that will play out goes virtually unmentioned. The main battles will not be between Obama's staff, but rather against those who actually want a change in US foreign policy, not just a staff change in the war room. When announcing his foreign policy team on Monday, Obama said: "I didn't go around checking their voter registration." That is a bit hard to believe, given the 63-question application to work in his White House. But Obama clearly did check their credentials, and the disturbing truth is that he liked what he saw. The assembly of Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Susan Rice and Joe Biden is a kettle of hawks with a proven track record of support for the Iraq war, militaristic interventionism, neoliberal economic policies and a worldview consistent with the foreign policy arch that stretches from George HW Bush's time in office to the present. Obama has dismissed suggestions that the public records of his appointees bear much relevance to future policy. "Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost," Obama said. "It comes from me. That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing." It is a line the president-elect's defenders echo often. The reality, though, is that their records do matter. We were told repeatedly during the campaign that Obama was right on the premiere foreign policy issue of our day ? the Iraq war. "Six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war at a time when it was politically risky to do so," Obama said in his September debate against John McCain. "Senator McCain and President Bush had a very different judgment." What does it say that, with 130 members of the House and 23 in the Senate who voted against the war, Obama chooses to hire Democrats who made the same judgment as Bush and McCain? On Iraq, the issue that the Obama campaign described as "the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation", Biden and Clinton not only supported the invasion, but pushed the Bush administration's propaganda and lies about Iraqi WMDs and fictitious connections to al-Qaida. Clinton and Obama's hawkish, pro-Israel chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, still refuse to renounce their votes in favour of the war. Rice, who claims she opposed the Iraq war, didn't hold elected office and was not confronted with voting for or against it. But she did publicly promote the myth of Iraq's possession of WMDs, saying in the lead up to the war that the "major threat" must "be dealt with forcefully". Rice has also been hawkish on Darfur, calling for "strik[ing] Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets". It is also deeply telling that, of his own free will, Obama selected President Bush's choice for defence secretary, a man with a very disturbing and lengthy history at the CIA during the cold war, as his own. While General James Jones, Obama's nominee for national security adviser, reportedly opposed the Iraq invasion and is said to have stood up to the neocons in Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, he did not do so publicly when it would have carried weight. Time magazine described him as "the man who led the Marines during the run-up to the war ? and failed to publicly criticise the operation's flawed planning". Moreover, Jones, who is a friend of McCain's, has said a timetable for Iraq withdrawal, "would be against our national interest". But the problem with Obama's appointments is hardly just a matter of bad vision on Iraq. What ultimately ties Obama's team together is their unified support for the classic US foreign policy recipe: the hidden hand of the free market, backed up by the iron fist of US militarism to defend the America First doctrine. Obama's starry-eyed defenders have tried to downplay the importance of his cabinet selections, saying Obama will call the shots, but the ruling elite in this country see it for what it is. Karl Rove, "Bush's Brain", called Obama's cabinet selections, "reassuring", which itself is disconcerting, but neoconservative leader and former McCain campaign staffer Max Boot summed it up best. "I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain," Boot wrote. The appointment of General Jones and the retention of Gates at defence "all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign." Boot added that Hillary Clinton will be a "powerful" voice "for 'neoliberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neoconservativism.'" Boot's buddy, Michael Goldfarb, wrote in The Weekly Standard, the official organ of the neoconservative movement, that he sees "certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush in his second term." There is not a single, solid anti-war voice in the upper echelons of the Obama foreign policy apparatus. And this is the point: Obama is not going to fundamentally change US foreign policy. He is a status quo Democrat. And that is why the mono-partisan Washington insiders are gushing over Obama's new team. At the same time, it is also disingenuous to act as though Obama is engaging in some epic betrayal. Of course these appointments contradict his campaign rhetoric of change. But move past the speeches and Obama's selections are very much in sync with his record and the foreign policy vision he articulated on the campaign trail, from his pledge to escalate the war in Afghanistan to his "residual force" plan in Iraq to his vow to use unilateral force in Pakistan to defend US interests to his posturing on Iran. "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel," Obama said in his famed speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last summer. "Sometimes, there are no alternatives to confrontation." Jeremy Scahill pledges to be the same journalist under an Obama administration that he was during Bill Clinton and George Bush's presidencies. He is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. From mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com Tue Dec 2 10:00:17 2008 From: mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com (Mehmet Cagatay) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:00:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] New Yorker profiles Naomi Klein Message-ID: <267575.48601.qm@web31705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello Gary, Thank you for your response. I didn't read The Shock Doctrine completely. I downloaded it in pdf format and skimmed over the pages for couple of hours. The striking thing is she employs the concept of ideology in the narrowest sense which was identified by Eagleton as "false ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power". And her endeavor is destined to go down the drain not because of the weakness of her book to reveal the horrible crimes of a certain ideology, (which she accomplishes competently) but of the flaw that she misrepresents the concept of ideology. What I mean from ideology is, repeating Althusser, imaginary relations of people with their real conditions of existence. In this sense, you are right, I implied there is no escape from ideology. This is all right, but when the imaginary conception completely distorts the perception of our real conditions there appear ideological illusions that N. Klien appropriated her book to deal with. I compared the procedure of her book with cognitive behavioral therapy since at the end the reader is left with the intolerable reality of his existence but yet is inexplicitly invited to escape from the inescapable (as we all have imagination and existence). If you remember the final scene of the horrible Hollywood movie, Sphere, which also reflects how the modern science approaches to mental disorders, there, after entering an extra-terrestrial sphere and discovering that they've gained the power to materialize their fantasies (of course which led to terrible consequences), at the end our three scientists decides to use their power to forget everything about the sphere since nor subjectively they are neither objectively humanity is ready to deal with that magnificent power: just as how a person suffering from a mental disorder supposedly escapes from the fantasy with the assistance of the authoritative psychiatrist or therapist who has the proper exchange with reality, there, in the final scene, the cure is the question of how to escape from the fantasy before it is materialized and distorts the appropriate conditions of reality. What I suggested was the commonplace Lacanian process: Since there is no escape from the ideology, the only way to deal with its illusions is to identification with the unique ideology that targets to abolish the main cause of modern ideological illusions, i.e. commodity production, private property, etc. To be precise, I suggested everyone, but idiotically in a Marxist mailing list, to work on Marxism if you really intent to escape from your ideological illusions or to confront the strikes of what N. Klein calls as "ideological crusades". I agree that it is a falsification to call Marxism as a narrative and I prefer to say Marxist theoretical practice. Nevertheless, inevitably there is a Marxist narrative, i.e. recurring elements in the literary application of Marxist theory to analysis. As regards to the Obama question and economic crisis, I experience difficulty to understand how our American friends are so optimistic about the stimulating effect of crises. In my thirty years of life, I witness numerous economic crises, (it is an ordinary affair here in Turkey), natural disasters, every form of political corruption and violence etc. etc. But I have never seen an ordinary man possessed by these shocking events and ended up being a socialist. Even myself, I just accidentally found myself reading the Manuscripts despite my initial intention were to read the interviews in Chomsky?s web site. I mean it has started by an accident. Here it is appropriate to recall what Badiou said on education. Knowledge must be organized to make way for an encounter. The problem is, as Zizek points out in the interview, when a shocking event occurs, there already several ideologies present to make sense out of the event. If one doesn't make to with the dominant bourgeois ideology which already makes sense, there is religion whose foremost reason of existence is to make sense out of everything. And it is extremely component in this profession. In other words, in the existent state of affairs knowledge has been organized to prevent any encounter. Here we need Marxist ideology but we need it not for to make sense out of the world but to let us to encounter something that opens the field of truth. What I'm trying to say is, if we leave the ideological battlefield by the reason of our subjective skeptical approach to ideologies, it would be the exact moment that we snatch defeat from the jaws of ideology. Regards, Mehmet ?agatay http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/ From e.c.apling at btinternet.com Tue Dec 2 10:30:02 2008 From: e.c.apling at btinternet.com (Paddy Apling) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:30:02 -0000 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream In-Reply-To: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta> References: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta> Message-ID: <4E67CA8EB3D84AFE9C6B05272E6F6AE0@PaddyPC> Seen from the UK, Joaquin has made his usual succint and very useful appraisal of what can be expected from Obama and how the American left should deal with it - not any constant snioing and gloomy predictionsm but a piecemeal campaigning on particular issues. Excellent. Paddy http://apling.freeservers.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joaquin Bustelo" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 4:04 PM Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream > Rather than insist on beating the dead horse of how his appointments show > just how evil Obama is, I think we should instead focus on why Obama is > having some success in assembling such a broad coalition of ruling class > operatives behind him. And we should be clear in judging this. This "team > of > rivals" is not being assembled so that the vector sum of clashing > tendencies > can write on the tabula rasa of the incoming administration's policy > agenda. > It is being put together to carry out the policies of Obama. > > From jayroth6 at cox.net Tue Dec 2 11:33:55 2008 From: jayroth6 at cox.net (J Rothermel) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:33:55 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Workers TV now online Message-ID: <49357F93.8020402@cox.net> Workers.tv http://www.workers.org/tv/ From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Dec 2 12:42:32 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:42:32 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers Message-ID: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> I just listened to Doug Henwood's interviews with Richard (Lenin's Tomb) Seymour and Bill Ayers at http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html. What a contrast. Richard is erudite and razor-sharp and Ayers is an oozing pile of platitudes. When Doug asks Ayers what he hoped to accomplish by setting off bombs at office buildings (he uses a rather droll formulation: Did you hope to inhibit capital's ability to reproduce itself--totally lost on the leaden Ayers), Ayers replies that the Weathermen were issuing a "screaming warning". At the time Fred Halstead of the SWP described such behavior as a 3 year old lying down on the floor holding his breath until his face turned blue. From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Dec 2 12:48:28 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:48:28 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Frost/Nixon Message-ID: <4935910C.9000905@panix.com> I have no trouble describing ?Frost/Nixon? as the finest Hollywood film I have seen this year just as long as it is understood that the screenplay was written by a Briton named Peter Morgan, who was also responsible for the deliciously snarky ?The Queen?. Although I had no idea that Morgan wrote ?Frost/Nixon?, I was struck immediately by similarities between the two movies as I sat watching it. David Frost is played by Michael Sheen, who was cast as Tony Blair in ?The Queen?. He seems born to play these types of market-driven hollow men. Whether it is hustling votes or viewers, both Blair and Frost were more than happy to sacrifice principle for the bottom line. Sheen makes his appearance early on in the movie in a modish 1970s double-breasted blazer and an ever so phony smile, looking just like a Houston used car lot salesman. As brilliant as Sheen is in his performance, nothing can top Frank Langella?s Nixon, which is about as bravura a display of the acting craft that I have seen in the last 5 years at least. Since the character Richard Nixon invites all sorts of scenery-chewing behavior, it is all the more impressive that Langella is careful to make his Nixon appear much more human, and thusly more repellent. Since the movie was directed by Ron Howard, who I generally associate with hackwork, I was surprised to discover that it had the same kind of crackling energy as ?The Queen?, which was directed by Stephen Frears, a Briton with an obvious flair for this sort of material. full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/frostnixon/ From Dbachmozart at aol.com Tue Dec 2 14:50:18 2008 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:50:18 EST Subject: [Marxism] "managing the foreign policy apparatus not in Obama's hands alone" Message-ID: as to the point that we shouldn't get too bent out of shape because of Obama's picks, and that we should wait and see what he himself does --- an excerpt from today's Democracy Now radio program -- Robert Dreyfuss -- The second point I would make, is that the people of the next levels down at both the State and Defense Department, is going to be very very important. And there is no indication at all the Barack Obama intends to oversee that process. Who Robert Gates keeps on at the Defense Department including some fairly troubling characters in important posts there, is something that we?re going to have to watch very closely., and as well at the state department, whether Hillary Clinton turns to people, including some of the muscular democratic hawks like Richard Holbrooke and in particular Dennis Ross, who is now ensconced at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which is an AIPAC spin-of, and brings these people in to help run the State Department is another big question. So, there?s a lot of aspects of managing a huge foreign policy apparatus that cannot reside in the hands of Barack Obama alone. He is not going to do this, CHANGE WILL NOT COME FROM HIM PERSONALLY EXCEPT IN THE BROADEST OUTLINE. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FOREIGN POLICY IS GOING TO COME FROM THE PEOPLE THAT HE PICKS. ( my caps ). full -- **************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002) From walterlx at earthlink.net Tue Dec 2 15:16:53 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:16:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] BUSINESS DAY interviews Cuban ambassador to South Africa Message-ID: <21682028.1228256213759.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I've stayed out of the current round of discussion on South Africa and the role of the African National Congress in the liberation struggle. It's basically pointless to try to have any responsible discussion with those who argue that conditions in South Africa are WORSE today than they were under the racist apartheid regime. None are so blind as those who refuse to see, but that's about all I really need to say on the subject. Those who argue that conditions in South Africa today are worse than they were under apartheid never respond to the obvious question: If things were better under apartheid, what good was the overthrow of apartheid? The critics never discuss the difference, since they ONLY have negative things to say about South Africa today. Cuba has any number of problems which could easily be overcome if only it would surrender its independence and give up its post-capitalist social and economic system. My opinions have not changed, and Louis has urged subscribers not to debate it again, so I'm not saying more. However, what follows is new material about which I will only make one point: It could not and would not have taken place under the racist apartheid regime, which supported US policy against Cuba, the blockade, and which also was defeated by Cuban and Angolan troops in a military confrontation. There is a qualitative difference in today's South Africa, in terms of its foreign policy. About this, the critics are always mute. Walter Lippmann Los Angeles, California ======================================================= Business Day (South Africa) December 01, 2008 The Exporter Edition The Official Line. Cuba BYLINE: Marja Tuit The Official Line CUBA http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/TarkArticle.aspx?ID=3432894 BUILDING on the diplomatic relations established between Cuba and SA on May 11 1994, ties between the two countries have grown from strength to strength and diversified into many areas of co-operation. spoke to Cuban Ambassador Angel Villa about SA's interest in consolidating, extending and promoting new areas of co-operation with his country in 2009. There has always been a high level of bilateral links and excellent political, economic and diplomatic relations between our countries. How do you see this expanding during 2009? SA and Cuba have maintained long-standing relations, dating back to the struggle against apartheid and colonialism. One of the most significant events in Cuba-SA's historical friendship was the visit paid to Cuba by Nelson Mandela on his release from Robben Island in 1991. Mandela's visit was one of his first foreign trips after his liberation and coincided with the commemoration of the 38th anniversary of one of Cuba's most important dates: July 26. SA and Cuba have a long-standing co-operation, which ranges from the political to economic fields. One of the most significant agreements signed was the establishment of the Joint Bilateral Commission (JBC) in 2001. Following the success of co-operation in the sphere of health - a collaboration that involves Cuban doctors and medical professors working in SA and South African medical students studying in Cuba - national and provincial departments began pursuing diverse projects. The SA-Cuba JBC provides the two countries with a constructive and useful forum through which bilateral co-operation can be conducted and enhanced, particularly in the trade and investments arena, as well as other trilateral co-operation projects. One example was a trilateral agreement between SA and Cuba which resulted in the deployment of more than 100 Cuban doctors in Mali, with financial resources provided by SA. A similar agreement is in place for Rwanda. Other forms of co-operation have ensued with memoranda of understanding signed in the fields of trade and investment, housing construction, water resources, merchant shipping, agriculture, science and technology, education, arts and culture and sports. Also, they firmly support the strengthening of a non-aligned movement (NAM) as a vehicle that developing member countries could use to establish critical consensus around fundamental issues such as poverty alleviation, debt reduction and sustainable development. Cuba also shares SA's sense of urgency at the need to reform the United Nations (UN) system, and the Bretton Woods institutions. Likewise, as a long-time friend and supporter of anti-colonial liberation struggles in Africa, Cuba shares with SA an interest in the African Union (AU) and African initiatives such as the New Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad). SA has maintained throughout the years a position of solidarity toward Cuba, especially through its unwavering support for Cuba's resolution on the US blockade presented every year at the UN and the support given to other initiatives promoted by Cuba in its national capacity and as current NAM chair. At present, 321 Cuban co-operative personnel work in SA in the construction and health sectors, while a total of 436 South African students have graduated on the island. Another 300 students are being trained in Cuba in medicine, education, physical education and sports specialties. On October 29, the UN General Assembly voiced the opinion of the international community on the policy of blockade that the US has imposed on Cuba for nearly 50 years. Direct economic damage resulting from the US blockade has exceeded $93bn. Could you elaborate? For the 17th consecutive year, Cuba has submitted the draft resolution entitled "Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba" on the agenda of the UN General Assembly. There were 185 votes to three, with two abstentions. The 185 votes in favour are almost unanimous proof of the international community's rejection of the genocidal policy of the US government against Cuba. The blockade has a direct impact on our population in a silent, systematic and cumulative manner. The US has ignored the 16 resolutions adopted by the General Assembly calling for the lifting of the blockade against Cuba. In spite of that, Cuba will not surrender. It fights, and will continue to fight, with the conviction that defending our rights today is tantamount to defending the rights of all the peoples represented in the Assembly. As the next US president, Barack Obama will face a list of foreign policy challenges. Do you believe that there will be any change with regard to US relations with Cuba? The new administration must decide if it is maintaining the absurd, illegal and failed policy that has been implemented against Cuba for 50 years. It is up to the US to rectify its policy. Cuba has expressed its availability to discuss bilateral differences without preconditions but on the basis of the respect to the principles of sovereign equality and non-foreign interference in our internal affairs and our independence. How have trade and economic relations improved between our two countries over the past year and do you foresee this growing/expanding in 2009? Since the signing of the General Agreement for Co-operation on February 5 2001, five JBCs have been held - the last one in Cape Town in November 2007. In every JBC there is always the will from both sides to strengthen existing trade and economic co-operation. Both countries have identified that trade and economic relations are critical areas to be improved and 2009 will be an opportunity to advance these. New areas of co-operation, such as ICT, energy saving and biotechnology will contribute to expansion. How can trade and business relationships be fostered further between entrepreneurs in both our countries? The most recent example of this was the participation of a delegation of entrepreneurs, headed by SA's Trade and Industry Minister Mandisi Mpahlwa, to the 26th edition of the International Fair of Havana held at the beginning of November. Cuba has great potential in biotechnology and both sides are working to identify new partners for some of these products. We are currently working together to supply the hepatitis B vaccine. The global financial crisis has spilled from developed economies into emerging markets. How has Cuba been affected by the current economic crisis? Cuba has been affected by the financial crisis. This is the deepest crisis since 1929 and for the first time there is a convergence of five different crises - financial, food, ecological, energy and social - which makes it difficult to find a solution to the economic problems. In recent years Cuba has identified new ways to face world economic problems and to soften the effect of the crisis - for example, Cuba is applying an energy saving programme. How does Cuba view the political situation in SA - i.e. a new president and new political party - and how do you believe it will affect relations between our two countries? The current political situation in SA won't affect the solid relations with Cuba. It is an internal matter that needs to be solved by South African leaders and its people. Embassies interested in participating in this feature during 2009 should contact Marja Tuit at 011 280 5778 or e-mail tuitm at bdfm.co.za Cuban Ambassador Angel Villa ... Surrounded by creature comforts from his homeland. He's effusive about relations between his native country and SA. Picture: TYRONE ARTHUR ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Los Angeles, California Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From lnp3 at panix.com Tue Dec 2 15:20:51 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:20:51 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] "managing the foreign policy apparatus not in Obama's hands alone" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20081202222046.F02C3D3F9@mailbackend.panix.com> >as to the point that we shouldn't get too bent out of shape because >of Obama's picks, and that we should wait and see what he himself >does --- an excerpt from today's Democracy Now radio program -- >Robert Dreyfuss -- I have a feeling that Obama might be getting some heat eventually from an unlikely source, namely Jon Stewart. Although this segment from his Daily Show is directed at MSNBC, it is clear that he is getting tired of Obamania. Who knows,maybe he isn't getting tired. But unlike all the liberal bloggers who are still going on ad nauseam about how dreadful McCain and Palin are, Stewart actually has to earn a living through what he produces. Nothing will induce a deep snooze more than 4 years of Obamania. Trust me. John Stewart: MSNBC is the new Fox News: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/02/jon-stewart-msnbc-is-the_n_147629.html From spalmer999 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 2 16:27:46 2008 From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:27:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Marriage, yes; benefits, no: the marriage oppression In-Reply-To: <4934868B.9040803@gvtel.com> Message-ID: <612014.75869.qm@web81904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> As a fully vested card carrying kneejerk self described Marxist, I offer my thoughts. This is nothing to do with the marriage issue but with the dumbass detriment(NOT benefit) regime which we have to suffer under. * Universal social benefits (health, pension, housing etc) irrespective of relationship status completely sidesteps this nonsense. * Marriage should be stripped of all connection with property and income and become a completely private matter - hey, its all about preserving the 'sancity of marriage' isn't it? No legal restriction on the number or gender of partners involved. * In its place have separate system of partner registration for handling mutual legal obligations. Ditto re number and gender of partners. * Remove any mandatory connection between partnership relations and parental relations. * Extensions of the rights of children so that they can choose alternative parental and living arrangements which suit them and don't have to suffer until the age of majority in the arbitrariness of being forced to be raised by their biological parents. * Reform the absurdly dangerous bourgeois sperm bank model which plays chicken with the genetic fate of the descendants. For a start ... --- On Mon, 12/1/08, David Thorstad wrote: > From: David Thorstad > Subject: [Marxism] Marriage, yes; benefits, no: the marriage oppression > To: "Steve Palmer" > Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 4:51 PM > This item ought, in my view, to give pause to the supporters > of same-sex > marriage, including the kneejerk self-described Marxists on > this list. > The options (e.g., domestic partnerships...) that have been > crafted get > flushed down the toilet when marriage is installed. Case in > point: In > Massachusetts people have been told by large employers to > either get > married or lose benefits for their domestic partners. But > this is all of > a piece with the larger gay fantasy of ?marriage > equality? ? which may > sound good but produces more of the same old status quo. In > New Jersey > after a state domestic partner law had been on the books > for a year, the > leader of the Garden State Equality group trashed the law > as unworkable > despite enabling gays and straights to get kinship > recognition and said, > ?Nothing less than marriage will do.? (The NJ law > applies to same-sexers > 18 yrs and older, different-sexers 65 yrs and up ? > seniors want kinship > but do not want to mess up their pensions and other > matters.) That one > size does not fit all is a lesson lost on such > ?leaders.? These days not > only are many people waiting to get a ball and chain > (?marriage?) but > some use private contracts (prenuptial agreements) to > lighten the > burden. It is time to get marriage off the law books and in > the churches > where it belongs; we need a variety of kinship options > along with social > justice ? single payer health care for all! > I would like to point out also that for all our lives, gays > have been > confronted with the question, "Why aren't you > married?" or "When are you > going to get married?" Now, with the clamor for gay > marriage > (unfortunately abetted enthusiastically by many leftists, > both gay and > straight), we are being asked the same question (coming > from the > opposite angle): "Why aren't you married?" > Many straight people probably > can't appreciate the oppression involved in this > question. But then, > they should stop trying to force the marriage chain on all > same-sexers. > David From sabocat59 at mac.com Tue Dec 2 16:49:51 2008 From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:49:51 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Across the Great Divide Message-ID: Across the Great Divide Say It One Time for the Broken Hearted: Country Soul in the American South By Barney Hoskyns. Bloomsbury (London) 256 pp., $17.24 paper, second edition, 1998 Reviewed by Jesse Walker Quentin Tarantino?s film Jackie Brown begins, to quote the script, with ?the rhythms of funky seventies SOUL MUSIC.? The title character, a middle-aged black woman, glides slowly through a busy airport, as Bobby Womack sings on the soundtrack: Across 110th Street, pimps trying to catch a woman that?s weak Across 110th Street, pushers won?t let the junkie go free. Across 110th Street, woman trying to catch a trick on the street. Across 110th Street, you can find it all in the street The film was released in 1997, but everything about the scene seems to echo the blaxploitation movies of the early ?70s. The woman is played by Pam Grier, star of Coffy, Foxy Brown, and similar pictures of the period. The music comes from Across 110th Street, another low- budget ghetto flick. The scene is set in Los Angeles, and the song is set in Harlem. Nothing about the sequence suggests the American South, unless you distort the term beyond recognition by roping in southern California. Nothing, that is, except the voice in that funky seventies song. Womack was born in Cleveland, but his family?s roots are in Virginia and his music often draws on sources even closer to the Gulf of Mexico. He started his career singing southern gospel music, he played guitar for the Mississippi-born soul pioneer Sam Cooke, and he recorded much of his most memorable work in Memphis, Tennessee, and Muscle Shoals, Alabama. Put that Jackie Brown soundtrack on the stereo, and listen to the way Womack drawls the line ?Been down so long, getting up didn?t cross my mind.? Suddenly it?s easy to imagine him shifting directly from a funk workout like ?Across 110th Street? to a country-music standard. Indeed, on one album?1974?s Looking for a Love Again?he did shift directly from a funk workout (?Don?t Let Me Down?) to a country-music standard (?Copper Kettle?). In 1976 he even released a full-fledged country LP, titled B.W. Goes C and W. In Say it One Time for the Brokenhearted, a detailed survey of the porous boundary between country and soul, the British journalist Barney Hoskyns reports that B.W. Goes C and W was almost released under the title Black in the Saddle Again. Some other names might have been under consideration, too: Womack once told an interviewer that he wanted to call it Step Aside, Charley Pride, Give Another Nigger a Try. ?The drugs were taking over,? he added. Cocaine might explain the record?s rejected title, but there was a more honorable rationale for the record itself. ?I was very sincere about that album,? Womack told Hoskyns, ?but people categorize you and they say wha?? But country and western is my roots, it?s deeply rooted in all my songs and lyrics. My people come from the hills of Virginia and played a lot of it.? * * * In the 1960s, the two giants of soul music were Motown and Stax, independent record labels based in Detroit and Memphis, respectively. Motown?s music usually had a poppy, polished sheen, while Stax had more grit and grits; the producer Jerry Wexler once declared that Motown made music for white middle-class teenagers while Stax made music for black proletarian adults. Yet Motown was owned and operated by blacks, while Stax was initially owned by whites?cofounder Jim Stewart got his start as a country fiddler. Stax?s stars were all black, but the musicians playing behind them could be either black or white. And those black proletarian adults weren?t the only people in its fan base: Many whites bought records by Otis Redding, Sam and Dave, or Booker T. and the MGs. Stax was the premiere label for southern soul music, sometimes called deep soul. It?s a genre whose identity was defined by region at least as much as it was defined by race. Drawing on gospel, blues, and country, it had many outposts besides Memphis, each with a distinctly local sound. Nashville, New Orleans, Houston, Macon: Each produced its own music. Shreveport alone gets six pages in Hoskyns?s tome. And then there was Muscle Shoals, Alabama, the home of FAME Studios and the one town that seriously challenged Memphis? claim to be the capital of southern soul. The cultural historian Charles Hughes once summed up Muscle Shoals? music as ?White rhythm sections combined with integrated horn sections to play on songs by primarily white songwriters sung by black artists, for sale primarily to black audiences (by white-owned record companies)??all made in the deep South in the ?60s and ?70s, a time associated more with racial tension than racial harmony. To hear the most instantly recognizable encapsulation of the Muscle Shoals sound, listen to Aretha Franklin?s first and best hit, 1967?s ?I Never Loved a Man (The Way I Loved You).? Franklin was born in Memphis but raised in Buffalo and Detroit, and her first few albums had been cut in a ?sophisticated? pop style. Then she traveled to Alabama to record some songs at FAME. ?I Never Loved a Man? is slow and earthy; compared to the slick sheen of the Supremes and other northern Motown acts, it sounds bluesy, funky . . . black. But most of the musicians you?re hearing are white. imageHoskyns details the intricate, intimate ways the black and white elements came together in Muscle Shoals: ?discreet but rock-hard bass . . . a sharp, precise snare beat, and a variety of country- style fills on keyboard and guitar?; where a country band would use a steel guitar, the Muscle Shoals musicians added an organ instead. The influences reflected not just the studio?s racial mix but the town?s geographic location. Keyboardist Barry Beckett told Hoskyns that he and his colleagues ?were tied in a kind of triangle that stretched from New Orleans to Memphis to Nashville.? * * * There was one more important ingredient: the radio. Where blacks and whites could not always mingle socially, they could still hear each other?s music on the air. The South bred a generation of black singers who liked country music and white players who loved gospel and the blues. For years they had been influencing each other: Before Elvis Presley was mixing hillbilly music with R&B, Texas Swing bands were crossing hoedowns with big-band jazz; before then Jimmie Rodgers, sometimes called the father of country music, was as comfortable drawing on New Orleans jazz and the 12-bar blues as he was singing ballads about trains and tuberculosis. But now the old social hierarchies were being sanded away, and those blacks and whites who had always cocked an ear toward the music on the other side of the tracks were able to interact as peers. The result was the sonic equivalent of the logo adopted by one of the less famous offshoots of the ?60s New Left, the Southern Student Organizing Committee: black and white hands clasped over a Confederate flag. It was awkward and difficult, and it didn?t always work. Franklin herself fled northwards after cutting just two songs at FAME, swearing she?d never return. That reflected the region, too?though of course you could find such tensions in the North and West as well. Jackie Brown, written and directed by a Tennessee transplant to Los Angeles, is a crime movie, but it?s also a love story; a white bail bondsman and a black flight attendant fall into a romance that?s doomed to fail. Along the way, the white man starts listening to his girlfriend?s favorite music. The film?s most memorable line comes when another black character, played by Samuel Jackson, reacts with surprise to a song playing in the white man?s car: ?I didn?t know you liked the Delfonics.? Not many people remember the flip side of that scene: Jackson sitting alone in his own car, listening to Johnny Cash. Music forges links even when other connections break down. The country-soul and country-funk fusion of the ?60s and ?70s dissipated, and southern music seemed to move in other directions; records that once seemed to express something happening now became fodder for record collectors, European journalists, and crate-digging DJs. But you can?t eliminate the past that easily. Rap in particular has been able to sample and absorb virtually any form of music, southern soul included. Hip hop is also the form of pop most interested in place. In the hands of the rappers, that had meant a horde of boring records about the east side players? plans to beat up the west side boys and vice versa. But sometimes there?s more to the lyrics than that. Consider ?My Old Kentucky Home??not the old Stephen Foster number, but a folky collaboration between the black rappers Nappy Roots and the white rap- rock-country band the Villebillies: I was born here, raised here When I leave here, bury my grave here Until then I?ma ride and drink liquor, Blow Swishers, sit back, collect my thoughts by the river I?m a bluegrass CEO cat Tryin? to get my young homies out the projects Better still, there?s the Bama Boyz? rap rendition of ?Sweet Home Alabama.? It?s built around samples from Lynyrd Skynyrd?s country- rock anthem of the ?70s, but the lyrics are almost entirely new. ?In Birmingham they love the governor? is gone; so, alas, is ?Now Muscle Shoals has got the Swampers / And they?ve been known to pick a song or two.? Instead we get this: ?Ain?t nobody speakin? proper grammar ?round here / It?s deep, but the sound is clear.? The sound won?t be clear if you?re trying to file it in a conventional CD store: It?s rap, rock, and country all at once, with traces of blues and that ?funky seventies SOUL MUSIC? that Tarantino loved. But why get bogged down in conventional genre labels? The sound is clear. It?s the sound of Alabama, black and white. Jesse Walker is managing editor of Reason magazine and author of Rebels on the Air: An Alternative History of Radio in America (NYU Press). From elishastephens at hotmail.com Tue Dec 2 16:58:26 2008 From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:58:26 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Major shift in Cuban-American attitudes Message-ID: The Miami Herald reports: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/story/796455.html In a unprecedented shift in attitude that could affect Cuba policy for the incoming administration of Barack Obama, more than one out of every two Miami-Dade Cuban Americans think the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba should end, according to a new poll released Tuesday.According to the poll, conducted by Florida International University's Institute for Public Opinion Research and funded by the Washington-basked Brookings Institution and Cuba Study Group, 55 percent favor discontinuing the trade embargo imposed in 1962 against the island nation. Sixty-five percent of those polled also favor reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba....Beginning in 1997, results showed a gradual decrease of support for maintaining the embargo. But this year's poll is the first that shows a majority of those surveyed favor lifting it. In 2007, 42 percent of those queried were in favor of ending the trade ban. Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _________________________________________________________________ You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/ From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 19:29:01 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 18:29:01 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Kettle of hawks In-Reply-To: <493566E0.20803@panix.com> References: <493566E0.20803@panix.com> Message-ID: Thanks for posting this Lou. Over at the Guardian there is a particularly nasty attack by Sunny Hundal on John Pilger "What do Ralph Nader, John Pilger and Ayman al-Zawahiri have in common? Before Barack Obama has even taken office or signed a single bill, all three have dismissed him as a sellout by using racial slurs. One might be tempted to say, "at least give the guy a chance," but that would be a futile exercise. The activist Ralph Nader and documentary filmmaker John Pilgerboth referred to him as an "Uncle Tom", while, more recently, al-Qaida No 2 al-Zawahirisaid Obama was "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, and lumped Obama together with Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell as "house slaves". Their implication is the same: as Obama is unlikely to follow their radical agenda, he must be condemned as a stooge of the white man. There would be little point in documenting examples of al-Qaida's own racismagainst black Muslims in favour of Arabs, since it's hardly an organisation with much credibility on human rights. But the attitude offar lefties such as John Pilger is no less pernicious because it highlights a patronising attitude towards ethnic minorities. Pilger expects all black and brown people to be revolutionary brothers and sisters, and if they veer away from that stereotype, it can only be because they are pawns of a wider conspiracy....." I am greatly encouraged by the criticisms of Obama that you have posted. They are a definitie sign of hope. It takes courage for people like Pilger to stand against the tide of Obamamania, but I have high hopes that the criticism will break thourgh the web of illusion spun around the President Elect. My own gut feeling is that yes we will get to a stage when the criticisms of Obama will have critical mass. They certqainly seem to be having that effect even on this list! Comradely regards Gary From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Tue Dec 2 19:42:05 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:42:05 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Zimbabwe gov. defies regional court's support for white farmers Message-ID: In my opinion, the expropriation of the white farmers by the Zimbabwean government deserves to be defended against reversal (as opposed to progressive transformation) regardless of what position one holds as to the continuity of the current Mugabe government. The reform, long demanded by the Zimbabwean people although constantly delayed by the Zimbabwean government in deference to British and US imperialism, was carried out in a panic by the regime to consolidate its popular base. The method seems to have been shaped in part by corruption and patronage. Nonetheless it was a serious blow to a real element of imperialist domination and a genuine survival of settler-colonial rule. Any successor government that simply repudiates this reform in the name of "justice" to the imperialists and settler colonialists cannot have an ounce of stability, no matter what its "democratic" cover story. Supporters of the opposition should, in my opinion, demand acceptance of the reform as a fact and orient not toward restoration but towards agrarian transformation in the interests of the mass of the rural population and the workers. If they can't reject these demands of the imperialists, their right and capacity to rule Zimbabwe as an independent state will be legitimately in question, putting it mildly. Fred Feldman December 2, 2008 World Briefing | Africa Zimbabwe: Court's Land Ruling Defied By BARRY BEARAK The government has rejected a ruling by an African regional court that ordered the return of land confiscated from 78 white farmers, the state-run newspaper The Herald said. Didymus Mutasa, the minister in charge of land reform, was quoted as saying that a tribunal empowered by the 15-nation Southern African Development Community was "daydreaming" if it thought the government would comply. That was a cold splash of reality for farmers who had been rejoicing since Friday's judgment. President Robert Mugabe's government seized the land of 4,600 farmers in the past decade, creating upheaval that most analysts say sent Zimbabwe's economy into the free fall it suffers today. From sartesian at earthlink.net Tue Dec 2 20:29:45 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 22:29:45 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Zimbabwe gov. defies regional court's support for whitefarmers References: Message-ID: What occurred in Zimbabwe has occurred before in other countries, some with right-wing, some with left-wing, some with military, some with Bonapartist and quasi- bonapartist figures, all covering their left while walking right, by initiating land expropriations, agrarian reforms, etc. only of course to have those efforts die in place as none of the revolutionary mechanisms required to support such "reforms" or "seizures" are put into place. The MNR in Bolivia initiated an extensive reform in 1953, one which obviously was pretty unsuccessful-- and Barrientos, after the overthrow of the MNR built a peasant-military alliance to disable, isolate, the Bolivian miners and the workers' organizations. Goni's first regime (93-97) in Bolivia actually pre-figured Morales' crusade to rewrite the constitution and legitimize the agrarian rights of the indigenous people, passing in 1996 Law 1715 recognizing and protecting the rights of the indigenous people to communal land ownership; exempting small and communal properties from land taxes, and from foreclosure. The law also defined the basis for state seizure and redistribution of land to indigenous peoples, and recognized TCOs, --economic, but not administrative or governmental, formations of landed property belonging to the original communities. It was in fact this law that was essentially repassed under Morales in November 2006, was used as the basis for , and provoked such fear and dread on the part of the media lunas, the distributions that have already taken place. Of course, the 1953 reform plan of the MNR, an attempt to create a peasantry that would morph into yeoman farming, failed, and propulation pressures caused the subdividing and subdividing of the individual allotments only increasing the rural povery of the already rural poor. As for Goni's law-- well the World Bank provided a grant of about $27 million in 1995-6 to get the program started, and begin "regularization" of land titles in order to create a transparent and accurate cadastre, catalogue of land ownerships, areas, fertility, and values to "stimulate" the supply of credit, service, and technique necessary to "market farming" of small proprietors and provide a "rational," i.e. legal, basis for land titles to permit redistribution. After 10 years, the results for the actual redistribution were, in the WB's own words, "moderately unsuccessful." As for the regularization of land titles, estimates are that only 19% of the 110 million hectares to be reviewed and regularized actually completed the process in 9 years. Mugabe's redistribution is of different stuff than the MNR's and Goni's, with similar results -- more than moderately unsuccessful, with no support available for actually organizing agricultural production despite expropriations. Certainly no Marxist would advocate giving the land back to the wealthy white farmers. But what Mugabe has done in no way shape or form counts as even agrarian reform, much less revolutionary reorganization. The issue of agricultural production is too important to be left to "nationalists," "reformers" and to those who think "land to the tiller" can resolve, or even start to resolve, the problems and limits of rural private property. This, the organization of rural property and production, is one of the, if not the, most complicated problem confronting any revolution and requires the most revolutionary, innovative, solutions. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Feldman" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 9:42 PM Subject: [Marxism] Zimbabwe gov. defies regional court's support for whitefarmers From ethanyoung at earthlink.net Tue Dec 2 20:44:51 2008 From: ethanyoung at earthlink.net (Ethan Young) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 22:44:51 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers Message-ID: <19679471.1228275891689.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> As one who thrilled to Ayers's antics in 1969 and disdained the SWP's antiwar mmvmt strategy, I do declare that Fred Halstead has certainly gotten more right on since his death. ey >I just listened to Doug Henwood's interviews with Richard (Lenin's Tomb) Seymour and Bill Ayers at http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html. What a contrast. Richard is erudite and razor-sharp and Ayers is an oozing pile of platitudes. When Doug asks Ayers what he hoped to accomplish by setting off bombs at office buildings (he uses a rather droll formulation: Did you hope to inhibit capital's ability to reproduce itself--totally lost on the leaden Ayers), Ayers replies that the Weathermen were issuing a "screaming warning". At the time Fred Halstead of the SWP described such behavior as a 3 year old lying down on the floor holding his breath until his face turned blue. From Dbachmozart at aol.com Tue Dec 2 20:50:13 2008 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 22:50:13 EST Subject: [Marxism] A near-riot and parliament besieged: Iceland boiling mad at credit crunch Message-ID: A near-riot and parliament besieged: Iceland boiling mad at credit crunch by Omar Valdimarsson <_http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11155_ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11155) > _Global Research_ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/) , November 25, 2008 The Scotesman Thousands of Icelanders have demonstrated in Reykjavik to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Geir Haarde and Central Bank governor David Oddsson, for failing to stop the country's financial meltdown. It was the latest in a series of protests in the capital since October's banking collapse crippled the island's economy. At least five people were injured and Hordur Torfason, a well-known singer in Iceland and the main organiser of the protests, stated that the protests would continue until the government stepped down. As crowds gathered in the drizzle before the Althing, the Icelandic parliament, on Saturday, Mr Torfason said: "They don't have our trust and they are no longer legitimate." The value of the Icelandic krona has been cut in half since January. Four Nordic countries, as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have pledged to lend the country a combined $4.6 billion to help revive its deflated economy. The loan would be the first by the IMF to a Western nation since 1976. One young man climbed on to the balcony of the Althing building, where the president appears upon inauguration and on Iceland's national day, and hung a banner reading: "Iceland for Sale: $2,100,000,000" ? the amount of the loan the country is getting from the IMF. A separate group of 200-300 people gathered in front of the city's main police station, throwing eggs and demanding the release of a young protester being held there. Police in riot gear used pepper spray to drive back an attempt to free the protester during which several windows at the police station were shattered. The pro-tester was later released after his fine was paid. As daylight began to wane, demonstrators drifted away into the nearby coffee shops. Here, as currency tumbles, the price of a cup of coffee has shot up by about one-third since before the crisis struck. The demonstrators accuse the government ? elected last year ? of not doing enough to regulate the banking industry and have called for early elections. Iceland's next election is not required until 2011. Opposition parties tabled a no-confidence motion in the government on Friday over its handling of the crisis, but the motion carries little chance of toppling the ruling coalition which has a solid parliamentary majority. Gudrun Jonsdottir, a 36-year-old office worker, said: "I've just had enough of this whole thing. I don't trust the government, I don't trust the banks, I don't trust the political parties, and I don't trust the IMF. "We had a good country and they ruined it." BACKGROUND ICELAND'S three biggest banks ? Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir ? collapsed under the weight of billions of dollars of debts accumulated in an aggressive overseas expansion, shattering the country's currency. Iceland's government seized control of all three institutions in early October. This week, the North Atlantic island nation, which has a population of only 320,000, secured a package of more than US$10 billion (about ?6.7 billion) in loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and several European countries to help it rebuild its shattered financial system. Despite the intervention, however, Iceland still faces a sharp economic slowdown and surging job losses while at least one-third of Icelanders are also at risk of losing their homes and life savings. Geir Haarde, the Icelandic prime minister, has promised that the government will use the IMF money to bring back a flexible interest rate scheme and rewrite financial laws, particularly legislation relating to insolvency. Iceland was the first country to ask the IMF for help as the turmoil in the credit markets in October hit home. The UK government used anti-terrorism legislation to freeze money deposited by UK savers in Icelandic banks in order to ensure that their money was protected. **************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002) From Dbachmozart at aol.com Tue Dec 2 21:04:52 2008 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 23:04:52 EST Subject: [Marxism] =?utf-8?b?Q0VPcyDigJxjYXNoZWQgb3V04oCdIHByaW9yIHRvIGVj?= =?utf-8?q?onomic_crisis?= Message-ID: by Tom Eley _Global Research_ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/) , December 1, 2008 _World Socialist Web Site_ (http://www.wsws.org/) - 2008-11-28 Balzac?s maxim that ?behind every great fortune lies a great crime? may yet prove a fitting epitaph for American capitalism. A recent survey by the Wall Street Journal reveals that CEOs at major US financial and real estate firms converted tens of millions of dollars of overvalued stock into cash prior to the eruption of the current financial crisis, even as many of their corporations approached the precipice. The Journal analyzed the fortunes of CEOs from 2003 to 2007 based on executive compensation and stock sale data. Fifteen of these CEOs took home more than $100 million in cash during this period. At the high end was Charles Schwab, who made over $816 million from his self-named accounting firm, almost all of it from stock sales. Of the 120 publicly traded firms the Journal analyzed, CEOs cashed out a total of more than $21 billion. However, data was gathered only from publicly traded companies, and thus does not include similar fortunes that have been made by ?hedge fund chiefs, Wall Street traders, and executives who sold their companies outright.? Nor did it include data related to exit packages, the multimillion-dollar ?golden parachutes? awarded to retiring or fired executives. full -- <_http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11229_ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11229) > **************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002) From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 21:46:27 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:46:27 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] "managing the foreign policy apparatus not in Obama's hands alone" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear DBM, It is not at all a matter of getting bent out of shape. It is a question of raising a howl of anger which will make the enemy back off. What with this, "Give them time strategy?" It is so foolish. Rage is what is needed now not patience. Don't you see that any illusion At all in Obama and the Democrativ Party is dangerous? Have we learnt nothing from history? There will be bending out of shape and that will come from the hammer blows levelled against the working class. regards Gary From markalause at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 22:03:27 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:03:27 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Kettle of hawks In-Reply-To: References: <493566E0.20803@panix.com> Message-ID: Gary MacLennan wrote: > > My own gut feeling is that yes we will get to a stage when the criticisms of > Obama will have critical mass. They certqainly seem to be having that effect > even on this list! > Here's the essence of the problem, I think. When I think of something like a critical mass, I think of it materialist terms...that you reach a point where something happens. We're agreed that we can talk about critical mass in terms of changing perceptions in the real world. But what could be meant by a "critical mass" on an email list? Do we get to a certain point and have the electrons of everyone whose surname begins with "S" start forming a chorus line and kick there way across the monitor? All the impressive posturing on an email list means nothing in terms of breaking down illusions. We're the same people and sort of people who were here having this discussion a year ago. I'd be so much more impressed with the jawboning in cyberspace if it aimed at reaching anybody new... I mean, there's absolutely no reason I can see that there wasn't an antiwar demonstration called in the middle of the election cycle. And I have no idea why one isn't in the works right now. ML From mjs at smithbowen.net Tue Dec 2 22:10:21 2008 From: mjs at smithbowen.net (Michael Smith) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:10:21 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Kettle of hawks In-Reply-To: References: <493566E0.20803@panix.com> Message-ID: <20081203001021.0a7e9e39@crashcart> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:03:27 -0500 "Mark Lause" wrote: > I mean, there's absolutely no reason I can see that there wasn't an > antiwar demonstration called in the middle of the election cycle. > > And I have no idea why one isn't in the works right now. But that's been the burden of our song, hasn't it? One of the big reasons these things haven't happened is that so many of the people who might have made them happen were obsessed with electing Obie instead. Just like '04, when the same non-learners were obsessed with electing Kerry. -- Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org From walterlx at earthlink.net Tue Dec 2 23:03:41 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:03:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] NYT: Odetta, Voice of Civil Rights Movement, Dies at 77 Message-ID: <13660519.1228284221433.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> 20 minute video: "The Last Word" http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/arts/20081203_odetta.html?hp ====================================================================== December 3, 2008 Odetta, Voice of Civil Rights Movement, Dies at 77 By TIM WEINER http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/arts/music/03odetta.html Odetta, the singer whose deep voice wove together the strongest songs of American folk music and the civil rights movement, died Tuesday. She was 77. The cause was heart disease, said her manager, Doug Yeager. He added that she had been hoping to sing at Barack Obama?s inauguration. Odetta ? she was born Odetta Holmes ? sang at coffeehouses and Carnegie Hall and released several albums, becoming one of the most widely known and influential folk-music artists of the 1950s and 60s. Her voice was an accompaniment to the black-and-white images of the freedom marchers who walked the roads of Alabama and Mississippi and the boulevards of Washington in quest of an end to racial discrimination. Rosa Parks, the woman who started the boycott of segregated buses in Montgomery, Ala., was once asked which songs meant the most to her. She replied, ?All of the songs Odetta sings.? Odetta sang at the August 1963 march on Washington, a pivotal event in the civil rights movement. Her song that day was ?O Freedom,? dating back to slavery days. Born in Birmingham on Dec. 31, 1930, Odetta Holmes spent her first six years in the depths of the Depression. The music of that time and place ? in particular prison song and work songs recorded in the fields of the deep South ? shaped her life. ?They were liberation songs,? she said in a videotaped interview with The New York Times in 2007, for its online feature ?The Last Word.? ?You?re walking down life?s road, society?s foot is on your throat, every which way you turn you can?t get from under that foot. And you reach a fork in the road and you can either lie down and die, or insist upon your life.? Her father, Reuben Holmes, died when she was young; she and her mother, Flora Sanders, who later remarried, moved to Los Angeles in 1937. Three years later, Odetta discovered she could sing. ?A teacher told my mother that I had a voice, that maybe I should study,? she recalled. ?But I myself didn?t have anything to measure it by.? She found her own voice by listening to blues, jazz and folk music from the African-American and Anglo-American traditions. She earned a music degree from Los Angeles City College. Her training in classical music and musical theater was ?a nice exercise, but it had nothing to do with my life,? she said. ?The folk songs were ? the anger,? she emphasized. In a 2005 National Public Radio interview, she said: ?School taught me how to count and taught me how to put a sentence together. But as far as the human spirit goes, I learned through folk music.? In 1950, Odetta began singing professionally in a West Coast production of the musical ?Finian?s Rainbow,? but she found a stronger calling in the bohemian coffeehouses of San Francisco. ?We would finish our play, we?d go to the joint, and people would sit around playing guitars and singing songs and it felt like home,? she said in the 2007 interview with The Times. She began singing in nightclubs, cutting a striking figure with her guitar and her close-cropped hair. (She noted late in life that she was one of the first black performers in the United States to wear an ?Afro? hairstyle ? ?they used to call it ?the Odetta,? ? she said.) Her voice plunged deep and soared high, and her songs blended the personal and the political, the theatrical and the spiritual. Her first solo album, ?Odetta Sings Ballads and Blues,? resonated with an audience hearing old songs made new. ?The first thing that turned me on to folk singing was Odetta,? Bob Dylan said, referring to that record, in a 1978 interview with Playboy . He said he heard ?something vital and personal. I learned all the songs on that record.? It was her first, and the songs were ?Mule Skinner,? ?Jack of Diamonds,? ?Water Boy,? ? ?Buked and Scorned.? Her blues and spirituals led directly to her work for the civil-rights movement. They were two rivers running together, she said in her interview with The Times. The words and music captured ?the fury and frustration that I had growing up.? They were heard by the people who were present at the creation of the civil rights movement, people who ?heard on the grapevine about this lady who was singing these songs.? She played countless benefits; the money she raised underwrote the work of keeping the movement alive. Her fame hit a peak in 1963, when she marched with Martin Luther King in Selma and performed for President John F. Kennedy. But after King was assassinated in 1968, the wind went out of the sails of the civil-rights movement and the songs of protest and resistance that had been the movement?s soundtrack. Odetta?s fame flagged for years thereafter. She recorded fewer records, although she performed on stage as a singer and an actor, during the 1970s and 1980s. She revived her career in the 1990s, and thereafter appeared regularly on ?A Prairie Home Companion,? the popular public-radio show. In 1999 she recorded her first album in 14 years, and that year President Bill Clinton awarded her the National Endowment for the Arts Medal of the Arts and Humanities from. In 2003 she received a ?Living Legend? tribute from the Library of Congress and the Kennedy Center Visionary Award. Odetta was married three times: to Don Gordon, to Gary Shead, and, in 1977, to the blues musician Iverson Minter, known professionally as Louisiana Red. The first marriages ended in divorce; Mr. Minter moved to Germany in 1983 to pursue his performing career. She was singing and performing well into the 21st century, and her influence stayed strong through the decades. In April 2007, half a century after Mr. Dylan heard her, she was onstage at a Carnegie Hall tribute to Bruce Springsteen. She turned one of his songs, ?57 Channels,? into a chanted poem, and Mr. Springsteen came out from the wings to call it ?the greatest version? of the song he had ever heard. Reviewing a December 2006 performance, James Reed of the Boston Globe wrote: ?Odetta?s voice is still a force of nature ? something commented upon endlessly as folks exited the auditorium ? and her phrasing and sensibility for a song have grown more complex and shaded.? The critic called her ?a majestic figure in American music, a direct gateway to bygone generations that feel so foreign today.? . ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Los Angeles, California Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 01:00:21 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:00:21 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Kettle of hawks In-Reply-To: <20081203001021.0a7e9e39@crashcart> References: <493566E0.20803@panix.com> <20081203001021.0a7e9e39@crashcart> Message-ID: I think I have one more post left and I want to use it answering Joaquin's as always subtle piece. Look I think Mark and I are talking past each other. I believe he is trying to head off criticism of Obama. I think that is a totally stupid strategy. He thinks I am posturing and into self-gratification by criticising Obama. He also says no one is listening and this is only an email list so it doesn't matter. Well that piece of vulgar materialism aside, if this is only an email list and no one is listening then why what is the harm in having it out what Obama is and what the full meaning of the absolute scum baggery of a team he has put together? I am not substituting this criticism for action - that is nonsense. But we will need to think out Obama and cut thru the spin and the illusions before we can get any action. I always put it this way. There could not have been a Wat Tyler without a John Ball. The simple couplets "When Adam delved and Eve span/ Who was then the gentleman?" inspired and legitimated the revolt. In other words there came into being a dialectical relationship between the narratology of Ball's sermons and the impoverishment and resentment of the peasantry. So I think this list is important. It of course cannot substitute for the Revolutionary Party, but in our era the revolution will have a strong digital element. Anyway as I said before we need to use every forum at our command. Now is the time to speak out loud and clearly and honestly what Obama is and what the Democratic party is and how it will always serve capital. When I hear the words "unity and sacrifice" coming from a bourgeois politician I know we are in a zero sum game now and it looks like capital has determined that the kissing has to stop. We should be responding accordingly. comradely regards Gary From aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm Wed Dec 3 01:42:23 2008 From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm (Aaron Aarons) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:42:23 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> Message-ID: <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> At 14:42 -0500 2008/12/02, Louis Proyect wrote: >I just listened to Doug Henwood's interviews with Richard (Lenin's Tomb) Seymour and Bill Ayers at http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html. > >What a contrast. Richard is erudite and razor-sharp and Ayers is an oozing pile of platitudes. When Doug asks Ayers what he hoped to accomplish by setting off bombs at office buildings (he uses a rather droll formulation: Did you hope to inhibit capital's ability to reproduce itself--totally lost on the leaden Ayers), Did the organizers of the great peace crawls "hope to inhibit capital's ability to reproduce itself"? Hardly likely, since they weren't even anti-capitalist, and they didn't call for the defeat of U.S. imperialism. There was a war going in -- an imperialist war of aggression against the people of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. It was right and proper for those who identified with the victims of imperialist aggression to carry out military actions against legitimate targets in the imperialist heartland, or anywhere on the planet (or off) where such targets could be successfully attacked. >Ayers replies that the Weathermen were issuing a "screaming warning". I never did like the W.U.'s political rhetoric, and thought it was self-important and a turn-off, but I celebrated then, as I do now, every act of violence or sabotage against the U.S. ruling class, especially if it doesn't hurt INNOCENT people. >At the time Fred Halstead of the SWP described such behavior as a 3 year old lying down on the floor holding his breath until his face turned blue. What a stupid comparison! If you want to use a similar analogy, it's like a 3 year old trying to stop the man raping his sister by hitting him with a plastic spatula, rather than stabbing him with a knife. The W.U.'s greatest failing, aside from its dumb rhetoric, was its unwillingness to kill even the most deserving criminals. But the greatest failing was of people like me, who lacked the moxie to do even as much as they did. If I had the necessary courage and, more important, the ability to function coherently in non-verbal activities, I'd be writing pacifist screeds while planting bombs and assassinating warmakers. - Aaron At 22:44 -0500 2008/12/02, Ethan Young wrote: >As one who thrilled to Ayers's antics in 1969 and disdained the SWP's antiwar mmvmt strategy, I do declare that Fred Halstead has certainly gotten more right on since his death. Really! We've had Halsteadian peace marches for the last 7 years and they've done nothing to interfere with the U.S. crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and in their dungeons around the world. From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 01:47:59 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:47:59 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream In-Reply-To: <4E67CA8EB3D84AFE9C6B05272E6F6AE0@PaddyPC> References: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta> <4E67CA8EB3D84AFE9C6B05272E6F6AE0@PaddyPC> Message-ID: In the name of sweet Jezzuss Kriest and his holy mother now we have Paddy joining the Obamatrons. What in the name of all that is radical is wrong with "sniping" at Obama and the Democratic Party? What are we supposed to do? Throw bloody flowers or sit quietly hoping for the best? And since when did it become "gloomy" to predict that no good will come from bourgeois politicians and the Democratic Party?. It is quite possible that the bastards have already destroyed the basis for human life on this planet. I do not think so because I don't want to. But that is the kind of scum we are dealing with. I could also go on about the wars that the Democratic Party has waged and I could also mention Obama's intention to continue that tradition. Would that be gloomy predictionism? Puh..leeze wake up Paddy and smell the shit that is being assembled as Obama's team. Now for Comrade Joaquin... Firstly this > Rather than insist on beating the dead horse of how his appointments show > just how evil Obama is,,,, The horse is of course not a horse and besides nothing is at all dead. The criticism of Obama is alive and desperately needed. It does not preclude action on evictions etc. Indeed it is a necessary but not sufficient precursor to action. What we are trying to do is to cut thru the web of glamour and illusion that has grown up around Obama and has millions in thrall. My own opinion is that he has made an early mistake by not catering to the liberals who so want to be illusioned; the true believers who so want to march under his banner. Instead Obama has treated these same wannabes with contempt and has served up not only the same old shit but the same flies to boot. Joaquin wants us to stop saying this. Why would any revolutionary want an end to cricitism of the likes of Volcker? And Paddy says "excellent"... I am reminded here of the scene in the *Life of Brian*, where he turns to his followers and tells them to fuck off and they absolutely refuse to be disillusioned. He couldn't possibly mean it. Now no one has described Obama as "evil". No one on this list that is. However if I lived in Afghanistan or Palestine and saw my children slaughtered by the drones that he will order into action as Commander in Chief then I would use the "evil:" word and no apologies either. The absolutely cold hard truth is that by appointing Hilary Clinton, Obama has passed a death sentence on Arabs & Afghanis and others who oppose American Imperialism. No metaphor about dead horses or sleight of word can wipe that away. And Paddy says "excellent"... More Joaquin > It [the team] is being put together to carry out the policies of Obama. Here we have it. Obama beginning to sense some dismay and disillusionment with the truly awful line up that he has put on the field, tells us not to worry that he will set policy. And Joaquin says exactly the same. The Marxist echo. So this is the source of hope. We should remain illusioned for a while longer. Just as the followers of Brian were able to persuade themselves that he did not mean "fuck off" when he said it, so now we are asked to believe that Obama does not mean it when he called up Gates, Jones, Clinton, Emmanuel, Rubin, Volcker, Summers etc. And Paddy says "excellent".... comradely regards Gary > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/gary.maclennan1%40gmail.com > From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Wed Dec 3 03:17:53 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:17:53 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Mahmood Mamdani on how land reform -- however flawed -- helped keep Mugabe in power Message-ID: <077F28CFE2F947F2BFB2F121F54B4CE8@office1pc> -----Original Message----- From: GreenLeft_discussion at yahoogroups.com [mailto:GreenLeft_discussion at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Bond Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:21 PM To: GreenLeft_discussion at yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [GreenLeft_discussion] Mahmood Mamdani on how land reform -- however flawed -- helped keep Mugabe in power Mahmood Mamdani is an inspiring intellectual and political writer, one of Africa's greatest ever. But I think there are a few points worth debating. > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n23/mamd01_.html > Lessons of Zimbabwe Mahmood Mamdani > ... His > policies have helped lay waste the country's economy, though sanctions > have played no small part A deeper capitalist malaise engulfed Zimbabwe since around 1974, the year that per capita wealth began to decline, based on overaccumulation of capital and, by the time of structural adjustment in the early 1990s, a turn to the speculative/parasitical mode of not only capital accumulation but also state management. These are not Mugabe's 'policies', but problems all state managers have faced, nearly everywhere in the world. Mugabe had much more leverage - because politically he is a dictator - to adopt a unique zig-zag technique between market liberalisation, crony-capitalist corruption and state interventions, leaving Zimbabwe with the highest inflation ever recorded in human history, at a time neighbouring states' inflation was declining substantially due to more pure versions of neoliberalism. In comparison to such processes, 'sanctions' have played a very small part in the present manifestation of this long crisis. (I try to spell out the long crisis argument here: http://www.nu.ac.za/ccs/files/Bond%20Zimbabwe%27s%20Long%20Economic%20Crisis .pdf ) > ... it gives us little sense of how Mugabe has managed to survive. For > he has ruled not only by coercion but by consent, and his land reform > measures, however harsh, have won him considerable popularity, not > just in Zimbabwe but throughout southern Africa. This sort of phraseology is confusing. Mugabe's 'popularity' within the electorate at election time is less than half, and has been since 2000 (assuming that his voters are genuinely free to cast their ballots, which they are not). Elections Mugabe supposedly 'won' - such as June 28 2008 - have not been free and fair, and coercion has been characteristic of his rule, especially in rural areas where pro-opposition forces (e.g. pro-MDC teachers) have been bullied and in many cases disappeared or killed. His land reform measures were 'harsh' - to a few thousand white farmers yes, but mainly to millions of black peasants and urban workers now starving or unable to buy food, and hundreds of thousands of rural farmworkers - not to those outside Zimbabwe who support him (who remain well-fed). Hence the middle-ground phrasing Mamdani employs here sets the tone for a false balance. > ... My abiding recollection of > my first few months back is that no one I met opposed Amin's expulsion > of 'Asians'. Most merely said: 'It was bad the way he did it.' The > same is likely to be said of the land transfers in Zimbabwe. Is this an appropriate comparison? The 4000 whites who controlled the bulk of good Zimbabwe land included beneficiaries of the historic colonial theft, while others bought into the system by purchasing farms after independence. Most had vast swathes of underutilised land, but many were extremely productive, using racially-exclusive networks for inputs and marketing, especially to growing international markets during the 1990s liberalisation era. Helter skelter, they were all removed; a few hundred remained on their farms through the late 2000s because they cut deals with local elites or in some rare cases, had the support of neighbouring Communal Area constituencies for whom they provided services. Rather than confuse matters with the Uganda comparison (which related mainly to urban Asians and those in commercial circuits), the following is more 'likely to be said' of the situation prevailing in February 2000: * land transfers to the majority were necessary and long overdue, since the free market model agreed at Lancaster and in subsequent World Bank loans wasn't working (nor was it meant to), and since structural adjustment had generated vast profits for tobacco, horticultural and other (mainly white) agro-exporters while peasants lost economic ground during the 1990s (a point important for understanding what fueled so much resentment against wealthy white farmers); * Mugabe used his defeat in the national constitutional referendum of February 2000 as a pretense for War Vet invasions of white farms (especially after white farmers were shown on tv writing cheques to the opposition); * Mugabe allowed far too many of his cronies to get good farms (even a state investigating commission conceded), and didn't set up proper ag support systems for those millions of landless who should have benefited from redistribution, leading to a huge decline in agricultural output, food aid dependency on Western donors and NGO distributors, and the prospect now of mass starvation (points Mamdani skirts). > What distinguishes Mugabe and Amin from other authoritarian rulers is > not their demagoguery but the fact that they projected themselves as > champions of mass justice and successfully rallied those to whom > justice had been denied by the colonial system. There are a wide variety of such rulers who used a fake anti-imperialism and anti-neocolonialism to rally support, from Marcos in the Philippines to the Argentine generals back to the characters Frantz Fanon described in Wretched of the Earth in 1961. It's an old trick. > ...The people of Zimbabwe are likely to remember 2000-3 as the end of > the settler colonial era. Any assessment of contemporary Zimbabwe > needs to begin with this sobering fact. Sounds good, but is it really a 'fact'? Just as much a 'fact' are perceptions that: * 2000-03 was the moment when - reminiscent of the early/mid-1980s in Matabeleland - Mugabe used brutal violence against his opponents, terrorising the society and vindicating those who claimed Mugabe's rule would necessarily end in dictatorship, hence leaving the early 2000s the definitively 'exhausted' state of Mugabe's ultra-nationalism (insofar as it stopped delivering goods and instead switched to coercion); * 'settler colonialism' easily transformed into post-settler neocolonialism nearly everywhere, and Zimbabwe is no exception, for while the society may now have only a quarter (or even less) of its former peak of white inhabitants, the economy is still oriented to activities that, if not controlled by white Zimbabweans or white South Africans or white Brits, mimics that control through compliant local black ownership - in finance, commerce, mining and residual manufacturing especially (while a preponderance of white senior managers remains). (There follow some contentious points on land reform, which I'll leave to others to rebut. I'm most concerned that Mamdani amplifies what can be considered Mugabe's greatest myth: economic destruction and inflation unprecedented in recorded human history is due to 'sanctions'.) > ... When international donors pressured the regime in the run-up to > the parliamentary elections of 2000 by suspending aid and loans ? a > boycott favoured by the MDC and the unions Not true; the only sanctions the MDC has publicly advocated are 'smart sanctions' - personal bank account freezes and travel bans on about 150 ZanuPF and state officials. The MDC and most in civil society have formally opposed western-style sanctions. On rare occasions - such as the prevention of weapons transfers from a Chinese ship in April by labour and church leaders here in Durban - the oppositional forces in Zimbabwe have expressed support for specific sanctions. > ... The best publicised casualties of the land reform movement were > the urban poor who hoped to benefit from extending land invasions to > urban areas. There was a huge disconnect between what was happening in the countryside, and the city, so that this sentence is misleading: > The veterans spearheaded occupations of urban residential land in 2000-1. > Housing co-operatives and other associations followed their lead and > set up 'illegal' residential or business sites. The housing coop movement was firmly established by the mid-1990s and did not follow the War Vet lead - but instead joined hundreds of thousands of atomistic urban residents in setting up illegal or informal economic activities and residential situations in the overcrowded, underhoused cities. They did so in an incremental way beginning in the 1980s, hence there were an estimated 700 000 people whose shelter and livelihoods were destroyed by Operation Murambatsvina, including Mugabe supporters. > But the state feared that it would > lose control over towns to the MDC if the land reform movement was > allowed to spread This is an unusual formulation, one I've never heard in discussions about Murambatsvina. Mugabe had a simple rationale for invoking Murambatsvina: demonisation/intimidation of opposition supporters (and even, by accident, some of his own urban supporters). There was no 'land reform' rhetoric here. > and met these occupations with stiff repression, including Operation > Restore Order/ Murambatsvina, a surprise military-style intervention > in 2005 in which tens of thousands of families were evicted. > Not surprisingly, those who opposed land reform in rural areas were > the strongest critics of government efforts to stifle occupations in > urban areas. Another unusual formulation. If this barb is aimed at white farmers, US/British diplomats and the world's conservative media, it is technically true. If it is aimed at those in civil society who consistently supported poor people *both* through radical land reform (minus the problems caused by Mugabe's rural ploys starting in 2000) and through 'rights to the city' projects such as informalisation of survival activity, then it's misplaced. > ... Zimbabwe has been the target of Western sanctions twice in the > last 50 years: once after UDI in 1965 (very 'soft' > sanctions, which did not stop the country becoming the second most > industrialised in sub-Saharan Africa by the mid-1970s) A few words on the sanctions against Ian Smith's Rhodesia, which not only 'did not stop' the fastest growth in the world from 1966-74 (9.5%/annum), but caused such growth, since sanctions were the basis for import substitution (the following is from my book Uneven Zimbabwe): Overcapacity had been the rule across industry prior to UDI, with capacity utilisation down to below 60% in 1962 (Ramsey, 1974; Davies, 1982). What was particularly important about how that capacity was taken up during UDI was the extraordinary flexibility shown both by capitalists (who organised an extension of product lines largely on the basis of existing plant and equipment prior to 1970) and by black workers who adapted to the initial skills shortage caused by early 1960s white emigration, and to the new production demands. Rhodesia suddenly produced its own breakfast cereals, cube sugar, high quality furniture, lollipop sticks, canned asparagus, bird seed, fifteen varieties of hair shampoo, ten different hand cleaners, five lipsticks, seven varieties of swimming pool paints, and ten varieties of pet foods. These corresponded to a vast expansion in local industrial production units (ie, with ten or more workers) from 665 at UDI to 1,036 five years later, as the number of different products increased from 1,059 in 1967 to 3,837 in 1970. > and again after > Zimbabwe's entry into the Congo war in August 1998. Zimbabwe's > involvement in the war was not well received in the West. The difficult task here is to sort out what factors were in play at what points. In 1998 Mugabe was supporting Laurent Kabila (who came to power in part through mining interests), and his own allies' and generals' personal interests in that process are well documented. No doubt some geopolitical factors related to control over the eastern DRC were also in play, with the US lining up with Uganda and Rwanda for medium-term control of the region's resources. But Mamdani forgets that the IMF explicitly *allowed* huge financial transfers from within the Zimbabwe fiscus to the war (so long as cuts in other programmes paid for it), and expressed much more concern about a new set of economic policies, 'Zimprest' (the following from my coauthored book Zimbabwe's Plunge): introduction of selective price controls, increased tariffs, import licensing on some goods, procrastination in meeting regional liberalisation targets, pegging of the exchange rate, suspension of foreign currency accounts, introduction of new export incentives and application of new levies on tobacco and consumer goods. Although five major parastatals were privatised, a more rapid sell-off of state assets was postponed. The Value Added Tax, on the cards since the World Bank began pressing hard in 1996, was also delayed. The IMF sent a high-level team to negotiate the disbursement of a US$53 million loan (which in turn would release another US$800 million from other lenders). There was a confused flurry in early 1999, when Mugabe sought funding elsewhere than the IMF. The IMF?s Zimbabwe objectives were straightforward: reversal of both the luxury import tax and price controls on staple foods. According to Michael Nowak, the IMF official controlling a US$53 million loan tranche, "There are two issues outstanding and these have stopped the IMF from making the standby credit available to the country. These issues are, one, we want the government to reduce the tariffs slapped on luxury goods last September, and secondly, we also want the government to give us a clear timetable as to when and how they will remove the price controls they have imposed on some goods." Later in 1999, the IMF agreed to increase the loan amount to US$200 million. But according to an IMF official, yet more conditions emerged, namely, access to classified Democratic Republic of Congo war information and a commitment to pay new war expenditure from the existing budget: ?The Zimbabweans felt offended, shocked, but they all the same agreed to give us the information, we got all the clarification we wanted. They had no choice... We have had assurances [that] if there is budgetary overspending, there will be cuts in other budget sectors.? A final deal arranged in August 1999 also compelled the Zimbabwe Reserve Bank to restore foreign currency accounts to local corporations. The deal soon fell apart, however, when Mugabe?s government violated several provisions. > Participants in the donor > conference for Zimbabwe that year were decidedly lukewarm about > committing funds. As they had been since 1980. > Britain announced a review of arms sales to Zimbabwe and, after the > conference, again disclaimed any responsibility for funding land reform. Again, nothing new. The US also ended their military flirtation with the Zimbabwe army in the late 1990s. > The > following year the IMF suspended lending to Zimbabwe, By then, Mugabe had stopped paying IMF loans back, and was violating several of the neoliberal conditions placed on earlier loans. > while the US and the > UK decided to fund the labour movement, led by the ZCTU, first to > oppose constitutional change and then to launch the MDC as a > full-fledged opposition party. International donor support for the ZCTU's more conservative initiatives was nothing new (I was a victim of one such process when the US labour movement's Solidarity Center told the ZCTU - then run by Tsvangirai - to stop working with me on various projects). > Its enemies have claimed that, by the late 1990s, the ZCTU was > dependent on foreign sources for two-thirds of its income. But that would probably also be true of many labour movements in Africa, especially when the manufacturing base and industrial workforce had been so dramatically reduced by structural adjustment. > Once 'fast-track' land reform began in 2000, the Western donor > community shut the door on Zimbabwe. There were other factors in play here, too: the uptick in state repression, Mugabe's zigzagging away from neoliberal economic policies, and a sense that Mugabe would soon lose to Tsvangirai in an election. But a great deal more donor aid continued to flow during the 2000s; the door was not shut, by any means. US AID in particular was prolific in sending out its food support, replete with branding logos all over the maize bags and cooking oil tins. > The sanctions regime, led by the US and Britain, was elaborate, tested > during the first Iraq war and then against Iran. The only real US sanctions were the smart sanctions against the elites. Instead of imposing genuine economic sanctions, George W. Bush left Zimbabwe to his 'point man' (sic), Thabo Mbeki. > In 2001 Jesse Helms, > previously a supporter of UDI, sponsored the Zimbabwe Democracy and > Economic Recovery bill (another sponsor was Hillary Clinton) and it > became law in December that year. Part of the act was a formal > injunction on US officials in international financial institutions to > 'oppose and vote against any extension by the respective institution > of any loan, credit or guarantee to the government of Zimbabwe'. In > autumn 2001 the IMF had declared Zimbabwe 'ineligible to use the > general resources of the IMF' and removed it from the list of > countries that could borrow from its Poverty and Growth Facility. In > 2002, it issued a formal declaration of non-co-operation with Zimbabwe > and suspended all technical assistance. Surprisingly, Mamdani does not mention the most profound reason for the IMF's above decisions: Mugabe's failure to repay overdue loans. Moreover, when in 2005-06, Mugabe (egged on by Mbeki) tried to clear $210 million in extreme arrears (with more than $1 billion in other arrears to the IMF and World Bank still outstanding), he had not put in place neoliberal economic policies required by the IMF for ongoing support. My own understanding is that at no time did the US have to exercise the veto over IMF loans it has been notorious for in other cases. The 'sanctions' Mamdani describes were simply not a factor - Mugabe had himself imposed sanctions on himself by not repaying the Bretton Woods Institutions starting in 1999, and by adopting non-neoliberal economic policies. In any case, 'sanctions' by the Bretton Woods Institutions should be no barrier to a country's growth, if it is managed properly, as Argentina showed after its 2002 default on $130 billion in foreign loans including IMF loans - following which it led Latin America in recovery from the 'lost' 1980s-90s neoliberal era. > ... sanctions mainly affect the lives of ordinary people. Where is the evidence for this? > Gideon Gono, governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, wrote recently > that the country's foreign exchange reserves had declined from $830 > million, representing three months' import cover in 1996, to less than > one month's cover by 2006. These statistics have nothing to do with 'sanctions', but instead reflect the abuse of the forex control system by Gono. Zimbabwe has had the third worst outflow of capital flight, of any country in Africa (only Nigeria and Angola have suffered a higher proportion of their GDP moving abroad, illegally, since the mid-1970s, according to the most rigorous study - by Ndikumana and Boyce of U.Mass-Amherst), not to mention ubiquitous luxury good imports for Mugabe's cronies. > Total foreign payments arrears increased from $109 million at the end > of 1999 to $2.5 billion at the end of 2006. As the Jubilee movement (locally represented by the Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development) repeatedly requested, Mugabe stopped repaying foreign loans, starting in 1999. But instead of Mugabe following a principled strategy linked to other Third World leaders in a debtors' cartel, as Jubilee South (and Nyerere and Castro) advocated, there was a simple reason: Mugabe ran out of forex. In 1998, Zimbabwe paid more in debt servicing than any country in the world (as a percentage of GDP) aside from Brazil and Burundi. Having stopped repaying - except for the silly strategy of partial IMF repayments in 2005-06 - naturally arrears increased dramatically. The Jubilee movement was disgusted by the 2005-06 repayment, and advocates that Zimbabwe's entire foreign debt - $5 billion + - be repudiated, and indeed declared 'Odious Debt' in international law, since the vast majority of people who suffered because of those loans (which mainly funded the 1990s structural adjustment destruction of the economy and social wage) were not properly consulted by the Mugabe regime. > Foreign direct investment had shrunk from $444.3 million in 1998 to > $50 million in 2006. The Zimbabwe economy has been the fastest-shrinking in the world, so this is only to be expected - it's not a sign of sanctions. > Donor support, even to sectors vital to popular welfare, such as > health and education, was at an all-time low. Danish support for the > health sector, > $29.7 million in 2000, was suspended. Swedish support for education > was also suspended. What Mamdani fails to note here, is the systematic abuse of aid - both in day-to-day activities (as the World Development Movement and ActionAid have documented) and also in Zimbabwe where forex used for aid has been systematically abused by the central bank and government departments. > The US issued travel warnings, blocked food aid during the heyday of > land reform and opposed Zimbabwe's application to the Global Fund to > Fight Aids ? the country has the fourth highest infection rate in the > world. > Though it was renewed in 2005, the Zimbabwe grant is meagre. Widescale abuse of donor funds (including in the health sector) is one reason for this low Global Fund grant level - not sanctions. The opposition has systematically opposed Western sanctions against Zimbabwe (aside from smart sanctions), and even last week called for increased humanitarian aid to deal with the worsening food and health crises. There are a great many providers of humanitarian aid, as well as NGOs, ready to supply the Zim countryside with food and other services - but Mugabe has systematically prevented them from operating. > ... > Nonetheless, it was clear that support for Zanu-PF was higher [in > 2005] than in the > pre-fast-track elections of 2000. Given how widespread electoral fraud was in 2005, nothing is 'clear' about support for the ruling party. Most important was the March 2008 election in which Mugabe conclusively lost the presidency, by his own admission because it was such an obvious fact, one that even weeks of delay in issuing the results could not disguise. > ... Namibia, Nigeria and the South African observer team, which had > monitored the elections, concluded that the result was legitimate. These were extremely contentious findings (in 2005), which left these observers utterly discredited. Quite simply, the 2005 election showed once again that African elites (from Windhoek, Abuja, Pretoria) could readily support other African elites (in Harare) - against the mass of Zimbabweans. > ... > The experience of land reform in Zimbabwe has set alarm bells ringing > in South Africa Unfortunately, this is an exaggeration. The alarm bells tinkled once or twice in 2001 at the World Conference Against Racism and in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which were the debut and high point of the Landless People's Movement. The LPM was subsequently destabilised, and tragically, there is presently no rural South African social movement with the weight necessary to raise an alarm bell that the Zimbabwe experience will be repeated. > ... In South Africa especially, the upheaval and bitterness felt > in Zimbabwe seems to suggest that the 'Malaysian path' to peaceful > redistribution and development is not inevitable. Everyone in South Africa awaits discovery of an 'Malaysian path', because the present neoliberal government has a different roadmap of redistribution from poor to rich, and followed this path very successfully, moving SA up the rankings of the world's most unequal countries, and pushing SA's population far down the Human Development Index rankings. > An anxious South Africa > and less powerful members of the Southern Africa Development Community > tend > to feel that sanctions, along with other destabilising policies > pursued by > the West against Zimbabwe, have only made matters worse. What proof is there of 'anxious' South African and other SADC leaders' 'feeling' on this matter? SADC's leaders showed their respect for democracy in Zimbabwe in mid-November in Sandton, when they willfully misread the political situation so as to favour Mugabe, advocating a shared ministry of home affairs (with no other comments on 10 other contested ministries), an unworkable and inequitous arrangement which the MDC rejected. > ... South Africa's non-confrontational policy vis-?-vis Mugabe ? > which Mbeki pursued despite mounting criticism from the ANC and the > unions > in South Africa ? along with its provision of fuel and electricity to its > northern neighbour, set it at odds with Western governments. Which Western government has publicly suggested SA cut off fuel and electricity to Zimbabwe? None have cut off any trade of their own to Zimbabwe (aside from arms - which Pretoria and China supply Mugabe liberally), so how would they argue for fuel/electricity sanctions? > ... many activists and intellectuals, for the most part > progressives, have aligned themselves with distant or long-standing > enemies > in an effort to dislodge an authoritarian government clinging to power on > the basis of historic grievances about the colonial theft of land. > Symbolic > of this was the refusal by Cosatu-affiliated unions to unload a cargo of > Chinese arms destined for Zimbabwe when the *An Yue Jiang* sailed into > Durban in April. Symbolic of alignment with long-standing enemies? What happened in April was that a local progressive church leader, Bishop Rubin Phillip (whose political roots are in the black consciousness movement) and the anti-Mugabe SA trade union movement together raised the alarm about three million bullets and crates of guns moving from Durban to Harare, and prevented the unloading there and across the region (and they were assisted by a lawyer based at Open Society's regional arm). The most important alliance is only just beginning now, people-people solidarity across the Limpopo River. After the xenophobia attacks on tens of thousands of Zimbabweans here in May-June, this is ever more crucial to note. I don't know of any 'alliance' between progressive activists (like Phillip or Cosatu) and 'long-standing enemies'. Just because both may want to see the end of Mugabe's reign, doesn't mean there is an alliance or alignment. > The arguments, which are not new, turn on questions of nationalism and > democracy, pitting champions of national sovereignty and state > nationalism > against advocates of civil society and internationalism. One group > accuses > the other of authoritarianism and self-righteous intolerance; The left critique of Mugabe is the same you find in Fanon's chapter on Pitfalls of National Consciousness, and highlights crony capitalism and compradorism. Mugabe would happily again be the Bretton Woods Institutions' fair-haired boy if he could squeeze sufficient surpluses from his society to do so (in 1995 he was considered the best African implementer of structural adjustment, winning a 'highly satisfactory' label from the World Bank for helping to destroy large swathes of the productive economy and shrinking the social wage). > it replies > that its critics are wallowing in donor largesse. That is a problem, to be sure. > ... Nationalists have been able to withstand civil society-based > opposition, reinforced by Western sanctions, because they are > supported by > large numbers of peasants. The military/police are a rather more important source of support than the peasants, Mamdani would surely concede. > ... In the wake of Mbeki's resignation as president of South Africa it > is vital that this > agreement remains in place. Perhaps this is the most bizarre sentence. Land reform will again be needed in Zimbabwe, to dislodge Mugabe's cronies who have merely taken over existing plantations. But land aside, the September 15 agreement is a disaster in many other respects, as it combines the worst of both worlds: looming neoliberalism if the business faction of the MDC influences economic policy (the MDC gets the finance ministry), and ongoing crony capitalism through Mugabe's extensive patronage system within the Zim state; plus a relegitimised repressive arm of the state for those in civil society who would protest the new elite transition. Fortunately, it's so very bad that civil society have persuaded progressives within the MDC not to accept the deal. The main problem is that with all the elite negotiating going on, there's really no Plan B for popular insurrection. And Mahmood Mamdani's otherwise politically inspiring work does not help the Zimbabwean people there, at all. From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Wed Dec 3 03:42:53 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:42:53 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Patrick Bond reply to Mamdani (was: Mahmood Mamdani on how land reform -- however flawed -- helped keep Mugabe in power) Message-ID: <1FE1516FD5204EA998C7275F341531F6@office1pc> I picked this up from the Green Left list, and thought it should be available here. Fred Mahmood Mamdani is an inspiring intellectual and political writer, one of Africa's greatest ever. But I think there are a few points worth debating. > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n23/mamd01_.html > Lessons of Zimbabwe Mahmood Mamdani > ... His > policies have helped lay waste the country's economy, though sanctions > have played no small part A deeper capitalist malaise engulfed Zimbabwe since around 1974, the year that per capita wealth began to decline, based on overaccumulation of capital and, by the time of structural adjustment in the early 1990s, a turn to the speculative/parasitical mode of not only capital accumulation but also state management. These are not Mugabe's 'policies', but problems all state managers have faced, nearly everywhere in the world. Mugabe had much more leverage - because politically he is a dictator - to adopt a unique zig-zag technique between market liberalisation, crony-capitalist corruption and state interventions, leaving Zimbabwe with the highest inflation ever recorded in human history, at a time neighbouring states' inflation was declining substantially due to more pure versions of neoliberalism. In comparison to such processes, 'sanctions' have played a very small part in the present manifestation of this long crisis. (I try to spell out the long crisis argument here: http://www.nu.ac.za/ccs/files/Bond%20Zimbabwe%27s%20Long%20Economic%20Crisis .pdf ) > ... it gives us little sense of how Mugabe has managed to survive. For > he has ruled not only by coercion but by consent, and his land reform > measures, however harsh, have won him considerable popularity, not > just in Zimbabwe but throughout southern Africa. This sort of phraseology is confusing. Mugabe's 'popularity' within the electorate at election time is less than half, and has been since 2000 (assuming that his voters are genuinely free to cast their ballots, which they are not). Elections Mugabe supposedly 'won' - such as June 28 2008 - have not been free and fair, and coercion has been characteristic of his rule, especially in rural areas where pro-opposition forces (e.g. pro-MDC teachers) have been bullied and in many cases disappeared or killed. His land reform measures were 'harsh' - to a few thousand white farmers yes, but mainly to millions of black peasants and urban workers now starving or unable to buy food, and hundreds of thousands of rural farmworkers - not to those outside Zimbabwe who support him (who remain well-fed). Hence the middle-ground phrasing Mamdani employs here sets the tone for a false balance. > ... My abiding recollection of > my first few months back is that no one I met opposed Amin's expulsion > of 'Asians'. Most merely said: 'It was bad the way he did it.' The > same is likely to be said of the land transfers in Zimbabwe. Is this an appropriate comparison? The 4000 whites who controlled the bulk of good Zimbabwe land included beneficiaries of the historic colonial theft, while others bought into the system by purchasing farms after independence. Most had vast swathes of underutilised land, but many were extremely productive, using racially-exclusive networks for inputs and marketing, especially to growing international markets during the 1990s liberalisation era. Helter skelter, they were all removed; a few hundred remained on their farms through the late 2000s because they cut deals with local elites or in some rare cases, had the support of neighbouring Communal Area constituencies for whom they provided services. Rather than confuse matters with the Uganda comparison (which related mainly to urban Asians and those in commercial circuits), the following is more 'likely to be said' of the situation prevailing in February 2000: * land transfers to the majority were necessary and long overdue, since the free market model agreed at Lancaster and in subsequent World Bank loans wasn't working (nor was it meant to), and since structural adjustment had generated vast profits for tobacco, horticultural and other (mainly white) agro-exporters while peasants lost economic ground during the 1990s (a point important for understanding what fueled so much resentment against wealthy white farmers); * Mugabe used his defeat in the national constitutional referendum of February 2000 as a pretense for War Vet invasions of white farms (especially after white farmers were shown on tv writing cheques to the opposition); * Mugabe allowed far too many of his cronies to get good farms (even a state investigating commission conceded), and didn't set up proper ag support systems for those millions of landless who should have benefited from redistribution, leading to a huge decline in agricultural output, food aid dependency on Western donors and NGO distributors, and the prospect now of mass starvation (points Mamdani skirts). > What distinguishes Mugabe and Amin from other authoritarian rulers is > not their demagoguery but the fact that they projected themselves as > champions of mass justice and successfully rallied those to whom > justice had been denied by the colonial system. There are a wide variety of such rulers who used a fake anti-imperialism and anti-neocolonialism to rally support, from Marcos in the Philippines to the Argentine generals back to the characters Frantz Fanon described in Wretched of the Earth in 1961. It's an old trick. > ...The people of Zimbabwe are likely to remember 2000-3 as the end of > the settler colonial era. Any assessment of contemporary Zimbabwe > needs to begin with this sobering fact. Sounds good, but is it really a 'fact'? Just as much a 'fact' are perceptions that: * 2000-03 was the moment when - reminiscent of the early/mid-1980s in Matabeleland - Mugabe used brutal violence against his opponents, terrorising the society and vindicating those who claimed Mugabe's rule would necessarily end in dictatorship, hence leaving the early 2000s the definitively 'exhausted' state of Mugabe's ultra-nationalism (insofar as it stopped delivering goods and instead switched to coercion); * 'settler colonialism' easily transformed into post-settler neocolonialism nearly everywhere, and Zimbabwe is no exception, for while the society may now have only a quarter (or even less) of its former peak of white inhabitants, the economy is still oriented to activities that, if not controlled by white Zimbabweans or white South Africans or white Brits, mimics that control through compliant local black ownership - in finance, commerce, mining and residual manufacturing especially (while a preponderance of white senior managers remains). (There follow some contentious points on land reform, which I'll leave to others to rebut. I'm most concerned that Mamdani amplifies what can be considered Mugabe's greatest myth: economic destruction and inflation unprecedented in recorded human history is due to 'sanctions'.) > ... When international donors pressured the regime in the run-up to > the parliamentary elections of 2000 by suspending aid and loans ? a > boycott favoured by the MDC and the unions Not true; the only sanctions the MDC has publicly advocated are 'smart sanctions' - personal bank account freezes and travel bans on about 150 ZanuPF and state officials. The MDC and most in civil society have formally opposed western-style sanctions. On rare occasions - such as the prevention of weapons transfers from a Chinese ship in April by labour and church leaders here in Durban - the oppositional forces in Zimbabwe have expressed support for specific sanctions. > ... The best publicised casualties of the land reform movement were > the urban poor who hoped to benefit from extending land invasions to > urban areas. There was a huge disconnect between what was happening in the countryside, and the city, so that this sentence is misleading: > The veterans spearheaded occupations of urban residential land in 2000-1. > Housing co-operatives and other associations followed their lead and > set up 'illegal' residential or business sites. The housing coop movement was firmly established by the mid-1990s and did not follow the War Vet lead - but instead joined hundreds of thousands of atomistic urban residents in setting up illegal or informal economic activities and residential situations in the overcrowded, underhoused cities. They did so in an incremental way beginning in the 1980s, hence there were an estimated 700 000 people whose shelter and livelihoods were destroyed by Operation Murambatsvina, including Mugabe supporters. > But the state feared that it would > lose control over towns to the MDC if the land reform movement was > allowed to spread This is an unusual formulation, one I've never heard in discussions about Murambatsvina. Mugabe had a simple rationale for invoking Murambatsvina: demonisation/intimidation of opposition supporters (and even, by accident, some of his own urban supporters). There was no 'land reform' rhetoric here. > and met these occupations with stiff repression, including Operation > Restore Order/ Murambatsvina, a surprise military-style intervention > in 2005 in which tens of thousands of families were evicted. > Not surprisingly, those who opposed land reform in rural areas were > the strongest critics of government efforts to stifle occupations in > urban areas. Another unusual formulation. If this barb is aimed at white farmers, US/British diplomats and the world's conservative media, it is technically true. If it is aimed at those in civil society who consistently supported poor people *both* through radical land reform (minus the problems caused by Mugabe's rural ploys starting in 2000) and through 'rights to the city' projects such as informalisation of survival activity, then it's misplaced. > ... Zimbabwe has been the target of Western sanctions twice in the > last 50 years: once after UDI in 1965 (very 'soft' > sanctions, which did not stop the country becoming the second most > industrialised in sub-Saharan Africa by the mid-1970s) A few words on the sanctions against Ian Smith's Rhodesia, which not only 'did not stop' the fastest growth in the world from 1966-74 (9.5%/annum), but caused such growth, since sanctions were the basis for import substitution (the following is from my book Uneven Zimbabwe): Overcapacity had been the rule across industry prior to UDI, with capacity utilisation down to below 60% in 1962 (Ramsey, 1974; Davies, 1982). What was particularly important about how that capacity was taken up during UDI was the extraordinary flexibility shown both by capitalists (who organised an extension of product lines largely on the basis of existing plant and equipment prior to 1970) and by black workers who adapted to the initial skills shortage caused by early 1960s white emigration, and to the new production demands. Rhodesia suddenly produced its own breakfast cereals, cube sugar, high quality furniture, lollipop sticks, canned asparagus, bird seed, fifteen varieties of hair shampoo, ten different hand cleaners, five lipsticks, seven varieties of swimming pool paints, and ten varieties of pet foods. These corresponded to a vast expansion in local industrial production units (ie, with ten or more workers) from 665 at UDI to 1,036 five years later, as the number of different products increased from 1,059 in 1967 to 3,837 in 1970. > and again after > Zimbabwe's entry into the Congo war in August 1998. Zimbabwe's > involvement in the war was not well received in the West. The difficult task here is to sort out what factors were in play at what points. In 1998 Mugabe was supporting Laurent Kabila (who came to power in part through mining interests), and his own allies' and generals' personal interests in that process are well documented. No doubt some geopolitical factors related to control over the eastern DRC were also in play, with the US lining up with Uganda and Rwanda for medium-term control of the region's resources. But Mamdani forgets that the IMF explicitly *allowed* huge financial transfers from within the Zimbabwe fiscus to the war (so long as cuts in other programmes paid for it), and expressed much more concern about a new set of economic policies, 'Zimprest' (the following from my coauthored book Zimbabwe's Plunge): introduction of selective price controls, increased tariffs, import licensing on some goods, procrastination in meeting regional liberalisation targets, pegging of the exchange rate, suspension of foreign currency accounts, introduction of new export incentives and application of new levies on tobacco and consumer goods. Although five major parastatals were privatised, a more rapid sell-off of state assets was postponed. The Value Added Tax, on the cards since the World Bank began pressing hard in 1996, was also delayed. The IMF sent a high-level team to negotiate the disbursement of a US$53 million loan (which in turn would release another US$800 million from other lenders). There was a confused flurry in early 1999, when Mugabe sought funding elsewhere than the IMF. The IMF?s Zimbabwe objectives were straightforward: reversal of both the luxury import tax and price controls on staple foods. According to Michael Nowak, the IMF official controlling a US$53 million loan tranche, "There are two issues outstanding and these have stopped the IMF from making the standby credit available to the country. These issues are, one, we want the government to reduce the tariffs slapped on luxury goods last September, and secondly, we also want the government to give us a clear timetable as to when and how they will remove the price controls they have imposed on some goods." Later in 1999, the IMF agreed to increase the loan amount to US$200 million. But according to an IMF official, yet more conditions emerged, namely, access to classified Democratic Republic of Congo war information and a commitment to pay new war expenditure from the existing budget: ?The Zimbabweans felt offended, shocked, but they all the same agreed to give us the information, we got all the clarification we wanted. They had no choice... We have had assurances [that] if there is budgetary overspending, there will be cuts in other budget sectors.? A final deal arranged in August 1999 also compelled the Zimbabwe Reserve Bank to restore foreign currency accounts to local corporations. The deal soon fell apart, however, when Mugabe?s government violated several provisions. > Participants in the donor > conference for Zimbabwe that year were decidedly lukewarm about > committing funds. As they had been since 1980. > Britain announced a review of arms sales to Zimbabwe and, after the > conference, again disclaimed any responsibility for funding land reform. Again, nothing new. The US also ended their military flirtation with the Zimbabwe army in the late 1990s. > The > following year the IMF suspended lending to Zimbabwe, By then, Mugabe had stopped paying IMF loans back, and was violating several of the neoliberal conditions placed on earlier loans. > while the US and the > UK decided to fund the labour movement, led by the ZCTU, first to > oppose constitutional change and then to launch the MDC as a > full-fledged opposition party. International donor support for the ZCTU's more conservative initiatives was nothing new (I was a victim of one such process when the US labour movement's Solidarity Center told the ZCTU - then run by Tsvangirai - to stop working with me on various projects). > Its enemies have claimed that, by the late 1990s, the ZCTU was > dependent on foreign sources for two-thirds of its income. But that would probably also be true of many labour movements in Africa, especially when the manufacturing base and industrial workforce had been so dramatically reduced by structural adjustment. > Once 'fast-track' land reform began in 2000, the Western donor > community shut the door on Zimbabwe. There were other factors in play here, too: the uptick in state repression, Mugabe's zigzagging away from neoliberal economic policies, and a sense that Mugabe would soon lose to Tsvangirai in an election. But a great deal more donor aid continued to flow during the 2000s; the door was not shut, by any means. US AID in particular was prolific in sending out its food support, replete with branding logos all over the maize bags and cooking oil tins. > The sanctions regime, led by the US and Britain, was elaborate, tested > during the first Iraq war and then against Iran. The only real US sanctions were the smart sanctions against the elites. Instead of imposing genuine economic sanctions, George W. Bush left Zimbabwe to his 'point man' (sic), Thabo Mbeki. > In 2001 Jesse Helms, > previously a supporter of UDI, sponsored the Zimbabwe Democracy and > Economic Recovery bill (another sponsor was Hillary Clinton) and it > became law in December that year. Part of the act was a formal > injunction on US officials in international financial institutions to > 'oppose and vote against any extension by the respective institution > of any loan, credit or guarantee to the government of Zimbabwe'. In > autumn 2001 the IMF had declared Zimbabwe 'ineligible to use the > general resources of the IMF' and removed it from the list of > countries that could borrow from its Poverty and Growth Facility. In > 2002, it issued a formal declaration of non-co-operation with Zimbabwe > and suspended all technical assistance. Surprisingly, Mamdani does not mention the most profound reason for the IMF's above decisions: Mugabe's failure to repay overdue loans. Moreover, when in 2005-06, Mugabe (egged on by Mbeki) tried to clear $210 million in extreme arrears (with more than $1 billion in other arrears to the IMF and World Bank still outstanding), he had not put in place neoliberal economic policies required by the IMF for ongoing support. My own understanding is that at no time did the US have to exercise the veto over IMF loans it has been notorious for in other cases. The 'sanctions' Mamdani describes were simply not a factor - Mugabe had himself imposed sanctions on himself by not repaying the Bretton Woods Institutions starting in 1999, and by adopting non-neoliberal economic policies. In any case, 'sanctions' by the Bretton Woods Institutions should be no barrier to a country's growth, if it is managed properly, as Argentina showed after its 2002 default on $130 billion in foreign loans including IMF loans - following which it led Latin America in recovery from the 'lost' 1980s-90s neoliberal era. > ... sanctions mainly affect the lives of ordinary people. Where is the evidence for this? > Gideon Gono, governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, wrote recently > that the country's foreign exchange reserves had declined from $830 > million, representing three months' import cover in 1996, to less than > one month's cover by 2006. These statistics have nothing to do with 'sanctions', but instead reflect the abuse of the forex control system by Gono. Zimbabwe has had the third worst outflow of capital flight, of any country in Africa (only Nigeria and Angola have suffered a higher proportion of their GDP moving abroad, illegally, since the mid-1970s, according to the most rigorous study - by Ndikumana and Boyce of U.Mass-Amherst), not to mention ubiquitous luxury good imports for Mugabe's cronies. > Total foreign payments arrears increased from $109 million at the end > of 1999 to $2.5 billion at the end of 2006. As the Jubilee movement (locally represented by the Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development) repeatedly requested, Mugabe stopped repaying foreign loans, starting in 1999. But instead of Mugabe following a principled strategy linked to other Third World leaders in a debtors' cartel, as Jubilee South (and Nyerere and Castro) advocated, there was a simple reason: Mugabe ran out of forex. In 1998, Zimbabwe paid more in debt servicing than any country in the world (as a percentage of GDP) aside from Brazil and Burundi. Having stopped repaying - except for the silly strategy of partial IMF repayments in 2005-06 - naturally arrears increased dramatically. The Jubilee movement was disgusted by the 2005-06 repayment, and advocates that Zimbabwe's entire foreign debt - $5 billion + - be repudiated, and indeed declared 'Odious Debt' in international law, since the vast majority of people who suffered because of those loans (which mainly funded the 1990s structural adjustment destruction of the economy and social wage) were not properly consulted by the Mugabe regime. > Foreign direct investment had shrunk from $444.3 million in 1998 to > $50 million in 2006. The Zimbabwe economy has been the fastest-shrinking in the world, so this is only to be expected - it's not a sign of sanctions. > Donor support, even to sectors vital to popular welfare, such as > health and education, was at an all-time low. Danish support for the > health sector, > $29.7 million in 2000, was suspended. Swedish support for education > was also suspended. What Mamdani fails to note here, is the systematic abuse of aid - both in day-to-day activities (as the World Development Movement and ActionAid have documented) and also in Zimbabwe where forex used for aid has been systematically abused by the central bank and government departments. > The US issued travel warnings, blocked food aid during the heyday of > land reform and opposed Zimbabwe's application to the Global Fund to > Fight Aids ? the country has the fourth highest infection rate in the > world. > Though it was renewed in 2005, the Zimbabwe grant is meagre. Widescale abuse of donor funds (including in the health sector) is one reason for this low Global Fund grant level - not sanctions. The opposition has systematically opposed Western sanctions against Zimbabwe (aside from smart sanctions), and even last week called for increased humanitarian aid to deal with the worsening food and health crises. There are a great many providers of humanitarian aid, as well as NGOs, ready to supply the Zim countryside with food and other services - but Mugabe has systematically prevented them from operating. > ... > Nonetheless, it was clear that support for Zanu-PF was higher [in > 2005] than in the > pre-fast-track elections of 2000. Given how widespread electoral fraud was in 2005, nothing is 'clear' about support for the ruling party. Most important was the March 2008 election in which Mugabe conclusively lost the presidency, by his own admission because it was such an obvious fact, one that even weeks of delay in issuing the results could not disguise. > ... Namibia, Nigeria and the South African observer team, which had > monitored the elections, concluded that the result was legitimate. These were extremely contentious findings (in 2005), which left these observers utterly discredited. Quite simply, the 2005 election showed once again that African elites (from Windhoek, Abuja, Pretoria) could readily support other African elites (in Harare) - against the mass of Zimbabweans. > ... > The experience of land reform in Zimbabwe has set alarm bells ringing > in South Africa Unfortunately, this is an exaggeration. The alarm bells tinkled once or twice in 2001 at the World Conference Against Racism and in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which were the debut and high point of the Landless People's Movement. The LPM was subsequently destabilised, and tragically, there is presently no rural South African social movement with the weight necessary to raise an alarm bell that the Zimbabwe experience will be repeated. > ... In South Africa especially, the upheaval and bitterness felt > in Zimbabwe seems to suggest that the 'Malaysian path' to peaceful > redistribution and development is not inevitable. Everyone in South Africa awaits discovery of an 'Malaysian path', because the present neoliberal government has a different roadmap of redistribution from poor to rich, and followed this path very successfully, moving SA up the rankings of the world's most unequal countries, and pushing SA's population far down the Human Development Index rankings. > An anxious South Africa > and less powerful members of the Southern Africa Development Community > tend > to feel that sanctions, along with other destabilising policies > pursued by > the West against Zimbabwe, have only made matters worse. What proof is there of 'anxious' South African and other SADC leaders' 'feeling' on this matter? SADC's leaders showed their respect for democracy in Zimbabwe in mid-November in Sandton, when they willfully misread the political situation so as to favour Mugabe, advocating a shared ministry of home affairs (with no other comments on 10 other contested ministries), an unworkable and inequitous arrangement which the MDC rejected. > ... South Africa's non-confrontational policy vis-?-vis Mugabe ? > which Mbeki pursued despite mounting criticism from the ANC and the > unions > in South Africa ? along with its provision of fuel and electricity to its > northern neighbour, set it at odds with Western governments. Which Western government has publicly suggested SA cut off fuel and electricity to Zimbabwe? None have cut off any trade of their own to Zimbabwe (aside from arms - which Pretoria and China supply Mugabe liberally), so how would they argue for fuel/electricity sanctions? > ... many activists and intellectuals, for the most part > progressives, have aligned themselves with distant or long-standing > enemies > in an effort to dislodge an authoritarian government clinging to power on > the basis of historic grievances about the colonial theft of land. > Symbolic > of this was the refusal by Cosatu-affiliated unions to unload a cargo of > Chinese arms destined for Zimbabwe when the *An Yue Jiang* sailed into > Durban in April. Symbolic of alignment with long-standing enemies? What happened in April was that a local progressive church leader, Bishop Rubin Phillip (whose political roots are in the black consciousness movement) and the anti-Mugabe SA trade union movement together raised the alarm about three million bullets and crates of guns moving from Durban to Harare, and prevented the unloading there and across the region (and they were assisted by a lawyer based at Open Society's regional arm). The most important alliance is only just beginning now, people-people solidarity across the Limpopo River. After the xenophobia attacks on tens of thousands of Zimbabweans here in May-June, this is ever more crucial to note. I don't know of any 'alliance' between progressive activists (like Phillip or Cosatu) and 'long-standing enemies'. Just because both may want to see the end of Mugabe's reign, doesn't mean there is an alliance or alignment. > The arguments, which are not new, turn on questions of nationalism and > democracy, pitting champions of national sovereignty and state > nationalism > against advocates of civil society and internationalism. One group > accuses > the other of authoritarianism and self-righteous intolerance; The left critique of Mugabe is the same you find in Fanon's chapter on Pitfalls of National Consciousness, and highlights crony capitalism and compradorism. Mugabe would happily again be the Bretton Woods Institutions' fair-haired boy if he could squeeze sufficient surpluses from his society to do so (in 1995 he was considered the best African implementer of structural adjustment, winning a 'highly satisfactory' label from the World Bank for helping to destroy large swathes of the productive economy and shrinking the social wage). > it replies > that its critics are wallowing in donor largesse. That is a problem, to be sure. > ... Nationalists have been able to withstand civil society-based > opposition, reinforced by Western sanctions, because they are > supported by > large numbers of peasants. The military/police are a rather more important source of support than the peasants, Mamdani would surely concede. > ... In the wake of Mbeki's resignation as president of South Africa it > is vital that this > agreement remains in place. Perhaps this is the most bizarre sentence. Land reform will again be needed in Zimbabwe, to dislodge Mugabe's cronies who have merely taken over existing plantations. But land aside, the September 15 agreement is a disaster in many other respects, as it combines the worst of both worlds: looming neoliberalism if the business faction of the MDC influences economic policy (the MDC gets the finance ministry), and ongoing crony capitalism through Mugabe's extensive patronage system within the Zim state; plus a relegitimised repressive arm of the state for those in civil society who would protest the new elite transition. Fortunately, it's so very bad that civil society have persuaded progressives within the MDC not to accept the deal. The main problem is that with all the elite negotiating going on, there's really no Plan B for popular insurrection. And Mahmood Mamdani's otherwise politically inspiring work does not help the Zimbabwean people there, at all. From rjacobs3625 at charter.net Wed Dec 3 05:30:16 2008 From: rjacobs3625 at charter.net (Ron J) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:30:16 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Kettle of hawks In-Reply-To: <20081203001021.0a7e9e39@crashcart> References: <493566E0.20803@panix.com> <20081203001021.0a7e9e39@crashcart> Message-ID: <49367BD8.8000107@charter.net> It is up to us to make certain that there are national demonstrations in the spring. Michael Smith wrote: > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:03:27 -0500 > "Mark Lause" wrote: > > >> I mean, there's absolutely no reason I can see that there wasn't an >> antiwar demonstration called in the middle of the election cycle. >> >> And I have no idea why one isn't in the works right now. >> > > But that's been the burden of our song, hasn't it? One of the > big reasons these things haven't happened is that so many of the > people who might have made them happen were obsessed with electing > Obie instead. > > Just like '04, when the same non-learners were obsessed with electing > Kerry. > > From sartesian at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 05:55:38 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: The issue of the tactics of the Weather Underground is not a moral issue, "right" and "proper," but an issue of analysis, effectiveness, strategy and goal. The Weather Underground had no analysis -- other than "thousands of groovy kid with black people at the head," no effectiveness, no strategy, and really, no goal other than symbolic "blows against the empire." Your view of Halstead and his analogy, however, is absolutely correct. Your take of the WU's greatest failing is not, as the failing is the lack of analysis, strategy and goal which kind of precludes any chance at effectiveness. You might want to avoid publicizing the "If/then" item at the close of your post. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Aarons" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:42 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers From skeyesvogt at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 05:57:20 2008 From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes-Vogt) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:57:20 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] In Colombia, paramilitary groups still spreading terror Message-ID: In Colombia, paramilitary groups still spreading terror http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-paras3-2008dec03,0,1341928.story Reporting from Tumaco, Colombia -- The Colombian government insists that paramilitary gangs are extinct. Try telling that to Antonio Domingo, a poor Afro-Colombian who was rousted from his home in the dead of night in August and told to leave town or be killed. Antonio, 30, who declined to give his last name for fear of reprisal, said armed and uniformed fighters who identified themselves as members of a paramilitary force called the Black Eagles gave residents minutes to leave San Jose, their Pacific coast hamlet. [clip] From sartesian at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 06:01:20 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:01:20 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream References: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta><4E67CA8EB3D84AFE9C6B05272E6F6AE0@PaddyPC> Message-ID: <0D7D8462A2354888BA71460E93D1176C@dmsthinkpad> Obviously, Gary, either you too haven't spent enough time in the US South, getting down to nits and grits, especially the grits, with the real down home country Americans. OR you don't understand that BEFORE the election it was essential to offer, as Mark Lause did, relentless opposition and criticism to Obama, but AFTER the election it is more important to "figure out" what Obama is going to do. As if we don't already know. As if he hasn't told us enough times. As if the issues are the things he MIGHT do and not what we MUST do. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary MacLennan" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:47 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Wed Dec 3 06:50:59 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:50:59 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Thailandi socialist on rightist "second coup for the rich" Message-ID: <881FD082E4064763967B5A659BA5E05D@office1pc> Socialist Aotearoa http://socialistaotearoa.blogspot.com/2008/12/thailand-second-coup-for-rich. html Tuesday, December 02, 2008 Thailand- A Second "Coup for the Rich" by Thai Socialist Giles Ji Ungpakorn Today the Constitutional Courts dissolved the democratically elected governing party in Thailand for the second time, forcing the Government to resign. This follows the refusal of the Armed Forces and the Police to follow government instructions to clear the two international airports blocked by armed PAD Fascists. The Royalist alliance against the government are made up of the Fascist PAD, the Military, the Police, the Judiciary, the mainstream Media, the "Democrat Party", most middle class academics and The Queen. They are all behind this judicial coup. A leading "Democrat Party" MP is one of the leaders of the illegal blockade of the two airports. The Yellow-shirted PAD have "armed guards" which have repeatedly shot at opponents. They constantly use violence and now demand "joint patrols" with the Police. The PAD have constantly broken the law, and yet they are "untouchable". On the rare occasion when PAD leaders are forced to attend court, they are given bail and allowed to go back and commit the same crimes over and over again. The majority of the Thai population, who are poor, face a Double Whammy. First, the elite Royalist are doing everything possible to take away their basic democratic rights. Secondly, mass job-losses are occurring among workers in the tourist industry as a result of the airport blockade. Jobs in agriculture and electronics are also affected and of course we are faced with the serious World Economic Crisis. The elites do not care if the Thai economy is trashed and Thailand returns to a poor Third World nation. In such nations the elites continue to live the same lives as the rich in the Developed World. The PAD protestors are middle-class extremists who do not have to go to work, hence their prolonged protests. We are constantly told by the conservatives that the poor are "too stupid to deserve the right to vote". The army staged a coup in 2006 and re-wrote the Constitution in order to reduce the democratic space and also to absolve themselves of any wrong-doing. The electorate have repeatedly voted in overwhelming numbers for the government party, whether it be Thai Rak Thai or Peoples Power Party. Now Peoples Power politicians are moving to the new Pua Thai Party. Will fair election be held? Or will the elites engineer a "fix" to make sure that their people win? What is the root cause of this crisis? The root cause of this crisis is not the corruption of the Thaksin government in the past. It isn't about vote-buying, good governance, civil rights or the Rule of Law. Politicians of all parties, including the Democrats, are known to buy votes. The elites, whether Politicians, Civil Servants or Military, have a history of gross corruption. Even when they don't break the law, they have become rich on the backs of Thai workers and small farmers. The Democrat Party is stuffed with such millionaires. Ironically, the Thai Rak Thai party was helping to reduce the importance of vote-buying because it was the first party in decades to have real policies which were beneficial to the poor. They introduced a universal health care scheme and Keynesian Village Funds. People voted on the basis of such policies. The Democrats and the conservative elites hate the alliance between Thaksin's business party and the poor. They hate the idea that a government was using public funds to improve the lives of the poor. This is why the anti-government alliance is against democracy. The PAD have suggested reducing the number of elected MPs and a recipe to do away with the principle of "one person one vote". So the root cause of the problem is the conservative elite's contempt for the poor and their contempt for democracy. They are prepared to break the law when it suits them. What is the solution? Business leaders and the Royalist elites are demanding an un-elected National Government. The Democrat Party leader has "volunteered" to be the Prime Minister! Such a National Government would complete the judicial coup for the rich. It would be a victory for the PAD and a defeat for the electorate. The Red Shirts, who are organised by government politicians, are the only hope for Thai democracy. They have now become a genuine pro-democracy mass movement of the poor. This is what is meant by "Civil Society", not the PAD fascists. Thai academia fails to grasp this basic fact. But the Red Shirts are not a "pure force". Many have illusion is ex-Prime Minister Thaksin. They overlook his gross abuse of human rights in the South and the War on Drugs. But these human rights issues are also totally ignored by the PAD and their friends. Throughout this 3 year crisis, the majority of the Thai NGO movement (especially the NGO-Coordinating Committee) has failed to support democracy. Many welcomed the 2006 military coup. Many supported the military Constitution. Now they are either silent or are echoing the demands of the Army Chief, who said last week that the government should resign. At no point have they attempted to build a pro-democracy social movement. Many believe that the poor are "uneducated and lack enough information to vote". The honourable examples are the Midnight University in Chiang-Mai, some sections of the labour movement, groups of new generation NGO activists and Turn Left. The economic crisis Millions of jobs are being destroyed by the World Economic Crisis and the unrest in Thai society. People are being driven back into poverty. Yet the Democrat Party, the Military, the conservative elites and the mainstream NGO movement do not have a clue or do not care one jot about the necessary policies to defend the living standards of the poor. They make chants about the King's Sufficiency Economy and the need for Fiscal Discipline. In other words, the poor must trim their spending and learn to live with their poverty while the rich continue to live in luxury. We desperately need massive government spending on infrastructure, job protection and a serious expansion of welfare. Value Added Tax should be reduced or abolished and higher direct taxes should be levied on all the rich elites without any exceptions. The bloated military budget should be cut. Wages should be raised among workers. Poor farmers should be protected. This will only happen in a climate of genuine democracy. This is why we must oppose this second "Coup for the Rich". -- Giles Ji UngpakornFaculty of Political ScienceChulalongkorn UniversityBangkok 10330, Thailand+66-(0)813469481UK mobile:+44-(0) From newsofleft at yahoo.com Wed Dec 3 06:53:50 2008 From: newsofleft at yahoo.com (Left News) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:53:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] The Interdependence of Nationalisms, and the Struggle for a Left Alternative Message-ID: <491191.64782.qm@web45012.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> The Interdependence of Nationalisms, and the Struggle for a Left Alternative by Dan Jakopovich http://socialistwebzine.blogspot.com/ The scars of war in my country, Croatia, are strong and visible 13 years after it ended. Violence and hatred have destroyed inter-ethnic trust, creating fear and resentment that will take decades to overcome. Post-war normalization has been limited and relative. In contrast to the explicitly expansionistic and anti-antifascist Radical Party in Serbia (which has recently split into one ?hard-core? and a little bit less hardcore nationalist group), the ruling Croatian Democratic Union has transformed itself (particularly through the process of rapprochement and negotiations with the EU) into a more or less typical European center-right/conservative party, non-extremist but still seriously nationalist, as well as neoliberal and clientelist in relation to the US, NATO and the EU. Fortunately, the far Right in Croatia ? except as a minority in the ruling party, has been marginalized on the party-political scene, although it is still quite vibrant in the sphere of civil society (in terms of far Right media, the Catholic Church, veterans? organizations and the like). A biased, one-sided view of the past continues to be advanced on both sides, most importantly by the political elites and the mass media. On the Croatian side, the trauma of the Serbian population stemming from the genocidal policies of the Croatian fascist puppet state during the Second World War is neglected, as well as the resurgence of nationalist ideology at the end of the 20th century, and this is obstructing a better understanding of the more recent conflicts. The Serbian side, on the other hand, tended to gloss over the discriminatory policies of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and belittle the powerful partisan contribution by Croats (while some nationalists, like the Radicals, have even sided with the Chetniks). It is these types of clogged communication channels and the hijacking of the public discourse by nationalist politicians on both sides that strongly contributed to the last war as well (along with the economic crisis, the general bureaucratization of political life, and the destruction of potentials for genuine workers? self-management). The clash of two expansionistic nationalisms, Milosevic?s centralist advancement of the ?Greater Serbia? agenda (accompanied by the destruction of the Yugoslav socialist experiment by the new oligarchies which he organized from within the system, as well as genocidal policies in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo) and Tudjman?s classical far Right agenda on the other side (which included threats and human rights abuses towards Serbs in Croatia and territorial pretensions towards Bosnia and Herzegovina) precluded the possibility for a peaceful solution to the crisis. Today, mutual fear, distrust and resentments continue to wreck the potential for real reconciliation and the defeat over the Right in both countries. HOW TO FIGHT NATIONALISM Empirical evidence in many countries confirms that the anti-capitalist Left cannot build mass support if it presents itself as ?nationless?. As Antonio Gramsci elaborated through his notion of the ?national-popular?, a thoughtful and sensitive approach towards dominant beliefs and customs should be adopted. Furthermore, an engagement with national specificities is the starting point for a viable left-wing strategy. The authentic Left in Croatia and in Serbia must help organize the working class and all the oppressed people against their nationalist governments and the exploitative system which enslaves working people in both countries, producing misery, alienation and easy scapegoats. Not only did these nationalisms lead to a despicable dehumanization of the ?Other?, chauvinistic trampling over basic human rights along ethnic and religious lines ? the elites on both sides also attacked their own workers, plundered social ownership, disempowered their citizens, introduced savage capitalism and isolationist authoritarian rule. Currently, most of these new elites have an uncritical stance towards Western power centers. While the nationalism of the elites and their political servants has to be directly and consistently fought, the nationalist prejudices of the working people shouldn?t always be frontally confronted (as opposed to some of its vile symptoms like ethnic discrimination), but should rather be subverted and neutralized through a sophisticated approach which modifies the entire discourse and constructs a basis for a genuine form of ?progressive patriotism?, which is non-discriminatory and class-based. The famous Irish socialist James Connolly offered a powerful (though imperfect) example of this creative approach: ?Ireland without her people is nothing to me, and the man who is bubbling over with love and enthusiasm for 'Ireland' and can yet pass unmoved through our streets and witness all the wrong and suffering, the shame and degradation wrought upon the people of Ireland, aye, wrought by Irishmen upon Irish men and women, without burning to end it, is in my opinion a fraud and liar in his heart, no matter how he loves that combination of chemical elements which he is pleased to call Ireland.? (Forward, 7 July, 1900) ?I rather like that intense desire to conserve the honour or freedom of a particular country, to which men have given the name 'patriotism'. I am also a believer in the brotherhood of all men and the international solidarity of labour, and in the identity of interests which every-where link together the oppressed of the Earth.? (Workers' Republic, July 28, 1900) ?If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle unless you set about the Organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain.?(Shan Van Vocht, January, 1897) In order to dampen the sources of Right-wing strength, the Left should also appeal to the popular longing for unity, while counter posing a progressive unity of ?The People? ? in terms of disenfranchised masses exploited by bureaucrats, politicians and corporate greed ? to the false unity based on class rule and the status quo. Connolly?s egalitarian and internationalist message continues to resonate today wherever nationalism and capitalist oppression destroy the potentials for solidarity and sociability: ?We mean to be free, and in every enemy of tyranny we recognise a brother, wherever be his birthplace; in every enemy of freedom we also recognize our enemy, though he were as Irish as our hills. The whole of Ireland for the people of Ireland - their public property, to be owned and operated as a national heritage, by the labour of free men in a free country.? (Workers' Republic, August 5, 1899) Dan Jakopovich is the main editor of the left-wing magazine Novi Plamen on the territory of former Yugoslavia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://socialistwebzine.blogspot.com/ The Socialist WebZine is updated weekly.? Submissions for publication may be sent to the editor at billyspnyc at yahoo.com? We encourage articles which highlight working class struggles, examinations of left-wing theory and cultural work especially poetry, music and video. ? From skeyesvogt at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 07:12:19 2008 From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes-Vogt) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:12:19 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] seymour/ayers Message-ID: Aaron Aarons said: "The W.U.'s greatest failing, aside from its dumb rhetoric, was its unwillingness to kill even the most deserving criminals. But the greatest failing was of people like me, who lacked the moxie to do even as much as [the Weather Underground] did." You can't be serious. I don't believe in name-calling, but this person is seriously a coward and possibly a police agent. I advise people on this list to beware of crap like this. The W.U.'s greatest failing was that they seperated themselves from the masses completely because of their bankrupt strategy. However, they did us a favor by showing us the opposite side of ultra-leftism, which is the petty-bourgeois reformism most of them engage in today. Aaron's prescription for the anti-war movement of yesteryear and today: less meaningless 'peace crawls' and more ultra-leftist bombings and assassinations! Maybe I am in the minority or my conception of Marxism is deluded, but I thought that Marxists criticized activity and statements like this. -Sky Keyes (my real name, I'm not hiding, holla at your boy) From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Dec 3 07:13:05 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:13:05 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Moratorium Now -- Sat. conference -- upcoming activities References: Message-ID: <49364DAA.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Moratorium NOW! Coalition to Stop Foreclosures and Evictions Dec. 3 - Pack the court for Mary Eady Dec. 4 - Candlelight vigil for Marvin and Louise Morris Dec. 6 - Statewide organizers conference Statewide Organizers Conference Saturday, December 6, 2008, 12 Noon to 4:00 pm, Central United Methodist Church, 23 E. Adams, Detroit (corner of Woodward and Adams at Grand Circus Park). This event represents a culmination of activities over the last year to win a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions in the state of Michigan. We will assess the movement and plan for future actions. The conference is free and open to the public. The importance of this conference and the need to continue to fight for a two-year moratorium on foreclosures in Michigan as embodied by SB 1306, can be demonstrated by the following foreclosure cases which the Moratorium NOW! Coalition is taking up this week. We will not get fooled by phony pronouncements from the banks and half-hearted measures by Lansing or Washington. The Moratorium NOW! Coalition involves real people who are currently facing foreclosures and evictions. We continue to fight to stop this rampant injustice! STOP THE EVICTION OF MARY EADY Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 11:00 a.m. at 36th District Court, Madison and Brush, in downtown Detroit. Mary Eady is a 77-year-old woman on a fixed income about to be thrown out of her home of 47 years by Wells Fargo Bank, who just received a $25 billion bailout of taxpayer money from the government. Support Ms. Eady by packing the courtroom of Judge Izetta Bright (either room 433 or 434), when a hearing on her eviction will be taking place. PRESS CONFERENCE AT THE SHERIFF'S SALE OF LORENE PARKER'S RESIDENCE, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2008, 12:30 PM, Coleman Young Municipal Center, Room 1607, Woodward at Jefferson, Detroit Lorene Parker fell behind on her mortgage with Bank of America when she had large medical bills stemming from undergoing a double transplant, a heart and liver transplant. She contacted Bank of America over a period months requesting relief on her mortgage because of her medical hardship. Their response was to move forward with foreclosure proceedings, scheduling a Sheriff's sale this Thursday. Come out and support Ms. Parker this Thursday. Demand the illegal Sheriff's sale be stopped and Bank of America negotiate a loan modification with this woman who has suffered enough. CANDLELIGHT VIGIL TO STOP THE EVICTION OF MARVIN AND LOUISE MORRIS Thursday, December 4, 2008,6:00 p.m., at 9592 Plainview, Detroit, MI 48228,home of Marvin and Louise Morris Mr. and Mrs. Morris are being threatened with eviction from their home of many years by Barclays Bank and its servicer, HomEq d/b/a Barclay Capital Real Estate. Their block already has 10 or 11 foreclosed homes on it. The Morrises have been victims of constant servicer abuse by HomEq, and even won a court case several years ago. But now Barclays has obtained a court order for the foreclosure of their home. Mr. and Mrs. Morris are both seniors in poor health, but Barclays and HomEq are forging ahead to take their home over a few thousand dollars of disputed debt. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 07:19:47 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <49369583.9090709@panix.com> Aaron Aarons wrote: > Did the organizers of the great peace crawls "hope to inhibit capital's ability to reproduce itself"? Hardly likely, since they weren't even anti-capitalist, and they didn't call for the defeat of U.S. imperialism. Unfortunately, I can't respond to this gob of ultraleft nonsense because the righthand margin is somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. From markalause at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 07:21:17 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:21:17 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Kettle of hawks In-Reply-To: <49367BD8.8000107@charter.net> References: <493566E0.20803@panix.com> <20081203001021.0a7e9e39@crashcart> <49367BD8.8000107@charter.net> Message-ID: Gary wrote of my position, "I believe he is trying to head off criticism of Obama. I think that is a totally stupid strategy. He thinks I am posturing and into self-gratification by criticising Obama." I've been saying all along that we're not taking such different positions. First, I'm not trying to deflect criticisms of Obama. I'm just saying that, in your criticism of Obama (or mine or anyone's), we are only talking to each other and to the people who've been listening and have heard it all before...most of whom probably voted for Obama despite the best efforts of those of us arguing against it. In this context, nothing more we SAY is going to accomplish anything. Second, the election's over. The real question is no longer really whether to support Obama. How we would answer that question right now or on how we answered that question in the election or on whether or not we voted for this or that person in the past is not and should not be the central question. What does need to be on central right now is not Obama or his crappy appointees but what we're going to DO about it. How can we get boots on the pavement. And to have meaning, that discussion needs to transcend the "usual suspects." ML From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 07:27:15 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Dennis Perrin responds to an Obamaniac Message-ID: <49369743.4080005@panix.com> http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/12/holiday-cheer.html "I find you to be an insufferable crank, your curdled political ramblings infuriating as much for their pointlessness as their solipsistic denial of reality." Try saying that fast three times. This is a taste of some of the fan mail I've received since Obama's ascension, and I expect more of the same as we approach that magic date, 1/20/09, the day of liberal deliverance, where Republican duplicity evaporates to reveal a "new dawn," as Obama himself recently put it. New Dawn. Year Zero. Shake the Etch-A-Sketch and start again -- or in Obama's case, apply electrodes to the Clintonite beast and zap it back to life. After watching him trot out his team, it appears that Obama's "new dawn" will emit a familiar old stench. Some of you who find it painful to read me (yet, not only do you return, you seem to know a lot about my work, going back a year or more) have been blowing me shit about criticizing Obama before he's taken the oath. "What ever happened to the presidential honeymoon?" is a common question. Well, honeymoons are usually filled with consensual fucking, and since I didn't vote for Obama, I don't see why I should voluntarily spread on his behalf. If you want to be fucked by Obama, offer yourself freely, though the line appears a few thousand miles long, so you may want to bring along one of his audio books to keep you stimulated while you wait. I never hear that it's too early to praise Obama, and there's certainly no shortage of hosannas. Every political carny and wannabe player is flexing and spinning to serve the new imperial manager. Nothing "new" there. On it rolls. I suppose an upside to this is that I fully expected Obama to go this route, or something very similar, so the word "betrayal" means nothing to me. That I'll have to help pay for his decisions, murder chief among them, diminishes whatever solace I can take in not being surprised. Do keep those emails coming. I never tire watching of people tie themselves into fantasy knots. From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 07:30:17 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:30:17 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Adjunct abuse Message-ID: <493697F9.9080703@panix.com> http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/03/adjunct. Breadth of Adjunct Use and Abuse The use of adjuncts is well known among academics, but many believe that these instructors are utilized primarily in certain areas (such as the humanities) or certain types of institutions (such as community colleges). But a report being released today by the American Federation of Teachers suggests that the breadth and depth of adjunct use is greater than many realize ? such that they are teaching a majority of public college and university courses, and are a major force in a wide range of disciplines. The report ? ?Reversing Course: The Troubled State of Academic Staffing and a Path Forward? ? is designed to publicize the extent of adjunct use with a mind toward encouraging more colleges to either improve the pay they offer adjuncts or shift more of their positions to the tenure track. Along those lines, the AFT is releasing a new tool that allows colleges to calculate the costs of changing staffing policies. The goal is to show that modest changes may be possible ? even in tight budget years like this one ? and that over time, such changes could have a meaningful impact on the makeup of faculties and the compensation of adjuncts. It has been too easy for administrators to ignore the issue of adjunct use as something other than widespread, and this study ?debunks? that view by focusing not only on numbers of individuals, but courses taught, said Barbara Bowen, president of the Professional Staff Congress, the AFT union at the City University of New York, at a briefing on the report. Part timers are being used nationwide ?in all disciplines? and in many cases at ?completely non-professional salaries,? Bowen said. ?Most people don?t know the situation,? said Lawrence N. Gold, director of higher education at the AFT. He acknowledged that there will be no immediate shift from relying on adjuncts to creating tenure-track positions. But he said that, if more of the public comes to understand what has happened to public higher education, progress can be made. The AFT and other faculty groups have argued that while many adjunct instructors are great classroom teachers, their working conditions ? such as lack of office hours, being cut off from curricular decisions, being forced to move from campus to campus ? result in a reduced quality of education, and erode the job security vital for academic freedom. (clip)a From sartesian at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 07:35:25 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:35:25 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com><20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> Message-ID: <4565DB9D907C43A690BFC2409E63E472@dmsthinkpad> OK, but I think my posts fit within 76 spaces. So... while I disagree completely with Aaron's praise of the WU, his response to Henwood's snickering is spot on as our British cousins like to say. Did the anti-war demonstrations hope to interfere with the reproduction of capital? Absolutely not. Like the WU actions, they were demonstrations against a policy, not a program for overthrow, or even for identifying the actual source for the policy. The anti-war demonstrations as organized by the various incarnations of The Mobe were rigidly single issue, lowest common denominator, and with even its rhetoric reduced below that of a common denominator, changing Stop The War, to "Bring the Troops Home Now," which, as Nixon proved, wasn't stopping the war at all. That part of the "ultra-left" -- hey I thought we weren't going to use that term anymore, just as we weren't going to use "Menshevik compromisers" to describe those inclined to use "ultra left" as a descriptor-- critique, a criticism advanced by SDS and other radical groups was right on, as the American cousins like to say. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" Unfortunately, I can't respond to this gob of ultraleft nonsense because the righthand margin is somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. From markalause at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 07:38:24 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:38:24 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <49369583.9090709@panix.com> References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> Message-ID: Actually there were regular anti-capitalist marches calling for the defeat of U.S. imperialism. They just never got very big. ML From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 07:39:49 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:39:49 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] The Audacity of Moderation Message-ID: <49369A35.5040908@panix.com> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/02/AR2008120202720.html Closet Centrist In Obama's Cabinet, the Audacity of Moderation By Michael Gerson Wednesday, December 3, 2008; A17 (Michael Gerson is a twice-weekly columnist for The Post, writing about politics, global health and development, religion and foreign policy. His column appears on Wednesdays and Fridays. Gerson, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, served as a policy adviser and chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush from 2000 to 2006. Before he joined Bush's presidential campaign in 1999, he was a senior editor covering politics at U.S. News & World Report. He is the author of the book "Heroic Conservatism" and a contributor to Newsweek magazine.) It is a lineup generous in its moderation, astonishing for its continuity, startling for its stability. A defense secretary, Robert Gates, who once headed the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M. A secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who supported the invasion of Iraq, voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and called direct, unconditional talks with Iran "irresponsible and frankly naive." A national security adviser, retired Gen. James Jones, most recently employed at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who served as a special adviser to the Bush administration on the Middle East. A Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who is one of Henry Paulson's closest allies outside the administration. A head of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, whose writings and research seem to favor low tax rates, stable money and free trade. It is tempting for conservatives to crow -- or liberals to lament -- that Barack Obama's victory has somehow produced John McCain's administration. But this partisan reaction trivializes some developments that, while early and tentative, are significant. First, these appointments add evidence to a debate about the political character of the president-elect himself. Conservatives have generally feared that Obama is a closet radical. He has uniformly voted with liberal interests and done nothing to justify a reputation for centrism. Until now. Obama's appointments reveal not just moderation but maturity -- magnanimity to past opponents, a concern for continuity in a time of war and economic crisis, a self-confidence that allows him to fill gaps in his own experience with outsize personalities, and a serious commitment to incarnate his rhetoric of unity. All the normal caveats apply. It is still early. Obama is benefiting from being the only player on the stage -- all his pretensions of moderation could be quickly undermined by a liberal Congress, unhinged by its expanded majority. And Obama's social liberalism could still turn Washington into a culture-war battlefield. But honesty requires this recognition: So far, Barack Obama shows the instincts and ambitions of a large political figure. Second, Obama's appointments reveal something important about current Bush policies. Though Obama's campaign savaged the administration as incompetent and radical, Obama's personnel decisions have effectively ratified Bush's defense and economic approaches during the past few years. At the Pentagon, Obama rehired the architects of President Bush's current military strategy -- Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Raymond Odierno. At the Treasury Department, Obama has hired one of the main architects of Bush's current economic approach. This continuity does not make Obama an ideological traitor. It indicates that Bush has been pursuing centrist, bipartisan policies -- without getting much bipartisan support. The transition between Bush and Obama is smoother than some expected, not merely because Obama has moderate instincts but because Bush does as well. Particularly on the economy, Bush has never been a libertarian; he has always matched a commitment to free markets with a willingness to intervene when markets stumble. The candidate of "change" is discovering what many presidents before him have found: On numerous issues, the range of responsible policy options is narrow. And the closer you come to the Oval Office, the wiser your predecessors appear. Third, Obama is finding the limits of leading a "movement" that never had much ideological content. His transition has seen the return of a pack of Clintonistas -- Lawrence Summers, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel -- prompting talk of Bill Clinton's third term. Some of this is unavoidable. Governing experience generally gathers in the stagnant pools of past administrations. But the resurrection of Clintonism is more pronounced because Obamaism is so wispy and indistinct. Obama brings no cadre of passionate reformers with him to Washington -- no ideological vision cultivated in think tanks for decades. Instead, he has turned to experience and competence in his appointments -- which often means returning to the Clinton era. Experience is vital, especially in avoiding rookie mistakes. But, strange as it sounds, a president can become isolated within his own administration -- his agenda undermined by inertia, resistance or conflicting priorities. Obama eventually will need to define Obamaism and cultivate allies in his own administration who will fight for his enthusiasms. Whatever the caveats, Obama is doing something marvelously right: He is disappointing the ideologues. This is more than many of us hoped -- and it is causing some of us to raise our hopes in Obama again. michaelgerson at cfr.org From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 07:51:48 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:51:48 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Obama and the Bush realists Message-ID: <49369D04.4040002@panix.com> http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/obama-and-bush-realists Obama and the Bush Realists by Steve Kornacki | 9:00 PM December 2, 2008 Just over six years ago, as legend has it, George H. W. Bush weighed in on the invasion of Iraq that his son seemed hell-bent on pursuing, deputizing his old confidante Brent Scowcroft to deliver a very public warning to the president. Mr. Scowcroft?s resulting op-ed, published in The Wall Street Journal and titled ?Don?t Attack Saddam,? presciently decreed that any invasion ?is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism.? It fell on deaf ears in the White House, and the war commenced a few months later. The elder Mr. Bush?s hand again seemed to be at work four years later, when, with public frustration with the war reaching its breaking point, James A. Baker took the reins of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that proposed a strategy for withdrawing troops from Iraq and reengaging diplomatically with the rest of the Middle East. This, too, was ignored by the president. George H. W. Bush played no public role in either episode, but they both nonetheless confirmed just how radically the second President Bush had departed from the worldview of his father, who passed on an open invitation to invade Baghdad and who made maintaining relationships with the rest of the world a priority. Perhaps the most ironic legacy of George W. Bush?s presidency is the service it has done to the reputation of his father, who seemed destined to be remembered as an unaccomplished one-termer when he lost his reelection bid (with just 37 percent of the vote) in 1992. By serially violating the basic principles that informed his father?s foreign policy and incurring such ghastly consequences, the younger Mr. Bush has stirred a widespread reassessment: The leadership that Americans took for granted under his father now seems like uncommon wisdom from a better, bygone era. And now, with only weeks remaining in the second Bush administration, that sentiment is being validated by the incoming Democratic president, a man who opposed the Iraq war back when Mr. Scowcroft did; who has repeatedly lamented that ?we have taken our eye off the ball? in Afghanistan because of it; and who has unapologetically championed the kind of aggressive diplomacy endorsed by the Iraq Study Group. On Monday, Barack Obama, after much anticipation, trotted out the principal players on his national security team. Hillary Clinton, his selection for secretary of state, generated the most attention, but the bigger story could be found in two of his other picks: James L. Jones as national security adviser, and Robert Gates, who will keep his post as defense secretary. Both are well known in the Washington world?Mr. Jones, a former NATO supreme allied commander, was once the Marine liaison to the Senate, and Mr. Gates spent years with the C.I.A. (and was the agency?s director under George H. W. Bush) and served on the National Security Council in the 1970s?and both are associated with the realist thinking that prevailed under the first President Bush. Consider Mr. Gates, whose selection as defense secretary in late 2006 was seen as one of George W. Bush?s very few nods to his father. In many ways, he is a prot?g? of both Mr. Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the two realists who served as national security advisor when Mr. Gates was with the N.S.C. Even though Mr. Brzezinski is a Democrat who served under Jimmy Carter, he has made his respect for George H. W. Bush clear, endorsing him in 1988 and rating him as America?s best post-Cold War president in his 2007 book, Second Chance. Mr. Gates was also a member of the Iraq Study Group when he was nominated for defense in ?06. Then there?s Mr. Jones, who with his West Wing office and near-constant access to the president, will arguably enjoy a more intimate working relationship with Mr. Obama than Mrs. Clinton will. He has echoed Mr. Obama?s view that the Iraq war has hindered U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Perhaps more interesting, he is deeply uncomfortable with Donald Rumsfeld. He refused back in ?01 even to interview for the position of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Mr. Rumsfeld, and subsqequently declined several other opportunities to join the Bush administration. After his ?92 defeat, George H. W. Bush took to declaring in an almost pleading voice that ?history will remember us kindly.? Whether history will do so is still unclear, but Barack Obama clearly does. From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 07:53:41 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:53:41 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Moderator's note Message-ID: <49369D75.2070806@panix.com> What a stupid comparison! If you want to use a similar analogy, it's like a 3 year old trying to stop the man raping his sister by hitting him with a plastic spatula, rather than stabbing him with a knife. The W.U.'s greatest failing, aside from its dumb rhetoric, was its unwillingness to kill even the most deserving criminals. But the greatest failing was of people like me, who lacked the moxie to do even as much as they did. If I had the necessary courage and, more important, the ability to function coherently in non-verbal activities, I'd be writing pacifist screeds while planting bombs and assassinating warmakers. - Aaron --- Clearly, this character does not understand the first thing about Marxist politics. I am unsubbing him immediately. From sartesian at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 07:57:21 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:57:21 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com><20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><49369583.9090709@panix.com> Message-ID: <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> Yes, that is correct. Most of those marches were organized by SDS and others of the "radical contingent," like the demonstration in front of the Justice Dept. in 1969- and to my recollection no such actions were ever supported by the YSA-SWP, and in fact the Mobes were diligently to separate themselves from such efforts. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Lause" Actually there were regular anti-capitalist marches calling for the defeat of U.S. imperialism. They just never got very big. ML From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 08:02:24 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:02:24 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Chris Matthews interviews General Barry McCaffrey Message-ID: <49369F80.8090305@panix.com> http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/ From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 08:05:07 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:05:07 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Still Preparing to Attack Iran Message-ID: <4936A023.60302@panix.com> http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175009/robert_dreyfuss_is_iran_policy_still_up_for_grabs_ Still Preparing to Attack Iran The Neoconservatives in the Obama Era By Robert Dreyfuss What, exactly, does Barack Obama's mild-mannered choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services, former Senator Tom Daschle, have to do with neocons who want to bomb Iran? A familiar coalition of hawks, hardliners, and neoconservatives expects Barack Obama's proposed talks with Iran to fail -- and they're already proposing an escalating set of measures instead. Some are meant to occur alongside any future talks. These include steps to enhance coordination with Israel, tougher sanctions against Iran, and a region-wide military buildup of U.S. strike forces, including the prepositioning of military supplies within striking distance of that country. Once the future negotiations break down, as they are convinced will happen, they propose that Washington quickly escalate to war-like measures, including a U.S. Navy-enforced embargo on Iranian fuel imports and a blockade of that country's oil exports. Finally, of course, comes the strategic military attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran that so many of them have wanted for so long. It's tempting to dismiss the hawks now as twice-removed from power: first, figures like John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith were purged from top posts in the Bush administration after 2004; then the election of Barack Obama and the announcement Monday of his centrist, realist-minded team of establishment foreign policy gurus seemed to nail the doors to power shut for the neocons, who have bitterly criticized the president-elect's plans to talk with Iran, withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, and abandon the reckless Global War on Terrorism rhetoric of the Bush era. "Kinetic Action" Against Iran When it comes to Iran, however, it's far too early to dismiss the hawks. To be sure, they are now plying their trade from outside the corridors of power, but they have more friends inside the Obama camp than most people realize. Several top advisers to Obama -- including Tony Lake, UN Ambassador-designate Susan Rice, Tom Daschle, and Dennis Ross, along with leading Democratic hawks like Richard Holbrooke, close to Vice-President-elect Joe Biden or Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton -- have made common cause with war-minded think-tank hawks at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and other hardline institutes. Last spring, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, for example, took part in a WINEP "2008 Presidential Task Force" study which resulted in a report entitled, "Strengthening the Partnership: How to Deepen U.S.-Israel Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge." The Institute, part of the Washington-based Israel lobby, was founded in coordination with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and has been vigorously supporting a confrontation with Iran. The task force report, issued in June, was overseen by four WINEP heavyweights: Robert Satloff, WINEP's executive director, Patrick Clawson, its chief Iran analyst, David Makovsky, a senior fellow, and Dennis Ross, an adviser to Obama who is also a WINEP fellow. (clip) From walterlx at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 08:08:30 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:08:30 -0800 (GMT-08:00) Subject: [Marxism] Call to Nationalize General Motors Message-ID: <26651131.1228316910149.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Yesterday's LA Times includes this op-ed advocating nationalization of General Motors. This morning I heard an NPR report about hwo the UAW is meeting in Detroit to figure out what else they can give back to "their" employers to help "their" industry. Below this, Micheal Moore's proposals for the auto industry, which seem pretty sensible from what I can see. Yesterday I spent over $300.00 on what was described to me as a routine periodic maintenance of my 1998 Honda Accord, including new front brake, which added some $200.00 to the bill. None of this chatter about GM in the dominant media talks about the irrationality of the entire system of people getting around in their individually- owned and individually-operated metal boxes. What's really needed is a first-class public transportation system in the United States of Model Perfection. Neither of the critics talk about immediate expropriation without compensation and nationalization under workers control, but who's perfect? The idea that we can now publicly discuss nationalizing private industry is already a positive politico-cultural step for a country where the Almighty Dollar is worshipped by most people. Walter Lippmann Los Angeles, California ======================================================================= From elishastephens at hotmail.com Wed Dec 3 08:13:54 2008 From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:13:54 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream Message-ID: Gary writes: "The absolutely cold hard truth is that by appointing Hilary Clinton, Obama has passed a death sentence on Arabs & Afghanis and others who oppose American Imperialism." To which I reply, "huh?" Hillary Clinton and Obama have precisely the same position on American Imperialism (they support it), and anyone Obama would have *conceivably* appointed to the post of Secretary of State would have had precisely the same position. Unless Gary was expecting Obama to appoint Brian Becker or even Dennis Kucinich to the post, the result is the same. It was the American ruling class, which the unfortunate consent of the American people, or at least the American electorate, which passed that death sentence long ago; the appointment of Hillary Clinton just puts the latest face on those in charge. Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 From elishastephens at hotmail.com Wed Dec 3 08:18:56 2008 From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:18:56 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] The British tortured Obama's grandfather Message-ID: Barack Obama?s grandfather was imprisoned and brutally tortured by the British during the violent struggle for Kenyan independence, according to the Kenyan family of the US President-elect. Hussein Onyango Obama, Mr Obama?s paternal grandfather, became involved in the Kenyan independence movement while working as a cook for a British army officer after the war. He was arrested in 1949 and jailed for two years in a high-security prison where, according to his family, he was subjected to horrific violence to extract information about the growing insurgency. Full: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5276010.ece Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 From elishastephens at hotmail.com Wed Dec 3 08:27:47 2008 From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:27:47 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Still Preparing to Attack Iran Message-ID: There *is* something Iran would love to discuss with the U.S. - it's responsibility for helping Iraq get chemical weapons which killed tens or hundreds of thousands of Iranians. http://lefti.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html#2301484356052124839 Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _________________________________________________________________ You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/ From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 08:30:32 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:30:32 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Homeland Futility Message-ID: <4936A618.70409@panix.com> http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-11-26/news/janet-napolitano-homeland-futility-mexico-border/ Janet Napolitano = Homeland Futility Janet Napolitano?s Sorry Service in Arizona Makes Her a Terrible Choice for Homeland Security Secretary By Michael Lacey Consorting with anti-immigrant enforcers, indulging rank opportunism, and adhering to failed policies seem an unlikely recipe for change we can believe in. And yet this very cocktail of mediocrity ? stirred by an early endorsement of Barack Obama ? has thrust Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano into the heady midst of Washington's inaugural speculation. She finds herself on the president-elect's short list for a cabinet seat, as well as on Saturday Night Live's hot seat for parody. The governor captured the front page of American journalism this month with the announcement that she is the frontrunner to take over the Department of Homeland Security. Napolitano must protect this nation's borders and ensure our safety from terrorism and natural disasters while overseeing billions of dollars in contracts in service of theses goals. Janet Napolitano has considerable experience failing at administrative oversight. But it is her role in securing Arizona's frontiers that bears scrutiny. Confronted with a border state's unavoidable immigration challenges, Napolitano defended the citizenry with a devil's pitchfork. Her multi-pronged strategy: embrace the nation's most regressive legislation; empower a notorious sheriff using cynical political calculations; employ boots on the ground. (clip) From fred.fuentes at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 08:30:46 2008 From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:30:46 -0400 Subject: [Marxism] =?utf-8?b?4oCYQm9saWdhcmNoc+KAmSByaXNlIHRvIHRvcCBpbiBz?= =?utf-8?q?ocialist_Venezuela?= Message-ID: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 'Boligarchs' rise to top in socialist Venezuela Vheadline Ten years ago, Wilmer Ruperti was just another ambitious businessman. Now, as Venezuelan president Hugo Ch?vez marks a decade in power, Mr Ruperti is a billionaire shipping tycoon and one of the richest men in the country. Many of Mr Ruperti's peers claim that his success is owed to more than his business acumen. He has been branded a quintessential "boligarch", one of a new breed of Venezuelan business magnates. They are said to enjoy close relations with Mr Ch?vez's "Bolivarian" government ? named after Sim?n Bolivar, South America's 19th century independence hero. Mr Ruperti says he has been castigated for his role in breaking the infamous oil industry shutdown in 2002-03, which was engineered by Mr Ch?vez's opponents, many of them business leaders, who were trying to topple his government. After making oil tankers available to the government ? thereby enabling the president to survive the opposition's attempt to cut off his key revenue source, oil exports ? Mr Ruperti was well positioned to win future shipping contracts with the state oil company, PDVSA, at a time when others were excluded. "It was a big decision. Normally I don't gamble like that," says Mr Ruperti, who admits it paid off. "But really I was just complying with my contract." Daniel Hellinger, a historian and political scientist specialising in Venezuela, says previous oil booms spawned new business elites. "It is history repeating itself," he says. He distinguishes two groups of boligarchs: members of the old order who "changed their colours at the right time" and a new group who "made smart decisions, built government connections, were very shrewd and just knew how to work the system". But those business leaders who backed the oil strike, and a botched coup d'?tat in 2002, have suffered. The most high profile casualty is RCTV, formerly Venezuela's most popular television channel. Its public broadcasting licence was revoked last year, due partly to Mr Ch?vez's accusations that it was behind the putsch. The difference between the old and new elites, say observers, is that the new eschews politics. "Evidently the government is more comfortable working with people that are not trying to overthrow it," says Arturo Sarmiento, who has imported whisky and traded oil and now runs Telecaribe, a regional television channel. Alberto Cudemus, a prominent businessman involved in pork farming who enjoys good relations with the government, says: "Many of the traditional business people simply haven't understood that there has been a huge change here?.?.?.?Businesses have to get back to what we are supposed to be doing: investing, generating employment, improving technology and producing goods and services. It's not our job to make laws." Indeed, although Mr Ch?vez calls his creed "21st century socialism", some capitalists ? mainly those in commodities, those exposed to Venezuela's consumer spending boom and those benefiting from economic distortions ? have been flourishing . For some companies, Venezuela is the most profitable country in the region. "Companies can ? and do ? make serious money in Venezuela," says Daniel Linsker, an analyst at Control Risks, which advises several large international companies operating in Venezuela. "That doesn't mean it is not challenging, that private companies do not face a high degree of uncertainty and even state harassment, or that companies can freely remit their profits," he adds. Banks, in particular, have thrived. This is largely due to an exchange rate that has been fixed since 2003 to prevent capital flight owing to fears of instability resulting from Mr Ch?vez's impulsive style. But after remaining unchanged against the dollar since then, after years of soaring inflation, it is now heavily overvalued. This has fomented an active black market that has allowed savvy bankers ? particularly those with good government contacts ? to make "Russia-like fortunes", according to one senior local investment banker. But making a fortune in Venezuela is likely to be much more difficult from now on. The collapse in oil prices means the country's capitalists, boligarchs or not, face tougher times. As for Mr Ruperti, he scoffs at the term boligarch. "In Venezuela people make up all kinds of ridiculous stories," he says. "I have spent all of seven minutes with Ch?vez." -- Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Director, Programme in 'Transformative Practice and Human Development' Centro Internacional Miranda, P.H. Residencias Anauco Suites, Parque Central, final Av. Bolivar Caracas, Venezuela fax: 0212 5768274/0212 5777231 www.centrointernacionalmiranda.gob.ve mlebowit at sfu.ca From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 08:32:23 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:32:23 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] The Fall of the House of Rubashkin Message-ID: <4936A687.7000502@panix.com> http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-12-03/news/the-fall-of-the-house-of-rubashkin/ The Fall of the House of Rubashkin As the nation's largest kosher empire implodes, Brooklyn's ultra-Orthodox Jews begin to break ranks By Elizabeth Dwoskin Men in long black coats and women wearing stiff wigs crowd the benches of the courtroom at the Federal Building in Philadelphia. The room is packed, so the men remaining outside wait to take turns with the ones indoors. Early on the morning of Monday, November 3, dozens of people had taken a charter bus from Crown Heights, the center of New York's Lubavitch Jewish community. Even more had carpooled. They had come for the sentencing of Moshe Rubashkin, chairman of the Crown Heights Jewish Community Council (a powerful nonprofit) and former owner of Montex Textiles in Allentown, Pennsylvania. When a still-unidentified arsonist started a blaze at the Montex plant in 2005, it burned down with 300 drums of hazardous chemical waste inside. Rubashkin subsequently pleaded guilty to illegally storing the waste, which had been transported from a textile factory his family owned in New Jersey. But the city says he refused to pay the $450,000 in cleanup until the EPA forced him to do so. Allentown's city solicitor, Martin Danks, says the Rubashkins still owe millions of dollars in unpaid taxes. Inside the courtroom, Rubashkin, an excitable 51-year-old man?his defense lawyer had claimed he was suffering from attention deficit disorder?listens in silence as a prosecutor blames him for endangering the people of Allentown with his carelessness. But when it comes time for him to speak, Rubashkin launches into a stream-of-consciousness oration?not about Montex or Allentown, but about the history of the Jewish community in Crown Heights, and about Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who is known as "the rebbe" to Lubavitch Jews, a revered rabbi who died in 1994. His audience of supporters, meanwhile, is on edge. Beyond their concerns about the sentencing, they've heard rumors that Agriprocessors, the Rubashkin family's notorious kosher-meat-processing plant in Postville, Iowa, is on the verge of bankruptcy. (Bankruptcy papers were filed the following afternoon.) In May, Agriprocessors became a national news story when the federal government made it the subject of what was then the biggest immigration sweep in history, taking 389 undocumented workers into custody. The workers had been paid some of the lowest wages in the nation, and were allegedly forced to work up to 17-hour days with 10-minute lunch breaks in a freezing-cold, dirty hallway. Workers as young as 16 were said to have been operating meat grinders and power shears, often without any safety training. (clip) From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 08:37:03 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:37:03 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Joel Andreas answers Arrighi NLR article on China Message-ID: <4936A79F.30806@panix.com> (I am not sure if this is only available to NLR subscribers. If you'd like to read the entire article, contact me offline.) http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2756 JOEL ANDREAS CHANGING COLOURS IN CHINA Over the last decade, China has suddenly become a major player in the global economy, and it has become increasingly common to read that it is on the way to becoming the world?s dominant power. In the literature of such forecasts, Giovanni Arrighi?s Adam Smith in Beijing stands out for two reasons. The first of these is that Arrighi embeds his analysis within a grand and sophisticated historical model of the rise and fall of a sequence of hegemonic powers. The second is that while many Western scholars view China?s ascent with trepidation, Arrighi welcomes it with enthusiasm. In Arrighi?s model, which was most fully developed in The Long Twentieth Century (1994), the capitalist world system has evolved through a succession of hegemonic cycles. These have each been dominated by a single power, and although they have had distinct characteristics, so far they have all followed similar trajectories. When The Long Twentieth Century was published, Arrighi was already convinced that the global centre of capital accumulation was shifting from the North Atlantic to East Asia, yet at that time China had only just begun to transform its economy in a fashion that would allow it to fully integrate into the global economy and become the ?workshop of the world?. Today, the emergence of China as a global economic power, and the military and economic setbacks of the United States, have given Arrighi the confidence to predict that the epoch of us hegemony is likely to be followed by an era of East Asian dominance, with China at its centre. For Arrighi, Chinese world hegemony could have three positive results. Firstly, by restructuring the current hierarchy of powers, dominated by the West, a period of East Asian pre-eminence might bring about greater equality among the world?s nations. Secondly, Chinese hegemony might prove to be less militarist and more peaceful than its European-American predecessors. Thirdly, the rise of China might foster a more egalitarian and humane East Asian development path?one based on market exchange, but that is not capitalist. Arrighi?s optimistic scenario has attracted surly responses from reviewers convinced of the superiority of Western civilization, and more thoughtful and positive reviews from others, less sanguine about the world order produced by Western domination. [1] Each of his three predictions deserves serious individual consideration. In this essay, I will limit myself to responding to the last?that China might be pioneering the development of a market system that is not capitalist. What you see, of course, depends greatly on the conceptual framework you employ. Arrighi starts with a model of capitalism derived from Braudel?s historical narrative of the development of capitalism in Europe. Braudel divided the economy into three layers. At the bottom, economic activity consisted of subsistence production with little market exchange. A middle layer was composed of market-oriented activity organized by competitive entrepreneurs. The top echelon was reserved for capitalists proper, benefiting from monopoly positions and closely associated with state power. This is a framework that has informed much world-systems analysis, and Arrighi employs it to suggest distinct models of Western and East Asian development. In the West, capitalists dominated the state, generating a potent combination of economic and military expansion that allowed Western powers to conquer the world. In East Asia, by contrast, a strong state fostered market exchange, but kept large-scale capital in check. This model flourished under the hegemonic supervision of the Chinese empire, presiding over a relatively peaceful system of interstate relations in the region which made it the wealthiest in the world until the nineteenth century. Then, as the Chinese state declined and East Asia was incorporated into a world economy dominated by European powers during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Japan grafted elements of the Western capitalist model into its own economy, creating a hybrid system. In The Long Twentieth Century, Arrighi was hopeful that the rising economic power of Japan, stripped of its military dimension after the Second World War, might foster a new model in which economic and military power were dissociated, and could eventually usher in a ?post-capitalist world market society?. [2] In Adam Smith in Beijing, Arrighi has shifted his attention to China, where, he writes, a strong welfare-oriented state created by the Communist revolution has rediscovered the economic dynamism of the market, fostering the initiative of masses of small entrepreneurs, rural and urban. [3] As China leads East Asia to recover its position as the most economically developed region of the globe, he suggests, it may choose to conform to the Western capitalist paradigm or it may blaze a different path more in accord with its own past. Arrighi?s develops his models on a grand scale, encompassing global networks of power and trade, interstate competition, and the evolution of economic and political systems over hundreds of years. Like others who work in the world-systems paradigm, he is more concerned about structures that reproduce international inequality than those that reproduce inequality within nations. As a consequence, he devotes little attention to analysing the details of production relations. What might we see if we revisit recent Chinese economic history, turning our attention to production relations? Such will be my focus, and for this purpose I will use Marx?s conceptual framework. I will then consider Arrighi?s suggestion that China might be pioneering a development path distinct from that of the West, using Braudel?s definition of capitalism, which focuses on the relationship between capital and the state. (clip) From pieinsky at igc.org Wed Dec 3 08:59:37 2008 From: pieinsky at igc.org (Jay Moore) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:59:37 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Adjunct abuse In-Reply-To: <493697F9.9080703@panix.com> References: <493697F9.9080703@panix.com> Message-ID: <4936ACE9.9090502@igc.org> Very true. I'm an adjunct myself and know all kinds of horror stories. The best remedy: Get together with the other adjuncts (if you can locate them -- that's always a problem with "contingent" workers of any sort in this post-Fordist just-in-time economy), share stories, raise consciousness and organize a union. That's what we did. We won a pay raise and a few other benies (alas not health insurance) and just as importantly visibility and respect from not only the college administration but from the other faculty and staff. We're negotiating our second contract now. If anybody wants advice on how to go about doing the above, feel free to contact me. jay Louis Proyect wrote: > http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/03/adjunct. > Breadth of Adjunct Use and Abuse > > The use of adjuncts is well known among academics, but many believe that > these instructors are utilized primarily in certain areas (such as the > humanities) or certain types of institutions (such as community > colleges). But a report being released today by the American Federation > of Teachers suggests that the breadth and depth of adjunct use is > greater than many realize ? such that they are teaching a majority of > public college and university courses, and are a major force in a wide > range of disciplines. > > The report ? ?Reversing Course: The Troubled State of Academic Staffing > and a Path Forward? ? is designed to publicize the extent of adjunct use > with a mind toward encouraging more colleges to either improve the pay > they offer adjuncts or shift more of their positions to the tenure > track. Along those lines, the AFT is releasing a new tool that allows > colleges to calculate the costs of changing staffing policies. The goal > is to show that modest changes may be possible ? even in tight budget > years like this one ? and that over time, such changes could have a > meaningful impact on the makeup of faculties and the compensation of > adjuncts. > > It has been too easy for administrators to ignore the issue of adjunct > use as something other than widespread, and this study ?debunks? that > view by focusing not only on numbers of individuals, but courses taught, > said Barbara Bowen, president of the Professional Staff Congress, the > AFT union at the City University of New York, at a briefing on the > report. Part timers are being used nationwide ?in all disciplines? and > in many cases at ?completely non-professional salaries,? Bowen said. > > ?Most people don?t know the situation,? said Lawrence N. Gold, director > of higher education at the AFT. He acknowledged that there will be no > immediate shift from relying on adjuncts to creating tenure-track > positions. But he said that, if more of the public comes to understand > what has happened to public higher education, progress can be made. The > AFT and other faculty groups have argued that while many adjunct > instructors are great classroom teachers, their working conditions ? > such as lack of office hours, being cut off from curricular decisions, > being forced to move from campus to campus ? result in a reduced quality > of education, and erode the job security vital for academic freedom. > > > (clip)a > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/pieinsky%40igc.org > > From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Wed Dec 3 09:29:17 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:29:17 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Chavez orders investigation into killings of unionists, calls for expropriation of companies at issue Message-ID: <08E40F2702E6408FA99ABF746AA8333B@office1pc> http://www.marxist.com/chavez-orders-investigation-killing-trade-unionists.h tm Venezuela: President Chavez orders investigation into killing of trade unionists, calls for expropriation of companies By Jorge Mart?n Tuesday, 02 December 2008 Speaking during the swearing in of the newly elected PSUV governor of Aragua, Rafael Isea, Venezuelan president Ch?vez ordered a full investigation into the killing of three trade union leaders in the state and threatened to nationalise any companies which violate workers' rights. He insisted that "no crime should be left unpunished, neither this one nor any other one" and explained that the killings of trade union leaders Richard Gallardo, Carlos Requena and Luis Hernandez were an action of sicariato, a political assassination. Referring to the Colombian owned dairy plant Alpina, he said "a certain company needs to be investigated. It is a foreign-owned company where they were fighting against the attacks of the company. I have ordered an investigation into the actions of this company." He added, "because there are companies in other parts of the world which have even used contract killings against workers' and peasant leaders, and now they want to bring these practices here. We cannot allow this in Venezuela! And we must fight strongly against it." In a reference to the use of the Aragua police force against the workers by the former opposition governor Didalco Bolivar he said: "Isea, you have all my support to radically transform the police and the security forces of the Aragua state" Later on in the same speech, Chavez mentioned the social and economic conflicts in Aragua and asked to be updated about the struggle of the Sanitarios Maracay workers. "All those companies where there are problems with the workers, where workers are not paid their wages, where the employers exploit the workers, or where a company closes down and does not pay its workers, or where it has become indebted and cannot pay its workers, well, they have to be recovered, nationalised, taken over". Adding "this is what socialism is, the social ownership of the means of production". President Ch?vez also stressed that in this (the take over and nationalisation of companies), "the working class has a key role to play" and made an appeal to the "workers of Aragua, the working class". This is not the first time that Chavez makes a clear appeal to the working class to take over factories to be nationalised. However in the past, the leaders of the UNT trade unions (either because they oppose workers' control or because of a sectarian approach towards the government) had not used this opportunity to launch a serious campaign of factory occupations and a nation-wide struggle for workers' control. Only one organisation in Venezuela, the Revolutionary Front of Occupied Factories (Freteco) has made an effort to put these appeals into practice, but with limited forces. In some cases, like the struggle of Sanitarios Maracay, in Aragua, the workers did occupy the factory and actually started producing under workers' control. But the then Minister of Labour Ramon Rivero publicly refused to nationalise the company and sabotaged the struggle of the workers. The different wings in the leadership of the UNT also played a dreadful role in this struggle, some openly supporting the strike breaking role of the Minister of Labour, others (like Orlando Chirino) opposing the idea of nationalisation under workers' control and even proposing that the workers should negotiate with a different set of capitalist owners. The struggle of the workers' at Sanitarios Maracay encapsulates the main problems of the Venezuelan revolution: the sabotage of the right wing bureaucracy in the leadership of the Bolivarian movement, the fact that the old capitalist state apparatus is still in place and was used against the workers, and the lack of a serious alternative at the head of the workers' movement. All this is in contrast with the revolutionary spirit of struggle of the Venezuelan workers, which in the early hours of Tuesday, December 2nd, organised mass workplace meetings, rallies, road blockades and work stoppages in Aragua, as part of the regional day of protest against the killing of the three trade union leaders. The first reports of the protests talk about workers in the following companies being involved: Produvisa, Cervecer?a Regional, Vasos Selva, Cativen, Remavenca, HV Envases, Industrias Iberia, Alconca, Plumrose, Tit?n, Diablitos Underwood, Pepsio-Cola, Toronocas, Venezolana de Riego, Serviquim, Sindicato de la Alcald?a del municipio Zamora, Nestl?, Vasos Dixie, Tupaca, Manpa Higi?nico, Sanitarios Maracay, Mom, Aluminios Reynolds, Galletera Puig, Central El Palmar, Cebra, Inica. Rallies and road blockades were organised in Villa de Cura, Cagua and Maracay, paralysing the whole of the state. The only way to put an end to the reactionary provocations and killings is by taking away economic and political power from the bosses, the bankers and the landlords. This is the task of the working class of Venezuela and the only way to guarantee the victory of the Bolivarian revolution. From dbachmozart at aol.com Wed Dec 3 10:05:02 2008 From: dbachmozart at aol.com (dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:05:02 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] UN Gen Assembly President Blasts Israel over OT In-Reply-To: <20081203093149.90182441@electronicintifada.net> References: <20081203093149.90182441@electronicintifada.net> Message-ID: <8CB23806A35CEAF-CB0-152A@WEBMAIL-DY17.sysops.aol.com> UPDATE FROM THE ELECTRONIC INTIFADA http://electronicIntifada.net _______________________________ UN ASSEMBLY HEAD HAILED FOR SLAMMING ISRAEL By Thalif Deen, The Electronic Intifada, 3 December 2008 UNITED NATIONS (IPS) - The president of the United Nations General Assembly, Father Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, dropped a political bombshell last week when he lashed out at Israel for its repressive actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including the recent blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza. "What is being done to the Palestinian people seems to me to be a version of the hideous policy of apartheid," he told delegates, during a meeting commemorating the "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People." http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10006.shtml ---------------------------------------------------------- PALESTINE : OPINION/EDITORIAL: WILL PALESTINIANS HIT HILLARY'S GLASS CEILING? By Dr. Marcy Newman, The Electronic Intifada, 2 December 2008 It is difficult to recall a US secretary of state who embodied the ideals of the position: the promotion of dialogue and privileging of diplomacy. Unfortunately, US President-elect Barack Obama's nominee, Hillary Clinton, is not likely to restore these ideals to the office. Clinton has long championed military action against the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and has promised to "obliterate" Iran if the state launched a nuclear strike against Israel. Dr. Marcy Newman comments for The Electronic Intifada. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10000.shtml ---------------------------------------------------------- From cpimllib at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 10:26:31 2008 From: cpimllib at gmail.com (CPIML Liberation) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 22:56:31 +0530 Subject: [Marxism] CC Call for the Pledge Campaign (18 December, 2008 - 16 January, 2009) In-Reply-To: <006001c95557$a7ccc3a0$0801a8c0@user> References: <006001c95557$a7ccc3a0$0801a8c0@user> Message-ID: * CC Call for the Pledge Campaign (18 December, 2008 ? 16 January, 2009) Grasp the Situation and Grab the Opportunities! Consolidate and Expand the Gains on All Fronts!! Strengthen the Party and Unleash the Full Initiative of the Entire Organisation!!!* After decades of aggressive expansion, world capitalism is passing through a period of grave crisis. Big banks and other financial institutions have begun to collapse like nine pins in the US, the headquarters of the world capitalist economy. Huge sums of money are being pumped in by the American state to somehow keep these moribund institutions going. Passionate believers and advocates of unassailable American supremacy have begun talking about the decline of the US and a global shift of power from the West to the East. For communists and anti-imperialists who had been sought to be pushed back by the marauding offensive of corporate globalisation and imperialist war, the time has come to hit back and surge ahead. Right in the US, the American people have made their presence felt through a powerful mandate in the recent Presidential elections which goes beyond the symbolism of sending for the first time a Black man to the White House. Inspired by the bold examples of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia, Latin America continues to defy the hegemony of US imperialism. Across the world, more and more people are getting organised to challenge the offensive of the US-led imperialist camp on all fronts. Conditions are now particularly ripe in India for launching a powerful popular assault on the policies of the Indian ruling classes. Our comprador rulers have always looked up to the US as the ultimate model, following US-designed policies in every sphere. As a consequence of increased integration with the US, we are now importing every aspect of America's crisis on to our soil. While the financial crisis has been triggered by Wall Street, the three-day siege of Mumbai that has come to be known as India's 9/11 clearly showed that as a strategic ally of the US, India has now become a key theatre and target for global terrorism. With the comprador rulers getting increasingly discredited and exposed, revolutionary communists must come forward to save the country from the crisis that has been inflicted by imperialism and its Indian lackeys. The elitist economic policies catering to the greed of the rich and the powerful and ignoring the need of the working people, rural or urban, have landed the country into a comprehensive economic crisis. Yet in the name of checking the economic crisis, the government is announcing further concessions for foreign capital and Indian monopolies. Even in a situation of crisis, the government diverts more resources in favour of capitalists by depriving the working people. We must resist this course and fight more vigorously for the basic needs of the masses. 77% of Indian people live on a daily expenditure of less than Rs. 20. It is only by increasing the income and purchasing power of these people that the domestic economy can be saved and home market expanded. The way to rejuvenation of the national economy lies in the rural poor's fight for employment, wages, land, housing and subsidised supply of foodgrains and other articles of mass consumption, the peasants' struggle for cheaper inputs and easier credit and the student-youth battle for right to education and employment. Even as we fight for a self-reliant economy and a vibrant democratic polity, the current crisis is also providing fodder and fuel to fascist forces and trends of diverse hues. Of late, we have seen a marked increase in violent attacks propelled by aggressive communalism, terrorism and/or regional chauvinism. Loud demands are being voiced in the media for resurrection of POTA or promulgation of even more draconian laws and for giving a free hand to the police and armed forces. In the wake of the recent terror strike in Mumbai, Indo-Pak relations have once again begun to deteriorate with cries of war rending the air. And the US is only too interested in fishing in the troubled waters of the Indian subcontinent. Rabid rightwing forces in India seem to have discovered a golden opportunity in the post-Mumbai situation. We must thwart their design. There is a growing public outcry against ruling politicians in the country. We must try to channelize it towards a progressive democratic direction and emphasise greater popular participation and assertion to promote healthy democratic politics of the people. The fascist forces and jingoist communal campaigns can only be defeated by intensifying the people's movement for democracy and the CPI(ML) remains ever committed to move ahead resolutely in this direction. Comrades, our Party had suffered a major setback soon after its formation in 1969. Thanks to the brave sacrifice of our immortal martyrs and the tireless and resolute efforts of the working class and the rural poor and the sympathy and support of broader democratic sections of our society, our Party was able to overcome that setback and revive and expand itself across the country. "The interests of the people are the interests of the Party," said Comrade Charu Mazumdar in his last writing and under the inspiring leadership of Comrade Vinod Mishra and the Party Central Committee, our Party revived itself by unleashing the energy and initiative of the people in every sphere. Ten years ago we lost Comrade Vinod Mishra right in the middle of a meeting of the Party Central committee. In his last writing presented to the Central Committee, Comrade VM had placed the following central task before the entire Party: "A strong communist party firmly upholding the red banner of revolutionary Marxism, a powerful movement of the rural poor and an all-round initiative against the designs of the saffron power are the three major challenges before us in this year. Social democrats as well as anarchists of all hues are facing serious internal disorders due to faulty tactical lines and every advance we make will further destablise them and establish us at the head of the left movement. Such a development is absolutely essential for building a democratic front that is really a people's alternative in contrast to various versions of bourgeois alternatives." These last words of Comrade VM remain extremely relevant at the present juncture. During the last ten years, the Party has worked steadfastly to expand and intensify its rural work, strengthen the network of Party organization and uphold the red banner of revolutionary Marxism. Guided by the collective wisdom of the Party and armed with the revolutionary spirit that defines our Party, we have succeeded in spreading the Party to newer states and areas and crossing the 1,00,000 membership figure at the time of the Eighth Congress held in Kolkata in last December. And as far as our rural poor mass base is concerned, at the 3rd National Conference of AIALA held at Ballia a few weeks ago, we recorded a membership strength of nearly 25,00,000. If we can now organise this entire strength in a vibrant organisational network down to every panchayat and every ward of every town wherever we have some work, and unleash the full energy and initiative of this organised force in terms of militant mass struggles and bold political assertion, we will be able to realise Comrade VM's vision of putting our Party at the head of the Left movement and building and projecting a genuine people's alternative in contrast to various bourgeois alternatives. The Kolkata Congress initiated a determined inner-Party struggle against all the alien trends like liquidationism, factionalism and federalism that weaken the Party and unleashed full-scale mass initiative towards fulfilling the Eighth Congress clarion call "People's Resistance, Left Resurgence". As we complete the year 2008, we can reasonably claim to have won some encouraging primary victory in this direction. The series of Party State Conferences and national conferences of mass organisations held in 2008 have unleashed a lot of energy and enthusiasm and indicated considerable potential for growth in almost every area. As we begin a new year, we must grasp the new situation and grab all the opportunities that have come our way, consolidate and expand all the gains we have secured in 2008 and unleash the full initiative of the entire Party and its mass base. In 2009 we are set to face Lok Sabha elections as well as Assembly elections in several states. In April 2009, we will also be observing the 40th anniversary of our Party's foundation. Let us all strive hard to make 2009 a year of bigger victories. Eternal glory to our immortal martyrs! Long live Indian Revolution! Long live CPI From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Dec 3 10:32:49 2008 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:32:49 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] College May Become Unaffordable for Most in U.S. Message-ID: <5F32DB313AB34F75ABB565CEE8BBA83E@agingCHS072729> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/education/03college.html?_r=1&hp College May Become Unaffordable for Most in U.S. By TAMAR LEWIN Published: December 3, 2008 The rising cost of college - even before the recession - threatens to put higher education out of reach for most Americans, according to the annual report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Soaring College Tuitions Over all, the report found, published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007, adjusted for inflation, while median family income rose 147 percent. Student borrowing has more than doubled in the last decade, and students from lower-income families, on average, get smaller grants from the colleges they attend than students from more affluent families. "If we go on this way for another 25 years, we won't have an affordable system of higher education," said Patrick M. Callan, president of the center, a nonpartisan organization that promotes access to higher education. "When we come out of the recession," Mr. Callan added, "we're really going to be in jeopardy, because the educational gap between our work force and the rest of the world will make it very hard to be competitive. Already, we're one of the few countries where 25- to 34-year-olds are less educated than older workers." Although college enrollment has continued to rise in recent years, Mr. Callan said, it is not clear how long that can continue. "The middle class has been financing it through debt," he said. "The scenario has been that families that have a history of sending kids to college will do whatever if takes, even if that means a huge amount of debt." But low-income students, he said, will be less able to afford college. Already, he said, the strains are clear. The report, "Measuring Up 2008," is one of the few to compare net college costs - that is, a year's tuition, fees, room and board, minus financial aid - against median family income. Those findings are stark. Last year, the net cost at a four-year public university amounted to 28 percent of the median family income, while a four-year private university cost 76 percent of the median family income. The share of income required to pay for college, even with financial aid, has been growing especially fast for lower-income families, the report found. Among the poorest families - those with incomes in the lowest 20 percent - the net cost of a year at a public university was 55 percent of median income, up from 39 percent in 1999-2000. At community colleges, long seen as a safety net, that cost was 49 percent of the poorest families' median income last year, up from 40 percent in 1999-2000. The likelihood of large tuition increases next year is especially worrying, Mr. Callan said. "Most governors' budgets don't come out until January, but what we're seeing so far is Florida talking about a 15 percent increase, Washington State talking about a 20 percent increase, and California with a mixture of budget cuts and enrollment cuts," he said. In a separate report released this week by the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, the public universities acknowledged the looming crisis, but painted a different picture. That report emphasized that families have many higher-education choices, from community colleges, where tuition and fees averaged about $3,200, to private research universities, where they cost more than $33,000. "We think public higher education is affordable right now, but we're concerned that it won't be, if the changes we're seeing continue, and family income doesn't go up," said David Shulenburger, the group's vice president for academic affairs and co-author of the report. "The public conversation is very often in terms of a $35,000 price tag, but what you get at major public research university is, for the most part, still affordable at 6,000 bucks a year." While tuition has risen at public universities, his report said, that has largely been to make up for declining state appropriations. The report offered its own cost projections, not including room and board. "Projecting out to 2036, tuition would go from 11 percent of the family budget to 24 percent of the family budget, and that's pretty huge," Mr. Shulenburger said. "We only looked at tuition and fees because those are the only things we can control." Looking at total costs, as families must, he said, his group shared Mr. Callan's concerns. Mr. Shulenburger's report suggested that public universities explore a variety of approaches to lower costs - distance learning, better use of senior year in high school, perhaps even shortening college from four years. "There's an awful lot of experimentation going on right now, and that needs to go on," he said. "If you teach a course by distance with 1,000 students, does that affect learning? Till we know the answer, it's difficult to control costs in ways that don't affect quality." Mr. Callan, for his part, urged a reversal in states' approach to higher-education financing. "When the economy is good, and state universities are somewhat better funded, we raise tuition as little as possible," he said. "When the economy is bad, we raise tuition and sock it to families, when people can least afford it. That's exactly the opposite of what we need." ============== Fresh Ink is an alternative news service Join us! https://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Dec 3 10:35:04 2008 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:35:04 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Pentagon officials report strongest recruiting season in four years Message-ID: (who needs the draft when you have a recession, and when costs of higher education are unaffordable?) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28019406/ Associated Press Dec. 2, 2008 Soldiers choose war over bleak economy Pentagon officials report strongest recruiting season in four years FORT RILEY, Kan. - Sgt. Ryan Nyhus spent 14 months patrolling the deadly streets of Baghdad, where five members of his platoon were shot and one died. As bad as that was, he would rather go back there than take his chances in this brutal job market. Nyhus re-enlisted last Wednesday and in so doing joined the growing ranks of those choosing to stay in the U.S. military because of the bleak economy. "In the Army, you're always guaranteed a steady paycheck and a job," said the 21-year-old Nyhus. "Deploying's something that's going to happen. That's a fact of life in the Army - a fact of life in the infantry." In 2008, as the stock market cratered and the housing market collapsed, more young members of the Army, Air Force and Navy decided to re-up. While several factors might explain the rise in re-enlistments, including a decline in violence in Iraq, Pentagon officials acknowledge that bad news for the economy is usually good news for the military. In fact, the Pentagon just completed its strongest recruiting year in four years. "We do benefit when things look less positive in civil society," said David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. "What difficult economic times give us, I think, is an opening to make our case to people who we might not otherwise have." Retention rate rising The retention rate of early-career soldiers in the Army has risen steadily over the past four years and now stands 20 percentage points higher than it was in fiscal 2004. As for the Navy and the Air Force, early- and mid-career sailors and airmen re-enlisted at a higher rate in October than during the same period in 2007. The Marine Corps was not immediately able to provide comparative figures on re-enlistments. Alex Stewart joined the Army two years ago, when the factory where he worked as a welder started laying off. He was sent to Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne Division, which suffered 87 deaths last year, the highest total suffered by the 20,000-member unit since the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan began. When his hitch was up in earlier this year, the 32-year-old from Grand Rapids, Mich., didn't hesitate to re-up for five more years. "I want a stable life for my wife in a very shaky economy," Stewart said. "There were no other options." Stewart's new assignment will take him to Germany, where he will serve as a truck driver, though it is always possible he could be sent back into combat. ============== Fresh Ink is an alternative news service Join us! https://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From marlavk at yahoo.com Wed Dec 3 10:44:20 2008 From: marlavk at yahoo.com (Marla Vijaya kumar) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:44:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Munbai: Why this violent counterattack by the Indian army? Message-ID: <525938.117.qm@web50006.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Leuko Williams Schreib: ....... Instead the Indian army or police went into a violent counter-attack, causing more deaths and more damage to the buildings. To me this seems to be not a wise way to act. Did the attackers continue to shoot around them or to kill one tourist after the other? According to the news reports which I got, they didn't. From the attackers we only know that a "Dekkan mujaheddin" took responsability for the attack. Dekkan is an area in south-central India, to the East of Mumbai. Several members of the Indian government pointed towards Pakistan, which is probably understood in India as meaning simply "Muslim"; now, India has more Muslims than Pakistan, possibly as much as Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country. Will in the end the Hindu chauvinist forces in India profit from this event? Reply: Comrade Williams, your reaction is a typical Western one. I can understand that you are gathering information from the European and US media, which usually sermonises the 'ignorant and backward natives' on what they should have done and how they should learn from the West. The attackers were not 'freedom fighters' by any strtch of imagination and their sole aim was to kill atleast 5000 people and spread terror. They were regularly communicating with their bosses in Karachi and taking instructions. They were also high on drugs so that they can remain numb to all the blood spilling they are causing. The Indian armed forces had done a commendable job, inspite of the fumbling by the politicians (read bourgeoisie). The nation of 1.1 billion salutes them unanimously for their heroism and sacrifice. So may facts have to come out but a full picture and the real facts may never see the light of day. But please understand that the people of this vast under educated, under-nourished and backward (in the eyes of the West) nation has a mature democracy and the people can judge the events and react to it intelligently (even if they work in their fields with only lion cloths). As an after thought, I wonder, if white people were not killed, would the terror attack have got such a coverage? It would have remained a small event casually reported somewhere in the back pages. In my view, all lives, whether white, brown or black are eually precious. Vijaya Kumar Marla From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Dec 3 10:47:22 2008 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:47:22 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Liberal and New Democrat Coalition Accord and Economic Policy Message-ID: <183C86C192AB40E899A4D5FB5B6278E4@agingCHS072729> (what a very general, bland document! Still, an interesting situation, and offering more possibilities than, say, the two-party system in the USA) December 1, 2008 An Accord on a Cooperative Government to Address the Present Economic Crisis This document outlines the key understandings between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada regarding a new cooperative government. 1. Role of caucuses The Liberal and NDP caucuses will continue to meet as distinct caucuses. They will receive briefings and be consulted as appropriate. Both are entitled to offer advice to the government. The two caucuses may meet jointly as agreed from time to time to jointly address issues. The caucuses will sit next to each other on the government benches. 2. Cabinet Nothing in this Accord is intended to diminish or alter the power and prerogatives of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. The Minister of Finance will be appointed from the Liberal caucus. The cabinet will be composed of 24 ministers plus the Prime Minister. Eighteen of these ministers will be appointed from within the Liberal caucus. Six of these ministers will be appointed from within the NDP caucus, plus six Parliamentary Secretaries, sworn in as Privy Councillors, will also be named from the NDP caucus. In the event the Prime Minister chooses to appoint a larger cabinet, the NDP proportion will be maintained. The specifics of these cabinet appointments will be made by the Prime Minister in appropriate consultation with the Leader of the NDP. The rules and practices of cabinet confidentiality and solidarity will be strictly maintained. Normal processes of cabinet appointments and governance in the Canadian federal government will be respected. The cabinet is jointly and collectively accountable to Parliament for its work, including in daily question period. 3. A "no surprises" approach Within the limits of common sense and the needs of cabinet government, the two parties agree they will work together on a "no surprises" basis. Furthermore, upon its formation, the government will put in place a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Qu?b?cois. 4. Appointments Both parties are committed to restoring the integrity, transparency and efficiency of the appointments process in the Public Service and in federal bodies like the Supreme Court, the Senate and Commissions like the CRTC. The Prime Minister will consult the Leader of the NDP as appropriate on appointments. 5. A standing managing committee of the Accord A standing managing committee of the Accord, chaired by the Prime Minister, will be struck. It will be composed of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the NDP, and such other persons as the leaders deem appropriate from time to time. The committee will meet regularly to ensure the good order of the Accord; to deal with key issues that have arisen; to consult on key appointments; and to resolve any disputes which might arise from the Accord (for example, by referring issues relating to the Accord to a trusted committee of experienced, distinguished Canadians). 6. Term of this Accord This Accord will expire on June 30, 2011 unless renewed. Agreed on December 1, 2008. Hon. St?phane Dion Leader, Liberal Party of Canada Hon. Jack Layton Leader, New Democratic Party of Canada --------------------------------------------- ============================================= A Policy Accord to Address the Present Economic Crisis Preamble The new Government is supported by parties that share a commitment to fiscal responsibility, a progressive agenda and a belief in the role of Government to act as a partner with Canadians and Quebecers. Where appropriate, these goals should be pursued in full partnership and consultation with the provincial and territorial governments. Fiscal Principles This policy accord is built on a foundation of fiscal responsibility. All three parties agree that the Canadian economy and the fiscal framework of the federal government have severely weakened since the last federal budget. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer concluded, due to the policy choices of the Conservative government, the starting point of the federal government is deficit. This new reality does not reduce the necessity to stimulate the economy consistent with the understandings arrived at by all nations in the G20. The following plan describes common goals and sets out an outline to provide active stimulus for the economy over the next two years, with a shared commitment to return to surplus within four years. Economic Stimulus Package The top priority of the new Government is an economic stimulus package designed to boost the domestic economy beginning with (but not limited to): . Accelerating existing infrastructure funding and substantial new investments, including municipal and inter-provincial projects (such as . transit, clean energy, water, corridors and gateways). This would certainly include addressing the urgent infrastructure needs of First Nations, M?tis and Inuit; . Housing construction and retrofitting; and . Investing in key sector strategies (like manufacturing, forestry and automotive) designed to create and save jobs, with any aid contingent on a plan to transform these industries and return them to profitability and sustainability. Rapid Support for those affected by the Economic Crisis The new Government is committed to ensuring that the federal government has the appropriate programs in place to assist those most affected by the economic crisis so that all citizens will be in a position to fully participate in the economic recovery to follow, including the following measures: . Facilitate skills training to help ensure Canadian workers are properly equipped to keep pace with the rapidly changing economy, while respecting provincial jurisdiction and existing agreements; . Amend the current law establishing a new crown corporation for employment insurance in order to guarantee that all revenue from EI premiums provides benefits and training for workers. Eliminate the current two week waiting period; . Lower the minimum required RRIF withdrawal for 2008 by 50 per cent; . Reform bankruptcy and insolvency laws to better protect pensions; and . Implement an income support program for older workers who have lost their jobs in order to help them make the transition from work to receiving retirement benefits. Other Priorities to Stimulate the Economy . Support for culture, including the cancellation of budget cuts announced by the Conservative government. . Support for Canadian Wheat Board and Supply Management . Immigration Reform . Reinstate regional development agency funding to non-profit economic development organizations. Families As finances permit, we are committed to moving forward with improved child benefits and an early learning and childcare program in partnership with each province, and respectful of their role and jurisdiction, including the possibility to opt out with full compensation. Working with our North American Partners We will work with our North American Partners to pursue a North American cap-and-trade market with absolute emission targets, using 1990 as the base year. Working with our International Partners The new Government is committed to working with the international community, particularly with G-20 partners, in pursuit of an effective new global financial architecture. Confidence Votes The Government will not request a dissolution of Parliament during the term of this agreement, except following defeat on an explicitly-framed motion of non-confidence presented by the Opposition; or any vote pertaining to the speech from the throne; or on a budget vote at on any stage in the House; or on any bill to implement a budget at any stage in the House; or on any motion in the House to concur in, restore or reinstate any Estimates; or on any supply bill at any stage in the House. The Bloc Qu?b?cois will neither move nor will it support any motions of non-confidence in the Government during the term of its support for this agreement, and will vote in favour of the Government's position with respect to all matters referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph. Term of this agreement The Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada will adhere to this agreement until June 30, 2011 unless renewed. The Bloc Qu?b?cois will adhere to this agreement until June 30, 2010 unless renewed. Agreed on December 1, 2008 Hon. St?phane Dion Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada Hon. Jack Layton Leader, the New Democratic Party of Canada Gilles Duceppe Leader, le Bloc Qu?b?cois _______________________________________________ ============== Fresh Ink is an alternative news service Join us! https://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From jbustelo at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 10:58:46 2008 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 12:58:46 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] =?iso-8859-1?q?NYT=3A_Ch=E1vez_Again_Seeks_to_End_Term_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?Limits?= In-Reply-To: <26433561.687071228151059185.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> References: <1362542119.686501228150869900.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> <26433561.687071228151059185.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: Steven L. Robinson writes: "How then do you explain the Mexican experience, where one of the major demands of the revolution of 1910 was to impose term limits on the Mexican Presidency? "Surely you can not say that in all cases and in all instances term limits are a reactionary thing." When applied against the Porfiriato the demand for no re-election was progressive. But it simply meant out with this dictator. And the real problem there was Porfirio Diaz's stealing of elections. "Term limits" in general, on their face, are anti-democratic, designed as they are to frustrate the popular will. In Latin America they're being used as a rallying cry against Chavez as they were two decades ago against the Sandinistas. And when the bourgeoisie needs one of their own re-elected, the constitution gets changed (Uribe in Colombia). It is an illusion to think that "democracy" is somehow "strengthened" by such provisions. Joaquin From tcod at hotmail.com Wed Dec 3 11:31:40 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:31:40 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <4565DB9D907C43A690BFC2409E63E472@dmsthinkpad> References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com><20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <4565DB9D907C43A690BFC2409E63E472@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: No, actually these mass demonstrations and the mass movement played a very important role in ending the war, second only to the military struggle of the Vietnamese people. While it is entirely proper and appropriate for vanguard groups to raise anti-imperialist slogans and whatever, it was crucial to mobilize the masses of folks in the streets which counterposing vanguard actions, slogans and tactics would have obstructed. Rather, those actions should be properly viewed as juxtaposed to that, within a mass basis or context, like say the excellent Catonsville 9 protest, for example. It seems fundamentally an ultraleft, elitist and idealist conception to think otherwise because ideas alone, slogans by themselves, change little. An excellent example of how the mass antiwar movement did deter the warmongers was offered by Daniel Ellsberg who stated that "Operation Duck Hoop" scheduled for November 1969 in which Nixon planned a massive operation to bomb the dikes in Vietnam was called off because of the monster mass protests occuring in at that time. Moreover, Kissinger himself admitted that a primary reason the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, in addition to the military gains of the Vietnamese, was the anti-war movement and radicalization at home which both made pursuing the war in a viable way military difficult and which posed a broader political threat to stability at home which needed to be neutralized. Although overstated and not entirely correct in all its examples (chicago 1968), Peter Camejo's pamphlet, "Liberalism, Ultraleftism and Mass Action" is an excellent statement of this view, with Fred Halstead's book "Out Now" being a good history of the anti-war movement from this perspective. > The anti-war demonstrations as organized by the various incarnations of The > Mobe were rigidly single issue, lowest common denominator, and with even its > rhetoric reduced below that of a common denominator, changing Stop The War, > to "Bring the Troops Home Now," which, as Nixon proved, wasn't stopping the > war at all. > _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 From srobin21 at comcast.net Wed Dec 3 11:41:58 2008 From: srobin21 at comcast.net (Steven L. Robinson) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Marxism] =?utf-8?q?NYT=3A_Ch=C3=A1vez_Again_Seeks_to_End_Term_Li?= =?utf-8?q?mits?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <828888786.1083051228329718223.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> As a matter of principle, can one say that in all cases say that "term limits" are undemocratic? In the real world, where we live, I think that the answer depends entirely on context. I can certainly agree that in the specific context of the Venezuelan political situation, term limits are unfortunate and should be abolished or modified. In the context of the US, where the major parties design the electoral system so as to assure their leading figures remain in power forever through gerrymandering, ballot access restrictions, etc, term limits have some benefit in that they at least force a rotation of personnel. In California, at least, this has resulted in the election of individuals more liberal or to the left of those that would have held the positions had there been no term limits. Compare for instance, California state legislators , where there are term limits, to the Congressional delegation, where there are none. For instance, in San Francisco in the state legislator we have two progressives, Leno and Ammiano, the lattter identifies himself as a socialist, while in Congress, we have two machine pols, Pelosi and Speir. Were term limits applied to Congress, we would almost certainly have, on balance, more progressive, or at least representatives more responsive to the electorate. The right of immediate recall of the elected representatives is certainly a more chastening tool to use on elected officials - a right that, if I recall correctly, existed in the Paris Commune and spoken of highly by Marx and Engels. Does the fact that the Venezuelan right wing used a right of recall to harass Chavez make the concept reactionary? I don't think so. On the other hand, Evo Morales used a right of recall for the benefit of his program. It seems to me that term limits, in and of themselves, are not necessarily undemocratic, any more than other restrictions placed on qualifications for office. It is undemocratic that 30 year olds can't run for President of the US? Or that Californians can't elect New Yorkers to Congress? It is conceivable that a workers government might impose term limits on its officials as a guard against bureacratism or the creation of an authoritarian personality cult. SR . ----- Original Message ----- From: Joaquin Bustelo To: srobin21 at comcast.net Sent: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:58:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [Marxism] NYT: Ch?vez Again Seeks to End Term Limits Steven L. Robinson writes: "How then do you explain the Mexican experience, where one of the major demands of the revolution of 1910 was to impose term limits on the Mexican Presidency? "Surely you can not say that in all cases and in all instances term limits are a reactionary thing." When applied against the Porfiriato the demand for no re-election was progressive. But it simply meant out with this dictator. And the real problem there was Porfirio Diaz's stealing of elections. "Term limits" in general, on their face, are anti-democratic, designed as they are to frustrate the popular will. In Latin America they're being used as a rallying cry against Chavez as they were two decades ago against the Sandinistas. And when the bourgeoisie needs one of their own re-elected, the constitution gets changed (Uribe in Colombia). It is an illusion to think that "democracy" is somehow "strengthened" by such provisions. Joaquin ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/srobin21%40comcast.net From walterlx at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 11:51:58 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:51:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] Raul Castro attends first beatification ceremony in Cuba Message-ID: <4799829.1228330318519.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Here's some additional information about Cuba, the Revolution, and Cuba's relationship with the Catholic Church. Raul's attendance at Saturday's beatification, along with several other top government and Communist Party officials, has evoked a raft of favorable publicity about Cuba in the dominant corporate media, and some in the Roman Catholic media as well. There's even a note here about lay Cubans praising the Cuban government for facilitating the conduct of this important public event. Anything which reduces complaints from the citizenry against the Cuban government would seem to be a good thing. Now if I thought that they were going to get rid of abortion rights, that would be something to get worried about and to protest against. But Raul and other leaders making a friendly visit to a church where they're celebrating the role of one Cuban religious figure who opposed materialism and who played a positive and active role in the island's independence struggles? That's a very positive thing. Anyway, here are some additional reports by way of background. It's all good from what I can see so far. Walter Lippmann Los Angeles, California ====================================================================== GOD IS WITH CUBA AND WITH FIDEL by Ousmanne Muhammed Tour? From elishastephens at hotmail.com Wed Dec 3 12:10:04 2008 From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:10:04 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?_Re=3A__NYT=3A_Ch=E1vez_Again_Seeks_to?= =?windows-1252?q?_End_Term_Limits?= Message-ID: Steven L. Robinson wrote: "In the context of the US, where the major parties design the electoral system so as to assure their leading figures remain in power forever through gerrymandering, ballot access restrictions, etc, term limits have some benefit in that they at least force a rotation of personnel. In California, at least, this has resulted in the election of individuals more liberal or to the left of those that would have held the positions had there been no term limits. Compare for instance, California state legislators , where there are term limits, to the Congressional delegation, where there are none. For instance, in San Francisco in the state legislator we have two progressives, Leno and Ammiano, the lattter identifies himself as a socialist, while in Congress, we have two machine pols, Pelosi and Speir. Were term limits applied to Congress, we would almost certainly have, on balance, more progressive, or at least representatives more responsive to the electorate." This is a bogus comparison. The force of ruling class opinion is bound to be much stronger and more important the higher up one goes. There are numerous Greens elected at local office; none in Congress. This has nothing to do with term limits. And there is no evidence that I know of that the imposition of term limits in California some years ago has moved the State Legislature to the left. What it HAS done is increased enormously the power of lobbyists, i.e., business, since they are the "permanent" residents of Sacramento, whereas the legislators are mere transients, spending half their time there just learning the ropes before it's time for them to go. The imposition of term limits in California was a *right-wing* measure. Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _________________________________________________________________ Suspicious message? There?s an alert for that. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad2_122008 From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 12:13:12 2008 From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:13:12 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] =?iso-8859-1?q?NYT=3A_Ch=E1vez_Again_Seeks_to_End_Term_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?Limits?= Message-ID: <4936DA48.6090505@gmail.com> Steven, you make a statement: "As a matter of principle, can one say that in all cases say that "term limits" are undemocratic?" I think Joaquin's point is it is the political situation, the dynamic in which we discuss a particular political situation where this comes up, is one one has to look at first (don't mean to put too much of my own spin on Joaquin's words...). Thus, when in the 1980s I had to seriously consider a sub-genre of the Reaganist political scene that wanted to over turn the 2 term limit for President of the US. I started out with the position that term limits are undemocratic...how can a minority of people *dictate* who the majority *cannot vote for*? So in that context, I had to consider was it more democratic or not to support this when if it had come up? The only "principle" should be: "does increase people's voice over society; does increase or decrease the strength of the working class (broadly speaking) relative to the bosses...?" Joaquin explained why the revolution in Mexico was predicated on the "not re-election" perspective: it was to get rid of a dictator who worked against democracy, for the rich, against the poor. In California, where I also live, it was correct to oppose the two term limit as a violation of our democratic right to choose who we want to represent us in the state legislature (and local offices as well). It was imposed on us because the right-wing was on an offensive. Venezuela. I have no "principled" opposition to Chavez seeking another term. First, he asking the PEOPLE to decided this (albeit in rather fighting, ultimatistic terms "for or against Chavez means for or against the Revolution") to decide if the PEOPLE can have the right to vote for whom they want as President. The real issue of *interest* for us on the left in discussing this far away from Venezuela, is the *tactic* of raising this within the context of last years defeat for the the multi-part referendum that almost, but didn't, pass. Chavez made a profound, for me, statement after that defeat "It was better for us to lose this referendum by the margin we did that to have won the referendum by the same margin". Fantastic political statement that showed the reality of politics in Venezuela and that the opposition would of cried "Fraud!!!" if in fact the pro-reform Referendum had won. Personally, myself, ME, thinking out loud, I think Chavez's recent justification for reversing now his earlier position of not raising this again could result in the *exact* same results. By making it about "him" and not the other important reforms that went down to defeat *because* of the inclusion of getting rid of the term limits, means he's setting up the Revolution for possible defeat, again. I would of thought from 2,000 miles away, that he would of pushed for those other reforms, like the social clauses that would of made it right for Venezuelans to have a better life, would of been his first Constitutional priority. So I do have a question about the timing of this, about the priority of this, vs the other parts of that referendum that most people DID support. But it has nothing to do with whether the Venezuelan people should have a right to elect, fair and freely, their President, no matter who it is. David From elishastephens at hotmail.com Wed Dec 3 12:14:59 2008 From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:14:59 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers Message-ID: Tom Cod wrote: "An excellent example of how the mass antiwar movement did deter the warmongers was offered by Daniel Ellsberg who stated that "Operation Duck Hoop" scheduled for November 1969 in which Nixon planned a massive operation to bomb the dikes in Vietnam was called off because of the monster mass protests occuring in at that time." And I would argue precisely the same thing happened in the Iraq War. I'm firmly convinced the decision to send "too few" troops (which certainly helped increase the success of the resistance) was taken not because of some "Rumsfeld doctrine," but because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. were convinced they could only sell the war to the American people (and to the Democrats) by minimizing its cost, and pretending that it could be "won" "on the cheap." Were it not for the demonstrated opposition of the public, they would have gladly sent twice as many troops, and conducted twice as many Fallujah-type massacres. Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 From jbustelo at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 12:33:46 2008 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:33:46 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream In-Reply-To: References: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta><4E67CA8EB3D84AFE9C6B05272E6F6AE0@PaddyPC> Message-ID: <66512EDC260541A9BAB7233636912A7D@albanta> Gary writes: "The horse is of course not a horse and besides nothing is at all dead. The criticism of Obama is alive and desperately needed. It does not preclude action on evictions etc. Indeed it is a necessary but not sufficient precursor to action." I thank Gary for his very clear expression of one of the central points of disagreement. The election of Obama has been tremendously popular with working people in the United States, especially the most conscious political layers (talking now not about a thin crust of radicals, but in terms of millions and tens of millions), disproportionately Blacks and Latinos. This for at least two reasons: a) It is viewed as punishment for a particularly hated president and not just him, but his party. b) It is viewed as a blow to racism and white supremacy. Gary says "criticism of Obama ... is desperately needed." In other posts he speaks of a "howl" (I wonder if the allusion to Ginsberg was conscious) and expressing "rage" (ditto for the Weather Underground). I do believe that material that patiently explains things like the nature of the two party system, and that even uses some of the appointments to the new administration to highlight the fundamental continuity of U.S. imperialism and the limits of "change" in this framework are necessary and useful. But we should understand that at this point, such material is aimed at a narrow layer of most advanced elements, and should be pitched in such a way as to avoid antagonizing, and even attract, those who supported Obama and identified with his victory but recognized that this was not the be-all and end-all of "change," viewing it only as a step. Some examples of material that I think strikes the right tone and stance, that I believe is useful, are Solidarity's statement about Obama's dual mandate; the Freedom Road statement about Obama's election (despite my secondary disagreement with how they formulated demands in the form of Bill Fletcher's detailed road-map for Obama's first 100 days -- my disagreement was about whether this was the more effective form and style of presentation, not the main thrust), as well as the general approach of the articles in the ISO's Socialist Worker. That said, I disagree *completely* that "criticism of Obama ... is a necessary ... precursor to action." On the contrary, I believe that ACTION is the necessary precursor to more widespread acceptance of the criticism of Obama. There is no sense in now needlessly alienating people by strident, denunciatory articles WHICH THEY CANNOT UNDERSTAND and will be an obstacle to their joining together with socialists around concrete issues. If we allow protests and movements around specific issues to be colored with an anti-Obama tinge, as was generally true of protests until now in relation to Bush, they will fail, because it is largely around Obama-ists that they will find their constituency. This is a materialist approach. It is through engagement in action, in actual social movement, that masses of people can come to more generalized and radical conclusions, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. START by convincing them to take part in or support protests against raids and deportations, foreclosures and evictions, or some other concrete issue -- not by trying to convince them that Obama WILL betray their hopes for change in general. On the contrary, I would say we should even consciously echo and even USE Obama's rhetoric and promises from the campaign -- not just about hope and change, but also about not scapegoating immigrants, about helping main street and not wall street, and so on. At any rate, the stance of the protest movements should be at this stage that these are not protests AGAINST Obama, but rather around the specific issues they target -- whether they be immigration, housing or whatever. * * * One last and somewhat separate point: "The absolutely cold hard truth is that by appointing Hilary Clinton, Obama has passed a death sentence on Arabs & Afghanis and others who oppose American Imperialism. No metaphor about dead horses or sleight of word can wipe that away." Can Gary name even one U.S. politician whose nomination for secretary of state would pass the giggle test in U.S. ruling class political circles about whom the same could not be said? Aren't we being a little bit melodramatic and disingenuous, and skipping quite a few necessary linkages, when we put things in this fashion, as if some OTHER plausible secretary of state would likely be different in this regard, but Obama chose the one MOST identified with imperialist crimes? In choosing Mrs. Clinton, Obama did NOT "pass a death sentence" against ANYONE. The coming dead were sentenced long ago. At most, we could say this appointment does nothing to help those who are victims of imperialism. It is an appointment that changes nothing. And, again, whatever tactical adjustments there may be in the stance of the U.S. Government in pursuing the interests of the United States as the world's uniquely pre-eminent imperialist power in the cultural, military, political, economic and monetary spheres will be Obama's adjustments, not Clinton's. Such exaggerated formulations, especially with Obama actually taking the reigns of government still a month and a half away, easily create the impression that in the universe of bourgeois politicians, Obama is an especially odious and execrable example. I understand why some radicals feel that way: he is a much harder target to hit than a Bush or a Palin, someone who, instead of instantly generating intense dislike among the more conscious working people, instead is attractive to the big majority of them. I believe that the exaggerated violence of some of the verbal Obama-bashing on this list is, as some have already suggested, a sectarian reaction to this phenomenon. Joaquin From srobin21 at comcast.net Wed Dec 3 12:36:46 2008 From: srobin21 at comcast.net (Steven L. Robinson) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Marxism] =?utf-8?q?NYT=3A_Ch=C3=A1vez_Again_Seeks_to_End_Term_Li?= =?utf-8?q?mits?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <40516121.1092131228333006611.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> Term limits were imposed in California by rightists, that is true enough. However, given that the Dems generally control the state legislature, it is they that are disproportionately affected by it. Given the gerrymandering this state is notorious for, the only way there is any turn over among the elected officials is through officials be termed out. The leadership of the state legislature is demonstrably better than it was in the time before term limits. As seats necessarily become vacant and they have to be filled, at least opening the space for non machine pol, such as labor leaders (i.e,. Gil Zedillo) for instance. Is being represented by Tom Amiano in the state assembly an improvement over Willie Brown? I certainly think so. is having Fabian Nunez, who played a major role in the mobilizations against proposition 187 as a Speaker of the Assembly, preferable to a machine pol like Leo McCarthy? I think so. All am I saying is that term limits in California is a very partial mitigating factor in a system stacked against independent political action and even against dissident Dems (BTW the only Green elected to partisan state office, Audie Bock, was elected indirectly by way of term limits and overconfidence on the part of the Alemada Courty machine). SR ----- Original Message ----- From: Eli Stephens Sent: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:10:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Marxism] Re: NYT: Ch?vez Again Seeks to End Term Limits This is a bogus comparison. The force of ruling class opinion is bound to be much stronger and more important the higher up one goes. There are numerous Greens elected at local office; none in Congress. This has nothing to do with term limits. And there is no evidence that I know of that the imposition of term limits in California some years ago has moved the State Legislature to the left. What it HAS done is increased enormously the power of lobbyists, i.e., business, since they are the "permanent" residents of Sacramento, whereas the legislators are mere transients, spending half their time there just learning the ropes before it's time for them to go. The imposition of term limits in California was a *right-wing* measure. Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _________________________________________________________________ Suspicious message? There?s an alert for that. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad2_122008 ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/srobin21%40comcast.net From bauerly at yorku.ca Wed Dec 3 12:54:21 2008 From: bauerly at yorku.ca (bauerly at yorku.ca) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:54:21 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Adjunct abuse Message-ID: <1228334061.4936e3edec22c@mymail.yorku.ca> We are living this in Canada also. Currently 50,000 students have been without class for 4 weeks as CUPE local 3903 has been on strike. The main issues of the strike revolve around job security for contract faculty (over 700 total CA or adjuncts) and issues around maintaining our benefits and wages as numbers of contract faculty, TA's and GA's have swelled (which was a good contract due to an 11 week strike in 2000/2001). York University now relies on this group to teach over 50% of all of its undergrad classes yet it constitutes only 11.1% of the University budget (down from 15.6% in 1998 as our membership grew by 30%). This means that more of the University classes are being taught for a lot less money. The situation just got more serious as back-to-work legislation has just been put forward in the house of commons. We are escalating our strike in response to the Osgoode law school and Shulic (yes shoe-lick) business school have been attempting to restart classes and the admin has been refusing to negotiate or increase its offer. For more info go to: http://www.3903strike.ca/ http://www.cupe3903.tao.ca/ http://cupestrikevideo.wordpress.com/ Brad From jbustelo at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 13:06:34 2008 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:06:34 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] =?iso-8859-1?q?NYT=3A_Ch=E1vez_Again_Seeks_to_End_Term_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?Limits?= In-Reply-To: <828888786.1083051228329718223.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> References: <828888786.1083051228329718223.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <6B7254AD8D334E3E88D060F68D0175F8@albanta> Steven L. Robinson: "In the context of the US, where the major parties design the electoral system so as to assure their leading figures remain in power forever through gerrymandering, ballot access restrictions, etc, term limits have some benefit in that they at least force a rotation of personnel. In California, at least, this has resulted in the election of individuals more liberal or to the left of those that would have held the positions had there been no term limits." In other words, in the U.S., they help the major parties to continue gerrymandering, restricting ballot access, and so on through largely illusory changes of faces in high places. As for Steven's other questions: "It is undemocratic that 30 year olds can't run for President of the US?" Yes. "Or that Californians can't elect New Yorkers to Congress?" Of course. "It is conceivable that a workers government might impose term limits on its officials as a guard against bureacratism or the creation of an authoritarian personality cult." All other things being equal, I would suspect proponents of the measure of bureaucratism. The essence of bureaucratic degeneration is driving the masses out of the political arena. "Automatic" mechanisms to guard against bureaucratism not only would be ineffective, but might be counterproductive in this sense. As for the "cult of personality," that's a completely bullshit, euphemistic concept created by Khruschev and their ilk in the 1950's to try to slough off onto Stalin, by then safely dead, responsibility for everything that happened rather than presenting it honestly as the result of bonapartist rule on behalf of the interests of the bureaucracy. At the same time, by official condemnation of "cults of personality," the Soviet bureaucracy collectively sought to give itself some protection against the arbitrary despotism by those who came after Stalin. Genuinely popular revolutionary leaders need no officially-sanctioned leader cults to maintain their standing among the masses. Joaquin From walterlx at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 13:16:56 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:16:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] LA TIMES: "For the U.N., a clean break" (editorial) Message-ID: <6057243.1228335416519.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> While I'm not exactly thrilled at the idea that the UN should be the world's police officer, especially absent a significant democratization of the General Assembly, the broader point which this LA Times edit is getting at points in a positive direction, away from absolute US domination of the world and all of its politics. The idea seems to be that the US will play more of a role in pushing its ideas on political or ideological levels than on a blunt-force level, a positive change should it take place. If this IS the direction, it would mark a second positive shift as compared to George W. Bush, after Richardson's nomination as Commerce Secretary. The current one, Carlos Gutierrez, is a hard-line Cuban exile who also heads the Bush-created Commission for Assist- ance to a Free Cuba, among other harmful things. It's been my sense all along that Obama and those who've backed him think that the Bush, Jr. method has been bad for business, and Obama proposed using a less confrontive, less militaristic way of dealing with the world. If so, it could be a positive thing. Walter Lippmann Los Angeles, California ==================================================== http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-realists2-2008dec02,0,58821.story From sartesian at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 13:21:11 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:21:11 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com><20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><49369583.9090709@panix.com><4565DB9D907C43A690BFC2409E63E472@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <098969281E254B7EA3D668BA073B76E7@dmsthinkpad> It would give your argument some credibility re demonstrations and US military actions if in fact the US WAR against Vietnam ended in 1969. It did not. It would give your argument some credibility if the US did not bomb dykes in Vietnam. It would give your argument some credibility if in fact events on the battlefield did not precipitate the growing opposition to the war which in turn fed the demonstrations. But... events on the battlefield did. The Tet Offensive, massively costly to the NLF, forcing the NLF to retire from large direct engagements, nevertheless proved that the US could not control the battlefield. That was the driving force for increased protests, Nixon's "Vietnamization," the demoralization of US troops, Congress' ban on US ground troops engaging in combat, and of course, the increased bombing of the North by US air power. But... the war did not end 1969. Casualties after 1970, when US ground combat was "prohibited" exceeded casualties from 1965 when US began commitment of brigade and divsion strength direct combat trops until that prohibition. But...the US did bomb dikes in the North. And for all its fear and trepidation about protests, none of that stopped the US from invading Cambodia, from conducting extensive aerial bombardments of both Cambodia and Laos. There is nothing "vanguard" about identifying the source of the war properly, in the class structure of capitalism, and linking the struggle against the war to the struggle against that source, and linking that struggle to all other manifestations of the common struggle against capitalism. I find it a little inconsistent that the "left" could praise Martin Luther King for his change in tactic and strategy- linking the struggle for black emancipation to the struggle against the war-- a change that cost him his life when he went to Memphis to link both to a class struggle, and at the same time the "left" could work so diligently against creating those same links, that same identification of source, and resistance through class analysis and class struggle. I read Camejo's pamphlet in 1968. Thought he was wrong then. Think he's wrong now. But as Louis said about the ANC, we've had this argument before. Check the archives. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Cod" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers > From walterlx at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 13:26:47 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:26:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] =?utf-8?q?NYT=3A_Ch=C3=A1vez_Again_Seeks_to_End_Term_Li?= =?utf-8?q?mits?= Message-ID: <24291468.1228336007106.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Thanks to Joaquin for explaining the Mexican aspect of the term limits question, and his general comments on this key thread. Here is a comment from Inca Kola News, the British blogger from Latin America. He does not speak the leftist language which we're used to using here, but I think that his points are extremely a propos. Walter Lippmann Los Angeles, California =========================================================== COMMENT from the Venezuelan Information Office in Washington: "An electoral official in Venezuela has said that a referendum to amend the constitution and end presidential term limits could occur in February, according to the AP. Voters can bring about a referendum through petitioning, as they did in 2004, but fifteen percent (about 2.5 million) will need to sign on. Reuters reports that President Chavez also mentioned the end of February as a possible referendum date. The Electoral Council has 30 days to hold a vote once a petition is complete. The Miami Herald insists that the initiative is a bid by Chavez to become "president-for-life" -- an inaccurate statement given that the Venezuelan leader would simply be allowed to compete in future democratic elections, giving voters more candidates from which to choose. The Herald also puts inflation rates in Venezuela at 35 percent, which is about 5 percentage points too high, according to estimates published this month in the Caracas newspaper El Universal." ================================================================ WALTER: I really love this kind of comment, don't you: "There's one thing about this guy known as a dictator by the idiot right; he sure puts on a lot of elections." ================================================================ 12/2/08 Chavez forever http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2008/12/chavez-forever.html In what must come as a shock to nobody at all, Hugo is now putting the wheels in motion for a referendum on presidential re-elections. Why so? Here are five points to consider. Add some more if you want: 1) Under the present rules, he gets to be bigboss until 2012, then it's all over. It's no secret that Ch?vez wants more time in charge. It's no secret that his party want him there, too. 2) With a change of plan, he can get another seven year term and rule the revolution until 2019. That's one thing that's rather different from most administration term times in South America; Evo gets 4 years, Twobreakfasts gets five. Hugo gets a full seven. 3) Though his supporters and party faithful might not want to admit it, the revolution really is a one man show. There's nobody with even 10% of the charisma of Ch?vez in his party. Come to think of it, he outshines the opposition by a mile, too. Love him or hate him, there's no doubt who the bossman is. 4) He takes his cue from Fidel on this one. Castro Sr has told him straight that the future of the revolution is in his hands. Not only is this true, but it also plays to Hugo's ego bigtime. Hugo is a willing student on this issue. 5) If it goes to the vote now, Ch?vez will almost certainly win. Fact is that behind the triumphalism of the Ch?vez opposition and the media crowing that the election was some kind of loss for Hugo, the results weren't that bad at all. There were no big shocks in any result, and his brother Adan won the supposedly tight race for Barinas (note where the shouts of fraud are loudest). Also, there were many pro-Ch?vez voters who didn't vote in the regionals, especially in the provincial regions that were virtual locks for Ch?vez. This time he and the PSUV party machine will make every vote count and it's very tough to see him losing such a vote. Pro-Ch?vez got 53% of the popular vote on November 23rd...that would be a baseline, not a target. So Ch?vez is pushing for a vote to be organized as early as January (as mentioned to his faithful yesterday at the swearng in of Rafael Isea as governor of Aragua yesterday). There's one thing about this guy known as a dictator by the idiot right; he sure puts on a lot of elections. UPDATE: Quite correctly, I've been corrected four times already from various quarters that the Venezuela presidential term is six years, not seven. I blame writing before drinking my early morning java, but no real excuse. My bad and I appreciate the corrections. ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Los Angeles, California Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 13:29:19 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:29:19 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Technological Inheritance Message-ID: <4936EC1F.3040207@panix.com> Back in 1994, I came across an article by Gar Alperovitz titled "Distributing Our Technological Inheritance" in the October issue of Technology Review that I found very useful as a rebuttal of the kind of libertarianism that was thriving in Silicon Valley. Here are the opening paragraphs: >>"Many times a day," wrote Albert Einstein, "I realize how much my outer and inner life is built upon the labors of my fellow-men, both living and dead." The genius of an earlier era saw clearly how contemporary knowledge and technological advance depend to an extraordinary degree on the efforts of many contributors, not to mention a continuing cultural investment in science and numerous other areas of human endeavor. In fact, very little of what we as a society produce today can be said to derive from the work, risk, and imagination of citizens now living. Achievements from earlier eras, including fundamental ideas such as literacy, movable type, simple arithmetic, and algebra, have become so integrated into our daily lives that we take them for granted. What we accomplish today stands atop a Gibraltar of technological inheritance. Seemingly contemporary transformations inevitably build on knowledge accumulated over generations. For example, Richard DuBoff, an economic historian at Bryn Mawr College, observes that "synthesizing organic chemicals...could not have been done without an understanding of chemical transformations and the arrangement of atoms in a molecule. After 1880, this led to the production of coal tar and its derivatives for pharmaceuticals, dyestuffs, explosives, solvents, fuels, and fertilizers, and later petrochemicals...By the early 1900's the new chemicals were already becoming an essential input for metallurgy, petroleum, and paper." Present-day entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates, one of the world's richest individuals with a personal fortune estimated at $8 billion and hailed as a technological genius for inventing software for the personal computer, should therefore be seen as beneficiaries of this long and fruitful history as well as of significant public investment. The personal computer itself--without which Gates's software would not be possible--owes its development to sustained federal spending during World War II and the Cold War. "Most of [the] 'great ideas in computer design' were first explored with considerable government support," according to historian Kenneth Flamm in a Brookings Institution study. Now a specialist in technology policy in the Department of Defense, Flamm estimates that 18 of the 25 most significant advances in computer technology between 1950 and 1962 were funded by the federal government, and that in most of these cases the government was the first buyer of new technology. For example, Remington Rand Corp. delivered UNIVAC, the original full-fledged U.S. computer, under contract to the U.S. Census Bureau in 1951. The government's shouldering of huge development costs and risks paved the way for the growth of Digital Equipment Corp., which created its powerful PDP line of 1960s computers. In turn, Gate's colleague [and now fellow billionaire] Paul Allen created a simulated PDP-10 chip that allowed Gates to apply the programming abilities of a mainframe to a small, homemade computer. Gates used this power to make his most important technical contribution: rewriting the BASIC language, itself funded by the National Science Foundation, to run Altair, the first consumer-scaled computer. And indeed, Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems, Altair's developer, could never have placed a microcomputer of any variety on the market without the long preceding period of technological incubation. Thousands of links in a chain of development--our shared inheritance- -were in fact required before Bill Gates could add his contribution. But if this is so, why do we not reflect more full on why Gates, or any other wealthy entrepreneur, should personally benefit to such a degree? If we admit that what any one person, group, generation, or even nation contributes in one moment of time is minuscule compared with all that the past bequeaths like a gift from a rich uncle, we are forced to question the basic principles by which we distribute our technological inheritance.<< Apparently, Alperovitz has turned this article into a book, based on this review in the current issue of the Nation Magazine. I plan to read and review it myself first chance I get, despite the rather lukewarm Nation Magazine review, which characterizes it as ?Fabian?, a charge that strikes me as the pot calling the kettle black: Spreading the Wealth: Knowledge as Social Inheritance By Mark Engler In crediting luck, Buffett not only points to the birth lottery, in which some people are born into more privileged circumstances than others, but also recognizes that to a great extent he owes the accomplishments of his professional life to the manifold contributions of other people, known and unknown, past and present. They have collectively done Buffett enormous favors, affording him security and education, providing modern infrastructure, science and communications systems and creating a sophisticated market in which he could do business. Because of this, Buffett claims, "society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned." "But if this is true," ask Gar Alperovitz and Lew Daly in Unjust Deserts, "doesn't society deserve a very significant share of what [Buffett] has received?" This question clearly indicates how thoroughly Alperovitz and Daly want their new book to upend commonplace notions about the relationships between economic growth, productivity and wealth. The duo cite "extraordinary developments" in the study of knowledge and economic growth as the foundation of their contentions. But they are actually returning the economic discussion to where it started, with Smith, Ricardo, Mill and Marx--to moral philosophy and debates about the values that should inform public policy. Their foremost ethical question is, given that we owe most of our productivity to a common social inheritance, to what extent can we say that we have "earned" our personal wealth? If we see far, it is because we stand on the shoulders of giants, the argument goes. Therefore, a large portion of what we claim as payment for our productivity should actually go to the Goliaths who are doing the heavy work of holding us up. Even if your eyesight is much better than average, your individual claim is limited. Most of us with regular work lives get up in the morning, expend our energy and intelligence to meet the day's challenges and retire, depleted, in the evening. In this respect, Alperovitz and Daly claim, we toil away our workdays just as, for example, subsistence farmers did for thousands of years. What makes us more "productive" than these forebears--in the sense that they often struggled to ward off starvation, while we, relatively speaking, are surrounded by abundance--is not our individual strength, initiative or daring. Rather, it is our inheritance of thousands of years of cultural knowledge, innovation and discovery. Owing to this legacy, a person in the United States working the same number of hours as an American from as recently as 1870 will produce, on average, some fifteen times more economic output. As early as the 1950s, economists began establishing a greater role for socially accumulated knowledge in mainstream understandings of economic growth. Alperovitz and Daly note that Robert Solow "calculated that nearly 90 percent of productivity growth in the first half of the twentieth century (from 1909 to 1949) could only be attributed to 'technological change in the broadest sense.'" This suggestion was a radical shift away from accounts that stressed the more specific agency of capitalists and entrepreneurs--or of laborers, for that matter--in expanding our economy. But would progress in the realm of science and technology truly have happened without the grit and determination of hard-working innovators? Because Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, a creation of tremendous social value, doesn't he deserve to be exalted as a genius and richly rewarded for his patent? Not necessarily. The telephone, as it turns out, was simultaneously invented by another innovator, Elisha Gray, who visited the patent office the same day as Bell with a superior design for transmitting vocal sounds but who lagged behind Bell in completing the patent process. Five years earlier, an Italian immigrant named Antonio Meucci had declared the invention of a "voice telegraphy device"; he merely lacked the $10 required to register his work. With or without Bell, the telephone would have arrived. This example is not an isolated incident. As Alperovitz and Daly write, the pattern of simultaneous invention "is so obvious to modern scholars that it is no longer considered controversial." New innovations rely upon thousands of previous advances in understanding and technical capability: "What is called an 'invention,' is always a combination of diverse constituent elements, mostly drawn from existing technology." Yet even as mainstream economists cite the increasing role of this socially accumulated legacy in driving our "knowledge economy," inequality grows ever more severe. In 2004, the top 1 percent of American households held almost half of all "non-retirement account stocks, mutual funds, and trusts" and Bill Gates's net worth alone "was more than twice the direct stock holdings of the entire bottom half of the U.S. population." Avoiding the Marxist tradition, Alperovitz and Daly tap a long stream of philosophical thought, running through Locke, Ricardo and Mill, that distinguishes between "earned" and "unearned" gains. "Nothing is more deeply held among ordinary people than the idea that a person is entitled to what he creates or his efforts produce," they note. But if a person reaps gains through no effort of his own, society has a quite different view of his deservingness, or what philosophers know as "desert." One complication of using the "standing on the shoulders" metaphor to explain the notion of desert is that the "giants" in question are not discrete living beings. Past greats like Einstein and Newton are not around to claim their cut of your paycheck. What's left, then, is the state. Ultimately, what Alperovitz and Daly dub the "knowledge inheritance theory of distributive justice" offers a much deeper justification for government-imposed taxation than what Americans are normally challenged to consider. The closest we have come to hearing these arguments in contemporary political debate was in the recent fight over the estate tax, a levy dubbed by conservatives as the "death tax" and by some defenders as the "Paris Hilton tax." "Responsible wealth" advocate Chuck Collins, who wrote a book with Bill Gates in defense of the estate tax, has argued that the justice of such a tax is rooted in an appreciation of social contributions to prosperity, an idea that has previously been recognized in American political life. In 10 Excellent Reasons Not to Hate Taxes, Collins quotes Andrew Carnegie, one of the key figures of our country's first Gilded Age, who approved of taxing accumulated wealth: "Of all forms of taxation this seems the wisest," Carnegie held. "Men who continue hoarding great sums all of their lives, the proper use of which for public ends would work good to the community from which it chiefly came, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the State, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share." In various articles and in a book published in 2005, America Beyond Capitalism, Alperovitz has rejected the statism of former Communist bloc economies, and he has expressed a desire to craft a progressive vision that "takes us beyond both traditional systems" of socialism and capitalism. Yet this type of "neither right nor left, but forward" rhetoric represents a fairly weak dodge. The actual political tradition Alperovitz and Daly seek to revive has deep roots in classical economics and represents a long-established strand of non-Marxist socialism. The authors show sympathy for nineteenth-century American reformer Henry George, who drew an international following with his belief that land should be the common property of humanity. George promoted free trade and productive business, but he wanted state control of monopolies and argued in his bestselling Progress and Poverty for a steep tax on parasitic rent-seeking landlords. Alperovitz and Daly also align themselves with many of the leading lights of the Fabian Society, a group of British intellectuals who were influential in shaping the early Labour Party around 1900. Just as unionists who believed in the productive power of labor were critical of George's sole focus on land, the leftward ranks of today's political economists may be skeptical of the overwhelming weight of "knowledge" in Alperovitz and Daly's formulations. But most would probably agree that the authors strike upon a vital topic when they highlight the need for the benefits from productivity gains to be shared throughout society. As recently as the 1970s, there were discussions on college campuses of how people would while away all their spare hours after modern timesaving technology improved efficiency and inevitably shortened their working days. Since then, productivity has indeed increased dramatically, but working people have experienced a bitter twist: owing largely to the waning power of organized labor, real wages have been stagnant and hours at the office have only lengthened. The Marxists of old criticized the gradualist tactics of Fabianism, accusing the British reformers of being na?ve utopians who wanted socialist ends without the class struggle. Whatever the moral validity of Alperovitz and Daly's argument about wealth, following through on its public policy implications will require a long and hard fight. And it's not clear from their book that Alperovitz and Daly are up for a rumble. When it comes to how we might "take back our common inheritance," their concluding call to arms tepidly invokes a "renewed moral and political understanding of [our] responsibilities." The best Alperovitz has suggested in his recent writings is that policy-makers concern themselves more with taxing wealth than income, and that they focus on going after the top 2 percent of households, leaving those few elites vastly outnumbered by the remaining 98 percent of the population. This is a sound position, but it is hardly a silver bullet. At the same time, the nation now seems uniquely prepared for a new debate about value and desert. Few moments could be riper for revisiting the connection between our economy and our social ethics. As housing values--the bedrock asset of the American middle class--fall, stocks plunge and retirement investment accounts are wiped out, there is an acute awareness that things do not find their worth just in the market's valuation on a given day. And even without unusually candid voices like Warren Buffett's fanning their doubts, Americans have begun to conclude that CEOs are not so worthy as their bloated compensation packages suggest. There is a growing consensus, too, in favor of a more robust public compact to regulate the conditions under which we are together able to live, save and retire. Recent scholarly notions about "the developing trajectory of the knowledge economy" likely have less power than Alperovitz and Daly imagine to bring about a shift toward the social. But amid the ruins of our new Gilded Age, a devalued and depressed American public may nevertheless be ready to demand more. From sartesian at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 13:50:37 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:50:37 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Beige Book Message-ID: <10823DE1E46A4AB982FED9FFB5790565@dmsthinkpad> Latest at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/BeigeBook/2008/default.htm Haven't gone through it yet. Bet the news isn't good. From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Dec 3 13:59:53 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:59:53 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] ____ ___ responds Message-ID: <4936AD03.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> If you want to be fucked by Obama, offer yourself freely, though the line appears a few thousand miles long, so you may want to bring along one of his audio books to keep you stimulated while you wait. ^^^ If you want to be fucked by Obama, you're out of luck. His wife gets it all. Mort Sahl This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Dec 3 14:01:14 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:01:14 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Kettle of hawks Message-ID: <4936AD54.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> A kettle of hawks , cooked like geese. This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com From sartesian at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 14:05:28 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:05:28 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Call to Nationalize General Motors References: <26651131.1228316910149.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <029F694290134110A218724C429377FC@dmsthinkpad> Michael's a little bit off on his facts. 1.The world is not running out of oil-- that is just hucksterism with a Malthusian twist-- too many people. 2.The government did not take over the national rail system in the 70s and 80s. The govt. funded Conrail, made up of 5 major bankrupts in the Northeast. Conrail was not supervised, controlled, and rarely audited by the government. Conrail also severed its passenger operations, reduced its employment dramatically, froze wages, abandoned track and customers to generate a higher return on capital. It did make a profit all right, after reducing its fixed asset base and labor costs. And then it went public... and then....? It was split up by NS and CSX who paid lots of money for shares to institutions, the Conrail executives, but nothing for all the funds the government sunk into rebuilding Conrail's track, signal system, and motive power. 3.The government did create a national passenger system, Amtrak, and what benefit that has been to its workers-- only took 9 years for Amtrak to agree to its last contract. The rest of the "national rail system" in the 70s, 80s, 90s, the B&O, C&O, Seaboard Coast Line, Norfolk and Western, Southern, Atlantic Coast Line, Louisville an Nashville, Missouri Pacific, Western Pacific, Southern Pacific, Soo Line, Grand Trunk, Burlington Northern, Santa Fe, Union Pacific, Illinois Central Gulf, Milwaukee Road, Rock Island, etc. etc. merged, went bankrupt, spun off, etc. etc. without government takeover, but with a considerable price paid by the workers. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Lippmann" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:08 AM Subject: [Marxism] Call to Nationalize General Motors From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us Wed Dec 3 14:06:21 2008 From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:06:21 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Current economic crisis Message-ID: <4936AE87.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> Current economic crisis If there were such a thing as an economic tsunami, I would say we are close to experiencing it. The housing crisis continues and shows no sign of ending; credit and money markets are still tight; the stock market gyrates while trending downward; unemployment climbs upward (sharply so in the communities of the nationally and racially oppressed) and will only get worse; wages are down and poverty is up; the level of indebtedness is astronomical and difficult to reduce in the near term. Consumer spending, the engine of economic growth in the 1990s, is tanking. State and local governments are cutting back sharply on services and jobs; deflation, which simply means falling prices over significant sectors of the economy, is a creeping and perilous danger; and financial markets have yet to stabilize as evidenced by the troubles of CitiGroup. In short, not since the Great Depression has the economy deteriorated so rapidly and broadly, leading many economists to predict that the downturn will be L-shaped, that is, deep and prolonged. What is more, the world economy is contracting. At one time the main unit of economic analysis was the national economy, but recent events and trends point to the fallacy of this notion. Looking at the economy and its prospects through strictly a national prism is conceptually mistaken and thus bound to lead to imperfect analysis and ineffective policy prescriptions. Financialization ? two-edged sword While the present turbulence was triggered by the collapse of financial markets, it is located first in the outgrowth of longer-term processes of capitalism that go back to the mid-1970s and the systemic imperatives of profit maximization and wage exploitation that are at its core. Thirty years ago U.S. capitalism was beset by seemingly intractable and contradictory problems ? high inflation and unemployment, declining confidence in the dollar as an international currency, new competitive rivals in Europe and Asia, a slowing of economic growth, and, above all, a falling profit rate. And all of these problems occurred in the context of and were shaped by overproduction in world commodity markets. Faced with this unraveling of the economy, a weakening of U.S. imperialism and a profitability crisis, then-chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker stepped into the breech and pushed up interest rates to record levels. This spike in interest rates sent unemployment rates to the highest level since the Great Depression, forced the closing of scores of manufacturing plants and a great number of family farms, brought incredible hardship to the working class, and especially African-American, Latino and other racially oppressed workers, and negatively impacted the global economy, particularly the developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It also created, as we know too well, the conditions for a many-sided attack on labor and its allies, the likes of which hadn?t been seen since the pre-Depression era. At the same time (and of prime importance to Volker), it wrung inflation out of the economy, restored confidence in the dollar (investors are averse to holding dollars when inflationary pressures are eroding their value), attracted and redirected domestic and foreign capital abruptly and massively from the ?real? economy into financial channels where returns were higher. Volcker, as an experienced banker, knew that the problem wasn?t too little money capital, but rather too much and too few opportunities to invest and absorb that capital profitably in the ?real? economy. Once in financial channels, money capital stayed there, but not idly. Financial agents of capital (banks, investment houses, hedge funds, private equity firms and so on) intent on expanding their profits in a very competitive and permissive regulatory environment raced at breakneck speed into a massive buying and selling and borrowing and spending spree for the next three decades ? all of which led to an explosion of the financial sector in terms of employment, transactions, risky products, players and profits. In other words, financialization, which economist Gerald Epstein defines as a process in which ?financial motives, financial markets, financial actors and financial institutions come to play an increasing role in the operation of domestic and international economies? proceeded at a feverish pace and with a broad sweep. (In Financialization and the World Economy, Introduction, 2005) Capital that produces little, destroys much If the cause of financialization lies in the stagnation tendencies in the material goods sector of the U.S. economy and the weakening of the role of U.S. imperialism internationally, its lubricant is the production and reproduction, seemingly without end, of staggering amounts of debt ? corporate, consumer and government. Debt is as old as capitalism. But what is different in this period of financialization is that the production of debt and accompanying speculative excesses and bubbles were not simply passing moments at the end of a cyclical upswing, but essential to ginning up and sustaining investment and especially consumer demand in every phase of the cycle. Indeed, financialization grew to the point where it became the main determinant shaping the contours, structure, interrelations, evolution and dynamism of the national and world economy. Without speculative bubbles, generated by the federal government and Federal Reserve over the past 15 years in internet technology, then in the stock market, and most recently, in housing ? the performance of the U.S. and world economy would have been far worse. But, as we are painfully learning, financialization is a two-edged sword. While it stimulated the domestic and global economy and reflated the power of U.S. imperialism, it also left our nation with an astronomical pileup of debt; introduced enormous instability into the arteries of the U.S. and world economy; drained capital from private and public investment; contributed to jobless recoveries and heightened exploitation in the material goods sector of the economy; successfully engineered the biggest redistribution of wealth in our nation?s history to the upper crust of U.S. finance capital; made the U.S. economy dependent on the willingness of foreign investors to absorb massive amounts of debt in the form of short term government securities; and, finally, greased the wheels for a hard economic landing and a much deeper crisis on the down side of the economic cycle. In other words, the growth of the financial sector was a parasitic and temporary fix for a sluggish economy and a declining imperial power, but as events have shown, it could not forever mask and compensate for slow growth, deindustrialization, stagnant wages, jobless recoveries, heightened exploitation, and a declining role internationally. A Wal-Mart economy of low wages, meager benefits and mounting debt, even when combined with massive military spending, is unsustainable and eventually erupts into crisis. Of course, it took more than shock therapy in the form of high interest rates and then financialization to effect changes of this magnitude and usher in a new era of relentless attacks on the working class, the racially oppressed, women and other social groups. If Volcker struck the first blow, it was the Reagan administration, entering the White House less than a year later, and then successive administrations that were the main political agents of this upheaval in ideology, politics and economics. Reaganites ? main agents of neoliberalism At the ideological level, the Reaganites said that government is best that governs least, that markets are self-correcting and efficient, that wealth is distributed according to work performed, that income inequality is a good thing, that deregulation and privatization are the best cures for what ails the private and public sectors, and that tax cuts for the rich and wealthy trickle down to working people, thereby lifting all boats. But the Reaganites didn?t stop here. At the political-economic level, they dismantled the model of economic governance at the state and corporate level, a model that had its origins in the New Deal and was sustained and expanded by successive administrations in the next three decades. It rested on a measure of class compromise, societal obligations, union rights, formal equality and expansive macroeconomic policies that favored broadly shared prosperity. In its place, the Reaganites built another model of governance popularly called neoliberalism. Not only did this model facilitate a reassertion and consolidation of power by finance capital at the expense of other groupings of capital, but it also used its control of the state apparatus to encourage deindustrialization and off shoring of production, union busting, deregulation, low-wage labor, low inflation, trade liberalization, the shrinkage and privatization of the public sector, draconian control (to the degree possible) over cross-border movements of labor, the re-embedding of racist and sexist practices into the country?s political economy, massive wealth redistribution to the wealthiest families and corporations, a stronger dollar, and the restructuring of the state?s role and functions. This new model, combined with an increased readiness to use military power, was created for the purpose of strengthening the position of U.S. imperialism at home and abroad, radically changing the conditions of exploitation to the advantage of the transnational corporate class, and resubjugating the developing countries. But, as is said, the best laid plans of mice and men and often come to naught, at least in the long run. Offspring of capitalism The rise and fall of neoliberalism is organically connected to the underlying dynamics of capitalism. While each required hit men in the corridors of government and the suites of corporations and a set of institutions (the Federal Reserve Bank and the International Monetary Fund, for example) to grease the skids, it also is the indisputable offspring of capitalism?s internal laws and tendencies. Although an anti-capitalist strategy would be premature at the present conjuncture, the faith of millions of people in capitalism has been shaken. People might defend capitalism if challenged, but not with the same vigor and not without a sympathetic ear to measures that would curb the power and profits of transnational corporations. Did we hear any hue and cry coming from industrial centers when the federal government partially nationalized some banks? And, I?m sure, if the government insisted on ownership and control as a condition for assisting the auto companies, few working people would complain. Most would say, ?They messed up. Why give something and get nothing in return?? In short, the events of recent months and weeks constitute a profound defeat of capitalism ideologically, politically, and economically. From sabocat59 at mac.com Wed Dec 3 14:17:18 2008 From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:17:18 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] sweatfree shopping guide Message-ID: <31B74796-CD59-4562-B760-3628ADF26317@mac.com> Attention non-walmart shoppers! From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Wed Dec 3 14:29:56 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:29:56 +1100 Subject: [Marxism] Arrest of Chibebe and other Zim trade union leaders Message-ID: <4936FA54.3060104@greenleft.org.au> Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions Update Dear Friends, Wellington Chibebe (Secretary General) and Lovemore Matombo (President) have managed to hand the ZCTU petition to the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor. Soon after handing it over, Chibebe proceeded to address workers but was arrested while in the process of addressing the workers. He was arrested together with 9 other people including Tonderai Nyahunzvi, Canwell Muchadya, Hillarious Ruyi, Cde Tarumbira and Joseph Chuma. Another 10 in Harare were heavily assaulted by the police. These included Getrude Hambira (General Agricultural and Plantation Workers' Union - General Secretary), Angeline Chitambo (Zimbabwe Energy Workers' Union - President), Tecla Masamba (Communications and Allied Workers' Union of Zimbabwe), Martha Kajama (National Engineering Workers' Union of Zimbabwe) and Mirriam Katumba (Vice Chair Women's Advisory Council). Meanwhile, Japhet Moyo (ZCTU Deputy Secretary General) Ben Madzimure (The Worker Editor), Fungayi Kanyongo (The Worker Intern), Raymond Majongwe (Progressive Teachers' Union of Zimbabwe - General Secretary), James Gumbi (Zimbabwe Rural District Council Workers' Union - General Secretary), Osward Madziwa (PTUZ) were also arrested in Harare. In Gweru more than 25 people have been arrested. Amongst those arrested are the ZCTU Central Regional chair Charles Chikozho, Isaac Thebethebe (Central region secretary), Moses Mhaka and Wilbert Muringani (both PTUZ) and Benard Sibanda. In Zvishavane town 6 people were arrested while at Barclays Bank. The six are Elinas Gumbo, Ndodana Sithole, Nicholas Zengeya, Isaac Matsikidze, Sarudzai Chimwanda, and David Moyo. They are being held at Zvishavane police station. In most parts of the country, workers managed to hand in petitions to the RBZ offices. Khumbulani Information Officer 011620232/011620231 From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 14:47:25 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:47:25 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Kettle of hawks In-Reply-To: References: <493566E0.20803@panix.com> <20081203001021.0a7e9e39@crashcart> <49367BD8.8000107@charter.net> Message-ID: > > Mark wrote: > > I've been saying all along that we're not taking such different positions. > > First, I'm not trying to deflect criticisms of Obama. I'm just saying > that, in your criticism of Obama (or mine or anyone's), we are only > talking to each other and to the people who've been listening and have > heard it all before...most of whom probably voted for Obama despite > the best efforts of those of us arguing against it. In this context, > nothing more we SAY is going to accomplish anything. > My response: Well I am pleased that we are on the same side, Mark, truly. I can take it then that you agre with me that illusions in Obama are dangerous and we must move against them. But you also seem to be saying that there is no point in criticising Obama on this list because to "SAY" is not to oppose and besides nobody is listening. Now I think I have answered the question about "saying". Firstly I am not advocating we only "say". Secondly "saying" is always, like as in truly always, important, necessary but of course not sufficient. Thirdly might I point out that I think the list is important and that the things we write on it can possibly be important as well. After all I would not be a Marxist but for the things I have read and this list represents the modern way of disseminating ideas and of engaging with them. You might think I am wasting my time but I beg to differ! Besides that is a separate argument. You should pursue it in a consistent and rigorous manner. You should be attacking everyone for writing on the list and you should make clear to Joaquin et al that you agree with me that Obama is a threat but you should also say that there is no point in saying anything and so you should then do a contemporary imitation of Cratylus. And we would all eventually wonder what ever hapened to that nice guy called Mark. Fourthly I want to point out that there is actually a debate going on here. I have been at Fred, Walter, Charles, Joaquin, yourself and now Paddy for months. I doubt if I have ever debated any folk as tricky as that lot. Fred is maintaining a dignified silence, now. There is only one presidency he is saying. A nice legal point but of course what Obama is doing now is very meaningful and let me say it out loud, Obama's presidency has begun and it has begun badly. Joaquin knows that of course and in desperation he is resorting to the argument that talking about how bad Obama's beginning has been is preventing us from rushing out to prevent evictions. That's bullshit and Joaquin is more than clever enough to know it. Now let me take up the rest of your post. > > Second, the election's over. The real question is no longer really > whether to support Obama. How we would answer that question right now > or on how we answered that question in the election or on whether or > not we voted for this or that person in the past is not and should not > be the central question. I agree entirely here and it is not what I have been saying at all. > > > Mark wrote: > What does need to be on central right now is not Obama or his crappy > appointees but what we're going to DO about it. My response: First do me a favour and write out clearly "Obama's appointments are crappy"and "Illusions in Obama are dangerous". Just do me that little favour please. Indulge me. Mark wrote: > How can we get boots on the pavement. And to have meaning, that discussion > needs to > transcend the "usual suspects." > My response. Well one of the things that is preventing people from going on the street is the belief that Obama is different and will bring change. So attacking that is an essential part of mobilising against his presidency. Again it is not sufficient but to propagandise against Obama is necessary. > > as always comaradely regards Gary > > From markalause at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 15:12:45 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:12:45 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Kettle of hawks In-Reply-To: References: <493566E0.20803@panix.com> <20081203001021.0a7e9e39@crashcart> <49367BD8.8000107@charter.net> Message-ID: Gary MacLennan wrote: "My response. Well one of the things that is preventing people from going on the street is the belief that Obama is different and will bring change. So attacking that is an essential part of mobilising against his presidency." We have been attacking Obama and the Democratic Party through the entire presidential campaign. Who's listening now who wasn't listening before? And all we're doing here is talking to each other. The beliefs of people who are listening at this point aren't an obstacle to the development of a movement. Obama's appointments are crappy...and worse. But that's not the end of the process, is it? As to the illusions of those that voted for Obama because they believed it was a vote against the war or because they thought his being black would mean something for African Americans, they are not simply "dangerous." Like the 1964 illusions that elected LBJ to keep us out of the Vietnam War, mass illusions can provide a rapid and explosive fuel for the growth of a movement. ML From jonflanders at jflan.net Wed Dec 3 15:49:46 2008 From: jonflanders at jflan.net (Jon Flanders) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:49:46 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <098969281E254B7EA3D668BA073B76E7@dmsthinkpad> References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com><4565DB9D907C43A690BFC2409E63E472@dmsthinkpad> <098969281E254B7EA3D668BA073B76E7@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <1228344586.5497.40.camel@localhost> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 15:21 -0500, S. Artesian wrote: > But... the war did not end 1969. Yes it did in essence, despite all the subsequent death and destruction. Nixon was elected at the end of 1968 with his "secret plan" to end the war. The same Nixon driven nuts by even a few protesters outside the White House. The last attempt to stop the protesters involved shooting students at Kent and Jackson State, if anyone remembers. The US ruling class, with Nixon at the helm, was just looking for a way out of the mess. They had lost the battle for the hearts and minds of their people at home. Which then lost them their draftee army as a fighting force. Which is what those "peace crawls" were about helping along. But I wouldn't expect some of the know-it-all "Marxists" pontificating here to understand this. Nevermind the Weather Underground at the time. Sorry to be a bit blunt here. Jon Flanders From mjs at smithbowen.net Wed Dec 3 16:12:46 2008 From: mjs at smithbowen.net (Michael Smith) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:12:46 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] College May Become Unaffordable for Most in U.S. In-Reply-To: <5F32DB313AB34F75ABB565CEE8BBA83E@agingCHS072729> References: <5F32DB313AB34F75ABB565CEE8BBA83E@agingCHS072729> Message-ID: <20081203181246.4f11685f@crashcart> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:32:49 -0600 "Richard Menec" wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/education/03college.html?_r=1&hp > > College May Become Unaffordable for Most in U.S. And a good thing too. Down with the Credentialling Sector! -- Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org From causecollector at msn.com Wed Dec 3 16:26:41 2008 From: causecollector at msn.com (John Obrien) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:26:41 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com><20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><49369583.9090709@panix.com> <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Sorry to disagree with those who say this protest was not of large numbers of people - but I took part in the Nov. 15, 1969 protest in front of the Justice Department - and I was not alone - that protest and the numbers that took part, that went over there from the main rally at the Washington Monument was definitely large numbers of people. (Tens of thousands of people took part in that protest and I consider that a large turnout). Martha Mitchell was quoted as looking down from the roof of the Injustice Department Building and stating that it looked like the Russian Revolution. It certainly had that feel down below with the government repressive forces that met us there, trying to secure their building. I also remember the government response which was to tear gas all those at this protest and the large amount of tear gas then drifted (and was aided along by police pumping out more!!) to affect a good deal of those who had remained at the original rally and many residents of that city. The gas spread over a large area of that city. The SWP/YSA opposed their members taking part in the Justice Department protest. It was not called by them and the SWP rarely endorsed actions of other Left groups and only took part building ones they had control of or shared control of, with the CP/Liberals and Pacifists. They also opposed their members taking part in the planned Civil Disobedience of crossing the bridge and marching on the Pentagon at the October 21, 1967 march. As it turned out that CD became massive and over 50,000 people marched across those two bridges, I was in the YSA in October 1967 - and crossed the bridge - and I noticed so did many of the YSA and some SWP members as well - so party discipline was not followed that day (fortunately!!!) The SWP said they were trying to protect their members - but I believe they were sectarian in not assigning cadre to take part in those actions. The march across the bridges at the Pentagon was a good action. It was one of the great expereinces of my life to be marching on the first bridge and then look across as we were marching over the Potomac River pushing the police and troops back - that were there to block us from crossing - and see the neaby bridge also filled with people marching across with their protest signs and seeing in addtion NLF flags moving along waving in the breeze across the Potomac towards the Pentagon and the War Machine headquarters. It was geat symbolism to see people in motion challenging the Pentagon and seeing those Vietnamese people's flag symbol. In Dec. 1966, Fred Halstead took part in a civil disobedience protest at the Whitehall Induction Center in lower Manhattan in New York City - to protest the bombings of Hanoi and Haiphong then. Only 60 people participated and maybe an addtional 20 supporters walked nearby inside a circle of police wooden (horse) barriers. It was during a work day, so it was never intended to be a mass demonstration. I was one of the 60 arrested at this protest, in blocking the doorway of that draft board. I was also a young underage teenager. If we use the logic that the SWP/YSA only took part in mass demosntrations - then some important events in history, would be ignored around this being the criterion for involvement. And for some events not being peaceful and legal at all times - I have violated such bourgoeis laws before and am proud of doing so. Some of these events had people injured and otehrs did not - but it was not to just hassle the police to fight with them, as the events I have in mind. That is risking and wasting cadre for unserious purpose. But the Stonewall Rebellion that I took part in - was not encouraged or supported by the SWP. And the SWP rarely allowed its members to take part in most (except for a couple of times to my knowledge) of the Civil Rights Civil Disobedience protests in the 1960's. The SWP was wrong about both of these things. They were sectarian then and used the excuse that they did not want their members being risked in teh Civil Rights protests. They were openly hostile to the Stonewall Rebellion. But who can justfy today - that the risks taken by people in opposing Jim Crow in these illegal protests, was not a good thing to do - and most of these protests were small in number (as compared by those in the SWP who weighed only Mass Protests as meaningful would say!!!) And I do not want to hear that the Stonewall Rebellion in 1969 or the Harlem Rebellion in 1963 that I took part in both - as a resident of Harlem and a Gay militant, were not the correct things to do, because they were not mass protests. Ironic since the SWP in its publication The Militant, did not lecture those in the Watts, Detroit and Newark riots in the 1960's, about their protests not being enough of mass size and involving more liberals and pacifists. It is wrong to have a mentality, or to imply that only mass demosntrations are to be approved, or supported. Individuals who stand up and speak out to wrong (and do not set movements back, such as anarchist personal assassination attempts in the 19th Century did) - should not be so wrongly judged. The 1969 Justice Department protest was not bad. It was just not led by the SWP - and the two things are not the same - unless one only sees things through sectarian eyes. This sectarianism of ONLY one way of doing things, is why we have such a disunited and ineffective left. I would like to see us return to when we were all part of The Movement. The economic crisis calls out that we try and create unity to be effective for what may be haead - and if we do not do this - we will fail the World's Working Class. John O'Brien > From: sartesian at earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:57:21 -0500> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers> To: causecollector at msn.com> > Yes, that is correct. Most of those marches were organized by SDS and > others of the "radical contingent," like the demonstration in front of the > Justice Dept. in 1969- and to my recollection no such actions were ever > supported by the YSA-SWP, and in fact the Mobes were diligently to separate > themselves from such efforts.> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Lause" > > Actually there were regular anti-capitalist marches calling for the defeat > of U.S. imperialism.> > They just never got very big.> ML> > > ________________________________________________> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/causecollector%40msn.com From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 16:45:20 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:45:20 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream In-Reply-To: <66512EDC260541A9BAB7233636912A7D@albanta> References: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta> <4E67CA8EB3D84AFE9C6B05272E6F6AE0@PaddyPC> <66512EDC260541A9BAB7233636912A7D@albanta> Message-ID: > > Joaquin writes:Gary says "criticism of Obama ... is desperately needed." > In other posts he > speaks of a "howl" (I wonder if the allusion to Ginsberg was conscious) and > expressing "rage" (ditto for the Weather Underground). > My response: Well I enter a plea of guilty on the Ginsberg and certainly > not guilty on the Weather Underground. (Rage against the Machine actually) - > but what is the point here? Is Joaquin saying we need patient respectable > comments which "even" point out the meaning of "some" of Obama's > appointments? The tone of the propaganda against Obama is of course a > matter for debate. But what is not for debate is that all, as in all, his > appointments are bad. There is no "even" or "some" here. Let's go back over it. Obama's presidency has begun with his appointments. Lou has posted a lot of material on reactions to them. Suffice to say that the Right are delighted. It's high fives and chest bumping all round. Meanwhile on this list the Panglossians are saying "We cannot make too much of this"; ''He is not president yet"; "We do not know what these appointments mean". "Nobody will listen if we say the appointments are bad"; "We'll just be preaching to the usual suspects", "It is sour socialism and pessimism to attack Obama"; "It's sniping at a dead horse to criticise the appointments" etc, etc. So the right are having a great "fete dans les rues" and some of the brightest on this list are saying we must not read too much into this fact. Let me say it once again. Wake up Joaquin, Fred, Paddy, Walter, Charles. Smell the shit. It is everywhere. Now of course Obama is a smooth act. Absolutely and I will confess to almighty god so help me Mary ever virgin, it is a relief bordering on joy to hear a President of the United states who can actually finish a sentence. It was such an insult to have Bush foisted on us. but that very smoothness does as Joaquin realises constitute a problem. But let Joaquin come out now on the list. Let him stop this shifting maneuver of pretending that we have strategic agreement but are merely going thru the throes of a tactical dispute. Let him write out clearly "Obama's appointments are all bad" and "Illusions in Obama are dangerous". Then we will have strategic agreement and can go on to debate tactics. Let me make an early contribution to the debate on tactics - a narrative as befits these pomo times. I can just see Joaquin in my mind's eye. He is standing outside an eviction. In between chants and pushing back against the bailiffs. Like the brave militant I have heard he is, he has no fear of the police. But he whispers nervously to the young Latino beside him "Actually I am a bit worried about Obama". The young Latino turns round and says "What?!!" and Joaquin says "Oh nothing really". Back in the closet. Let me take two more points on the "dual mandate" and on Hilary. Firstly Obama's dual mandate. That formulation is actually offensive. The people voted for change but such is the state of American democracy that they are going to get the same old same old. There is no mandate for Volcker. There is no mandate for Clinton. There is no mandate for Emmanuel etc. There is no mandate for what America is doing and will do in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran. None at all. It seems to me incontrovertible that Obama was the choice of the American ruling class. They funded him but such was the strength of the illusions in Obama that they could actually sit back and watch the working class pay up and save their rulers a lot of cash. The elites must have laughed themselves silly at the number of small contributions. Next on Hilary. I repeat by appointing her Obama is sentencing Arabs & Afghanis to death. Eli thinks this is not ncessary to say. Joaquin for his own purposes seems to agree. But Eli must acknowledge the difference of Obama and how that constitutes a special case and a special problem. But what of Joaquin's defence? Those who are going to be murdered would have been murdered anyway. A large section of the Islamic world consists, it would seem, of dead men walking. A shame that actually but you know... Of course Joquin is ignoring here the important point of being an accessory to murder. And let us never forget that choice is choice. Obama has chosen to go down the murderer's path and btw he is also marching under the banner of Jesus Christ as William Blum pointed out. That every other bourgeois candidate would make the same choice is of course the very point I am making. Barack is a bourgeois politician and should be treated as that by each and all of us. Yet millions seem to have expected him to bring about change. And that is the problem. However let me also point out that there is an audience who are not enchanted by Obama. They are those on whom the bombs will fall and to talk of murder does not appear "strident" to them. Of course Joaquin will reach into his deck and pull out the "What do you expect card from a bourgeois politician card?" Well I expected nothing and I have made that abundantly clear, I would have thought. But millions did and do and on this list there have been those who have been swept up in the tide of illusion that Obama has spread. So how stands this debate? Inexorably and quite horribly I and Lou and others will be proved correct. We will have to do nothing. Simply leave it all to Barack Baby. If as I optimistically believe the tide turns and people begin to howl and rage then he will change tack. But if most people react like Fred, Joaquin, Charles, Paddy and Walter then he will think he is getting away with it. He can talk of change and give us more of the same. So that is why I reject the calls for silence however they are dressed up. A charlatan is in the field and he serves the ruling class. And I will say so. comradely regards Gary One last and somewhat separate point: "The absolutely cold hard truth is > that by appointing Hilary Clinton, Obama has passed a death sentence on > Arabs & Afghanis and others who oppose American Imperialism. No metaphor > about dead horses or sleight of word can wipe that away." > > Can Gary name even one U.S. politician whose nomination for secretary of > state would pass the giggle test in U.S. ruling class political circles > about whom the same could not be said? Aren't we being a little bit > melodramatic and disingenuous, and skipping quite a few necessary linkages, > when w is sentencinge put things in this fashion, as if some OTHER > plausible secretary of > state would likely be different in this regard, but Obama chose the one > MOST > identified with imperialist crimes? > > In choosing Mrs. Clinton, Obama did NOT "pass a death sentence" against > ANYONE. The coming dead were sentenced long ago. At most, we could say this > appointment does nothing to help those who are victims of imperialism. It > is > an appointment that changes nothing. And, again, whatever tactical > adjustments there may be in the stance of the U.S. Government in pursuing > the interests of the United States as the world's uniquely pre-eminent > imperialist power in the cultural, military, political, economic and > monetary spheres will be Obama's adjustments, not Clinton's. > > Such exaggerated formulations, especially with Obama actually taking the > reigns of government still a month and a half away, easily create the > impression that in the universe of bourgeois politicians, Obama is an > especially odious and execrable example. > > I understand why some radicals feel that way: he is a much harder target to > hit than a Bush or a Palin, someone who, instead of instantly generating > intense dislike among the more conscious working people, instead is > attractive to the big majority of them. I believe that the exaggerated > violence of some of the verbal Obama-bashing on this list is, as some have > already suggested, a sectarian reaction to this phenomenon. > > Joaquin > > > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/gary.maclennan1%40gmail.com > From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 16:52:01 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:52:01 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Kettle of hawks In-Reply-To: References: <493566E0.20803@panix.com> <20081203001021.0a7e9e39@crashcart> <49367BD8.8000107@charter.net> Message-ID: My last post for the day. Marking beckons. Gawd how I hate it. Mark, who I now count as an ally in this debate because he keeps telling me he is one, writes: As to the illusions of those that voted for Obama because they believed it was a vote against the war or because they thought his being black would mean something for African Americans, they are not simply "dangerous." Like the 1964 illusions that elected LBJ to keep us out of the Vietnam War, mass illusions can provide a rapid and explosive fuel for the growth of a movement. My response: Yes people can wake up from illusions. Very true and the historical example is a good one and an important source of hope. But that is not an argument for spreading or tolerating or keeping silent in the face of illusions. comradely regards Gary From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 17:03:30 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:03:30 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: <20081204000330.487BCD1E8@mailbackend.panix.com> John O'Brien wrote: > > It was geat symbolism to see people in motion challenging the > Pentagon and seeing those Vietnamese people's flag symbol. > Just to make something clear. The NLF and the North Vietnamese had no connections whatsoever to the ultraleft flag wavers. They saw their main allies in the oh so boring mass demonstrations for immediate withdrawal. From sartesian at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 17:23:13 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:23:13 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com><20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><49369583.9090709@panix.com><4565DB9D907C43A690BFC2409E63E472@dmsthinkpad><098969281E254B7EA3D668BA073B76E7@dmsthinkpad> <1228344586.5497.40.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <6C6263C0BD1E4CE7A09B29DDB41D9D34@dmsthinkpad> That-- the war did end in essence in 1969-- has to be the most arrogant and ignorant statement ever made about the struggle in Vietnam. Only a complete idiot, or a cocooned American with no actual contact with that struggle would say something like that. I defy anyone to look at the history of the post-Tet combat in Vietnam; the battle in I corp, in II corp; the bombing of NorthVietnam, of Laos, of Cambodia-- the continuous resupply of the Thieu-Ky government and say the war was, in essence, over. More Vietnames died after 1969 than before. But maybe they don't count to our American pseudo-socialists. Then again, I don't expect much from some of the know-nothings pontificating around here. Not a bit sorry to be blunt. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Flanders" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 5:49 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers > > On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 15:21 -0500, S. Artesian wrote: >> But... the war did not end 1969. > > Yes it did in essence, despite all the subsequent death and destruction. From sartesian at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 17:35:06 2008 From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:35:06 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] FWIW Message-ID: As much as I like this list, and value the information developed through the exchanges, I really can't allow myself to share a forum with somebody who can write that the war in Vietnam was over in 1969. It's personal I know, . but hey the flesh can only tolerate so much. Those who think the war was over in 1969 should sit down with the mothers of all those who died in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos after 1969...all those Vietnamese mothers, all those Cambodian mothers, all those Lao mothers-- and explain to them how important "Bringing the [American] Boys Back Home"-- outlawing US ground combat after 1970-- was to insuring the happiness of the world and their ultimate happiness. Anybody who would like to maintain communication with me, please do, and if you're ever in NYC and need a drink or two, or someone to share those drinks, please let me know. Best to, not all, but most of you. From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au Wed Dec 3 18:13:56 2008 From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:13:56 +1100 Subject: [Marxism] ITF condemns Zimbabwe arrests Message-ID: <49372ED4.5010805@greenleft.org.au> 3 December 2008. For immediate release ITF condemns Zimbabwe arrests The ITF (International Transport Workers' Federation) today unequivocally condemned the arrests of trade unionists in Zimbabwe. Among those being held for nothing more than having attended a peaceful demonstration are members of the ITF's affiliated trade unions. Around 50 unionists have been detained, some violently, after demonstrating against limits on bank withdrawals that have left Zimbabweans unable to take out enough money to buy a day's food. Among the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions members taken by police are the ZCTU General Secretary, for delivering a petition to the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, and Gideon Shoko, ZCTU Deputy General Secretary and General Secretary of the Zimbabwe Amalgamated Railway Workers' Union (ZARWU), who was due to attend an ITF Railway Section meeting next week. Also held n Bulawayo Central Police Station is Keneth Nemachena of ZARWU, which is a member of the ITF. ITF General Secretary David Cockroft commented: "The Zimbabwean police have once again massively overreacted when faced with peaceful protest. We are again faced with the dying gasps of the Mugabe regime, which always reaches for the truncheon when it should reach for the handle of the exit door. The damage is done. The only thing they can do now is immediately release these trade unionists unharmed." ENDS For more information contact ITF press officer, Sam Dawson. Direct line: + 44 (0)20 7940 9260 E-mail: dawson_sam at itf.org.uk From jonflanders at jflan.net Wed Dec 3 18:40:05 2008 From: jonflanders at jflan.net (Jon Flanders) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:40:05 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] FWIW In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1228354805.5497.44.camel@localhost> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 19:35 -0500, S. Artesian wrote: > Those who think the war was over in 1969 should sit down with the > mothers of all those who died in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos after > 1969...all those Vietnamese mothers, all those Cambodian mothers, all > those Lao mothers-- and explain to them how important "Bringing the > [American] Boys Back Home"-- outlawing US ground combat after 1970-- > was to insuring the happiness of the world and their ultimate > happiness. Oh please, you know exactly what I meant by saying the "war was over" after 1969. One crack about know-it-alls and you pick up your marbles and go home? Wow. Jon Flanders From lnp3 at panix.com Wed Dec 3 18:45:22 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] FWIW In-Reply-To: <1228354805.5497.44.camel@localhost> References: <1228354805.5497.44.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <20081204014520.F3433DD39@mailbackend.panix.com> >One crack about know-it-alls and you pick up your marbles and go home? >Wow. > >Jon Flanders He'll be back. Everybody who has ever been on Marxmail eventually returns just like in a Beckett play. Or maybe Ionesco? From markalause at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 18:53:38 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:53:38 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <6C6263C0BD1E4CE7A09B29DDB41D9D34@dmsthinkpad> References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <4565DB9D907C43A690BFC2409E63E472@dmsthinkpad> <098969281E254B7EA3D668BA073B76E7@dmsthinkpad> <1228344586.5497.40.camel@localhost> <6C6263C0BD1E4CE7A09B29DDB41D9D34@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: If anyone thinks that the tens of thousands of people on that 1969 march were calling for the overthrow of capitalism and the destruction of U.S. imperialism, I'd be interested in an analysis of why a mass organization to overthrow capitalism and destroy U.S. imperialism did not followe from it. ML From markalause at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 19:15:43 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:15:43 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Adjunct abuse In-Reply-To: <493697F9.9080703@panix.com> References: <493697F9.9080703@panix.com> Message-ID: I spent almost twenty years rowing that galley. When I was "part-time," I actually taught over twice as many classes as "full-time" and with none of the benefits in terms of insurance, job security, etc. I recently encountered a colleague in this position I found out that he was teaching seven times as many students as I now am.... While the organization of the particularly exploited is better than no organization at all, the goal should be organization based on the solidarity of everyone in the biz. Cary Nelson, the President of the American Association of University Professors asked in yesterday's holiday newsletter "Already we are hearing calls for replacing many faculty functions with technology, reducing the faculty's educational contribution to testing oversight and grading. Contingent faculty, already abused and exploited, are increasingly seen as an bottomless pool of cheap academic labor. Further privatization of public institutions is again touted as the solution to inadequate state funding. Who will speak to these issues with a national voice if not the AAUP? Who will stand for the faculty?" This is a key question. If it's not going to faculty as a whole, we're never going to be able to do more than wage a holding action. Contingent faculty should be going to organizations like the AAUP or the AFT or whoever's organizing the full time tenured faculty and insist on being represented there. ML From Dbachmozart at aol.com Wed Dec 3 19:34:50 2008 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:34:50 EST Subject: [Marxism] =?utf-8?q?NYC_-_After_Torture=3A_A_Harper=E2=80=99s_Mag?= =?utf-8?q?azine_Forum_on_justice_in_the_post-Bush_era?= Message-ID: Thursday, December 4, 2008: 6:00 p.m.?7:30 p.m. Lipton Hall New York University 108 West 3rd Street New York, NY 10012 _(view map)_ (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&q=108+West+3d+Street,+new+york,+ny&ie=UTF8&z=16&g=108+West+3d +Street,+new+york,+ny&iwloc=addr) Upon publication of contributing editor _Scott Horton?s_ (http://www.harpers.org/subjects/NoComment) report, _?Justice After Bush?_ (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/12/0082303) in the December issue of Harper?s Magazine, a panel of legal experts will discuss the methods available to a democracy for reckoning with a legacy of human rights abuses. Participants: * Elizabeth Holtzman, Author of ?The Impeachment of George W. Bush? * Scott Horton, Contributing Editor, Harper?s Magazine * Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties * Burt Neuborne, Legal Director, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University * Michael Ratner, President, Center for Constitutional Rights * Antonio Taguba, Major General (U.S. Army Ret.) * Moderated by Luke Mitchell, Senior Editor, Harper?s Magazine This event is free and open to the public. To RSVP, please email _CLS at juris.law.nyu.edu_ (mailto:CLS at juris.law.nyu.edu) or call 212-992-8854. **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) From jonflanders at jflan.net Wed Dec 3 19:38:50 2008 From: jonflanders at jflan.net (Jon Flanders) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:38:50 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Adjunct abuse In-Reply-To: References: <493697F9.9080703@panix.com> Message-ID: <1228358330.5497.64.camel@localhost> On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 21:15 -0500, Mark Lause wrote: > This is a key question. If it's not going to faculty as a whole, > we're never going to be able to do more than wage a holding action. I suspect today's report in the NY Times reporting on the rising cost of higher education may be an opening salvo against college faculty pay and benefits. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/education/03college.html?_r=1&em You profs may be joining the autoworkers on the breadlines sooner than you think. Jon Flanders From jbustelo at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 19:44:28 2008 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:44:28 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] CNN = In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2E58EF4A18864FCF92AEE1FCE8EC3D87@albanta> Having shown this post a few moments ago to a friend who dropped by, let me add an explanation on the subject line. What follows the equals sign is nothing. As in "CNN equals" nothing, zero, zip, nada. * * * Continuing its campaign to get closer to its audience by having no one on staff that knows more about any given subject than, say, Joe the Plumber, CNN announced today that correspondent Miles O'Brien was being canned as part of the dismantling of its science, technology and space unit. A long time ago, and --or so it seems-- in a galaxy far, far away, CNN distinguished itself among TV news organizations by actually having "beats" units that covered everything from business news to entertainment to science, technology and space to, yes, fashion (remember Elsa Klench?). Even sports. In those days CNN had a stable of nearly 200 on-air correspondents, most of whom spent more time learning about their specialties or regions of the country or the world than they did in a beauty salon. Not no more. Even back then the joke among the staff was that when people said CNN was a mile wide and an inch deep they exaggerated. The depth. Now CNN prides itself in covering the barest first micrometer of a story, at most two, a day, striving ever more mightily to peel off the topmost layer of molecules, as a guarantee of going no further. Consider, for example, CNN's ongoing coverage of the Mumbai massacre a few days ago. "WHAT ongoing coverage," you ask. That's precisely the point. I should make clear here that by "CNN" I am now referring to the "mothership" domestic U.S. CNN, and its close satellites, Headline News and the webcast CNN Live, not the very different CNN International networks, including the US and LatAm Spanish network, nor the joint venture networks like CNN-Plus in Spain, CNN-IBN in India, and so on. Instead the domestic networks pride themselves on eye-candy anchors, including a lot of vaguely non- or almost-white mixed-race female news readers and the likes of Anderson Cooper, whose genuine journalistic instincts and skills have so far been spared due, I suspect, to his unquestioned cross-gender metrosexual appeal. That and gasbags on the Fox model of doing talk radio live on TV, and shamelessly self-promotional "specials" like Cooper's "heroes" broadcast on Thanksgiving. The IRONY in all this is that CNN's ratings are up this year thanks mostly to its political unit, promoted as "the best in television," and I believe it actually was -- not that this says much, except about all the rest by comparison. CNN even beat the broadcast networks on election night, something of a milestone in the evolution of the US TV business. And I believe CNN deserved its victory, for poor as its performance was, the rest were absolutely execrable, suitable for watching only if you'd swallowed something unwholesome and needed to throw it up. One small detail among many, but worth noting: Go back to CNN's own pre-election polling as well as their selective/subjective "poll of polls" for the various states. They absolutely nailed it, +/-1%, and put to shame everyone else out there, including --or especially-- Gallup. They even got the closest toss-up states right, showing Obama with a hint of a lead in NC and behind by a hair in MO. But it's also their reporters: anyone who thinks Jabba the Hutt impersonator Candy Crowley is on the screen because of her sex appeal is seriously into pink flamingos territory. One measure of a news organization's seriousness is how its beat reporters are regarded by those in the fields they cover. Miles O'Brien was very much seen as "part of the family," both in the U.S. manned spaceflight community and, ironically, in Russia, thanks to CNN's international reach. NASA was on the verge of naming him as its first journalist-astronaut a few years ago when the Columbia disaster intervened. And indeed, NASA's first hint of what had happened to the shuttle Columbia came from Miles O'Brien's coverage, as he explained the anomalous nature of the several distinct objects and trails seen by television cameras as the remnants of the shuttle passed over Texas. Cameras O'Brien and his producers had gotten local affiliates to train on the sky on a Saturday morning as a way of giving O'Brien a picture so he could say the shuttle was on its way to a safe landing for fifteen or twenty seconds, as a way of building an audience for the actual landing, always impressive, among the space geeks out there in the audience. And who can forget O'Brien's demonstration of the golf publicity stunt on the space station a couple of years ago, where he hit the ball with a little too much vigor, and the audience was rewarded with the sound of breaking glass from the next studio? (If you missed it, it is immortalized here: .) I heard --from an unusually unreliable source, so don't quote me-- a couple of the space station veterans chipped in, so to speak, and gave O'Brien a broken pane of glass duffer award in commemoration of this achievement. And I *KNOW* it was all bourgeois journalism designed to deceive the masses. Still, I miss the old CNN. Joaquin From cbcox at ilstu.edu Wed Dec 3 19:51:44 2008 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:51:44 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Im Memory of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark Message-ID: <493745C0.C9258371@ilstu.edu> In Memory of Fred Hampton, August 30, 1948 December 4, 1969 Vice-Chairman, Illinois Black Panther Party In Memory of Mark Clark, June 28, 1947 December 4, 1969 Member, Peoria Chapter, Black Panther Party of Illinois Murdered December 4, 1969 by Chicago Police under the direction of the Cook County States Attorney, instigated by the FBI. For he was likely, had he been put on, To have prov'd most royal . . . . Carrol Cox ===== Mark Clark was born on June 28, 1947, in Peoria, Illinois, to Elder William Clark and Fannie Bardley Clark. He became active in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) at an early age and joined in demonstrating against discrimination in employment, housing and education.[1] According to John Gwynn, former President of state and local chapters of the NAACP, Mark Clark and his brothers played a major part in keeping other teenagers in line. "He could call for order when older persons or adults could not," he said of Mark in a December 1969 interview with the Chicago Tribune. Family members say Mark Clark enjoyed reading and art and was good at drawing portraits.[2] He attended Manual High School and Illinois Central Junior College in http://www.remembermarkclark.com/ From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 20:46:10 2008 From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 22:46:10 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Im Memory of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark In-Reply-To: <493745C0.C9258371@ilstu.edu> References: <493745C0.C9258371@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: We can't forget the memory of these revolutionaries. Nice to know something about Mark Clark, Hampton of course was the BPP's most promising young leader, obviously this is why he was brutally targeted and murdered. When the state is treatened we see its true nature, in times like today we can't help but look back and see the Leviathan we are up against. On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Carrol Cox wrote: > > In Memory of Fred Hampton, August 30, 1948 December 4, 1969 > Vice-Chairman, Illinois Black Panther Party > > In Memory of Mark Clark, June 28, 1947 December 4, 1969 > Member, Peoria Chapter, Black Panther Party of Illinois > > Murdered December 4, 1969 by Chicago Police under the direction of the > Cook County States Attorney, instigated by the FBI. > > For he was likely, had he been put on, > To have prov'd most royal . . . . > > Carrol Cox > > ===== > > > Mark Clark was born on June 28, 1947, in Peoria, Illinois, to Elder > William Clark and Fannie Bardley Clark. He became active in the National > Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) at an early > age and joined in demonstrating against discrimination in employment, > housing and education.[1] According to John Gwynn, former President of > state and local chapters of the NAACP, Mark Clark and his brothers > played a major part in keeping other teenagers in line. "He could call > for order when older persons or adults could not," he said of Mark in a > December 1969 interview with the Chicago Tribune. Family members say > Mark Clark enjoyed reading and art and was good at drawing portraits.[2] > He attended Manual High School and Illinois Central Junior College in > > http://www.remembermarkclark.com/ > > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/bhaskar.sunkara%40gmail.com > From tcod at hotmail.com Wed Dec 3 20:46:36 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 03:46:36 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <4565DB9D907C43A690BFC2409E63E472@dmsthinkpad> <098969281E254B7EA3D668BA073B76E7@dmsthinkpad> <1228344586.5497.40.camel@localhost> <6C6263C0BD1E4CE7A09B29DDB41D9D34@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: I'm not sure what you're saying Mark, but I think you know better. What they were "calling for" should be subordinate in our analysis to what their actions represented objectively. Obviously the redneck masses, to the extent they were involved in this, were not calling for the overthrow of capitalism or U.S. imperialism, anymore than the autoworkers at the battle of the overpass in the 30s were, they were just calling for U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam or a union shop respectively, not just worthy demands, but demands backed up with mass power that objectively dealt a blow to the forces of imperialism and class privilege. As the old saying goes, "don't talk shit unless ya can back it up." they and we did. P.S. that was hundreds of thousands of people in DC and millions nationwide. > Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:53:38 -0500 > From: markalause at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers > To: tcod at hotmail.com > > If anyone thinks that the tens of thousands of people on that 1969 > march were calling for the overthrow of capitalism and the destruction > of U.S. imperialism, I'd be interested in an analysis of why a mass > organization to overthrow capitalism and destroy U.S. imperialism did > not followe from it. > > ML > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tcod%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 From cbcox at ilstu.edu Wed Dec 3 20:52:43 2008 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:52:43 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Meditations on a Theme from Rosa Luxemburg Message-ID: <4937540B.F33112E2@ilstu.edu> The following four posts were written on the progressive sociologists list, in a recemt lengthy discussion of "dialectics" which developed there. Rosa Luxemburg is only briefly referred to, but my thinking for these posts led me subsequently to several close rereadings of her two speeches at the Stuttgart Conference, & I believe the spirit of those speeches is present enough in the following to justify my subject line. Carrol Subject: Re: [PSN-CS] What it took to win I f leftists believe that nothing isnecessary beyond some tinkering with the economy, some slight improvement in the Courts, and perhaps more tactful handling of aggressive policies abroad, then we can concern ourselves with elections, who runs, who wins. Because such marginal changes is all that elections in and of themselves can bring about. The most important election in U.S. history, Lincoln's, actually exhibits the trivality of electoral politics. First, he only won because of the fragmentation of the two parties into four presidential candidates. And that fracturing came, primarily, because a small, very small, non-electoral movement, the Abolitionists, had driven the southern Slavers out of their fucking minds. As Barbara Jeanne Fields points out, the slaves knew long before Lincoln knew that he was going to free the slaves, because the slaves knew their owners and knew that the Union could be saved only by a complete smashing of the Slave power. No non-electoral and very offensive movement, including John Brown's raid into Virginia, no Lincoln as president, and nothing to force him, were he president, to free the sdlaves. Who was the most important poolitician to bring abut the Civil Rights Act? Not liberals elected by hard campaigning by the Black Liberation Movement but that slimeball Dirksen, who meant by his slogan, "An idea whose time has come," that those people were going to wreck everything if someone didn't throw them a few bonesd, and so he pushed it through the Senate. The rioters in the northern cities were more important than any liberal senators in getting rid of Jim Crow. It's not clear how conscious DP leaders over the last century have been of their primary function in the social order, but it is overwhelmingly clear what that function is: to absorb, deflect, splinter, and ultimately drwon all social movements threatening the quiet rule of capital. Social Security and the Wagner Act, in their precise form, were defeats, not victories, for working people. They were ways of quieting the threat represented by the Townsend dPlan and the CIO to actually move the u.s. to the left. The anti-war movement of the '60s was seriously compromised by the Clean-for-Gene and McGovern campaigns, those campaigns probably resulting in few hundred thousand more deaths in Vietnam. The DP is mot a weak and unsatisfactory friend. The DP is The Enemy. The RP eixts mostly to make the DP look good. Carrol Subject: Re: [PSN-CS] second thoughts on dialectics Quoted Post: Suppose I am writing a book called "Dialectics for Dummies". Could you help me out by simplifying some of the posts that you have written lately? I've made a stab at applying dialectics on the fly to issues on PSN. It may be rough but when dialectics is discussed in the abstract the mind soon glazes over. We have read some of the same sources. I have the glaze-over problem with Ollman. I've read Levin and Lewontin too and find them better. My goal is present a dialectics that is readable, teachable, and useful. [end quoted post] I don't know whether what follows is dialectics or not, but I think it's in the neighborhood, and since it's attached to some specific suggestions for left program perhaps either supporting or refuting arguments can bring dialectics (or historical thinking) out of the realm of pure abstraction. (Ollman notes, if I remember correctly, that Marx & Engels seldom referred to their 'method' as "dialectical" or "materialist," but most often merely referred to their "historical method." Start with my favorite sentence in Marx (from Grundrisse): "The anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the ape." We are in the realm of what Ollman calls "doing history backwards," and which I would argue is the _only_ mode of historical thinking. Which means, of course, that if we are to think of the present as history we must, somehow, think of it from the perspective of the future. Is that possible? At least without engaging in stupid crystal-ball gazing (as in the financial advice columns, etc, or as in punditry in general. I think so. I think Marx did it for example in _Capital_, because the perspective of that volume is in fact that of a post-capitalist society. Marx abstracted from the struggles of workers against the burgeoning capitalism of his day a _very_ vague sense of a communism of the future. (And he never did get sdpecific, on principle I believe:d that is, he never retracted the sneer of his youth against the writing of recipes for the cook ships of the future. But he did see that that vague "anatomy of communism" was a key to the anatomy of capitalism. And that (of course enabled by his training in Hegelian dialectics) allowed him to see that capitalism was a uniquely _historical_ 'object' -- it was a WHOLE, in a way that had been true of no social order in the past and (we hope) will be true of no social order of the future. (The latter point is Marx's basis for asserting thathuman history -when we make our own history- will only begin with the rise of communism). That is why Hegel's "The truth is the whole" is applicable to capitalism as it is not to other past and future social systems (and of course is only partially applicable to capitalism, for the dynamic within capitalism to commodify the whole of human life runs against material boundaries -- one cannot commodify the state, the family, education, a good deal of daily life. That leaves immense room for contingency even in the systematic horror of capitalism. But that systematic horror, in so far as it is (or is constantly thrusting towards beeing) a Whole is a whole constituted by the unity of capital/labor, by the distribution of living human activity, and the interconnection of the whole of human activity, by the drive for surplus labor. That is the unity of opposites, the set of internal relations which makes the labor of a Kohls clerk in Wichita a unity with the labor of Chinese peasants. [Do not lose sight, in what follows, of the remarks on contingency above. The works of Stephen Gould, including his final _Structure of Eveolutionary Theory_, are of great importance on underlining and explaining the importance of contingency even within a rigorous dialectical whole such as capitalism.) To politics. Rosa Luxemburg: "The final goal is everything. The movement is nothing." (Quoted from memory.) Consider the parallel to "The anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the ape." Red Rosa is not telling us to forget the struggle in the present - all the difficulties of being an ape :-). She is not asking us to simply focus on some future utopia. She is declaring that we can understand and act in the present only by seeing it illuminated (as all of capitalism was for Marx) by seeing it from the perspective of a hypothesized future goal. If we keep our eyes fixed on the present, we will vainly struggle to _ever_ escape from that endless present. We will never act, we will onl react mindlessly. But there are small wholes and big wholes; small "final goals" and big final goals. And we do start with a very general survey of the present (and did Marx with the opening sentences of capital: immense accumulation of commodities. (He did NOT go on to do an empircal sociolgoical or economical detailed analysis of that accumulation.) Politically, (as radical leftyists) we find the present to be constituted by a rather large but very miscellaneous collection of radicals but THERE IS NO LEFT, only tesn of thousands of leftists, gathered at most into the most varied local groups or 'larger' grouplets. What is what we might call the "immediate final goal" from which that present (not described in more detail) cann be perceived. From tcod at hotmail.com Wed Dec 3 20:53:55 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 03:53:55 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com><20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><49369583.9090709@panix.com> <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Yes, I was there as a young high school YSAer along with a number of other SWP-YSAers that I happened to run into in the tear gas fog, including Carol Lipman, whom I had the privilege of seeing again at Peter Camejo's memorial a couple weeks ago in Berkeley after 35 years. The SWP had that line, but given that this whole thing played out in a space of hours the word never got down to a lot of the rank and file. Supposedly Halstead had placed certain marshals guarding the Justice Department building but I'm not sure that I saw any. In any event, this was a matter of internal disagreement later within the YSA and is an example of the extent of my disagreement with Camejo's's "ultraleftism, liberalism, mass action" screed as this was an action that was clearly juxtaposed and emanating from the main demo, not counterposed to it. If the SWP and the Liberals didn't want to be a part of that, that's fine but don' t obstruct or bad mouth it. > From: causecollector at msn.com > Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:26:41 -0800 > Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers > To: tcod at hotmail.com > > > Sorry to disagree with those who say this protest was not of large numbers of people - but I took part in the Nov. 15, 1969 protest in front of the Justice Department - and I was not alone - that protest and the numbers that took part, that went over there from the main rally at the Washington Monument was definitely large numbers of people. (Tens of thousands of people took part in that protest and I consider that a large turnout). > > Martha Mitchell was quoted as looking down from the roof of the Injustice Department Building and stating that it looked like the Russian Revolution. It certainly had that feel down below with the government repressive forces that met us there, trying to secure their building. > > I also remember the government response which was to tear gas all those at this protest and the large amount of tear gas then drifted (and was aided along by police pumping out more!!) to affect a good deal of those who had remained at the original rally and many residents of that city. The gas spread over a large area of that city. > > The SWP/YSA opposed their members taking part in the Justice Department protest. It was not called by them and the SWP rarely endorsed actions of other Left groups and only took part building ones they had control of or shared control of, with the CP/Liberals and Pacifists. > > They also opposed their members taking part in the planned Civil Disobedience of crossing the bridge and marching on the Pentagon at the October 21, 1967 march. As it turned out that CD became massive and over 50,000 people marched across those two bridges, I was in the YSA in October 1967 - and crossed the bridge - and I noticed so did many of the YSA and some SWP members as well - so party discipline was not followed that day (fortunately!!!) The SWP said they were trying to protect their members - but I believe they were sectarian in not assigning cadre to take part in those actions. The march across the bridges at the Pentagon was a good action. > > It was one of the great expereinces of my life to be marching on the first bridge and then look across as we were marching over the Potomac River pushing the police and troops back - that were there to block us from crossing - and see the neaby bridge also filled with people marching across with their protest signs and seeing in addtion NLF flags moving along waving in the breeze across the Potomac towards the Pentagon and the War Machine headquarters. It was geat symbolism to see people in motion challenging the Pentagon and seeing those Vietnamese people's flag symbol. > > In Dec. 1966, Fred Halstead took part in a civil disobedience protest at the Whitehall Induction Center in lower Manhattan in New York City - to protest the bombings of Hanoi and Haiphong then. Only 60 people participated and maybe an addtional 20 supporters walked nearby inside a circle of police wooden (horse) barriers. It was during a work day, so it was never intended to be a mass demonstration. I was one of the 60 arrested at this protest, in blocking the doorway of that draft board. I was also a young underage teenager. If we use the logic that the SWP/YSA only took part in mass demosntrations - then some important events in history, would be ignored around this being the criterion for involvement. > > And for some events not being peaceful and legal at all times - I have violated such bourgoeis laws before and am proud of doing so. Some of these events had people injured and otehrs did not - but it was not to just hassle the police to fight with them, as the events I have in mind. That is risking and wasting cadre for unserious purpose. > > But the Stonewall Rebellion that I took part in - was not encouraged or supported by the SWP. And the SWP rarely allowed its members to take part in most (except for a couple of times to my knowledge) of the Civil Rights Civil Disobedience protests in the 1960's. The SWP was wrong about both of these things. They were sectarian then and used the excuse that they did not want their members being risked in teh Civil Rights protests. They were openly hostile to the Stonewall Rebellion. But who can justfy today - that the risks taken by people in opposing Jim Crow in these illegal protests, was not a good thing to do - and most of these protests were small in number (as compared by those in the SWP who weighed only Mass Protests as meaningful would say!!!) And I do not want to hear that the Stonewall Rebellion in 1969 or the Harlem Rebellion in 1963 that I took part in both - as a resident of Harlem and a Gay militant, were not the correct things to do, because they were not mass protests. Ironic since the SWP in its publication The Militant, did not lecture those in the Watts, Detroit and Newark riots in the 1960's, about their protests not being enough of mass size and involving more liberals and pacifists. > > It is wrong to have a mentality, or to imply that only mass demosntrations are to be approved, or supported. > Individuals who stand up and speak out to wrong (and do not set movements back, such as anarchist personal assassination attempts in the 19th Century did) - should not be so wrongly judged. The 1969 Justice Department protest was not bad. It was just not led by the SWP - and the two things are not the same - unless one only sees things through sectarian eyes. This sectarianism of ONLY one way of doing things, is why we have such a disunited and ineffective left. I would like to see us return to when we were all part of The Movement. > > The economic crisis calls out that we try and create unity to be effective for what may be haead - and if we do not do this - we will fail the World's Working Class. > > John O'Brien > > > > > From: sartesian at earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:57:21 -0500> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers> To: causecollector at msn.com> > Yes, that is correct. Most of those marches were organized by SDS and > others of the "radical contingent," like the demonstration in front of the > Justice Dept. in 1969- and to my recollection no such actions were ever > supported by the YSA-SWP, and in fact the Mobes were diligently to separate > themselves from such efforts.> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Lause" > > Actually there were regular anti-capitalist marches calling for the defeat > of U.S. imperialism.> > They just never got very big.> ML> > > ________________________________________________> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/causecollector%40msn.com > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tcod%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/ From Shacht at aol.com Wed Dec 3 21:22:40 2008 From: Shacht at aol.com (Shacht at aol.com) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 23:22:40 EST Subject: [Marxism] Meditations on a Theme from Rosa Luxemburg Message-ID: At the risk of running Lenin's wrath, I would suggest Dietzgen - Joseph, the father, not Eugene, the son. As well as George Herbert Mead and his continental mentor, Henri Bergson. What he asked is a water buffalo? A process.And one is isn't it? A process that takes a certain form, contains certain organs, ingests certain matter, cracks is chemical bonds for energy, generates tissue and decay, back to a beginning - even as all of us do. Lenin is trying to address a then current problem in Materialism and Empirio Criticism and invests much in polemic that needs to be separated from the kernals as the wheat from the chaff. Nor do we have to go to such raw recruits/ultra leftists (in origin) as Gramsci, Korsh and Lucacs where Hegelianism becomes obscurantism abnd begets such as Althusser. **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) From johnaimani at earthlink.net Wed Dec 3 21:24:59 2008 From: johnaimani at earthlink.net (johnaimani) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:24:59 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Current economic crisis References: Message-ID: <057101c955c8$45695180$6600a8c0@D4PKYZ41> Just a brilliant comprehensive analysis. > Message: 16 > Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:06:21 -0500 > From: "Charles Brown" > Subject: [Marxism] Current economic crisis > To: > Message-ID: <4936AE87.84C9.00BF.0 at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Current economic crisis > If there were such a thing as an economic tsunami, I would say we are > close to experiencing it. The housing crisis continues and shows no sign > of ending; credit and money markets are still tight; the stock market > gyrates while trending downward; unemployment climbs upward (sharply so > in the communities of the nationally and racially oppressed) and will > only get worse; wages are down and poverty is up; the level of > indebtedness is astronomical and difficult to reduce in the near term. > Consumer spending, the engine of economic growth in the 1990s, is > tanking. State and local governments are cutting back sharply on > services and jobs; deflation, which simply means falling prices over > significant sectors of the economy, is a creeping and perilous danger; > and financial markets have yet to stabilize as evidenced by the troubles > of CitiGroup. In short, not since the Great Depression has the economy > deteriorated so rapidly and broadly, leading many economists to predict > that the downturn will be L-shaped, that is, deep and prolonged. > CLIP From markalause at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 21:51:13 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 23:51:13 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <4565DB9D907C43A690BFC2409E63E472@dmsthinkpad> <098969281E254B7EA3D668BA073B76E7@dmsthinkpad> <1228344586.5497.40.camel@localhost> <6C6263C0BD1E4CE7A09B29DDB41D9D34@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Tom, if you say that you don't know what I'm saying, why do you choose to start by taking issue with it? I was responding to the "point" of the previous discussants who dismissed the mass antiwar demonstrations by conjuring a fictional mass anticapitalist, antiimperialist, genuinely radical movement or tens of thousands of people operating somewhere left of the so-called "peace crawls." I asked why there was no mass anticaptialist movement that came out of the experience. A legitimate question. ML PS: The person who asserted that hallucination had been picking fights and inventing disagreements with people for several days now. He has since stormed off the list, saying something like he would no longer contaminate his purely revolutionary anticapitalist electrons by mingling them with the reformist peace-crawling, pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist electrons from our machines. From jayroth6 at cox.net Wed Dec 3 23:42:38 2008 From: jayroth6 at cox.net (J Rothermel) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:42:38 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] China & stimulus Message-ID: <49377BDE.1000404@cox.net> http://www.workers.org/2008/editorials/china_1120/ China & stimulus Published Nov 16, 2008 6:47 PM EDITORIAL China has become vulnerable to trends in the worldwide capitalist system since it allowed market mechanisms to coexist alongside state-owned industries. That seemed highly desirable when the world capitalist economies were ballooning up. China sustained double-digit growth year after year. Allowing investment in companies that exported everything from household items to clothing, it became the world?s fourth-largest economy. It also sustained such a favorable balance of trade with the United States that today China has $1.2 trillion in its currency reserves. Now that the market for China?s exported products is drying up, however, it is experiencing bankruptcies and a big loss of jobs?just like the capitalist countries. China?s economic growth has slowed sharply, dropping from 12.6 percent in the second quarter of 2007 to about 9 percent in the third quarter of this year. However, China is different, because it went through a great revolution against landlord oppression and imperialist domination that led to mass efforts to build socialism. Even though the retreat toward the market began 30 years ago, the role of the state in the economy is still a major force. And that state, unlike in so much of the world today, has its hands on a lot of cash. So it?s not surprising that China has come up with a stimulus plan for its economy that is very, very different from those in the United States and Europe. It is not handing over billions to bail out banks and insurance companies. Instead, under the plan, China will spend $586 billion over the next two years ?to finance programs in 10 major areas, such as low-income housing, rural infrastructure, water, electricity, transportation, the environment, technological innovation and rebuilding from several disasters, most notably the May 12 earthquake.? (Xinhua, Nov. 10) Environmentalists in China see these times as ideal to increase efforts at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the billions will go to develop mass transportation?especially trains and subways. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimated in March that the U.S. needs to spend $1.6 trillion over the next five years to shore up this country?s crumbling infrastructure, including roadways, bridges, drinking water systems, public parks, railroads and the power grid. The budget debated by Congress this year would cover less than a fifth of that. If China can build public housing and subways and update its electric grid, why can?t the U.S.? Millions of jobs could be created to partially offset the looming crisis of unemployment. But it will take a militant mass movement to force this banker-ridden political system to change its priorities by even a penny. Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 23:56:24 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 22:56:24 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Current economic crisis In-Reply-To: <057101c955c8$45695180$6600a8c0@D4PKYZ41> References: <057101c955c8$45695180$6600a8c0@D4PKYZ41> Message-ID: johnaimani wrote about Charles' post on the economy > Just a brilliant comprehensive analysis. > > I agree totally. Charles has provided us with an absolutely clear and very > useful analysis. All in all his post was a real tour de force. > I will admit though to reading the stuff about Volcker's role with special > interest. Now where have I heard that name recently?....hmmm I do so wonder. I must ask Walter or Joaquin or Fred or Paddy... best regards Gary From causecollector at msn.com Thu Dec 4 00:08:00 2008 From: causecollector at msn.com (John Obrien) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 23:08:00 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <20081204000330.487BCD1E8@mailbackend.panix.com> References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> <20081204000330.487BCD1E8@mailbackend.panix.com> Message-ID: Louis, I believe you are mistaken on this point. The SWP only a couple of times had people meet with the NLF (PRG) and North Vietnam representatives. Once Fred Halstead was on a trip that went to Saigon as a presidential candidate and another time another couple of SWP people were at a meeting in Canada with a Vietnamese rep (who was barred from entering the U. S.) I knew of many of these ultra left flag wavers - and some met far more often with the Vietnamese. The Vietnam CP leadership was open to meeting with anyone who was opposed to the U. S. governments war of brutality being waged against them. I had been in SDS before joining the YSA in 1967 and I rejoined SDS after being expelled on my birthday in January 1969 from the YSA for being Gay (and refusing to stay in the closet) and I was with SDS when they met with the Vietnamese and know of other groups of ultra lefts who did too. I kept working on building the larger peace protests when I was no longer in the YSA/SWP and rejoined the YSA in early 1971, after their anti-Gay exclusion policy had changed. I was far more active than most people on this list in those Vietnam protests. I served on staff and on the national boards and committees of SMC And NPAC and before then in the Fifth Avenue Peace Parade Committee in NYC and before that I worked in the national office of the Student Peace Union as a very young person and worked with other peace groups in other cities and nations. I am NOT Taking away from the importance of the large peace protests (they were essential to the final outcome!) but they were not the ONLY thing or tactic of that movement. The GI Antiwar Movement was not only the SWP but many of those ultra lefts! And the Antiwar GI Movement was key to the U. S. military defeat with the loss of morale and discipline. If you have not seen it - I recomend the recent documentary: Sir No Sir that is on that part of the Vietnam Antiwar Movement. My point is - the SWP WAS Sectarian and it started long before what is now the Jack Barnes followers group. It was arrognat and dismissive of many good intentioned activists, that were not active in SMC or in the YSA. I joined the YSA in spite of the Jack Barnes type arrogance, because many then in the YSA were the most committed and active against that war - which I respecte and wanted to work with. But I did NOT see then the narrowness of the SWP and was a devoted follower in those days. But when I left the second time in 1973 (again on my birthday!) it was my choosing that time and voluntary and I was not expelled but was politically aware to know why the then SWP/YSA would NEVER be the vanguard party - since they were arrogant and dismmissive of others who they deemed not s smart as themselves. They were anti-working class in their attitudes in the guise of being so oriented to that class. This is why they have shrunk in size and not grown - and is true of the mnay other sectarian groups who recruit people and then throw them out or push them away when they have differences or raise questions!! Marvelous is it not that this is what the U. S. orgnized left has tragically mostly become on the two coasts of this nation. Some of the smaller cities and towns away from the coasts people are more friendly and open to differeneces - but it is not true of the secatrian groups centers - where they each operate as a feudal kingdom protecting their walls and not working together to break down the Capitalist Rule - in a serious way (IMHO)! Sadly most of the current small left vanguard grouplets that I view and know of - are even worse today in their isolated dogmatic approach. They reach few working people (as myself) and do not relate to common average people but instead act like some religious sect that HAS ALL THE ANSWERS AND ONE MUST FOLLOW THIER LEADER(S)! Recent attempts at unifying different left groups in the 1990's and into the more recent time have not succeeeded. I believe in part due to government undercover agents that cause deliberately dissension - and the capitalist managers have learned since the early days of the 20th Century how to cause dissension among the Left ranks as a far better way to curtail and immobilize the Left. There were tens of thousands of people around 1969 who were anti-capitalist in this nation and were activists. I was there - and so I know this. Mark Lause is wrong when he states there were not. I was there and aware and not dreaming - as some left sectarians today really are in believing the masses are following them and waiting to hear their every word!!! Anotherwords the workers should all fille in behind their leader and slogans - and they will lead the revolution. If it was just that easy folks!!!! And they then go back to their nice cozy homes after the march and really do not want to risk for the most part more than marching down a street in a nice peaceful protest and wanting to believe - they did all they could and gave personal witness against the latest government atrocity. They have been more influenced by the pacifists, then true revolutionary socialists of the past, they claim to admire and continue their legacies of.. There are today many anti-capitalists - but most are not activists - and this is due to how the little left vanguard grouplets operate to control groups rather than invite broader participation including sharing power/control, that they so desperately are so insecure and fearful of doing! These are my views - if you do not agree - no problem. I do respect you Louis for the good things you do with providing this list and allowing people like me to learn from. I do read and learn history and current developments from some of the contributors to this list - for which I am grateful. I do not have ALL the answers - but I do know that the growing difficulties that the U. S. Empire is having with the world interlocking economy based on bad credit and nothing real holding up the increasing worthless paper - is something the Left should get more and better organized around to deal with. Presently we are NOT orgnized in a large coalition group. I believe people need to put their petty personalities and differences on what political party did what in Sri Lanka in the 1960's and start to offer something REAL to the average workers in many U. S. citiies and towns who WILL be looking for an alternative to the deepening financial crisis and rising unemployent and attacks on working people in this nation (and around the world) I ask the comrades from other nations to pardon my focus on the United States - but while I favor international solidarity - I think the U. S. left should also work in working class communities and build a Left in the U. S. to defeat the Empire and not jsut be cheerleaders of other peoples struggles, but do some REAL Struggling themselves - and thus help those in other nations not have to deal with the military and economic attacks the Empie I live in will wage and has waged on many lands and peoples on this list. John O'Brien > Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:03:30 -0500> From: lnp3 at panix.com> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers> To: causecollector at msn.com> > John O'Brien wrote:> >> > It was geat symbolism to see people in motion challenging the > > Pentagon and seeing those Vietnamese people's flag symbol.> >> > Just to make something clear. The NLF and the North Vietnamese had no > connections whatsoever to the ultraleft flag wavers. They saw their > main allies in the oh so boring mass demonstrations for immediate withdrawal. > > > ________________________________________________> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/causecollector%40msn.com From rholt at planeteria.net Thu Dec 4 00:46:27 2008 From: rholt at planeteria.net (Rod Holt) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:46:27 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Technological Inheritance In-Reply-To: <4936EC1F.3040207@panix.com> References: <4936EC1F.3040207@panix.com> Message-ID: <49378AD3.2000506@planeteria.net> In relation to computer history, I noticed some significant errors in Louis's essay. Paul Allen did nothing to develop a computer chip as far as I know. It was Ted Hoff who worked at Intel who developed the architecture for the 4004, which was the first ever microprocessor. I got to know him while he was advising Steve Wozniak and myself at Apple. Woz wanted to develop a microprocessor that would run Pascal as its native language. We did make a serious effort in that direction, but we were not successful, and abandoned the program in 1979. The Altair computer was a failure because it was hopelessly unreliable. A user needed an oscilloscope and soldering iron as well as the temperament and intellect of the programmer to get anything done. That was not a common combination. Physically, it was a monster; one could hardly lift it. Bill Gates did write a floating point Basic for that machine and he claimed he could port his software over to any other machine. He said he had a functioning cross-compiler, but neither Jobs nor I ever saw it, and when Gates delivered his Basic to Apple, it didn't work. I mean, really and truly it didn't work. Not only that, it took us over a year to rewrite it (an incredible effort by Randy Wiggington and Dick Huston). As a result, we called it "Applesoft Basic" and Gates got neither credit nor royalties. Gates did write Word for Apple Computer, which ran with the Motorola 6502 and some machines based on the Intel 8080; Word is in use to this day. One should not pass by this period without giving IBM its due. It was IBM that developed both the hard disc and the floppy disc. Shugart built an impressive factory to manufacture the 5 1/4 inch floppy and Apple attempted to use their product. But the Shugart mechanism was so unreliable that we had to stop manufacture while I redesigned it. In cooperation with Alps, a relatively unknown Japanese manufacturer, we made our own version and quickly sold over 4 million of them. By the end of 1979, Shugart was essentially out of business along with all the competing small computer manufacturers. Bill Gates made his money when he obtained exclusive rights to develop software for IBM's desktop computer. And he is worth considerably more than $8 billion. The October 2008 Forbes lists his fortune at $57 billion. War has always been an excuse for the bourgeoisie to collect taxes from the workers and use a chunk of it to develop new technologies. The concept of interchangeable parts and its implementation, smokeless powder, aviation, sulfa drugs, radar, etc. made fortunes, and throughout, governments advanced funds and guaranteed markets. The semiconducter industry is today's most conspicuous example. -rod Louis Proyect wrote: >Back in 1994, I came across an article by Gar Alperovitz titled >"Distributing Our Technological Inheritance" in the October issue of >Technology Review that I found very useful as a rebuttal of the kind of >libertarianism that was thriving in Silicon Valley. Here are the opening >paragraphs: > > >>"Many times a day," wrote Albert Einstein, "I realize how much my >outer and inner life is built upon the labors of my fellow-men, both >living and dead." The genius of an earlier era saw clearly how >contemporary knowledge and technological advance depend to an >extraordinary degree on the efforts of many contributors, not to mention >a continuing cultural investment in science and numerous other areas of >human endeavor. In fact, very little of what we as a society produce >today can be said to derive from the work, risk, and imagination of >citizens now living. Achievements from earlier eras, including >fundamental ideas such as literacy, movable type, simple arithmetic, and >algebra, have become so integrated into our daily lives that we take >them for granted. What we accomplish today stands atop a Gibraltar of >technological inheritance. Seemingly contemporary transformations >inevitably build on knowledge accumulated over generations. > >For example, Richard DuBoff, an economic historian at Bryn Mawr College, >observes that "synthesizing organic chemicals...could not have been done >without an understanding of chemical transformations and the arrangement >of atoms in a molecule. After 1880, this led to the production of coal >tar and its derivatives for pharmaceuticals, dyestuffs, explosives, >solvents, fuels, and fertilizers, and later petrochemicals...By the >early 1900's the new chemicals were already becoming an essential input >for metallurgy, petroleum, and paper." > >Present-day entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates, one of the world's richest >individuals with a personal fortune estimated at $8 billion and hailed >as a technological genius for inventing software for the personal >computer, should therefore be seen as beneficiaries of this long and >fruitful history as well as of significant public investment. > >The personal computer itself--without which Gates's software would not >be possible--owes its development to sustained federal spending during >World War II and the Cold War. "Most of [the] 'great ideas in computer >design' were first explored with considerable government support," >according to historian Kenneth Flamm in a Brookings Institution study. >Now a specialist in technology policy in the Department of Defense, >Flamm estimates that 18 of the 25 most significant advances in computer >technology between 1950 and 1962 were funded by the federal government, >and that in most of these cases the government was the first buyer of >new technology. For example, Remington Rand Corp. delivered UNIVAC, the >original full-fledged U.S. computer, under contract to the U.S. Census >Bureau in 1951. > >The government's shouldering of huge development costs and risks paved >the way for the growth of Digital Equipment Corp., which created its >powerful PDP line of 1960s computers. In turn, Gate's colleague [and now >fellow billionaire] Paul Allen created a simulated PDP-10 chip that >allowed Gates to apply the programming abilities of a mainframe to a >small, homemade computer. Gates used this power to make his most >important technical contribution: rewriting the BASIC language, itself >funded by the National Science Foundation, to run Altair, the first >consumer-scaled computer. And indeed, Micro Instrumentation and >Telemetry Systems, Altair's developer, could never have placed a >microcomputer of any variety on the market without the long preceding >period of technological incubation. > >Thousands of links in a chain of development--our shared inheritance- >-were in fact required before Bill Gates could add his contribution. But >if this is so, why do we not reflect more full on why Gates, or any >other wealthy entrepreneur, should personally benefit to such a degree? >If we admit that what any one person, group, generation, or even nation >contributes in one moment of time is minuscule compared with all that >the past bequeaths like a gift from a rich uncle, we are forced to >question the basic principles by which we distribute our technological >inheritance.<< > >Apparently, Alperovitz has turned this article into a book, based on >this review in the current issue of the Nation Magazine. I plan to read >and review it myself first chance I get, despite the rather lukewarm >Nation Magazine review, which characterizes it as ?Fabian?, a charge >that strikes me as the pot calling the kettle black: > >Spreading the Wealth: Knowledge as Social Inheritance >By Mark Engler > >In crediting luck, Buffett not only points to the birth lottery, in >which some people are born into more privileged circumstances than >others, but also recognizes that to a great extent he owes the >accomplishments of his professional life to the manifold contributions >of other people, known and unknown, past and present. They have >collectively done Buffett enormous favors, affording him security and >education, providing modern infrastructure, science and communications >systems and creating a sophisticated market in which he could do >business. Because of this, Buffett claims, "society is responsible for a >very significant percentage of what I've earned." > >"But if this is true," ask Gar Alperovitz and Lew Daly in Unjust >Deserts, "doesn't society deserve a very significant share of what >[Buffett] has received?" This question clearly indicates how thoroughly >Alperovitz and Daly want their new book to upend commonplace notions >about the relationships between economic growth, productivity and >wealth. The duo cite "extraordinary developments" in the study of >knowledge and economic growth as the foundation of their contentions. >But they are actually returning the economic discussion to where it >started, with Smith, Ricardo, Mill and Marx--to moral philosophy and >debates about the values that should inform public policy. Their >foremost ethical question is, given that we owe most of our productivity >to a common social inheritance, to what extent can we say that we have >"earned" our personal wealth? If we see far, it is because we stand on >the shoulders of giants, the argument goes. Therefore, a large portion >of what we claim as payment for our productivity should actually go to >the Goliaths who are doing the heavy work of holding us up. Even if your >eyesight is much better than average, your individual claim is limited. > >Most of us with regular work lives get up in the morning, expend our >energy and intelligence to meet the day's challenges and retire, >depleted, in the evening. In this respect, Alperovitz and Daly claim, we >toil away our workdays just as, for example, subsistence farmers did for >thousands of years. What makes us more "productive" than these >forebears--in the sense that they often struggled to ward off >starvation, while we, relatively speaking, are surrounded by >abundance--is not our individual strength, initiative or daring. Rather, >it is our inheritance of thousands of years of cultural knowledge, >innovation and discovery. Owing to this legacy, a person in the United >States working the same number of hours as an American from as recently >as 1870 will produce, on average, some fifteen times more economic output. > >As early as the 1950s, economists began establishing a greater role for >socially accumulated knowledge in mainstream understandings of economic >growth. Alperovitz and Daly note that Robert Solow "calculated that >nearly 90 percent of productivity growth in the first half of the >twentieth century (from 1909 to 1949) could only be attributed to >'technological change in the broadest sense.'" This suggestion was a >radical shift away from accounts that stressed the more specific agency >of capitalists and entrepreneurs--or of laborers, for that matter--in >expanding our economy. > >But would progress in the realm of science and technology truly have >happened without the grit and determination of hard-working innovators? >Because Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, a creation of >tremendous social value, doesn't he deserve to be exalted as a genius >and richly rewarded for his patent? Not necessarily. The telephone, as >it turns out, was simultaneously invented by another innovator, Elisha >Gray, who visited the patent office the same day as Bell with a superior >design for transmitting vocal sounds but who lagged behind Bell in >completing the patent process. Five years earlier, an Italian immigrant >named Antonio Meucci had declared the invention of a "voice telegraphy >device"; he merely lacked the $10 required to register his work. With or >without Bell, the telephone would have arrived. > >This example is not an isolated incident. As Alperovitz and Daly write, >the pattern of simultaneous invention "is so obvious to modern scholars >that it is no longer considered controversial." New innovations rely >upon thousands of previous advances in understanding and technical >capability: "What is called an 'invention,' is always a combination of >diverse constituent elements, mostly drawn from existing technology." >Yet even as mainstream economists cite the increasing role of this >socially accumulated legacy in driving our "knowledge economy," >inequality grows ever more severe. In 2004, the top 1 percent of >American households held almost half of all "non-retirement account >stocks, mutual funds, and trusts" and Bill Gates's net worth alone "was >more than twice the direct stock holdings of the entire bottom half of >the U.S. population." > >Avoiding the Marxist tradition, Alperovitz and Daly tap a long stream of >philosophical thought, running through Locke, Ricardo and Mill, that >distinguishes between "earned" and "unearned" gains. "Nothing is more >deeply held among ordinary people than the idea that a person is >entitled to what he creates or his efforts produce," they note. But if a >person reaps gains through no effort of his own, society has a quite >different view of his deservingness, or what philosophers know as "desert." > >One complication of using the "standing on the shoulders" metaphor to >explain the notion of desert is that the "giants" in question are not >discrete living beings. Past greats like Einstein and Newton are not >around to claim their cut of your paycheck. What's left, then, is the >state. Ultimately, what Alperovitz and Daly dub the "knowledge >inheritance theory of distributive justice" offers a much deeper >justification for government-imposed taxation than what Americans are >normally challenged to consider. The closest we have come to hearing >these arguments in contemporary political debate was in the recent fight >over the estate tax, a levy dubbed by conservatives as the "death tax" >and by some defenders as the "Paris Hilton tax." "Responsible wealth" >advocate Chuck Collins, who wrote a book with Bill Gates in defense of >the estate tax, has argued that the justice of such a tax is rooted in >an appreciation of social contributions to prosperity, an idea that has >previously been recognized in American political life. In 10 Excellent >Reasons Not to Hate Taxes, Collins quotes Andrew Carnegie, one of the >key figures of our country's first Gilded Age, who approved of taxing >accumulated wealth: "Of all forms of taxation this seems the wisest," >Carnegie held. "Men who continue hoarding great sums all of their lives, >the proper use of which for public ends would work good to the community >from which it chiefly came, should be made to feel that the community, >in the form of the State, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share." > >In various articles and in a book published in 2005, America Beyond >Capitalism, Alperovitz has rejected the statism of former Communist bloc >economies, and he has expressed a desire to craft a progressive vision >that "takes us beyond both traditional systems" of socialism and >capitalism. Yet this type of "neither right nor left, but forward" >rhetoric represents a fairly weak dodge. The actual political tradition >Alperovitz and Daly seek to revive has deep roots in classical economics >and represents a long-established strand of non-Marxist socialism. The >authors show sympathy for nineteenth-century American reformer Henry >George, who drew an international following with his belief that land >should be the common property of humanity. George promoted free trade >and productive business, but he wanted state control of monopolies and >argued in his bestselling Progress and Poverty for a steep tax on >parasitic rent-seeking landlords. Alperovitz and Daly also align >themselves with many of the leading lights of the Fabian Society, a >group of British intellectuals who were influential in shaping the early >Labour Party around 1900. > >Just as unionists who believed in the productive power of labor were >critical of George's sole focus on land, the leftward ranks of today's >political economists may be skeptical of the overwhelming weight of >"knowledge" in Alperovitz and Daly's formulations. But most would >probably agree that the authors strike upon a vital topic when they >highlight the need for the benefits from productivity gains to be shared >throughout society. > >As recently as the 1970s, there were discussions on college campuses of >how people would while away all their spare hours after modern >timesaving technology improved efficiency and inevitably shortened their >working days. Since then, productivity has indeed increased >dramatically, but working people have experienced a bitter twist: owing >largely to the waning power of organized labor, real wages have been >stagnant and hours at the office have only lengthened. > >The Marxists of old criticized the gradualist tactics of Fabianism, >accusing the British reformers of being na?ve utopians who wanted >socialist ends without the class struggle. Whatever the moral validity >of Alperovitz and Daly's argument about wealth, following through on its >public policy implications will require a long and hard fight. And it's >not clear from their book that Alperovitz and Daly are up for a rumble. >When it comes to how we might "take back our common inheritance," their >concluding call to arms tepidly invokes a "renewed moral and political >understanding of [our] responsibilities." > >The best Alperovitz has suggested in his recent writings is that >policy-makers concern themselves more with taxing wealth than income, >and that they focus on going after the top 2 percent of households, >leaving those few elites vastly outnumbered by the remaining 98 percent >of the population. This is a sound position, but it is hardly a silver >bullet. At the same time, the nation now seems uniquely prepared for a >new debate about value and desert. Few moments could be riper for >revisiting the connection between our economy and our social ethics. As >housing values--the bedrock asset of the American middle class--fall, >stocks plunge and retirement investment accounts are wiped out, there is >an acute awareness that things do not find their worth just in the >market's valuation on a given day. And even without unusually candid >voices like Warren Buffett's fanning their doubts, Americans have begun >to conclude that CEOs are not so worthy as their bloated compensation >packages suggest. > >There is a growing consensus, too, in favor of a more robust public >compact to regulate the conditions under which we are together able to >live, save and retire. Recent scholarly notions about "the developing >trajectory of the knowledge economy" likely have less power than >Alperovitz and Daly imagine to bring about a shift toward the social. >But amid the ruins of our new Gilded Age, a devalued and depressed >American public may nevertheless be ready to demand more. > >________________________________________________ >YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. >Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu >Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rholt%40planeteria.net > > > From stuartmunckton at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 03:18:06 2008 From: stuartmunckton at gmail.com (Stuart Munckton) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 02:18:06 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?NYT=3A_Ch=E1vez_Again_Seeks_to_End_Ter?= =?windows-1252?q?m_Limits?= In-Reply-To: <4936DA48.6090505@gmail.com> References: <4936DA48.6090505@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2c6145850812040218i5d22cb82qd9ebabaf961f1ca0@mail.gmail.com> Except that serious commentatosr noted that if the referendum had *simply* been about chavez's re-election, it would have passed easily. Part of the problem was alll 69 reforms were presented collectively - divided only into two blocs to vote for or against. To vote yes for either of the two blocs, you had to agree with the entireity of both. Had it been divided measure by measure, the removal of term limits would have passed. It was't the removal of term limits that caused the defeat of the other reforms, although the corporate media pretended it was. Personally, I would be concerned *if* the Chavistas were launching this campaign *rather* than a general popular offensive, but it appears they are pushing for the latter - as indicated not just by Chavez's speeches (though it is important he emphasises the need for an offensive), but the actual mobilisaitons in the aftermath of the killing of trade unionists as well as the attack on social missions. Chavez's speech in Aragua swearing in of the new chavista govererner (where the killing has occured) not jsut called for an investigation into the killings (a popular demand) but the transfotantion of the police and state forces in the area and threatened nationalisations of companies that violated workers' right - raising hte long-stnadoing case of Sanitarios Maracay, whose workers havenot only long demnadednationalisation under workers control but wree represseed by the state police. This came after big protests and strikes in that state in response to the killings. http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4011 Any concerns would have only been tactical and about timing. I don't know that there is much evidence (coporate media notwithstanding) that the referndum defeat had anything at all to do with the issue of limited terms for the presidency. Stuart > > > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/stuartmunckton%40gmail.com > -- "The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind of dummy?" - Jarvis Cocker "Our demands are moderate ? we only want the Earth" - James Connolly From laracrete at verizon.net Thu Dec 4 03:19:42 2008 From: laracrete at verizon.net (lara crete) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 05:19:42 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Kettle of hawks Message-ID: <4b7e2e6121a8072d1e504cceb4efaa25@verizon.net> Gary said: "Well one of the things that is preventing people from going on the street is the belief that Obama is different and will bring change" I am the one who usually goes on the streets. So, let me remark on the confusion which "streets" are hit with, the confusion which now cost the same debates on this good list as well. The creation of "Obama For President" deserves the applauds to the maliciousness of the Brzejinsky's mind and the all Kettle, for the confusion in the public opinion with the candidacy of the black man to the white house, should become the golden straw for the system at the breaking point to collapse. There was a chance ( it is still there) after the tragic farce of the Bush's governing over America and over the world. The election of the Barack Obama has turned the farce into tragedy. As of thus writing , we are in the "transition period" from one genre to another. And the most tragic fact out of all the maliciousness is the fact that WE, The People, DID NOT RECOGNIZE IT from the very beginning. Of course, the creation of Obama For President, a man out of nothing or "out of the blue skies", was the success of Uncle Tom- Powell and Ante Rice. It worked perfectly for the Kettle the Uncle Tom- Obama should do even better. The tragedy is ours, for we HAVE NOT SEEN , COULD NOT PERCEIVE, HAVE NOT LEARNED and therefore DID NOT UNDERSTAND the trap, while soaked in sentiments about the " the black man in the white house", and Jessy Jackson's tears. When, please, tell me, when and where Obama (and now his Kettle) was EVER sentimental toward million + of Iraqis now dead, because of our system needs the "economic life support"? When and where he was sentimental toward his father's Africa? Where he has ever even MENTIONED the genocide of Palestinians which at his time of glory is growing day by day before his very eyes? Where is the Obama's concern about the American black youth and their single handed mothers? We even dismissed the fact that this "black man" has nothing to do with the historic tragedy of the Africans in America!... Sentiments are the testimony to the human's dignity. Te Kettle created Obama WITHOUT any. ( Accept, probably, of the "family values") THAT IS SEEN EACH TIME WHEN OBAMA IS POSING in front of the cameras. That is why the definition if the "cult" or "saviour" at finally is attached to his image. In New Orleans recently, there was the Conference of the most prominent African American people, discussing the situation the black people of America is now in. Jesse Jackson COULD NOT come, for there was some "tragedy in the family of his friend". Sharpton COULD NOT come because his jet has "some technical problems". Those two are preparing themselves to the maneuvering between the "Obama- The Saviour" and Obama - "The Kettle's President". Meanwhile there were a lot of sentiments and worries expressed by the REAL SUFFERERS. The evil genius of the Kettle "think-tanked" for all the Bush's years, deciding "what next". They deserve applauds and we, the good sentimental humans, deserve what we got. OUR economy feeds itself on OUR wars. Here is the reason why the Anti-War Movement CAN NOT MOVE, for we go on the streets WITHOUT RESOLVING THIS CONTRADICTION. The best we can hope "to stop the war" it's put upfront of ourselves great young men, solders, Iraq-Afghanistan War Resisters. But, as you know, the Kettle goes now in the schools for the enlistment and soon we will have the "child solder" problem. Yet, what do we do? We, actually, do not go much on the streets anymore! Well, that's understandable: the theatrical ( not risky, "peaceful" performances are over). The creation of Obama PARALYZED ( at least for the tie being) not only the Black Progressive Movement, but the Anti-War Movement as well. The Sirens are singing , we are listening: here is where the attitude "wait and see" comes from. The Kettle , now with Obama on the helm, deserved applauds: ONCE AGAIN THEY DID IT. THere was the solution: the NATIONAL BOYCOTT OF ELECTIONS THE DAY, WHEN "UN-ELECTABLE" ( by public opinion!) CANDIDATES WERE OUT FROM DEBATS BETWEEN the TWO "SELECTABLES". We missed it. But if we would not miss it, then we did not need "postmortem debates" and could actually start feeling ourselves proud as the nation. From shamefactory at yahoo.se Thu Dec 4 04:26:54 2008 From: shamefactory at yahoo.se (=?utf-8?B?RmVsaXggRW5nbMOpbg==?=) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:26:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Marxism] Nazis tried to kill union activists and their child. Message-ID: <497185.36997.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> In English: Last Saturday Nazis firebombed the Cyclops, the autonomous social center in southern Stockholm. Two days later, on the 1st of December, the build up of Nazi activity in Stockholm took another violent turn as Nazis poured in gasoline through the mail slot into the apartement of a young couple and their child, and put it on fire. The couple are active in the Syndicalist union. All three survived. We urge you all to join in the counter demonstration against the Nazi march in Salem, a suburb south of Stockholm this Saturday, 6th of December. If we let the Nazis stand unchallenged we never now who they?ll attack next. Press release of the union SAC Syndikalists: Nazis tried to kill union activists and their child. Wednesday 3 december, 2008. 1999 Nazis killed the Syndicalist Bj?rn S?derberg. Now they tried again. Two Syndicalists from Stockholm ? one of them the former chair of the Stockholm chapter of the Syndicalist union - and their two year old daughter were forced to climb down from the balcony of their third floor apartement when Nazis sat fire to their flat. Half a year ago, our union members were exposed on the Nazi webpage Info-14. The Nazis behind Info-14 are the same people who arrange the annual Nazimarch in Salem. Just before nine p.m. on Monday night, 1st December 2008, our members heard a splashing sound from the hallway. ?I saw someone pour a clear fluid through the mail slot and understood from the scent that it was gasoline?, one of them says. ?I shouted so loud that they can?t have missed it: We have children in here! Only seconds later they lit the fire.? In the hall hung the family?s winter clothes and in a couple of seconds the fire had spread to the kitchen and the living room. To exit through the front door was impossible. ?We had to lower our daughter down to the neighbours? balcony one floor below?, our member explains. ?We live on the top floor. Had she slipped out of our hands, she would have died.? The couple then climbed down the same way. Behind them the fire ravaged all their belongings, memories and future plans. Our members and their daughter miraculously remained unharmed, but it doesn?t change the fact that one, or several, people deliberately and in cold blood tried to take their lives. Six months ago the openly National socialist homepage info14 published names and pictures of our members. The police work from the theory that the deed was politically motivated, performed by the same offenders who two days earlier burnt down the libertarian socialist cultural centre The Cyclops in H?gdalen. The case is classified as arson. Our targeted members? union work focused on antiracism and deminishing class divides. Because of this they were to be punished by death according to the Nazis. The Nazis behind Info-14 are the same people who run the organisation Salemfonden, that every year on the first Saturday in December arrange the biggest Nazi march in Northern Europe. ?The people arranging the Salemmarch are not harmless individuals with a slightly dissenting opinion. They are ideologically convinced Nazis, evidently capable of murder in the pursuit of their cause?, Ola Brunnstr?m from SAC?s working committee states. This Saturday the people who tried to kill our members arrange a march in Salem, a suburb of Stockholm. SAC, the Syndicalists, urges everyone to join in the counter demonstration by the Network Against Racism at 12 o? clock in Salem Centre. If we let the Nazis stand unchallenged we never now who they?ll attack next. /SAC?s working committee www.sac.se __________________________________________________________ L?na pengar utan s?kerhet. J?mf?r vilkor online hos Kelkoo. http://www.kelkoo.se/c-100390123-lan-utan-sakerhet.html?partnerId=96915014 From gdunkel at mindspring.com Thu Dec 4 04:44:38 2008 From: gdunkel at mindspring.com (Greg Dunkel) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 06:44:38 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [Marxism] Adjunct abuse Message-ID: <32972326.1228391079241.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Last June, I believe, the City Univ of NY, a "small" institution with "just" 244,000 students, where adjuncts teach over 50% of the courses, graduated its first student who was taught completely over the internet -- a complete product of distance learning. Outsourcing is coming to a service industry where unions are traditionally strong. /greg -----Original Message----- >From: Jon Flanders >Sent: Dec 3, 2008 9:38 PM >To: gdunkel at mindspring.com >Subject: Re: [Marxism] Adjunct abuse > > >On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 21:15 -0500, Mark Lause wrote: >> This is a key question. If it's not going to faculty as a whole, >> we're never going to be able to do more than wage a holding action. > >I suspect today's report in the NY Times reporting on the rising cost of >higher education may be an opening salvo against college faculty pay and >benefits. > >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/education/03college.html?_r=1&em > > >You profs may be joining the autoworkers on the breadlines sooner than >you think. > >Jon Flanders From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Dec 4 07:27:10 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:27:10 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> <20081204000330.487BCD1E8@mailbackend.panix.com> Message-ID: <4937E8BE.3010706@panix.com> John O'Brien: I believe you are mistaken on this point. The SWP only a couple of times had people meet with the NLF (PRG) and North Vietnam representatives. Reply: I wasn't talking about the SWP. I was talking about the antiwar coalitions, which included the CPUSA-led ones as well. It was these broad-based mass action oriented formations that the Vietnamese oriented to. John: I knew of many of these ultra left flag wavers - and some met far more often with the Vietnamese. The Vietnam CP leadership was open to meeting with anyone who was opposed to the U. S. governments war of brutality being waged against them. Reply: Unfortunately, the flag wavers (including the agent provocateurs in their midst) were too "radical" to bother forming an organization so how in the world would the Vietnamese be in a position to meet with them? John: I had been in SDS before joining the YSA in 1967 and I rejoined SDS after being expelled on my birthday in January 1969 from the YSA for being Gay (and refusing to stay in the closet) and I was with SDS when they met with the Vietnamese and know of other groups of ultra lefts who did too. Reply: SDS pretty much disappeared by 1969 so I have no idea what sort of meetings you are referring to. John: My point is - the SWP WAS Sectarian and it started long before what is now the Jack Barnes followers group. Reply: Agreed. But I still maintain that waving NLF flags in the USA during the war in Vietnam was political masturbation. From markalause at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 07:31:00 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:31:00 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <4937E8BE.3010706@panix.com> References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> <20081204000330.487BCD1E8@mailbackend.panix.com> <4937E8BE.3010706@panix.com> Message-ID: The SDS after the implosions of the late 1960s became a fundamentally different organization. It was pretty much entirely in the hands of the Progressive Labor Party with a peppering of the LaRouche people, if I remember rightly. The earlier comment on the SDS also muddled these things together. The earlier SDS was definately not an anticapitalist, antiimperialist organization, though many participants were. It was a very broad collection of people with various solutions and hobby horses. ML From walterlx at earthlink.net Thu Dec 4 07:45:55 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 06:45:55 -0800 (GMT-08:00) Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers Message-ID: <9126631.1228401955561.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> LOUIS PROYECT wrote: Unfortunately, the flag wavers (including the agent provocateurs in their midst) were too "radical" to bother forming an organization so how in the world would the Vietnamese be in a position to meet with them? ======================================================================== Veteran activist Walter Teague formed and led the U.S. Committee to Aid the National Liberation front of Vietnam during the war. I recall first seeing them in 1967 at the giant mobilization in New York City which so many of us attended. We of the Trotskyist SWP and YSA were not enthused about the presence of this organization, since we were politically very hostile to the NLF, but the group was defintely there and played a role in the anti-war struggle at that time. Walter Teague, by the way, is still involved today, and he lives near Washington, DC, where he also remains active, has visited Vietnam a few years ago, and is active in local Cuba solidarity activity in the DC. area. First reference which came up in a Google search: http://www.fermentmagazine.org/Bio/newleft1.html Walter Lippmann Los Angeles, California Walter Lippmann Los Angeles, California ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Los Angeles, California Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From walterlx at earthlink.net Thu Dec 4 07:45:34 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 06:45:34 -0800 (GMT-08:00) Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers Message-ID: <9034442.1228401934864.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> LOUIS PROYECT wrote: Unfortunately, the flag wavers (including the agent provocateurs in their midst) were too "radical" to bother forming an organization so how in the world would the Vietnamese be in a position to meet with them? ======================================================================== Veteran activist Walter Teague formed and led the U.S. Committee to Aid the National Liberation front of Vietnam during the war. I recall first seeing them in 1967 at the giant mobilization in New York City which so many of us attended. We of the Trotskyist SWP and YSA were not enthused about the presence of this organization, since we were politically very hostile to the NLF, but the group was defintely there and played a role in the anti-war struggle at that time. Walter Teague, by the way, is still involved today, and he lives near Washington, DC, where he also remains active, has visited Vietnam a few years ago, and is active in local Cuba solidarity activity in the DC. area. First reference which came up in a Google search: http://www.fermentmagazine.org/Bio/newleft1.html Walter Lippmann Los Angeles, California ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Los Angeles, California Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From rjacobs3625 at charter.net Thu Dec 4 07:50:38 2008 From: rjacobs3625 at charter.net (Ron J) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:50:38 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> <20081204000330.487BCD1E8@mailbackend.panix.com> <4937E8BE.3010706@panix.com> Message-ID: <4937EE3E.10902@charter.net> I think the makeup of SDS after 1969 depended on where one was situated in the country. Mark Lause wrote: > The SDS after the implosions of the late 1960s became a fundamentally > different organization. It was pretty much entirely in the hands of > the Progressive Labor Party with a peppering of the LaRouche people, > if I remember rightly. > > The earlier comment on the SDS also muddled these things together. > The earlier SDS was definately not an anticapitalist, antiimperialist > organization, though many participants were. It was a very broad > collection of people with various solutions and hobby horses. > > ML > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rjacobs3625%40charter.net > > From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Dec 4 07:57:50 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:57:50 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <9034442.1228401934864.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <9034442.1228401934864.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4937EFEE.8080203@panix.com> Walter Lippmann wrote: > > Veteran activist Walter Teague formed and led the U.S. Committee to Aid > the National Liberation front of Vietnam during the war. I recall first > seeing them in 1967 at the giant mobilization in New York City which so > many of us attended. Who cares if you saw them. > We of the Trotskyist SWP and YSA were not enthused > about the presence of this organization, since we were politically very > hostile to the NLF, but the group was defintely there and played a role > in the anti-war struggle at that time. This is unadorned bullshit. The SWP, for all its faults, understood that Teague and people like him were disruptive ultraleftists. The best way to "aid" the NLF was not waving their flag but in getting millions to demonstrate for immediate withdrawal, a task that a lunatic like Teague was ill-prepared to face up to. His main activity, such as it was, was staffing a table in the middle of Greenwich Village filled with pro-NLF propaganda and NLF flags, just the sort of thing that made the imperialists quake in their boots. Here's a little flavor of the sort of milieu that Teague operated in: Even before Walter Teague had finished the presentation of his proposals the sniping had begun. The first disputes arose over what sector of the general population to address. The Trotskyist organizations, spearheaded by the shrill voice of the woman representing the Committee for the Fourth International, insisted that the rally, leafletting, march, or whatever else we came up with, had to be in accordance with the historic mission of the vanguard of the working class. Recent events had rendered the cliche meaningless at best: the AFL/CIO had just issued a strong statement in support of the war. The Trotskyist groups suggested that amarch be organized that would go through the garment district and end up in front of the headquarters of the AFL/CIO. Then speakers would exhort the workers to oppose their own unions and embrace, not the cause of compassion for the Vietnamese people, but the goals of the Communist parties of Vietnam and China. The woman from the Committee for the Fourth International shrieked that the inevitable revolution depended on a support base in the working class. Any political action whatsoever not based on the reality of Class Warfare was frivolous. Other speakers stood up to argue, with various degrees of calm, for the necessity of appealing to the workers. What was remarkable about these proposals is that, although they came from organizations known to spend far more time attacking each other than making common cause against the enemy, they all showed a similar lack of imagination. Nowadays it isn't easy to define what is meant by the appellation "worker" : skilled workers like plumbers or electricians? Skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled construction workers? Factory workers? Longshoremen? Clerical workers, secretaries, nurses, janitors? School teachers? Migrant laborers? Indigent or unemployed? All of these groups are either workers or exploited, or both, yet one cannot deny that their interests, even their "class interests", differ greatly. full: http://www.fermentmagazine.org/Bio/newleft1.html From daynegoodwin at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 08:08:59 2008 From: daynegoodwin at gmail.com (Dayne Goodwin) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 08:08:59 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream In-Reply-To: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta> References: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Joaquin Bustelo wrote: . . . I think we should instead focus on why Obama is > having some success in assembling such a broad coalition of ruling class > operatives behind him. And we should be clear in judging this. This "team of > rivals" is not being assembled so that the vector sum of clashing tendencies > can write on the tabula rasa of the incoming administration's policy agenda. > It is being put together to carry out the policies of Obama. > > When Obama was first running and right through the primaries, it seemed very > evident that he was quite genuinely proposing "change" -- not the sweeping > radical reforms some of his supporters imagined, but real change in terms of > ruling class policy. > > It may seem disingenuous to bring that up now, in large part because his > bourgeois political approach has moved towards becoming the dominant, > "mainstream" wing over the past few months. . . The "disingenous" sleight-of-hand is a smooth maneuver but, however he wants to explain it, i do notice that there's nothing more in Joaquin's latest epistle about the Obama campaign being a continuation of the "most powerful social movement by any sector of working and oppressed people in this country" in modern U.S. history. Can we cross that illusion off the list? ______________________________________________________ On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Joaquin Bustelo wrote: > Dayne Goodwin says: Was the Obama presidential election campaign a > *continuation* of the "most powerful social movement by any sector of > working and oppressed people in this country" in modern U.S. history? - as > Joaquin argues. . . . I think the answers to Dayne's first AND second question are clearly YES. . . . _______________________________________________________ I am glad to see Joaquin emphasizing that action and political practice is fundamental. Those participating on a marxist internet discussion list can no be more labeled sectarian simply because they point out on that list that Obama is a mainstream bourgeois politician than those who have illusions about Obama can be labeled as tail-ending the liberal bourgeoisie simply because of what they say on the discussion list. Dayne From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Dec 4 08:29:07 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:29:07 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Obama intends to stay in Iraq Message-ID: <4937F743.8010100@panix.com> NY Times, December 4, 2008 News Analysis Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality By THOM SHANKER WASHINGTON ? On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to ?end the war? in Iraq. But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months. ?I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary ? likely to be necessary ? to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,? Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team. Publicly at least, Mr. Obama has not set a firm number for that ?residual force,? a phrase certain to become central to the debate on the way ahead in Iraq, though one of his national security advisers, Richard Danzig, said during the campaign that it could amount to 30,000 to 55,000 troops. Nor has Mr. Obama laid out any timetable beyond 16 months for troop drawdowns, or suggested when he believes a time might come for a declaration that the war is over. In the meantime, military planners are drawing up tentative schedules aimed at meeting both Mr. Obama?s goal for withdrawing combat troops, with a target of May 2010, and the Dec. 31, 2011, date for sending the rest of American troops home that is spelled out in the new agreement between the United States and the Iraqi government. That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 ? and some say as high as 70,000 ? for a substantial time even beyond 2011. As American combat forces decline in numbers and more provinces are turned over to Iraqi control, these military planners say, Iraqi security forces will remain reliant on significant numbers of Americans for training, supplies, logistics, intelligence and transportation for a long time to come. There always was a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction, in the two parts of Mr. Obama?s campaign platform to ?end the war? by withdrawing all combat troops by May 2010. To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops. Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama?s goal could be accomplished at least in part by relabeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be ?re-missioned,? their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis. In Iraq today, there are 15 brigades defined as combat forces in this debate, with one on its way home. But the overall number of troops on the ground is more than 50 brigade equivalents, for a total of 146,000 troops, including service and support personnel. Even now, after the departure of the five ?surge? brigades that President Bush sent to Iraq in January 2006, the overall number of troops in Iraq remains higher than when Mr. Bush ordered the troop increase, owing to the number of support and service personnel remaining. At his news conference in Chicago on Monday, Mr. Obama emphasized his willingness to listen to the advice from senior officers and that of his new national security team, which includes Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the first Pentagon chief in history to continue serving under a newly elected president; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and, as national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, the retired four-star Marine officer who served as NATO?s supreme commander. Since the election, Mr. Obama has held unannounced consultations with both Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen, described by Obama aides and Pentagon officials as having focused less on tactics and operations and more on broad, strategic views for American national security. On Wednesday, he made a telephone call to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Iraq?s prime minister, according to the Obama transition office. To date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come. At the Pentagon and the military headquarters in Iraq, the response to the statements this week from Mr. Obama and his national security team has been akin to the senior officer corps? letting out its collective breath; the words sounded to them like the new president would take a measured approach on the question of troop levels. ?I believe that 16 months is the right time frame, but, as I?ve said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders,? Mr. Obama said at that news conference on Monday. ?And my No. 1 priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase, and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security.? An apparent evolution of Mr. Obama?s thinking can be heard in contrast to comments he made in July, when he called a news conference to lay out his Iraq policy in unambiguous terms. ?I intend to end this war,? he said then. ?My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war ? responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.? And in a news conference that month in Amman, Jordan, Mr. Obama acknowledged that the American troop increase had bolstered Iraqi security but declared that he would not hesitate to overrule American commanders and redirect troops in Afghanistan. Mr. Gates, speaking at the Pentagon on Tuesday, a day after he appeared with Mr. Obama to announce the new national security team, made clear that the direction of troop levels now had been decided, with the only decisions remaining on how fast and how low. ?And so the question is, How do we do this in a responsible way?? Mr. Gates said. ?And nobody wants to put at risk the gains that have been achieved, with so much sacrifice, on the part of our soldiers and the Iraqis, at this point.? From tcod at hotmail.com Thu Dec 4 08:36:10 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:36:10 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <4565DB9D907C43A690BFC2409E63E472@dmsthinkpad> <098969281E254B7EA3D668BA073B76E7@dmsthinkpad> <1228344586.5497.40.camel@localhost> <6C6263C0BD1E4CE7A09B29DDB41D9D34@dmsthinkpad> Message-ID: Mark: If you'll include a quote or reference to what you're responding to in your posts, then I and other readers, including non-subbers who can view the last 100 messages on line, won't become politically confused on these important issues as many of us don't have time to track all of the postings based on their sheer volume. Thanks, Tom > Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 23:51:13 -0500 > From: markalause at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers > To: tcod at hotmail.com > > Tom, if you say that you don't know what I'm saying, why do you choose > to start by taking issue with it? > > I was responding to the "point" of the previous discussants who > dismissed the mass antiwar demonstrations by conjuring a fictional > mass anticapitalist, antiimperialist, genuinely radical movement or > tens of thousands of people operating somewhere left of the so-called > "peace crawls." _________________________________________________________________ You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/ From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Dec 4 08:50:57 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:50:57 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Turkey's Sinister Blend of Watergate and the Dreyfus Affair Message-ID: <4937FC61.2020404@panix.com> http://www.counterpunch.org/ece12042008.html From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Dec 4 09:10:56 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:10:56 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Henwood-Shaikh tonight Message-ID: <49380110.4040403@panix.com> THE DEEPENING ECONOMIC DISASTER: CAUSES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHANGE A panel and public discussion featuring: Doug Henwood: Editor of Left Business Observer and host of WBAI's Behind The News. Anwar Shaikh: Professor of Economics, Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science at the New School for Social Research. When: Thursday, December 4, 7:00 PM Where: NYU. 19 University Place, Room 102 * What is the crisis? Are its main features similar to or different from past economic crises? * In the US and globally, who are the victims of the crisis? And who or what is to blame? * What has the crisis exposed about capitalism and the US government? * What can we expect from Obama in response to the crisis? * What opportunities does the crisis offer for progressive change? OPEN TO THE PUBLIC! From jorge at marxist.com Thu Dec 4 09:13:03 2008 From: jorge at marxist.com (Jorge Martin) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:13:03 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Venezuela: struggle for nationalisation under workers control - car industry and Inveval Message-ID: <4e3829c50812040813q13c8a1d0n30096de832008faa@mail.gmail.com> This is an article about the occupation of car parts maker Vivex in Venezuela, where now the workers are demanding nationalisation under workers control Venezuela: Vivex workers take over the factory and demand nationalisation By Jorge Martin On Friday, November 21, as part of a protracted conflict, 360 workers of Vivex occupied their factory in the industrial district Los Montones in Barcelona (Anzoategui). The plant makes windscreens for the car industry, and the workers are demanding of President Chavez that he should nationalise it. Now the national government must intervene in a bold manner and nationalise the plant under workers' control. and this is about the sabotage by the bureaucracy against Inveval, which was nationalised in 2005 and has been run under workers' control and management: Venezuela: Inveval workers protest against bureaucratic sabotage By Corriente Marxista Revolucionaria (Venezuela) Interview with Jos? Quintero, member of the INVEVAL Factory Committee, by *El Militante*, newspaper of the Revolutionary Marxist Current (CMR). From tzsche at shaw.ca Thu Dec 4 09:26:45 2008 From: tzsche at shaw.ca (Steve Heeren) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:26:45 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] current economic crises Message-ID: <493804C5.5050301@shaw.ca> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ gary: charles brown only copied it from the CPUSA's website. and there you will find the same "tailism" to the Democrats that you so complain about. p.s. your posts are confusing in that they don't differentiate *clearly* between your own ideas and those you are responding to. can you please do that henceforth? johnaimani wrote about Charles' post on the economy > Just a brilliant comprehensive analysis. > > I agree totally. Charles has provided us with an absolutely clear and very > useful analysis. All in all his post was a real tour de force. > I will admit though to reading the stuff about Volcker's role with special > interest. Now where have I heard that name recently?....hmmm I do so wonder. I must ask Walter or Joaquin or Fred or Paddy... best regards Gary ______________________ From rjacobs3625 at charter.net Thu Dec 4 09:43:06 2008 From: rjacobs3625 at charter.net (Ron J) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:43:06 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Obama intends to stay in Iraq In-Reply-To: <4937F743.8010100@panix.com> Message-ID: <20081204114306.LB81L.846594.root@mp15> If one reads the SOFA check out Article 27, which is below (with my comments), they can see the method by which the US would/could keep troops in Iraq. > > From Article 27: (this section allows a loophole that could allow the US to saty as long as it is "requested" to do so by its client government in Iraq. The ambiguiy is intentional and means that if the Green Zone iraqi government feels it is threatened, then it can ask the US to stay and/or send in more troops.) > > . To that end, the Parties agree as follows: > In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq that would violate its sovereignty, political independence, or territorial integrity, waters, airspace, its democratic system or its elected institutions, and upon request by the Government of Iraq, the Parties shall immediately initiate strategic deliberations and, as may be mutually agreed, the United States shall take appropriate measures, including diplomatic, economic, or military measures, or any other measure, to deter such a threat. > The Parties agree to continue close cooperation in strengthening and maintaining military and security institutions and democratic political institutions in Iraq, including, as may be mutually agreed, cooperation in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces, in order to combat domestic and international terrorism and outlaw groups, upon request by the Government of Iraq > > and while less relevant, but potentially a way for the US to renege: > --from > 1. This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years, unless terminated sooner > by either Party pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article. > 2. This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agreement of the Parties in > writing and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in effect in both countries. > 3. This Agreement shall terminate one year after a Party provides written notification to > the other Party to that effect. ---- Louis Proyect wrote: ============= NY Times, December 4, 2008 News Analysis Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality By THOM SHANKER WASHINGTON ? On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to ?end the war? in Iraq. That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 ? and some say as high as 70,000 ? for a substantial time even beyond 2011. As American combat forces decline in numbers and more provinces are turned over to Iraqi control, these military planners say, Iraqi security forces will remain reliant on significant numbers of Americans for training, supplies, logistics, intelligence and transportation for a long time to come. From schaffer at optonline.net Thu Dec 4 10:36:57 2008 From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:36:57 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] CNN = In-Reply-To: <2E58EF4A18864FCF92AEE1FCE8EC3D87@albanta> References: <2E58EF4A18864FCF92AEE1FCE8EC3D87@albanta> Message-ID: <49381539.3080002@optonline.net> Joaquin Bustelo wrote: > Having shown this post a few moments ago to a friend who dropped by, let me > add an explanation on the subject line. What follows the equals sign is > nothing. As in "CNN equals" nothing, zero, zip, nada. very sad... logs.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/science-coverage-imploding-at-cnn-beyond/?hp Les From markalause at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 10:49:41 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:49:41 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <4937EE3E.10902@charter.net> References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> <20081204000330.487BCD1E8@mailbackend.panix.com> <4937E8BE.3010706@panix.com> <4937EE3E.10902@charter.net> Message-ID: I'm sure the makeup of the SDS after 1969 depended on where one was situationed. I'm equally sure that the makeup of the SDS depended on where one was situated BEFORE 1969. As far as that goes, the fact that it was genuinely a student-based group meant that each chapter changed every year or so. My point was that the crumbling of the organization in the late 1960s changed it everywhere. The essence of this change was the notion that the group needed a program and coherence it simply did not have before and did not think it needed. Not having that kind of coherence was a vitally distinctive dimension of the old SDS. ML From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Dec 4 11:15:47 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:15:47 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Turkey's Sinister Blend of Watergate and the Dreyfus Affair In-Reply-To: <4937FC61.2020404@panix.com> References: <4937FC61.2020404@panix.com> Message-ID: <49381E53.4050305@panix.com> Louis Proyect wrote: > http://www.counterpunch.org/ece12042008.html > Corrected URL: http://www.counterpunch.org/ece12032008.html From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Dec 4 12:22:15 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Bourgeoisie asks Obama to loosen Cuba embargo Message-ID: <49382DE7.8040006@panix.com> December 4, 2008 Business Urges Obama to Loosen Cuba Embargo By REUTERS Filed at 2:02 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama should start soon to loosen five decades of trade curbs on Cuba and begin a comprehensive review of U.S. policy toward the communist-run island, U.S. business groups said on Thursday. "We support the complete removal of all trade and travel restrictions on Cuba. We recognize that change may not come all at once, but it must start somewhere, and it must begin soon," the groups said in a letter to Obama. They recommended the United States start by holding talks with Cuba to discuss how to repair nearly 50 years of distrust and by allowing Americans to visit the island. Washington should also consider exempting agricultural machinery, heavy equipment and certain other goods from its embargo to help in the rebuilding of Cuba in the wake of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, the groups said. The groups included American Farm Bureau Federation, Business Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Retail Federation and Grocery Manufacturers Association, whose collective membership comprises a broad cross-section of American industry and agriculture. "We are pleased that you support suspending restrictions on family remittances, visits and humanitarian care packages from Cuban Americans. These are excellent first steps, but we urge you to also commit to a more comprehensive examination of U.S. policy," the groups said. The United States expanded an arms embargo on Cuba in 1962 to include other goods after the Cuban government under the leadership of Fidel Castro seized the properties of American companies doing business on the island. The Cold War-era restrictions were codified into law by Congress 1992 under the Cuban Democracy Act. Efforts to loosen the embargo remain politically difficult because of the influence of Cuban-American exiles living in Florida, a key presidential swing state. But with Obama's election, the outlook for change has improved, said Jake Colvin, vice president for global trade issues at the National Foreign Trade Council, whose members include Boeing, Caterpillar and Microsoft. "There is a growing optimism that taking the kinds of small steps that President-elect Obama has promised, like diplomatic overtures and relaxing travel restrictions, could lead to more substantial changes later on. Companies want to be ready for that moment," Colvin said. Obama could take some steps on his own, but completely removing the embargo would require congressional action. From mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com Thu Dec 4 13:11:43 2008 From: mehmetcagatayaydin at yahoo.com (Mehmet Cagatay) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:11:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] Turkey's Sinister Blend of Watergate and the Dreyfus Affair Message-ID: <545156.20202.qm@web31702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I know when Louis or any other subscriber posts here a link or a quote without a comment, it is occasionally ambiguous and it is not meant to be understood as a certain message. It may be sharing of a different of point of view that draws the attention of the sender, or an obvious bullshit that even the sender finds it redundant to add a couple of thoughts, etc. etc. In this case I think it is both of them: this is an interesting standpoint encrusted with bullshit and assigned to a desperate and angry reader like me for adding a comment. Anyway, besides being a "lonely and beloved country", Turkey is a fascinating case where a journalist who is paid by one of the biggest capital groups of Turkey ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aydin_Dogan ) somehow manages to maintain the image of fearless and presumptuous writer. But don't be deceived with the appearance; she is actually fearless enough to take sides with in the recent struggle among the different fragment of Turkish bourgeois. All the hinting at political "witch-hunt", Watergate scandal, etc. boldly represents that she takes the Kamalist side. But not surprisingly.. she takes the side which is also supported by her boss. Instead of trying to learn something about this "lonely and beloved country" from this piece of eastern foxiness, I urge comrades to read again Ertugrul Kurkcu's article on the subject, I know it was posted on the list before but it is the proper Marxist analysis of the situation: http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/sk060808.html The only flaw of Mr. Kurkcu?s article is its conclusion, but it is not his flaw, it is the limitation of Marxist analysis or analysis in general. As Badiou said, (I love to write "as Badiou said") it is impossible to develop a politics of emancipation as a consequence of analysis. Mehmet ?agatay http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/ From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Dec 4 13:15:55 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:15:55 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Ron Kuby on Obama's case Message-ID: <49383A7B.6080207@panix.com> http://airamerica.com/doingtime Kuby is a hardcore liberal with a show on Air America. Listen to him now ripping Obama a new asshole. From walterlx at earthlink.net Thu Dec 4 13:27:54 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:27:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] Legal challenges to Obama's citizenship, and thus, his election Message-ID: <22195798.1228422474346.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> (Yet another round in the war against Barack Obama.) ====================================================== BALTIMORE AFRO-AMERICAN Thomas Breaks Custom Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case By James Wright AFRO Staff Writer http://www.afro.com/tabid/456/itemid/2273/Thomas-breaks-custom-forces-court-to-look-at-Obam.aspx (December 3, 2008) - In a highly unusual move, U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has asked his colleagues on the court to consider the request of an East Brunswick, N.J. attorney who has filed a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama?s status as a United States citizen. Thomas?s action took place after Justice David Souter had rejected a petition known as an application for a stay of writ of certiorari that asked the court to prevent the meeting of the Electoral College on Dec. 15, which will certify Obama as the 44th president of the United States and its first African-American president. The court has scheduled a Dec. 5 conference on the writ -- just 10 days before the Electoral College meets. The high court?s only African American is bringing the matter to his colleagues as a result of the writ that was filed by attorney Leo Donofrio. Donofrio sued the New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Wells, contending that Obama was not qualified to be on the state?s presidential ballot because of Donofrio?s own questions about Obama citizenship. Donofrio is a retired lawyer who identifies himself as a ?citizen?s advocate.? The AFRO learned that he is a contributor to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, a Web site that raises questions about Obama?s citizenship. Calls made to Donofrio?s residence were not returned to the AFRO by press time. Donofrio is questioning Obama?s citizenship because the former Illinois senator, whose mom was from Kansas, was born in Hawaii and his father was a Kenyan national. Therefore, Donofrio argues, Obama?s dual citizenship does not make Obama ?a natural born citizen? as required by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, which states: ?No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President?? ...to prevent the meeting of the Electoral College on Dec. 15, which will certify Obama as the 44th president of the United States... Donofrio had initially tried to remove the names not only of Obama, but also the names of Republican Party presidential nominee John McCain and Socialist Workers? Party Roger Calero from appearing on the Nov. 4 general election ballot in his home state of New Jersey. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was a U.S. possession. Calero would be ineligible to be president because he was born in Nicaragua. After his efforts were unsuccessful in the New Jersey court system, he decided to take his case to a higher level. On Nov. 6, Souter denied the stay. Donofrio, following the rules of the procedure for the Supreme Court, re-submitted the application as an emergency stay in accordance to Rule 22, which states, in part, that an emergency stay can be given to another justice, which is the choice of the petitioner. Donofrio?s choice was Thomas. He submitted the emergency stay to Thomas?s office on Nov. 14. Thomas accepted the application on Nov. 19 and on that day, submitted it for consideration by his eight colleagues - known as a conference - and scheduled it for Dec. 5. On Nov. 26, a supplemental brief was filed by Donofrio to the clerk?s office of the Supreme Court. A letter to the court explaining the reason for the emergency stay was filed on Dec. 1 at the clerk?s office. Thomas?s actions were rare because, by custom, when a justice rejects a petition from his own circuit, the matter is dead. Even if, as can be the case under Rule 22, the matter can be submitted to another justice for consideration, that justice out of respect, will reject it also, said Trevor Morrison, a professor of law at Columbia University School of Law. Morrison said that Thomas?s actions are once in a decade. ?When that does happen, the case has to be of an extraordinary nature and this does not fit that circumstance,? he said. ?My guess would be that Thomas accepted the case so it would go before the conference where it will likely be denied. If Thomas denied the petition, then Donofrio would be free to go to the other justices for their consideration. ?This way, I would guess, the matter would be done with. Petitions of Donofrio?s types are hardly ever granted.? Traditionally, justices do not respond to media queries, according to a spokesman from the Supreme Court Public Information Office. Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and has been one of its most conservative members. Before his ascension to the court, he was appointed by Bush to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Earlier, he served as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - appointed by President Reagan - and worked various jobs under former Republican Sen. John Danforth. It would take a simple majority of five justices to put Donofrio?s emergency stay on the oral argument docket. Because it is an emergency by design, the argument would take place within days. Donofrio wants the court to order the Electoral College to postpone its Dec. 15 proceedings until it rules on the Obama citizenship. He is using the 2000 case Bush vs. Gore case as precedent, arguing that it is of such compelling national interest that it should be given priority over other cases on the court?s docket. ?The same conditions apply here,? Donofrio said in his letter to the court, ?as the clock is ticking down to Dec. 15, the day for the Electoral College to meet.? Audrey Singer, a senior fellow at Washington?s Brookings Institution, who is an expert on immigration, said that the Donofrio matter is ?going nowhere.? ?There is no way that anyone can argue about whether Barack Obama is a citizen,? Singer said. ?In this country, we have a system known as jus soli or birthright by citizenship. You are a citizen by being born on American soil and he (Obama) was born in Hawaii.? Singer said that Donofrio?s argument that Obama?s father was a Kenyan national does not matter because citizenship is not based on parentage, but on where someone was born. ?This is the issue that some people have with illegal aliens in our country,? she said. ?Children of illegal aliens, if they are born in the United States, are U.S. citizens. That is in the U.S. Constitution.? ================================================================ www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-birth-certificatedec04,0,664988.story chicagotribune.com MORE ON BARACK OBAMA Suit contesting Barack Obama's citizenship heads to U.S. Supreme Court Friday Justices will decide whether to consider the case By James Janega Tribune reporter December 4, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's election. The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer's supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation's highest court. The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells. Legal experts say the appeal has little chance of succeeding, despite appearing on the court's schedule. Legal records show it is only the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama's election over accusations that he either wasn't born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia. The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree. Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes' suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California. Another suit by a Kentucky man seeks to have a federal judge review Obama's original birth certificate, which Hawaiian officials say is locked in a state vault. Other suits have been filed by Andy Martin, whose case was dismissed in Hawaii, and by an Ohio man whose case also was dismissed. Five more suits, all later dismissed, were filed in Hawaii by a person who is currently suing the "Peoples Association of Human, Animals Conceived God/s and Religions, John McCain [and] USA Govt." The plaintiff previously sought to sue Wikipedia and "All News Media." The most famous case questioning Obama's citizenship was filed in Pennsylvania in August on behalf of Philip J. Berg and sought to enjoin the Democratic National Committee from nominating Obama. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an application for an injunction and hasn't scheduled a conference on other aspects of the case. Earlier, a federal judge rejected it for "lack of standing"?ruling that Berg had no legal right to sue. In cases like this, judges sometimes believe the matter is best left to political institutions, such as the Electoral College or Congress, said legal scholar Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles. The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was referred by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said. Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found that 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard?and not all of those ultimately were successful. jjanega at tribune.com Copyright ? 2008, Chicago Tribune ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Los Angeles, California Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Dec 4 13:31:45 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:31:45 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] UAW Concessions and the Transitional Program Message-ID: <49383E31.3030902@panix.com> http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/uaw-concessions-and-the-transitional-program/ From lnp3 at panix.com Thu Dec 4 13:41:40 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:41:40 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Obama-Cola Message-ID: <49384084.7020205@panix.com> http://www.counterpunch.org/matsui12032008.html From binesi at gvtel.com Thu Dec 4 15:03:09 2008 From: binesi at gvtel.com (David Thorstad) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:03:09 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Harvard's most popular course: triumph of the "me" era Message-ID: <4938539D.7050903@gvtel.com> Norman Vincent Peale ("the power of positive thinking") meets New Age. Our Panglossian world. Maybe these students should be using 'shrooms. That at least would give them the positive life-transforming experience they seek. David ======================================================================= ** *Harvard's crowded course to happiness 'Positive psychology' draws students in droves By Carey Goldberg Boston Globe March 10, 2006* CAMBRIDGE -- The most popular course at Harvard teaches happiness. The final numbers came in this week: Positive Psychology, a class whose content resembles that of many a self-help book but is grounded in serious psychological research, has enrolled 855 students, beating out even Introductory Economics. Every Tuesday and Thursday at 11:30 a.m., students crowd into Sanders Theatre to learn about creating, as the course description puts it, ''a fulfilling and flourishing life," courtesy of the booming new area of psychology that focuses on what makes people feel good rather than the pathologies that can make them feel miserable. ''Positive Psych may be the one class at Harvard that every student needs to take," said Nancy Cheng, a junior majoring in biology. ''In this fast-paced, competitive environment, it is especially crucial that people take time to stop and breathe. A self-help class? Maybe. . . . But from what I've seen and experienced at Harvard, I think we could all use a little self-help like this." In the last several years, positive psychology classes have cropped up on more than 100 campuses around the country, said Shane Lopez, an associate professor at the University of Kansas, who recently co-wrote a positive psychology textbook. But with such an enormous course enrollment, Tal D. Ben-Shahar, the lecturer who teaches Harvard's course, ''is the leader of the pack right now," Lopez said. The courses can change how you see yourself and your life, Lopez says. ''A lot of people are just not accustomed to asking, 'What do I have going for me?' and 'What did I do right today?' " Marty Seligman, the University of Pennsylvania professor who is considered the father of positive psychology for his scholarship and efforts to promote it, said he saw a similar groundswell when he offered a course in 2003. He sees the student enthusiasm as reflecting the tremendous appeal of the positive psychology movement in society at large. ''When nations are wealthy and not in civil turmoil and not at war, then I think, like Florence of the 15th century, they start asking what makes life worth living, and that's what positive psychology is about," he said in a phone interview. Among the research findings that support the idea that happy people function better: A study of aging nuns found that those with a positive outlook in their 20s lived as much as a decade longer than those with a negative outlook, and people who were asked to keep a diary every night for six months, recording things that had gone well that day, fared better in measures of happiness, optimism, and physical health than those who did not. Furthermore, studies show that optimism is a skill that can be taught and learned. On Tuesday, midway through the lecture, the lights dimmed and Ben-Shahar led the assembled hundreds of students through a couple of minutes of meditation, asking them to focus on their breathing and on releasing the tension in their bodies. ''Just let go," he said. ''Experience whatever experience you're having. Just let it be. Give it permission, give yourself permission to just be." A few deep sighs of relief could be heard. It was an astonishing scene in the hard-driving academic atmosphere of Harvard. Despite the short weekly papers, two exams, a final project, and required readings from hard-core psychology texts and journals, the course seems a bit like brain candy, compared to Harvard's usual academic fare. Some students do see it as a ''gut," according to an article in the Harvard Crimson's magazine. But Ben-Shahar argues that if the course seems easy, it is because it holds such great relevance to students' own lives, which they naturally are fascinated by. ''Most things we find interesting, we also find easy," he said. ''My goal is to create a bridge between the Ivory Tower and Main Street, to bring together the rigor of academia and the accessibility of self-help," he said. ''If the class has a rigorous academic foundation, which it does, then why not try to help people lead better lives?" It certainly does not hurt that Ben-Shahar, 35, raised in Israel and educated at Harvard, tells deeply personal stories to illustrate points. On Tuesday, he described how, in his senior year at Harvard, he won his dream fellowship, only to start worrying the next day about why he hadn't won a better one instead. The moral: How you see things can matter more than what actually happens. He also shares catchy phrases: ''Learn to fail or fail to learn," for instance, and ''not 'it happened for the best,' but 'how can I make the best of what happened?' " He also spoke about routes to personal change, wondering aloud about post-traumatic stress disorder, in which a single trauma can damage a person for life. Might it be possible to create the opposite phenomenon? He proposed that perhaps a single glorious, ecstatic experience could change a person for the better for life -- and went on to describe how students might increase the likelihood of such an experience and its aftermath, from cultivating a sense of gratitude for the beautiful things in their lives to taking the time to really listen to music. Students left the 90-minute-long class cheering and smiling. After Positive Psychology, Harvard's next most popular course this semester is an economics class with 669 students; and the third most popular class is another psychology course taught by Ben-Shahar that has 550 students. Between his two courses, Ben-Shahar is teaching more than 1,400 students. Although some may be taking both classes, it appears Ben-Shahar is teaching at least a fifth of Harvard College's undergraduate population of about 6,500. But despite the clear appeal he holds for students, Ben-Shahar is not on the track to tenure and is not seeking to get there. To qualify for tenure, he would have to conduct and publish original research. But research is not where his interests lie, he said. ''My passion is teaching," he said. ''So that's what I'll do." *Happiness tips* Give yourself permission to be human. When we accept emotions -- such as fear, sadness, or anxiety -- as natural, we are more likely to overcome them. Rejecting our emotions, positive or negative, leads to frustration and unhappiness. Happiness lies at the intersection between pleasure and meaning. Whether at work or at home, the goal is to engage in activities that are both personally significant and enjoyable. When this is not feasible, make sure you have happiness boosters, moments throughout the week that provide you with both pleasure and meaning. Keep in mind that happiness is mostly dependent on our state of mind, not on our status or the state of our bank account. Barring extreme circumstances, our level of well being is determined by what we choose to focus on (the full or the empty part of the glass) and by our interpretation of external events. For example, do we view failure as catastrophic, or do we see it as a learning opportunity? Simplify! We are, generally, too busy, trying to squeeze in more and more activities into less and less time. Quantity influences quality, and we compromise on our happiness by trying to do too much. Remember the mind-body connection. What we do ? or don't do -- with our bodies influences our mind. Regular exercise, adequate sleep, and healthy eating habits lead to both physical and mental health. Express gratitude, whenever possible. We too often take our lives for granted. Learn to appreciate and savor the wonderful things in life, from people to food, from nature to a smile. SOURCE: Tal D. Ben-Shahar -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Attached Message Part Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/attachments/20081204/535e9125/attachment.txt From david at miradoiro.com Thu Dec 4 15:07:13 2008 From: david at miradoiro.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?David_Pic=F3n_=C1lvarez?=) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:07:13 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] ECHR judges against the UK DNA database. Message-ID: <4D7D21F7317147989BA87AEADC7E5125@Nautilus> The ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) has issued binding judgement against the United Kingdom in the matter of its DNA database, finding that it infringes on article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which establishes protections for private and family life. I consider this judgement a good thing. I paste below some of the reasoning of the court in case anyone is interested. ----Court judgement---- The Court noted that cellular samples contained much sensitive information about an individual, including information about his or her health. In addition, samples contained a unique genetic code of great relevance to both the individual concerned and his or her relatives. Given the nature and the amount of personal information contained in cellular samples, their retention per se had to be regarded as interfering with the right to respect for the private lives of the individuals concerned. In the Court's view, the capacity of DNA profiles to provide a means of identifying genetic relationships between individuals was in itself sufficient to conclude that their retention interfered with the right to the private life of those individuals. The possibility created by DNA profiles for drawing inferences about ethnic origin made their retention all the more sensitive and susceptible of affecting the right to private life. The Court concluded that the retention of both cellular samples and DNA profiles amounted to an interference with the applicants' right to respect for their private lives, within the meaning of Article 8 ? 1 of the Convention. The applicants' fingerprints were taken in the context of criminal proceedings and subsequently recorded on a nationwide database with the aim of being permanently kept and regularly processed by automated means for criminal-identification purposes. It was accepted that, because of the information they contain, the retention of cellular samples and DNA profiles had a more important impact on private life than the retention of fingerprints. However, the Court considered that fingerprints contain unique information about the individual concerned and their retention without his or her consent cannot be regarded as neutral or insignificant. The retention of fingerprints may thus in itself give rise to important private-life concerns and accordingly constituted an interference with the right to respect for private life. [...] The Court accepted that the retention of fingerprint and DNA information pursued a legitimate purpose, namely the detection, and therefore, prevention of crime. The Court noted that fingerprints, DNA profiles and cellular samples constituted personal data within the meaning of the Council of Europe Convention of 1981 for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data. The Court indicated that the domestic law had to afford appropriate safeguards to prevent any such use of personal data as could be inconsistent with the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court added that the need for such safeguards was all the greater where the protection of personal data undergoing automatic processing was concerned, not least when such data were used for police purposes. The interests of the individuals concerned and the community as a whole in protecting personal data, including fingerprint and DNA information, could be outweighed by the legitimate interest in the prevention of crime (the Court referred to Article 9 of the Data Protection Convention). However, the intrinsically private character of this information required the Court to exercise careful scrutiny of any State measure authorising its retention and use by the authorities without the consent of the person concerned. The issue to be considered by the Court in this case was whether the retention of the fingerprint and DNA data of the applicants, as persons who had been suspected, but not convicted, of certain criminal offences, was necessary in a democratic society. The Court took due account of the core principles of the relevant instruments of the Council of Europe and the law and practice of the other Contracting States, according to which retention of data was to be proportionate in relation to the purpose of collection and limited in time. These principles had been consistently applied by the Contracting States in the police sector, in accordance with the 1981 Data Protection Convention and subsequent Recommendations by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. As regards, more particularly, cellular samples, most of the Contracting States allowed these materials to be taken in criminal proceedings only from individuals suspected of having committed offences of a certain minimum gravity. In the great majority of the Contracting States with functioning DNA databases, samples and DNA profiles derived from those samples were required to be removed or destroyed either immediately or within a certain limited time after acquittal or discharge. A restricted number of exceptions to this principle were allowed by some Contracting States. The Court noted that England, Wales and Northern Ireland appeared to be the only jurisdictions within the Council of Europe to allow the indefinite retention of fingerprint and DNA material of any person of any age suspected of any recordable offence. It observed that the protection afforded by Article 8 of the Convention would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal-justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private-life interests. Any State claiming a pioneer role in the development of new technologies bore special responsibility for striking the right balance in this regard. The Court was struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales. In particular, the data in question could be retained irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected or of the age of the suspected offender; the retention was not time-limited; and there existed only limited possibilities for an acquitted individual to have the data removed from the nationwide database or to have the materials destroyed. The Court expressed a particular concern at the risk of stigmatisation, stemming from the fact that persons in the position of the applicants, who had not been convicted of any offence and were entitled to the presumption of innocence, were treated in the same way as convicted persons. It was true that the retention of the applicants' private data could not be equated with the voicing of suspicions. Nonetheless, their perception that they were not being treated as innocent was heightened by the fact that their data were retained indefinitely in the same way as the data of convicted persons, while the data of those who had never been suspected of an offence were required to be destroyed. The Court further considered that the retention of unconvicted persons' data could be especially harmful in the case of minors such as the first applicant, given their special situation and the importance of their development and integration in society. It considered that particular attention had to be paid to the protection of juveniles from any detriment that could result from the retention by the authorities of their private data following acquittals of a criminal offence. In conclusion, the Court found that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests, and that the respondent State had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard. Accordingly, the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 in this case. ----End of quote---- --David. From Paula_cerni at msn.com Thu Dec 4 15:16:47 2008 From: Paula_cerni at msn.com (Paula) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:16:47 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Sarkozy's stimulus plan Message-ID: Is this the future of economic policy? "I will not allow a dismantling of France's industrial base," Sarkozy said. "There will be no bailout - neither in the auto sector, not elsewhere - without a counterpart. There will be no aid without the commitment not to outsource abroad." His remarks were greeted with loud cheers and applause. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/04/business/stimulus.php Paula From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 15:40:21 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:40:21 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Legal challenges to Obama's citizenship, and thus, his election In-Reply-To: <22195798.1228422474346.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <22195798.1228422474346.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Hi Walter I wouldn't worry about this nonsense. Obama is the choice of the American ruling class and the Supreme Court will rule accordingly. There will only be a "war" against Obama if he starts acting on behalf of the people. But I would relax on that score. best regards Gary From rjacobs3625 at charter.net Thu Dec 4 16:19:47 2008 From: rjacobs3625 at charter.net (Ron J) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:19:47 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Angola 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081204181947.5BNET.404268.root@mp05> Pardon any duplication "Angola 3" Member to Be Released On Bail After 37 Years. Conviction Overturned, Judge Rules Albert Woodfox Must be Free During Appeals or Re-trial Angola 3 - Judge Rules Albert Woodfox Must be Free COALITION TO FREE THE ANGOLA 3 Tuesday, November 25, 2008 Lawyers: Ruling Brings Hope for Remaining Prisoner, Also Spent 36 Years in Solitary for Guard's Murder *Albert Woodfox, who has spent 37 years in prison at Angola Penitentiary, must be released on bail, according to a ruling issued today by United States District Judge James Brady. On September 25th, Judge Brady overturned Woodfox's conviction for the 1972 murder of prison guard Brent Miller. Though the State has announced its intention to appeal that decision, until such an appeal is successful, according to today's ruling, there is no conviction on which to hold Woodfox. In his decision, Judge Brady wrote: "[Woodfox] is a frail, sickly, middle aged man who has had an exemplary conduct record for over the last twenty years. At the hearing before this Court on October 14, 2008, testimony was adduced that if released Mr. Woodfox would live with his niece and her family in a gated subdivision in Slidell, Louisiana. Mr. Woodfox has withdrawn that request because of fear of harm to his niece and her family by members... This change was brought about by counsel representing the State of Louisiana contacting the subdivision home owners association and providing them with information regarding Mr. Woodfox. The Court is not totally privy to what information was given to the association but from the documents filed it is apparent that the association was not told Mr. Woodfox is frail, sickly, and has had a clean conduct record for more than twenty years; this Court GRANTS Mr. Woodfox's motion for release pending the State's appeal." Herman Wallace, who was also convicted in the murder, remains in prison at Angola. He has an appeal pending with the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which is similar in content to Woodfox's successful appeal. The two men were wrongly convicted based largely on the testimony of a fellow prisoner, Hezekiah Brown, a serial rapist who was promised and received a pardon in exchange for his testimony against them. Brown was the sole professed eyewitness to the murder, and none of the physical evidence put Herman or Albert at the crime scene. Woodfox's legal team is now working with the court to reach an agreement on a suitable release location and plan for Woodfox; once they agree to a plan, Woodfox will be able to leave Angola. The lawyers anticipate the process to take several more days. Woodfox and Wallace were each held in solitary confinement from the time of the murder until last March, after a federal court concluded that their suit alleging that such confinement for three decades constitutes cruel and unusual punishment could go forward. A third man, Robert King Wilkerson, was held in solitary at Angola at the same time for a different crime; he was released in 2001 after showing that he had been wrongfully convicted. The three are known as the "Angola 3." All black men, they had been organizing nonviolently for an end to gang-enforced sex slavery and for better conditions inside the prison. Angola at the time was known as the "bloodiest prison in the US." "This is a major victory in a case where justice is long overdue. Albert went into Angola in his twenties, and he's walking out in his 60s. There is no conviction against him now, and the state should not take another day of his life," said Chris Aberle, Woodfox's lawyer. "In 37 years, Albert never gave up hope that someday he would walk out the gates of Angola. We continue to hope that Herman will join him soon. Neither of these men should have spent a day in Angola for this crime," said Nick Trenticosta, also a lawyer in the case. The case has attracted attention on the state and national level. Last spring, US House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) visited the men, along with Louisiana House Judiciary Committee Chair Cedric Richmond (D-101). Richmond has announced his intention to hold hearings on the case, and Conyers continues to monitor developments. The state had sought a stay of Judge Brady's ruling ordering a new trial until the appeal process plays out. Judge Brady granted that request. The State must now either win its appeals, or will need to either release or retry Woodfox within 120 days of the end of its appeals. Judge Brady held an initial bail hearing on October 14th; he postponed issuing a decision at that time to allow for additional depositions to be taken from Angola Warden Burl Cain and from a doctor who had examined Woodfox and his medical records. The State has now conducted both of those depositions. For a copy of the judgment, to speak with the lawyers, or for any additional information on the case, please contact Emma Mackinnon, emma at fenton. com or 202 302 6920. From walterlx at earthlink.net Thu Dec 4 16:50:07 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 18:50:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] The 100 positive days of Fernando Lugo Message-ID: <7520541.1228434607543.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> GRANMA INTERNATIONAL Havana. December 4, 2008 http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/diciembre/juev4/Paraguay.html The 100 positive days of Fernando Lugo Joaqu?n Rivery Tur ? IT has been gentle, with no stridency or propagandistic jubilation. Paraguay has been changing almost in silence, in terms of the conflicts of a country with a legacy of close to 40 years of dictatorship, large landowners and pro-consuls of U.S. origin, plus 20 years of presidents from the same party that sustained the dictatorship. Former bishop Fernando Lugo, of the Political Alliance for Change, has cut the 61-year run of domination by the Colorado Party (with Alfredo Stroessner and after him) and recently completed his first 100 days in power since his inauguration as president on August 15, with steps taken toward proposed goals and with concrete actions. It has been the 100 most peaceful days in Paraguay for many years, because many campesino and popular organizations trust that Lugo will fulfill his electoral promises, above all the gradual change of inherited structures, with an emphasis on "marking a new style of government, with the people, by and for the people," in his own words. The president is a measured man, optimistic, who has not promised to make Paraguay rich, but simply return a little dignity to the poorest, and who has acknowledged errors committed in the first three-and-a-half months of administration. In his opinion, "100 days is not sufficient to change everything, but enough to set the direction." That time period is totally insufficient to measure the work of a government with the declared intention of changing the situation, but tasks undertaken by the ex-bishop?s team have already begun to promote an environment of optimism, revealed in surveys, while there are those who are painting things in more somber colors. Speaking of this initial period, Lugo reiterated his "programmatic axes," which are economic reactivation, job generation, agrarian reform and the recovery of state institutions by fighting corruption. Added to that is the purification of the judicial system and the demand for greater benefits for the country from the hydroelectric plants Itaip? (shared with Brazil) and Yaciret? (with Argentina). If he achieves his goals ? although maybe not 100% -- he is going to have the total support of his compatriots, who are putting an emphasis on problems of land (indigenous and campesino) and the battle against corruption, one of the blights most detested by everybody. He has already taken the first steps toward dismantling the scandalous embezzlement of the public treasury that characterized previous administrations, leaving in their wake a devastated country without hope. Not even the president?s promises of agrarian reform without violence has completely pacified campesinos and indigenous groups, who have shown themselves to be very combative in claiming land promised by former governments and not undertaken by any of them. That historical marginalization explains why there have been 80 land occupations and 80 evictions in these 100 days, although only one was violent. It is hoped that an integral agrarian reform, on which the government is working, will alleviate difficulties around land tenure. In the battle against inherited state corruption, Lugo has shown himself to be firm in his preparedness to fulfill his promises to replace Supreme Court ministers and the attorney general, Rub?n Cand?a, with the argument that they are doing favors for Brazilians and their descendants illegally established on Paraguayan territory near the border with Brazil. One of the greatest problems confronting the former Catholic bishop is complicity between district attorneys and judges in relation to institutional embezzlement and their links with politicians of the old regime. As part of the struggle for the goals drawn up, Lugo has just dismissed the leadership of the army and police authorities due the corruption and lack of trust reigning in both institutions. That is a demonstration of the fact that the will to combat corruption is ongoing. Rafael Fiolizzola, minister of the interior, has stated that there has been embezzlement of funds, travel expenses, food, textiles, as well as 400 non-existent police agents whose wages were paid. State theft is a hard obstacle to overcome on account of the mutual defense exercised by corrupt officials everywhere, but action has already started with the firing of supposed public employees appearing on rosters and in receipt of salaries for work not done. It has only been 100 days, but 100 promising ones. ? ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Los Angeles, California Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Thu Dec 4 17:10:45 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:10:45 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] attack on Obama right to be president (re Gary McLellan response) Message-ID: <5E1F402043764352B223D032024187F1@office1pc> This guy has turned out to be real lumpen psycho-trash, hasn't he? Fred From nchamah at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 17:26:32 2008 From: nchamah at gmail.com (nchamah miller) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:26:32 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Saving the Big 3 for You and Me ...a message from Michael Moore Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Moore Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:14 AM Subject: Saving the Big 3 for You and Me ...a message from Michael Moore Saving the Big 3 for You and Me ...a message from Michael Moore Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008 Friends, I drive an American car. It's a Chrysler. That's not an endorsement. It's more like a cry for pity. And now for a decades-old story, retold ad infinitum by tens of millions of Americans, a third of whom have had to desert their country to simply find a damn way to get to work in something that won't break down: My Chrysler is four years old. I bought it because of its smooth and comfortable ride. Daimler-Benz owned the company then and had the good grace to place the Chrysler chassis on a Mercedes axle and, man, was that a sweet ride! When it would start. More than a dozen times in these years, the car has simply died. Batteries have been replaced, but that wasn't the problem. My dad drives the same model. His car has died many times, too. Just won't start, for no reason at all. A few weeks ago, I took my Chrysler in to the Chrysler dealer here in northern Michigan -- and the latest fixes cost me $1,400. The next day, the vehicle wouldn't start. When I got it going, the brake warning light came on. And on and on. You might assume from this that I couldn't give a rat's ass about these miserably inept crapmobile makers down the road in Detroit city. But I do care. I care about the millions whose lives and livelihoods depend on these car companies. I care about the security and defense of this country because the world is running out of oil -- and when it runs out, the calamity and collapse that will take place will make the current recession/depression look like a Tommy Tune musical. And I care about what happens with the Big 3 because they are more responsible than almost anyone for the destruction of our fragile atmosphere and the daily melting of our polar ice caps. Congress must save the industrial infrastructure that these companies control and the jobs they create. And it must save the world from the internal combustion engine. This great, vast manufacturing network can redeem itself by building mass transit and electric/hybrid cars, and the kind of transportation we need for the 21st century. And Congress must do all this by NOT giving GM, Ford and Chrysler the $34 billion they are asking for in "loans" (a few days ago they only wanted $25 billion; that's how stupid they are -- they don't even know how much they really need to make this month's payroll. If you or I tried to get a loan from the bank this way, not only would we be thrown out on our ear, the bank would place us on some sort of credit rating blacklist). Two weeks ago, the CEOs of the Big 3 were tarred and feathered before a Congressional committee who sneered at them in a way far different than when the heads of the financial industry showed up two months earlier. At that time, the politicians tripped over each other in their swoon for Wall Street and its Ponzi schemers who had concocted Byzantine ways to bet other people's money on unregulated credit default swaps, known in the common vernacular as unicorns and fairies. But the Detroit boys were from the Midwest, the Rust (yuk!) Belt, where they made real things that consumers needed and could touch and buy, and that continually recycled money into the economy (shocking!), produced unions that created the middle class, and fixed my teeth for free when I was ten. For all of that, the auto heads had to sit there in November and be ridiculed about how they traveled to D.C. Yes, they flew on their corporate jets, just like the bankers and Wall Street thieves did in October. But, hey, THAT was OK! They're the Masters of the Universe! Nothing but the best chariots for Big Finance as they set about to loot our nation's treasury. Of course, the auto magnates used be the Masters who ruled the world. They were the pulsating hub that all other industries -- steel, oil, cement contractors -- served. Fifty-five years ago, the president of GM sat on that same Capitol Hill and bluntly told Congress, what's good for General Motors is good for the country. Because, you see, in their minds, GM WAS the country. What a long, sad fall from grace we witnessed on November 19th when the three blind mice had their knuckles slapped and then were sent back home to write an essay called, "Why You Should Give Me Billions of Dollars of Free Cash." They were also asked if they would work for a dollar a year. Take that! What a big, brave Congress they are! Requesting indentured servitude from (still) three of the most powerful men in the world. This from a spineless body that won't dare stand up to a disgraced president nor turn down a single funding request for a war that neither they nor the American public support. Amazing. Let me just state the obvious: Every single dollar Congress gives these three companies will be flushed right down the toilet. There is nothing the management teams of the Big 3 are going to do to convince people to go out during a recession and buy their big, gas-guzzling, inferior products. Just forget it. And, as sure as I am that the Ford family-owned Detroit Lions are not going to the Super Bowl -- ever -- I can guarantee you, after they burn through this $34 billion, they'll be back for another $34 billion next summer. So what to do? Members of Congress, here's what I propose: 1. Transporting Americans is and should be one of the most important functions our government must address. And because we are facing a massive economic, energy and environmental crisis, the new president and Congress must do what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was faced with a crisis (and ordered the auto industry to stop building cars and instead build tanks and planes): The Big 3 are, from this point forward, to build only cars that are not primarily dependent on oil and, more importantly to build trains, buses, subways and light rail (a corresponding public works project across the country will build the rail lines and tracks). This will not only save jobs, but create millions of new ones. 2. You could buy ALL the common shares of stock in General Motors for less than $3 billion. Why should we give GM $18 billion or $25 billion or anything? Take the money and buy the company! (You're going to demand collateral anyway if you give them the "loan," and because we know they will default on that loan, you're going to own the company in the end as it is. So why wait? Just buy them out now.) 3. None of us want government officials running a car company, but there are some very smart transportation geniuses who could be hired to do this. We need a Marshall Plan to switch us off oil-dependent vehicles and get us into the 21st century. This proposal is not radical or rocket science. It just takes one of the smartest people ever to run for the presidency to pull it off. What I'm proposing has worked before. The national rail system was in shambles in the '70s. The government took it over. A decade later it was turning a profit, so the government returned it to private/public hands, and got a couple billion dollars put back in the treasury. This proposal will save our industrial infrastructure -- and millions of jobs. More importantly, it will create millions more. It literally could pull us out of this recession. In contrast, yesterday General Motors presented its restructuring proposal to Congress. They promised, if Congress gave them $18 billion now, they would, in turn, eliminate around 20,000 jobs. You read that right. We give them billions so they can throw more Americans out of work. That's been their Big Idea for the last 30 years -- layoff thousands in order to protect profits. But no one ever stopped to ask this question: If you throw everyone out of work, who's going to have the money to go out and buy a car? These idiots don't deserve a dime. Fire all of them, and take over the industry for the good of the workers, the country and the planet. What's good for General Motors IS good for the country. Once the country is calling the shots. Yours, Michael Moore MMFlint at aol.com MichaelMoore.com P.S. I will be on Keith Olbermann tonight (8pm/10pm/midnight ET) to discuss this further on MSNBC. Join Mike's Mailing List | Join Mike's Facebook Group | Become Mike's MySpace Friend You are currently subscribed to michaelmoore as: johnrbell at shaw.ca To unsubscribe click here or send a blank email to leave-15958112-43111739.2848f02e882ec72266da844f6e4d58e3 at go.netatlantic.com From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Thu Dec 4 18:59:59 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:59:59 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] attack on Obama right to be president (re Gary McLellan response Message-ID: <1EBE3B277F87488AA8CBDDAC58D10DE2@office1pc> This was meant as a personal comment to another comrade releasing some anger on the role that Gary has been playing in the discussion. I had no intention of having it appear on the list, where it degrades further an discussion already degraded by personal slurs from Gary and others. As I have said, I intend to make no further contributions on this matter. My own views are well-established, and I will submit only material by others on this where it seems relevant. Those who wish to respond to the actual views rather than the smears they seem to inspire have plenty of material to work on. I apologize to the list for letting this personal expression of deep disgust, intended only for a personal confidant, to further smudge the list discussion on this matter. As far as Gary goes, there is no basis, given his use of the list to smear comrades who disagree with him, to discuss anything -- this or any other subject -- with him. Fred Feldman From jbustelo at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 19:19:05 2008 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 21:19:05 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream In-Reply-To: References: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta> Message-ID: Dayne Goodwin: "i do notice that there's nothing more in Joaquin's latest epistle about the Obama campaign being a continuation of the 'most powerful social movement by any sector of working and oppressed people in this country' in modern U.S. history. Can we cross that illusion off the list?" The reason there is nothing on there about that is, first, that the Obama campaign *ended* a month ago. Didn't you notice? He won. Second, that the subject I was addressing in the post was not Obama's campaign at all, but rather the (to me) very evident shift in the stance of "mainstream" bourgeois policy. But third, this trick of pulling quotations out of context and framing "when did you stop beating your wife" questions around them I'm sure served you well in high school debate club meetings, but is hardly suitable for a discussion among serious people. The ORIGINAL context of the phrase you quote is this. I was replying to a post that said sure, Obama was preferable to McCain just as Kerry and Gore to Bush, etc. And I said no, that's not right, the alignment of social forces around the various candidacies was very different: "There is, in U.S. society, a *qualitative* difference between an Obama, on the one hand, and a Gore, Kerry, Bush, McCain, Dobbs (either Farrell or Lou) or Timothy McVeigh on the other. It is a difference that has played a central role in the development of the U.S. social formation. It is a difference that led to one of the bloodiest and most significant civil wars in world history. It is a difference that led to the most powerful social movement by any sector of working and oppressed people in this country of the modern, post-WWII epoch. "Insofar as that difference is concerned, Obama's candidacy was a result of the conquests of that movement. But it was more --it was perceived and embraced by the overwhelming, crushing majority of the protagonists of that movement, the Black community, as an expression of and part of the movement." To which you countered with the simple minded counterposition: "Was the Obama presidential election campaign a *continuation* of the 'most powerful social movement by any sector of working and oppressed people in this country' in modern U.S. history? - as Joaquin argues. "Or was the Obama presidential election campaign a successful effort by one of the smartest, most talented, most ambitious and audacious individual bourgeois politicians in modern U.S. history. Could it be that the Obama candidacy was particularly useful for the capitalist system at a time of severe and deepening crisis?" In responded that "I think the answers to Dayne's first AND second question are clearly YES," rejecting the contrived counterposition. You didn't choose to debate that then, but instead come back NOW, a couple of weeks later, and in response to a post about a distinctly different albeit related matter, you impute to me a shame-faced retreat from what I said. You are, of course, free to believe the earth is flat, Mary was a virgin, and God planted dinosaur bones in the ground as a test to separate those faithful to the literal truth of the Bible from the infidels. You are also free to believe that the movement of Blacks as a people was neither the most powerful social movement of modern U.S. history nor did it have anything to do with the Obama campaign. But it is simply silly, among serious people, to dismiss as an "illusion" that the PROTAGONISTS of the Black movement, Black people, viewed and embraced his campaign as an expression and part of that movement, and viewed his victory as not just the victory of an individual person, but as a victory of Black folks and their struggle for liberation. THOSE ARE FACTS, not illusions. You can argue, if you want, that the Black community is entirely wrong, that there is no sense in which this was a victory for Black rights and whatever other sectarian foibles you had in mind when you framed your post. But at least give reality its due. And also give the sophomoric debating tricks a miss. Joaquin From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Thu Dec 4 19:29:16 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:29:16 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] "From victorious candidate to president: Quo Vadis, Obama?" Message-ID: <83E7EE7C5139486493AD9E38338E457C@office1pc> GRANMA INTERNATIONAL Havana. December 4, 2008 From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Thu Dec 4 19:41:44 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:41:44 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] With Saturn, GM failed a makeover Message-ID: Interesting as an example of how a popular, consumer-oriented capitalist project became the same old shit over time. You were one of the beneficiaries of the initial surge of creativity on all sides, so you will be interested. Our Saturn is still going, I assume? Fred ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- December 4, 2008 With Saturn, G.M. Failed a Makeover By MICHELINE MAYNARD General Motors has promised Congress that it can recreate itself as a different kind of car company - smaller, with a more cooperative relationship with its union, and a lineup of fuel-efficient cars to compete with the best of the foreign brands. At least G.M. knows how difficult the challenge will be. A quarter-century ago, G.M. started Project Saturn with the same goals. And it worked, for a time. Saturn owners, including many who traded in their Hondas and Toyotas to own the first models in 1990, became cheerleaders for the division's customer-friendly approach, while the United Automobile Workers union gave up many of its traditional restrictions to help Saturn succeed. The brand became a media darling, and was featured on the cover of Time. "Can America still compete?" said the headline. "With its new Saturn, G.M. bets the answer is yes." But Saturn quickly started losing its shine. G.M. executives cut spending, and shoppers flocked to S.U.V.'s. Eventually, many workers resisted the new management style. Now the brand that was once a symbol of G.M.'s future will have a bit part, at most. G.M. said Tuesday that it was "exploring alternatives" for Saturn, which come down to selling it or relegating it to a smaller role in G.M.'s lineup. G.M. once hoped it would sell 500,000 Saturns a year. But sales peaked at 286,000 in 1994, according to Motorintelligence.com. Unless Saturn sales rise sharply in December, this year the division will sell fewer than 200,000 vehicles, for the first time since 1992. Despite the steady decline, Saturn executives can point to bright spots. Saturn ranks No. 13 in resale value, measured over the last five years, among all automotive brands tracked by Kelley Blue Book - the second best showing among G.M. brands behind Pontiac at No. 11. And the mid-size Saturn Aura, part of a refreshed lineup based on vehicles from G.M.'s European division, "might be the best undiscovered car in America," said Jack R. Nerad, the executive editorial director at Kelley. Aura sales are up 2.8 percent this year, while Saturn's sales over all are down 21 percent compared with 2007. Saturns no longer roll off the assembly line at the plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., that was originally built just for Saturn and was featured in the company's quirky ads. That factory is now used to build the Chevrolet Traverse, a crossover vehicle. To some buyers, Saturn's marketing message still resonates. Joseph Salzburg, a graphic artist from Richmond, Ill., said he purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky sports car last year because he wanted to support the division. "I bought it because of the reputation of the company and because I only buy American cars now," Mr. Salzburg said. True believers in Saturn insist the concept behind the division, which stressed respect, teamwork and communication from the factory floor to the auto showroom, could have kept G.M. from losing nearly half the market share it held when the first Saturns went on sale 18 years ago. "I'm absolutely convinced that the Saturn way could have worked," said Michael Bennett, the original U.A.W. leader at Saturn. "But what we had was never embraced or adopted." Mr. Bennett, like many others, can point fingers to explain why Saturn fell short of its promise. Mr. Bennett blamed a lack of interest by G.M. executives who succeeded Roger Smith, who as chief executive in the 1980s committed $5 billion to begin Saturn. But those who followed him - including John F. Smith Jr., who became chief executive in 1992, and G.M.'s current chief executive, Rick Wagoner, who ran its North American operations in the 1990s - had bigger worries. They had to lead the company through the financial turbulence at G.M. in the early 1990s. And with managers at G.M.'s other, older brands begging for investment, G.M. executives declared Saturn would have to prove it deserved more support, even though its small cars were accomplishing their main goal of winning buyers from imports. Despite G.M.'s pledge that Saturn would be run as a separate company, with its own car development and purchasing operations, it was folded into G.M.'s small-car operations in 1994, and its lineup did not receive any new models for the next five years. While executives were souring on the concept, U.A.W. officials questioned the consensus approach at the Spring Hill plant, where G.M. set up a consulting arm that taught other companies how to adopt Saturn principles with their employees. Fearful that the division might not survive, Mr. Bennett devised a proposal to spin off Saturn as a separate business, but was told G.M.'s board would not consider the plan. In 1998, Mr. Bennett was voted out of office at the U.A.W., and workers eventually chose to abandon their separate contract. Since then, Saturn's lineup has shifted from small import fighters to a more conventional G.M. division, with cars from G.M.'s Opel division, crossovers and the Vue, a small sport utility. But the Vue, one of the few vehicles that G.M. sells in a hybrid-electric version, and other models have not stemmed Saturn's decline in sales. The idea that Saturn may disappear is "hard news to absorb," said Haywood B. Hyman Jr., a founding Saturn dealer. Mr. Hyman, who put up $1 million for his original Saturn franchise, built a series of showrooms in southern Virginia just for Saturns. He now operates in only two locations, after closing one of his Saturn dealerships last month. "I would hate to see it go," he said. "I hope it can survive." Mary M. Chapman contributed reporting. From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Thu Dec 4 20:07:37 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:07:37 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] UAW makes concessions to help automakers Message-ID: December 4, 2008 U.A.W. Makes Concessions to Help Automakers By BILL VLASIC WASHINGTON - The United Automobile Workers union said Wednesday that it would make major concessions in its contracts with the three Detroit auto companies to help them lobby Congress for $34 billion in federal aid. The surprising move by the U.A.W. could be a critical factor in the automakers' bid not only to get government assistance, but also to become competitive with the cost structure of nonunion plants operated by foreign automakers in the United States. At a news conference in Detroit, the U.A.W.'s president, Ron Gettelfinger, said that his members were willing to sacrifice job security provisions and financing for retiree health care to keep the two most troubled car companies of the Big Three, General Motors and Chrysler, out of bankruptcy. "Concessions, I used to cringe at that word," Mr. Gettelfinger said. "But now, why hide it? That's what we did." Labor experts said the ground given by the union underscored the precarious condition of the Detroit companies, as the U.A.W.'s own prospects for survival are also in doubt. "It is an historic and awfully difficult moment for the U.A.W.," said Harley Shaiken, professor of labor studies at the University of California, Berkeley. The union's willingness to modify its 2007 contract came a day after G.M., Chrysler and the Ford Motor Company submitted business plans to Congress in support of their loan requests. Those efforts won praise from President-elect Barack Obama, who said the automakers had offered "a more serious set of plans" to save the industry. G.M. and Chrysler have both said they are dangerously close to running out of cash to run their operations by the end of the year. Ford is somewhat healthier, but is also seeking government loans. The chief executives of the Big Three, along with Mr. Gettelfinger, are to appear before Congress on Thursday and Friday in hopes of building support for emergency assistance. Democratic Congressional leaders have said that they want to help the automakers and that they were heartened by the gesture of contrition that the executives made by driving to Washington - rather than flying on corporate jets, as they did two weeks ago - and by the more comprehensive plans submitted by the companies. But the political climate on Capitol Hill is still doubtful for the automakers, and only seemed to worsen on Wednesday with a new CNN poll showing a majority of Americans opposing a taxpayer rescue. As a result, there is growing concern among the Democratic leadership that they will simply not be able to drum up enough votes to pass an aid package next week, and that to do so will require a major lobbying effort by President Bush and Mr. Obama. "We don't have a good sense from our members that this is something they want to do," a senior House Democratic aide said. "It's going to take Bush and Obama calling people." Many conservative Republicans remain staunchly opposed to any further corporate bailouts by the government, and some are openly calling for Congress to let one or more of the automakers go into bankruptcy. "Not only should bankruptcy be an option for domestic automakers, but it is considered by most experts to be the best option," Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said in a statement on Wednesday. Many lawmakers are reluctant to approve another large expenditure of taxpayer money to prop up private corporations, especially given the mounting criticism of the Treasury's $700 billion stabilization program for the financial system. On Wednesday, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said there did not seem to be enough support in Congress to use that fund to help the auto companies. "I just don't think we have the votes to do that now," he told The Associated Press. Two weeks ago, the Detroit executives left Washington empty-handed after skeptical lawmakers refused to approve federal aid until they heard detailed plans on how the companies could be viable in the long term. Other lawmakers were withholding judgment on the plans until after hearings by the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday and the House Financial Services Committee on Friday. But the automakers' hopes for aid were buoyed by the positive comments on Wednesday from Mr. Obama. At a news conference on his latest cabinet appointment, Mr. Obama said the new plans were an indication that the Detroit companies were responsive to earlier concerns raised by lawmakers. "I'm glad that they recognize the expectations of Congress, certainly my expectations, that we should maintain a viable auto industry," Mr. Obama said. "But that we should also make sure that any government assistance that's provided is designed for and is based on realistic assessments of what the auto market is going to be and a realistic plan for how we're going to make these companies viable over the long term." The new plans were also being studied by officials in the Bush administration, which has yet to come to an agreement with lawmakers on how to finance a loan package for Detroit. In its plan to Congress, G.M. said it would significantly reduce jobs, factories, brands and executive compensation in a broad effort to become more competitive with American plants operated by Toyota, Honda and other foreign auto companies. But G.M.'s president, Frederick Henderson, said it was also important for the company to get help from the U.A.W. to close the gap with its foreign competition. Currently, the average U.A.W. member costs G.M. about $74 an hour in a combination of wages, health care and the value of future benefits, like pensions. Toyota, by comparison, spends the equivalent of about $45 an hour for each of its employees in the United States. Base wages between the Big Three and the foreign companies are roughly comparable, with a veteran U.A.W. member earning $28 an hour at the Big Three compared to about $25 an hour at Toyota's plant in Georgetown, Ky. (Toyota pays less at its other American factories.) But the gap in labor costs becomes larger when health care, particularly for thousands of retirees and surviving spouses, and job security provisions are considered. Mr. Gettelfinger said Wednesday that the union would suspend the much-criticized "jobs bank" program, which allows laid-off workers to continue drawing nearly full wages. He also said the union would agree to delay the multibillion-dollar payments to a new retiree health care fund that the automakers were scheduled to start making next year. Beyond those two concessions, Mr. Gettelfinger said the U.A.W. would be open to modifying other terms of its contracts. Changes could include reductions in wages, health care or other benefits, and would require approval from union members. Suspending the jobs bank program, which supports about 3,600 workers, removes one of the most politically sensitive union perks from the discussions in Washington. "The jobs bank has become a sound bite that people use to beat us up," said Mr. Gettelfinger. In the last five years, the U.A.W.'s membership at G.M., Ford and Chrysler has declined to 139,000 workers, from 305,000, because of plant closings and a series of buyout and early-retirement programs. Both G.M. and Chrysler have said they are not considering bankruptcy as an option to restructure their businesses because of the damage a Chapter 11 filing would do to their reputations with consumers. Mr. Henderson said that G.M.'s restructuring plan included cutting up to 30,000 more jobs in the next few years, as well as closing another nine factories in North America. He stressed that cooperation from the union would be crucial in the company's overall efforts to match Toyota in labor costs by 2012. A G.M. spokesman, Tony Cervone, said Wednesday that the U.A.W.'s offer to make modifications in its contract would help the automaker survive its current financial crisis. "Clearly the U.A.W. and Ron Gettelfinger have shown a willingness to work with the industry to restructure and make it fully competitive going forward," Mr. Cervone said. Ford's chief executive, Alan R. Mulally, said in an interview Wednesday that Detroit needed the union's help to speed its transformation, particularly in replacing current workers with entry-level employees who will be making $14 an hour in wages under the terms of the 2007 labor agreement. He said that suspending the jobs bank program was also important for cutting costs. "That would contribute to us closing the gap," Mr. Mulally said. The Detroit companies will remove billions of dollars in financial obligations from their books when the U.A.W. health care trust takes over responsibility for the medical bills of retirees in 2010. But delaying payments to the trust by the companies is a more pressing concern for the automakers. G.M., for example, is scheduled to make a payment of $7 billion to the health care trust before the end of next year. The U.A.W.'s offer to delay that payment will significantly help G.M.'s cash flow as it tries to recover. "Taking retiree health care off the books will save the companies billions and billions of dollars," said Mr. Shaiken. "By not paying into the trust next year, it won't postpone the trust, but it will save G.M. and the others a lot of money for now." At the U.A.W. meeting in Detroit, union officials described their members as extremely anxious about the prospect of more concessions but at the same time afraid of what would happen if the union did not aid the automakers. "We've helped them before, but it seems like they always come back to us," said Shane Colvard, chairman of Local 2164 in Bowling Green, Ky., where G.M. builds the Chevrolet Corvette sports car. Bill Vlasic reported from Washington and Nick Bunkley from Detroit. Reporting was contributed by David Herszenhorn, Peter Baker, Mary M. Chapman and David Stout From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 20:36:41 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:36:41 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] attack on Obama right to be president (re Gary McLellan response) In-Reply-To: <5E1F402043764352B223D032024187F1@office1pc> References: <5E1F402043764352B223D032024187F1@office1pc> Message-ID: Hi Fred, I assume you are referring to the litigant! To repeat Obama will only be in danger from such elements if he crosses the bourgeoisie. And at the moment...... well you can fill in the rest Fred. best regards Gary From markalause at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 20:49:59 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:49:59 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] attack on Obama right to be president (re Gary McLellan response) In-Reply-To: References: <5E1F402043764352B223D032024187F1@office1pc> Message-ID: Gary MacLennan wrote: > > To repeat Obama will only be in danger from such elements if he crosses the > bourgeoisie. And at the moment...... well you can fill in the rest Fred. > Right. White sociopaths only target black people in America who threaten the bourgeois. ML From spalmer999 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 4 20:56:31 2008 From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:56:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] UAW makes concessions to help automakers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <248750.84192.qm@web81906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ie the UAW leadership - the membership has yet to be given a proposal to vote on. You'd never guess that labour costs are around 15% of GM's costs. It's always those greedy workers who expect to have health care and a pension who are responsible, though ... --- On Thu, 12/4/08, Fred Feldman wrote: > From: Fred Feldman > Subject: [Marxism] UAW makes concessions to help automakers > To: "Steve Palmer" > Date: Thursday, December 4, 2008, 7:07 PM > December 4, 2008 > U.A.W. Makes Concessions to Help Automakers > By BILL VLASIC > WASHINGTON - The United Automobile Workers union said From suarsos at alphalink.com.au Thu Dec 4 21:02:05 2008 From: suarsos at alphalink.com.au (Tom O'Lincoln) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:02:05 +1100 Subject: [Marxism] Filipino workers demand crisis bail out Message-ID: Bailout package for workers pushed Veronica Uy INQUIRER.net November 13, 2008 MANILA, Philippines -- With the global financial crisis threatening to cut jobs in export-oriented industries, the government should look into a "bailout and stimulus package" for workers and the poor, the Partido ng Mangggagawa (PM or Workers' Party) said Thursday. Greg Janginon, PM chairman for Cebu, said the government must also declare a tax rebate for all workers that would effectively give them the equivalent of two months' salary. Eddie Jumao-a, secretary of the Neostone union, said the Social Security System, the Government Service Insurance System, and the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration should also set aside funds to subsidize for six months private sector workers, government employees and overseas Filipino workers who will be laid off due to the crisis. Full story: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=171989 From johnaimani at earthlink.net Thu Dec 4 21:12:09 2008 From: johnaimani at earthlink.net (johnaimani) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:12:09 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] One Year od Distributing Free Food in MacArthur Park Message-ID: <085401c9568f$a4ef0650$6600a8c0@D4PKYZ41> Revolutionary Autonomous Communities' Food Program The Revolutionary Autonomous Communities has created a food program where we are empowering ourselves and others to become self-sustainable. The Food Program is a mutual-aid project where people themselves are organizing and distributing food in their own neighborhoods. This is not charity, we do not believe that change will happen this way. This is self-empowerment, where working class neo-colonies are feeding themselves, and organizing to feed themselves. Since the first week of November, 2007, RAC has distibuted much needed grocieries to the needy workers of the area. Las week more than 200 people standing in line received food packages. You can join us every Sunday at 1:30 PM. Meet at the SE Corner of Wilshire and Parkview in MacArthur Park. RAC Mission Statement: We feel that this system is killing our people by what the corporations feed us or don't feed us. At the same time there is an abundance of healthy food that goes to waste. They would rather let food go to waste than allow the prices of food in the market to drop. Then they disconnect people (all indigenous and colonized people) from the land, which a free and independent people need to survive. They centralize power and resources in the hands of the few, this is how they keep oppressed people dependent on a white-supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist-imperialist system. RAC's Food Program is a way that we can work with supporters and other organizations to feed healthy food to our communities. We want people to connect with each other, to pick up and distribute the food amongst themselves. We will support, help connect people and to supply whatever resources we can. Through this process our goal is to connect our communities and to take them back. Our overall goal is to regain our necessary connection to the land. We need land to survive, and the land belongs to us, not the colonizer. We want to relearn how to live off the land and how to truly be self-sustainable. We're Still Here, We Never Left Support our Food Program. Help Pick Up Food. Help Distribute Food in Your Neighborhood. Donate to our Community Mutual-Aid Program. Get Organized! Take Back Our Communities and Take Back the Land! All Power THROUGH the People! -Revolutionary Autonomous Communities rac at riseup.net From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 21:43:03 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:43:03 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] The Method Message-ID: The other day I took time off to watch Marcello Pinyero's *The Method*(2005). The film's plot dealt with six applicants for a CEO position. They were herded into a room along with a mole and then subjected to a range of tests designed to eliminate them one by one. These tests are supposed to make up the Gronhold Method ? hence the film's title. This was the world of dog eat dog a kind of *Survivor* for CEOs without any pretense about tribes or camaraderie. Here from the very beginning it was very clear that there could be only One. The film was brilliantly acted, directed and edited to offset the fact that it was confined to a room and some restrooms. At one stage there was noise off stage of a demonstration chant "The people United will never be defeated". But there was no shot of the demonstration, because "the street could not be seen from the executive suite". Obviously this was a symbolically significant restraint. So this was a tale of petty intrigues, jealousies and mean betrayals. Predictably the winner proved to be the biggest ass-hole. But there was also a clear sense that he has lost something like his immortal soul by serving Mammon, though admittedly there were no overt religious references that I could detect. Still it is made clear that he has won because he was prepared to do whatever it takes. It is only when the penultimate candidate walks out onto the street that we see the apocalyptic post-demo landscape of trashed streets and burning cars. So the film seems to say there is no hope in the boardroom. I buy that. But it also says there is no hope in the street and that I refuse. In formal terms I think the film invites comparison with Sydney Lumet's classic *Twelve Angry Men* (1957). There is the similar confinement to a single room and a reliance on a kaleidoscope of intense emotional shifts and personality clashes. But there the similarities end. Lumet's film is a deeply optimistic piece about how reason and good will can triumph over irrational hatred, cynicism and prejudice. At the end all twelve leave the room having stood up for decency and justice. But such a message is not possible in 2005. So we have a much darker film in The Method. However I would like to register another comparison and again I think another telling one. The world of Pinyero's film is the world of Orwell's *Nineteen Eighty Four*. There Orwell's preaches the message that betrayal is universal In an interview about his book on Orwell, Raymond Williams pointed out just how offensive it is to say that everyone is a betrayer and by implication that solidarity is impossible. That then is the message I took away from *The Method*. It displayed a brilliant snap sohot of the vulgar brutality of corporate life. But it also had no faith in the redemptive power of the solidarity of ordinary people. Indeed in its portrayal of the scarred empty streets after the demo, it seemed to display fear of and revulsion against the anger of the working class. An historic parallel here is the poet and intellectual Mathew Arnold's fearful response to the aftermath of the Hyde Park riots of 1866 or even Cardinal Ratzinger's timid response to the radicalism of the university students at Tubingen in 1968. The future pope was horrified by the constant invasions of his classes and he fled the university. So then I detect a fear of the masses in *The Method*, and I have suggested that this is the fear of the middle class intellectual who is increasingly horrified by the realities of capitalism, but at the same time cannot see in the working class an opening to an alternative and better world. regards Gary From johnaimani at earthlink.net Thu Dec 4 21:43:49 2008 From: johnaimani at earthlink.net (johnaimani) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:43:49 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] current economic crises Message-ID: <089001c95694$1145deb0$6600a8c0@D4PKYZ41> Regarding: < Subject: [Marxism] current economic crises gary: charles brown only copied it from the CPUSA's website. and there you will find the same "tailism" to the Democrats that you so complain about.>> I don't care who wrote it. The analysis was right on the money. No pun intended. Perhaps this may be a perfect example as to why analysis (even correct analysis) is not enough. It must be complimented with an unwavering toeing of the (working-class) line (i.e. the building of a class political party). As for it coming from the CPUSA, as they say, "Even a blind squirrel stumbles across a nut every now and then." JAI From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 22:02:16 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 21:02:16 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] attack on Obama right to be president (re Gary McLellan response) In-Reply-To: References: <5E1F402043764352B223D032024187F1@office1pc> Message-ID: Look Mark let me try to make this clear and my apologies for confusing you. My response to Walter's post on the "war against Obama" was that there is no war - none at all. He has been hailed by the ruling class and every scum bag element that there is. They are high fiving and chest bumping and dancing over his appointments. You have read Lou's posts. Let me spell it out to you. the American elites have pulled off a brilliant coup. Obama was their candidate. Let me repeat that. Obama was the candidate of the American ruling class. He won and so now they have a charismatic, intelligent, fluent Black man going around calling for unity and sacrifice and there are millions who are listening to him with mouths open. He has also assembled a team that is their team to dream on and still the millions are listening to him with open mouths. The Panglossians on this list have not commented on Obama's appointments except to say it is too early to say. They remind me of the German Social Democratic Party which in 1933 said it was too early to call a general strike against Hitler, and when he got elected said it was too late. Now Walter focuses on some insignificant litigator who is going to the Supreme Court. Who cares? Should we be rushing to the defence of Obama? Pul...leeze not even the Panglossians would suggest that. Leastways I like to think not. Should we be worried about Clarence Thomas somehow cancelling Obama's presidency? Actually I dare here to say no we should not. We should instead be worried about the illusions in Obama that have millions around the world hoping for change they can believe in. That is what we should be focusing on. regards Gary From pt_costello at yahoo.com Thu Dec 4 22:08:47 2008 From: pt_costello at yahoo.com (Pat Costello) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 21:08:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] CNN = Message-ID: <531127.36996.qm@web63103.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Joaquin: But it's also their reporters: anyone who thinks Jabba the Hutt impersonator Candy Crowley is on the screen because of her sex appeal is seriously into pink flamingos territory. Pat: Perhaps they hired a woman based on something rather than her sex appeal. I call that progress but perhaps you disagree. I somehow doubt that you are would make similar remarks about Jack Cafferty's or Larry King's lack of sex appeal but a woman's sex appeal is always subject for comments or jokes, even on Marxmail. From pt_costello at yahoo.com Thu Dec 4 22:33:03 2008 From: pt_costello at yahoo.com (Pat Costello) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 21:33:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] CNN = (properly formatted) Message-ID: <494494.82103.qm@web63101.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Joaquin: But it's also their reporters: anyone who thinks Jabba the Hutt impersonator Candy Crowley is on the screen because of her sex appeal is seriously into pink flamingos territory. Pat: Perhaps they hired a woman based on something rather than her sex appeal. I call that progress but perhaps you disagree. I somehow doubt that you would make similar remarks about Jack Cafferty's or Larry King's lack of sex appeal but a woman's sex appeal is always subject for comments or jokes, even on Marxmail. From causecollector at msn.com Thu Dec 4 22:49:41 2008 From: causecollector at msn.com (John Obrien) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 21:49:41 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <4937EFEE.8080203@panix.com> References: <9034442.1228401934864.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <4937EFEE.8080203@panix.com> Message-ID: Louis, I basically agree with you that Walter Teagues group was not the correct way to stop the U. S. war against the Vietnamese and Southeast Asian people. The SWP had a better view and why I had supported them in that period. But I believe you are wrong to label Walter Teague a lunatic, as you state below in your reply. It is not comradely. I knew Walter Teague and he seemed a very committed person. His group did have a table in the West Village but they also put on regular film showings and discussion groups and were active in a number of ways. You can certainly disagree with their activities (I suspect and hope not all since some were around support of things we all share) and you can disagree totally with their views - but leave it as that and do not do personal attacks especially since that person is not on this list to respond - and we need less of that on this list. Of course this is your list and you can disagree with my disagreement with you - but we need to all take a better and higher road when it comes to personal attacks. Walter Teague and his supporters in that group obviously annoyed you (and still do!!!) but separate that politically from personally - and this list will benefit by your example in encouraging others to also follow comradely respect and practices. Also Walter Teague was never politically around Healey's the Committee of the Fourth International, which then was led in the U. S. by Tim Wohlforth, who this woman was their representating those views - that you quote extensively below and try to tie to Walter Teague. Walter Teague was politically closest to the Workers World Party and they shared many events together (which I know from being in NYC at that time and in those Vietnam Peace meetings you are quoting from!) Again, I enjoy this list and all that I learn. I also like the different views, which you do allow interaction and discussion of. I just wish we could be a little less angry at each other and focus all that anger at the capitalists! In Comradeship, John O'Brien > Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:57:50 -0500> From: lnp3 at panix.com> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers> To: causecollector at msn.com> > Walter Lippmann wrote:> > > > Veteran activist Walter Teague formed and led the U.S. Committee to Aid> > the National Liberation front of Vietnam during the war. I recall first> > seeing them in 1967 at the giant mobilization in New York City which so> > many of us attended. > > > This is unadorned bullshit. The SWP, for all its faults, understood that > Teague and people like him were disruptive ultraleftists. The best way > to "aid" the NLF was not waving their flag but in getting millions to > demonstrate for immediate withdrawal, a task that a lunatic like Teague > was ill-prepared to face up to. His main activity, such as it was, was > staffing a table in the middle of Greenwich Village filled with pro-NLF > propaganda and NLF flags, just the sort of thing that made the > imperialists quake in their boots.> > Here's a little flavor of the sort of milieu that Teague operated in:> > Even before Walter Teague had finished the presentation of his proposals > the sniping had begun. The first disputes arose over what sector of the > general population to address. The Trotskyist organizations, spearheaded > by the shrill voice of the woman representing the Committee for the > Fourth International, insisted that the rally, leafletting, march, or > whatever else we came up with, had to be in accordance with the historic > mission of the vanguard of the working class. > > The woman from the Committee for the Fourth International shrieked that > the inevitable revolution depended on a support base in the working > class. Any political action whatsoever not based on the reality of Class > Warfare was frivolous. Other speakers stood up to argue, with various From jbustelo at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 23:18:04 2008 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 01:18:04 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] attack on Obama right to be president (re GaryMcLellan response) In-Reply-To: References: <5E1F402043764352B223D032024187F1@office1pc> Message-ID: Gary: Should we be rushing to the defence of Obama? Pul...leeze not even the Panglossians would suggest that. Leastways I like to think not. Should we be worried about Clarence Thomas somehow cancelling Obama's presidency? Boy, are you fucking lost in space with your panglossian this and panglossian that. OF COURSE Obama should be defended. That the Supreme Court would even ALLOW such a petition to be filed is an outrage, never mind taking it up formally in a hearing. You've got absolutely NO CLUE, not a hint of a clue, about U.S. politics. Joaquin From causecollector at msn.com Thu Dec 4 23:45:32 2008 From: causecollector at msn.com (John Obrien) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:45:32 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <4937E8BE.3010706@panix.com> References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> <20081204000330.487BCD1E8@mailbackend.panix.com> <4937E8BE.3010706@panix.com> Message-ID: > Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:27:10 -0500> From: lnp3 at panix.com> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers> To: causecollector at msn.com> > > John:> I had been in SDS before joining the YSA in 1967 and I rejoined SDS > after being expelled on my birthday in January 1969 from the YSA for > being Gay (and refusing to stay in the closet) and I was with SDS when > they met with the Vietnamese and know of other groups of ultra lefts who > did too.> > Reply:> SDS pretty much disappeared by 1969 so I have no idea what sort of > meetings you are referring to.> Louis: Just for historical accuracy - I would like to disagree when you state above your implying SDS was not active in 1969 (and thus therefore casting question over the accuracy I had written about the SWP sectarianism shown in the Vietnam antiwar movement, in replying to my earlier reference, of my being active in SDS in 1969.) SDS had many activities in the Year 1969 up to their June 1969 National Convention. I took part in them and those interested on this list can probably read New Left Notes and many local SDS publications that reported their actions that year. There are many flyers on local SDS actions in 1969 in several archives that one can also review - such as the Wisconsin Historical Society in Madison Wisconsin, the Labadie Collection in Ann Arbor Michigan, Taniment Archives at NYU in NYC, Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley and others which I would be happy to provide for those intersted on this list. IN FACT: I attended the last SDS National Convention in Chicago in early Summer June 1969 (the same month as the Stonewall Rbelion). So there was an active SDS in 1969!!!!!! It was at that convention, that SDS split - with Progressive Labor Party taking over the name SDS and the non-PLP groups in SDS leaving and forming various groups: The largest of the two were RYM 1 and RYM II (Revolutionary Youth Movement One - would become the Weathermen and Revolutionary Youth Movement Two - would become the Revolutionary Communist Party, that still exists and is led by Bob Avakian. There was an early split in RYM II when Mike Klonsky left with his followers and formed the October League - which no longer exists and has not for over two decades.) RYM I would go on to publish a newspaper in 1969 (The Fire Next Time - a quote from James Baldwin) and held a number of small protests in various cities and areas - which would lead that group to then hold a battle against the Chicago police in August 1969 - after that they went underground and changed their name from RYM I to the Weathermen. They disbanded and most of its members re-surfaced and remained leftists. Mark Lause asked what happened to all thsoe anti-imperialists and anti-capitalists that I mentioned were active in the Vietanm Antiwar Movement. The answer is many are still around and are older and less open about their anti-capitalist views - but they still hold them - and finally there are far more of them still active in many groups and issues, than the much smaller current membership of what remains of the isolated US SWP. The SWP political program on building a mass anti-war movement I believe was correct and history reflects that. But let us not dismiss others political work, which also counted and made a difference to end that war - which was my original point - and which I repeat - hoping some will consider this from a person who was actively involved from the early days of Vietnam protests and from a position as an insider in the coalitions that it was my honor to have served in those leadership bodies and worked hard in for 11 years (1964 - 1975). [Yes even before the April 17, 1965 SDS March on Washington protest - which was the first mass protest against that war - and was done by SDS and many of those same people who are receiving undue criticism and wrongly being labeled as not doing anything after that protest (which was the SWP political sectarian line - but not true). SDS helped build the Oct 15 - 16, 1965 International Days of Protest right along with the CP And SWP. The SWP fails to recognize that - and I have the SDS buttons and literature that they issued promoting and building those Oct 1965 protests in the cities across the USA then - and again which those on this list can likely find in many archives if one was interested. Perhaps Louis and Mark are unaware of what SDS did in the GI Antiwar Movement. I remember and participated in SDS's anti-war march on Fort Dix, by many thousands, in 1969 - and I have the buttons. A number of GI coffee houses were started by SDS - and again that is documented. So hold to your historical viewpoint of refusing to recognize the SWP sectarianism, in claiming only they did important contributions to end that war - but there were those beyond the SWP who also did important things and were active against that war - and I ask people to view the new anti-war documentary on the Vietnam GI Movement - Sir, No Sir! - that shows SDS involvement in those coffee houses and supporting those many GI antiwar publications that made a key difference (along with the mass marches - that were complimentary and not opposite of each other, which was my original point) What we can learn is we need to help build the GI antiwar groups today, to stop Obama's plans for military expansion and reach out to those working class youths we are found of mentioning - and they can help in building a better more organized and effective Left for the next period (hopefully!) In solidarity, John O'Brien From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net Fri Dec 5 02:48:29 2008 From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:48:29 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] attack on Obama right to be president (re Gary McLellan response) Message-ID: <476550C60FB344B7A1C06CC36361E56D@office1pc> Fred wrote: As far as Gary goes, there is no basis, given his use of the list to smear comrades who disagree with him, to discuss anything -- this or any other subject -- with him. Gary wrote: I assume you are referring to the litigant! No, Gary himself and his degraded methods of discussion are the issue here, in my opinionb I am referring specifically to this manifestation of Gary's emotion-first-and-foremost style of argument: Here is the quote that set me off: "I have been at Fred, Walter, Charles, Joaquin, yourself and now Paddy for months. I doubt if I have ever debated any folk as tricky as that lot." My first thought, of course, was "if we are the most tricky people this guy has ever debated, the poor feller don't get around much, do he?" But my second thought was, what is the value of continuing the discussion with this person. I am not asking Gary to retract his statement. He cannot retract it, because he made it and, given his frenzied state of mind on this issue, he believes it. But he and I have nothing further to discuss. Of course the suit against Obama is reactionary and anti-immigrant, a fact which Gary considers it too pro-Obama to even note. There is no reason not to acknowledge the reactionary character of the suit, as Gary refuses to do. Of course, it is excluded AT THIS TIME that the courts will bar an Obama presidency on these idiotic grounds since the ruling class favors giving him a shot and, not irrelevantly, he was elected by a clear majority of those voting, which is part of the ruling-class judgment of the matter at this time. Even if they decide to dump him at some future point, they will decide to use other methods. But it is worth noting how anti-immigrant and how anti-democratic this challenge is. This reminds me of an earlier debate on the list about the arrests of some racist nuts who were talking up (and perhaps a little more) assassinating Obama. On the list, initially, discussion tended to focus on the half-baked characteristics of the threats, and whether the government really had a strong case, problems I conceded. But I was relieved in fact that the Secret Service et al were taking seriously preventing Obama's assassination. Of course, the government hardly took the same attitude toward Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and others in the civil rights movement. But this is no reason for us to take lightly racist threats against Obama. We have a position. Opposed. Period. Fred Feldman From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 03:08:04 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 02:08:04 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] attack on Obama right to be president (re GaryMcLellan response) In-Reply-To: References: <5E1F402043764352B223D032024187F1@office1pc> Message-ID: Hi Joaquin et al, Well with Fred describing me as psycho, lumpen and trash and you now using the f... word and saying I don't have a clue about U.S. Politics I would say that you have taken the gloves off now. However I have been thru a flame war and have no intention of joining in another one. So let us try and calm down. There is no one on the list whose posts I have read with as much benefit as those of Fred, Walter and yourself. That is the simple truth. I should also say that off list I offered to the moderator to withdraw from this debate some time ago. But he said that was not necessary. But I feel I have no alternative but to repeat my offer now. While we wait for the moderator's intervention I would like to address in a quiet tone the question of under what circumstances should we defend Obama. Well of course that question does not confront us at all. For a start let us not pretend he is under attack. This Supreme Court "thang" will end up in the trash bin. You know that, Fred knows that, Walter knows that and Paddy knows that and Mark knows it too. What we are witnessing and which you will not even address is a *fete dans les rues* of the ruling class and their accomplices. That is what is happening. They are over the moon and beyond - probably as far as Centaurus - about the election of Obama and the construction and make up of his team. There is nothing but a surly silence broken only by insults from your side about this. Yet part of you still knows that when the standard bearer of the ruling class gets up and calls for "unity and sacrifice" then the working class will pay with their blood. Hence your anger and Fred's anger against me. Is it lumpen, or psycho or trash to say that? Does that show I do not have a fucking clue? But in some senses this is an unreal debate. I will win this one hands down. Why? Because I have Obama and the Democratic Party on my side. They will do everything and more that I have said they will to the working class. This will be a victory I will take no joy in at all for the young Latinos and the blacks who so rightly have your heart and loyalty will pay dearly for their illusions in Obama. There is no crystal ball needed for that prediction. None at all, comrades. What is frustrating and confusing me in this debate is that I am fully aware that in Joaquin, Walter and Fred I am arguing with three of the most distinguished and honorable members of the American Revolutionary Left. Why then should I have to be saying to them the things that every revolutionary knows about the bourgeoisie and those who like Obama serve them? I can only think that an answer lies in a return to the theme of collapsed desire, because I believe that that is what is at work here. What should we hope for? What should we want? Because of the accursed legacy of anti-utopianism, these questions generally do not figure so prominently in Marxist discourse compared with the classic "What is to be Done", but they are absolutely vital for all that. Should we then simply hope that Obama will turn out to be the poor man's FDR? Actually I am thinking more along the lines that we should be content with nothing less than a Castro or a Chavez. Of course this piece of lumpen, psycho trash who doesn't have a fucking clue knows that such is not on the agenda. But why should we let that sad fact blind us to the reality of Obama and his party? Why should we be holding fire on his appointments? Why should we leave the working class to be led to the slaughter under the banner of "Unity and sacrifice"? What does Joaquin think will be the ethnic identity of those who will return in the body bags? Let me make another prediction here. The new found confidence that Obama's election has given the ruling class will mean that the bodies will no longer have to be smuggled in at night. Obama will preside over the funerals with banners flying. Above all I want to ask the question of why should we be repeating history as farce and preparing to launch a CPUSA like blanket defence of Obama's presidency as the Party did for FDR. I was serious when in an earlier post I quoted William Morris on the need for the education of desire. It seems to me that those who oppose me on all this have been beaten down by the brutal actualities of late capitalism. I understand what that is like. Trust me. When I was sacked and had the security called to throw me out of the university where I had been working for 32 years, I knew what it felt like to be treated like trash. But we cannot let it rest there. We still have to work and hope for it all. And we must not be intimidated from speaking truth to power, even if it turns up unexpectedly on a Marxism list. comradely regards Gary From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 03:31:08 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 02:31:08 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] attack on Obama right to be president (re Gary McLellan response) In-Reply-To: <476550C60FB344B7A1C06CC36361E56D@office1pc> References: <476550C60FB344B7A1C06CC36361E56D@office1pc> Message-ID: > > Well Fred, I had sent my post before seeing and reading yours. I had intended not to say anything more but to leave the entire matter of the degrading of the tone of the debate to the moderator. I also am quite willing to leave the substance of the debate to the unfolding of history. The ruling class have got their man in the White House and not all the illusions in the world will hide that fact. But I will address this degrading of the tone of the list question. It is one thing to call someone tricky. It is quite something else to say that is beyond the realm of an apology. It is even more beyond something else to call me lumpen, psycho, and trash and now "frenzied". Throw in Joaquin's "doesn't have a fucking clue" and then we will leave it to the moderator to say who is degrading the tone of debate on this list. I understand that you did not intend the designation of me as psycho and lumpen and trash to appear on the list. But as you would say, it did. I am of course more than willing to pass it over but your use of the term "frenzied' shows you want to continue with that characterisation of me and that is why I am repeating to the moderator my offer to withdraw from the debate and if he should so wish I will with the greatest reluctance withdraw from the list as well. cormradely regards Gary From pieinsky at igc.org Fri Dec 5 05:04:35 2008 From: pieinsky at igc.org (Jay Moore) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:04:35 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Deflation! Message-ID: <493918D3.702@igc.org> "How to avoid the horrors of 'stag-deflation'" By Nouriel Roubini Financial Times, December 2, 2008 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0fe65a48-c0a9-11dd-b0a8-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1 "World stability hangs by a thread as economies continue to unravel: The political bubble is bursting. Spreads on geo-strategic risk are now widening as dramatically as the spreads on financial risk at the onset of the credit crunch." By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard The Telegraph, December 1, 2008 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/3537362/World-stability-hangs-by-a-thread-as-economies-continue-to-unravel.html From daynegoodwin at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 05:14:28 2008 From: daynegoodwin at gmail.com (Dayne Goodwin) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 05:14:28 -0700 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream In-Reply-To: References: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta> Message-ID: Thank you Joaquin, for quoting my message from almost two weeks ago. I wrote that simple message after reading the message you wrote almost three weeks after the election in which it appeared that you were saying that you thought the Obama campaign was a *continuation* of the most powerful social movement by any sector of working and oppressed people in this country in modern U.S. history. I found it surprising that a serious marxist believed that this was the case, so i asked directly - and you reaffirmed your opinion with a "Yes." It seems to me that if the Obama campaign was in fact a *movement* of the workers and the oppressed it would be manifest in organizations on the ground, at the grass-roots. Where are the organizations of this movement and what are the relationships of accountability between them and Obama? I don't think that the Obama campaign ever was a movement of the workers and the oppressed. I don't think that the Obama campaign was "qualitatively" more progressive than the campaigns of other mainstream bourgeois politicians who became the presidential candidates of the capitalist Democrat Party. With your message on "the shifting ruling class mainstream" you now acknowledge that Obama is a *mainstream* bourgeois politician but in your new rationalization that's because the mainstream bourgeoisie has come over to support (the qualitatively more progressive) Obama. And apparently the "movement" of the workers and oppressed that was integral to the Obama campaign vanished when the campaign ended on election day? Or do you now see President-elect Obama's government-in-formation as a developing political alliance between the workers and oppressed and the mainstream bourgeoisie? Dayne On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Joaquin Bustelo wrote: > Dayne Goodwin: "i do notice that there's nothing more in Joaquin's latest > epistle about the Obama campaign being a continuation of the 'most powerful > social movement by any sector of working and oppressed people in this > country' in modern U.S. history. Can we cross that illusion off the list?" > > The reason there is nothing on there about that is, first, that the Obama > campaign *ended* a month ago. Didn't you notice? He won. > > Second, that the subject I was addressing in the post was not Obama's > campaign at all, but rather the (to me) very evident shift in the stance of > "mainstream" bourgeois policy. > > But third, this trick of pulling quotations out of context and framing "when > did you stop beating your wife" questions around them I'm sure served you > well in high school debate club meetings, but is hardly suitable for a > discussion among serious people. > > The ORIGINAL context of the phrase you quote is this. I was replying to a > post that said sure, Obama was preferable to McCain just as Kerry and Gore > to Bush, etc. > > And I said no, that's not right, the alignment of social forces around the > various candidacies was very different: > > "There is, in U.S. society, a *qualitative* difference between an Obama, on > the one hand, and a Gore, Kerry, Bush, McCain, Dobbs (either Farrell or Lou) > or Timothy McVeigh on the other. It is a difference that has played a > central role in the development of the U.S. social formation. It is a > difference that led to one of the bloodiest and most significant civil wars > in world history. It is a difference that led to the most powerful social > movement by any sector of working and oppressed people in this country of > the modern, post-WWII epoch. > > "Insofar as that difference is concerned, Obama's candidacy was a result of > the conquests of that movement. But it was more --it was perceived and > embraced by the overwhelming, crushing majority of the protagonists of that > movement, the Black community, as an expression of and part of the > movement." > > To which you countered with the simple minded counterposition: > > "Was the Obama presidential election campaign a *continuation* of the 'most > powerful social movement by any sector of working and oppressed people in > this country' in modern U.S. history? - as Joaquin argues. > > "Or was the Obama presidential election campaign a successful effort by one > of the smartest, most talented, most ambitious and audacious individual > bourgeois politicians in modern U.S. history. Could it be that the Obama > candidacy was particularly useful for the capitalist system at a time of > severe and deepening crisis?" > > In responded that "I think the answers to Dayne's first AND second question > are clearly YES," rejecting the contrived counterposition. > > You didn't choose to debate that then, but instead come back NOW, a couple > of weeks later, and in response to a post about a distinctly different > albeit related matter, you impute to me a shame-faced retreat from what I > said. > > You are, of course, free to believe the earth is flat, Mary was a virgin, > and God planted dinosaur bones in the ground as a test to separate those > faithful to the literal truth of the Bible from the infidels. > > You are also free to believe that the movement of Blacks as a people was > neither the most powerful social movement of modern U.S. history nor did it > have anything to do with the Obama campaign. > > But it is simply silly, among serious people, to dismiss as an "illusion" > that the PROTAGONISTS of the Black movement, Black people, viewed and > embraced his campaign as an expression and part of that movement, and viewed > his victory as not just the victory of an individual person, but as a > victory of Black folks and their struggle for liberation. > > THOSE ARE FACTS, not illusions. > > You can argue, if you want, that the Black community is entirely wrong, that > there is no sense in which this was a victory for Black rights and whatever > other sectarian foibles you had in mind when you framed your post. But at > least give reality its due. And also give the sophomoric debating tricks a > miss. > > Joaquin From markalause at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 05:30:32 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:30:32 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> <20081204000330.487BCD1E8@mailbackend.panix.com> <4937E8BE.3010706@panix.com> Message-ID: I suspect that Louis was talking about the SDS's activities in an antiwar movement, but the real problem here seems to be the imprecision in discussing the SDS. I don't see how anyone this side of Wikipedia or something can fail to understand the absolute necessity of distinguishing between the SDS before 1969 and what it became afterwards. This is because, even on the most superficial level.... * the turnover implicit in a genuinely student-based group meant that the organization had little continuity of personnel * the splits blasted away the base of the organization and created new leaderships that weren't there. (I mean this on every level...and from any angle...the personnel, structures, functions of SDS leadership after 1969 was unprecedented in the SDS's early history.) * the splits changed what was left of the organization in terms of its ideology and its adoption of a hard doctrinal approach to politics. SDS after 1969 had different members, different leaders and different ideas than the SDS before 1969. For this reason, confounding the SDS before 1969 with the SDS after 1969 is almost as imprecise and as pointless as confusing the Socialist Workers Party with the Socialist Labor Party. ML From farmelantj at juno.com Fri Dec 5 05:41:22 2008 From: farmelantj at juno.com (farmelantj at juno.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:41:22 GMT Subject: [Marxism] The Method Message-ID: <20081205.074122.8521.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> -- "Gary MacLennan" wrote: "So then I detect a fear of the masses in *The Method*, and I have suggested that this is the fear of the middle class intellectual who is increasingly horrified by the realities of capitalism, but at the same time cannot see in the working class an opening to an alternative and better world." During the twentieth century, that sort of reaction often led to support of fascism. Jim F. ____________________________________________________________ Click here for free information on nursing degrees, up to $150/hour http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2bNH8Ls6OrCAj7ZuS3xLkoAfC4o54CeYfyHKMHVc9f4CtPp/ From cpimllib at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 05:44:21 2008 From: cpimllib at gmail.com (CPIML Liberation) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:14:21 +0530 Subject: [Marxism] Fwd: URGENT: Small Change in CC Call In-Reply-To: <7a4f51290812050241q2b14d602x708a4d90f94ae591@mail.gmail.com> References: <7a4f51290812050241q2b14d602x708a4d90f94ae591@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dipankar B Date: Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:11 PM Subject: URGENT: Small Change in CC Call Please note the changes in this paragraph in CC Call. The changes have already been incorporated in the Hindi version. 77% of Indian people live on a daily expenditure of less than Rs. 20. It is only by increasing the income and purchasing power of these people that the domestic economy can be saved and home market expanded. The way to rejuvenation of the national economy lies in the working class resistance to the onslaught of big capital, in the rural poor's fight for employment, wages, land, housing and subsidised supply of foodgrains and other articles of mass consumption, the peasants' struggle for cheaper inputs and easier low-interest credit and the student-youth battle for right to education and employment. From rjacobs3625 at charter.net Fri Dec 5 05:49:45 2008 From: rjacobs3625 at charter.net (Ron J) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Auto Worker Caravan | Bringing Rank-and-File Voices to Washington Message-ID: <49392369.8020603@charter.net> http://www.autoworkercaravan.org/ From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 06:14:49 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 05:14:49 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] The Method In-Reply-To: <20081205.074122.8521.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20081205.074122.8521.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: Hi Jim, You are absolutely right. Pound, Yeats and Eliot spring to mind. However for me the most tragic and interesting instance is surely D. H. Lawrence with his ambiguous sexuality and his repressed longing for unity with the working class - a longing that mirrored his middle class mother's torturous relationship with the miner father. Lawrence's feelings of course developed into a despair of the working class. I have often wondered to what extent Lawrence's origins in the Nottinghamshire miners was crucial here. As far as I know the Nottingham miners were always the weakest element in a truly great union. Had Lawrence been born in Yorkshire I suspect there would have been less ambivalence about the potential of the working class. Even though I am only a piece of lumpen psycho trash who doesn't have a fucking clue, it is one of my most treasured memories that I was at Essex Uuniversity when Scargill came to address the students and ask for solidarity and help during the great 72 strike. He spoke of "blood on the coal" and there were no dry eyes in the audience. But that was in a different era - before the Volcker period. Volcker Who???? regards Gary On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:41 AM, farmelantj at juno.com wrote: > > > -- "Gary MacLennan" wrote: > > "So then I detect a fear of the masses in *The Method*, > and I have suggested that this is the fear of the middle > class intellectual who is increasingly > horrified by the realities of capitalism, but at the > same time cannot see in the working class an opening > to an alternative and better world." > > During the twentieth century, that sort of > reaction often led to support of fascism. > > Jim F. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click here for free information on nursing degrees, up to $150/hour > > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2bNH8Ls6OrCAj7ZuS3xLkoAfC4o54CeYfyHKMHVc9f4CtPp/ > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/gary.maclennan1%40gmail.com > From sabocat59 at mac.com Fri Dec 5 06:15:08 2008 From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:15:08 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream Message-ID: Dayne Goodwin wrote: In all fairness to Joaquin, whose erudite materialist analyses of american politics are for the most part spot on, I recall Tom Hayden making the same observation many months ago. As a Latino living in Georgia Joaquin has a unique perspective, a southern perspective on race relations which understands that the real movement of african- americans "on the ground" has had voting rights as a primary concern for many decades now. As observers of the post-electoral turn of events, it is way too soon to pass judgement on how these Obama supporters will react to this black bourgeois president in the wake of his policy formulations. That observation should be distinct from our criticism of Obama and his policies. Greg McDonald From sabocat59 at mac.com Fri Dec 5 06:36:57 2008 From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:36:57 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Detroit revs up its bailout begging Message-ID: <8094AA3C-0735-471A-A59B-C26DFA1AEE13@mac.com> Detroit revs up its bailout begging On bended knee, and with promises to retool their operations, the Big Three ask Congress for billions to save the auto industry. They might get it this time. By Mike Madden Dec. 05, 2008 | For the most part, the drive from Detroit to Washington is pretty boring (though there used to be a pinball machine at one rest stop on the Ohio Turnpike that gave unlimited multiballs in every game, which could keep even the weariest travelers busy long enough that they wanted to get back in the car). But apparently nine hours in a Chevy Malibu is the price you have to pay these days if you want Congress to hand you $18 billion. (If you only want $13 billion, you can do the trip in a Ford Escape, and if you can make do with just $7 billion, you don't even have to say what you're driving, as long as it's a hybrid.) After all, the government is trying to be responsible with taxpayers' money now; lawmakers won't just write a check to every big shot with a company plane who swings through town -- this ain't October anymore. So the heads of the Big Three automakers were back in town Thursday, having learned a crucial lesson from last month's failed effort to secure billions and billions of dollars in federal aid -- to wit, they needed some vague idea what they plan to do with the cash once they get their hands on it. And also, ix-nay on the orporate-cay ets- jay. Chastened by just about everyone who watched their first attempt, the CEOs promised to cut their multimillion-dollar salaries to $1 a year, start flying commercial and -- less symbolically -- overhaul their product lines, ditching the gas-guzzling SUVs they've been making for years in favor of smaller cars that people actually want to buy. (General Motors told Congress it's thinking of parting with the Hummer line and will do the same with Saab and Saturn; Ford CEO Alan Mulally boasted that his company sold Aston Martin, Jaguar and Land Rover and may spin off Volvo, too.) Their strategy thus revised, the car companies felt comfortable enough to up their asking price significantly, from $25 billion the first time to $34 billion -- and possibly more -- this week. The hearing, in the Senate Banking Committee, was a strange display from the Big Three -- a combination of a shameless grovel for money and a not so veiled threat that a second Great Depression would hit if they didn't get it. The firms can't survive without cash, they told the panel. "We are here because of the financial crisis that started in 2007 and accelerated at the end of the second quarter of 2008," Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli said. The slump meant Chrysler lost $16 billion as customers opted not to buy new cars. "With such a huge hit to our sales and revenue base, Chrysler requires the loan to continue the restructuring and fund our product renaissance." Actually, the CEOs were less alarmist than some of the other witnesses. Moodys.com chief economist Mark Zandi told the panel that the costs of not bailing out the car companies -- and letting them go bankrupt -- would be far, far more than $34 billion. "It's not even in the same universe," he said. United Auto Workers president Ron Gettelfinger said there wasn't much time to dither: "I believe that we could lose General Motors at the end of this month." And if Detroit goes under, the witnesses agreed, the rest of the country won't be in such good shape itself -- suppliers could also fail, whole local economies could fall apart, the government could find itself handling warranty claims on all the Jeep Cherokees out there. The problem is that Congress -- having already dumped $700 billion onto Wall Street a few months ago, only to see most of it used to buy shares in banks rather than to vacuum up the toxic assets that sparked the financial crisis -- isn't necessarily inclined to move quickly on yet another big corporate bailout. "I don't trust the car companies' leadership," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat. "I worry that, if they're left on their own, they'll be back a short time later asking for more, and we won't be better off. To hand money over with vague, unenforceable promises without an enforcement plan for viability isn't good enough." Republicans were even more skeptical. The conservative base hates the idea of bailing out failing companies -- though it's hard not to wonder if part of the opposition has to do with the fact that these particular failing companies have pretty good contracts with union workers. People in Tennessee "have a tough time thinking about us loaning money to companies that are paying way, way above industry standards to workers," said Sen. Bob Corker. Of course, the UAW already announced that it would let automakers suspend payments into a healthcare fund for retirees, killed a program that paid laid-off workers most of their salary, and agreed to let management reopen negotiations on a contract signed just last year. Still, with Congress already girding for a fight over "card check" legislation that would let workers organize without a secret vote, expect to see Republicans try to lay down some markers about labor during the bailout debate. Unions aside, it was pretty easy to see what the popular move for GOP lawmakers will be. "The strength of the American economic system is that it allows us to take risks, to create, to innovate, to grow, to succeed and sometimes to fail," said Sen. Richard Shelby, a Republican from Alabama (which happens to be the home of Honda, Hyundai and Mercedes plants, making Shelby a little less worried about the Big Three's viability). "Every time government endeavors to alter any of these dynamics, it undermines and distorts the forces at work in all of them." On the other hand, Utah Republican Bob Bennett was doing his best to become a corporate matchmaker, which doesn't exactly fit orthodox free-market philosophy -- at one point, he threatened to make Chrysler and G.M. merge as a condition for getting federal loans. Democrats sounded a little more open to spreading some wealth around to the car companies, though it's not clear whether the money would come out of the earlier $700 billion bailout, out of existing funds to help Detroit shift to making greener cars, or out of a new program. While the Big Three came in for plenty of chiding Thursday, the main target of committee chairman Chris Dodd's wrath was actually Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and the bungled way the Bush administration has handled the bailout funds Congress handed over just a couple of months ago. "It seems to me that the requests being made by the automobile industry, while large by any measure, are modest in comparison to what this committee has lately witnessed in the financial sector," Dodd said. "If we're going to insist on reforms by the auto industry as a condition of receiving federal funding, we ought to do the same for the financial companies." By the end of the nearly six-hour hearing, you could already see the outlines of a deal emerging, just based on the questions and remarks from the committee members -- the auto companies would get at least some of the money they want, with a lot of federal monitoring to make sure they're not wasting it (or shipping it overseas to expand their foreign operations), and sometime next year, everyone would reconvene to assess the situation again. Nearly half of the Republicans on the banking committee are lame ducks, which might mean they feel free to vote for a bailout if they think it's actually good policy, regardless of what the GOP grass roots says. Likewise, Democrats show little inclination to make the nation's economy any worse before Barack Obama takes office next month. The transition team has tried hard to stay out of the bailout fight, publicly at least, but Obama indicated that if the Big Three can come up with decent plans for how they'll use the money to stay solvent, he'd be for it. Even if Congress works fast, though, and manages to hammer those broad concepts into legislation, it's hard to say whether it would be quick enough to make a difference before Detroit goes under. All those years of pitching customers 0 percent financing to buy enormous vehicles they didn't need is finally catching up with the American auto industry. What Washington has to weigh, and fast, is whether they've really learned their lesson this time. -- By Mike Madden From sabocat59 at mac.com Fri Dec 5 06:41:20 2008 From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:41:20 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Colombia: a more just resolution Message-ID: By John I. Laun Those of us who follow responses in the United States to the paramilitary activities in Colombia are very concerned. We believe evidence clearly shows that the paramilitaries, who have carried out so much death and destruction in the Colombian countryside, were a creation of the Colombian state, or at least acted in concert with state security forces from the beginning. Our question now is how the Obama Administration may view the attempts on behalf of the Colombian victims of paramilitary atrocities encouraged and paid for by U.S. corporations, among them Chiquita Brands and Drummond Corporation. The reason for our concern: President-elect Obama has chosen Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney General. Besides advising President Clinton that he was ?neutral, leaning toward favorable? for the indefensible pardon of Marc Rich, Holder reportedly played a major role as a private lawyer for Chiquita Brands in negotiating an agreement under which the Company paid a $25 million fine and its executives, who had approved payments to the A.U.C. paramilitary organization in Colombia, were relieved of further liability. The Chiquita officials knew the A.U. C. was identified as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department, having been placed on the U.S. terrorist list by Secretary of State Colin Powell on September 10, 2001. The money Chiquita paid was purportedly to provide protection to Chiquita installations and personnel in Colombia. In fact, the A.U.C. used the money in a generalized campaign to terrorize and murder peasants and workers in the Uraba region of northern Colombia. They have murdered literally thousands of defenseless civilians, the vast majority of whom had no ties whatever to guerrilla organizations. The idea that a monetary payment to the U.S. Government is sufficient penalty for the knowing illegal acts of U.S. corporations which caused thousands of innocent deaths in Colombia is, in a word, wrong. It is wrong morally, wrong politically and wrong legally. The $25 million fine does not go to the victims of A.U.C. atrocities; it goes to the U.S. Government. And these victims of the Chiquita-financed terrorism receive nothing! And the man who negotiated that disposition is now to be U.S. Attorney General! The Colombian counterpart to the U.S. Attorney General, Fiscal General Mario Iguaran, has said he is not pleased with a deal that lets Chiquita off the hook in return for a $25 million forfeit to the U.S. Government. He wants to see Chiquita executives answer in Colombia for their willing financing of illegal paramilitary violence. That would be a good step. It would also be good and right for the Obama Administration to permit, and even support, claims in U.S. courts fr damages against Chiquita, and not raise as a defense that these claims have been foreclosed by the settlement negotiated by Attorney Holder. And what about the $25 million paid by Chiquita as a fine? That money should rightly go to compensate the victims of Chiquita?s hired paramilitaries. If President Obama favors justice, he should provide at least this much toward a just resolution of the claims of the Colombian victims and their families. older From walterlx at earthlink.net Fri Dec 5 07:44:01 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 06:44:01 -0800 (GMT-08:00) Subject: [Marxism] Fidel Castro: Swimming Up Stream ("a calm and serene response" to Obama) Message-ID: <26327767.1228488241030.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Here Fidel points out that Obama has not responded to the questions Fidel raised following Obama's appearance at the Cuban American National Foundation in May 2008, and he lays out an agenda of vital issues which need to be addressed to bring about an improvement of relations between the United States and Cuba. Please read the following two paragraphs very carefully: "I will not say now that Obama is any less smart. On the contrary, he is showing the mental faculties that enabled me to see and compare his capacity with that of his mediocre adversary, John McCain, who was almost rewarded for his ?exploits? merely due to the traditions of the American society. If it had not been for the economic crisis, television and the Internet, Obama would not have won the elections against the omnipotent racism. It also helped that he studied first at Columbia University, where he graduated in Political Science, and then at Harvard where he graduated as a lawyer. This enabled him to become a member of the modestly rich class with only several million dollars. He is certainly not Abraham Lincoln, nor are these times similar to those. That society is today a consumer society where the saving habits have been lost while the spending habit has multiplied. "Somebody had to offer a calm and serene response even though this will have to swim up the powerful stream of hopes raised by Obama in international public opinion." Walter Lippmann Los Angeles, California ================================================================= Reflections by comrade Fidel http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/reflexiones/2008/ing/f041208i.html SWIMMING UP STREAM Following Obama?s speech, on May 23 this year, to the Cuban American National Foundation established by Ronald Reagan, I wrote a reflection entitled ?The Empire?s Hypocritical Policy?. It was dated on the 25th of the same month. In that Reflection I quoted his exact words to the Miami annexationists: ?[?] together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba; this is my word and my commitment [?] It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime. [?] I will maintain the embargo.? I then offered several arguments and unethical examples of the general behavior of the Presidents who preceded the one who would be elected to that position on the November 4 elections. I literally wrote: ?I find myself forced to raise various sensitive questions: 1. Is it right for the President of the United States to order the assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext may be? 2. Is it ethical for the President of the United States to order the torture of other human beings? 3. Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the United States as an instrument to bring about peace on the planet? 4. Is an Adjustment Act, applied as punishment on only one country, Cuba, in order to destabilize it, good and honorable, even when it costs innocent children and mothers their lives? If it is good, why is this right not automatically granted to Haitians, Dominicans, and other peoples of the Caribbean, and why isn?t the same Act applied to Mexicans and people from Central and South America, who die like flies against the Mexican border wall or in the waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific? 5. Can the United States do without immigrants, who grow vegetables, fruits, almonds and other delicacies for Americans? Who would sweep their streets, work as servants in their homes or do the worst and lowest-paid jobs? 6. Are crackdowns on illegal residents fair, even as they affect children born in the United States? 7. Are the brain-drain and the continuous theft of the best scientific and intellectual minds in poor countries moral and justifiable? 8. You state, as I pointed out at the beginning of this reflection, that your country had long ago warned European powers that it would not tolerate any intervention in the hemisphere, reiterating that this right be respected while demanding the right to intervene anywhere in the world with the aid of hundreds of military bases and naval, aerial and spatial forces distributed across the planet. I ask: is that the way in which the United States expresses its respect for freedom, democracy and human rights? 9. Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks on sixty or more dark corners of the world, as Bush calls them, whatever the pretext may be? 10. Is it honorable and sound to invest millions upon millions of dollars in the military industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over?? I could have included several other issues. Despite the caustic questions, I was not unkind to the African American candidate. I perceived he had greater capacity and command of the art of politics than his adversaries, not only in the opposing party but in his own, too. Last week, the American President-elect Barack Obama announced his Economic Recovery Program. Monday, December 1st, he introduced his National Security and Foreign Policy teams. ?Vice President-elect Biden and I are pleased to announce our national security team [?] old conflicts remain unresolved, and newly assertive powers have put strains on the international system. The spread of nuclear weapons raises the peril that the world's deadliest technology could fall into dangerous hands. Our dependence on foreign oil empowers authoritarian governments and endangers our planet.? ??our economic power must sustain our military strength, our diplomatic leverage, and our global leadership.? ?We will renew old alliances and forge new and enduring partnerships [?] American values are America's greatest export to the world.? ??the team that we have assembled here today is uniquely suited to do just that.? ??these men and women represent all of those elements of American power [?] they have served in uniform and as diplomats [?] they share my pragmatism about the use of power, and my sense of purpose about America's role as a leader in the world.? ?I have known Hillary Clinton?,? he says. I am mindful of the fact that she was President-elect Barack Obama?s rival and the wife of President Clinton, who signed the extraterritorial Torricelli and Helms Burton Acts against Cuba. During the presidential race she committed herself with these laws and with the economic blockade. I am not complaining, I am simply stating it for the record. ?I am proud that she will be our next Secretary of State,? said Obama. ?[she] will command respect in every capitol; and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world. Hillary's appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment?? ?At a time when we face an unprecedented transition amidst two wars, I have asked Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense?? ?[?] I will be giving Secretary Gates and our military a new mission as soon as I take office: responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control.? It strikes me that Gates is a Republican, not a Democrat. He is the only one who has been Defense Secretary and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, that is, he has occupied these positions under both Democratic and Republican Administrations. Gates, who is aware of his popularity, has said that first made sure that the President-elect was choosing him for as long as necessary. On the other hand, while Condoleezza Rice was traveling to India and Pakistan under Bush?s instructions to mediate in the tense relations between these two countries, two days ago, the minister of Defense from Brazil gave the green light to a Brazilian company to manufacture MAR-1 missiles, but instead of one a month, as it had been the case until now, it will produce five every month. One hundred of these missiles will be sold to Pakistan at an estimated cost of 85 million euros. In a public statement, the minister said that ?these missiles that can be attached to planes have been designed to locate ground radars. They allow the effective monitoring of both the ground and air space.? As for Obama, he continued unflappable his Monday statement: ?And going forward, we will continue to make the investments necessary to strengthen our military and increase our ground forces to defeat the threats of the 21st century.? On Janet Napolitano, he indicated: ?[she] offers the experience and executive skill that we need in the next Secretary of Homeland Security?? ?Janet assumes this critical role having learned the lessons ? some of them painful ? of the last several years, from 9/11 to Katrina [?] She understands as well as anyone the danger of an insecure border. And she will be a leader who can reform a sprawling Department while safeguarding our homeland.? This familiar figure had been appointed a District Attorney in Arizona by Clinton in 1993, and then promoted to State Attorney General in 1998. Later on, in 2002, she became a Democratic Party candidate and then governor of that bordering state which is the most common incoming route used by illegal immigrants. She was elected governor in 2006. About Susan Elizabeth Rice, he said: ?Susan knows that the global challenges we face demand global institutions that work? We need the UN to be more effective as a venue for collective action ? against terror and proliferation; climate change and genocide; poverty and disease.? On National Security Advisor James Jones he said: ?[?] I am convinced that General James Jones is uniquely suited to be a strong and skilled National Security Advisor. Generations of Joneses have served heroically on the battlefield ? from the beaches of Tarawa in World War II, to Foxtrot Ridge in Vietnam. Jim's Silver Star is a proud part of that legacy [?] He has commanded a platoon in battle, served as Supreme Allied Commander in a time of war, (he means NATO and the Gulf War) and worked on behalf of peace in the Middle East.? ?Jim is focused on the threats of today and the future. He understands the connection between energy and national security, and has worked on the frontlines of global instability ? from Kosovo to northern Iraq to Afghanistan.? ?He will advise me and work effectively to integrate our efforts across the government, so that we are effectively using all elements of American power to defeat unconventional threats and promote our values.? ?I am confident that this is the team that we need to make a new beginning for American national security.? Obama is somebody we can talk to anywhere he wishes since we do not preach violence or war. He should be reminded, though, that the stick and carrot doctrine will have no place in our country. None of the phrases in his latest speech shows any element of response to the questions I raised last May 25, just six months ago. I will not say now that Obama is any less smart. On the contrary, he is showing the mental faculties that enabled me to see and compare his capacity with that of his mediocre adversary, John McCain, who was almost rewarded for his ?exploits? merely due to the traditions of the American society. If it had not been for the economic crisis, television and the Internet, Obama would not have won the elections against the omnipotent racism. It also helped that he studied first at Columbia University, where he graduated in Political Science, and then at Harvard where he graduated as a lawyer. This enabled him to become a member of the modestly rich class with only several million dollars. He is certainly not Abraham Lincoln, nor are these times similar to those. That society is today a consumer society where the saving habits have been lost while the spending habit has multiplied. Somebody had to offer a calm and serene response even though this will have to swim up the powerful stream of hopes raised by Obama in the international public opinion. I only have two more press dispatches left to analyze. They all carry news from everywhere. I have estimated that only the United States will be spending in this economic crisis over $6 trillion in paper money, an amount that can only be assessed by the rest of the peoples of the world with their sweat and hunger, their suffering and blood. Our principles are the same as those of Baragu?. The empire should know that our Homeland can be turned to dust but the sovereign rights of the Cuban people are not negotiable. Fidel Castro Ruz December 4, 2008 5:28p.m. ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Los Angeles, California Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Dec 5 07:45:59 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:45:59 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Real hope and change department Message-ID: <49393EA7.4020205@panix.com> http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/auto041208.html Join the Auto Worker Caravan to Washington, D.C. Join the Auto Worker Caravan to Washington, D.C. -- Monday, December 8 Send-off Rally in Detroit -- Sunday, December 7 Auto workers from the Midwest will be in D.C. on Monday, December 8 to say the Big Three bailout shouldn't be made on our backs. Executives from the Big Three, dealerships, and auto suppliers have made their voice heard in the Capitol. Now it's our turn. Auto workers will tour D.C. to speak with media and members of Congress about their ideas for a stronger auto industry. If you can't make it to Washington, come to a rank-and-file rally and send-off in Detroit this Sunday from 2 pm to 4 pm. DC Meeting Location -- Monday, December 8 Time: 9:30 am Location: Lutheran Church of the Reformation 212 East Capitol Street, NE Washington, DC 20003 (between 2nd and 3rd) Contact: Mark, 413-896-4726 (onsite) Street parking is available. Who We Are: We're an ad hoc group of concerned auto workers and supporters from Big Three plants and suppliers across the United States. What We Think: The UAW has agreed to give more concessions back to the Big Three, even though weakening auto workers' benefits and contracts will not save the auto industry. Auto workers have already made billions of dollars' worth of concessions in recent contracts. We need real reforms, not a plan to take more out of the wallets of auto workers. Auto workers are taking the fall for management's poor decisions. Our wages and benefits make up less than 10 percent of the cost of a car -- while the companies spend frivolously. U.S. auto workers at foreign-owned auto companies don't receive defined pension benefits, nor do the vast majority of American workers. We need to preserve the benefits fought for by the UAW and secure these benefits for all workers. Send Off the Caravan on Sunday, December 7 Auto workers from the Midwest will be in D.C. on Monday, December 8 to say the Big Three bailout shouldn't be made on our backs. To get involved or for more information: Web site: www.autoworkercaravan.org Email: info at autoworkercaravan.org Phone: Wendy Thompson, 313-892-7974 For media inquiries: press at autoworkercaravan.org or Tiffany Ten Eyck, 313-842-6262 What We Need to Tell Washington! As auto workers, we are not just thinking of ourselves. Congress needs a comprehensive plan not just for the auto corporations and auto workers, but a new national industrial policy that supports and expands the middle class and addresses the economic and environmental crisis that the entire nation faces. We see this crisis as an opportunity to lay the foundation for a decent life for the next generation of all Americans. * Save Auto Workers' Jobs and Communities. The U.S. Congress and the incoming Obama administration should commit themselves to save auto workers' jobs and communities. The auto industry still stands at the center of the American economy, directly employing over two million people and indirectly affecting the lives of millions more. * Transform the Auto Industry. Congress needs to establish a new national industrial policy that will transform the auto and other industries. We need to expand our efforts to produce fuel-efficient automobiles and electric cars, green energy technologies such as wind turbines, and mass transportation such as light rail and high-speed trains. * No Investment without Representation. It's our money, so we want accountability. The U.S. government or other levels of government should have a say, providing public control when either financial assistance or tax abatement is provided to corporations. Just as we say, "No taxation without representation," so we should say, "No investment without representation." * Strengthen the Union to Help the Recovery. Unions and union contracts protect wages and benefits and work against the deflationary crisis which confronts us. Unions and their membership should be protected. Every study by the U.S. Labor Department and by academic researchers over the last several decades shows that unions raise wages and that higher wages have contributed to a robust economy. * Employee Free Choice Act(Card Check) should be extended to any plant, subsidiary, or subcontractor which benefits from federal or other government assistance. Employee Free Choice would make it possible for non-union workers to join unions, to negotiate contracts, and to fight for higher wages to put money back in circulation. * A National Single-Payer Health System. When pressed, the Big Three concede that a national health plan would bolster their bottom line, as it does now in Canada. GM alone provides health coverage to a million people -- workers, retirees, and families. The rescue of the auto industry should be linked to the creation of a national single-payer health system like the "Medicare for All" proposal in HR 676, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If you had an opportunity to address Congress about the Auto Bailout as a rank & file UAW member, what would you say? Would it go something like this? I am not testifying before Congress today to request that American taxpayers loan Detroit automakers 25 billion dollars so they can close factories and permanently layoff thousands of workers. I am not here to support the Detroit automakers' intention to import half the vehicles they sell in the United States as do foreign competitors like Toyota, Honda, Kia, Nissan, Volkswagen, and Mercedes. I am not here to advocate that American workers compete for the lowest wages in the world. Quite the opposite. I think we should compete for the highest. I stand before you to advocate for a national industrial policy that supports and sustains the expansion rather than destruction of the middle class. I stand before you to advocate for an industrial policy that strengthens our economy, strengthens our national security, and makes the American Dream of a higher standard of living attainable for an ever expanding number of citizens. I am here to advocate that Congress recognize that the working class is the backbone of this nation, that the success of our nation as a whole depends on the health and wellbeing of our most valuable natural resource, the American worker. In the last thirty-five years the income of American workers has declined precipitously while prices for health care, education, housing, food, and energy have steadily increased. Americans are working more hours with fewer vacation days than any other modern industrialized nation. Even though we are working longer and harder, our incomes are not keeping up with inflation. Fewer and fewer American workers have pensions or health insurance. America, once known as a nation that took pride in its expanding middle class, today, has a reputation for degrading workers and pursuing a competitive race to the bottom. Some members of Congress propose that the best solution for the Detroit automakers is bankruptcy. They propose that the automakers should dispose of their obligations to retirees, as if retirees were somehow unworthy of the deferred compensation they earned with steadfast loyalty and honest labor. If Congress sanctions the refusal to honor contracts, it will become a defining moment in the history of our nation, a moment of legislative infamy. Civil societies rely on trust not treachery. Civil societies rely on government to restrain predatory capitalists and to mediate class conflict. If the highest legislative body in the nation endorses contempt for contractual commitments, where will it end, and who can be held accountable? Such a precedent will not stop with autoworkers. Every retiree and every working person who hopes to retire will feel threatened by the willful destruction of contractual agreements. Historically, unions have had a positive impact on our society and our economy. When unions negotiated improved wages and benefits, they expanded the middle class and set a standard that lifted all workers. The expansion of the middle class created a vibrant economy that benefited business and government. Business reaped the rewards of an upwardly mobile workforce. In turn a growing economy enriched the tax base and allowed government to lower tax rates for businesses and wealthy investors. When unions negotiated pensions and health care for retirees, it was considered deferred compensation. Workers sacrificed higher wages in return for a secure retirement. The companies passed the cost on to consumers, but the companies' didn't invest those higher profits in a trust that would provide for retiree health care. Instead they indulged themselves and their shareholders. Corporate malfeasance should not be rewarded with a Congressional pardon. If companies are allowed to break contracts, the debt will be passed on to taxpayers in the form of social welfare. If government assumes responsibility for all or part of those expenses, it will, in effect, charge the consumer twice. Once, when he purchased the car, and a second time, when he is taxed to compensate for the companies' misappropriation. CEOs should not be allowed to justify increased prices as an incumbent expense of a union contract, then pass on the cost to taxpayers when the bill comes due. I am a UAW member, but I would be remiss if I did not speak up for our brothers and sisters at Toyota and the other transplants. The workers at foreign transplants in the United States do not have a defined pension. They have a 401-k. They have seen the value of their retirement savings destroyed by unscrupulous and irresponsible financial policies, or the lack thereof, through no fault of their own. Workers at the transplants do not have health insurance in retirement. They will be forced out of work by injury or company policy before they are eligible for Medicare. They too deserve a national industrial policy that respects their service. Foreign automakers have the advantage of national health care for workers in their home countries, but in the United States they treat workers like disposable commodities. They work them till they hurt them, then they throw them out the door. My advocacy for a national industrial policy that ensures retirement in dignity is not limited to union members. All American workers deserve health care and security in retirement equal to or better than that enjoyed by workers in Europe and Japan. The United States should raise the standard, not pursue a race to the bottom. I am not here to ask Congress for a handout, but rather a well-deserved hand up. It is imperative that we rescue the flagship industry of our manufacturing base. Our economic health and our national security are at stake. But it is not fair to bailout the privileged and neglect the plight of the average worker. Medicare for All as advocated in John Conyer's bill HR 676 is the one remedy that would unilaterally address the unfair competition that plagues manufacturing in the United States. HR 676 would help all employers, all workers, and all consumers. Furthermore, any bailout that is not contingent on job creation would damage our economy. America needs a vibrant middle class and a revitalized industrial base to stabilize our economy and strengthen our national security. Any bailout that supports the innovative malaise in our industrial sector or rewards companies for investing overseas while simultaneously breaking contracts with American workers is tantamount to sabotage. I am not here to apologize for workers who constitute the backbone of America. We have never failed. I am not here to beg on behalf of the men and women who fought the wars, built the roads and bridges, manufactured the goods, delivered the services, and transported every conceivable product from its origin to its destination. I am here to demand the respect and dignity we deserve. For too long Congress has legislated in favor of capital over labor. The preference has not served our national interests. As Abraham Lincoln said in his first annual message to Congress in 1861, "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." The Detroit automakers need a bridge loan to survive the current credit crisis. But another bailout that neglects the working class would be a fatal mistake. We will not survive the worldwide recession afflicting our economic security if we fail to defend the people who have never failed their nation. Gregg Shotwell For more information, go to . To download the auto caravan flyer in PDF, go to . To download the flyer with Gregg Shotwell's speech, go to . From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Dec 5 07:49:15 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:49:15 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Video of Zionists shooting unarmed Palestinians Message-ID: <49393F6B.5040902@panix.com> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/dec/05/hebron-settlers-shooting-israel-palestinians From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Dec 5 08:01:39 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:01:39 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Is America's new declinism for real? Message-ID: <49394253.1080804@panix.com> (Go to link below to follow interesting embedded links in article.) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ddbc80d0-ba43-11dd-92c9-0000779fd18c.html Is America?s new declinism for real? By Gideon Rachman Published: November 24 2008 18:08 | Last updated: November 24 2008 18:08 Texas A&M is not the obvious place to pick if you want to discuss American decline. The university sends more of its graduates straight into the military than any other civilian college in the US. Its officer training corps prowl the campus in crisply pressed uniforms and knee-high leather boots, greeting each other with brisk ?howdys?. Agonised introspection and crises of confidence are not Texan traits. But last week the Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs at Texas A&M hosted a conference designed to discuss the latest, markedly gloomy world view issued by America?s intelligence establishment. Every four years the National Intelligence Council ? which oversees America?s baroque collection of intelligence agencies ? releases a global trends report, which is given to the new president. The latest report, published on November 20, has made headlines around the world. The front page of Britain?s Guardian newspaper shouted ?2025: the end of US dominance?. For once, the headline is broadly accurate. As the NIC frankly notes, ?the most dramatic difference? between the new report and the one issued four years ago is that it now foresees ?a world in which the US plays a prominent role in global events, but the US is seen as one among many global actors?. The report issued four years ago had projected ?continuing US dominance?. The NIC report has made people sit up because it comes from the heart of the US security establishment. But it is part of a broader intellectual trend in America: a ?new declinism?. This mood marks a complete break with the aggressive confidence of the Bush years and the ?unipolar moment?. Its starting assumption is that America, while still the most powerful country in the world, is in relative decline. Three developments have fed the new declinism. First, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have underlined that US military supremacy does not automatically translate into political victory. Second, the rise of China and India suggest that America?s days as the world?s largest economy are numbered. Third, the financial crisis has fed the notion that the US is living beyond its means and that something is badly wrong with the American model. This gloomy mood was captured by the opening address to the NIC?s conference, given by none other than General Brent Scowcroft himself, returning to the institute named after him. The general noted that the US had found itself in a position of huge global power after the end of the cold war, which was ?heady stuff?. But ?we exercised that power for a while only to realise that it was ephemeral?. This new awareness of the constraints on American power is reflected in a number of new books and articles. The most influential is probably Fareed Zakaria?s The Post-American World, which is said to be the only book on foreign affairs read by Barack Obama this year. Although Mr Zakaria strives to present the rise of China, India and ?the rest? as unthreatening to the US, the inescapable conclusion is that the Bush years marked the apogee of American power. Another influential book to capture this new mood is Andrew Bacevich?s The Limits of Power. Professor Bacevich, a conservative historian and military veteran whose son was killed in the Iraq war, argues: ?American power ... is inadequate to the ambitions to which hubris and sanctimony have given rise.? Richard Haass, who as head of the Council of Foreign Relations is arguably the doyen of the foreign policy establishment, is another important voice arguing: ?The United States? unipolar moment is over.? But as William Wohlforth of Dartmouth College reminded the NIC conference in Texas last week, America has been through phases of declinism before. The current debate is reminiscent of the arguments unleashed by the publication in 1988 of Paul Kennedy?s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Professor Kennedy?s argument that previous great powers had succumbed to ?imperial over-stretch? resonated in the US at a time when many were worried by Reagan-era budget deficits and Japan?s growing economic power . But the ?declinism? represented by Prof Kennedy was quickly dissipated by victory in the cold war, Japan?s lost decade of economic growth and the high-tech boom of the Clinton years. All this set the stage for a resurgence of American confidence and the swagger of the Bush presidency. Odd as it is to recall now, there were people during the early phases of the cold war who were also genuinely worried that the USSR might outperform the US. There was also a national crisis of confidence caused by the Vietnam war, when Richard Nixon warned his fellow countrymen they risked looking like a ?pitiful, helpless giant?. In the 1980s, Japan became the new challenger to American supremacy. Now it is China. Professor Wohlforth argues that the NIC report reflects ?a mood change, not a change in the underlying assessment of power?. As he says, rising powers do not always complete their climb and economic strength does not always translate into political power. This is all true. But there are still reasons for thinking that the new declinism may be more soundly based than its predecessors. China has a record of sustained and dynamic economic growth that the Soviet Union was never capable of. And China?s sheer size makes it a more plausible challenger than a relatively small nation, such as Japan. This time it really does feel different. But then it always does, does it not? gideon.rachman at ft.com From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Dec 5 08:05:03 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:05:03 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Recession Realities: Why The Worst is Yet to Come Message-ID: <4939431F.7050808@panix.com> http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002991269 CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS Nov. 26, 2008 ? 5:44 a.m. Recession Realities: Why The Worst is Yet to Come By Madison Powers, CQ Guest Columnist When President-Elect Obama announced the members of his economic team this week, he tried to prepare the country for the fact that economic recovery would take time. He stated pointedly that things are likely to get worse before they get better. He might well have added that, if the past is any indicator, things are likely to get much worse for many of those who already are among the worst-off and that the worst that is yet to come is well down the road past the point at which economists formally declare the recession at an end. We are in for more bailouts beyond what we have seen thus far, and we are likely to see more mistakes no matter how talented the new economic team is. In particular, they are likely to be wrong both in initial response and estimation of how much money is at stake, and an added political challenge will be that of navigating a course after public trust in experts has eroded. The first round of bailouts got off to a bad start, both in terms of public policy and public confidence. Almost everyone asserted that there was one and only one available solution and that they had just days to pass necessary legislation. The plan was to buy up ?toxic? assets known as mortgage-backed securities, and the theory was that doing so would get the backlog of bad debt off the books so that stock prices would stabilize and banks could once again lend money. Congress demanded in return accountability and transparency, but they got neither. In fact, they did not even get the plan they voted for. In a matter of weeks, the Secretary of the Treasury reversed course. The new plan is to inject capital into failing banks in exchange for a stake, usually in the form of preferred stock, raise the $100,000 cap on FDIC insurance of bank deposits to $250,000, and set aside a few hundred billion more to shore up banks that might weaken under the strain of bad loan debt over the course of the coming months. This was in precise detail the alternative favored by dissenting voices such as James K. Galbraith only ten days into the crisis. The public has to be prepared for more mistakes and more mid-course correction, in part, by being informed in advance that we are and will remain in uncharted territory with little option but to experiment. Even if the current bad debt problem is contained, the economy should not be expected to recover for quite a long time. The reasons are instructive, both for the sake of managing the political expectations and for preparing for the next policy choices we will face for years to come. Three points are especially important. First, there is no easy fix for the housing crisis. Median home prices, as of last week, fell 11.3% over the last year, but a more important, less reported benchmark is the fact that prices are nearly 20% off the peak in third quarter of 2005. While the immediate focus is (rightly) on how to aid those estimated 20% of mortgage holders who owe more than their homes are worth, the longer-term threat is that the housing problem is not merely a product of a short-term imbalance of supply and demand for which we simply have to wait a few quarters for correction. The more likely scenario we will face is a staggering and prolonged housing glut lasting through 2025. Moreover, the likely continued decline in values due to oversupply will hit hardest among some of the economically most vulnerable members of society living in the outer suburbs and exurbs of the nation?s largest cities. Second, the real burden of job loss typically lags months or even years past the point that the official definition of a recession indicates that a recovery has begun. In the last recession that lasted for eight months of 2001, for example, the unemployment figures peaked only in 2003 (at about the current unemployment rate). So the economic pain will be greatest for ordinary middle class workers long after those fortunate enough to have generous 401(k) plans see some improvement in their stock portfolios. Whatever we spend now will reduce greater need for expenditures later, but we have to be prepared to spend in deficit mode for many years to come, even under the best case scenario. The third long-term economic problem is the massive deterioration of state and local budgets. Some large city mayors have petitioned for a share of the credit lines guaranteed under the bailout plans designed for the financial institutions. Their near-term credit crunch is urgent but it is but a tip of the iceberg. At least 41 states face budget shortfalls. In some states, the percentage is quite large, at or above 10% in the hardest hit states. But the worst impact comes later. During the first year of any recession the inevitable decreases in tax revenues are partially offset by previous year surpluses and ?rainy day? funds. Many of those funds never got replenished adequately from the last recession, in part because they had cope with the peak of unemployment well into their 2004 budgets. Looking ahead, then, we have to prepare for the fact that the heaviest burdens on the states are still years out from now. Past experience also shows that even the richest states have been unable to make up for the losses on their own and, in the case of the 2001 recession, the federal government undertook bailout schemes totaling $20 billion. This time around, the combined mid-year shortfall for the 2009 fiscal year alone is well beyond that amount. The important lesson for the federal government is that they need to prepare now for that bailout, and it is likely to cost less and avert a worsening recession if they deal with it now. The reason is straightforward. States can?t ride it lean times with deficit spending or engage in their own Keynesian pump-priming. Balanced budget provisions in their constitutions won?t let them. They have to choose between expenditure reductions or tax increases, and the latter is no real option. Recession Realities: Why The Worst is Yet to Come To make matters worse, just as the federal government undertakes public works projects designed to create jobs and stimulate the economy, the states will be retrenching their public works programs, thereby making the size of the necessary federal government initiative that much larger. Federal policy makers might as well plan for that now as well. Moreover, state and local property taxes always fall substantially in periods of economic recession. In many states, various taxes are enacted with specific purposes, such as school finance, rather than general revenue. The predictable consequence is that large budget reductions will disproportionately affect the very things most important for future economic development. The standard mechanisms for funding education are problematic in good times, but they are disastrously short-sighted during an economic downturn. In economically difficult times, social safety net programs are often the first and deepest cuts in state budgets. For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that ?in the last recession, some 34 states cut eligibility for public health programs, causing well over 1 million people to lose health coverage, and at least 23 states cut eligibility for child care subsidies or otherwise limited access to child care.? We can expect more of the same this time around. As banks, automobile manufacturers and others get in line for federal assistance, it is certain that the line will only get longer, and the last in line will be some of the neediest. Madison Powers is Senior Research Scholar, Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University. His column appears weekly in CQ Politics on Wednesday. CQ ? 2007 All Rights Reserved | Congressional Quarterly Inc. 1255 22nd Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 | 202-419-8500 From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Dec 5 08:15:33 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:15:33 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Obama's economic team Message-ID: <49394595.3070709@panix.com> http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/19853 From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Dec 5 08:17:57 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:17:57 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Who are the Taliban? Message-ID: <49394625.9000007@panix.com> Who Are the Taliban? The Afghan War Deciphered By Anand Gopal [This piece is a joint project of TomDispatch.com and the Nation Magazine, where a shorter version appears in print.] If there is an exact location marking the West's failures in Afghanistan, it is the modest police checkpoint that sits on the main highway 20 minutes south of Kabul. The post signals the edge of the capital, a city of spectacular tension, blast walls, and standstill traffic. Beyond this point, Kabul's gritty, low-slung buildings and narrow streets give way to a vast plain of serene farmland hemmed in by sandy mountains. In this valley in Logar province, the American-backed government of Afghanistan no longer exists. Instead of government officials, men in muddied black turbans with assault rifles slung over their shoulders patrol the highway, checking for thieves and "spies." The charred carcass of a tanker, meant to deliver fuel to international forces further south, sits belly up on the roadside. The police say they don't dare enter these districts, especially at night when the guerrillas rule the roads. In some parts of the country's south and east, these insurgents have even set up their own government, which they call the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the name of the former Taliban government). They mete out justice in makeshift Sharia courts. They settle land disputes between villagers. They dictate the curricula in schools. Just three years ago, the central government still controlled the provinces near Kabul. But years of mismanagement, rampant criminality, and mounting civilian casualties have led to a spectacular resurgence of the Taliban and other related groups. Today, the Islamic Emirate enjoys de facto control in large parts of the country's south and east. According to ACBAR, an umbrella organization representing more than 100 aid agencies, insurgent attacks have increased by 50% over the past year. Foreign soldiers are now dying at a higher rate here than in Iraq. The burgeoning disaster is prompting the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai and international players to speak openly of negotiations with sections of the insurgency. The New Nationalist Taliban Who exactly are the Afghan insurgents? Every suicide attack and kidnapping is usually attributed to "the Taliban." In reality, however, the insurgency is far from monolithic. There are the shadowy, kohl-eyed mullahs and head-bobbing religious students, of course, but there are also erudite university students, poor, illiterate farmers, and veteran anti-Soviet commanders. The movement is a m?lange of nationalists, Islamists, and bandits that fall uneasily into three or four main factions. The factions themselves are made up of competing commanders with differing ideologies and strategies, who nonetheless agree on one essential goal: kicking out the foreigners. It wasn't always this way. When U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban government in November 2001, Afghans celebrated the downfall of a reviled and discredited regime. "We felt like dancing in the streets," one Kabuli told me. As U.S.-backed forces marched into Kabul, the Afghan capital, remnants of the old Taliban regime split into three groups. The first, including many Kabul-based bureaucrats and functionaries, simply surrendered to the Americans; some even joined the Karzai government. The second, comprised of the movement's senior leadership, including its leader Mullah Omar, fled across the border into Pakistan, where they remain to this day. The third and largest group -- foot soldiers, local commanders, and provincial officials -- quietly melted into the landscape, returning to their farms and villages to wait and see which way the wind blew. Meanwhile, the country was being carved up by warlords and criminals. On the brand-new highway connecting Kabul to Kandahar and Herat, built with millions of Washington's dollars, well-organized groups of bandits would regularly terrorize travelers. "[Once], thirty, maybe fifty criminals, some in police uniforms, stopped our bus and shot [out] our windows," Muhammadullah, the owner of a bus company that regularly uses the route, told me. "They searched our vehicle and stole everything from everyone." Criminal syndicates, often with government connections, organized kidnapping sprees in urban centers like the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar city. Often, those few who were caught would simply be released after the right palms were greased. Onto this landscape of violence and criminality rode the Taliban again, promising law and order. The exiled leadership, based in Quetta, Pakistan, began reactivating its networks of fighters who had blended into the country's villages. They resurrected relationships with Pashtun tribes. (The insurgents, historically a predominantly Pashtun movement, still have very little influence among other Afghan minority ethnic groups like the Tajiks and Hezaras.) With funds from wealthy Arab donors and training from the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence apparatus, they were able to bring weapons and expertise into Pashtun villages. In one village after another, they drove out the remaining minority of government sympathizers through intimidation and assassination. Then they won over the majority with promises of security and efficiency. The guerrillas implemented a harsh version of Sharia law, cutting off the hands of thieves and shooting adulterers. They were brutal, but they were also incorruptible. Justice no longer went to the highest bidder. "There's no crime any more, unlike before," said Abdul Halim, who lives in a district under Taliban control. The insurgents conscripted fighters from the villages they operated in, often paying them $200 a month -- more than double the typical police salary. They adjudicated disputes between tribes and between landowners. They protected poppy fields from the eradication attempts of the central government and foreign armies -- a move that won them the support of poor farmers whose only stable income came from poppy cultivation. Areas under insurgent control were consigned to having neither reconstruction nor social services, but for rural villagers who had seen much foreign intervention and little economic progress under the Karzai government, this was hardly new. At the same time, the Taliban's ideology began to undergo a transformation. "We are fighting to free our country from foreign domination," Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi told me over the phone. "The Indians fought for their independence against the British. Even the Americans once waged an insurgency to free their own country." This emerging nationalistic streak appealed to Pashtun villagers growing weary of the American and NATO presence. The insurgents are also fighting to install a version of Sharia law in the country. Nonetheless, the famously puritanical guerrillas have moderated some of their most extreme doctrines, at least in principle. Last year, for instance, Mullah Omar issued an edict declaring music and parties -- banned in the Taliban's previous incarnation -- permissible. Some Taliban commanders have even started accepting the idea of girls' education. Certain hard-line leaders like the one-legged Mullah Daddullah, a man of legendary brutality (whose beheading binges at times reportedly proved too much even for Mullah Omar) were killed by international forces. Meanwhile, a more pragmatic leadership started taking the reins. U.S. intelligence officers believe that day-to-day leadership of the movement is now actually in the hands of the politically savvy Mullah Brehadar, while Mullah Omar retains a largely figurehead position. Brehadar may be behind the push to moderate the movement's message in order to win greater support. Even at the local level, some provincial Taliban officials are tempering older-style Taliban policies in order to win local hearts and minds. Three months ago in a district in Ghazni province, for instance, the insurgents ordered all schools closed. When tribal elders appealed to the Taliban's ruling religious council in the area, the religious judges reversed the decision and reopened the schools. However, not all field commanders follow the injunctions against banning music and parties. In many Taliban-controlled districts such amusements are still outlawed, which points to the movement's decentralized nature. Local commanders often set their own policies and initiate attacks without direct orders from the Taliban leadership. The result is a slippery movement that morphs from district to district. In some Taliban-controlled districts of Ghazni province, an Afghan caught working for a non-governmental organization (NGO) would meet certain death. In parts of neighboring Wardak province, however, where the insurgents are said to be more educated and understand the need for development, local NGOs can function with the guerrillas' permission. full: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175010/anand_gopal_making_sense_of_the_taliban From walterlx at earthlink.net Fri Dec 5 09:37:55 2008 From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:37:55 -0800 (GMT-08:00) Subject: [Marxism] Canadian parliament shuts down Message-ID: <20683747.1228495075111.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> (This must be a quite remarkable occurrance. Do we have any comments about it from Canadian readers of this list? I'd like to hear them.) ======================================================================= HISTORIAN-MUSICIAN NED SUBLETTE noted: and meanwhile, there's crisis in canada . . .where stephen harper, the conservative prime minister who took office only seven weeks ago with a minority vote, has so antagonized his political opponents with a clumsy power play that three very disaparate parties have joined forces to shut him down. under canada's non-presidential british parliamentary system, they can do it. harper then went running to the queen. of england. whose governor general granted him permission to suspend parliament until january 26. so canada is paralyzed during an economic crisis, with no stimulus package in place. editorial from toronto star follows news report. =================================================================== http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/548382 PM hangs on as Parliament shut down for seven weeks Bruce Campion-Smith Joanna Smith Toronto Star Ottawa Bureau Dec 04, 2008 02:32 PM OTTAWA? Prime Minister Stephen Harper has extended the life of his minority Conservative government until the new year after Governor General Michaelle Jean today granted his request to suspend Parliament. Jean made the unprecedented decision after a lengthy meeting with Harper this morning at Rideau Hall. Her consent to prorogue Parliament means the work of the Commons has been discontinued, allowing Harper's Conservatives to escape a confidence vote next week that would have meant the defeat of his government. It's a dramatic turn in a political crisis that has gripped the nation's capital ? and much of the country ? for the last week, since opposition parties rebelled against a provocative economic statement tabled by the Conservatives. Emerging from the meeting, Harper said that Parliament would resume on Jan. 26, with a budget planned for the next day. The prime minister has already pledged that the budget will contain measures to boost the country?s flagging economy. And he acknowledged the toxic atmosphere on Parliament Hill, saying, "obviously we have to do some trust-building on both sides." He set aside his hardline talk that has marked bitter Commons debates in recent days and extended a possible olive branch to the opposition parties, saying that Canadians want their MPs to work together. "The government is more than willing to have that kind of dialogue with the other parties. I want to hear their suggestions." PMO spokesperson Kory Teneycke told reporters later that the Conservative government is prepared to do whatever it can to "defuse the situation" and "get out of the current crisis." He said the government is making a "good faith offer" to the opposition parties to make suggestions for the upcoming budget but added that it only wants specific suggestions. "There needs to be give and take," Teneycke said. Harper spoke in front of Rideau Hall as hundreds of people gathered on Parliament Hill to show support for the NDP-Liberal coalition. Jean's decision casts in doubt the viability of the opposition coalition that had united to topple the Conservatives. In a rare show of force earlier this week, the Liberals and NDP signed a document agreeing to form a coalition to govern the nation, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois. But it could be harder for opposition politicians to make the case to topple the government in late January, just days before a budget that could deliver aid for the country?s economy. The decision pulls the teetering minority Conservative government a step back from the edge of a political precipice. But they will face another confidence test when the House returns, setting up the prospect of a fierce battle for public support over the coming weeks. The opposition coalition had asked Jean to refuse to prorogue, arguing that Harper no longer enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons. As soon as Harper finished his speech, opposition MPs began leaving the House of Commons. NDP MP Pat Martin said he was upset the governor general decided to rule against the majority of parliament. "I'd like to see the rationale," he said. He said the coalition would remain united. NDP Leader Jack Layton called it a sad day for parliamentary democracy. "He's put a lock on the door of the House of Commons," Layton said. Layton said his party will continue to express its lack of confidence in Harper when Parliament begins again next year. Layton also said his party expects to vote against the government at the earliest opportunity. When asked why he would try to bring down the government before it delivered a budget, he said"That confidence isn't going to be restored by seven weeks of propaganda". Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe reacted angrily, saying that the rhetoric of recent days against his separatist party has fuelled the worst language against Quebecers since the separatist debates of the 1990s. Despite Harper's reprieve today, Duceppe said that the Bloc remained determined to force the Conservatives from power. "We are still prepared to support the coalition," he told reporters in the Commons' foyer. A senior goverment official speaking on background said Canadians should expect to see Harper using the break to ask the opposition parties for their specific proposals for the economy. The official said it is clear people are looking for something new in the budget and Harper is unlikely to include the kind of partisan measures intended to attack the opposition that were seen in the economic statement. * * * http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/548127 Harper adds fuel to fire TheStar.com - Opinion - Harper adds fuel to fire December 04, 2008 If there is any contrition in Prime Minister Stephen Harper over his own role in plunging the country into a political crisis, it was not on display last night. Instead, in a brief televised address to the nation, Harper was on the attack. He accused the opposition coalition arrayed against him of seeking to "overturn the results" of the Oct. 14 election, "without your say, without your consent, and without your vote" and of making a deal with a party "whose avowed goal is to break up the country" (the Bloc Qu?b?cois). "This is no time for backroom deals with the separatists," declared Harper. "It is the time for Canada's government to focus on the economy." Finally, Harper closed with a pledge to use "every legal means" at his disposal to prevent the coalition from taking power. This was a reference to Harper's expected appeal to Governor General Micha?lle Jean to "prorogue" Parliament for a couple of months, thereby allowing him to avoid next week's non-confidence vote in the House of Commons. The speech was breathtakingly audacious, both in its twisting of the facts and its misinterpretation of our parliamentary traditions. Canada does not have a presidential system. Canadians did not elect Stephen Harper as Prime Minister on Oct. 14. They elected a Parliament, to which the government of the day must be responsible. Harper's Conservatives have more seats than any other party in that Parliament. But they do not have a majority. That means they need the support of at least one of the three opposition parties to govern. Ignoring that reality, the Harper government last week brought forward an "economic statement" that contained no significant new measures for the economy. Instead, there were ideologically driven poison pills that Harper must have known the opposition parties could not swallow. In response, the opposition parties got together and decided to offer themselves up as an alternative government. It is not a "separatist" coalition. While it would have the support of the Bloc Qu?b?cois on budget measures and other confidence votes, no members of that party would sit in cabinet. Furthermore, nothing in the accord signed by all three opposition parties would lead to the breakup of the country. (See the text of the accord on page AA6.) Rather, the accord calls for measures to stimulate the economy, including infrastructure investments, enhancements in Employment Insurance, and aid for the auto and forestry sectors. Those would be welcomed by most Canadians. For his part, Harper made a vague promise last night of "additional measures to boost Canada's economy" in a budget on Jan. 27. Will Harper still be Prime Minister then? It would seem so, if Jean grants his request for prorogation today. This request puts the Governor General in an invidious position. Many legal and constitutional experts say she should reject Harper's request as it is clearly designed to avoid a non-confidence vote next week. But if she did, she would expose her office to accusations of partisanship. If Harper gets his way, he will likely use the next two months to press his attack on the opposition coalition as "separatist." (Interestingly, in the French version of last night's speech, Harper used the softer term "sovereignist.") It is a dangerous tactic, for it risks stirring up anti-Canada resentments in Quebec and anti-Quebec feelings in the rest of the country. Then we might have a national unity crisis layered on top of the economic crisis. Altogether, it was not an impressive night's work for Harper. ========================================= WALTER LIPPMANN Los Angeles, California Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/ "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo" ========================================= From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Dec 5 10:07:39 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:07:39 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Test--please ignore Message-ID: <49395FDB.10507@panix.com> test From schaffer at optonline.net Fri Dec 5 10:10:31 2008 From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:10:31 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Test--please ignore In-Reply-To: <49395FDB.10507@panix.com> References: <49395FDB.10507@panix.com> Message-ID: <49396087.2090907@optonline.net> Louis Proyect wrote: > test twice???? From ethanyoung at earthlink.net Fri Dec 5 13:52:27 2008 From: ethanyoung at earthlink.net (Ethan Young) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:52:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers Message-ID: <29486560.1228510348111.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> To add historical detail to this thread: By 1969 the transformation of SDS --from a free-wheeling, left-reformist group closely mirroring the development of [largely white] student radicalization, especially in the northeast, west and midwest, into a left-socialist organization with organized factions strongly identifying with one or another Leninism-- was complete. The three main factions [PL, RYM, and the tiny third-camp ISC] all identified with mass action strategies, including in the antiwar movement. SDS played a big role in reviving mass demos with the surprise success of their national anti-Viet war rally in 1965. That success, and the mass spread of antiwar sentiment [and SDS growth] that followed, put a subjectivist kink in the messianic mindset of SDS leadership. This inhibited the group's ability to come to grips with internal and external challenges: -The concerted and ultimately successful rule-or-ruin campaign by PL [successful because they did effectively out-organize other groups at the 1969 convention, and then went on to ruin their own half of the split]. -The post-King massification of black consciousness and the mass ghetto uprisings, which led to new black-led revolutionary formations, including but not limited to the Panther Party, which in turn inspired similar groups among Latino and Asian youth. -Intensified state repression against the entire left, from infiltration to psy-ops to assassinations. In this setting, SDSers felt an increased responsibility for more militance, which mainly took the form of publicizing radical ideas and arguing how to incorporate revolutionary concepts into working class organizing. Impatience over the seeming inability of broad coalitions to rein in the war turned into hostility toward the main organizers of mass demos - the CP, SWP, ex-SDSers, left/lib Democrats, and pacifists. The SDS national office opposed the 1968 National Mobilization Cmte and YIP protests as distractions from building a revolutionary movement, and as a trap that would be met by police violence. But the success of the DP convention protests--even with the violence--and the subsequent broadened radicalization, convinced the leadership [by 1968 held by the RYM faction] to turn, not back to coalition building, but to calling their own, more militant, more all-sidedly anti-imperialist national protest for Summer 1969. The 1969 SDS convention saw a split within the split as the Weather faction formed within RYM, which rejected mass organizing, advocating 'exemplary violence' that would 'up the ante' for imperialism [actually for the movement] and inspire a mass violent offensive against the war and state repression. The rest of RYM strongly opposed this and split to form RYM II, but agreed that a national protest was top priority, and that the single-issue antiwar movement was passe. Their goal was to link radicalized white youth with the new revolutionary groups forming in color communities, mostly outside the CP/SWP/PL Comintern tradition. They strongly identified with the working class as the historic agent of revolution, like PL, while embracing the NLF, the Panthers, and Cuba as well as China, unlike PL. Two national actions converged on Chicago in October 1969. The better-known Weather action was a silly putsch involving about 200 full-timers, and a handful of sympathizers. RYM II brought at least 1000 more to a militant, but non-confrontational, multi-issue march. Both were tiny compared to any standard local peace march of the time. It should be noted that until the RYMs failed to draw numbers to Chicago, mass action strategy was taken for granted by all concerned, though some were deluded into thinking, even in that moment of ferment, that a multi-issue national action could be rallied without a broad coalition. Weatherman went into hiding and pulled off some harmless revenge bombings. RYM II dissolved into local groups, leaving behind a nationwide layer of socialist organizers--conscious, maturing, but scattered. ey From markalause at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 14:19:31 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <29486560.1228510348111.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <29486560.1228510348111.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: I'd only amend Ethan's excellent memory with a mild correction of his sweeping comment on the SDS's approach to mass actions after 1969. My memory is that it was all over the map.... We should also remember that the earlier SDS was very much connected to its times, an age of almost naive idealism and faith in the ultimate triumph of democratic values. Many factors contributed to changing that rather quickly, not the least of which was the entire experience of the 1968 elections. That dissaffection with the process itself redefined all these other questions, because it meant that change would not be permitted through simple voting... ML From lueko.willms at t-online.de Fri Dec 5 05:50:50 2008 From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:50:50 +0100 (MEZ) Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream In-Reply-To: References: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta> Message-ID: <100-aa233949-25692.001@lws-media.de> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 21:19:05 -0500, Joaquin Bustelo wrote: > You are, of course, free to believe the earth is flat, Mary was a virgin, Why not? Jesus was the only cloned human we know of. Do you want to deny that? Comradely yours, L?ko Willms Frankfurt, Germany -------------------------------- From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Dec 5 15:11:24 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:11:24 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Doug Henwood, Anwar Shaikh, and financial crisis Message-ID: <4939A70C.7030000@panix.com> My first inclination was to approach last night?s talks by Doug Henwood and Anwar Shaikh as a kind of debate between a Marxist bull and bear. But after Doug began to speak, I was reminded of how serious the situation was. In just about every downturn in the American economy since the early 1990s, Doug has quite rightly identified them as temporary dislocations. With recent events, however, there was little to distinguish him from Anwar Shaikh, a New School economist who has virtually made the falling rate of profit and similarly gloomy topics his own. Referring to his studies of Wall Street past busts, Doug likened the capitalist economy to the Timex wristwatch advertising slogan of the 1960s-?It takes a licking and keeps on ticking?-that was typically spoken after watching a Timex working just fine after being sat upon by an elephant. In the world of capitalist economics, the 1987 stock market crash was one such elephant. After a huge drop, the market picked itself up, dusted itself off, and began to scale new heights. full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/doug-henwood-anwar-shaikh-and-financial-crisis/ From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Dec 5 15:14:38 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:14:38 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Jeffrey Perry to speak on Hubert Harrison in the Bronx Message-ID: <4939A7CE.9040908@panix.com> Hi, I will be speaking on, and signing copies, of my new book Hubert Harrison: The Voice of Harlem Radicalism, 1883-1918 tomorrow, Saturday, December 6, 2008, at 1:00 PM, at Barnes and Noble Bay Plaza, 290 Baychester Avenue, Bronx, NY. Please spread the word to any friends you think may be interested. All best wishes, Jeffrey B. Perry Author of Hubert Harrison: The Voice of Harlem Radicalism, 1883-1918 http://www.jeffreybperry.net From ethanyoung at earthlink.net Fri Dec 5 15:43:25 2008 From: ethanyoung at earthlink.net (Ethan Young) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:43:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers Message-ID: <26352613.1228517005334.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Thank you Mark... >a mild correction of his sweeping comment on the SDS's approach to mass actions after 1969. My memory is that it was all over the map.... There wasn't much remaining of SDS after 1969. If you mean BEFORE 69, to clarify: SDS wasn't that big on demos, but GENERALLY refrained from 'better smaller but more militant' actions off campus. I think everyone appreciated that the hugeness of campus strikes was a major factor in the rise of radicalization. The idea that a mass demo with impure slogans was worse than none at all, came from fringes to the left of the bulk of SDS, who knew better, including the leaders, however naive. From farmelantj at juno.com Fri Dec 5 18:30:59 2008 From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 20:30:59 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] The Method Message-ID: <20081205.203101.2204.1.farmelantj@juno.com> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 05:14:49 -0800 "Gary MacLennan" writes: > Hi Jim, > > You are absolutely right. Pound, Yeats and Eliot spring to mind. > However > for me the most tragic and interesting instance is surely D. H. > Lawrence > with his ambiguous sexuality and his repressed longing for unity > with the > working class - a longing that mirrored his middle class mother's > torturous > relationship with the miner father. Lawrence's feelings of course > developed > into a despair of the working class. Bertrand Russell, who for a time had been very close to D.H. Lawrence, wrote in his Autobiography concerning Lawrence that he "developed the whole philosophy of fascism before the politicians had thought of it.? > > I have often wondered to what extent Lawrence's origins in the > Nottinghamshire miners was crucial here. As far as I know the > Nottingham > miners were always the weakest element in a truly great union. Had > Lawrence > been born in Yorkshire I suspect there would have been less > ambivalence > about the potential of the working class. > > Even though I am only a piece of lumpen psycho trash who doesn't > have a > fucking clue, it is one of my most treasured memories that I was at > Essex > Uuniversity when Scargill came to address the students and ask for > solidarity and help during the great 72 strike. He spoke of "blood > on the > coal" and there were no dry eyes in the audience. But that was in > a > different era - before the Volcker period. > > Volcker Who???? > > regards > > Gary > ____________________________________________________________ Click here to learn more about nursing jobs. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2bVMnrEAy8uO5vp7fmsexabjTDp2lqjqZHDqySKCTT391nh/ From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 19:16:35 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:16:35 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] The Method In-Reply-To: <20081205.203101.2204.1.farmelantj@juno.com> References: <20081205.203101.2204.1.farmelantj@juno.com> Message-ID: Hi Jim, Lawrence as you would know also wrote a novel *Kangaroo* based on his trip down under in 1922. I have never read all of Kangaroo but it does contain interesting stuff about the Australian Fascist movement - the New Guard. Again the same attraction - repulsion "thang" mediated thru repressed homosexual desire. There was something of a minor scandal when it came out here how historically accurate it was. Australians like to impose taboos on their history and notions of the fundamental importance of class conflict are quite simply beyond the pale. It has always amused me that dominant opionion in Australia, a nation built on slavery and genocide, is so ready to label as "un-Australian" radical politics of any kind. I do not read much serious fiction now and I long ago gave up on Lawrence. In many ways he seems all too pre-Stonewall. But that is incredibly unfair, I know. I also have an absolute contempt and hatred for even the faintest trace of an attraction to fascism. Thus I used to get enraged by those who were attracted by Riefenstahl's *Triumph of the Will* . I do though still read Lawrence's poetry, especially the ones about his time as a teacher. The more famous poems such as *Snake* and *Kangaroo* were seemingly influenced by Whitman, but I'm afraid my tastes in poetry run to minimalism and I have never really been able to read and enjoy the Whitman school and that btw includes Ginsberg. best regards Gary From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Dec 5 19:20:47 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] The Method In-Reply-To: References: <20081205.203101.2204.1.farmelantj@juno.com> Message-ID: <20081206022039.099B0DA0E@mailbackend.panix.com> >I do though still read Lawrence's poetry, especially the ones about his time >as a teacher. The more famous poems such as *Snake* and *Kangaroo* were >seemingly influenced by Whitman, but I'm afraid my tastes in poetry run to >minimalism and I have never really been able to read and enjoy the Whitman >school and that btw includes Ginsberg. > >best regards > >Gary For all of his resentment of the upper classes, D.H. Lawrence was no friend of the working class either. (He was described, probably unfairly, as a "radical rightist" in a Guardian blog entry by Terry Eagleton.) His greatest novel "Sons and Lovers" treats the coal miner characters, especially the one based on his own father, as cruel and brutal. Lawrence sought desperately to escape from this world and enter one more attuned to his artistic needs. Politically, he was as appalled by the world of Lord Chatterley as he was by the coal miners he exploited. He was hounded by the authorities during WWI and was even accused of being a German spy. Unlike many other writers who broke the bourgeoisie and identified with the working class in the post-1917 era, Lawrence walked a tightrope between both major classes in society. He was appalled by the British General Strike of 1926 that must have seemed little better than a barroom brawl in his native village when he was growing up. D.H. Lawrence, caught between two worlds In doing some background research on this article, I came across J.M. Coetzee's review of Peter Scheckner's "Class, Politics and the Individual: A Study of the Major Works of D. H. Lawrence" in the January 16, 1986 NY Review of Books, along with other books on Lawrence. Scheckner was a classmate of mine at Bard College, a Marxist literary scholar and an expert on Lawrence. The review is worth quoting in its entirety: In his short book, Peter Scheckner traces the course of Lawrence's political thinking. Scheckner's contention is that Lawrence wrote his best work while he was most deeply engrossed with the question of the relation of private to public life, but that he was unable to reconcile his desire for the end of industrial capitalism with his reluctance to commit himself to mass action to destroy it; he therefore ended his life retreating from social concerns into an idyll in which the importance of sex became artificially magnified. Scheckner is surely correct in his claim that the "thematic dynamism" of much of Lawrence's fiction emerges from an evenly balanced distaste for both capitalism and mass movements, reflected in an ambivalence toward working men which he recognized very clearly in himself: "I love them like brothers?but, my God, I hate them too." Lawrence thought of himself as one of the working class, at least in "blood affinity." But he felt that the British working class betrayed itself by joining in the patriotic fervor of the First World War. When the general strike came in 1926, he recoiled from the violence that went hand in hand with it, as well as from what he regarded as its disappointingly materialistic objectives. As the son of a genteel mother who had married into the working class, and later as a member of a declassed intelligentsia, Lawrence's emotional involvement in class relations was deep. In his writing his great theme is freedom. But about politics and particularly about economics, his ideas are often worse than naive. Had he lived deeper into the age of fascism, he would undoubtedly have made as much of a fool of himself as Ezra Pound was to do: there was certainly in him enough of a mix of furies of hatred (which, to give him his due, he recognized as "vicious against the deep soul that pulses in the blood"), yearning toward the strong man or leader, and utopianism. Lawrence's creative life provides yet another chastening demonstration that simple, even simple-minded ideas, explored to their uttermost with passionate persistence, can issue in great art. Somewhere in the back of his mind Lawrence knew this, knew that his own feelings and desires were mere grist for artistic processes whose operations he had best not interfere with or scrutinize too closely. "Morality in the novel is the trembling instability of the balance," he wrote. "When the novelist puts his thumb on the scale, to pull down the balance to his own predilection, that is immorality." Scheckner's study is most useful when it gives attention to the neglected plays and to the so-called leadership novels: Aaron's Rod, Kangaroo, The Plumed Serpent. It is a rather airless book, concentrating myopically on Lawrence's texts with barely a glance at fellow members of an intelligentsia squeezed, like Lawrence, between a right and a left equally indifferent to their interests. In order to prove that Lawrence jettisoned his working-class sympathies too precipitately in 1914, retreating into a sterile misanthropy, Scheckner presents working-class resistance to the Great War as rather more principled and uniform than it really was?as a reading of his main source, G. D. H. Cole's Short History of the British Working Class Movement, 1789?1947, will confirm. Most surprisingly, Scheckner pays no serious attention to the thesis that Lawrence was never a socialist in embryo, but rather a radical conservative hankering after a preindustrial world of organic agricultural communities and craftsmen. full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/07/08/lady-chatterley/ From tcod at hotmail.com Fri Dec 5 19:29:15 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 02:29:15 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers In-Reply-To: <26352613.1228517005334.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <26352613.1228517005334.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: In that connection as a young high school YSAer at that time, I remember (from the Militant newspaper anyway) that Paul Boutelle, the african-american former SWP vice presidential candidate showed up at the 1969 SDS convention with a contingent of SWP-YSAers handing out a leaflet, "Comrades, Where Were You?" alluding to their ignoring of Mobe mass actions that were organized that April in NYC and SF with a focus on bringing anti-war GIs into the movement. In all fairness to SDS, however, they were still involved in campus strikes, some of which were still quite formidable like the Feb 1969 Harvard Strike. > Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:43:25 -0500 > From: ethanyoung at earthlink.net > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers > To: tcod at hotmail.com > > Thank you Mark... > > >a mild correction of his > sweeping comment on the SDS's approach to mass actions after 1969. My > memory is that it was all over the map.... > > There wasn't much remaining of SDS after 1969. If you mean BEFORE 69, > to clarify: SDS wasn't that big on demos, but GENERALLY refrained from > 'better smaller but more militant' actions off campus. > > I think everyone appreciated that the hugeness of campus strikes was a major > factor in the rise of radicalization. The idea that a mass demo with > impure slogans was worse than none at all, came from fringes to the left of the > bulk of SDS, who knew better, including the leaders, however naive. > > > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tcod%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/ From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 19:55:02 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:55:02 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] The Method In-Reply-To: <20081206022039.099B0DA0E@mailbackend.panix.com> References: <20081205.203101.2204.1.farmelantj@juno.com> <20081206022039.099B0DA0E@mailbackend.panix.com> Message-ID: Lou quotes Coetzee: > Most surprisingly, Scheckner pays no serious attention to the thesis that > Lawrence was never a socialist in embryo, but rather a radical conservative > hankering after a preindustrial world of organic agricultural communities > and craftsmen. > > full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/07/08/lady-chatterley/ > Hi Lou, There is a lot in this that could explain why F.R. Leavis was the key champion of Lawrence's work. Leavis too dreamed off an absent "organic" England i.e. Elizabethan that was somehow mythically free of class conflict. It is one of the great tragedies that Leavis encountered Marxist thought primarily in its Stalinist form, though he was aware of Trotsky's writing on literature and labeled Trotsky as "dangerous" because his views were so appealing. As for Lady Chatterley the scene where she views and desires Mellors body is paralleled in Sons & Lovers where the mother looks at the body of the miner father and desires him. I think Lawrence tended to see the working class through his mother's eyes. There is much in all this about sexual desire across class boundaries and the dialectics of penetration. But really life is too serious... or maybe I'm just too old comradely regards Gary From Dbachmozart at aol.com Fri Dec 5 20:20:52 2008 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:20:52 EST Subject: [Marxism] Climate Change: World War III by another name? Message-ID: clip - As long ago as the 1970s US and European policy makers were aware of the fact that if they were to hold onto their ill-gotten gains something would have to be done about the billions of have-nots who sat on top of resources that ? rightfully? belonged to the West. ??There are only two possible ways in which a world of 10 billion people can be averted. Either the current birth rates must come down more quickly. Or the current death rates must go up. ?There is no other way. ?There are, of course, many ways in which the death rates can go up. In a thermonuclear age, war can accomplish it very quickly and decisively. Famine and disease are nature?s ancient checks on population growth, and neither one has disappeared from the scene?. ?To put it simply: Excessive population growth is the greatest single obstacle to the economic and social advancement of most of the societies in the developing world.? ? Robert McNamara, Oct. 2, 1979 Precisely! The death rates have to go up and what better way to achieve it than to let ?nature? do it for them. It is inconceivable to think that the ruling elites of our planet?s most powerful states have not been aware of the disastrous impact of rampant (and mostly useless) production on the planet?s biosphere, regardless of their public pronouncements. I have said this before and I?ll say it again, the major reason the most powerful states will not take meaningful action to halt the slide is because they realize that climate change is the equivalent to WWIII. What better way to destroy assets than let ?Nature? do it for them? Apr?s la deluge, they figure, they will be able to pick up the pieces, the planet ?cleansed? of the ? surplus? (to capitalism) population and unable to resist the ongoing theft of their resources. Extreme you might say, but is it any more extreme than the death and destruction wrought on the populations of the poor countries of the world over the centuries? full article -- _http://www.creative-i.info/?p=2589_ (http://www.creative-i.info/?p=2589) **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) From Shacht at aol.com Fri Dec 5 20:26:19 2008 From: Shacht at aol.com (Shacht at aol.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:26:19 EST Subject: [Marxism] The Method Message-ID: D.H. Lawrence is certainly an interesting case. As I recall, there was anothe article in the New York Review of Books (unless it was the same Shecker article you referenced) that dealt with Lawrence's anti-democratic strain in conjunction with Yeats, Eliot and one other - perhaps Wynham Lewis? But isn't it these tendencies in tension that make the art? Just as much as the sexual ambivalence apparent in his work, especially Plumed Serpent, his longing for the "red Indian," which appears in other work as well? On the other hand, nostalgia for a real or imagined past does not necessary betoken reactionary sentiment. Certainly William Morris could be said to have hankered after a pre-industrial world of agricultural communities and craftsmen but that doesn't translate of necessity into proto-fascism. **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) From gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 21:28:08 2008 From: gary.maclennan1 at gmail.com (Gary MacLennan) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 20:28:08 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] The Method In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: But isn't it these tendencies in tension that make the art? Just as much > as the sexual > ambivalence apparent in his work, especially Plumed Serpent, his longing > for the > "red Indian," which appears in other work as well? > Probably though I do not like to think so. It is however interesting to look at E. M. Forster's explicitly homosexual wiriting *Maurice* and *The Life to Come* and see that it is arguably inferior to the repressed ambivalent writing in *A Passage to India* for example or a *Room with a View*. Of course all that is a matter of continuing controversy and besides I am not sure what the valuing of the repressed over the explicit says about art & politics! regards Gary From jbustelo at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 21:32:15 2008 From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:32:15 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream In-Reply-To: References: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta> Message-ID: <8B42A3DD16B24EC0B043509DA8D11E78@albanta> Dayne Goodwin writes, as if he were answering what I had said: "It seems to me that if the Obama campaign was in fact a *movement* of the workers and the oppressed it would be manifest in organizations on the ground, at the grass-roots. Where are the organizations of this movement and what are the relationships of accountability between them and Obama?" I will quote AGAIN exactly what I said. > "There is, in U.S. society, a *qualitative* difference between an > Obama, on the one hand, and a Gore, Kerry, Bush, McCain, Dobbs (either > Farrell or Lou) or Timothy McVeigh on the other. It is a difference > that has played a central role in the development of the U.S. social > formation. It is a difference that led to one of the bloodiest and > most significant civil wars in world history. It is a difference that > led to the most powerful social movement by any sector of working and > oppressed people in this country of the modern, post-WWII epoch. > > "Insofar as that difference is concerned, Obama's candidacy was a > result of the conquests of that movement. But it was more --it was > perceived and embraced by the overwhelming, crushing majority of the > protagonists of that movement, the Black community, as an expression > of and part of the movement." Since you seem to have a hard time understanding fairly straightforward declarative sentences, let me analyze it for you. First, there is my assertion that there is a qualitative difference between Obama, on the one hand, and yes, a couple of white politicians of both parties, but also others, everybody from terrorist Timothy McVeigh to racist CNN anchor Lou Dobbs to a revolutionary proletarian leader like Farrel Dobbs. What could that difference be, you wonder? Well I add a hint or two: it was central to the development of the U.S., the civil war and the civil rights movement. If you guessed that the difference I was alluding to is the FACT that Obama is Black, you win the prize. Then comes the next paragraph. Notice especially the first six words: "Insofar as that difference is concerned," in other words, NOT an overall appraisal of Obama but just one aspect. And then comes what I think are factual statements that I, at any rate, consider as sound as saying the world is round and that human beings descended from apes. First, "Obama's candidacy was a result of the conquests of that movement." That is, looking at the fact that a Black man was a leading contender for the presidency, that would not have been possible without the gains won by the Black Civil Rights/Liberation Movement, the Black national movement, the movement of Blacks AS A PEOPLE. And second, "But it was more --it was perceived and embraced by the overwhelming, crushing majority of the protagonists of that movement, the Black community, as an expression of and part of the movement." In other words, not that you and me, but BLACK PEOPLE saw putting Obama into the White House as a part of Black people's historic struggle for equality, inclusion and liberation. And, since the election is now over, I can also report that Black people saw Obama's victory as THEIR OWN victory and specifically in the sense of a victory against white supremacy. That, again, is just A FACT. That is the truth about how Black folks collectively related to this election and evaluated its outcome. I will say, in addition, that I AGREE with them, insofar as that aspect of the campaign and the election are concerned. This was not the ONLY, nor the OVERRIDING, nor the MOST significant thing about Obama's candidacy. There were OTHER significant things, everything from providing a vehicle through which many working and oppressed people expressed their repudiation of the Bush regime and gave a spanking to Bush's Party, to Obama being completely committed to U.S. imperialist interests abroad and capitalist interests at home, to his campaign viewed as an intervention in debates in ruling class political circles to cohere a broad ruling class consensus around a different policy stance and tactical course than that pursued by the Bush administration. And that is just a partial list. You and the other Obamaphobes on this list are unable to recognize and analyze a complex and contradictory social reality. You seek to construct a schema where everything is either good or bad, proletarian or bourgeois. And in your class-reductionist idealism, you simply deny, negate, the protagonism of social forces that don't fit neatly into these categories, specifically in this case, the Black community. That is why I was so careful to go over what I ACTUALLY said. They were factual statements *about the Black community and its attitudes.* You transformed them into statements about the Obama campaign and my attitudes without even being aware of it. You say "if the Obama campaign was a movement" and then posit a completely idealized version of what a movement should look like ("grass roots organizations," "accountability" by Obama and so on) to demonstrate my foolishness. But what I had ACTUALLY said is that it was seen and taken on BY THE BLACK COMMUNITY "as an expression and part" of ITS movement. Blinded by this inability to see the Black community as a distinct social force in this society, you go on to make various assertions AS IF they were responses to what I said. For example, "I don't think that the Obama campaign was "qualitatively" more progressive than the campaigns of other mainstream bourgeois politicians." The use of "qualitatively" here in quotes is outrageous. You make it seem as if I had suggested that Obama was not just programmatically better ("more progressive") than other bourgeois politicians, but "qualitatively" so, whereas, in fact, the statement where I use "qualitative" to refer to a difference between Obama and the others PRECLUDES such an interpretation. I said NOT JUST that there was a qualitative difference between Obama and run-of-the-mill white politicos of various stripes, but that the SAME "qualitative* difference separated Obama from racist windbags, right wing terrorists and proletarian revolutionists. How blinded do you have to be to interpret this as some sort of programmatic pronouncement? MY POINT WAS PRECISELY that the difference was not "programmatic" but SOCIAL. Obama is Black. The others I listed were all white. Then we have this: "With your message on 'the shifting ruling class mainstream' you now acknowledge that Obama is a *mainstream* bourgeois politician but in your new rationalization that's because the mainstream bourgeoisie has come over to support (the qualitatively more progressive) Obama." That's three misrepresentations in one sentence. I don't "now acknowledge that Obama is a *mainstream* bourgeois politician," as if I has anywhere at any time said anything different. I've already dealt with the claim that I view Obama as "qualitatively more progressive." As for my "new" rationalization about the evolution in the "mainstream" bourgeois policy stance, I've been writing about this for almost a year, and so have others on this list, like Fred Feldman. Finally: "And apparently the 'movement' of the workers and oppressed that was integral to the Obama campaign vanished when the campaign ended on election day? Or do you now see President-elect Obama's government-in-formation as a developing political alliance between the workers and oppressed and the mainstream bourgeoisie?" Well, one good question deserves another: Do you think slander isn't really slander if you put it in the form of a question, or are you genuinely incapable of understanding the difference between what you claim I say and what I've actually written? Joaquin From michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Fri Dec 5 21:43:50 2008 From: michael at ecst.csuchico.edu (michael perelman) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:43:50 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Radio Interview Today Message-ID: <493A0306.40108@ecst.csuchico.edu> I just had a wonderful time talking with Kris Welch for the second half of her hour long show on KPFA. She is such an enthusiastic host that she brings out the best in her guests. http://aud1.kpfa.org/data/20081205-Fri1200.mp3 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 From causecollector at msn.com Fri Dec 5 21:55:56 2008 From: causecollector at msn.com (John Obrien) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 20:55:56 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - continues! In-Reply-To: References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <20081203084530.ED7D013A1A@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> <49369583.9090709@panix.com> <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> <20081204000330.487BCD1E8@mailbackend.panix.com> <4937E8BE.3010706@panix.com> Message-ID: Mark, You miss the point of this discussion. It was started over SDS not being involved in the Vietnam Anti-War Movement after its April 17, 1965 Washington DC protest - which is what the US SWP leadership said - and which my point was that was not true and showed the US SWP Sectarianism. It had nothing to do with the US SWP having a correct political line on building massive anti-war demnstrations - it is just that is not all that brought the US government defeat in Vietnam - there was of course the Vietnamese who are the most repsonsible for their victory and my point was and remains that SDS and other leftists outside of the US SWP also did important work and effects for the US to stop militarily attacking Vietnam and South East Asia in the 1970's. (The U. S. continued their attacks by then reversing their previous position and supporting the Khmer Rouge against the pro-Vietnamese Cambodian government that overthrew the Khmer Rouge!) And your part of this discussion was challenging the size of the Nov. 15, 1969 protest at the (In)Justice Department, which I said you were wrong on and was very large - and then you said what happened to all those anti-imperialsists and anti-capitalists who were there - and I replied that many are still active in many issues and are larger in number than what is today left of the US SWP membership. Why are these two points not possible to accept - and just admit that you might have made a mistake or two - and did not know everything about the Vietnam antiwar Movement and what happened to those involved in it? I like most everything else you write on this list - and read everything you do send to it - so it is okay to be wrong sometimes - and when I gave the factual evidence and dates and the archives you can get these references and resources from - will that not do - instead of trying to change the subject and ignore the points and facts I stated? In solidarity, John O'Brien > Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 07:30:32 -0500> From: markalause at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers> To: causecollector at msn.com> > I suspect that Louis was talking about the SDS's activities in an> antiwar movement, but the real problem here seems to be the> imprecision in discussing the SDS. I don't see how anyone this side> of Wikipedia or something can fail to understand the absolute> necessity of distinguishing between the SDS before 1969 and what it> became afterwards.> > This is because, even on the most superficial level....> > * the turnover implicit in a genuinely student-based group meant that> the organization had little continuity of personnel> > * the splits blasted away the base of the organization and created new> leaderships that weren't there. (I mean this on every level...and from> any angle...the personnel, structures, functions of SDS leadership> after 1969 was unprecedented in the SDS's early history.)> > * the splits changed what was left of the organization in terms of its> ideology and its adoption of a hard doctrinal approach to politics.> > SDS after 1969 had different members, different leaders and different> ideas than the SDS before 1969. For this reason, confounding the SDS> before 1969 with the SDS after 1969 is almost as imprecise and as> pointless as confusing the Socialist Workers Party with the Socialist> Labor Party.> > ML> > ________________________________________________> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/causecollector%40msn.com From lnp3 at panix.com Fri Dec 5 22:10:49 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:10:49 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream In-Reply-To: <8B42A3DD16B24EC0B043509DA8D11E78@albanta> References: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta> <8B42A3DD16B24EC0B043509DA8D11E78@albanta> Message-ID: <20081206051041.06BEADB73@mailbackend.panix.com> >Do you think slander isn't really slander if you put it in the form of a >question, or are you genuinely incapable of understanding the difference >between what you claim I say and what I've actually written? > >Joaquin Joaquin, maybe it is time for you to give some consideration to why people are so woefully incapable of coming around to your point of view here. In the past, I have had similarly frustrating experiences on other mailing lists where subscribers were not on my wave length. There were a lot of charges and counter-charges that led nowhere, except maybe going around in circles. At the heart of politics, and especially revolutionary politics, is finding people who see the world in the same way you do more or less. Chastising them for being either too stupid or too racially insensitive is not likely to convert them. It will only make them hate you, to be quite honest. I admire your combative attitude but question whether it is the most productive use of your political acumen and writing skills. Maybe it is time to just agree to disagree on these issues, in the same way that Solidarity learned not to fight over the "Russian questions", if you gather my drift. From causecollector at msn.com Fri Dec 5 22:17:11 2008 From: causecollector at msn.com (John Obrien) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 21:17:11 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history? In-Reply-To: <29486560.1228510348111.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <29486560.1228510348111.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Ethan, I do not agree with what you wrote below as to being accurate on SDS history. The SDS did NOT oppose the Chicago August 1968 protests at the Democratic Party Convention. Look at who were SDS members among the Chicago 8 Defendants - and see that SDS put out posters around that protest. A number of SDSers may have politically opposed the National Mobilization Committee and some may have opposed YIP (Yippie) - but I do not remeber them urging their members to not protest the war and the other demands raised by SCLC the Black Panther PArty and other groups who were there to protest? What is the source for this? I also do not agree what was stated that PL was anti-China (meaning against the Chinese CP leadership). PL at the 1969 SDS Split SUPPORTED Mao and the Chinese Communist Party leadership. PL chanted Mao Mao Mao Tse Tung to respond to the RYM and others who chanted Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh! Again what is the source for your stating PL in June 1969 was anti-China? I also do not agree with what you wrote about the differences of RYM I and RYM II splitting. It is not accurate in my opinion. And what source can you give me about RYM II having a demonstration of a thousand people at a multi issue march at that period of time? The RYM I demonstration in August 1969 on the First Anniversary of the Chicago 1968 Convention protests had less than a thousand and RYM II was not larger then in membership than RYM I. RYM I lost supporters (such as myself) went it went underground and became the Weath Underground. Please let us have the source of this history you list - since I do want to learn about that RYM II march and what date and where. I will include in the historical text I have assembled on progressive world history - but I need the source and if any materials can be found to verify this - or people then involved who can verify this. I know many people in RYM I and RYM II still, so just email me off the list if you do not want to state on this list the sources for this information you listed. Finally RYM II did not dissolve into local groups. The alrgest faction as I had wrote yesterday in my email - that you may want to more carefully read - said that the majority of RYM II (after Klonsky and what became the OL left) would become the RCP which still exists today and is NOT a local group! Again, what is your source for this statement on RYM II just becoming local groups? Comradely, John O'Brien> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:52:27 -0500> From: ethanyoung at earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers> To: causecollector at msn.com> > To add historical detail to this thread: > > By 1969 the transformation of SDS --from a > free-wheeling, left-reformist group closely > mirroring the development of [largely white] > student radicalization, especially in the > northeast, west and midwest, into a left-socialist > organization with organized factions strongly > identifying with one or another Leninism--> was complete. The three main factions [PL, RYM, > and the tiny third-camp ISC] all identified > with mass action strategies, including in the antiwar> movement. > > SDS played a big role in reviving mass demos> with the surprise success of their national> anti-Viet war rally in 1965. That success,> and the mass spread of antiwar sentiment [and SDS > growth] that followed, put a subjectivist kink in > the messianic mindset of SDS leadership. This > inhibited the group's ability to come to grips > with internal and external challenges:> > -The concerted and ultimately successful rule-or-ruin> campaign by PL [successful because they did effectively> out-organize other groups at the 1969 convention, > and then went on to ruin their own half of the split].> > -The post-King massification of black consciousness and > the mass ghetto uprisings, which led to new black-led> revolutionary formations, including but not limited to> the Panther Party, which in turn inspired similar groups> among Latino and Asian youth.> > -Intensified state repression against the entire left, > from infiltration to psy-ops to assassinations.> > In this setting, SDSers felt an increased responsibility> for more militance, which mainly took the form of > publicizing radical ideas and arguing how to incorporate> revolutionary concepts into working class organizing. > Impatience over the seeming inability of broad coalitions > to rein in the war turned into hostility toward the main > organizers of mass demos - the CP, SWP, ex-SDSers, > left/lib Democrats, and pacifists.> > The SDS national office opposed the 1968 National > Mobilization Cmte and YIP protests as distractions from > building a revolutionary movement, and as a trap that would > be met by police violence. But the success of the DP convention> protests--even with the violence--and the subsequent broadened> radicalization, convinced the leadership [by 1968 held by> the RYM faction] to turn, not back to coalition building,> but to calling their own, more militant, more all-sidedly> anti-imperialist national protest for Summer 1969.> > The 1969 SDS convention saw a split within the split as the > Weather faction formed within RYM, which rejected mass> organizing, advocating 'exemplary violence' that would> 'up the ante' for imperialism [actually for the movement]> and inspire a mass violent offensive against the war and state > repression. > > The rest of RYM strongly opposed this and split to > form RYM II, but agreed that a national protest was top > priority, and that the single-issue antiwar movement was passe. > Their goal was to link radicalized white youth with > the new revolutionary groups forming in color communities, > mostly outside the CP/SWP/PL Comintern tradition. They strongly> identified with the working class as the historic agent of> revolution, like PL, while embracing the NLF, the Panthers, > and Cuba as well as China, unlike PL.> > Two national actions converged on Chicago in October 1969.> The better-known Weather action was a silly putsch involving> about 200 full-timers, and a handful of sympathizers. RYM II> brought at least 1000 more to a militant, but non-confrontational,> multi-issue march. Both were tiny compared to any standard local> peace march of the time.> > It should be noted that until the RYMs failed to draw numbers to > Chicago, mass action strategy was taken for granted by all > concerned, though some were deluded into thinking, even in that > moment of ferment, that a multi-issue national action could be > rallied without a broad coalition. Weatherman went into hiding > and pulled off some harmless revenge bombings. RYM II dissolved > into local groups, leaving behind a nationwide layer of socialist > organizers--conscious, maturing, but scattered.> > ey From tcod at hotmail.com Fri Dec 5 22:20:11 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:20:11 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history? In-Reply-To: References: <29486560.1228510348111.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: > From: causecollector at msn.com > Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 21:17:11 -0800 > Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history? > To: tcod at hotmail.com > > > Ethan, > > I do not agree with what you wrote below as to being accurate on SDS history. > > The SDS did NOT oppose the Chicago August 1968 protests at the Democratic Party Convention. > Look at who were SDS members among the Chicago 8 Defendants - and see that SDS put out posters around that protest. A number of SDSers may have politically opposed the National Mobilization Committee and some may have opposed YIP (Yippie) - but I do not remeber them urging their members to not protest the war and the other demands raised by SCLC the Black Panther PArty and other groups who were there to protest? > > What is the source for this? > > I also do not agree what was stated that PL was anti-China (meaning against the Chinese CP leadership). > PL at the 1969 SDS Split SUPPORTED Mao and the Chinese Communist Party leadership. PL chanted Mao Mao Mao Tse Tung to respond to the RYM and others who chanted Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh! > > Again what is the source for your stating PL in June 1969 was anti-China? > > I also do not agree with what you wrote about the differences of RYM I and RYM II splitting. It is not accurate in my opinion. And what source can you give me about RYM II having a demonstration of a thousand people at a multi issue march at that period of time? The RYM I demonstration in August 1969 on the First Anniversary of the Chicago 1968 Convention protests had less than a thousand and RYM II was not larger then in membership than RYM I. RYM I lost supporters (such as myself) went it went underground and became the Weath Underground. > > Please let us have the source of this history you list - since I do want to learn about that RYM II march and what date and where. I will include in the historical text I have assembled on progressive world history - but I need the source and if any materials can be found to verify this - or people then involved who can verify this. I know many people in RYM I and RYM II still, so just email me off the list if you do not want to state on this list the sources for this information you listed. > > Finally RYM II did not dissolve into local groups. The alrgest faction as I had wrote yesterday in my email - that you may want to more carefully read - said that the majority of RYM II (after Klonsky and what became the OL left) would become the RCP which still exists today and is NOT a local group! > > Again, what is your source for this statement on RYM II just becoming local groups? > > Comradely, > > John O'Brien> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:52:27 -0500> From: ethanyoung at earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers> To: causecollector at msn.com> > To add historical detail to this thread: > > By 1969 the transformation of SDS --from a > free-wheeling, left-reformist group closely > mirroring the development of [largely white] > student radicalization, especially in the > northeast, west and midwest, into a left-socialist > organization with organized factions strongly > identifying with one or another Leninism--> was complete. The three main factions [PL, RYM, > and the tiny third-camp ISC] all identified > with mass action strategies, including in the antiwar> movement. > > SDS played a big role in reviving mass demos> with the surprise success of their national> anti-Viet war rally in 1965. That success,> and the mass spread of antiwar sentiment [and SDS > growth] that followed, put a subjectivist kink in > the messianic mindset of SDS leadership. This > inhibited the group's ability to come to grips > with internal and external challenges:> > -The concerted and ultimately successful rule-or-ruin> campaign by PL [successful because they did effectively> out-organize other groups at the 1969 convention, > and then went on to ruin their own half of the split].> > -The post-King massification of black consciousness and > the mass ghetto uprisings, which led to new black-led> revolutionary formations, including but not limited to> the Panther Party, which in turn inspired similar groups> among Latino and Asian youth.> > -Intensified state repression against the entire left, > from infiltration to psy-ops to assassinations.> > In this setting, SDSers felt an increased responsibility> for more militance, which mainly took the form of > publicizing radical ideas and arguing how to incorporate> revolutionary concepts into working class organizing. > Impatience over the seeming inability of broad coalitions > to rein in the war turned into hostility toward the main > organizers of mass demos - the CP, SWP, ex-SDSers, > left/lib Democrats, and pacifists.> > The SDS national office opposed the 1968 National > Mobilization Cmte and YIP protests as distractions from > building a revolutionary movement, and as a trap that would > be met by police violence. But the success of the DP convention> protests--even with the violence--and the subsequent broadened> radicalization, convinced the leadership [by 1968 held by> the RYM faction] to turn, not back to coalition building,> but to calling their own, more militant, more all-sidedly> anti-imperialist national protest for Summer 1969.> > The 1969 SDS convention saw a split within the split as the > Weather faction formed within RYM, which rejected mass> organizing, advocating 'exemplary violence' that would> 'up the ante' for imperialism [actually for the movement]> and inspire a mass violent offensive against the war and state > repression. > > The rest of RYM strongly opposed this and split to > form RYM II, but agreed that a national protest was top > priority, and that the single-issue antiwar movement was passe. > Their goal was to link radicalized white youth with > the new revolutionary groups forming in color communities, > mostly outside the CP/SWP/PL Comintern tradition. They strongly> identified with the working class as the historic agent of> revolution, like PL, while embracing the NLF, the Panthers, > and Cuba as well as China, unlike PL.> > Two national actions converged on Chicago in October 1969.> The better-known Weather action was a silly putsch involving> about 200 full-timers, and a handful of sympathizers. RYM II> brought at least 1000 more to a militant, but non-confrontational,> multi-issue march. Both were tiny compared to any standard local> peace march of the time.> > It should be noted that until the RYMs failed to draw numbers to > Chicago, mass action strategy was taken for granted by all > concerned, though some were deluded into thinking, even in that > moment of ferment, that a multi-issue national action could be > rallied without a broad coalition. Weatherman went into hiding > and pulled off some harmless revenge bombings. RYM II dissolved > into local groups, leaving behind a nationwide layer of socialist > organizers--conscious, maturing, but scattered.> > ey > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tcod%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/ From tcod at hotmail.com Fri Dec 5 22:30:38 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:30:38 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history? In-Reply-To: References: <29486560.1228510348111.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Leaving aside to whom this view should be attributed, you are right, SDS didn't oppose that, but the SWP did! I know because I was there. I remember being outside the Conrad Hilton when the shit came down and then the rally the next day with Eugene McCarthy, Dick Gregory, Peter Paul & Mary and Phil Ochs. The SWP, out of sectarian timidity influenced by the presence of FBI informant Ed Heisler as one its local leaders, backed out of and walked away from this protest and bad mouthed it later, except for a contingent of YSAers led by Carl Finamore, on the basis that it was "ultraleft" and might provoke violence. Well, actually it was a peaceful mass protest like the one in Selma in 1965, so I guess Walter Cronkite was to the left of Peter Camejo on that one at that point, because as a presidential commission appointed by LBJ concluded: it was a police riot.. Sad. > From: causecollector at msn.com > Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 21:17:11 -0800 > Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history? > To: tcod at hotmail.com > > > Ethan, > > I do not agree with what you wrote below as to being accurate on SDS history. > > The SDS did NOT oppose the Chicago August 1968 protests at the Democratic Party Convention. > Look at who were SDS members among the Chicago 8 Defendants - and see that SDS put out posters around that protest. A number of SDSers may have politically opposed the National Mobilization Committee and some may have opposed YIP (Yippie) - but I do not remeber them urging their members to not protest the war and the other demands raised by SCLC the Black Panther PArty and other groups who were there to protest? > > _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_anywhere_122008 From causecollector at msn.com Fri Dec 5 22:33:14 2008 From: causecollector at msn.com (John Obrien) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 21:33:14 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - update again! In-Reply-To: References: <26352613.1228517005334.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Actually it was Peter Camejo who came to the 1969 SDS Convention in Chicago at the armory and I watched him debate Bob Avakian in the back of that large hall for about a half hour - and it was great to be able to lsiten to those two at each other. I did not remember seeing Paul Boutelle (who I knew), but he may have just shown up for a small time to pass out some flyers and then left. There were a few SWP/YSA members who came in but they played no part in those events - but it showed that the Chicago and National SWP considered SDS still existing and active in the Summer of 1969 - which contradicts Louis and MArk in their recent emails challenging me that I was wrong in saying that SDS was not active in 1969!!!! I assume the Paul Boutelle letter to the SDS Convention is in some archives - and I submit that as more evidence there was SDS activities in 1969. The real SDS ended at that June Convention in 1969 and PLP then assumed the name for a few more years - and attacked an NPAC National Convention in 1972 at Hunter College using the SDS name and tried to storm the January 20, 1973 Inaugural Antiwar protest that the SWP was very much in the eladership of - agains in the SDS name and not as PLP. That is history and not interpretations to the sectarian politcs of the SWP that hated SDS getting media attention for all their campsu actions and local protests. Was anyone on this list at that great anti-Dean Rusk Vietanm anti-war demonstration that thousands attended in New York City at the Hilton Hotel. I would like that yellow on black square sticker if anyone should have it. I placed mine on my old apartment door (before I started to seriously collect these artifacts - and still need it!) And would that demonstration in 1968 count as showing that SDS was holding Vietnam antiwar actions and doing antiwar organizing? Oh that would not fit in with what the SWP ledership was saying that SDS was not active against that war after April 17, 1965 nd organized no demosntrations!!! Sure just make new history and ignore what really was. Many sectarian groups do this - and many so called historians not involved in this and many other movements write what they want in a very lazy and incomplete and historicall inaccurate way - and will quote an unreliable source as their "facts" on Left history. Louis and Mark were you at the 1968 anti-Dean Rusk dmeonstration at the Hilton Hotel in New York City? In solidarity, John O'Brien > From: tcod at hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 02:29:15 +0000> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers> To: causecollector at msn.com> > > In that connection as a young high school YSAer at that time, I remember (from the > Militant newspaper anyway) that Paul Boutelle, the african-american former SWP vice presidential candidate> showed up at the 1969 SDS convention with a contingent of SWP-YSAers handing out a > leaflet, "Comrades, Where Were You?" alluding to their ignoring of Mobe mass> actions that were organized that April in NYC and SF with a focus on bringing> anti-war GIs into the movement. In all fairness to SDS, however, they were still> involved in campus strikes, some of which were still quite formidable like the Feb> 1969 Harvard Strike. > > > Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:43:25 -0500> > From: ethanyoung at earthlink.net> > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers> > To: tcod at hotmail.com> > > > Thank you Mark...> > > > >a mild correction of his> > sweeping comment on the SDS's approach to mass actions after 1969. My > > memory is that it was all over the map....> > > > There wasn't much remaining of SDS after 1969. If you mean BEFORE 69, > > to clarify: SDS wasn't that big on demos, but GENERALLY refrained from > > 'better smaller but more militant' actions off campus. > > > > I think everyone appreciated that the hugeness of campus strikes was a major > > factor in the rise of radicalization. The idea that a mass demo with > > impure slogans was worse than none at all, came from fringes to the left of the > > bulk of SDS, who knew better, including the leaders, however naive. > > > > > > > From causecollector at msn.com Fri Dec 5 22:42:46 2008 From: causecollector at msn.com (John Obrien) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 21:42:46 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - more history of SWP sectarianism in the Vietnam antiwar movement In-Reply-To: References: <29486560.1228510348111.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Comrade Cod, I do agree with you that the SWP Did oppose the August 1968 Protests at the Democratic Convention. I was in the YSA at that time and told NOT to go to Chicago and be part of the protests. The SMC had split soon before that and the CP and pacifists walked out - and the 5th Avenue Peace Parade Committee and other regional peace groups sided with the CP and the SWP left those regional groups at this time - many times being forced to leave other times voluntarily leaving to form their eventual new national group and local affiliates that they totally controlled and prefer over the larger previous coalitions. That new national groups was NPAC formed in 1970. It is again more evidence about what I said that there were other groups outside SWP and mass actions that were important in the Vietnam Anti-war Movement. The SWP had the correct political line about building mass demosntrations - but they were sectarian and not willing to work or support groups to the left of the CP that were active and doing things - because they wanted to recruit people MORE than being in soldiarity with another left group with different politics and would rather form a coalition with ADA than with SDS!!!!! Those are the sorry facts! John O'Brien> From: tcod at hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:30:38 +0000> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history?> To: causecollector at msn.com> > > Leaving aside to whom this view should be attributed, you are right, SDS didn't oppose that, > but the SWP did! I know because I was there. I remember being outside the Conrad Hilton > when the shit came down and then the rally the next day with Eugene McCarthy, Dick Gregory,> Peter Paul & Mary and Phil Ochs.> > The SWP, out of sectarian timidity influenced by the presence of FBI informant Ed Heisler as one its local leaders, > backed out of and walked away from this protest and bad mouthed it later, except for a contingent of YSAers led by Carl Finamore, > on the basis that it was "ultraleft" and might provoke violence. Well, actually it was a peaceful mass protest like the one in Selma in 1965, > so I guess Walter Cronkite was to the left of Peter Camejo on that one at that point, because as a presidential commission > appointed by LBJ concluded: it was a police riot.. Sad.> > > From: causecollector at msn.com> > Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 21:17:11 -0800> > Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history?> > To: tcod at hotmail.com> > > > > > Ethan,> > > > I do not agree with what you wrote below as to being accurate on SDS history.> > > > The SDS did NOT oppose the Chicago August 1968 protests at the Democratic Party Convention.> > Look at who were SDS members among the Chicago 8 Defendants - and see that SDS put out posters around that protest. A number of SDSers may have politically opposed the National Mobilization Committee and some may have opposed YIP (Yippie) - but I do not remeber them urging their members to not protest the war and the other demands raised by SCLC the Black Panther PArty and other groups who were there to protest?> > > >> From tcod at hotmail.com Fri Dec 5 22:43:28 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:43:28 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - update again! In-Reply-To: References: <26352613.1228517005334.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: What's up with Bob Avakian now? He became somewhat of an ultraleft cult figure in the 80s as the leader of the RCP after the "menshevik split" of Mickey Jarvis et. al. At that point they also got hegemony in a section of VVAW. The RCP's website is: http://www.rwor.org/ > Actually it was Peter Camejo who came to the 1969 SDS Convention in Chicago at the armory and I watched him debate Bob Avakian in the back of that large hall for about a half hour - and it was great to be able to lsiten to those two at each other. I did not remember seeing Paul Boutelle (who I knew), but he may have just shown up for a small time to pass out some flyers and then left. There were a few SWP/YSA members who came in but they played no part in those events - but it showed that the Chicago and National SWP considered SDS still existing and active in the Summer of 1969 - which contradicts Louis and MArk in their recent emails challenging me that I was wrong in saying that SDS was not active in 1969!!!! > utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tcod%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/ From tcod at hotmail.com Fri Dec 5 22:46:04 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:46:04 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - more history of SWP sectarianism in the Vietnam antiwar movement In-Reply-To: References: <29486560.1228510348111.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: but don't forget that the anti-war movement was able to overcome these differences for the big protests in 1969 and 1971 through the New Mobe-SMC-Moratorium coalition and the NPAC/PCPJ actions. > From: causecollector at msn.com > Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 21:42:46 -0800 > Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - more history of SWP sectarianism in the Vietnam antiwar movement > To: tcod at hotmail.com > > > Comrade Cod, > > I do agree with you that the SWP Did oppose the August 1968 Protests at the Democratic Convention. I was in the YSA at that time and told NOT to go to Chicago and be part of the protests. The SMC had split soon before that and the CP and pacifists walked out - and the 5th Avenue Peace Parade Committee and other regional peace groups sided with the CP and the SWP left those regional groups at this time - many times being forced to leave other times voluntarily leaving to form their eventual new national group and local affiliates that they totally controlled and prefer over the larger previous coalitions. That new national groups was NPAC formed in 1970. > > It is again more evidence about what I said that there were other groups outside SWP and mass actions that were important in the Vietnam Anti-war Movement. The SWP had the correct political line about building mass demosntrations - but they were sectarian and not willing to work or support groups to the left of the CP that were active and doing things - because they wanted to recruit people MORE than being in soldiarity with another left group with different politics and would rather form a coalition with ADA than with SDS!!!!! > > Those are the sorry facts! > > John O'Brien> From: tcod at hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:30:38 +0000> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history?> To: causecollector at msn.com> > > Leaving aside to whom this view should be attributed, you are right, SDS didn't oppose that, > but the SWP did! I know because I was there. I remember being outside the Conrad Hilton > when the shit came down and then the rally the next day with Eugene McCarthy, Dick Gregory,> Peter Paul & Mary and Phil Ochs.> > The SWP, out of sectarian timidity influenced by the presence of FBI informant Ed Heisler as one its local leaders, > backed out of and walked away from this protest and bad mouthed it later, except for a contingent of YSAers led by Carl Finamore, > on the basis that it was "ultraleft" and might provoke violence. Well, actually it was a peaceful mass protest like the one in Selma in 1965, > so I guess Walter Cronkite was to the left of Peter Camejo on that one at that point, because as a presidential commission > appointed by LBJ concluded: it was a police riot.. Sad.> > > From: causecollector at msn.com> > Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 21:17:11 -0800> > Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history?> > To: tcod at hotmail.com> > > > > > Ethan,> > > > I do not agree with what you wrote below as to being accurate on SDS history.> > > > The SDS did NOT oppose the Chicago August 1968 protests at the Democratic Party Convention.> > Look at who were SDS members among the Chicago 8 Defendants - and see that SDS put out posters around that protest. A number of SDSers may have politically opposed the National Mobilization Committee and some may have opposed YIP (Yippie) - but I do not remeber them urging their members to not protest the war and the other demands raised by SCLC the Black Panther PArty and other groups who were there to protest?> > > >> > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tcod%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Suspicious message? There?s an alert for that. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad2_122008 From ethanyoung at earthlink.net Fri Dec 5 23:52:20 2008 From: ethanyoung at earthlink.net (Ethan Young) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 01:52:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history? Message-ID: <22400026.1228546340350.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> John, you write: >The SDS did NOT oppose the Chicago August 1968 protests at the Democratic Party Convention. Look at who were SDS members among the Chicago 8 Defendants - and see that SDS put out posters around that protest. A number of SDSers may have politically opposed the National Mobilization Committee and some may have opposed YIP (Yippie) - but I do not remeber them urging their members to not protest the war and the other demands raised by SCLC the Black Panther PArty and other groups who were there to protest? Mike Klonsky, then Natl Secretary, wrote a prominent piece in New Left Notes titled "Don't Take Your Guns to Town' [after a Johnny Cash song] discouraging participation in the convention protest. The Chicago 8 included several ex-SDSers but they did not represent SDS--and in fact they could not, even if they had been current members. Of course many SDSers did go, including Bill Ayers, who found a model for practice in the experience of street fighting. >I also do not agree what was stated that PL was anti-China (meaning against the Chinese CP leadership). Right. I wrote '...while embracing the NLF, the Panthers, and Cuba as well as China, unlike PL.' That is, RYM II and PL supported China; but RYM II supported the others as well, unlike PL. [As did the Weather folks.] Sorry if my language was confusing. >I also do not agree with what you wrote about the differences of RYM I and RYM II splitting. It is not accurate in my opinion. Unfortunately while there are now perhaps a dozen books on Weatherman, very little documentation exists on RYM II. IMO, the latter group was much less sexy and its old leaders have kept a low profile, unlike Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. RYM II also louses up the argument that after SDS fell apart, student radicalism degenerated into mindless violence. RYM II split from Weather over the issue of working class organizing and the demands -- particularly those not explicitly anti-imperialist -- such work requires. If you can find the Weather-controlled New Left Notes/The Fire Next Time from 1969, the polemic between RYM II on Weather over the Oct. 69 national action made waves in the movement at the time. >And what source can you give me about RYM II having a demonstration of a thousand people at a multi issue march at that period of time? The RYM I demonstration in August 1969 on the First Anniversary of the Chicago 1968 Convention protests had less than a thousand and RYM II was not larger then in membership than RYM I. Interesting, huh? Weatherman was bigger than RYM II, yet RYM II brought more people to Chicago for their concurrent action. How could that be? I grew up in Chicago and was active there in 1969, with friends in both RYMs, though at the time I identified more with Weather. A useful Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Rage] cites 3 books after noting: 'Supporters of the Revolutionary Youth Movement II (RYM II), led by Klonsky and Noel Ignatin, held peaceful rallies of several hundred people in front of the federal courthouse, an International Harvester factory, and Cook County Hospital. The largest event of the Days of Rage occurred on Friday, October 9, when RYM II led a an interracial march of 2,000 people through a Spanish-speaking part of Chicago. At the October 9 RYM II rally at the federal courthouse Black Panther leader Fred Hampton disassociated his group from Weatherman, saying, "We do not support people who are anarchistic, opportunistic, adventuristic, and Custeristic."' That jibes with my recollection. I wish I owned more histories, especially Kirk Sale's SDS and Ron Jacobs's The Way the Wind Blew. >Finally RYM II did not dissolve into local groups. The alrgest faction as I had wrote yesterday in my email - that you may want to more carefully read - said that the majority of RYM II (after Klonsky and what became the OL left) would become the RCP which still exists today and is NOT a local group! I read it. In 1969 the Revolutionary Union was a local collective in the SF Bay Area that joined SDS that year specifically to help fight their common factional enemy, PL. They joined forces with RYM II against Weather but maintained a separate organization when RYM II tried [unsuccessfully] to keep a national group together after the October [not August] 69 actions. When RYM II dissolved in 1970 the RU was still just beginning to do national outreach. All the surviving groups were local. See Elbaum's Revolution in the Air. From markalause at gmail.com Sat Dec 6 00:04:19 2008 From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 02:04:19 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - continues! In-Reply-To: References: <49358FA8.80507@panix.com> <547DDF107FEC4C2F820EDF1BF918E6D5@dmsthinkpad> <20081204000330.487BCD1E8@mailbackend.panix.com> <4937E8BE.3010706@panix.com> Message-ID: John, You say that I missed the point of the discussion and then corrected me on on the nature of the SWP's line and the fate of the November 15, 1969 protesters, adding that I should admit that I'm wrong. If this correction is merited, I must have also missed the point of my post, which: 1) said absolutely nothing about the SWP, other than a throwaway line mentioning it in connection to the SLP; and, 2) said nothing about what became of the November 15, 1969 protesters. Perhaps the entire subject is sparking flashbacks, because I don't recall even thinking about these things when I posted what were intended to be only some observations, by another old SDSer, of the differences before and after 1969. Still, if I missed the point of the discussion and the point of my own post, I'm sure I must, indeed, be wrong.... ML From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Dec 6 06:22:29 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:22:29 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] The return of socialism Message-ID: <20081206132219.57CE4DCF2@mailbackend.panix.com> http://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2008/12/socialist-party-socialism Socialism's comeback Neil Clark Published 04 December 2008 At the beginning of the century, the chances of socialism making a return looked close to zero. Yet now, all around Europe, the red flag is flying again "If socialism signifies a political and economic system in which the government controls a large part of the economy and redistributes wealth to produce social equality, then I think it is safe to say the likelihood of its making a comeback any time in the next generation is close to zero," wrote Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History, in Time magazine in 2000. He should take a trip around Europe today. Make no mistake, socialism - pure, unadulterated socialism, an ideology that was taken for dead by liberal capitalists - is making a strong comeback. Across the continent, there is a definite trend in which long-established parties of the centre left that bought in to globalisation and neoliberalism are seeing their electoral dominance challenged by unequivocally socialist parties which have not. The parties in question offer policies which mark a clean break from the Thatcherist agenda that many of Europe's centre-left parties have embraced over the past 20 years. They advocate renationalisation of privatised state enterprises and a halt to further liberalisation of the public sector. They call for new wealth taxes to be imposed and for a radical redistribution of wealth. They defend the welfare state and the rights of all citizens to a decent pension and free health care. They strongly oppose war - and any further expansion of Nato. Most fundamentally of all, they challenge an economic system in which the interests of ordinary working people are subordinated to those of capital. Nowhere is this new leftward trend more apparent than in Germany, home to the meteoric rise of Die Linke ("The Left"), a political grouping formed only 18 months ago - and co-led by the veteran socialist "Red" Oskar Lafontaine, a long-standing scourge of big business. The party, already the main opposition to the Christian Democrats in eastern Germany, has made significant inroads into the vote for the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in elections to western parliaments this year, gaining representation in Lower Saxony, Hamburg and Hesse. Die Linke's unapologetically socialist policies, which include the renation alisation of electricity and gas, the banning of hedge funds and the introduction of a maximum wage, chime with a population concerned at the dismantling of Germany's mixed economic model and the adoption of Anglo-Saxon capitalism - a shift that occurred while the SPD was in government. An opinion poll last year showed that 45 per cent of west Germans (and 57 per cent of east Germans) consider socialism "a good idea"; in October, another poll showed that Germans overwhelmingly favour nationalisation of large segments of the economy. Two-thirds of all Germans say they agree with all or some of Die Linke's programme. It's a similar story of left-wing revival in neighbouring Holland. There the Socialist Party of the Netherlands (SP), which almost trebled its parliamentary representation in the most recent general election (2006), and which made huge gains in last year's provincial elections, continues to make headway. Led by a charismatic 41-year-old epidemiologist, Agnes Kant, the SP is on course to surpass the Dutch Labour Party, a member of the ruling conservative-led coalition, as the Netherlands' main left-of centre grouping. The SP has gained popularity by being the only left-wing Dutch parliamentary party to campaign for a "No" vote during the 2005 referendum on the EU constitutional treaty and for its opposition to large-scale immigration, which it regards as being part of a neoliberal package that encourages flexible labour markets. The party calls for a society where the values of "human dignity, equality and solidarity" are most prominent, and has been scathing in its attacks on what it describes as "the culture of greed", brought about by "a capitalism based on inflated bonuses and easy money". Like Die Linke, the SP campaigns on a staunchly anti-war platform - demanding an end to Holland's role as "the US's lapdog". In Greece, the party on the up is the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA), the surprise package in last year's general election. As public opposition to the neoliberal econo mic policies of the ruling New Democracy government builds, SYRIZA's opinion-poll ratings have risen to almost 20 per cent - putting it within touching distance of PASOK, the historical left-of-centre opposition, which has lurched sharply to the right in recent years. SYRIZA is particularly popular with young voters: its support among those aged 35 and under stands at roughly 30 per cent in the polls, ahead of PASOK. In Norway, socialists are already in power; the ruling "red-green" coalition consists of the Socialist Left Party, the Labour Party and the Centre Party. Since coming to power three years ago, the coalition - which has been labelled the most left-wing government in Europe, has halted the privatisation of state-owned companies and made further development of the welfare state, public health care and improving care for the elderly its priorities. The success of such forces shows that there can be an electoral dividend for left-wing parties if voters see them responding to the crisis of modern capitalism by offering boldly socialist solutions. Their success also demonstrates the benefits to electoral support for socialist groupings as they put aside their differences to unite behind a commonly agreed programme. For example, Die Linke consists of a number of internal caucuses - or forums - including the "Anti-Capitalist Left", "Communist Platform" and "Democratic Socialist Forum". SYRIZA is a coalition of more than ten Greek political groups. And the Dutch Socialist Party - which was originally called the Communist Party of the Netherlands, has successfully brought socialists and communists together to support its collectivist programme. It is worth noting that those European parties of the centre left which have not fully embraced the neoliberal agenda are retaining their dominant position. In Spain, the governing Socialist Workers' Party has managed to maintain its broad left base and was re-elected for another four-year term in March, with Prime Minister Jos? Luis Rodr?guez Zapatero promising a "socialist economic policy" that would focus on the needs of workers and the poor. There are exceptions to the European continent's shift towards socialism. Despite the recent election of leftist Martine Aubry as leader of the French Socialist Party, the French left has been torn apart by divisions, at the very moment when it could be exploiting the growing unpopularity of the Sarkozy administration. And, in Britain, despite opinion being argu ably more to the left on economic issues than at any time since 1945, few are calling for a return to socialism. The British left, despite promising initiatives such as September's Convention of the Left in Manchester, which gathered representatives from several socialist groups, still remains fragmented and divided. The left's espousal of unrestricted or loosely controlled immigration is also, arguably, a major vote loser among working-class voters who should provide its core support. No socialist group in Britain has as yet articulated a critique of mass immigration from an anti-capitalist and anti-racist viewpoint in the way the Socialist Party of the Netherlands has. And even if a Die Linke-style coalition of progressive forces could be built and put on a formal footing in time for the next general election, Britain's first-past-the-post system provides a formidable obstacle to change. Nevertheless, the prognosis for socialism in Britain and the rest of Europe is good. As the recession bites, and neoliberalism is discredited, the phenomenon of unequivocally socialist parties with clear, anti-capitalist, anti-globalist messages gaining ground, and even replacing "Third Way" parties in Europe, is likely to continue. Even in Britain, where the electoral system grants huge advantage to the established parties, pressure on Labour to jettison its commitment to neoliberal policies and to adopt a more socialist agenda is sure to intensify. From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Dec 6 06:51:26 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:51:26 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Proposition 8--the musical Message-ID: <20081206135116.D351ED6EC@mailbackend.panix.com> NY Times, December 6, 2008 For This Songwriter, the Political Is Musical By DAVE ITZKOFF Most of the jokes in the Internet video "Prop 8 ? the Musical," a comedic song-and-dance diatribe about the California ballot initiative defining marriage as existing only between a man and a woman, are in its lyrics. http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones Playing a black-suited religious conservative, John C. Reilly intones, "People, listen to our plea/They'll teach our kids about sodomy." Neil Patrick Harris, playing a flamboyant figure trying to reconcile the proposition's supporters and opponents, sings, "Every time a gay or lesbian finds love at the parade/There's money to be made." But there is one visual gag that is particularly bittersweet to Marc Shaiman, the creator and composer of the video: a credit that says Mr. Shaiman conceived and wrote this three-minute musical skit "six weeks later than he shoulda." As popular as "Prop 8 ? the Musical" has been ? it has been viewed more than 1.9 million times since it was posted on Wednesday on funnyordie.com ? it is also a reminder to Mr. Shaiman and like-minded colleagues of how events might have turned out if they had been vocal and organized before Proposition 8 was approved by California voters last month. "We stupidly allowed ourselves to be lulled into a sense of 'everything's fantastic now,' " Mr. Shaiman said in a recent telephone interview. " 'Everything's changing, and this couldn't possibly be voted into law.' " The proposition passed on Election Day with 52 percent of the vote, including strong support from religious conservatives. On Nov. 20 the California Supreme Court said it would consider whether a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions was constitutional. Mr. Shaiman, 49, an openly gay, Tony Award-winning songwriter whose r?sum? includes the stage and film musicals "Hairspray" and some of the bawdier songs in "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut," came to create "Prop 8 ? the Musical" somewhat inadvertently. After the passage of the ballot initiative, he learned that Scott Eckern, the musical director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento, had donated money to support Proposition 8. Mr. Shaiman found this troubling, since the theater had recently staged a production of "Hairspray": by his reckoning, this meant that funds generated by his work were used to bolster a cause he opposed. (Mr. Eckern, who is a Mormon and has said that his donation stemmed from his religious beliefs, did not respond to requests to comment for this article.) Mr. Shaiman said, "I sent an e-mail to a lot of people, anyone who's in my phone book, and said, 'Can you believe this guy?' " Among the people he contacted was Adam McKay, a founder (with Will Ferrell) of Funny or Die, who encouraged Mr. Shaiman to channel his feelings into a video for the site. This was, Mr. Shaiman said, "the slapping-my-head moment: 'Oh yeah, why didn't I think of that?' " On Nov. 18, Mr. Shaiman recalled, he sat down at his piano in his home in Los Angeles and wrote "Prop 8." On Nov. 19 and 20 he cast the video, recruiting Jack Black to play a particularly flippant Jesus Christ and Adam Shankman (the director and choreographer of the "Hairspray" movie musical) to direct it. The video was shot in one day at a magic store in Santa Monica, and mixed and edited after the Thanksgiving holiday at a pace that Mr. Shaiman found astounding. "It's like 'Saturday Night Live,' only without the money," he said. "But also without the restrictions." The purpose of the video, its participants say, is to find common ground between Proposition 8's supporters and its adversaries. "If you really wanted to break it down lyrically, it's literally a list of talking points," Mr. Shankman said in a telephone interview. "It's about questioning, and it's doing it with a very sweet and innocent spirit." But "Prop 8 ? the Musical" has also been criticized in comments on Funny or Die for glibness, and for trying to address a moral question with an economic answer: at the end of the video the initiative's sponsors give up their religious objections when they learn they can make money from gay weddings. For Mr. Shaiman there is also an air of ruefulness hanging over the project. He says he felt burdened by the news that Mr. Eckern had resigned his position at the California Musical Theater on Nov. 12. "I did not ask for his resignation, nor would it be my place to ask for someone's resignation," Mr. Shaiman said. "But I was a part of that, and that is a very heavy weight, and I don't take it lightly." If he cannot undo the events of Election Day, Mr. Shaiman said that he took some comfort in the e-mail messages he has received in support of "Prop 8 ? the Musical," and that the creation of the short (which he described as "a viral picket sign") had drawn him into a larger network of activism. "The most important thing," he said, "is that it continues the dialogue, and does not allow another week to go by for the subject to be swept under the rug." The other benefit of the project is that it has introduced Mr. Shaiman to the medium of Internet video, a field to which he has never (willingly) contributed before. Working in movies and theater, he said, "can be distressing, even when things are going great." "It's just like, 'Oh, I wish we could put this in front of an audience and know what it is.' " The immediacy of viral videos, he said, "strips years off your life." Mr. Shaiman continued, "It's made me feel skinny, metaphorically." From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Dec 6 07:29:13 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:29:13 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Chavismo takes a hit Message-ID: <20081206142904.6FE0BD281@mailbackend.panix.com> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081222/cuadros?rel=hp_currently Chavismo Takes a Hit By Alexander Cuadros December 5, 2008 On Sunday, Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez made two bold declarations. He announced his intention to press ahead with a constitutional referendum that would do away with presidential term limits--one year after voters narrowly rejected a similar reform--and demanded that Colombia immediately withdraw its consul in Maracaibo, Venezuela's second-largest city. "Either they take him out of here or I'll throw him out," Ch?vez said. A secretly recorded conversation between consul Carlos Galvis Fajardo and an adviser to Colombian President ?lvaro Uribe had been broadcast the day before on the state-run television channel, VTV. Galvis spoke of his satisfaction with the results of Venezuela's regional elections on November 23, in which opposition candidates won, among other prizes, the governorship of the oil-rich state of Zulia and the mayor's seat in its capital, Maracaibo. Though the conversation revealed no substantive evidence of Colombian meddling in Venezuelan territory, the VTV presenter assured viewers that "their objective is clear: to infiltrate with assassins and paramilitaries, something that Manuel Rosales"--the outgoing two-term governor of Zulia, now mayor-elect of Maracaibo--"is up to his eyebrows in." At least on the surface, Ch?vez's two characteristically gutsy moves that day might seem unrelated. Yet they both serve his goal to hold onto power amid tumbling oil revenues, steadily deteriorating public services, and skyrocketing inflation and crime. (Inflation in Venezuela is the highest in Latin America, and according to The Economist, the homicide rate has tripled there in the last ten years.) In December of 2006, Ch?vez ran against Rosales for the presidency and won by twenty-six points--a landslide. But in the regional elections last month, gubernatorial candidates for the PSUV, Ch?vez's party, won just 52.5 percent of the popular vote nationwide. Out of Venezuela's twenty-three states, the opposition now controls five, along with the mayor's seat in Caracas--and together these account for 40 percent of the country's population. Ch?vez had led a dogged campaign in the preceding weeks to discredit Rosales and his prot?g? Pablo P?rez, who won the governorship of Zulia. Still, even after Ch?vez vowed to throw Rosales in jail for alleged corruption, claimed to have evidence the opposition leader was planning to assassinate him, and called him (among other things) a "tumor in the body of Zulia state," Rosales won the mayoralty in Maracaibo by more than twenty points. As Ch?vez, undaunted, continues his quest to undermine opposition legitimacy, many are now asking the question: Is Chavismo finally on the wane? Maracaibo is a charmless sprawl of 3 million people not far from the Colombian border, and popular wisdom maintains that it is the hottest city in Venezuela--on a cloudless day, it can be sweltering by 8 a.m. It also produces about half of the country's oil. Every day off the shores of Lake Maracaibo you can see massive tankers lumbering in and out, weighed down by thick Venezuelan crude. The PSUV's Giancarlo DiMartino was Maracaibo's mayor for the past eight years, and on November 23 he lost by about eight points in his bid against P?rez for the governorship of Zulia. After DiMartino's final campaign rally in a poor neighborhood called El Marite in the northwest of Maracaibo, I spoke to residents milling about on lumpy asphalted streets that slowly gave way to mud. Sitting on an upside-down bucket in front of a modest barred-in house, a 28-year-old welder named Lu?s Castro told me, referring to DiMartino: "You can see that the man has done things for the neighborhood. It's safer. This area was too dangerous. The streets were dark, and he put in street lamps--now you can walk around at night." He and other residents also emphasized the recent establishment of local "missions"--government-funded community centers that provide, among other things, education and medical assistance. There is a hospital nearby, but residents could rarely afford the fees; now they are treated for free at a clinic manned by Cuban doctors. Hospital El Marite, however, like many hospitals throughout Venezuela, has deteriorated in recent years. Castro told me that now people call it "El Morite," which basically means that as far as locals are concerned, it is a place you go to die. Even as many of Venezuela's poorest have seen their lives improve, mismanagement and corruption have become hallmarks of Ch?vez's government. In Maracaibo, residents complained to me that with DiMartino as mayor, the city's once-efficient system of garbage collection had at times completely broken down; trash could pile up for days. There were often shortages of coffee, milk and sugar. In some poor neighborhoods like El Marite people claimed to have seen crime drop, but people in the rest of the city assured me that it was worse than ever, and that sometimes the municipal police failed to respond when called. Public works are in a half-finished state throughout the city. Two days before the election, DiMartino inaugurated a "community prevention center" that would have put police in a crime-ridden neighborhood in the south, but the parking lots had yet to be paved and the offices were empty of equipment. The most extravagant example of mismanagement is the Maracaibo Metro, for which construction began in 2004. According to government figures, more than $700 million has been spent building Line One. But only four of the six stations are operational, and just 2,500 people ride it every day. When I drove by in a taxi one night at rush hour, the polished, well-lit stations, adorned with modern-looking inverted arches and enclosed on either side by high chain-link fences, were almost completely empty of passengers. Worse, the two and a half miles of aboveground tracks have essentially walled off two parts of the city from each other, as there are no bridges or tunnels along the entire stretch. Businesses have failed all along the Metro because of the reduced client base, and dozens of homes have been destroyed by poorly planned construction. It is not just the middle class that is against Ch?vez, as opposition victories in former Chavista strongholds such as the Caracas slum of Petare show. On election day in Maracaibo I met a young woman who works at a Bolivarian high school, as she waited to vote in a poor neighborhood called Santo Domingo in the south of the city. She had supported Ch?vez until last year's constitutional reform, which in addition to eliminating presidential term limits would also have given Ch?vez the power to create new federal and municipal regions--parallel to democratically elected governments--for which he could handpick the leaders and assign new budgets. (This measure, and a slew of others rejected by voters in the referendum, were passed by decree in July of this year.) She said, "What Ch?vez wants is to keep himself in power, but one person alone can't govern a country. I support him in some things, but not in everything." These were things she could not speak of freely at the school, she said, for fear of losing her job. Margarita L?pez Maya, a historian at the Central University of Venezuela, told me in a telephone interview that Venezuelans were tired of polarization. She lamented the "impoverished discourse" on both sides. It is an argument, she said, framed either in terms of unwavering support for the president or an abstract idea of "democracy" that ultimately boils down to voting against Ch?vez rather than voting for a coherent alternative vision. Perhaps more important than the question of whether Ch?vez's support is waning--a point on which analysts I spoke to disagree--is whether there is any way to bridge the chasm between the two camps. There are "dissident" elements that made a relatively strong showing in the regional elections, but L?pez Maya said she was pessimistic about a third way. "You have the opposition members who were visible during the coup and the oil strike"--in 2002, the opposition followed a failed two-day coup with an oil strike that paralyzed the economy for months--"and these sectors are highly discredited." She went on, "I honestly don't see Manuel Rosales as an attractive person for the popular sectors who might want to begin to leave the officialist side." These are "disenchanted" people, she said, for whom "Ch?vez's government has become very weak in terms of its inability, for so many years, to fulfill its expectations and promises, in terms of its corruption, the level of crime in the cities." But there is still no one to represent them. "These are dark times," she said. I recalled my conversation with DiMartino, the perpetually sunburned, heavyset Chavista mayor, a couple of days before the election. Under the flourescent glare of a little back room at the local station for VTV, I asked him why he thought that two local Bolivarian Circles--Chavista social organizations--had swung their support from him to the opposition candidates. He called them "mercenaries" and said, "They're the typical individuals who take advantage of campaigns to earn fifty, sixty million Bol?vares. We're talking about $20,000." So they were bribed? "Yes." And there's proof? "Yes, of course," he assured me. I did not get to see this proof, but when I spoke to Edwin M?ndez, a spokesperson for one of the two Circles, together representing about 9,000 people, he told me he had withdrawn his support because the municipal government had completely shut them out and ignored their requests for assistance with community projects. He still supports Ch?vez. I asked DiMartino if it was possible to continue supporting the president, as M?ndez does, but not support his candidates at a local level. "It's a contradiction," he said. "We're talking about black and white here." From cbcox at ilstu.edu Sat Dec 6 07:41:57 2008 From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:41:57 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history? References: <29486560.1228510348111.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <493A8F35.6DE2BA4E@ilstu.edu> Tom Cod wrote: Apparently nothing of his own but merely quoted (while screwing up the formatting) some earlier post by someone else. Carrol From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Dec 6 07:56:23 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:56:23 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history? In-Reply-To: <493A8F35.6DE2BA4E@ilstu.edu> References: <29486560.1228510348111.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <493A8F35.6DE2BA4E@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: <20081206145615.D74DFD952@mailbackend.panix.com> >Tom Cod wrote: > >Apparently nothing of his own but merely quoted (while screwing up the >formatting) some earlier post by someone else. > >Carrol Tom Cod has been placed on moderation for the aforementioned offenses. It should be obvious at this point that Les Schaffer and I are real sticklers for readability. With 1173 subscribers, we really don't want to waste bandwidth. From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Dec 6 07:59:02 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:59:02 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Cliff Conner/Bill Ayers Message-ID: <20081206145854.24700DDFC@mailbackend.panix.com> To the Editor: I was glad to hear William Ayers rebut, in his own words, the meanspirited and absurd campaign of demonization that the right-wing blogosphere conducted against him. I encountered Mr. Ayers many years ago in the movement against the Vietnam War and I would like to offer some context in which his retrospective evaluation of that movement can be better understood. Bill Ayers and I have opposing views about the effectiveness of that movement. He sees it as a mostly empty glass (it couldn't stop the war) and I see it as a glass half full (it did stop the war, but it took many years to do so). There were, broadly speaking, two very different and opposed "wings" of the antiwar movement of the 'sixties. Bill Ayers and I were on opposite sides. He was (again, generally speaking) in the wing that most people will remember because its leading figures, like Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, were very colorful characters who naturally became the focus of the mass news media. The other wing, to which I devoted several years of my young life, was much less exciting. Instead of dramatic pronunciations and spectacular actions designed to attract media attention, we went about the boring business of organizing mass protest demonstrations under the prosaic slogan: "Bring the troops home now!" Between 1965 and 1974, although the size of the demonstrations ebbed and flowed (mostly ebbing in election years and flowing in between), the general trend gave evidence of an explosive growth of antiwar sentiment in the general population of the United States. I agree with Bill Ayers that the wing of the movement he represented was ineffective. I would go further and say it was counterproductive, because its sophomoric ultraradicalism tended to discredit the antiwar movement and alienate most of the American population from it. But the movement as a whole nonetheless persisted and, in my opinion, eventually played an essential role in ending the war. From handfuls of protesters in its early days, the movement grew to being able to bring hundreds of thousands of people into the streets. Those demonstrators were not, for the most part, radical students, but ordinary people from all walks of life. Once the message of the antiwar movement began to take hold among the general population, its spread among those who were sent to fight the war could not be prevented. And once the GIs in Vietnam themselves turned solidly against the war, it was only a matter of time before it ended. Cliff Conner Website: www.PeoplesHistoryofScience.com --- NY Times, December 6, 2008 Op-Ed Contributor The Real Bill Ayers By WILLIAM AYERS Chicago IN the recently concluded presidential race, I was unwillingly thrust upon the stage and asked to play a role in a profoundly dishonest drama. I refused, and here's why. Unable to challenge the content of Barack Obama's campaign, his opponents invented a narrative about a young politician who emerged from nowhere, a man of charm, intelligence and skill, but with an exotic background and a strange name. The refrain was a question: "What do we really know about this man?" Secondary characters in the narrative included an African-American preacher with a fiery style, a Palestinian scholar and an "unrepentant domestic terrorist." Linking the candidate with these supposedly shadowy characters, and ferreting out every imagined secret tie and dark affiliation, became big news. I was cast in the "unrepentant terrorist" role; I felt at times like the enemy projected onto a large screen in the "Two Minutes Hate" scene from George Orwell's "1984," when the faithful gathered in a frenzy of fear and loathing. With the mainstream news media and the blogosphere caught in the pre-election excitement, I saw no viable path to a rational discussion. Rather than step clumsily into the sound-bite culture, I turned away whenever the microphones were thrust into my face. I sat it out. Now that the election is over, I want to say as plainly as I can that the character invented to serve this drama wasn't me, not even close. Here are the facts: I never killed or injured anyone. I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations. I became a full-time antiwar organizer for Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices ? the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious ? as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation. The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be ? and still is being ? debated. We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war. Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war. So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends. I cannot imagine engaging in actions of that kind today. And for the past 40 years, I've been teaching and writing about the unique value and potential of every human life, and the need to realize that potential through education. I have regrets, of course ? including mistakes of excess and failures of imagination, posturing and posing, inflated and heated rhetoric, blind sectarianism and a lot else. No one can reach my age with their eyes even partly open and not have hundreds of regrets. The responsibility for the risks we posed to others in some of our most extreme actions in those underground years never leaves my thoughts for long. The antiwar movement in all its commitment, all its sacrifice and determination, could not stop the violence unleashed against Vietnam. And therein lies cause for real regret. We ? the broad "we" ? wrote letters, marched, talked to young men at induction centers, surrounded the Pentagon and lay down in front of troop trains. Yet we were inadequate to end the killing of three million Vietnamese and almost 60,000 Americans during a 10-year war. The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other's behavior. There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we've been unable to rise above it. President-elect Obama and I sat on a board together; we lived in the same diverse and yet close-knit community; we sometimes passed in the bookstore. We didn't pal around, and I had nothing to do with his positions. I knew him as well as thousands of others did, and like millions of others, I wish I knew him better. Demonization, guilt by association, and the politics of fear did not triumph, not this time. Let's hope they never will again. And let's hope we might now assert that in our wildly diverse society, talking and listening to the widest range of people is not a sin, but a virtue. William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is the author of "Fugitive Days" and a co-author of the forthcoming "Race Course." From acpollack2 at gmail.com Sat Dec 6 08:40:06 2008 From: acpollack2 at gmail.com (Andrew Pollack) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 10:40:06 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] for nationwide pickets at Bank of America to support UE occupation! Message-ID: <2fa1449b0812060740y7c33ea7eo79257ceee41b93aa@mail.gmail.com> A sister on an autoworkers list said it best: "Maybe it's starting!" There's a Socialist Worker article mamking the rounds (http://socialistworker.org/2008/1 2/06/republic-window-occupation) about a United Electrical workers occupation of a plant in Chicago after Bank of America shut off credit to the plant's owners, and the latter denied legally-mandated notice and severance pay. The article mentioned that there will be a picket at Bank of America in Chicago on Tuesday at noon if an agreement was not reached. I think we should have pickets all around the country (hell, around the world, if we can) at BoA offices or ATMs on Tuesday (although 5 pm might be better so more working people can attend). And we should publicize them ASAP so the companies know during negotiations on Monday that the whole world is watching. PS: Another article on the occupation (http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/14091/) says the UE isn't just talking about severance pay -- they say the company could remain open if BoA provides funds, as window orders are still there. In our Workers' Action Program, Socialist Action says: "If bankers whose debts don't get 'deleveraged' refuse loans to businesses which then shut down production, workers can demand the nationalization of any company shutting down or cutting jobs or benefits as a result." (http://www.socialistaction.org/pollack43.htm) To which we can add that we should demand the government, which gave OUR money to BoA, take back funds sufficient to keep Republic running from what it gave the bank as part of the bailout (and workers would keep close tabs on how the funds are used). Andy Pollack ------------------------- Remember: Catch a new episode of "Live Wire" every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at: http://andycomix.blogspot.com From russo.matthew9 at gmail.com Sat Dec 6 09:48:36 2008 From: russo.matthew9 at gmail.com (Matthew Russo) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 08:48:36 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Angry laid-off workers occupy factory in Chicago Message-ID: <1b7033e60812060848q6da257delb440ffde59995a7c@mail.gmail.com> I love the smell of fresh factory occupations in the morning.... --------------------------------- Angry laid-off workers occupy factory in Chicago 14 mins ago CHICAGO ? Workers laid off from their jobs at a Chicago factory have occupied the building and are demanding assurances they'll get severance and vacation pay that they say they are owed. About 200 employees of Republic Windows and Doors began staging the sit-in in shifts this week after learning the plant was closing Friday. Leah Fried (LAY'-uh FREED'), an organizer with the United Electrical Workers, says Republic failed to give 60 days' notice required by law. Chicago police spokeswoman Laura Kubiak says police are aware of the situation and are patrolling the area. Representatives of Republic Windows did not immediately respond Saturday to calls and e-mails seeking comment. ----------------------- Rather '30's like, even post-WW2 - pre 1980's like. Of course this is the good old red UEW. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081206/ap_on_re_us/workers_takeover -Matt From lnp3 at panix.com Sat Dec 6 10:01:04 2008 From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:01:04 -0500 Subject: [Marxism] Wendy and Lucy Message-ID: <20081206170059.2C6A9DA07@mailbackend.panix.com> Put simply, Kelly Reichardt's "Wendy and Lucy" is a "Grapes of Wrath" for the contemporary era. In place of the Joads, we encounter a young woman named Wendy (Michelle Williams) and her dog Lucy who are trying to make their way to Alaska, a symbol of economic opportunity in the way that California was for the Joads. Although "Wendy and Lucy" is far less ambitious than John Ford's 1940 masterpiece, I regard as a better film in some ways since it operates in the neorealist tradition, a genre that corresponds to the lives of working people much more than Ford/Steinbeck's melodrama. Like so many neorealist movies, "Wendy and Lucy" revolves around a seemingly mundane subject matter, in this case the young woman's attempt to track down her dog, the only source of companionship in a very lonely and economically deprived existence. If the bicycle in "The Bicycle Thief" was a means to economic survival, the tawny mixed Labrador breed serves to keep Wendy going emotionally in a heartless world. full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/1261/ From tcod at hotmail.com Sat Dec 6 10:03:08 2008 From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:03:08 +0000 Subject: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history? In-Reply-To: <493A8F35.6DE2BA4E@ilstu.edu> References: <29486560.1228510348111.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <493A8F35.6DE2BA4E@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: that was an error, for which I apologize. please view the succeeding post which deals with the Chicago 1968 protest. > Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 08:41:57 -0600 > From: cbcox at ilstu.edu > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Seymour/Ayers - rewriting history? > To: tcod at hotmail.com > > > > Tom Cod wrote: > > Apparently nothing of his own but merely quoted (while screwing up the > formatting) some earlier post by someone else. > > Carrol > > > ________________________________________________ > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tcod%40hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 From spalmer999 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 6 10:59:58 2008 From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:59:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Marxism] for nationwide pickets at Bank of America to support UE occupation! In-Reply-To: <2fa1449b0812060740y7c33ea7eo79257ceee41b93aa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <219276.16024.qm@web82604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> There is no shortage of money to keep this business going. There is, right now, $1,171bn of idle funds just sitting in the banking system which could be loaned out - OVER ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. This is enough to bail out the auto industry 34 times over. This is enough to pay for a whole month's production from the entire US economy or a year's output from the Canadian economy, or the Brazilian, or the Spanish, or the WHOLE of South Asia or the WHOLE of Africa and the non-oil middle eastern economies (World Development Report, 2008). Last night's statistics from the Fed show that yesterday Commercial Banks had $843.7bn in cash and $633.8bn in reserves on deposit at the Fed. In August the respective figures were $297.8bn and $8.7bn. So this is far more cash than is needed for daily operations and these are excess reserves above the statutory requirements. (Releases H.8 and H.4.1) Hundreds of millions of these dollars are from the handout program. They've been sitting there for weeks. Why? Because the monetarist morons who control this have decided to pay interest on those reserves. That rate is currently 1%. But the effective Fed Funds rate - that's the rate at which banks lend to each other - was 0.2% last night. So, by taking handout money and stashing it at the Fed, banks are making money risk free with a 0.8% interest rate. And people are wondering why the banks aren't lending. Bernanke and company are paying the banks not to lend!!! It's not just BofA - it's the Federal Reserve as well. This is why so many people lost jobs in the last month. Finance Capital is just sitting on the money. THIS is 'systemic risk': risk to the livelihood of tens of millions of working people and their families, who are losing their homes and jobs and who see prices for food and basics rising month after month. Steve ---------------------- "Business always appears almost excessively sound right on the eve of a crash" Marx "Academics get paid for being clever, not for being right." Donald Norman --- On Sat, 12/6/08, Andrew Pollack wrote: > From: Andrew Pollack > Subject: [Marxism] for nationwide pickets at Bank of America to support UE occupation! > To: "Steve Palmer" > Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 7:40 AM > A sister on an autoworkers list said it best: > "Maybe it's starting!" From eindeoc at googlemail.com Sat Dec 6 11:03:30 2008 From: eindeoc at googlemail.com (Einde O'Callaghan) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:03:30 +0100 Subject: [Marxism] The shifting ruling class mainstream In-Reply-To: <100-aa233949-25692.001@lws-media.de> References: <3DC9B9D62C1B4301873258DF050C6939@albanta> <100-aa233949-25692.001@lws-media.de> Message-ID: <493ABE72.90700@googlemail.com> L?ko Willms wrote: > On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 21:19:05 -0500, Joaquin Bustelo wrote: > >> You are, of course, free to believe the earth is flat, Mary was a virgin, > > Why not? > > Jesus was the only cloned human we know of. Do you want to deny that? > If he had been a clone of Mary he would have been female. Einde O'Callaghan From Dbachmozart at aol.com Sat Dec 6 11:30:08 2008 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:30:08 EST Subject: [Marxism] Systematic torture of Palestinians documented in 80 page report Message-ID: Systematic torture of Palestinians documented in 80 page report PNN The use of torture and ill-treatment by the Israeli authorities against Palestinians is nothing but a systematic and comprehensive process, states a human rights report issued today. The Coalition against Torture says that Israel is either unwilling or unable to fulfill its obligations under the Convention against Torture. The group of 14 Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations writes in its annual report for 2008 that it has recorded evidence of an act, complicity or omission of fact or duty on the part of state officials at all levels. The guilty parties include members of the army, intelligence, police, judiciary and other government branches. The coalition said that the situation is unlikely to improve in the cultural of impunity and immunity that prevails in Israel? Read the full article / Leggi l?articolo completo: _www.uruknet.de/?p=49235_ (http://www.uruknet.de/?p=49235) **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) From Dbachmozart at aol.com Sat Dec 6 11:57:04 2008 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:57:04 EST Subject: [Marxism] =?utf-8?q?Obama=E2=80=99s_Palestinian_Friend=3A_intervi?= =?utf-8?q?ew_with_Rashid_Khalidi?= Message-ID: clip -- What are your expectations of _Barack Obama_ (http://www.creative-i.info/?tag=barack-obama) ?s administration in the Middle East? Do you believe he will stick to his promise to put it at the top of his agenda? ?I have no special insight. I do believe that the president-elect takes this problem very seriously, and will give it his attention. Obsessed as we are with our own issues, however, we should not ignore the fact that he faces the greatest American and global economic crisis since 1929, and must necessarily give that priority. ?In any case, much will depend on who is chosen for the key positions relating to the Middle East. If some of the unimaginative, close-minded and biased advocates of conventional thinking who bear a major share of the responsibility for the mess we have been in for over 20 years - from the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations to that of Clinton, even before George W. Bush made things even worse - are appointed to important posts, my expectations will be low. I was involved in the negotiations as an advisor to the Palestinian delegation from Madrid in 1991 until June 1993, before Oslo. Those American officials who helped get the Palestinians and Israelis into the mess they are in via a deeply flawed negotiating process, and a cowardly refusal to confront occupation and settlement head-on when it would have been far easier to do in the 1980s and 1990s, do not deserve another chance to ruin the future of the peoples of this region.? full -- _http://www.creative-i.info/?p=2625_ (http://www.creative-i.info/?p=2625) **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) From proletariandan at gmail.com Sat Dec 6 12:06:25 2008 From: proletariandan at gmail.com (Dan Russell) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:06:25 -0600 Subject: [Marxism] Fwd: Chicago factory occupied In-Reply-To: <50392d400812061040t1216ec93r52370a51b42e061c@mail.gmail.com> References: <50392d400812061040t1216ec93r52370a51b42e061c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <517f3cab0812061106o6fbea1b9n6cdbd3b32b2486a5@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ken Barrios Date: Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:40 PM Subject: Fwd: Chicago factory occupied To: Dane Deasy , Adam Keck , Neftali Romero , Celina Dzyacky , Josh Downing , Jhonatan Roldan , Casey McCowan , juanibarraflores at aol.com, Fernando Gonzalez , Dan Russell , "Barrios, Jeffrey" , Graham Shaw , Stephen Kane , reediculousB at gmail.com, Bodhisattva < jdriversphoenix at gmail.com>, joey_temptation at yahoo.com, nobodysno1 at hotmail.com, fothergilljr at gmail.com, eyerightstorees at aol.com, Karlye Pokorney , andrea hart , " icarusthebright at gmail.com" , scotthogan33 at gmail.com, Mary Remington , Alison Cohn , Chris Kaihatsu , Ethan Conrad Halpern-Givens , Angela Vela , Binyamina S , lazar.i15 at gmail.com, l-agnant at neiu.edu, Eric Lab Rat Lab Rat , Black Caucus < neiublackcaucus at yahoo.com>, Jimmy Hodum , Jesus Palafox , margaret LaLone , "Jones, Nicole" , "Ortiz, Victor" , Olga Steele , queondeesola at gmail.com, Aliza Robinson < robinsonaliza at yahoo.com>, redcoupon at aol.com, waterboils at gmail.com, Erin Watson , drew drew , nickdee at gmail.com, missverasays , p-buschbacher at neiu.edu, jeffleys.vcnv at gmail.com THIS IS MAJOR. nothing like this has happened in the United States, in our lifetimes. These workers are OCCUPYING THEIR FACTORY. This story first broke out last nite on ABC and NBC chicago local news outlets. Since then, ISO comrades have gotten on the scene and are doing reporting and solidarity work, with the workers at this factory here in Chicago. This is not only a strike, this is a FACTORY OCCUPATION by the workers of that factory. There is important solidarity information for folks at the bottom of the article, that every one should look into! Even something as small as a donation to help these workers is important and vital! Support the workers! kenken PS: FORWARD WIDELY!!! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Below is a report on the Chicago factory occupation for SocialistWorker.org. Please circulate this widely, and be sure to draw people's attention to the appeal for solidarity messages and other items under "What you can do" at the bottom. http://socialistworker.org/2008/12/06/republic-window-occupation *Chicago factory occupied * *Lee Sustar* reports from Chicago on an occupation by workers who want what's theirs from management and the Bank of America. December 6, 2008 WORKERS OCCUPYING the Republic Windows & Doors factory slated for closure are vowing to remain in the Chicago plant until they win the $1.5 million in severance and vacation pay owed them by management. In a tactic rarely used in the U.S. since the labor struggles of the 1930s, the workers, members of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) Local 1110, refused to leave the plant on December 5, its last scheduled day of operation. "We decided to do it because this is money that belongs to us," said Maria Roman, who's worked at the plant for eight years. "These are our rights." Word of the occupation spread quickly both among labor and immigrant rights activists--the overwhelming majority of the workers are Latinos. Seven local TV news stations showed up to do interviews and live reports, and a steady stream of activists arrived to bring donations of food and money and to plan solidarity actions. Management claims that it can't continue operations because its main creditor, Bank of America (BoA), refuses to make any more loans to the company. After workers picketed BoA headquarters December 3, bank officials agreed to sit down with Republic management and UE to discuss the matter at a December 5 meeting arranged by U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill), said UE organizer Leah Fried. BoA had said that it couldn't discuss the matter with the union directly without written approval from Republic's management. But Republic representatives failed to show up at the meeting, and plant managers prepared to close the doors for good--violating the federal WARN Act that requires 60 days notice of a plant closure. The workers decided this couldn't go unchallenged. "The company and Bank of America are throwing the ball to one another, and we're in the middle," said Vicente Rangel, a shop steward and former vice president of Local 1110. Many workers had suspected the company was planning to go out of business--and perhaps restart operations elsewhere. Several said managers had removed both production and office equipment in recent days. Furthermore, while inventory records indicated there were plenty of parts in the plant, workers on the production line found shortages. And the order books, while certainly down from the peak years of the housing boom, didn't square with management's claims of a total collapse. "Where did all those windows go?" one worker asked. Workers were especially outraged that Bank of America, which recently received a bailout in taxpayer money, won't provide credit to Republic. "They get $25 billion from the government, and won't loan a few million to this company so workers can keep their jobs?" said Ricardo Caceres, who has worked at the plant for six years. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE MEMBERS of Local 1110 have a history of struggle. In 2004, they decertified the Central States Joint Board--a union notorious for corruption and sweetheart contracts with management--and brought in UE, a far more democratic organization. In May of this year, Local 1110 mobilized for a contract by organizing a "practice" picket, and 70 workers used their lunch break to confront the boss with a petition listing their demands. The workers were able to turn back company's effort to win major concessions and won solid pay increases.Now, management is trying to get revenge by pocketing money that belongs to the workers. UE officials and workers acknowledge that it will be difficult to stop the plant from closing. But they're determined to get the money owed to them--and they believe that by fighting, they can set an example for other workers facing layoffs and plant closures as the recession deepens. Negotiations are set for Monday, December 8. Whatever happens, however, the workers have already sent a message to employers that if they violate workers rights and the law, they can expect a fight. "This is a message to the workers of America," said Vicente Rangel, the shop steward. "If we stand together, we will prevail until justice is done, and we get what we're due." = = = = = = = =* = = = = = = = = * *What you can do * If you live in the Chicago area, come to a rally on Saturday, December 6, at 12 Noon at Republic Windows, 1333 N. Hickory in Chicago, on Goose Island. If negotiations with Bank of America fail to resolve the issue, there will be a picket of BoA's Chicago headquarters at 231 S. LaSalle on Tuesday, December 9 at 12 noon. Members of Local 1110 need your support. Make checks payable to the UE Local 1110 Solidarity Fund, and mail to: 37 S. Ashland, Chicago, IL 60607. Messages of support can be sent to leahfried at gmail.com. For more information, call UE at 312-829-8300. At the Jobs with Justice Web site, you can send a message of protest to Bank of America (http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/bankofamerica/). __._,_.___ Messages in this topic ( 1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages MARKETPLACE ------------------------------ From Dbachmozart at aol.com Sat Dec 6 13:15:17 2008 From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 15:15:17 EST Subject: [Marxism] "progresive white supremacism" again rears its ugly head on the list? Message-ID: Joaquin Bustelo a few weeks ago -- What Lenni Brenner did was simply, in the time honored, white-supremacist manner of racist imperialist "progressives" and "radicals," was to leave the Vietnamese, the MAIN PROTAGONISTS of this world-historic victory, completely out of the picture, attributing it INSTEAD to white people. My question - Can we expect a similar attack on Cliff Conner for his "progressive white supremacism"?? To the Editor: I was glad to hear William Ayers rebut, in his own words, the meanspirited and absurd campaign of demonization that the right-wing blogosphere conducted against him. I encountered Mr. Ayers many years ago in the movement against the Vietnam War and I would like to offer some context in which his retrospective evaluation of that movement can be better understood. Bill Ayers and I have opposing views about the effectiveness of that movement. He sees it as a mostly empty glass (it couldn't stop the war) and I see it as a glass half full (it did stop the war, but it took many years to do so). There were, broadly speaking, two very different and opposed "wings" of the antiwar movement of the 'sixties. Bill Ayers and I were on opposite sides. He was (again, generally speaking) in the wing that most people will remember because its leading figures, like Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, were very colorful characters who naturally became the focus of the mass news media. The other wing, to which I devoted several years of my young life, was much less exciting. Instead of dramatic pronunciations and spectacular actions designed to attract media attention, we went about the boring business of organizing mass protest demonstrations under the prosaic slogan: "Bring the troops home now!" Between 1965 and 1974, although the size of the demonstrations ebbed and flowed (mostly ebbing in election years and flowing in between), the general trend gave evidence of an explosive growth of antiwar sentiment in the general population of the United States. I agree with Bill Ayers that the wing of the movement he represented was ineffective. I would go further and say it was counterproductive, because its sophomoric ultraradicalism tended to discredit the antiwar movement and alienate most of the American population from it. But the movement as a whole nonetheless persisted and, in my opinion, eventually played an essential role in ending the war. From handfuls of protesters in its early days, the movement grew to being able to bring hundreds of thousands of people into the streets. Those demonstrators were not, for the most part, radical students, but ordinary people from all walks of life. Once the message of the antiwar movement began to take hold among the general population, its spread among those who were sent to fight the war could not be prevented. And once the GIs in Vietnam themselves turned solidly against the war, it was only a matter of time before it ended. Cliff Conner Website: www.PeoplesHistoryofScience.com **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) From russo.matthew9 at gmail.com Sat Dec 6 13:29:13 2008 From: russo.matthew9 at gmail.com (Matthew Russo) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 12:29:13 -0800 Subject: [Marxism] Doug Henwood, Anwar Shaikh, and financial crisis Message-ID: <1b7033e60812061229i5298aaf4u89b94f6a953fbed2@mail.gmail.com> Also posted as a comment to http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/doug-henwood-anwar-shaikh-and-financial-crisis/ but with some corrections and additions. ------------------------------------------------------------ I've commented on this before on Marxmail. Henwood in my view is not a Marxist, but a left Keynesian. His claim that "If the credit markets could not function properly, the economy would grind to a halt and cause immense suffering to those who could least afford it" is clearly false, since it is being shown to us every day since August 2007 that the intermediation of the "credit markets" can be replaced by the direct financial intermediation of the state. Unfortunately, actual state intervention is being perverted into intermediation for the purpose of preserving the position of the financial sector in the economy rather than for the benefit of the economy as a whole, not even for the benefit of capitalist sectors excluded from the charmed circle of military-financial parasitism, much less for the rest of the population. But since state intervention IS occurring on a massive scale in full public view (if except for the details of the diversion of enormous sums from the U.S. Treasury), why not call for direct state intermediation NOW (Doug!) and cut out the middleman who, after all, precipitated the crisis. These "too big to fail" operations should, of course, be taken over, shutdown, broken up, their officers imprisoned and the remainder restricted to public utility functions. But no, Henwood can't even bring himself to support this minimal reform because there is no "realistic" chance of it occurring. But it is precisely this diversionary hijacking of the Treasury that will now be an immense barrier to any US economic restructuring that would constitute a "way out" of the crisis, even in narrow capitalist terms. Henwood in his call to support the AIG bailout therefore is calling for a worsening of mass misery, not its alleviation. Henwood refuses