From mqduck at sonic.net  Wed Oct  1 00:29:11 2008
From: mqduck at sonic.net (Jeffrey Thomas Piercy)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:29:11 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Maoists appoint 'living goddess',
	Re:  Prachanda welcomed by revolutionary
In-Reply-To: <908b689f0809292238h66e7015s95b521addb52c59a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <908b689f0809292238h66e7015s95b521addb52c59a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48E318B7.4070108@sonic.net>

My response is at the bottom. Although I defended the new government's 
decision, it's still very a enlightening story.

Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Greg Butterfield <gregb at wwpublish.com> wrote:
> 
>> Prime Minister Prachanda is chairperson of the Communist
>> Party of Nepal (Maoist) and led the people's war that
>> ousted Nepal's monarchy and old parliamentary system. The
>> CPN(M) won a decisive victory in constitutent assembly
>> elections held earlier this year.
> 
> Disturbing news from Nepal.....
> 
> 
> Maoists appoint 'living goddess'
> 
> 
> Nepal's new Maoist-led government has authorised the appointment of a
> six-year-old girl to be a "living goddess" in the temple town of
> Bhaktapur.  [...]
> 
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7642798.stm>

Me: "The "Maoists" didn't appoint her, they gave someone permission to
appoint her. She is a religious symbol and has no power, though at least
up until now her predecessors have lived "lives of extreme privilege",
according to the article. You would prefer they make enemies of the
devout in Nepal in order to make a political point?"


-- 
Human: An animal so lost in loathing contemplation of what it thinks it 
is as to overlook what it to be.


From aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm  Wed Oct  1 00:45:25 2008
From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm (Aaron Aarons)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:45:25 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Socialists and/or communists?
In-Reply-To: <D69A972A2492420082CB283A3C71D0D5@albanta>
References: <BAY127-W360E4E864272EE695C122CD7430@phx.gbl>
	<D69A972A2492420082CB283A3C71D0D5@albanta>
Message-ID: <20081001064533.3BC7A22CC6@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com>

>From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com>
>Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:53:59 -0400
>Subject: Re: [Marxism] Attention McKinney supporters
>
>Eli writes: "Yeah, us "hyper-socialists" thought it might be a good idea to support someone who doesn't think the word "socialism" is an epithet. Imagine that."
>
>Whether "socialism" is an epithet is U.S. society depends not at all on what the illuminati of the left imagine it should mean to people, but what it does, in fact, mean to masses of people.

WHICH masses? The majority of the U.S. population that has, even after the events of the past few weeks, a material interest in the maintenance of imperialist global inequality? Or the substantial minority which socialists (or communists or anti-imperialists) should be trying to organize.

>In my experience, socialism means Big Brother state control of your life, like under Hitler and Stalin, at best, the Gulag or a firing squad at worst -- like under Hitler and Stalin. Unless you get real unlucky and get a Pol Pot and half the population of country gets exterminated in a year or two.

The greatest anti-socialist and anti-communist hysteria in the U.S. occurred at a time when Pol Pot was studying technical subjects at a school in Paris. And I doubt that many people at that time, a few years after WW II, thought of Hitler as a Socialist. I think Joaquin is reading too much right-wing propaganda, or hanging out with a bunch of right-wingers.

The only people I run across who have the attitudes towards "socialism" that Joaquin describes are anarchists.

>This all reminds me of a talk I heard Peter Camejo give a third of a century ago, as best I remember. He was speaking to a Young Socialist Alliance convention, motivating signing up for petitioning teams to put the SWP on the ballot in as many states as possible, and relating his experiences petitioning in upstate New York in 1960 to meet a "distribution" requirement.

New York had a rule back then that, to get on the statewide ballot, you had to have at least 50 signatures from each county, including small rural counties far from New York, Buffalo or other concentrations of leftists.

>He explained how you got these statements from the ACLU or a judge or something in favor of third parties being allowed to participate and this being part of democracy and all that, and used that statement on an index card to cover up the name of the party and the candidates at the top of the petition sheet. And he related going up to a middle aged woman and recounted the motherhood-and-apple-pie spiel he presented --basically, if you didn't sign, you were a Benedict Arnold running guns to the Brits at the Battle of Bunker Hill and trying to sink Washington's rowboat while crossing the Potomac-- and the woman was just about to sign when she hesitated and said, "you're not communists, are you?"
>
>And Peter, play acting himself, put on an outraged face and said, feigning tremendous offense, "Excuse Me!!!!"
>
>To which, as he related it, the woman replied, "of course not," and signed.

The trouble with Peter, at least back then when I knew him, was that he was just as dishonest in dealing with his opponents within the movement as he was with the class enemy.

>IN FACT, the whole "socialism" bit is a dodge. The correct dictionary term that takes into account the history and etymology of the terms for the followers of Marx is NOT "socialists" but COMMUNISTS. Properly speaking, not in popular terms, "Socialists" are social reformers who want to ameliorate the evils of capitalism BUT NOT carry out a revolution to establish a community of goods. The latter are the communists, and that is the difference between the two currents going way back to Marx's time and before.

I hate to argue with Joaquin Webster, but the only people I've come across or read about who considered themselves "communists" but not "socialists" were anarchist communists and, perhaps, council communists and other left critics of Leninism.

>Marx and Engels were never comfortable with the term "socialist" and somewhat chagrined that it came to be identified with their followers, as Engels made a point of stressing late in his life in the introductions to the Communist Manifesto, if I remember right.

I haven't been able to locate this, and it seems a strange thing for somebody to say who had, around that time or later, written a pamphlet entitled "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific".

>Those who insist on proudly bearing the euphemistic label "socialist" as a matter of principle should, of course, listen to Eli.
>
>Those who aspire to BE *communists* should listen INSTEAD to Marx and Engels, when they explain that communism is not a DOCTRINE but a MOVEMENT.

Or, as comrade Bernstein taught, "the movement is everything, the goal, nothing".

>AND WHY, in the German Revolution of 1848, they took to the field of battle as "Democrats" -- that was the actual word they used -- and consciously DID NOT present themselves as "communists," in FACT, to the end of their days they believed it would have been sectarian idiocy to do so.

Yes, I read their famous work from that time, "The Democratic Manifesto"! Unfortunately, I can't locate a copy.

>Joaquin

 - Aaron


From walterlx at earthlink.net  Wed Oct  1 00:48:47 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 02:48:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Mumia Abu-Jamal: "The Fear Bomb -- Again!"
Message-ID: <10041501.1222843727401.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

This evening I put myself through the entire PBS News
Hour, and before that the business show. The theme of
greatest important to the reporters and commentators
was CONFIDENCE, the need to win back the confidence 
of the people of the United States, in the ability of
the system, such as it is, to find a solution to the
crisis which is rocking the entire world. Among the
strongest points made were advice to individuals NOT
to take their money out of existing investments, and
so on. The problem the ruling class seems to be having
is a mixture of two things, I think. First, the right-
wing ideologues have been saying for so long that all
solutions to all the worlds problems can only come via
the free functioning of the "free market", and it seems
some of them continue to believe such religious gospel.

At the same time, people can see that while the crooks
in Wall street are getting bailed out, people who are
losing their homes are getting nothing but foreclosure
and eviction notices. That's why the public protests
organized by trade unions and local groups pressing 
for a moratorium on foreclosure are getting at least
some good publicity.

The situation in the United States, and as the panic
in the voices of foreign governments also reflects, 
around the world, are making for a situation which is
at once fluid and very volatile. At the same time, 
the government may not be able to cobble together an
arrangement which will befuddle enough people to gain
passage, despite the best laid plans of mice, of men,
of Obama and of McCain, all of who are presenting their
faces as "responsible politicians".

Mumia explains these things very, very well, in language
anyone can reasonably understand. That is why he came to
be called "The voice of the voiceless" so long ago.


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
====================================================

The Fear Bomb -- Again!
[col. writ. 9/23/08] 
(c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal

If Congress has shown us anything, it is that when they are
scared, they'll do anything.

Seven years ago, in the twilight after 9/11 and in the wake
of the anthrax attacks, Congress passed sweeping
authorizations to the White House for war on a whim, and
signed the so-called Patriot Act in record time.

Some members admitted that they didn't even read the bill
before voting "aye."

One man, a prominent and even legendary congressman
admitted, "We were afraid; they told us we had to pass the
Patriot Act -- so we did it."

Fear.

That same dank, semi-sweet smell is radiating through the
halls of Congress, thicker than the clouds of cigar smoke.

This time it's financial fear. Politicians are once again
dancing to the tune of others, to the Masters of the
Universe on Wall Street, who need another bailout, bringing
it to nearly a trillion bucks ($1,000,000,000,000!) in less
than a month!

And just like last time, Congress is being suckered into
coughing up the public's money--quickly--or else!

The Iraq War was a shell game that exploded into a debacle.

Remember how the media initially tried to link anthrax
attacks to Al Qaeda? When the source is nailed to an
apparently mad American scientist (question: was he really
mad, or a scientist following government orders?), it's too
late. The damage is done. The bills are passed. Powers are
transferred. Hundreds of billions are spent and wasted?
Right?

Congress has defied the common knowledge that we learn from
our mistakes; because here we go again.

The administration yells, "Boo!", and Congress answers,
"How much do you want?"

This is not to suggest (to paraphrase former U.S. President
Franklin D. Roosevelt) that the only thing to be feared is
fear.

There really is a disaster looming in the financial world.

And Congress knew about it years ago (or certainly should
have). Why else would they've passed the amended Bankruptcy
Act several years ago? Why would they pass a bill making it
harder to file bankruptcies--unless they saw a tidal wave
of it coming down the river?

They knew it was coming, as certainly as autumn follows
summer.

Congress is poised to, once again, transfer public wealth
to private businesses, in a mad dash to re-wrap bad loans
as new instruments, so that these securities could be
peddled to new buyers.

Who'll buy? Will Wall Street? Don't bet on it. Will you?
Probably not.

Perhaps China will buy up these new instruments --but don't
hold your breath!

-(c) '08 maj


=========================================
     WALTER LIPPMANN
     Los Angeles, California
     Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
     "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================


From dfertl at yahoo.com.au  Wed Oct  1 01:06:19 2008
From: dfertl at yahoo.com.au (Duroyan Fertl)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 00:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Petras says fascism has taken power in Bolivia
In-Reply-To: <c0c.46fe10b2.3613402a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <623312.58205.qm@web32404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Yes. Some time ago, too.

"Dejerme decirle, a reisgo de parecer ridiculo, que el revolucionario verdadero esta guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor!!!"

--- On Tue, 30/9/08, Midhurst14 at aol.com <Midhurst14 at aol.com> wrote:
From: Midhurst14 at aol.com <Midhurst14 at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Petras says fascism has taken power in Bolivia
To: "duroyan fertl" <dfertl at yahoo.com.au>
Received: Tuesday, 30 September, 2008, 6:41 PM

Has James Petras taken leave of his senses?
George Anthony



   
________________________________________________
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/dfertl%40yahoo.com.au



      Make the switch to the world&#39;s best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail

From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 01:08:50 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 03:08:50 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Mumia Abu-Jamal: "The Fear Bomb -- Again!"
In-Reply-To: <10041501.1222843727401.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <10041501.1222843727401.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810010008w2298478an18ae90e35f88e7c4@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:48 AM, Walter Lippmann <walterlx at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Congress is poised to, once again, transfer public wealth
> to private businesses, in a mad dash to re-wrap bad loans
> as new instruments, so that these securities could be
> peddled to new buyers.

How do you counter-argue against the following (from today's New York Times)?

"The crucial point is that a modern economy can't function when people
can't easily get credit. It takes a while for this to become obvious,
since most companies and households don't take out big new loans every
day. But it will eventually become obvious, and painfully so. Already,
a lack of car loans has caused vehicle sales to fall further.

"Could the current crisis lift ? could banks decide they really are
missing out on profitable investing opportunities ? without a $700
billion government fund to relieve Wall Street of its scariest
holdings? Sure. And is Congress right to fight for a workable program
that's as inexpensive and as tough on Wall Street as possible?
Absolutely.

"But in the end, this really isn't about Wall Street. It's about
reducing the risk that something really bad happens. It's about
limiting the damage from the past decade's financial excesses.
Unfortunately, there is no way to accomplish that without also
extending a helping hand to Wall Street. That is where our credit
markets are, and we need them to start working again."

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/economy/01leonhardt.html?ref=business>

What would be a Marxist counterargument to the above?


From walterlx at earthlink.net  Wed Oct  1 01:14:23 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 03:14:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Does "socialism mean Big Brother state control of your
 life"??????????
Message-ID: <4178068.1222845263110.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

In the summer of 1964, along with Nat Weinstein, at that time a member
of the Socialist Workers Party National Committee, and New York City
organizer of the party, I spent a remarkable week in upstate New York
collecting signatures to put the SWP presidential candidates, Clifton
DeBerry for President and Ed Shaw for Vice-President on the ballot in
New York State. It was quite a task. In those days it was necessary to
collect a minimum of fifty signatures in every county in the state to
qualify for ballot status. Just like the state of Alaska receives two
members of the U.S. Senate as does the states like New York or else of
California also get two Senators, these distribution requirements were
designed to make it much harder to get on the ballot, but the SWP made
terrific efforts and succeeded in obtaining ballot status.

Joaquin is entitled to his memories. I recall that we tended to emphasize
the right of the candidates to appear on the ballot. When pressed, we
didn't make a point of our socialist politics, even less of our great
enthusiasm for certain developments 90 miles south of Florida, but put
our stress on the democratic right of different viewpoints to obtain the
right to participate in the formal political process. It was hard work,
but it helped to maintain the SWP's legal status, and it helped the SWP
to get a modest amount of publicity, too.

While I know I'm getting older and my memory isn't what is used to be, it
was my impression, once upon a time, that Joaquin Bustelo was a supporter
of the Cuban Revolution, which declared as early as 1961, that it had a
socialist character. Socialism was seen in Cuba then, and today it still 
is, seen as something favorable, not something pejorative. For Joaquin it
may be that this is no longer the case, as we're reading some of his more
recent contributions to discussions on the Internet. 

Cuba has many problems of course, of which not 100% are attributable to the
blockade of the island, but are we really reading Joaquin Bustelo saying:

"In my experience, socialism means Big Brother state control of your life"?
"In my experience, socialism means Big Brother state control of your life"?
"In my experience, socialism means Big Brother state control of your life"?
"In my experience, socialism means Big Brother state control of your life"?
"In my experience, socialism means Big Brother state control of your life"?
"In my experience, socialism means Big Brother state control of your life"?
"In my experience, socialism means Big Brother state control of your life"?

While we didn't emphasize our socialist politics when petitioning to get on
the ballot, we never went to this extent to conceal our politics so that they
wouldn't clash with the diseducation which was so widespread at the the time.
But perhaps having pleasant drinks with people whom Joaquin describes as being
gusanos has changed his opinion about some of these matters?


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
============================================================================
JOAQUIN BUSTELO declares:
In my experience, socialism means Big Brother state control of your life,
like under Hitler and Stalin, at best, the Gulag or a firing squad at worst
-- like under Hitler and Stalin. Unless you get real unlucky and get a Pol
Pot and half the population of country gets exterminated in a year or two.  
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-September/036704.html
============================================================================
JOAQUIN BUSTELO advises:
Why don't you go join a KKK or CANF mailing list, where your disruptions
would do some good?
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-September/036703.html
============================================================================
JOAQUIN BUSTELO reports:
As for Sam Farber, he is a gusano who genuinely wants to be a socialist, and
a very pleasant person to have a drink or two with. Just don't talk about
Che, because it brinhs out the contradiction between what he is and what he
imagines himself to be. Otherwise he is ok.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/swp_usa/message/6761
======================================================================
NESTOR GOROJOWSKI writes:
Joaqu?n remembers Peter Camejo telling a youthful audience of the YSL
?how you got these statements from the ACLU or a judge or something in
favor of third parties being allowed to participate and this being
part of democracy and all that, and used that statement on an index
card to cover up the name of the party and the candidates at the top
of the petition sheet. And he related going up to a middle aged woman
and recounted the motherhood-and-apple-pie spiel he presented
--basically, if you didn't sign, you were a Benedict Arnold running
guns to the Brits at the Battle of Bunker Hill and trying to sink
Washington's rowboat while crossing the Potomac-- and the woman was
just about to sign when she hesitated and said, "you're not
communists, are you?"  And Peter, play acting himself, put on an
outraged face and said, feigning tremendous offense, "Excuse Me!!!!"
To which, as he related it, the woman replied, "of course not," and
signed.?



=========================================
     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  Wed Oct  1 01:20:42 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 03:20:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Mumia Abu-Jamal:
Message-ID: <30218868.1222845642804.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Ruthless quotes Mumia, not Walter Lippmann, and asks:
"But in the end, this really isn't about Wall Street. It's about
reducing the risk that something really bad happens. It's about
limiting the damage from the past decade's financial excesses.
Unfortunately, there is no way to accomplish that without also
extending a helping hand to Wall Street. That is where our credit
markets are, and we need them to start working again."

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/economy/01leonhardt.html

What would be a Marxist counterargument to the above?
=================================================================

Capitalist free marketeering and opposition to society taking the
responsibility for food, clothing and shelter for the human beings
who live in it, while guaranteeing full freedom for the corporations
and banks to make bad loans, which they now expect all of us to pay
for, is responsible for the mess the United States is in.

What's necessary now is a radical reduction in military spending,
the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
and Afghanistan. Nationalize all of the banks and insurance companies.
Fire the managers and investigate to see if they should be charged 
criminally for their activities which led up to this mess.

For years they've told us there was no money for single-payer health
insurance or other needed programs, but now, when these same people
say there's a big problem, they have found all the money which they
need: in our pocket books and our tax payments.


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 ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 02:05:34 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 04:05:34 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Mumia Abu-Jamal:
In-Reply-To: <30218868.1222845642804.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <30218868.1222845642804.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810010105j35e138bpac254557a7b7144b@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Walter Lippmann <walterlx at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ruthless quotes Mumia, not Walter Lippmann, and asks:
> "But in the end, this really isn't about Wall Street. It's about
> reducing the risk that something really bad happens. It's about
> limiting the damage from the past decade's financial excesses.
> Unfortunately, there is no way to accomplish that without also
> extending a helping hand to Wall Street. That is where our credit
> markets are, and we need them to start working again."
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/economy/01leonhardt.html
>
> What would be a Marxist counterargument to the above?
> =================================================================
>
> Capitalist free marketeering and opposition to society taking the
> responsibility for food, clothing and shelter for the human beings
> who live in it, while guaranteeing full freedom for the corporations
> and banks to make bad loans, which they now expect all of us to pay
> for, is responsible for the mess the United States is in.
>
> What's necessary now is a radical reduction in military spending,
> the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq
> and Afghanistan. Nationalize all of the banks and insurance companies.
> Fire the managers and investigate to see if they should be charged
> criminally for their activities which led up to this mess.
>
> For years they've told us there was no money for single-payer health
> insurance or other needed programs, but now, when these same people
> say there's a big problem, they have found all the money which they
> need: in our pocket books and our tax payments.
>
>
> Walter Lippmann
> Los Angeles, California

These are all valid points, Walter. But you didn't answer the question, though.

The question is this:

(1) Is the statement "a modern economy can't function when people
can't easily get credit" true?

(2) If it is true, then "nationalizing the banks" (your solution)
seems to be intended to restore the flow of credit through the
nationalized banks. But, bank nationalization will probably
immediately lead to a stock market fal (panicky investors selling off
thinking that their company might be nationalized next)l, leading to a
severe recession.

Incidentally, bank nationalization  is something that Britain seems to
be doing (for this one bank, at least),  Not sure if that is helping
matters in Britain.

LONDON, Sept 28 (Reuters) - Britain's government will nationalise
troubled mortgage lender Bradford & Bingley and is discussing the sale
of its savings book and branches, people familiar with the matter
said.


From lueko.willms at t-online.de  Wed Oct  1 03:01:49 2008
From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (Lueko Willms)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:01:49 +0200 (MES)
Subject: [Marxism] Meet Robert Fisk on TV with Riz Khan of Al Jazeera
Message-ID: <100-7d3ce348-36965.011@t-online.de>


  Riz Khan, who some will remember from CNN International und who is
working now for Al Jazeera, had reknowned journalist Robert Fisk as
guest on September 30. Robert Fisk writes for the British daily
newspaper The Independent. He is based in Beirut, Libanon, but
travels a lot around all of West and Central Asia. He has coverered
the region for more than 30 years. 

  I had never had a chance to see and hear Robert Fisk speaking and
can recommend to follow the interview either in a rebroadcast on Al
Jazeera, or on the Web, where it is in two installments (with calls
from viewers worldwide) and a "extra" both on Al Jazeera itself and
on Youtube. The "extra" is dated September 30, the two parts of the
interview are dated October 1, 2008.

  <http://www.aljazeera.net/english>
  <http://www.youtube.com/AlJazeeraEnglish>

> extra <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frvhEB6C-xU>
> Part 1 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWGJepUwQ-U>
> Part 2 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v39_lgWOQrw>

   Enjoy! 


Comradely yours,   
L?ko Willms 
Frankfurt/Main 
/ Lueko.Willms at T-Online.de 




From lueko.willms at t-online.de  Wed Oct  1 01:39:02 2008
From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:39:02 +0200 (MES)
Subject: [Marxism] Mumia Abu-Jamal: "The Fear Bomb -- Again!"
In-Reply-To: <908b689f0810010008w2298478an18ae90e35f88e7c4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <10041501.1222843727401.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<10041501.1222843727401.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<908b689f0810010008w2298478an18ae90e35f88e7c4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <100-1629e348-14430.003@lws-media.de>

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 03:08:50 -0400, Ruthless Critic of All that 
Exists wrote:

> "But in the end, this really isn't about Wall Street. It's about
> reducing the risk that something really bad happens. It's about
> limiting the damage from the past decade's financial 
excesses.
> Unfortunately, there is no way to accomplish that without also
> extending a helping hand to Wall Street. That is where our 
credit
> markets are, and we need them to start working again."

  The only real solution is the complete nationalisation of the 
banking system, not these half-baked measures of taking a 
capital stake in one of the other bank. 


Comradely yours, 
L?ko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------


From walterlx at earthlink.net  Wed Oct  1 03:56:28 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 05:56:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Mumia Abu-Jamal:
Message-ID: <10026334.1222854988305.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

1-Of course, credit is necessary for a modern economy. Virtually
all international commerce today is based on credit, and many of
us individually use credit cards when we purchase simple things
like food, clothing, and gasoline. We pay interest to be able to
do that. Houses, automobiles and other more heftily-priced items
even more require credit for individuals who may not have enough
savings to pay for such things out of cash on hand.

2-Nationalizing the banks means that the government would take
responsibility for who gets credit and on what terms they get it.
These would then become political decisions, if governments made
the decisions. It's hard to predict what would happen in an
exact or precise manner, in advance. Surely the bank owners and
the other capitalists who think that these things should be the
private decisions that only they are allowed to make, won't be
happy. They will mobilize the entire capitalist media against
such ideas. But they've had some difficulty now, as people are
perhaps less stupid than they've been assumed to be, and even
the very ill-informed and mostly dis-informed people of the 
United States can see that when the rich want something, they
are in a position to take center stage in demanding that their
demands be met.

Unfortunately, the working class in the United States accepts
the idea that capitalism, private property, private ownership,
and private everything are the norms for society. Socialist 
and Marxists tendencies are relatively modest in size and in
influence in the United States, for a raft of reasons, and so
it remains to be seen if such concepts as nationalization will
generate much political force. For the moment, such simple a
notion as a moratorium on home foreclosures seems to be one
way to advance in that direction.


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
==============================================================
RUTHLESS posed these questions:
The question is this:

(1) Is the statement "a modern economy can't function when people
can't easily get credit" true?

(2) If it is true, then "nationalizing the banks" (your solution)
seems to be intended to restore the flow of credit through the
nationalized banks. But, bank nationalization will probably
immediately lead to a stock market fal (panicky investors selling off
thinking that their company might be nationalized next)l, leading to a
severe recession.

Incidentally, bank nationalization  is something that Britain seems to
be doing (for this one bank, at least),  Not sure if that is helping
matters in Britain.

LONDON, Sept 28 (Reuters) - Britain's government will nationalise
troubled mortgage lender Bradford & Bingley and is discussing the sale
of its savings book and branches, people familiar with the matter
said.


=========================================
     WALTER LIPPMANN
     Los Angeles, California
     Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
     "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================


From versomail at verso.co.uk  Wed Oct  1 04:44:22 2008
From: versomail at verso.co.uk (Verso Mail)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:44:22 +0100
Subject: [Marxism] NEW FROM VERSO: JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE presents THE
	HAITIAN REVOLUTION
Message-ID: <A8EC603BE258E44680633A63466ACA40465C49@versonlrserver.VersoNLR.local>

NEW FROM VERSO

 

JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE presents TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE

THE HAITIAN REVOLUTION

 

ISBN 9781844672615 / ?7.99 / $14.95 / Paperback

 

Verso is proud to announce the latest in its Revolutions series: classic texts introduced by today's most thought-provoking writers.

Just in time for Black History Month, and with Barack Obama on the ballot as the first ever black candidate for the US presidency, Verso presents this unprecedented collection of writings by the man who freed Haiti's slaves to became the leader of the second independent republic in the Western hemisphere and the world's first free black republic. Many of these riveting and historically invaluable documents have not previously been available in English.

The book also features a new introduction written by former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the first democratically elected leader of Haiti, twice deposed in coups supported by the United States. Aristide's introduction tells the dramatic story of L'Ouverture's life, and highlights his political and social legacies for Haiti and for anti-colonial movements everywhere.  

As Haiti continues to struggle with the long-term effects of its colonial past and the crushing debt imposed on it by the very powers that once enslaved its people, L'Ouverture's message resonates to this day.   

 

More information from the Verso website:

 

http://www.versobooks.com/books/klm/l-titles/l'ouverture_haiti_rev_series.shtml

 

Available at all good bookshops or from Amazon:

 

UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Toussaint-LOuverture-Haitian-Revolution-Revolutions/dp/1844672611/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222857327&sr=8-4

 

US: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1844672611/ref=s9sdps_c1_14_img1-rfc_p-frt_p-3215_g1-3102_g1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=15G2S9CJV897PSFQWH70&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=436515901&pf_rd_i=507846

 

Contact: 

davids at verso.co.uk

www.versobooks.com

 


From spalmer999 at yahoo.com  Wed Oct  1 05:51:04 2008
From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 04:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Karl Marx vs the crisis-deniers ...Re: Michael
	Heinrich versus the crisis-mongerers
In-Reply-To: <908b689f0809302221i3031b5b9g8fd7f765e7565ac0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <925461.79356.qm@web81906.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Bit weird to attack economists in this way since 'economics' has largely become a branch of applied mathematics.

Which is precisely the problem. No mathematics is any stronger than its underlying theory. Mathematics is simply a language for expressing relationships and to fetishize any particular mathematical technique or approach is pointless. It's a bit like saying, if only they'd used Swahili instead of Twi, then it would all be clear. The focus needs to be on the underlying theory, whether or not it can be adequately modelled mathematically. Bourgeois capital theory had its knees blown off thirty years ago, but the bourgeois 'economists' are still staggering around on its stumps as if nothing had happened.

Interesting is the vain hope that if only they had a better technique, they'd be able to avoid the inevitable as if this is all the result of stubborn minds, a methodological mistake. Dream on Messrs les bourgeois!

The credit markets remain locked. They have days, not weeks before thousands of businesses go to the wall and millions of workers get released. Then we'll see what's going on using simple arithmetic.

Steve

"I study a lot. That is one of the responsibilities of every revolutionary." Hugo Chavez.


--- On Tue, 9/30/08, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists <ok.president+marxml at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Ruthless Critic of All that Exists <ok.president+marxml at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Karl Marx vs the crisis-deniers ...Re: Michael Heinrich versus the crisis-mongerers
> To: "Steve Palmer" <spalmer999 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 10:21 PM
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Steve Palmer
> <spalmer999 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >
> > What is meant by 'collapse', 'crisis'
> etc? In opponents of crisis theory, the
> > straw-man dummy version is usually the idea that
> 'collapse' means that
> > capitalism just falls flat on its face, all of its own
> accord, at some point,
> > unable ever to rise again. I don't think Marx
> thought that, ever, certainly not
> > in 1857-8, and Henryk Grossman didn't think that.
> 
> October 1, 2008
> Op-Ed Contributor
> This Economy Does Not Compute
> By MARK BUCHANAN
> 
> Notre-Dame-de-Courson, France
> 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01buchanan.html?ref=opinion>
> 
> "Financial crises may emerge naturally from the very
> makeup of
> markets, as competition between investment enterprises sets
> up a race
> for higher leverage, driving markets toward a precipice
> that we cannot
> recognize even as we approach it. The model offers a
> potential
> explanation of why we have another crisis narrative every
> few years,
> with only the names and details changed. [...]
> 
> Sadly, the academic economics profession remains reluctant
> to embrace
> this new computational approach (and stubbornly wedded to
> the
> traditional equilibrium picture). This seems decidedly
> peculiar given
> that every other branch of science from physics to
> molecular biology
> has embraced computational modeling as an invaluable tool
> for gaining
> insight into complex systems of many interacting parts,
> where the
> links between causes and effect can be tortuously
> convoluted.
> 
> Something of the attitude of economic traditionalists
> spilled out a
> number of years ago at a conference where economists and
> physicists
> met to discuss new approaches to economics. As one
> physicist who was
> there tells me, a prominent economist objected that the use
> of
> computational models amounted to "cheating" or
> "peeping behind the
> curtain," and that respectable economics, by contrast,
> had to be
> pursued through the proof of infallible mathematical
> theorems.
> 
> If we're really going to avoid crises, we're going
> to need something
> more imaginative, starting with a more open-minded attitude
> to how
> science can help us understand how markets really work.
> Done properly,
> computer simulation represents a kind of "telescope
> for the mind,"
> multiplying human powers of analysis and insight just as a
> telescope
> does our powers of vision. With simulations, we can
> discover
> relationships that the unaided human mind, or even the
> human mind
> aided with the best mathematical analysis, would never
> grasp. [...]"
> 
> October 1, 2008
> Op-Ed Contributor
> This Economy Does Not Compute
> By MARK BUCHANAN
> 
> Notre-Dame-de-Courson, France
> 
> ________________________________________________
> 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/spalmer999%40yahoo.com


      


From spalmer999 at yahoo.com  Wed Oct  1 06:00:47 2008
From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 05:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Karl Marx vs the crisis-deniers ...Re: Michael
	Heinrich versus the crisis-mongerers
In-Reply-To: <908b689f0809302221i3031b5b9g8fd7f765e7565ac0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <756275.66289.qm@web81903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Interesting example of this kind of fetishism: the argument over the accounting rules, fix incorporated in the handout bill:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/01audit.html?ref=business

?blaming fair-value accounting for the credit crisis is a lot like going to a doctor for a diagnosis and then blaming him for telling you that you are sick.?

Price is the big issue here and determines how badly we get swindled. I was worried we'd only be allowed to donate $700bn to the banks, but the Republican insurance plan would up that considerably to perhaps $2trn if it gets drawn dawn. Watch for financial arson as some of these financial institutions inflate their values and then get their buds to torch them by calling in loans, precipitating their collapse


--- On Tue, 9/30/08, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists <ok.president+marxml at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Ruthless Critic of All that Exists <ok.president+marxml at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Karl Marx vs the crisis-deniers ...Re: Michael Heinrich versus the crisis-mongerers
> To: "Steve Palmer" <spalmer999 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 10:21 PM
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Steve Palmer
> <spalmer999 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >
> > What is meant by 'collapse', 'crisis'
> etc? In opponents of crisis theory, the
> > straw-man dummy version is usually the idea that
> 'collapse' means that
> > capitalism just falls flat on its face, all of its own
> accord, at some point,
> > unable ever to rise again. I don't think Marx
> thought that, ever, certainly not
> > in 1857-8, and Henryk Grossman didn't think that.
> 
> October 1, 2008
> Op-Ed Contributor
> This Economy Does Not Compute
> By MARK BUCHANAN
> 
> Notre-Dame-de-Courson, France
> 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01buchanan.html?ref=opinion>
> 
> "Financial crises may emerge naturally from the very
> makeup of
> markets, as competition between investment enterprises sets
> up a race
> for higher leverage, driving markets toward a precipice
> that we cannot
> recognize even as we approach it. The model offers a
> potential
> explanation of why we have another crisis narrative every
> few years,
> with only the names and details changed. [...]
> 
> Sadly, the academic economics profession remains reluctant
> to embrace
> this new computational approach (and stubbornly wedded to
> the
> traditional equilibrium picture). This seems decidedly
> peculiar given
> that every other branch of science from physics to
> molecular biology
> has embraced computational modeling as an invaluable tool
> for gaining
> insight into complex systems of many interacting parts,
> where the
> links between causes and effect can be tortuously
> convoluted.
> 
> Something of the attitude of economic traditionalists
> spilled out a
> number of years ago at a conference where economists and
> physicists
> met to discuss new approaches to economics. As one
> physicist who was
> there tells me, a prominent economist objected that the use
> of
> computational models amounted to "cheating" or
> "peeping behind the
> curtain," and that respectable economics, by contrast,
> had to be
> pursued through the proof of infallible mathematical
> theorems.
> 
> If we're really going to avoid crises, we're going
> to need something
> more imaginative, starting with a more open-minded attitude
> to how
> science can help us understand how markets really work.
> Done properly,
> computer simulation represents a kind of "telescope
> for the mind,"
> multiplying human powers of analysis and insight just as a
> telescope
> does our powers of vision. With simulations, we can
> discover
> relationships that the unaided human mind, or even the
> human mind
> aided with the best mathematical analysis, would never
> grasp. [...]"
> 
> October 1, 2008
> Op-Ed Contributor
> This Economy Does Not Compute
> By MARK BUCHANAN
> 
> Notre-Dame-de-Courson, France
> 
> ________________________________________________
> 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/spalmer999%40yahoo.com


      


From sabocat59 at mac.com  Wed Oct  1 06:15:22 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:15:22 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] comment on leaflet
Message-ID: <929DB357-0577-491D-99FC-AF749E90F716@mac.com>

<U.S. FINANCIAL MELTDOWN SPOTLIGHTS PROFIT SYSTEM'S ENDEMIC  
EXPIRATION AND THE IMPERATIVE OF ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY>

Apparently this is the title of the so-called leaflet, which is  
really an essay at this point. If someone were to see this taped on  
the bathroom stall they would more than likely pull it off the door  
and wipe their ass with it. "Endemic expiration"? Give me a fucking  
break.

Greg McD


From nmgoro at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 06:23:38 2008
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:23:38 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] Germany's rulers take their distance from US,
	declare end of US economic dominance
In-Reply-To: <100-2007e348-12381.008@lws-media.de>
References: <100-2007e348-12381.008@lws-media.de>
Message-ID: <2fa158550810010523t46409848p5f02b642766a796b@mail.gmail.com>

A sense of irony!!!!!!!

Isn't it moving, to see this kind of snake say that after all there
was something good with Marx, and even speaking of ?dialectics?
(though what they call dialectics is simply fear at the reaction of
the exploited)?

Isn't it moving, to see Der Spiegel speaking of other peoples' arrogance?

Were it not serious, it should be included in an anthology of humor!

2008/10/1, L?ko Willms <lueko.willms en t-online.de>:
>
>   "In a speech before parliament on Thursday [September 25, 2008],
>  German Finance Minister Peer Steinbr?ck said the effects of the financial

-- 

N?stor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a

From markalause at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 06:24:39 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:24:39 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Further information requested
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810010524p430b8b09oc80a02cebb5da96d@mail.gmail.com>

Cynthia McKinney's claim that 5,000 prisoners were executed in
Louisiana at the time of Katrina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nc-DouFzYM

I've never heard anything about this.  Can anybody provide further
information on it?

ML


From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Oct  1 06:43:42 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:43:42 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] 1873, not 1929
Message-ID: <48E3707E.1090608@panix.com>

The Chronicle of Higher Education  The Chronicle Review

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i08/08b09801.htm

 From the issue dated October 17, 2008
The Real Great Depression

The depression of 1929 is the wrong model for the current economic crisis

By SCOTT REYNOLDS NELSON

As a historian who works on the 19th century, I have been reading my 
newspaper with a considerable sense of dread. While many commentators on 
the recent mortgage and banking crisis have drawn parallels to the Great 
Depression of 1929, that comparison is not particularly apt. Two years 
ago, I began research on the Panic of 1873, an event of some interest to 
my colleagues in American business and labor history but probably 
unknown to everyone else. But as I turn the crank on the microfilm 
reader, I have been hearing weird echoes of recent events.

When commentators invoke 1929, I am dubious. According to most 
historians and economists, that depression had more to do with overlarge 
factory inventories, a stock-market crash, and Germany's inability to 
pay back war debts, which then led to continuing strain on British gold 
reserves. None of those factors is really an issue now. Contemporary 
industries have very sensitive controls for trimming production as 
consumption declines; our current stock-market dip followed bank 
problems that emerged more than a year ago; and there are no serious 
international problems with gold reserves, simply because banks no 
longer peg their lending to them.

In fact, the current economic woes look a lot like what my 96-year-old 
grandmother still calls "the real Great Depression." She pinched pennies 
in the 1930s, but she says that times were not nearly so bad as the 
depression her grandparents went through. That crash came in 1873 and 
lasted more than four years. It looks much more like our current crisis.

The problems had emerged around 1870, starting in Europe. In the 
Austro-Hungarian Empire, formed in 1867, in the states unified by 
Prussia into the German empire, and in France, the emperors supported a 
flowering of new lending institutions that issued mortgages for 
municipal and residential construction, especially in the capitals of 
Vienna, Berlin, and Paris. Mortgages were easier to obtain than before, 
and a building boom commenced. Land values seemed to climb and climb; 
borrowers ravenously assumed more and more credit, using unbuilt or 
half-built houses as collateral. The most marvelous spots for sightseers 
in the three cities today are the magisterial buildings erected in the 
so-called founder period.

But the economic fundamentals were shaky. Wheat exporters from Russia 
and Central Europe faced a new international competitor who drastically 
undersold them. The 19th-century version of containers manufactured in 
China and bound for Wal-Mart consisted of produce from farmers in the 
American Midwest. They used grain elevators, conveyer belts, and massive 
steam ships to export trainloads of wheat to abroad. Britain, the 
biggest importer of wheat, shifted to the cheap stuff quite suddenly 
around 1871. By 1872 kerosene and manufactured food were rocketing out 
of America's heartland, undermining rapeseed, flour, and beef prices. 
The crash came in Central Europe in May 1873, as it became clear that 
the region's assumptions about continual economic growth were too 
optimistic. Europeans faced what they came to call the American 
Commercial Invasion. A new industrial superpower had arrived, one whose 
low costs threatened European trade and a European way of life.

As continental banks tumbled, British banks held back their capital, 
unsure of which institutions were most involved in the mortgage crisis. 
The cost to borrow money from another bank ? the interbank lending rate 
? reached impossibly high rates. This banking crisis hit the United 
States in the fall of 1873. Railroad companies tumbled first. They had 
crafted complex financial instruments that promised a fixed return, 
though few understood the underlying object that was guaranteed to 
investors in case of default. (Answer: nothing). The bonds had sold well 
at first, but they had tumbled after 1871 as investors began to doubt 
their value, prices weakened, and many railroads took on short-term bank 
loans to continue laying track. Then, as short-term lending rates 
skyrocketed across the Atlantic in 1873, the railroads were in trouble. 
When the railroad financier Jay Cooke proved unable to pay off his 
debts, the stock market crashed in September, closing hundreds of banks 
over the next three years. The panic continued for more than four years 
in the United States and for nearly six years in Europe.

The long-term effects of the Panic of 1873 were perverse. For the 
largest manufacturing companies in the United States ? those with 
guaranteed contracts and the ability to make rebate deals with the 
railroads ? the Panic years were golden. Andrew Carnegie, Cyrus 
McCormick, and John D. Rockefeller had enough capital reserves to 
finance their own continuing growth. For smaller industrial firms that 
relied on seasonal demand and outside capital, the situation was dire. 
As capital reserves dried up, so did their industries. Carnegie and 
Rockefeller bought out their competitors at fire-sale prices. The Gilded 
Age in the United States, as far as industrial concentration was 
concerned, had begun.

As the panic deepened, ordinary Americans suffered terribly. A cigar 
maker named Samuel Gompers who was young in 1873 later recalled that 
with the panic, "economic organization crumbled with some primeval 
upheaval." Between 1873 and 1877, as many smaller factories and 
workshops shuttered their doors, tens of thousands of workers ? many 
former Civil War soldiers ? became transients. The terms "tramp" and 
"bum," both indirect references to former soldiers, became commonplace 
American terms. Relief rolls exploded in major cities, with 25-percent 
unemployment (100,000 workers) in New York City alone. Unemployed 
workers demonstrated in Boston, Chicago, and New York in the winter of 
1873-74 demanding public work. In New York's Tompkins Square in 1874, 
police entered the crowd with clubs and beat up thousands of men and 
women. The most violent strikes in American history followed the panic, 
including by the secret labor group known as the Molly Maguires in 
Pennsylvania's coal fields in 1875, when masked workmen exchanged 
gunfire with the "Coal and Iron Police," a private force commissioned by 
the state. A nationwide railroad strike followed in 1877, in which mobs 
destroyed railway hubs in Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Cumberland, Md.

In Central and Eastern Europe, times were even harder. Many political 
analysts blamed the crisis on a combination of foreign banks and Jews. 
Nationalistic political leaders (or agents of the Russian czar) embraced 
a new, sophisticated brand of anti-Semitism that proved appealing to 
thousands who had lost their livelihoods in the panic. Anti-Jewish 
pogroms followed in the 1880s, particularly in Russia and Ukraine. 
Heartland communities large and small had found a scapegoat: aliens in 
their own midst.

The echoes of the past in the current problems with residential 
mortgages trouble me. Loans after about 2001 were issued to first-time 
homebuyers who signed up for adjustablerate mortgages they could likely 
never pay off, even in the best of times. Real-estate speculators, 
hoping to flip properties, overextended themselves, assuming that home 
prices would keep climbing. Those debts were wrapped in complex 
securities that mortgage companies and other entrepreneurial banks then 
sold to other banks; concerned about the stability of those securities, 
banks then bought a kind of insurance policy called a credit-derivative 
swap, which risk managers imagined would protect their investments. More 
than two million foreclosure filings ? default notices, auction-sale 
notices, and bank repossessions ? were reported in 2007. By then 
trillions of dollars were already invested in this credit-derivative 
market. Were those new financial instruments resilient enough to cover 
all the risk? (Answer: no.) As in 1873, a complex financial pyramid 
rested on a pinhead. Banks are hoarding cash. Banks that hoard cash do 
not make short-term loans. Businesses large and small now face a 
potential dearth of short-term credit to buy raw materials, ship their 
products, and keep goods on shelves.

If there are lessons from 1873, they are different from those of 1929. 
Most important, when banks fall on Wall Street, they stop all the 
traffic on Main Street ? for a very long time. The protracted 
reconstruction of banks in the United States and Europe created 
widespread unemployment. Unions (previously illegal in much of the 
world) flourished but were then destroyed by corporate institutions that 
learned to operate on the edge of the law. In Europe, politicians found 
their scapegoats in Jews, on the fringes of the economy. (Americans, on 
the other hand, mostly blamed themselves; many began to embrace what 
would later be called fundamentalist religion.)

The post-panic winners, even after the bailout, might be those firms ? 
financial and otherwise ? that have substantial cash reserves. A 
widespread consolidation of industries may be on the horizon, along with 
a nationalistic response of high tariff barriers, a decline in 
international trade, and scapegoating of immigrant competitors for 
scarce jobs. The failure in July of the World Trade Organization talks 
begun in Doha seven years ago suggests a new wave of protectionism may 
be on the way.

In the end, the Panic of 1873 demonstrated that the center of gravity 
for the world's credit had shifted west ? from Central Europe toward the 
United States. The current panic suggests a further shift ? from the 
United States to China and India. Beyond that I would not hazard a 
guess. I still have microfilm to read.

Scott Reynolds Nelson is a professor of history at the College of 
William and Mary. Among his books is Steel Drivin' Man: John Henry, the 
Untold Story of an American legend (Oxford University Press, 2006).


From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Oct  1 06:45:28 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:45:28 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The playboy philosopher
Message-ID: <48E370E8.1010001@panix.com>

http://insidehighered.com/views/2008/10/01/mclemee.
The Playboy Philosopher
By Scott McLemee

When introduced to American audiences from the podium or by TV 
interviewers, Bernard-Henri L?vy is always called a philosopher ? a 
label that says less about the substance of his work than the efficiency 
of modern public-relations techniques. Like Sartre, he is a graduate of 
the ?cole Normale Sup?rieure. Unlike Sartre, he was formidably 
good-looking in his prime, and is aging gracefully. His haircuts are as 
thoughtful as his books are stylish. And in the spirit of Andy Warhol 
and Paris Hilton, L?vy has always grasped ? more profoundly, or at least 
more profitably, than any mere philosopher could ? an important truth: 
the media must constantly be fed.

Ten years ago, Pierre Bourdieu coined a term for certain French 
intellectuals whose writings counted for less than their TV appearances. 
He called them ?les fast-thinkers.? Everyone knew who the sociologist 
had in mind as the prototype of this phenomenon. Long before the 
American public got used to hearing references to J-Lo and K-Fed, the 
French press had dubbed him BHL. His books, movies, TV appearances, 
political interventions, and romances have been a staple of the French 
media for more than three decades. But only in the past five years has 
he become as much a fixture in the U.S. media as the French.

His latest opuscule ? called in translation Left in Dark Times ? has 
just appeared from Random House. Writing about it elsewhere, I failed to 
note something peculiar about this development. How it is that a volume 
of afterthoughts on last year?s French presidential election should 
appear ? in such short order, no less ? from a major commercial 
publisher in the United States?

It seems counterintuitive, and a matter for concern. Clearly it is time 
to reinvest in America?s fast-thinking infrastructure. Dependence on 
foreign sources of ideological methane is just too risky. Besides, as a 
couple of my far-flung correspondents have recently pointed out, the 
recent embrace of BHL by the American media is raising questions about 
just how gullible we really are.

Lauren Elkin, a Ph.D. candidate in English at CUNY Graduate Center and 
the Universit? de Paris VII, says that the very occasional links to BHL 
items on her blog tend to bring out the worst in her readers. One 
mention can be reliably predicted to yield 10 gripes.

?In Paris, it?s just the done thing to bash BHL,? she tells me. 
?Recently I featured an awesome graphic that went along with a BHL piece 
on Sarah Palin in New York magazine ? an image of Palin getting bopped 
on the head with a baguette ? and I included a link to the NY mag 
article, because hey, I re-used their graphic, I owed them a link. The 
comments that followed amounted to taking the baguette and turning it on 
BHL!? (Well, at least it wasn?t a cream pie.)

Usually the expressions of exasperation are ?all in good fun,? says 
Elkin. But one item at her blog ? linking to a BHL piece on Simone de 
Beauvoir ? provoked an exceptionally pompous display of aggravation from 
a French journalist.

?You and your fellow Americans,? he wrote, ?should realize that BHL is 
not a philosopher but a clown and a buffoon. You want real French 
philosophy, read Derrida, Foucault, Badiou, Baudrillard, if you are a 
right winger, read Aron, but please forget about this pompous arrogant 
shmuck BHL and his unending and shameless self-promotion. As a 
Frenchman, I am ashamed of BHL.?

The notion that silly Americans are somehow responsible for L?vy?s 
prominence is a bit rich. By my estimate, his career has spanned more 
than a third of a century ? yet BHL, Inc., has had a fully staffed U.S. 
office for barely half a decade. (Note to Wikipedians: This is a figure 
of speech. No actual office exists, so far as I know.) And it is the 
work of a long, ill-spent day at the library to try to track down any 
discussion of his work by American intellectuals who take L?vy seriously 
as a philosopher. Our culture has its faults. This is not one of them.

?What really got me, as you can probably guess,? says Elkin, ?was the 
?you Americans? bit and the implication that as such we could not 
possibly tell Derrida from Aron, much less evaluate BHL for ourselves.? 
All the more galling, perhaps, given that Elkin has never concerned 
herself with BHL?s books. ?I?ve been too busy reading Derrida and 
Foucault, so pat me on the head,? she told her blog?s interlocutor.

Given her own neglect of the playboy?s philosophy, Elkin says she 
?really can?t comment on whether the bashing is appropriate.? But she 
suspects the strong feelings L?vy?s work provokes is a cultural 
phenomenon. ?The French disdain for BHL is reflective of an inherent 
distaste for blatant self-promotion; as for the non-French who read my 
blog and write in with these comments, hating on BHL is as good a way as 
any to fit in.?

In an incisive review published a couple of years ago, Doug Ireland 
cited a critical analysis of BHL?s oeuvre, characterizing him as ?a 
philosopher who?s never taught the subject in any university, a 
journalist who creates a cocktail mingling the true, the possible, and 
the totally false, a patch-work filmmaker, a writer without a real 
literary oeuvre....?

Yet L?vy swims in the main currents of European culture, and does not 
sink. If anything, he belongs on the short list of the world?s 
best-known intellectuals. How is that possible?

It seemed like a good question to pose to Arthur Goldhammer, a canny 
observer of French politics and culture who chairs the seminar for 
visiting scholars at the Center for European Studies at Harvard 
University. He responded to my inquiry with an e-mail note ? albeit one 
that amounted to a judicious essay on the mystery of BHL.

?How does he pull it off?? wrote Goldhammer. ?First, it must be 
recognized that he?s not a total fraud. Though a wretched scholar, he is 
neither stupid nor uneducated. His rhetoric, at least in French, has 
some of the old Normalien brilliance and flair. He had the wit to 
recognize before anyone else that a classic French role, that of the 
universal intellectual as moral conscience of the age, had become a 
media staple, creating a demand that a clever entrepreneur could 
exploit. He understood that it was no longer necessary first to prove 
one?s mettle in some field of literature, art, or thought. I think that 
someone once said of Zsa Zsa Gabor that she was ?famous for being 
famous.? L?vy realized that one could be famous for being righteous, and 
that celebrity itself could establish a prima facie claim to righteousness.?

Righteous or not, BHL is certainly timely. His denunciations of 
Communism in the late 1970s were hardly original. But they appeared as 
the radical spirit of May ?68 was exhausting itself ? and just before 
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Chinese party?s own 
denunciations of late-period Maoism. BHL developed a knack for showing 
up in war zones and sending out urgent dispatches. Last month he did a 
toe-touch in Georgia following the Russian invasion ? filing an article 
that was impassioned, if, it seems, imaginative.

?He chooses his causes shrewdly,? continues Goldhammer. ?He may not have 
been the first to divine the waning of revolutionary radicalism, but he 
made himself revisionism?s publicist. He has a knack for placing himself 
at the center of any scene and for depicting his presence as if it were 
what rendered the scene important.... His critics keep him constantly in 
the limelight and actually amplify his voice, and why should a 
?philosopher? of universal range stoop to respond to ?pedants? who 
trouble the clarity of his vision with murky points of detail??

And so he has acquired a sort of power that survives all debunking. If 
the topic of BHL comes up at ?a typical dinner party of Parisian 
intellectuals,? says Goldhammer, seven of the guests will be sarcastic. 
?But the eighth, enticed by the allure of making a brilliant defense of 
a lost cause, a venerable French oratorical tradition, will launch into 
an elaborate defense beginning, ?Say what you will about the man, and I 
wouldn?t contradict a word of it, but still you must admit that for the 
Chechens (or Bosnians or Georgians or boat people or insert your 
favorite cause here), he has not been without effect.?

?The French love their litotes,? Goldhammer continues (rhetoric lesson 
here), ?and of course no one can say that BHL has been without effect, 
that he has probably done more good for someone somewhere than most of 
us, so the revilers are reduced to sheepish silence for fear of 
appearing heartless.?

The role of the intellectual as famous, full-time spokesman for the 
Universal is well-established in France. It began with Voltaire and 
culminated in Sartre, its last great exemplar. (Not that other 
philosophers have not emerged in the meantime, of course, but none has 
occupied quite the same position.) From time to time, L?vy has mourned 
the passing of this grand tradition, while hinting, not too subtly, that 
it lives on in him. Clearly there is a steady French market for his line 
in historical reenactments of intellectual engagement.

It seems surprising, though, to find the BHL brand suddenly being 
imported to these shores after years of neglect ? particularly during a 
decade when Francophobia has become a national sport.

But like the song says, there?s a thin line between love and hate. L?vy 
has capitalized on American ambivalence towards France ? the potential 
of fascination to move from ?-phobia? to ?-philia? ? by performing a 
certain role. He is, in effect, the simulacrum of Sartre, minus the 
anti-imperialism and neo-Marxism.

?L?vy plays on both registers,? explains Goldhammer. ?At the height of 
anti-French feeling in the U.S., in the period just before the Iraq War, 
he positioned himself as a philo-American. He made himself the avenger 
of Daniel Pearl. Arrogant he might be, airily infuriating in just the 
right way to confirm the philistine?s loathing of the abstract and 
abstruse that philosophy is taken to embody, and yet there he was, 
pouring scorn on ?Islamofascism? and touring the country with the New 
Yorker reader?s nonpareil Francophile, Adam Gopnik.... L?vy chose his 
moment well. He insinuated himself into the American subconscious by 
playing against type.?

This is savvy. Also, convenient for journalists. BHL has now become ?the 
respectable media?s go-to guy whenever a French opinion is needed.? 
Goldhammer cites a recent article in The New York Times in which L?vy, 
like the presidents of Pakistan and Chile, was quoted as ?as an exemplar 
of what ?the world? wants to know from the next American president.? Get 
in the right Rolodex, it seems, and you are the embodiment of 
cosmopolitanism itself.

?To those familiar with the sad nullity of L?vy?s work,? says 
Goldhammer, ?this is infuriating, but to protest is only to perpetuate 
the folly. His celebrity is a bubble that must be allowed to burst, but 
we can be sure that when it does, no crisis will ensue.?

Scott McLemee writes Intellectual Affairs each week. He also blogs at 
Quick Study.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Oct  1 06:48:56 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:48:56 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Wall Street crisis deepens divisions in South America
Message-ID: <48E371B8.9010509@panix.com>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002813_2.html

U.S. Crisis Deepens Divisions in S. America

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 1, 2008; A13

RIO DE JANEIRO, Sept. 30 -- As his popularity has surged and his 
nation's booming economy has lifted thousands from poverty, Brazilian 
President Luiz In?cio Lula da Silva has largely refrained from the angry 
criticism of the United States that can be heard nearly any day from 
other South American leaders.

Not this time.

Last week, Lula told the U.N. General Assembly that the "boundless 
greed" of a few should not be shouldered by all, and on Monday he said 
emerging economies had done their best to have "good fiscal policy" and 
"can't be turned into victims of the casino erected by the American 
economy."

"This crisis belongs to the American bankers, to the European bankers. 
It doesn't belong to the Brazilian bankers," Lula said Monday. "It's not 
fair for Latin American, African and Asian countries to pay for the 
irresponsibility of sectors of the American financial system."

The U.S. financial crisis has stung emerging markets and angered leaders 
who have swallowed American advice about fiscal responsibility for 
years. In Latin America, where several leaders have made their 
ideological differences with the United States a central part of their 
rhetoric, the crisis appears to have further degraded U.S. credibility.

"They've always been critical of the U.S. for its negative agenda, drugs 
and immigration, but the economy was seen as the one positive thing, and 
this crisis probably puts that in a different light," said Michael 
Shifter, vice president for policy at Inter-American Dialogue in Washington.

Across Latin America, there is a growing division between countries that 
embrace certain U.S.-backed free-market policies, often referred to as 
the "Washington consensus," and those that renounce them. The leading 
anti-U.S. spokesman is President Hugo Ch?vez of Venezuela, who traveled 
to Brazil on Tuesday and urged Latin American countries to continue 
disconnecting from the U.S. economy, which he called a "wagon of death."

"The world will never be the same after this crisis," Ch?vez told 
reporters in Manaus, where he met with Lula and Bolivia's President Evo 
Morales. "A new world has to emerge, and it's a multipolar world."

Ch?vez predicted oil prices would drop to between $80 and $95 a barrel 
as a result of the financial turmoil. He also said the crisis shows why 
it is urgent to speed the creation of a Latin American regional 
development bank, known as Bank of the South.

Morales said that in Bolivia, companies are nationalized so that people 
can have money, while the United States "wants to nationalize debt and 
the crisis of the people that already have money."

Bolivia's finance minister, Luis Alberto Arce, said in an interview that 
countries such as Bolivia with few ties to international capital markets 
have just started to feel the impact of the crisis. But if the United 
States doesn't bolster its economy quickly, he said, Latin American 
countries can expect declines in commodities prices, exports and 
remittances from relatives living abroad.

In Argentina, the world's third-largest exporter of soy and wheat and 
second-largest exporter of corn, concerns are focused primarily on 
falling commodity prices and the potential for economic slowdown after 
several years of strong growth. Argentine President Cristina Fern?ndez 
de Kirchner said Monday in Buenos Aires that "old paradigms are changing."

"We need to have an open mind about the possibility of intelligent 
interaction between the government and the markets. And forget the 
theory that the markets have to do all or nothing, and vice versa," she 
said.

Some analysts and economists worried that the countries that sometimes 
express antagonism toward the U.S. economic model and emphasize more 
state intervention -- Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and to a certain 
extent Argentina -- would exploit the crisis for political benefit.

"I hope that McCain and Obama understand well there is a very, very 
important debate that will become critical next year, about the ideology 
of economic development -- whether the state should lead development or 
whether the market should be the main force," said Carlos Langoni, a 
former Brazilian central bank president, referring to U.S. presidential 
candidates John McCain and Barack Obama.

After a sharp drop in the stock market and a devaluation of the local 
currency against the U.S. dollar, both measures rebounded slightly in 
Brazil on Tuesday. Since a large percentage of Brazilian exports goes to 
China, the fate of that economy is of more immediate importance than 
what happens in the United States. Still, some economists are predicting 
that Brazil's growth rate, projected to be about 5 percent this year, 
could fall as low as 2 percent in 2009 if a recession takes hold in the 
United States.

"For Brazil, this is a very low rate. Brazil was beginning a cycle of 
sustainable growth," Langoni said. "This would be a very serious drawback."

Special correspondents Brian Byrnes in Buenos Aires and Andres Schipani 
in La Paz contributed to this report.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Oct  1 06:52:18 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:52:18 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] China milk scandal
Message-ID: <48E37282.7020601@panix.com>

http://www.marxist.com/20-percent-china-milk-companies-melamine-scandal.htm
China: 20 percent of China milk companies involved in melamine scandal 
  	By Fred Weston
Wednesday, 01 October 2008

The scandal over contaminated milk in China continues to spread. From 
two now the number of children who have died has become at least four, 
and some reports say six. Once the scandal erupted the government was 
forced to step in and ordered a nationwide investigation into all baby 
milk powders. The official investigation has found that 20% of China's 
dairy companies are involved. As we reported previously, the Sanlu Group 
has been distributing milk containing melamine, a chemical that can make 
the protein level in dairy products appear higher than it is.
2008 Chinese baby milk scandal (photo by Marc van der Chijs)
Stripped shelves in a supermarket in China
as a result of the contamination

So far two children have died and 50,000 have fallen ill, some 
developing kidney problems. The head of the Sanlu company was sacked, 
but how many more heads will have to roll in the coming period?

In the initial investigation 109 dairy companies were checked, of which 
22 were found to be selling milk containing melamine. Even Yili, which 
supplied milk for the Beijing Olympic Games, has been involved in the 
scandal, and many more.

According to Chinanews.com, Sanlu's chairperson "bore very large 
responsibility" for what has happened. But how can all this be blamed on 
one person? Since March parents had been complaining to the company 
about their babies' discoloured urine. In fact, it has been revealed 
that Sanlu was aware of the melamine problem back in December of last 
year. So why was nothing done then? Some babies had already been 
admitted to hospital in March, so the managers of the company cannot 
claim ignorance.

As we reported in our previous article, the Sanlu group has been trying 
to unload responsibility to smaller farmers who supply the milk. 
According to the Xinhua news agency several of these have been arrested, 
one of whom was producing 3 tons of milk a day, contaminated with 
melamine. On 17 September 22 people were arrested, suspected of using 
the toxic chemical.

If an initial investigation found that 22 companies have been involved 
  clearly working with many smaller dealers   in this practice of adding 
the toxic chemical to milk powder, then the problem is not just one 
company and not just one top manager. It is also the case that it is not 
just the dairy industry that has been affected by such scandals in the 
recent period. Already back in 2004, at least 13 babies died after 
drinking adulterated milk powder. Other food companies have also been 
involved.

The official Xinhua news agency has revealed that among those arrested 
some have openly admitted to using melamine. One of these explained that 
in the past his milk was rejected by the Sanlu company because of its 
low protein content. He then discovered that if he added melamine this 
would up the protein levels in the tests and thus be accepted by Sanlu.

As we have seen, attempts have been made to divert attention away from 
the big companies and blame the small farmers, who supply the milk. The 
problem, however, is that the small farmers depend on middlemen. These 
middlemen push down the price the small farmer gets for his produce. 
Demand for milk products has been growing fast. In fact over the past 
few years the industry as a whole has been growing by around 30% a year.

In order to increase production the small farmers have been pushed into 
watering down the milk. But that lowers the protein levels, thus making 
the milk unacceptable to the large companies. That's where the melamine 
comes in!

Now, as a result of this scandal China's dairy industry is in serious 
crisis, as more and more countries impose bans on importing Chinese 
dairy products. The Chinese government is now desperately trying to 
restore the reputation of their dairy industry, and is taking measures 
to seriously review the milk collection system.

This whole scandal reveals the cynicism of these people. When parents 
were complaining about their children's symptoms they didn't get much 
sympathy from the officials. Once the scandal broke out, provoking the 
anger of ordinary working people, they stepped in. And now that their 
profits are being seriously affected they are stepping up their 
measures. The milk industry in China is calculated to be worth about 
$20bn, so the people at the top must be very worried.

What this scandal reflects is the greed for profit that has spread 
throughout the Chinese economy. Whether state owned or private, Chinese 
companies are now out for one thing, enrichment for the few! And the 
authorities turn a blind eye... until a scandal like this one erupts, 
with babies dieing! Then they have to step in and attempt to 
re-establish some kind of order. But they punish the individual in order 
to save the system as a whole. We have seen this many times. They are 
not going to remove the greedy quest for profit. Market economics is 
capitalism. Capitalism does not look at the needs of people. Its God is 
profit.

What is required is not merely the sacking of this or that individual 
manager. It is the system as a whole that must go. The Chinese workers 
have paid a heavy price for the "capitalist road". They are learning 
from their everyday experience what capitalism stands for. At some point 
they will draw the conclusion that the whole system must go. That is 
what terrifies the leaders of the so-called Communist Party!


From schaffer at optonline.net  Wed Oct  1 06:53:35 2008
From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:53:35 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] comment on leaflet
In-Reply-To: <929DB357-0577-491D-99FC-AF749E90F716@mac.com>
References: <929DB357-0577-491D-99FC-AF749E90F716@mac.com>
Message-ID: <48E372CF.9050502@optonline.net>

Greg McDonald wrote:
> <U.S. FINANCIAL MELTDOWN SPOTLIGHTS PROFIT SYSTEM'S ENDEMIC  
> EXPIRATION AND THE IMPERATIVE OF ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY>
>
> Apparently this is the title of the so-called leaflet, which is  
> really an essay at this point. If someone were to see this taped on  
> the bathroom stall they would more than likely pull it off the door  
> and wipe their ass with it. "Endemic expiration"? Give me a fucking  
> break.
>   


exactly, so get in there and create two or more things, a real 
*leaflet*, and then more detailed explanations for those with time to read.

the wiki allows for multiple documents to be worked on at the same time. 
start a leaflet and rename the treatise to something else.

Les


From ecosocialism at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 06:54:34 2008
From: ecosocialism at gmail.com (Ian Angus)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:54:34 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Climate and Capitalism Top Ten: Sept. 2008
Message-ID: <733b65360810010554l57568fe6v7cbee7a6df71cfce@mail.gmail.com>

CLIMATE AND CAPITALISM
Ecosocialism or Barbarism: There is no third way
http://climateandcapitalism.com/

 After levelling off during the summer, Climate and Capitalism's growth
resumed with a bang in September. The number of unique visitors to the site
hit an all-time high, nearly 20% higher than in any previous month.

The most-read articles were:

Jury says: Direct Action Justified To Stop the Climate
Crisis<http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=525>

Ike Devastates Cuba: An Eyewitness
Report<http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=526>

Ecuadorian Assembly Approves Constitutional Rights for
Nature<http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=479>

Has Global Warming Stopped? <http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=538>

Help Cuba Recover from Its Worst Economic
Disaster<http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=527>

Africa: Why The Richest Continent Is Also the
Poorest<http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=520>

Carbon Capture and Storage Will Increase
Pollution<http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=506>

Global Warming and the Iraq War <http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=375>

Food Crisis: The Moral Failure of Liberal
Economists<http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=515>

Cuba vs Hurricanes: A Revolutionary Fight Against the Demon (Celia
Hart)<http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=523>

From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Oct  1 07:58:31 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:58:31 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The looming disaster beneath my feet
Message-ID: <48E38207.6000700@panix.com>

(This article argues that Columbia University's Manhattanville expansion 
risks New Orleans/Katrina type flooding. My building is the advance 
guard of this expansion.)


http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-10-01/news/everyone-listens-to-columbia-s-disaster-expert-mdash-except-columbia-itself/

Columbia's Disaster Expert
When Klaus Jacob talks, important people take action. Except the 
important people paying him.
By Elizabeth Dwoskin

Columbia geophysicist Klaus Jacob is such a highly regarded expert on 
urban environmental disasters related to climate change that governments 
and scientists all over the world take him seriously, revising building 
codes and altering the construction of dams as a result of his warnings.

When Jacob talks, important people take action.

Except, it turns out, at his own place of employment, where he's spent 
almost 40 years as a research scientist.

Jacob tells the Voice that he's repeatedly been given the brush-off by 
Columbia officials regarding his specific and detailed warnings that 
their ambitious development plans in Harlem could lead to a wide-scale 
disaster.

Much has been written about the university's plans to spread northward 
across 17 acres of developed land?but Jacob is concerned less about the 
school's move outward than he is about something that's garnered less 
attention: Columbia's intention to dig deep into the ground.

Expansion plans call for the largest underground complex in the city, a 
massive, 80-foot-deep basement that will extend only a block from the 
banks of the Hudson River. That's an underground space large enough to 
hold an eight-story building, lying only a few hundred feet from water 
that's susceptible to storm surge.

Imagine this scenario, based on Jacob's research: It's the year 2065, 
and Columbia University's 17-acre West Harlem expansion is abuzz with 
activity. Students hurry through rainfall along a tree-lined promenade 
overlooking the Hudson. In a biotechnology lab nearby, scientists are 
engineering lethal pathogens to respond to the next generation of 
infectious diseases and bioterrorist threats. Deep down below, 
engineering majors use the future version of Facebook to instant-message 
their friends.

Warnings, meanwhile, are steadily being broadcast about an oncoming 
storm. A Category 2 hurricane with 110-mile-an-hour winds is barreling 
down on the city?a more frequent occurrence than in decades past. New 
Yorkers have become familiar with the drill: They evacuate to local 
shelters set up by the city's Office of Emergency Management. Over 
several hours, the Hudson rises 10 feet, flooding the waterfront 
promenade and the rest of the campus. Many, but perhaps not all, have 
heeded warnings to leave the deep basement. Damage will be extensive and 
exorbitantly expensive. And some of the sprawling labs that contain 
biohazardous material may become another kind of floating threat to the 
city.

Sounds like the plot of some sci-fi disaster movie. But without the 
kinds of precautions that Jacob has been urging Columbia to take, he 
says, the prospect of inundation is all but inevitable.

This is how seriously officials?at least those outside of Columbia?take 
Klaus Jacob's research: When he was conducting the first national study 
on the environmental impact of climate change in major East Coast cities 
for the Clinton administration, he consulted with the Port Authority and 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to help the agencies 
understand how to prevent floods. In the early '90s, his research on 
earthquakes led the city to ask him to help rewrite its building code. 
That code was later adopted nationwide. Now he's working with the 
Transportation Research Board?a branch of the National Research 
Council?to issue federal guidelines on how cities can protect themselves 
from environmental disasters related to global warming.

"We're working with the Transportation Research Board in Washington," 
says Jacob. "And yet, here I'm trying to convince my own alma mater to 
do the right thing, and I can't. And that's bad news."

After trying for four years to get university officials to respond to 
his concerns, Jacob says he's now given up and is willing to talk 
publicly about that struggle for the first time. In a few months, New 
York's Empire State Development Corporation will decide whether to give 
Columbia the right to use eminent domain to force a few remaining 
business owners that stand in the way to give up their properties. That 
decision is the last major hurdle before the university can break 
ground?when West Harlem officially becomes "Manhattanville."

In 2004, when Jacob first heard that his employer was planning to expand 
from 125th Street to 133rd Street across two avenues, he asked to see 
the plans. At the time, he and his wife Isabella lived in faculty 
housing on 125th Street at Riverside Drive, so he went to an open house 
not only for professional reasons, but also as an interested 
neighborhood resident. (He has since moved upstate.)

He says the first thing he noticed about the building plans, as they 
were presented at the time, was that the effects of global warming 
weren't being taken seriously. In fact, they weren't being taken into 
account at all.

The plans didn't include floodgates, dikes, or levee systems, but Jacob 
knew that sea levels in New York are expected to rise between two and 
three feet?perhaps more?by the end of this century. That sea-level rise 
will shift the area expected to be flooded during a hurricane storm 
surge. As a result, Columbia's expansion site, Jacob believes, is 
located squarely in a future flood zone.

To make matters worse, the likelihood of hurricanes hitting New York 
will also rise with the sea level. There's a current probability of 1 in 
100 that a storm will hit the city in any given year. That number could 
grow to 1 in 10 by the year 2100, according to a widely publicized 
report issued last year by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The expansion plans so worried Jacob that he decided it was his 
professional responsibility to tell someone about it. As he attended 
public presentations of the plans, he took down the names of the people 
in charge of each aspect of the project. Armed with those names, he 
composed a letter on May 4, 2004, and mailed copies to Columbia vice 
president Mark Burstein, four additional university officials, and some 
of the project architects at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.

Attaching a topographical map to the letter, Jacob wrote that the 
portion of Upper Manhattan at issue in the expansion plans is located in 
a valley with low elevations. (This is vividly demonstrated if you 
travel north on Broadway past Columbia's campus: As you go steeply 
downhill, you'll see the No. 1 train emerge from the ground and continue 
on a trestle for several blocks before re-entering the tunnel.) In his 
letter, Jacob outlined the most current climate-change research on New 
York's flooding potential. He also wrote that the expansion site might 
be vulnerable to an earthquake, but he has since dropped those concerns, 
saying that subsequent engineering plans have resolved that issue.

(clip)


From shmage at pipeline.com  Wed Oct  1 08:31:43 2008
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 10:31:43 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] China milk scandal
In-Reply-To: <48E37282.7020601@panix.com>
References: <48E37282.7020601@panix.com>
Message-ID: <0EB77577-DE60-4B4B-965B-A216581CE61A@pipeline.com>


On Oct 1, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Louis Proyect wrote:

> http://www.marxist.com/20-percent-china-milk-companies-melamine-scandal.htm
> China: 20 percent of China milk companies involved in melamine scandal
>  	By Fred Weston
> Wednesday, 01 October 2008

> ...The official investigation has found that 20% of China's
> dairy companies are involved...
> So far two children have died and 50,000 have fallen ill, some
> developing kidney problems. The head of the Sanlu company was sacked,
> but how many more heads will have to roll in the coming period?...


I demand that China abolish the death penalty---AFTER all those heads  
have rolled.

Shane Mage

"Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to  
be called Zeus."

Herakleitos of Ephesos





From pieinsky at igc.org  Wed Oct  1 09:28:33 2008
From: pieinsky at igc.org (Jay Moore)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:28:33 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The Current Crisis: A Socialist Perspective
In-Reply-To: <48E247DF.6010107@optonline.net>
References: <295BA9B9-28EF-4463-A8E7-DCEC194CF37E@mac.com>	<908b689f0809300809j1033b3f9va8f6e0a213230061@mail.gmail.com>	<2fa158550809300824q5882a598o22fad9395fc563ef@mail.gmail.com>	<908b689f0809300829y7d295673g59102b1a26ce282a@mail.gmail.com>	<48E2471B.4020105@optonline.net>
	<48E247DF.6010107@optonline.net>
Message-ID: <48E39721.2000800@igc.org>

Thanks, Les (and everybody else who is participating in the Wiki 
already)!  This will be a good collective experiment, I'm sure.  Let's 
make sure it's very to-the-point.
jay

Les Schaffer wrote:
> http://marxmail.pbwiki.com/
>
> i've made it so i have to approve people who will use this, but i simply 
> will approve anyone who is a member of marxmail. or do "you" desire 
> differently?
>
> Les
>   


From schaffer at optonline.net  Wed Oct  1 09:32:50 2008
From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:32:50 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The Current Crisis: A Socialist Perspective
In-Reply-To: <48E39721.2000800@igc.org>
References: <295BA9B9-28EF-4463-A8E7-DCEC194CF37E@mac.com>
	<908b689f0809300809j1033b3f9va8f6e0a213230061@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fa158550809300824q5882a598o22fad9395fc563ef@mail.gmail.com>
	<908b689f0809300829y7d295673g59102b1a26ce282a@mail.gmail.com>
	<48E2471B.4020105@optonline.net> <48E247DF.6010107@optonline.net>
	<48E39721.2000800@igc.org>
Message-ID: <48E39822.2080001@optonline.net>

Jay Moore wrote:
> Thanks, Les (and everybody else who is participating in the Wiki 
> already)!  This will be a good collective experiment, I'm sure.  Let's 
> make sure it's very to-the-point.


does everyone here who wants to participate know how to use a Wiki, or 
do we need to provide a brief explanation?

Les


From marvgandall at videotron.ca  Wed Oct  1 09:40:27 2008
From: marvgandall at videotron.ca (Marvin Gandall)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:40:27 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Accounting change proposal (Was: Karl Marx vs the
 crisis-deniers ...)
References: <756275.66289.qm@web81903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4DB7CCA1CABE4F88AC2090C206BFC253@MARV>

Steve Palmer writes:

> Interesting example of this kind of fetishism: the argument over the
> accounting rules, fix incorporated in the handout bill:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/business/01audit.html?ref=business
>
> ???blaming fair-value accounting for the credit crisis is a lot like going
> to a doctor for a diagnosis and then blaming him for telling you that you
> are sick.???
>
> Price is the big issue here and determines how badly we get swindled. I
> was worried we'd only be allowed to donate $700bn to the banks, but the
> Republican insurance plan would up that considerably to perhaps $2trn if
> it gets drawn dawn. Watch for financial arson as some of these financial
> institutions inflate their values and then get their buds to torch them by
> calling in loans, precipitating their collapse
===============================
It's not an "insurance plan". It's a proposed accounting change - one
designed to deflate the value of bank losses on mortgage-backed securities.
If the banks are allowed to use their own models, which is what they're
pushing for, they would value their assets as being worth more than they
really are - more than, say, the 22 cents on the dollar Merrill Lynch got on
its MBS's when it sold them to a private equity firm, which is widely being
used as the unofficial market price.

The change would mean the banks wouldn't have to markdown their assets as
drastically as their accountants, interpreting the SEC rule concerning
so-called fair-value accounting, have required them to do. Why would the
banks want to do this? Because the markdowns have sparked investor runs
against the banks and threatened some with insolvency, forcing all of them
to raise more capital through borrowings, forced asset sales, and the
dilution of existing shareholdings.

The conservative Republicans have been pushing for this accounting
sleight-of-hand because they are both ideologically opposed to the
government committing itself to expenditures of this magnitude, even to a
fraction of the ruling class, and because they are feeling populist
anti-banker heat from their constituents in this election year.

They argue that by moving away from mark-to-market accounting, the banks
will be able to disguise the extent of the losses on their balance sheets,
and this will presumably obviate the need for the Treasury to set aside as
much as 700b. to buy up the toxic securities.

Accountant, investor, and consumer groups are against the change precisely
because it would disguise the true extent of the losses.

I'm not sure it matters that much in terms of the proposed legislation
anyway. Even if the lower mark-to-market measure is still used to value
these assets, Bernanke and Paulson have already told Congress they will pay
more for these securities - closer to so-called "mark-to-maturity" prices.
It's likely the strong cash-rich banks, who will be included in the "rescue"
plan, will sweep up their securities at a lower price than they received for
them when the government eventually dumps them back onto the market.

Quite a scam, maybe shaping up to be the biggest example of a
state-sponsored corporate welfare scheme in history.




From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Oct  1 10:13:14 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:13:14 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Is the bailout "Marxist"?
Message-ID: <48E3A19A.2080802@panix.com>

(As soon as I get a chance, I am going to refute this bullshit about 
Henry Paulson's "socialist" measures.)

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/09/29/bailout-marks-karl-marx-s-comeback.aspx
Marx?s Proposal Number Five seems to be the leading motivation for those 
backing the Wall Street bailout

By Martin Masse

In his Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Karl Marx proposed 10 
measures to be implemented after the proletariat takes power, with the 
aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the 
state. Proposal Number Five was to bring about the ?centralization of 
credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state 
capital and an exclusive monopoly.?

If he were to rise from the dead today, Marx might be delighted to 
discover that most economists and financial commentators, including many 
who claim to favour the free market, agree with him.

Indeed, analysts at the Heritage and Cato Institute, and commentators in 
The Wall Street Journal and on this very page, have made declarations in 
favour of the massive ?injection of liquidities? engineered by central 
banks in recent months, the government takeover of giant financial 
institutions, as well as the still stalled US$700-billion bailout 
package. Some of the same voices were calling for similar interventions 
following the burst of the dot-com bubble in 2001.

?Whatever happened to the modern followers of my free-market opponents?? 
Marx would likely wonder.

At first glance, anyone who understands economics can see that there is 
something wrong with this picture. The taxes that will need to be levied 
to finance this package may keep some firms alive, but they will siphon 
off capital, kill jobs and make businesses less productive elsewhere. 
Increasing the money supply is no different. It is an invisible tax that 
redistributes resources to debtors and those who made unwise investments.

So why throw this sound free-market analysis overboard as soon as there 
is some downturn in the markets?

The rationale for intervening always seems to centre on the fear of 
reliving the Great Depression. If we let too many institutions fail 
because of insolvency, we are being told, there is a risk of a general 
collapse of financial markets, with the subsequent drying up of credit 
and the catastrophic effects this would have on all sectors of 
production. This opinion, shared by Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson and most 
of the right-wing political and financial establishments, is based on 
Milton Friedman?s thesis that the Fed aggravated the Depression by not 
pumping enough money into the financial system following the market 
crash of 1929.

It sounds libertarian enough. The misguided policies of the Fed, a 
government creature, and bad government regulation are held responsible 
for the crisis. The need to respond to this emergency and keep markets 
running overrides concerns about taxing and inflating the money supply. 
This is supposed to contrast with the left-wing Keynesian approach, 
whose solutions are strangely very similar despite a different view of 
the causes.

But there is another approach that  doesn?t compromise with free-market 
principles and coherently explains why we constantly get into these 
bubble situations followed by a crash. It is centered on Marx?s Proposal 
Number Five: government control of capital.

For decades, Austrian School economists have warned against the dire 
consequences of having a central banking system based on fiat money, 
money that is not grounded on any commodity like gold and can easily be 
manipulated. In addition to its obvious disadvantages (price inflation, 
debasement of the currency, etc.), easy credit and artificially low 
interest rates send wrong signals to investors and exacerbate business 
cycles.

Not only is the central bank constantly creating money out of thin air, 
but the fractional reserve system allows financial institutions to 
increase credit many times over. When money creation is sustained, a 
financial bubble begins to feed on itself, higher prices allowing the 
owners of inflated titles to spend and borrow more, leading to more 
credit creation and to even higher prices.

As prices get distorted, malinvestments, or investments that should not 
have been made under normal market conditions, accumulate. Despite this, 
financial institutions have an incentive to join this frenzy of 
irresponsible lending, or else they will lose market shares to 
competitors. With ?liquidities? in overabundance, more and more risky 
decisions are made to increase yields and leveraging reaches dangerous 
levels.

During that manic phase, everybody seems to believe that the boom will 
go on. Only the Austrians warn that it cannot last forever, as Friedrich 
Hayek and Ludwig von Mises did before the 1929 crash, and as their 
followers have done for the past several years.

Now, what should be done when that pyramidal scheme starts crashing to 
the floor, because of a series of cascading failures or concern from the 
central bank that inflation is getting out of control? It?s obvious that 
credit will shrink, because everyone will want to get out of risky 
businesses, to call back loans and to put their money in safe places. 
Malinvestments have to be liquidated; prices have to come down to 
realistic levels; and resources stuck in unproductive uses have to be 
freed and moved to sectors that have real demand. Only then will capital 
again become available for productive investments.

Friedmanites, who have no conception of malinvestments and never raise 
any issue with the boom, also cannot understand why it inevitably leads 
to a crash.

They only see the drying up of credit and blame the Fed for not 
injecting massive enough amounts of liquidities to prevent it.

But central banks and governments cannot transform unprofitable 
investments into profitable ones. They cannot force institutions to 
increase lending when they are so exposed. This is why calls for 
throwing more money at the problem are so totally misguided. Injections 
of liquidities started more than a year ago and have had no effect in 
preventing the situation from getting worse. Such measures can only 
delay the market correction and turn what should be a quick recession 
into a prolonged one.

Friedman ? who, contrary to popular perception, was not a foe of 
monetary inflation, but simply wanted to keep it under better control in 
normal circumstances ? was wrong about the Fed not intervening during 
the Depression. It tried repeatedly to inflate but credit still went 
down for various reasons. This is a key difference in interpretation 
between the Austrian and Chicago schools.

As Friedrich Hayek wrote in 1932, ?Instead of furthering the inevitable 
liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the 
last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that 
readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been 
repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most 
recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit 
expansion. ... To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is 
to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about ...?

The confusion of Chicago school economics on monetary issues is so 
profound as to lead its adherents today to support the largest 
government grab of private capital in world history. By adding their 
voices to those on the left, these confused free-marketeers are not 
helping to ?save capitalism?, but contributing to its destruction.


Martin Masse is publisher of the libertarian webzine Le Qu?b?cois Libre 
and a former advisor to Industry minister Maxime Bernier.



From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Oct  1 10:20:22 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:20:22 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The last hold-up
Message-ID: <48E3A346.3030201@panix.com>

Counterpunch, October 1 , 2008
Crisis Time for Wall Street's Creatures in Congress
The Last Hold Up

By GLEN FORD

In their role as mercenaries in service of finance capital, three-fifths 
of Democrats joined one-third of Republicans in a (temporarily) failed 
heist of $700 billion of the people's funds - a nest-egg the public 
needs to hold onto to weather the unfolding collapse of the Lords of 
Capital. In the aftermath of Monday's bloody siege, it was difficult to 
tell who Wall Street guns-for-hire John McCain and Barack Obama hated 
most: each other, or the citizens who despite their outraged confusion 
had the presence of mind to bar the doors to the national treasury.

Understandably disoriented from having had to charge backwards - 
pretending to lead the people while simultaneously assaulting them - 
Obama peered across the field at the hastily-erected barricades that had 
broken Hank Paulson's Charge.  "I'm confident we're going to get there," 
said the frustrated thief-enabler, "but it's going to be rocky."
To paraphrase Oscar Brown, Jr., "What you mean WE, Obama-man?"

The Illinois senator and his pretend-opponents in the other business 
party just had their colluding asses kicked by the most motley, 
disorganized crew imaginable: the American public, who bombarded their 
legislators with threats of retaliation in November if they bowed to 
Wall Street's extortionist demands.

Never has Republican-Democratic co-subservience to finance capital been 
on such naked display. But then, "We the People" have never before been 
witness to the terminal unraveling of late-stage global finance capital. 
When the New York Times features no less than three articles declaring 
the nation's investment bankers ready for burial, as did last Sunday's 
paper, it is time for the Democrats, especially, to find another paymaster.

Black Caucus Split

Obama's party is wedded to Wall Street. At the local level the Democrats 
have long been the party of "developers" - the money bags who shape 
urban policy to fit the needs of corporations. These gentrifiers are the 
"Renaissance Men" that insist black politicians earn their campaign and 
graft payments by helping to expel their own constituents from the 
cities, so as to make them more congenial to business. Betrayal starts 
at home.  So it's not surprising to find Rep. Charles Rangel (NY), the 
corporate-loving Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, among 
the 18 members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to vote with the 
Bush-McCain-Obama Wall Street axis. Edolphus Towns (NY), Gregory Meeks 
(NY), and Artur Davis (AL) are also in their element, reeking as they do 
of corporate contributions. However, it is strange - and sad - to see 
Maxine Waters (CA), Gwen Moore (WI) and other relatively progressive 
members aligned with the rump end of the Black Caucus.

Among the slim, 21-member majority of the CBC that defied Speaker Nancy 
Pelosi's edicts, one finds more curious company. Voting alongside 
usually reliable progressives such as Barbara Lee (CA), John Conyers 
(MI), Donna Edwards (MD) and Bobby Scott (VA), are some of the Caucus's 
most rightwing members: William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson (LA) and David 
Scott (GA), once described as the "Worst Black Congressman" in the 
House. Panic makes strange bedfellows.
Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott summed up the "No" position: "There's no point 
in spending all this money on worthless assets" such as toxic mortgages. 
Detroit's Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick said of the Paulson plan, "This 
helps the banks in their book of mortgages. It doesn't help the little 
person who needs it."

These are eminently good reasons to resist the bipartisan, flag-waving, 
hyper-ventilating and increasingly ill-looking Wall Street mob, now 
regrouping for another bum-rush of the Congress. However, the anxious 
thieves are only a 12-vote switch away from consummating the Greatest 
Theft Ever. Pelosi's wing of the Business Party is confident they can 
assemble the blandishments and threats to do the trick.

The Last Hold-up

The criminal-minded and mortally wounded Lords of Capital believed, as 
Pam Martens has written, that they could "loot and collapse a 200-year 
old financial system and...be rewarded with a fresh $700 billion of 
public money to disperse among your cronies who aided and abetted in the 
collapse."

Or, as Mike Whitney puts it:

     "...the $700 billion is just part of a massive ?pump and dump' 
scheme engineered with the tacit approval of the US Treasury and the 
Federal Reserve. Once the banksters have offloaded their fraudulent 
securities and crappy paper on Uncle Sam, they will do whatever they 
need to do to pad the bottom line and drive their stocks up. That means 
they will shovel capital into hard assets, foreign currencies, gold, 
interest rate swaps, carry trade swindles, and Swiss bank accounts. The 
notion that they will recapitalize so they can provide loans to US 
consumers and businesses in a slumping economy is a pipedream."

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and his designated wrecking crew have 
but one objective: theft. Their own world is doomed - "The system is 
de-leveraging and nothing can stop it," says Whitney - so they are 
pulling off one last, mega-heist before it sinks beneath the waves.

The rest of us must fashion new institutions to perform the societal 
tasks that were purportedly the domain of the now-extinct investment 
bankers: to gather large amounts of capital for projects of social value 
- for example, a Marshall-type Plan for the cities, a nationwide 
infrastructure makeover, and fulfillment of the 70-year old federal 
commitment to provide truly affordable housing for everyone. And of 
course, jobs, jobs, jobs.

We have many other uses for that $700 billion - what Barack Obama called 
"our last bullet," although intending to make it a gift to mega-thieves 
- for instance, to provide relief to current and future homeowner (and 
rental) victims of the housing bubble that will take years to fully 
deflate, as prices (and rents) decrease to levels consistent with wages 
and other social factors.

In a perverse way, Henry Paulson and his co-conspirators have done the 
public a great favor. He has told us that, Yes, the federal government 
can come up with $700-plus billion, in an instant, if the health of the 
nation demands it. He has expanded the fiscal scope of the domestic 
political debate, so that it may encompass projects of transformational 
size. Never again can the corporate class speak of socially valuable 
projects being so large as to "break the bank" or the budget. Popular 
forces are now free to think large, too, without being ridiculed from 
the corporate Right.

The demise of finance capital's premiere institutions, and the brutal 
arrogance with which their servants moved to strip the commonweal of 
every squeezable drop of cash, has alerted vast sectors of the citizenry 
to the reality of capitalism-in-crisis in ways that no amount of Left 
agitation could have accomplished.

Technical public "ownership" of previously "private" institutions has 
been thrust upon us by the capitalists, themselves. But this is merely 
an opening for the great debates and struggles that must follow. Power 
does not devolve to "the people" by simple virtue of majority shares in 
failing institutions or even outright nationalization. And "the people" 
have no need of institutions that serve no purpose but as creatures of 
capital.

The second casualty of the current crisis, after the collapse of the 
financial sector, is surely the twin-party game of musical chairs that 
served to legitimize the rule of capital. The obscenity of a 
Democrat-Republican syndicate arrayed against the roaring, raging 
sentiments of citizens of all self-described political persuasions, 
cannot be erased from the collective national memory - even if 
congressional party leaders succeed in whipping their members into line, 
later this week.

When catastrophe hits, radicals must be ready. Recent events have proven 
Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente to be amazingly prescient in their 
belief that the Green Party can be - I emphasize can be - a vehicle for 
presenting and popularizing a truly transformational program for social 
change. (See McKinney "The Financial Crisis: Seize the Time!" BAR 
September 24.) McKinney and Clemente always intended that the Green 
Party become a nexus for the roiling social currents set in motion by 
the decomposition of ruling class institutions. The Democratic and 
Republican Parties, creatures of capital, are decomposing in full view, 
as witnessed by the events of this week. As the crisis deepens, the 
parties will crack - at a pace dictated by the increasing frequency of 
convulsions.

When we are confronted with the surreal spectacle of John McCain and 
Barack Obama attempting to destroy each other even as they rush to 
deliver nearly a trillion dollars to the same master, while the people 
scream at both of them to "Stop!" - we know that "change" is coming. But 
not the kind the Democrats or Republicans anticipate.

Glen Ford is executive editor of Black Agenda Report, where this article 
also appears. He can be contacted at Glen.Ford at BlackAgendaReport.com.



From walterlx at earthlink.net  Wed Oct  1 10:43:52 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:43:52 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
Subject: [Marxism] Wall Street crisis deepens divisions in South America
Message-ID: <21844711.1222879432097.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

FROM THE Venezuela Information Office in Washington, DC:
South American leaders met in Brazil yesterday. President Chavez and
Brazil's Lula da Silva held their own regular quarterly meeting, at
which seven bilateral agreements were signed in the areas of iron and
steel production, oil refining, agriculture, and housing. The leaders
of Bolivia and Ecuador were also present, and all were critical of
the US financial crisis, according to Bloomberg. Lula da Silva said:
"Those that spent the last three decades telling us what to do,
didn't do what they had to do. The crisis is very serious and so
profound that we don't know how big it is." The AP reports that
President Chavez likened it to "a hundred hurricanes" and said that
"the Washington consensus has collapsed."

Other Latin American leaders have also spoken out, according to the
AP; President Arias of trade-dependent Costa Rica said, "The managers
of big business took huge risks out of greed." Even the right-wing
Bush ally Alvaro Uribe of Colombia complained, "The whole world has
financed the United States, and I believe that they have a reciprocal
debt with the planet." A Washington Post headline reads that the US
financial crisis "deepens divisions" in South America, but the
situation appears quite the opposite.

WALTER ADDS
The division is clearly between what Washington wants, which would
be more like the US relationship with Colombia or El Salvador, or
the growing trend toward Latin American integration. This is a key
point for Marxists today to try to understand. The development is
highly progressive, even if it's not predicated on the immediate
nationalization of the means of production in the member states.

Fidel was talking about this idea well before the declaration of
the socialist character of the Cuban Revolution two years later.
http://www.walterlippmann.com/fc-05-02-1959.html 


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
===================================================================

INCA KOLA NEWS
9/30/08 Manaos, a hundred hurricanes and royalties

http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2008/09/manaos-hundred-hurricanes-and-royalties.html

Lula, Evo, Muffin and Hugo all got together for a "mini summit" in
Manaos (North Brazil, Amazon, overrated tourist trap par excellence,
Lonely Planet sucks) today. No doubt they were planning some secret
plan to take over the world or some such, but they made plenty of
public statements about the US financial crisis. Here are four
snippets from the dudes in question:

Lula said, "We all have the same forecast; the crisis is very serious
and so deep that we don't yet know its size. Maybe it will be the
biggest in the history of the world."

Hugo said, "I hope they find a formula to get out of the crisis and
so that it doesn't keep expanding around the whole world like a fire,
like a spectre....it could cause more damage (to South America) than
a hundred hurricanes."

Studmuffin said, "These crises don't terrorize (South American
countries) like they did before.....Hopefully the day will come for
Latin America when it's irrelevant what happens in the United States,
probably that's when we would have achieved our true sovereignty."

Evo said, "Capitalism is not the solution for the people that inhabit
this planet...We nationalize so that the people have money, while the
USA wants to nationalize the debt and the crisis of people who have
money."
=======================================================================

Chavez Says U.S. Slump Hits Like `Hundred Hurricanes'
By Matthew Walter and Andre Soliani
Bloomberg
September 30, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSvvuco1AOjw

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said the turmoil in U.S. financial
markets will stunt growth in Latin America and may send oil down to
as low as $80 a barrel.

``This is a hurricane, or more than one hurricane, it's a hundred
hurricanes,'' Chavez told reporters after arriving in Manaus, Brazil
for a meeting with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
``I'm in the group that believes this will be worse than the 1929
crash. No country can say it won't be affected.''

Oil prices should stabilize between $80 and $95 a barrel, Chavez
said, adding the credit crisis in the U.S. will likely make it more
difficult to obtain financing in Latin America.

Both Venezuela and Brazil have announced measures to brace for the
fallout. Venezuelan Finance Minister Ali Rodriguez on Sept. 27 called
on Venezuelans to practice ``austerity'' amid the uncertainty, and
Brazil's Trade Minister Miguel Jorge said the government may take
steps to help exporters cope with a worldwide credit contraction.

`Very Serious'

During a ceremony today with Chavez in Manaus, Lula said that rich
nations are responsible for the global financial crisis, and called
on the U.S. Congress to pass a solution quickly. Emerging markets,
including Brazil, are better prepared to weather the crisis than the
U.S., he said.

``We did our homework and they didn't,'' Lula said. ``Those that
spent the last three decades telling us what to do, didn't do what
they had to do. The crisis is very serious and so profound that we
don't know how big it is.''

The crisis has already started to hurt lending in Brazil, said
Altamir Lopes, head of the economic research department for Brazil's
central bank, on Sept. 26. External funding for corporate loans
dropped 2.6 percent in the first two weeks of September compared with
a month earlier, he said.

Chavez said Latin American economies from Argentina to Ecuador have
been disconnecting themselves from the U.S. economy. Venezuela is the
fourth-biggest supplier of foreign crude oil to the U.S.

Crude oil prices plunged $10.52 a barrel yesterday after the U.S.
House of Representatives voted down a proposal to bail out the
financial system. Prices for crude for delivery in November rebounded
4.4 percent today to $100.64 a barrel at 2:51 p.m. on the New York
Mercantile Exchange.

`Completely Disconnected'

Chavez said the government will continue to tap central bank reserves
when they rise above $33 billion to finance investment projects, and
can also rely on money from a joint investment fund established with
China. An oil price between $80 and $90 a barrel is ``sufficient,''
and Venezuela isn't facing any immediate shortage of funds, he said.

The president said the Caracas stock exchange saw one of the only
gains in the world yesterday because it is ``completely
disconnected'' from Wall Street. Venezuelan stocks are some of the
least traded in Latin America.

Yesterday, $820,000 in trades were made in Caracas, compared with
$3.6 billion in Sao Paulo, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The Venezuelan president said the surge in oil prices earlier this
year was caused in large part by speculation. Venezuela will continue
to push for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to
create a bank to use oil wealth for global financing as U.S. banks
fail, he said.

Trade

Chavez reiterated he'll promote the creation of a Latin
American-based regional development bank called the Bank of the
South, and said part of the plan for surviving a slump in the U.S.
should be for Latin American countries to increase trade with each
other.

``We can't and shouldn't waste another day to activate the Bank of
the South,'' Chavez said. ``Bureaucratic and technical issues have
prevented our bank from getting started.''

Chavez met with Lula today to discuss integration of the region's
natural gas market. The president said that his proposed ``Great Gas
Pipeline of the South,'' which would connect Venezuelan gas fields
with cities as far south as Buenos Aires, wouldn't be discussed.

Brazil and Venezuela have agreed to develop gas fields in Venezuela's
Sucre state and to build re-gasification plants in Brazil, Chavez
said.

At a signing ceremony attended by Lula and Chavez, Construtora
Andrade Gutierrez SA, a Brazilian construction company, won a $1.8
billion contract to help build a mill for Venezuela's state-owned
steel producer.

=======================================================================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002813_2.html

U.S. Crisis Deepens Divisions in S. America

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 1, 2008; A13

RIO DE JANEIRO, Sept. 30 -- As his popularity has surged and his 
nation's booming economy has lifted thousands from poverty, Brazilian 
President Luiz In?cio Lula da Silva has largely refrained from the angry 
criticism of the United States that can be heard nearly any day from 
other South American leaders.

Not this time.

Last week, Lula told the U.N. General Assembly that the "boundless 
greed" of a few should not be shouldered by all, and on Monday he said 
emerging economies had done their best to have "good fiscal policy" and 
"can't be turned into victims of the casino erected by the American 
economy."

"This crisis belongs to the American bankers, to the European bankers. 
It doesn't belong to the Brazilian bankers," Lula said Monday. "It's not 
fair for Latin American, African and Asian countries to pay for the 
irresponsibility of sectors of the American financial system."
>

=========================================
     WALTER LIPPMANN
     Los Angeles, California
     Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
     "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================


From schaffer at optonline.net  Wed Oct  1 10:57:44 2008
From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:57:44 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] (fwd) Socialists and/or communists?]
Message-ID: <48E3AC08.9080005@optonline.net>

[ forwarded from Einde.  ... Einde, if you are around this weekend, i 
will call Hans and see if we can get this problem fixed. ]



Aaron Aarons wrote:
>> From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com>

<snip>
>
>> Marx and Engels were never comfortable with the term "socialist" and 
>> somewhat chagrined that it came to be identified with their 
>> followers, as Engels made a point of stressing late in his life in 
>> the introductions to the Communist Manifesto, if I remember right.
>
> I haven't been able to locate this, and it seems a strange thing for 
> somebody to say who had, around that time or later, written a pamphlet 
> entitled "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific".
>
IIRC Marx and Engels were dissatisfied that their followers called
themselves "social democrats". I can't recall any expressions of
discomfort about teh use of the description "socialists" although they
considered themselves communists.

Einde O'Callaghan


From proletariandan at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 11:11:48 2008
From: proletariandan at gmail.com (Dan Russell)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 12:11:48 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Is the bailout "Marxist"?
In-Reply-To: <48E3A19A.2080802@panix.com>
References: <48E3A19A.2080802@panix.com>
Message-ID: <517f3cab0810011011t25d6ebfei577ba691661f1cf3@mail.gmail.com>

<During that manic phase, everybody seems to believe that the boom will
go on. Only the Austrians warn that it cannot last forever, as Friedrich
Hayek and Ludwig von Mises did before the 1929 crash, and as their
followers have done for the past several years.>

I'm always amazed that these so-called economists have not only clearly NOT
read Marx, but don't even have a basic understanding of his critique of
capitalism, only a misguided view of his prescriptions for overcoming it. I
have to submit a proposal for a paper in my international political economy
class shortly and this will likely be its focus.

From david at miradoiro.com  Wed Oct  1 11:24:29 2008
From: david at miradoiro.com (=?Windows-1252?Q?David_Pic=F3n_=C1lvarez?=)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:24:29 +0200
Subject: [Marxism] Is the bailout "Marxist"?
References: <48E3A19A.2080802@panix.com>
Message-ID: <ECAD847C65ED42E79E7FDA066BDF4CD0@Nautilus>

So, in practice, what does one do about this kind of propaganda? On the one 
hand, it is against the bailout, on the ohter hand it spreads all sorts of 
collateral pernicious ideas about the holy market &c...

--David.



From jjonas at nic.fi  Wed Oct  1 11:27:37 2008
From: jjonas at nic.fi (Joonas Laine)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:27:37 +0300
Subject: [Marxism] Germany: Anti-Islam Racists Meet Defeat in Cologne
Message-ID: <48E3B309.5020900@nic.fi>

Germany: Anti-Islam Racists Meet Defeat in Cologne
Wednesday, September 24 2008 @ 06:14 PM CDT
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080924181428530

ANTI-ISLAM RACISTS MEET DEFEAT IN COLOGNE

That big racist "Anti- Islam Congress" which was supposed to happen last 
weekend for Cologne, Germany flopped. When tens of thousands of 
protesters and the people of Cologne, made it clear they weren't 
interested in the fascists meeting in the city, the cops finally agreed 
and said the "Congress" ain't gonna happen.

Police chief Klaus Steffenhagen said, "It would have been excessive to 
deploy water cannon and special units to fight a way into the square for 
300 (right wing) participants."

Some 3,000 police had been brought in and part of the old city sealed 
off as authorities appealed for peaceful protests against a weekend 
congress called by the far-right group Pro-K?ln (For Cologne).

Der Spiegel reports when radical-right activists from around Europe 
arrived in Cologne on Saturday for a rally, the city was ready. 
Thousands of anti-racist protesters flooded the rally site. Protesters 
of all stripes and all levels of militancy included some who blocked 
urban trains to keep delegates away and raided a tourist boat shaped 
like a whale -- called the "Moby Dick" -- where the far-right gathering 
had been hoping to hold a press conference. A Pro Cologne spokesman 
said, "Stones, bricks and paint bombs were thrown and the panoramic 
windows of the Moby Dick were shattered."

After less then an hour the police called the "rightists"press 
conference off while the more militant members of the crowd flung paint 
bombs at the racist organizers of the fascist fest and lit fires near 
barricades in the streets.

Less militant protesters did their job as well. "Conservative Christian 
Democrats stood with trade unionists, Left-Party members and students; 
Christian churches stood with Islamic groups; critics of Islam stood 
with mosque supporters; Carnival clowns stood with hooded anarchists. 
Taxi drivers refused to help the far-right delegates, hotel owners 
cancelled their rooms, and bar owners backed up their promise of 'No 
K?lsch for Nazis'" wrote Der Speigel.

The demonstrators, including thousands more regular citizens let out a 
jubilant cheer when the mayor of Cologne, Fritz Schramma, told them the 
right was beaten.

Schramma slammed Pro-K?ln as "arsonists and racists" hiding under the 
cloak of a "citizens' movement.".

[..]


From elishastephens at hotmail.com  Wed Oct  1 11:43:26 2008
From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 10:43:26 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Schwarzenegger: "Down with Commies!"
Message-ID: <BAY127-W11AF71254ACFBB1023138ED7420@phx.gbl>


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-arnold30-2008sep30,0,5659265.story

The governor wielded his veto pen against a measure that would have eliminated 
references in state law to communism as cause for dismissal of school, community 
college and other public employees.

"Many Californians have fled Communist regimes, immigrated to the United States 
and sought freedom in our nation because of the human rights abuses perpetuated 
in other parts of the world," Schwarzenegger said in his veto message. "It is 
important particularly for those people that California maintains the 
protections of current law.

"Therefore," his message said, "I see no compelling reason to change the law 
that maintains our responsibility to ensure that public resources are not used 
for purposes of overthrowing the U.S. or state government, or for communist 
activities."

The bill, SB 1322, was written by Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), who could 
not be reached for comment.


_________________________________________________________________
Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn ?10 hidden secrets? from Jamie.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008

From pance at rogers.com  Wed Oct  1 11:58:29 2008
From: pance at rogers.com (Pance Stojkovski)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 10:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Understanding the financial meltdown (audio)
Message-ID: <138169.54084.qm@web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Understanding the financial meltdown

Huge investment banks have gone bankrupt, home owners and investors have lost everything. The U.S. government is responding with a $700 billion bailout package. 

We discusses the roots of the crisis and the ramifications of the bailout with Greg Albo, assistant professor of political economy at York University and a writer for Canadian Dimension magazine. 

http://www.rabble.ca/rpn/episode.shtml?x=75943


From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Oct  1 12:08:57 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:08:57 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Bill Blum anti-Empire report
Message-ID: <48E3BCB9.8070106@panix.com>

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer62.htm


From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 12:39:44 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:39:44 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Karl Marx vs the crisis-deniers ...Re: Michael
	Heinrich versus the crisis-mongerers
In-Reply-To: <925461.79356.qm@web81906.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <908b689f0809302221i3031b5b9g8fd7f765e7565ac0@mail.gmail.com>
	<925461.79356.qm@web81906.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810011139h46504f17heb491da2fb549bda@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Steve Palmer <spalmer999 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Bit weird to attack economists in this way since 'economics' has largely become a branch of applied mathematics.

Did you actually read the article? That's precisely what the article
is saying. Economists are into mathematical theorem-proving, which is
why they don't like the bottom-up, agent-based computational models
that the article is advocating (which are much more in tune with the
nonequilibrium reality of the world).

> Interesting is the vain hope that if only they had a better technique, they'd be able to avoid the inevitable as if this is all the result of stubborn minds, a methodological mistake. Dream on Messrs les bourgeois!

But agent-based models are not just another mathematical
representational technique -- they are *not mathematics*!


From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 12:49:00 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:49:00 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Indian CEO killed after confrontation with dismissed
	workers
In-Reply-To: <908b689f0810011148r7b669a50s5dc1ac6c7e37b0b4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <908b689f0810011148r7b669a50s5dc1ac6c7e37b0b4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810011149u11e03c58g24c4626ea2d718d7@mail.gmail.com>

Indian CEO killed after negotiations with group of dismissed workers go awry
By Parwini Zora and Kranti Kumara
29 September 2008

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/ind-s29.shtml

In the course of heated negotiations between a group of laid-off
contract workers and the management of Graziano Transmission India,
the company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Managing Director,
Lalit Kishore Chaudhary, was killed Monday, September 22nd by a blow
to the head.

The circumstances surrounding Chaudhary's death have yet to be
clarified. There have even been suggestions that Graziano's business
rivals hired professional killers to pose as workers and foment a
confrontation that they could then use as a cover for a "hit."

But the corporate media was quick to label the incident a "lynching" by workers.

Two other senior Graziano managers suffered serious head injuries and
were initially listed as in critical condition. At least 10 workers
also suffered injuries in Monday's melee.

The Indian subsidiary of an Italian firm, Graziano had been compelled
by worker protests to agree to reinstate all but 15 of the 250
contract employees whom it had dismissed in June after they had staged
a sit-in demanding a salary raise and the status of permanent
employees.

Workers gathered outside the transmission factory last Monday, while a
small group of worker representatives went inside to meet with
management to discuss the fate of the 15 and contract details. The
company had earlier reneged on an agreement to provide a 3000 Rupees
($65) per month pay increase, by attaching conditions to the pay hike.

While the press has shown scant interest in the causes of the labour
dispute, the little information in their reports reveal that the
Graziano workers lived in constant fear of dismissal, were subjected
to frequent abuse, and were at times slapped or beaten for petty
infractions.

It is unclear why the workers waiting outside the factory last Monday
stormed inside. But there are several reports security guards fired
one or more shots. It has also been reported that the workers had
heard cries for "help" from within the factory.

The Calcutta-based corporate daily The Telegraph quoted a police
official as saying that "an attempt today to find a solution went
horribly wrong because of a gunshot by a security guard."

One of the workers, Avdesh, was quoted in The Hindustan Times as
saying: "The company asked us to write an apology letter saying we had
caused violence in the past which forced the lockout. This made me
furious and the gathered workers started protesting. However, we did
not kill the CEO."

Another worker Rajpal said: "We were demonstrating peacefully to get
our jobs back. Outsiders may have assaulted the CEO leading to his
death. Firing by the guards agitated workers and they clashed with
staff. Several workers, too, were injured."

Speaking Sunday outside the house of the deceased CEO, Samajwadi Party
General Secretary Amar Singh, who has a reputation for sensationalism,
said that the killing may have been organized by business rivals:
"Hired killers posing as workers may have entered the factory and
committed the murder."

In a draconian response all too familiar to the Indian working class,
the police responded to Monday's events with a dragnet. They swooped
in and arrested 136 workers, charging 63 of them with "murder" and
another 73 with "breach of peace".

Big business meanwhile responded with apprehension, demanding that the
state take immediate action to ensure such events never are repeated.

When Labour Minister Oscar Fernandez, in a rare display of candour,
suggested that management should take a warning from these events,
India's business elite and the media went ballistic. [clipped]


From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 13:07:02 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:07:02 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Further information requested
In-Reply-To: <b16d8daf0810010524p430b8b09oc80a02cebb5da96d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b16d8daf0810010524p430b8b09oc80a02cebb5da96d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810011207i327a207fq6faeebd5040be3e2@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Mark Lause <markalause at gmail.com> wrote:
> Cynthia McKinney's claim that 5,000 prisoners were executed in
> Louisiana at the time of Katrina
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nc-DouFzYM
>
> I've never heard anything about this.  Can anybody provide further
> information on it?

<http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/09/22/usdom11773.htm>

Some inmates from Templeman III have said they saw bodies floating in
the floodwaters as they were evacuated from the prison. A number of
inmates told Human Rights Watch that they were not able to get
everyone out from their cells.

Inmates broke jail windows to let air in. They also set fire to
blankets and shirts and hung them out of the windows to let people
know they were still in the facility. Apparently at least a dozen
inmates jumped out of the windows.

"We started to see people in T3 hangin' shirts on fire out the
windows," Brooke Moss, an Orleans Parish Prison officer told Human
Rights Watch. "They were wavin' em. Then we saw them jumping out of
the windows . . . Later on, we saw a sign, I think somebody wrote
`help' on it."

As of yesterday, signs reading "Help Us," and "One Man Down," could
still be seen hanging from a window in the third floor of Templeman
III.

Several corrections officers told Human Rights Watch there was no
evacuation plan for the prison, even though the facility had been
evacuated during floods in the 1990s.

"It was complete chaos," said a corrections officer with more than 30
years of service at Orleans Parish Prison. When asked what he thought
happened to the inmates in Templeman III, he shook his head and said:
"Ain't no tellin' what happened to those people."

"At best, the inmates were left to fend for themselves," said Carey.
"At worst, some may have died."

Human Rights Watch was not able to speak directly with Orleans Parish
Sheriff Marlin N. Gussman or the ranking official in charge of
Templeman III. A spokeswoman for the sheriff's department told Human
Rights Watch that search-and-rescue teams had gone to the prison and
she insisted that "nobody drowned, nobody was left behind."

Human Rights Watch compared an official list of all inmates held at
Orleans Parish Prison immediately prior to the hurricane with the most
recent list of the evacuated inmates compiled by the state Department
of Corrections and Public Safety (which was entitled, "All Offenders
Evacuated"). However, the list did not include 517 inmates from the
jail, including 130 from Templeman III.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Oct  1 13:49:10 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:49:10 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Are bailouts Marxist?
Message-ID: <48E3D436.8040207@panix.com>

Just after the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, rightwing 
ideologues began to rail against this supposedly socialist measure.

One of the more agitated among them is a Houston based venture 
capitalist named Bill Perkins who has bought a couple of full-page N.Y. 
Times ads warning about the communist threat to American capitalism. 
Here?s the latest that includes a cartoon exploiting the famous (but 
bogus) photo of wartime troops planting the stars and stripes on Iwo Jima:

It took me a moment to figure out that the rightmost soldier was 
President Bush since the features were decidedly Semitic, especially the 
nose. Just a couple of days ago I told my wife to expect a spasm of 
anti-Semitism around the bailout since so many of the hated Wall Street 
firms have traditionally been Jewish-owned-like Bear-Stearns, Lehman 
Brothers and Goldman-Sachs. Furthermore, AIG?s past chairman was Maurice 
Greenberg, a Jew whose close ties to the Reagan administration (the 
Gipper offered him the job of Deputy Director of the CIA) would probably 
not compensate for having killed Jesus and destroying the livelihoods of 
good (Christian, in other words) Americans.

In a September 24th Guardian article, Perkins explains: ?I think it?s a 
kind of trickle-down version of socialism or communism, when you say 
certain institutions can?t fail, when you have the government 
nationalising more institutions than Venezuela, I don?t see why you 
shouldn?t call a duck a duck.?

Ironically (although maybe not so ironically) Perkins hosted a 
fund-raiser for Barack Obama recently despite the Democratic candidate?s 
full-throated endorsement of the 700 billion dollar bailout.

full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/are-bailouts-marxist/


From nmgoro at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 13:50:02 2008
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:50:02 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] Wall Street crisis deepens divisions in South America
In-Reply-To: <48E371B8.9010509@panix.com>
References: <48E371B8.9010509@panix.com>
Message-ID: <2fa158550810011250j2b579cdred028e0e5239bb90@mail.gmail.com>

It's funny. Almost everybody down here tends to believe this criss
will force us more into each other's arms.

From the point of view of Latin Americans, the division between White
House worshippers and White House adversaries is absolutely
uninteresting.

This division may deepen. So what.

The fact that supercareful (to say the least) Lula shares a common
space with Ch?vez and Correa, far from deepening a division, enlarges
a road tu unification.

Sorry for the Washington Post, its journalists and USAmerican
imperialism in general.

Facts are stubborn.

>  The U.S. financial crisis has stung emerging markets and angered leaders
>  who have swallowed American advice about fiscal responsibility for
>  years. In Latin America, where several leaders have made their
>  ideological differences with the United States a central part of their
>  rhetoric, the crisis appears to have further degraded U.S. credibility.

-- 

N?stor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a

From proletariandan at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 14:01:11 2008
From: proletariandan at gmail.com (Dan Russell)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:01:11 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Wall Street crisis deepens divisions in South America
In-Reply-To: <2fa158550810011250j2b579cdred028e0e5239bb90@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48E371B8.9010509@panix.com>
	<2fa158550810011250j2b579cdred028e0e5239bb90@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <517f3cab0810011301r2313fb83w397dfef2e4b7ade9@mail.gmail.com>

 The article doesn't seem to be implying (though the title does) that Latin
America is dividing amongst itself but from the US, which is all the better.

From christopher.hutch at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 14:21:54 2008
From: christopher.hutch at gmail.com (Christopher Hutchinson)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:21:54 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] New General Strike: Trickle Down Economics
Message-ID: <c81bf1a60810011321u69b83e78pfa3a0cf347a8af16@mail.gmail.com>

Money, The Bourgeoisie, Blood and Bread lines...

www.GeneralStrikecomicstrip.blogspot.com<http://www.generalstrikecomicstrip.blogspot.com/>


keep well,

christopher

From gkmilner at v-app.com.au  Wed Oct  1 15:44:11 2008
From: gkmilner at v-app.com.au (Graham M.)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 05:44:11 +0800
Subject: [Marxism] George Orwell as a Socialist Writer
Message-ID: <002701c9240f$67506080$37c8becb@e3k0f6>


Dear Monique,
                       I thought I might write to you about George Orwell,
as he is a literary figure I have a lot of interest in.   I might have
mentioned to you before that I had thought about researching an Honours
dissertation on Orwell, and I would have seriously considered embarking on
such a project if I had decided to continue on with an English major and
possible Hons. with the B.Litt.   Apart from research projects I've had in
mind myself about Orwell, I recall that you wrote to me earlier this year
about 'Animal Farm', and also wrote to one of your nieces about that book

My first exposure to Orwell's writings was in fact through reading 'Animal
Farm', not long after I came to Australia in 1967.   I'm glad that this book
was on the syllabus for English at the high school I went to.   I must have
read or re-read it three or four times altogether, over the years, and I
also saw the cartoon film a few years ago, made I think in the late 1940s (I
believe we saw it together on your T.V.).   My own view of this book changed
as my political beliefs altered over the years, from
conservative/anti-communist to libertarian socialist to Communist.   I still
think that 'Animal Farm' is a great book, and probably Orwell's finest.
The book may be taken on several levels, but it is of course as a
deceptively simple political satire that it is most effective.

The next book I read by Orwell was 'Nineteen Eighty-Four', and that was in
5th Year high school (Year 12).   The book had a great impact on me, and by
the time I came to read it I had broken out of the conservative
straightjacket and was groping towards a socialist world outlook.   The most
interesting section for me is 'Goldstein's Book', which paraphrases the
ideas of the figure in the novel modelled on Trotsky - Emmanuel Goldstein.
It is entitled 'The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism', and
Winston Smith, the novel's hero, reads this forbidden book.   The excerpts
from this book inserted in the text of the novel are quite extensive.   The
ideas in Goldstein's book reveal Orwell's debt to James Burnham's 'The
Managerial Revolution', which Orwell had reviewed shortly before 'Nineteen
Eighty-Four' was written (Burnham had been a Trotskyist before breaking with
the US Socialist Workers Party in 1940 and drifting off to the right).
Isaac Deutscher reviewed 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' shortly after its
publication (see "The Mysticism of Cruelty" in 'Heretics and Renegades') and
was very critical of the book's stance, arguing that it played into the
hands of Cold Warriors and contributed to anti-Soviet hysteria in the West.
But 'Nineteen Eighty-Four', in spite of some structural faults, is in my
opinion a great political novel, and must be one of the most widely-read
books of the 20th century.

A year or two after leaving school, I read 'Down and Out in Paris and
London' which, as you probably know, is an autobiographical account of life
on skid-row in the early 1930s.   I had good reason to come to identify with
this aspect of Orwell's experience; my own personal odyssey through the low
life of Perth, Melbourne and Sydney, as well as unemployment and financial
harship in the early 1970s, highlighted it.

'Keep the Aspidistra Flying', which I read in 1972, is also about financial
hardship as well as socialist politics.   I think that you read it some
years ago.   I really identified with its lead character, Gordon Comstock.
That same year I read as well 'Homage to Catalonia', which describes
Orwell's experiences in Spain during the Revolution and Civil War.   Orwell
fought on the Aragon front with the neo-Trotskyist POUM militia, and was in
Barcelona during the May Days of 1937, when the left attempted to halt
inroads on the socialist gains of the revolution by the bourgeoisie and the
Stalinists.   Orwell's account is highly valuable - he was very lucky to
escape from Spain with his life.   If you ever have a chance to see the film
'Land and Freedom', directed by Ken Loach, have a look at it: that film
depicts in cinema what Orwell writes about in his book.

In 1974, I read George Woodcock's 'The Crystal Spirit' - a good, libertarian
socialist, view of Orwell as a writer and a political thinker.   I also
acquired at about that time Orwell's 'Collected Essays, Journalism and
Letters' in four volumes, and I have dipped into this treasure trove on many
occasions.   While completing a UWA History Department unit on 'Modern
Britain' in 1976 I read 'The Road to Wigan Pier'.   That book is an
idiosyncratic view of British socialism and the British working class, based
on Orwell's first-hand experience in the industrial North in the 1930s.   I
think that Raymond Williams's strictures on this book are in order (in his
book 'Culture and Society) where he takes Orwell to task for misrepresenting
British socialists in some respects.

George Orwell was a funny character in many ways.   A genuine socialist, and
one who put his life on the line in Spain as an internationalist, he was
nevertheless very English, and he was keen to preserve what he regarded as
essential amongst the many traditional features of what it meant to be
English.    My own personal opinion is that Orwell was one of the greatest
writers of English prose in the 20th century - he remains in fact my
favourite stylist.   The other writer in English (of 20th century authors)
whose style I admire most would I think be Isaac Deutscher, and of course
Deutscher's native language was not English but Polish; a fact that only
serves to underline the greatness of his achievement in producing the very
fine biographies of Trotsky and Stalin in English.   To my mind, both Orwell
and Deutscher shine forth from the past century as beacons of democratic
socialist enlightenment, and their writings and their personal example of
socialist commitment recommend them in my opinion to new generations of
socialist thinkers and activists.

Lots of love,

Graham

(Graham Milner)




From mqduck at sonic.net  Wed Oct  1 16:07:59 2008
From: mqduck at sonic.net (Jeffrey Thomas Piercy)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:07:59 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Can a socialist country be Christian - Tiny
 discussion I	stumbled across
In-Reply-To: <195004.62877.qm@web55601.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
References: <195004.62877.qm@web55601.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <48E3F4BF.8040704@sonic.net>

Hugo Chavez is the obvious example to bring up. As I understand it, he 
gives a religious (Catholic) subtext to almost everything he says. Or 
something like that.

Ismail Lagardien wrote:
> Is socialism inherently evil... anti-Christian?
> 
> Is communism inherently evil... anti-Christian?
> 
> Is the US constitution inherently good... Christian?
> 
> Just
> some questions that have sprung into my mind resulting from another
> thread... but did not belong there I didn't think. So I thought better
> to start a new thread and post the questions.
> 
> I think that as
> evangelical United States Christian citizens, it may be possible that
> we may get our values... religious and political improperly meshed
> together... 
> 
> Because I was wondering... is it possible that a socialist state could be run in a very Christian way? 
> 
> Do
> you think our Constitution was born out of the Bible, or perhaps moreso
> from a philosophy of the freedom of the individual, individual rights
> and as a response to former overtaxing and over controlling govts that
> did not allow individual freedoms like religion, bearing arms, freedom
> to assemble, etc?
> 
> What does the Bible have to say about these things?
> 
> 
> http://www.christianoutdoorsman.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4799

-- 
Human: An animal so lost in loathing contemplation of what it thinks it 
is as to overlook what it to be.


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 16:30:22 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:30:22 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Demands on the Democrats?
In-Reply-To: <b16d8daf0809301427u4366e399wa21d6ef6c5d41e0c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1222806407.5194.13.camel@localhost>
	<b16d8daf0809301427u4366e399wa21d6ef6c5d41e0c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <61EF5236789D40E9807DDE1C76C628B2@albanta>

Mark Lause writes: "Realizing that it may rub some folks the wrong way, I
see absolutely no way in which a Democratic victory in this election will be
in the least better for the masses than a Republican victory.  Neither will
do anything for us.  The Republicans will just be a little snottier and
annoy us with particularly irritating delusional rants and blatantly insane
assertions."

I do not see how it can be seriously maintained that the McCain and Obama
campaigns are presenting the same program. They are both presenting
bourgeois programs, but they are different. 

Moreover, I do not see how it can be seriously maintained that there is
GUARANTEED to be no difference that makes a difference between an Obama
victory and presidency and a McCain victory and presidency. The experience
of African-Americans, I believe, has been that, on average, it does make
SOME difference whether a Black person or a white person occupies a
government position. Not all the difference in the world, and not every
single time, but yes, on average, it DOES make SOME difference. Notice the
voting and turnout patterns in the Black community every time it is
perceived by the community that one of their own people has a chance to take
an office, and especially when it is a tough fight. Blacks mobilize AS A
PEOPLE. 

But even granting for argument's sake that it would make no policy
difference whatsoever, the argument that white folks have ALWAYS has one of
theirs as president and now it's the turn of a Black person sounds good to
me, just on plain egalitarian/anti-racist grounds. But, of course, that is
just another way of saying that it does make a difference, not because of
anything Obama will SURELY do in office, but quite simply because of who he
is.

That, as Nader argues, next year the Democrats will water down or completely
abandon even such meager improvements as they offer working people in their
electoral promises is, I think, a given, or very, very close. But that from
this flows that therefore we must call for a vote AGAINST the Democrat is,
as I think Lenin argues quite convincingly in his pamphlet on the infantile
disorder of ultraleftism in relation to the bourgeois party of social
democracy, a non-sequitur.

Of course, social democracy was a party that arose in the workers movement
and by the time of its consolidation as a bourgeois party, still operated as
party within the workers movement. The Democrats did not arise in the same
way, but Black Democrats do operate as a bourgeois party within the Black
movement. 

Whether and who you vote for in a bourgeois election is a tactical question
that is MOSTLY dependent on what you want to say and who you want to say it
to [or perhaps a better way to put it is what social layer you want to
influence and in what direction], and MOSTLY NOT dependent on narratives
about "class lines" in bourgeois electoral farces and MOST OF ALL not in a
country where the working class has not wakened to independent political
activity in living memory.

Were there to be in this country a much more substantial working class or
socialist political organization than now exists, say the
regrouped/refounded socialist organization of several thousand members that
I believe would be *possible* if the political will existed to create it, I
would consider a position of critical support to the Obama candidacy, with a
message primarily aimed at the Black community and others who identify with
and support the Black Liberation Movement, a reasonable, legitimate and
entirely "permissible" tactical stance. 

What is the message? First and foremost, that we support the Black community
in its decades-long struggle for political inclusion and representation. But
also, just as the election of so many Black city council members and mayors
and congress people has meant, at most, minor improvements, not the sweeping
changes Black people are trying to get, so, too, will Obama not bring about
real equality and liberation. And that's because he's a Democrat, a party
dominated by the oppressors, and so on. 

It probably would not be the tactical stance I would *advocate* or *favor*
in such a group. That because Nader is polling 2-6% and McKinney about half
that or a little less (when they bother to include her in the polls). What
these poll numbers say to me is that Nader, at least, and probably McKinney
also, though to a lesser extent, have a mass audience. And it is probably
more effective to take the straight-up direct message of political
independence through such a campaign to receptive layers of working people
than through a more convoluted, indirect in terms of message, tactic of
critical support to Obama. But I would not consider the idea of critical
support to Obama an outrage, a violation of principle, nor any of that other
nonsense. 

However, if Nader or McKinney were polling in the double digits, including
in the Black community, at THIS stage of the campaign, with little more than
a month to go (rather than Nader increasingly being reduced to 2-3%, and
McKinney to 1%, if that), meaning things like one of them would be included
in some debates and would get significantly more coverage and press
attention, under THOSE circumstances I WOULD consider a tactic of critical
support to Obama to be a tremendous blunder bordering on the criminal,
although even then the message of the socialists supporting Nader and/or
McKinney would need to take a very respectful, sensitive stance towards the
hopes and aspirations of the Black community in relation to Obama.

Does this mean I am willing to let the largely farcical polling done around
bourgeois elections to decisively influence his tactics, and whether to
support a McKinney or a Nader or "support" (like a rope supports a hanging
man, as Lenin said) an Obama? ABSOLUTELY. Yes I would.

WHY? Because politics is NOT about "positions" or "principles" but about
social forces and layers in motion. And tactical questions are always
concrete, and by their nature, the answers to them CANNOT be deduced from
abstract "principles." 

What many comrades think of as "principles" are involved, but tactics ALSO
involve judgment about how different social layers are moving, which layers
we should seek to influence, and so on. 

Please notice this discussion of tactics is hypothetical: it is about the
tactical course that might be followed by a united socialist propaganda
league with thousands of members, and probably dominating the field of
radical politics. As for the really existing socialist organizations in the
United States, the tactic I would generally advocate be considered, --and
most of all by the members of the various churches of latter-day Leninists--
it to immediately call a congress and unanimously adopt a resolution that
the most important contribution they can make to the bright communist future
of humanity and the causes and movements of working and oppressed peoples
here and internationally is to dissolve.

As for the situation we face as individuals or small circles, we need to
remember the nature of the November 4 vote. These are 50 separate, virtually
every one winner take all, state elections for electoral college votes. Thus
for example, in California, it is very hard to make the case for conscious
radicals or socialists who understand the strategic importance of political
independence to call for a vote for Obama, even if you ardently hope he
defeats McCain. He will win that state no matter what. It is much more
important to send a message in support of political independence and
preserve the ballot status of independent parties.

But in a state like Georgia, assuming Obama continues to make gains and has
(as I believe) more support than the opinion polls register, it is hard to
make that same argument, first because it may well be true that the vote you
cast will be meaningful in determining the outcome of the election.

In terms of more choices, the only "third party" on the ballot will be Barr.
And write-in candidates have to be officially registered or their votes
won't even be *counted,* just discarded as spoiled ballots. And even when
the independent or third party candidates ARE officially registered (as
Nader-Camejo were in Georgia in 2004) the votes often aren't counted (as was
the case in my precinct in 2004, where Nader got credited 0 votes even
though I wrote him in, and I'm sure others did too). 

Also, in this state we have ultra-tamperable Diebold touch-screen voting
machines with no paper trail, which a few years ago gave the victory to
Republicans in the gubernatorial and senate races against Democrat
incumbents who had statistically significant leads in public opinion polls
the weekend before the election. Then there's the "open primary," where
white republicans in a place like DeKalb County get to unite with white
Democrats to deny the Black community its right to political representation
by knocking out someone like Cynthia McKinney in the primary. Not to mention
that in 2000, one Georgia county had fully ONE FIFTH of the presidential
vote not included in the tally, significantly MORE than ANY Florida County.
Or that the guy who won the sheriff's contest in my county a few years ago
was "bullet balloted" out of taking office -- assassinated in his front yard
at the instigation (if I remember right) of the previous sheriff.

So a REAL politically educational discussion about November 4 here in
Georgia doesn't necessarily revolve around Obama versus Nader, who to vote
for, but the need to institute honest, democratic, one person one vote,
elections in this state.

Like I said, tactics are concrete.

Joaquin



From jbustelo at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 16:33:19 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:33:19 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Can a socialist country be Christian - Tiny
	discussion I	stumbled across
In-Reply-To: <48E3F4BF.8040704@sonic.net>
References: <195004.62877.qm@web55601.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<48E3F4BF.8040704@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <BB9F8690559545BE9EE887B1DDF17AA0@albanta>

Thomas writes, "Hugo Chavez is the obvious example to bring up. As I
understand it, he gives a religious (Catholic) subtext to almost everything
he says. Or something like that."

TOTAL, COMPLETE, UNADULTERATED HORSESHIT.

But if you want to show every what a complete, ignorant jackass you are, be
my guest.

Joaquin



From mqduck at sonic.net  Wed Oct  1 17:08:22 2008
From: mqduck at sonic.net (Jeffrey Thomas Piercy)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:08:22 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] oops Re:  Maoists appoint 'living goddess',
 Re:  Prachanda welcomed by revolutionary
In-Reply-To: <48E318B7.4070108@sonic.net>
References: <908b689f0809292238h66e7015s95b521addb52c59a@mail.gmail.com>
	<48E318B7.4070108@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <48E402E6.4030206@sonic.net>

Many apologies. I meant to send this to a friend of mine.

Jeffrey Thomas Piercy wrote:
> My response is at the bottom. Although I defended the new government's 
> decision, it's still very a enlightening story.
> 
> Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Greg Butterfield <gregb at wwpublish.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Prime Minister Prachanda is chairperson of the Communist
>>> Party of Nepal (Maoist) and led the people's war that
>>> ousted Nepal's monarchy and old parliamentary system. The
>>> CPN(M) won a decisive victory in constitutent assembly
>>> elections held earlier this year.
>> Disturbing news from Nepal.....
>>
>>
>> Maoists appoint 'living goddess'
>>
>>
>> Nepal's new Maoist-led government has authorised the appointment of a
>> six-year-old girl to be a "living goddess" in the temple town of
>> Bhaktapur.  [...]
>>
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7642798.stm>
> 
> Me: "The "Maoists" didn't appoint her, they gave someone permission to
> appoint her. She is a religious symbol and has no power, though at least
> up until now her predecessors have lived "lives of extreme privilege",
> according to the article. You would prefer they make enemies of the
> devout in Nepal in order to make a political point?"
> 
> 


-- 
Human: An animal so lost in loathing contemplation of what it thinks it 
is as to overlook what it to be.


From lajany_otum at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Oct  1 17:51:31 2008
From: lajany_otum at yahoo.co.uk (Lajany Otum)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 23:51:31 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [Marxism] Demands on the Democrats?
Message-ID: <299080.20106.qm@web27406.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Joaquin Bustelo  writes:

>
> But even granting for argument's sake that it would make no policy
> difference whatsoever, the argument that white folks have ALWAYS has one of
> theirs as president and now it's the turn of a Black person sounds good to
> me, just on plain egalitarian/anti-racist grounds. But, of course, that is
> just another way of saying that it does make a difference, not because of
> anything Obama will SURELY do in office, but quite simply because of who he
> is.
>

Although I admit it is probably a minority view among blacks, whether in the US or in Africa, as a black African myself I don't in any way relish the thought of having a black person doing the criminal work of the potus under the banner of either imperialist party. It is simply delusional to argue that a black potus bombing Pakistan or Iran (as Obama has threatened to do) or calling Venezuela a "rogue state,"  not to mention greatly strengthening the hold of imperialism in Africa, will represent a victory for anti-racism, or a victory for third world people. In fact if this slimy character wins, it will be in no small measure because of a calculation by sectors of the ruling class that this is an opportune moment to have a black "who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," [to quote Biden] doing the filthy work of empire. Based on everything we have seen of him so far, I dare say that if such a "victory" comes to pass, it is going to
 leave a long and bitter aftertaste in the mouth of the "victors".   
Lajany Otum



      

From mqduck at sonic.net  Wed Oct  1 18:28:53 2008
From: mqduck at sonic.net (Jeffrey Thomas Piercy)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:28:53 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Can a socialist country be Christian -
 Tiny	discussion I	stumbled across
In-Reply-To: <BB9F8690559545BE9EE887B1DDF17AA0@albanta>
References: <195004.62877.qm@web55601.mail.re4.yahoo.com>	<48E3F4BF.8040704@sonic.net>
	<BB9F8690559545BE9EE887B1DDF17AA0@albanta>
Message-ID: <48E415C5.30908@sonic.net>

Joaquin Bustelo wrote:
> TOTAL, COMPLETE, UNADULTERATED HORSESHIT.
> 
> But if you want to show every what a complete, ignorant jackass you are, be
> my guest.

Yeah, thanks. Silly me for being wrong about something, in a way which 
you don't explain.

Your pall,
Jeff


-- 
Human: An animal so lost in loathing contemplation of what it thinks it 
is as to overlook what it to be.


From theguavatree at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 18:34:11 2008
From: theguavatree at gmail.com (guava tree)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:34:11 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Is the bailout "Marxist"?
In-Reply-To: <48E3A19A.2080802@panix.com>
References: <48E3A19A.2080802@panix.com>
Message-ID: <b0ebe69c0810011734w2b101bcdg5a09a0ac090c7585@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:

> (As soon as I get a chance, I am going to refute this bullshit about
> Henry Paulson's "socialist" measures.)


On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Sky Keyes-Vogt <skeyesvogt at gmail.com>wrote:

> I was drawn to the ISO early on when I became politicized (I was coming
> from
> the Green Party)... but when I read their line in their paper in the 'about
> us' section that states "Cuba has nothing to do with socialism" I was
> really
> turned off.  Say what you will about the degree to which they are socialist
> or not, but to say that have NOTHING to do with socialism is some straight
> up slander in my view.  No step that Cuba ever took, nothing they ever did
> has ANYTHING to do with socialism?  I'm inclined to disagree.  All the
> same,
> I run into ISO activists that I respect and work with.
>

These issues of naming, of labeling, of signifying seems to be a crucial
issue in politics and left politics especially. Also the recent discussion
of "communist" versus "socialist". Seems to me that the obsession over
labels has a lot to do with the psychological component, when there is a
dominant system, ie, capitalism, how people tend to identify with that
system rather than interrogate it. Saying Cuba has "nothing to do with
socialism" is like saying the USA has "nothing to do with democracy".
There's more than a few libraries of evidence against American "democracy",
but at the same time there has been a certain type of democratic process and
struggle in the USA for sure. Negation, as Freud wrote about (in a way that
brought up not a few avenues of attack to his critics), often has more to do
with repressing the itch and fixating on the itch of what is being negated
rather than expressing or proving a "truth". I certainly agree with Louis
that Paulson and Bernanke's nationalization has nothing to do with
"Socialism", though it is a radical enough gesture to "raise a red flag" for
right wingers, libertarians, anti-communists, what have you. This
nationalism of assets (and American capitalism in general?) seems to deserve
the title of "state capitalist", though I haven't read Cliff so I don't
exactly the specifics of his argument. More and more and more evidence shows
that contemporary capitalism is safeguarded by the power in Washington, the
white house, the capitol, the pentagon.

I'm riffing here, but the issue of naming is rich territory for more
analysis and is a challenge to overcome in order to frame our debate as
capitalism enters this 2008 crisis. As words keep their spelling and
pronunciation, material reality changes.

here's some Ellen Meiksins Wood to chew on from her essay "Demos vs. 'We,
The People'"

For the Federalist in particular, ancient democracy was a model expicitly to
> be avoided; it was mob rule, the tyranny of the majority, and so on. But
> what made this such an interesting conceptual problem was that, in the
> conditions of Post-Revolutionary America, they had to reject the ancient
> democracy notin the name of an opposing political ideal, not in the name of
> oligarchy, but in the name of democracy itself.{snip}
>

We're in a not totally unsimilar bind now, having to reject the notion of
this "socialism" of paulson and bernanke in the name of socialism itself.

From jbustelo at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 18:36:35 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:36:35 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Socialists and/or communists?
In-Reply-To: <20081001064533.3BC7A22CC6@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com>
References: <BAY127-W360E4E864272EE695C122CD7430@phx.gbl><D69A972A2492420082CB283A3C71D0D5@albanta>
	<20081001064533.3BC7A22CC6@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <986FB4B8046C4875861F6A1D766C3DED@albanta>

"Aaron Aarons" challenges the distinction that has existed in the radical
movement between "socialists" and "communists" and that I pointed to, as a
way of showing the ... simple-mindedness of insisting a candidate call him
or herself "socialist."

I said, among other things, "Marx and Engels were never comfortable with the
term 'socialist' and somewhat chagrined that it came to be identified with
their followers, as Engels made a point of stressing late in his life in the
introductions to the Communist Manifesto, if I remember right." 

To which a.a. replies: "I haven't been able to locate this."

I'll leave it to other to explain google and keyboards and the idea of
entering "search terms" into a "search engine" using a keyboard -- skills
comrade Aaron obviously lacks. I merely reproduce what it took me about 15
seconds to find on the Internet. It is from Engels's 1888 introduction to a
new English edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party:

"The history of the Manifesto reflects the history of the modern
working-class movement; at present, it is doubtless the most wide spread,
the most international production of all socialist literature, the common
platform acknowledged by millions of working men from Siberia to California.

"Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist
manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the
adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists
in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and
gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks
who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to
capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men
outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the "educated"
classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become
convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had
proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. 

"It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it
touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class
to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in
Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a
working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least,
"respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the
very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of
the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two
names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating
it."

<http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/manifesto/index.html>

*  *  *

That this is not a distinction without a difference, strictly speaking, is
shown, among other places, in Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme, where
he draws a sharp distinction between the LOWER phase of "communism" and the
higher. The former, of course, has been popularly, and somewhat vulgarly
rendered by many in the movement as "socialism" and the latter stage
full-fledged "communism," but that is not the terminology Marx chose when he
was addressing close and theoretically advanced comrades on the need for
razor-sharp scientific precision in the party programme, even when, in the
very same text, he proclaims that a single step of real MOVEMENT is worth
ten paper programs.

That the distinction Engels referred to in 1888 was still current two
decades later is shown by Lenin's INSISTENCE in 1917 that the Bolsheviks
DROP the labels social-democratic and socialist and instead call themselves
COMMUNISTS. That was a POLITICAL statement that built on the generalized
consciousness about a distinction between the two in some senses of the term
"socialist" and "communist," even if those usages were, perhaps, not then
the most current or common ones. 

The decades following Lenin's death both profoundly re-enforced the
communist/socialist divide and imposed on those terms a meaning so distant
and hostile to true socialism (as comrades who choose that designation) or
true communism (for the rest of us) that it creates a real political
problem.

a.a. is of the opinion that an identification of socialism and communism
with totalitarianism is a problem that peaked when I was a child a half
century ago, and now ought to be safely ignored. I would suggest that even
OUTSIDE the United States (i.e., outside the place where
bourgeois-imperialist ideology is strongest), this identification is still
so strong as to require all sorts of verbal gymnastics.

Thus, comrade president Hugo Chavez has invented the term "21st Century
socialism." What is that about? What is the CONTENT of saying "21st Century"
socialism, as distinct from --and even opposed to-- plain old "socialism"?
He is NEGATING that the socialism he aspires to is like the old socialism
people have heard about or read about in the Soviet Union. 

And for much of my political lifetime, I've often found it useful to be
consciously unscientific, and adapt, for pedagogical purposes, to
anti-communist prejudices and say things to the effect of I'm not a
communist like Stalin or Pol Pot, I'm a revolutionary or Marxist socialist
that wants DEMOCRATIC control by working people over the economy and other
things that affect our lives, rather than restricting democracy to choosing
for two minutes every four years which one of two millionaire-backed
candidates will get to rule us.

*  *  *

The starting point of my post was challenging Eli's contention that what
should be decisive for US is backing a candidate who doesn't think
"socialism" is an epithet. And my POINT was that the important thing isn't
whether we or the candidate understand that socialism isn't an epithet, but
whether the masses of people a campaign is trying to talk to have such
prejudices.

But A.A. says "The only people I run across who have the attitudes towards
'socialism' that Joaquin describes are anarchists."

OK, I plead guilty. I don't mostly hang with anarchists, but am surrounded
by regular people. And, yes, many of them have those prejudices. In fact, I
would say most of them, when you get into more than a superficial political
exchange, will in due course bring it out. And how could they NOT, after
what went down in Eastern Europe for more than half a century, and what is
still going down in China TODAY in the name of socialism and communism? 

Does AA really think that handed such an ideological opportunity on a gift
platter by the Stalinists, the bourgeoisie would be reticent to USE it? 

It IS TRUE as Aaron says that "The greatest anti-socialist and
anti-communist hysteria in the U.S. occurred at a time when Pol Pot was
studying technical subjects at a school in Paris." But that doesn't mean
there still isn't a GREAT DEAL of anticommunist prejudice in the US today.

And Aaron is totally and entirely off the wall when he says that "I doubt
that many people at that time, a few years after WW II, thought of Hitler as
a Socialist. I think Joaquin is reading too much right-wing propaganda, or
hanging out with a bunch of right-wingers."

This was a central of not THE central theme of bourgeois-imperialist
ideology immediately following WWII -- the struggle against
"totalitarianism," and that fascism and communism were essentially
manifestations of the same phenomenon. This was especially important in
helping people to forget that in World War II it was IN FACT "the
Communists" who defeated German fascism, and that the real reason for the
Anglo-American imperialist invasion of France in 1944 wasn't to defeat the
Germans, but to snatch for the OTHER imperialists as much of the fruits of
the Red Army's heroic and victorious struggle against German imperialism as
possible.

*  *  *

But all this is besides the main points I wanted to make, which are simply
that it is idiotic to insist on using terms many in your audience will
misunderstand.

But if you are going to be a sectarian ultraleft jerk opposing Nader because
he doesn't use those words, and insist on a chest-thumping real macho
stance, then for God's sake, use the REAL term, the robustly red Communist,
not the mealy-mouthed weasel pink "socialist" which can mean no more than
Sweden or a national health service like they have in Britain, France, and
just about every other civilized bourgeois imperialist country.

Joaquin

PS: AA writes, about the revolutions of 1848, and my description of Marx and
Engels's role in them, which was to take to the field of battle as
DEMOCRATS: "Yes, I read their famous work from that time, 'The Democratic
Manifesto!' Unfortunately, I can't locate a copy."

What pisses me off about the attitude AA displays here is the likely
miseducation of the comrades who have had less of an opportunity to study
the history of our movement, and the push to reproduce the same abysmal
level of ignorance and foolishness that AA evidences, and most of all
victimizing the younger comrades by contaminating them with such smart-aleck
and quite American attitudes.

For AA's edification, he can consult Engels's excellent article on Blood-Red
Revolutionary Marxist Communist tactics, "Marx and the Neue Rheinische
Zeitung."

There he will find Engels's description of the state of affairs as the
revolution broke out in Germany in 1848:

	"The German workers had above all to win those rights which were
indispensable to their independent organization as a class party: freedom of
the press, association and assembly -- rights which the bourgeoisie, in the
interest of its own rule, ought to have fought for, but which it itself now
disputed in its fear of the workers. The few hundred separate League members
vanished in the enormous mass that had been suddenly hurled into the
movement. Thus, the German proletariat at first appeared on the political
stage as the extreme democratic party.

	"Thus, when we founded a large newspaper in Germany, our banner was
determined as a matter of course. It could only be that of democracy, but
that of a democracy which everywhere emphasized in every point the specific
proletarian character which it could not yet inscribe once for all on its
banner If we did not want to do that, if we did not want to take up the
movement, adhere to its already existing, most advanced, actually
proletarian side and to push it further then there was nothing left for us
to do but to preach communism in a little provincial sheet and to found a
tiny sect instead of a great party of action. But we had already been spoilt
for the role of preachers in the wilderness; we had studied the Utopians too
well for that, nor was it for that we had drafted our programme."

[As is clear from the context in which this appears, the "programme" Engels
refers to is the Manifesto of the Communist Party.]

<http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/MNRZ84.html>

MOREOVER, let me add for comrade Aaron's further enlightenment, what is
alluded to in the quote from Engels I present above, but narrated quite
straighforwardly in other parts of this piece, as well as in other Engels
articles, like "On the History of the Communist League." Which is that,
having won the Communist League (n?e "League of the Just") to Marxist
positions, and with the ink on the first edition of the Communist Manifesto
still drying, WHEN THE REVOLUTION BROKE OUT, Marx, Engels and their friends
DISSOLVED the Communist League, in other words, advocated and carried out
its LIQUIDATION intro the broader movement. 

And this was, at the time, and ESPECIALLY for its day, a very SUBSTANTIAL
organization, with HUNDREDS of members and DOZENS of "communities" (as they
called their branches) WITHIN Germany, a country whose working class
numbered, at MOST, a very few million, as well as a substantial presence
among German ?migr?s and the beginning of a base among the most conscious
workers of other nationalities in Western Europe. 

And Marx and Engels said NO, the road IS NOT to "build" the Communist League
but to integrate the communists into the actual organizational forms being
thrown up by masses of working people as they awaken to political life.

This wasn't because M&E didn't "get" that the working class needed ITS OWN
party, but because they DID understand that, but they understood that such a
party COULD NOT BE "BUILT" by the voluntaristic efforts of a few hundred
(equivalent to many thousands in the U.S., perhaps even tens of thousands,
given the size of Germany's population and proletariat) but could only
EMERGE from the actual movement and experiences of the workers themselves. 

And that the organizational FORM of the Communist league, which until
yesterday was by far and away THE BEST, on this NEW morning had been turned
into an albatross tied around the necks of communists which would doom them
to irrelevance, because it would present them to the broader movement in a
form (Communism) that the broader movement could not yet possibly
understand.

Joaqu?n






From jbustelo at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 18:42:30 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:42:30 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Can a socialist country be Christian -
	Tiny	discussion I	stumbled across
In-Reply-To: <48E415C5.30908@sonic.net>
References: <195004.62877.qm@web55601.mail.re4.yahoo.com>	<48E3F4BF.8040704@sonic.net><BB9F8690559545BE9EE887B1DDF17AA0@albanta>
	<48E415C5.30908@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <3593D46A745A4B0B9D1A4E55795BFCE3@albanta>

Okay Jeff, apologies. I had a very frustrating day.

I think the statement that would be true is that whenever Chavez speaks in
religious or Biblical terms,  there is a socialist political subtext. But
having listened to him for hundreds if hours, at least, it simply isn't true
that mostly he speaks in religious terms or using religious language or
making religious or biblical allusions nor anything like that.

People manipulating or using one or two or three "good"  Christians or
preachers or priests to try to cover up the essentially
reactionary-imperialist character of Christianity, and most of all of the
Papist sect, is one of the things that REALLY drive me nuts.

Joaquin

-----Original Message-----
From: marxism-bounces+jbustelo=gmail.com at lists.econ.utah.edu
[mailto:marxism-bounces+jbustelo=gmail.com at lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of
Jeffrey Thomas Piercy
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 8:29 PM
To: Joaquin
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Can a socialist country be Christian - Tiny
discussion I stumbled across

Joaquin Bustelo wrote:
> TOTAL, COMPLETE, UNADULTERATED HORSESHIT.
> 
> But if you want to show every what a complete, ignorant jackass you 
> are, be my guest.

Yeah, thanks. Silly me for being wrong about something, in a way which you
don't explain.

Your pall,
Jeff



From mlebowit at sfu.ca  Wed Oct  1 18:57:51 2008
From: mlebowit at sfu.ca (michael a. lebowitz)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:27:51 -0430
Subject: [Marxism] Engels re socialists, communists
Message-ID: <48E41C8F.90405@sfu.ca>

Joaquin cited Engels' Preface to the CM as follows:
"Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist
manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the
adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists
in France...

Given the significance attributed to contemporary usage, what is 
understood NOW by communism?
       michael

-- 
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
http//:centrointernacionalmiranda.gob.ve
mlebowit at sfu.ca



From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au  Wed Oct  1 19:06:03 2008
From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:06:03 +1000
Subject: [Marxism] The global financial crisis: implications for Asia | Links
Message-ID: <48E41E7B.2020401@greenleft.org.au>

By *Reihana Mohideen*

The Wall Street crisis seems light years away from the side streets of 
Manila?s urban poor slums. For the labouring masses in the Philippines 
the capitalist system has been in crisis for some time now, unable to 
deliver life?s basic necessities: jobs and a living wage; affordable 
quality healthcare and education; and food security.

According to official National Statistics Office data poverty levels 
have increased between 2003 and 2006, and 2008 is expected to be the 
worst year since the 1998 Asian economic crisis. Between April 2007 and 
April 2008 the labour force grew by only 81,000, while the number of 
unemployed rose by 249,000, i.e. triple the increase in the labour 
force. In 2008 the number of employed persons fell by 168,000 and there 
was no employment generation in April of this year. Jobs were being lost 
at a time when prices and inflation were skyrocketing.

The global financial crisis, however, now threatens to affect the 
Philippines economy such that it impacts on the higher income families 
as well. It could threaten the employment of Filipino overseas workers 
whose remittances, amounting to a staggering US$14 billion-plus in 2007, 
have been the backbone of the economy at a time when foreign direct 
investment (FDI) has shrunk to almost nothing. According to Bangko 
Sentral ng Pilipinas 2007 data, some $1.5 billion was remitted from 
Asia, $2 billion from the Middle East, $2.3 billion from Europe and more 
than 50% of all remittances, amounting to $7.5 billion, came from the US.

Rumours are also rife that the state pension fund, the Government 
Service Insurance System, is heavily exposed to the US sharemarket and 
had invested in the now collapsed Lehman Brothers. Despite public 
concern, GSIS is refusing to release a detailed financial statement.

Full article at http://links.org.au/node/660

Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ -
at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373



From shamresearch at yahoo.co.nz  Wed Oct  1 19:38:16 2008
From: shamresearch at yahoo.co.nz (Scott Hamilton)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] In NZ,
	anti-semites rush to 'explain' the global financial crisis
Message-ID: <384596.82138.qm@web50605.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

This is one of the reasons I strongly support the comrades on this list who are trying to communicate clearly the real causes of the current crisis:

http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-is-radio-live-spreading-anti.html





      Get the latest headlines with Yahoo!Xtra News - http://nz.news.yahoo.com

From n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au  Wed Oct  1 19:57:56 2008
From: n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au (n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:57:56 +1000
Subject: [Marxism] China milk scandal
Message-ID: <fa3ec0b0519e.48e4b744@scu.edu.au>

I'm currently writing an article for Green Left, that takes up the points made here, but also the question of the commodification of infant nutrition. I.e. the push, particularly in poor countries, to replace breastfeeding with artificial formula. One of the bigger disasters produced by corporate dominated orthodox medicine in recent decades.

Of course, somewhat like antibiotics, formula has valid uses in particularly situations, such as acute health crises, but has been massively over-used for the sake of food cartel profits, with disastrous public health outcomes (even without added toxic sludge).

The current GL is a 2-weeker so this should be online http://www.greenleft.org.au October 12 or 13.?

From mqduck at sonic.net  Wed Oct  1 19:59:48 2008
From: mqduck at sonic.net (Jeffrey Thomas Piercy)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:59:48 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Stephen Colbert on the free market devotion
Message-ID: <48E42B14.7050206@sonic.net>

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/186456/september-29-2008/the-word---ye-of-little-faith


-- 
Human: An animal so lost in loathing contemplation of what it thinks it 
is as to overlook what it to be.


From elishastephens at hotmail.com  Wed Oct  1 20:38:12 2008
From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:38:12 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Communism and socialism
Message-ID: <BAY127-W307496015662E606A06276D73D0@phx.gbl>


I'm going to throw out a question for discussion on which I definitely don't 
have the answer: As I understand it, "communism" is only possible under 
conditions of material abundance. It used to be axiomatic that there were enough 
resources, the problem was one of distribution (the rich having too much, the 
poor too little, e.g., grain stored in the U.S. while people elsewhere go 
hungry). But with increasing resource shortages, not just oil but water, and the 
current and future world populations, perhaps the possibility of material 
abundance (at least for a significant portion of humanity) is precluded. Would 
that mean the old definition of "communism" has to be thrown out, or re-thought?

Again, no answers, just questions.


_________________________________________________________________
See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/

From skeyesvogt at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 21:53:11 2008
From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes-Vogt)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 23:53:11 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Immigration Raids Framed As "Anti-Gang Crackdown" in NYT
Message-ID: <de3b89110810012053p5c37252etc46b598f582517e3@mail.gmail.com>

As the following article from the NYT shows, one of the ways that the ruling
class is trying to form a united front (of sorts) against immigrants is by
framing the debate about crime/gangs instead.  So we saw that the killing of
high school football phenom Jamiel Shaw in L.A. by an "illegal" immigrant
became transformed into a campaign against Special Order 40 (protecting
latinos from being stopped by the police to check for immigration status in
L.A.) that amplified anti-gang and anti-violence rhetoric above
anti-immigrant rhetoric to obfuscate the issue at hand.  Note how this
article blurs the lines between between violent gang members and "illegal"
immigrants.  And what about this line:  "[The Justice Department] has wide
latitude to initiate deportation proceedings against noncitizens, he said,
even if they are found not guilty of crimes."  So basically if you're caught
up in this gang sweep and are totally innocent you can still be deported.
Nationally prominent gang expert Alex Alonso in L.A. has written quite a few
pieces about the dubious gang identification process, which is basically at
an officer's discretion and has no oversight.  Mis-identify them as gang
members, arrest them, guilty or not they get deported.

I don't deny that there are violent gang members out there, maybe this raid
even caught some of them.  But we must be aware of the fact that when the
media and the police talk about "gangs" its usually a code word for poor and
oppressed people that they want to amp up persecution of.
Hundreds Are Arrested in Antigang Crackdown
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/us/02gangs.html?ref=us

By SOLOMON MOORE
Published: October 1, 2008

A four-month nationwide crackdown on gangs has brought the arrest of 1,759
people ? gang members and their associates, other criminals and
immigration<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>violators
? from more than 20 countries, the federal authorities announced
Wednesday.

Dozens of state and local law enforcement agencies joined federal officers
in raids carried out in 28 states, including New York and New Jersey,
focusing on gang hubs like Los Angeles, Miami and Boston.

The annual crackdown, which ended Wednesday, is another sign of the
increasing prevalence of gangs with a presence in more than one country, and
of the high degree of law enforcement cooperation required to counter them.

"We now have over 890 gangs in the United States that we've been able to
target," said Brandon Alvarez-Montgomery, a spokesman for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/immigration_and_customs_enforcement_us/index.html?inline=nyt-org>.


The crackdowns began in February 2005 as a way to combat the Salvadoran gang
MS-13. The program has since expanded to make targets of all gangs with
international ties and, the authorities say, has led to the arrest of 11,106
gang members and associates.

This year's sweep, the largest so far, resulted in the arrest of 730 people
on new criminal charges, 338 of them foreigners. The others picked up are
charged with immigration violations.

Nearly all the arrested foreigners face proceedings leading to deportation,
Mr. Alvarez-Montgomery said. Non-American suspects are to be prosecuted by
the Justice Department or state and local agencies on charges including
murder, rape, drug distribution, firearms violations and illegal re-entry
after deportation, a federal felony.

Those found guilty will be subject to incarceration, and then deportation
proceedings upon release, Mr. Alvarez-Montgomery said. His agency has wide
latitude to initiate deportation proceedings against noncitizens, he said,
even if they are found not guilty of crimes.

State and local law enforcement agencies depend on the annual federal
crackdown for intelligence and other resources to deal with international
gangs. Rusty Grant, a special agent with the Georgia Bureau of
Investigation, said the government had provided invaluable assistance in an
investigation of eight killings, from 2000 to 2006 in Cedartown, Ga., that
were related to a methamphetamine-running operation. Three of the victims'
bodies were set on fire to destroy evidence.

"The individuals committing these drug crimes were Mexican illegal aliens,"
Mr. Grant said. "ICE provided expertise in dealing with the immigration
aspects of the case and also provided Spanish-speaking agents as well."

Mr. Grant said federal and local officers had arrested about 80 people in
that particular investigation, including all the killers. They also arrested
several methamphetamine distributors, among them a man who was hauling 1,000
pounds of the drug.

From fred.fuentes at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 22:16:39 2008
From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 00:16:39 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Fwd: Hugo Blanco detained
In-Reply-To: <32326650810011639t5c96c1c6od946f9d3679562f5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <32326650810011639t5c96c1c6od946f9d3679562f5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b5a2a8180810012116p22a74b46v984dcd39dec6b70b@mail.gmail.com>

October 1, 2008
Dear Readers:

Moments ago, we received information from Cuzco, Peru that police had
detained veteran activist Hugo Blanco. We believe that the news deserved
this rapid alert. Here is what the Periodico Lucha Indigena, the newspaper
that Huga edits, is reporting:

This morning, in the Poroy comissary, Hugo Blanco was detained for failing
to appear in Paruro court after having been subpoenaed and was taken to
Cuzco's Palace of Justice holding facility. The court case at hand has to do
with land stolen from campesinos by the son of a former hacienda owner in
Huanoquite. The police took the side of the son, accusing the campesinos of
"resisting authority." (The campesinos however were not accused of illegally
occupying the land because in reality they were only taking back land for
which they have legal title, but that had only been partially restored to
its legal owners). Among the accused was Hugo, for having supported the
campesinos despite the fact that he was not even present the day the
incident took place. Hugo was thus charged with resisting authority, but was
not notified. He therefore did not appear in court as mandated and the judge
ordered his arrest. Tomorrow, he will be taken to Paruro to testify. We call
on all grassroots organizations, press outlets and human rights defenders to
join in solidarity and spread this news. Let's hope that this case is
settled soon and that it will sirve as a stinging denouncement of the abuse
against this community of campesinos, the legitimate owners of the land at
hand.

In UB, you'll find the text as well as some links so you can learn more
about who Hugo is and what he had done over the years, including a Youtube
video of a presentation Hugo gave in Canada last year (in english).

http://www.ubnews.org

On alert,

Luis A. G?mez
Jean Friedman-Rudovsky
Editors
Ukhampacha Bolivia
http://www.ukhampachabolivia.org

_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List at ubnews.org
http://ubnews.org/mailman/listinfo/list_ubnews.org

From ruyttenhove at gmail.com  Wed Oct  1 22:46:58 2008
From: ruyttenhove at gmail.com (Robrecht W. Uyttenhove)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:46:58 -0600
Subject: [Marxism] We Need to Recapitalize the Banks by Edmund Phelps
Message-ID: <18c0e8e60810012146h4ab73032v721b8e2980de3787@mail.gmail.com>

Article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122282719885793047.html#


We Need to Recapitalize the Banks

Let's have cash infusions in return for warrants.

By EDMUND S. PHELPS

When the speculative fever finally broke in America's housing industry
and house prices began falling in search of equilibrium levels, banks
everywhere suffered defaults and subsequent losses on a range of
assets. In short order, the housing contraction morphed into a banking
crisis.

Among most economists, it came as a surprise that the banking industry
and, indeed, most of the financial sector, was so devoted to houses.
We had not realized that the investment and innovation in the
country's business sector was largely getting by on rich uncles, a
tiny cottage industry of venture capitalists out West, and a few
private-equity funds doing alternative energy. And we didn't foresee
that a trillion or two of losses in an economy with $40 trillion of
financial wealth could bring high anxiety and, two weeks ago, near
panic.

The banks' losses might seem poetic justice after their abominable
performance. But costly feedback effects on the rest of us are in
prospect. Uncertainty over the quantity and valuation of banks' "toxic
assets" has meant that many cannot count on loans from each other to
meet daily needs, and this illiquidity in the markets has impaired
their ability to lend. Among banks that had excessively leveraged
their capital through borrowing and other devices, the losses wiped
out much or all of their capital, and this near-insolvency has
dampened their willingness to lend.

The resulting credit contraction is starting to crimp working capital
and investment outlay at small businesses and is having wider effects
on business activity through its impact on interest rates, exchange
rates and consumer loans. This feedback is causing a fall of
employment on top of the direct effect of the housing contraction on
employment in construction and finance. The added fall in jobs will in
turn add to mortgage defaults.

Will this chain reaction produce a deep slump, like Japan's in the
1990s or, worse, America's in the 1930s? In my view, the claim by
Keynesians that the economy can be stabilized around a satisfactory
employment level, thanks to economic science, is false. So is the
claim by latter-day neoclassicals that such stability is automatic,
thanks to the market. Both dogmas fatally miss the point that the
normal activity level is driven by structural shifts, which monetary
policy and price-level changes usefully accommodate but cannot
reverse. The end of the speculative fever and the credit crunch each
have structural effects on the real prices of business assets, real
wages, employment and unemployment. As I see it, the former has pushed
up the normal, or "natural," volume of structural unemployment. The
latter (and the excess houses) is pushing the economy into a temporary
slump. It will last as long as required for the banks' self-healing
and government therapy to pull us out of it and into the neighborhood
of our new, postboom normalcy.

I believe that leaving the process of recovery entirely to the healing
powers of the banking industry, as libertarians suggest, would be
imprudent, even if the banks could manage it. Lacking much government
intervention, Japan's recovery took a decade. Sweden's recovery, with
state intervention, took hardly any time at all.

Right now our banking industry is barely operational. Whatever the
corrective surgery indicated, the priority is to get the system
operating again. Delay would be costly and risky.

The most discussed of the proposed programs would address banks' toxic
assets by authorizing the Treasury to buy them, issuing debt to
finance the purchase. Proponents of this program add that the
government's eventual sale of the assets purchased might repay the
investment with a profit -- grossing, say, an 8% rate of return while
paying 4% interest.

House Republicans and some economists object, saying that the
government could attain its goal with a bigger or surer profit by
selling the banks "default insurance" on their distressed assets: the
premiums paid are hoped to far exceed the default costs. To me,
government entry into the default insurance business is little
different from government purchasing the assets. It is not clear to me
that selling default insurance would be more profitable.

House Democrats want a parallel program that would help defaulting
mortgage borrowers to avoid foreclosure -- to help them "stay in their
homes." Such a step might set an undesirable precedent in economic
policy. If, after investing in my vocational training, I cannot make
it in the line of work I chose -- not at the real wage that the market
has since established, at any rate -- will I be entitled to help from
the government to "stay in my work"? Furthermore, many defaulters are
housing speculators not families caught up in an adjustable rate
mortgage they did not understand. Finally, the overinvestment in
houses does not present the systemic risk of economic breakdown that
the overextension of credit does.

However, the program to revive the operation of the banks through
purchase of the toxic assets faces a sticky wicket. If the government
sets the prices too low, the banks will supply little of their assets;
they will prefer to hold them to maturity in order to get the price
appreciation for themselves. The Treasury will then need to raise the
terms. But that may cause the banks to hold off longer, speculating on
still better terms ahead.

If, instead, the Treasury sets its prices too high, its funds will go
far enough to buy only a portion of the toxic assets offered in
response. Thus, it is not certain that such a program would work to
clean out the toxic assets at all quickly. Subnormal operation of the
banking industry might drag on for a few years.

A program of asset purchases, however needed, is limited in scope. It
cannot be counted on to increase the equity capital of the banks -- to
shore up their solvency. Underpaying for the toxic assets would
actually inflict a further loss of capital. Overpaying the banks for
their toxic assets could contribute capital, but that may not be
politically feasible or attractive.

So it is clear that the main prong of any "rescue" plan must serve to
advance the recapitalization of the banks. Cash transfusions in return
for warrants are a good way to do it, as it lets taxpayers share in
the upside. The rescue of Chrysler used warrants. This past Monday the
FDIC got $12 billion in preferred stock and warrants in the deal that
saw Citigroup buy Wachovia. The question is which banks are to be
thrown a lifeline, which will have to sink or swim. This one-time dose
of corporatism is unpleasant, though the banking industry is to blame
for its necessity.

But these steps toward making the system operational again will leave
it dysfunctional. We don't want to restore the system as it was. And
the risk that the industry would cause another round of wreckage is
not the only reason.

What has occurred is not just an old-fashioned banking crisis but also
a banking scandal. Most of the big banks were shot through with
short-termism, deceptive practices and self-dealing. We must institute
basic changes in corporate governance and in management practice to
restore responsibility and honesty for the sake of the economy and for
the self-respect of the country.

We also need to return investment banking to its roots. There is more
to the influence of the financial sector than merely its effects when
it goes off the rails. The financial system is not a sort of
circulatory system that passively carries fresh saving to the places
in the economic body that demand the greatest investing -- as if
guided by some "invisible hand." Judgment and vision -- of bankers,
fund managers, angel investors and the rest -- matter hugely. So do
the distortions, the limits and the license created by the regulatory
system and the moral climate. To prosper and advance, the American
business sector is going to need a financial system oriented toward
business, not "home ownership."

Mr. Phelps, the winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in economics, directs
the Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University.


From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Wed Oct  1 22:57:50 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:57:50 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] McCain, Obama, and the financial crisis. by Barry Sheppard
Message-ID: <7916B664D7504D0992DF1246B2B66EC0@office1pc>

Below is an article I wrote for Direct Action [Australia] at their request.

Obviously it is out of date, but I think it still is of interest because of
its emphasis on the outburst of rage by tens of millions at the proposal to
feed the financiers $700 billion while doing nothing for the working people
who are being hurt and will be hurt further as the recession deepens.


Obama, McCain and the financial crisis

By Barry Sheppard, in San Francisco

September 25 - Today there are spontaneous demonstrations occurring on Wall
Street and over 200 other places across the country denouncing the plan to
bail out the Wall Street financiers to the tune of US$700 billion. One
journalist sent out an email proposing such demonstrations and then support
for it exploded on the internet. People in each area decided by email where
to go. No single group organised these actions.

While thousands are demonstrating, they represent tens of millions who have
reacted with rage right from when they heard Treasury Secretary Henry
Paulson six days ago on national TV demand that Congress cough up the cash
immediately and without any strings attached. At first both Democratic and
Republican politicians rallied behind the proposal. But they were
immediately barraged with phone calls and emails from outraged citizens, and
they began to change their tune. 

Coming on the heals of the bailouts of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac,
and AIG -- all of whom are now under criminal investigation by the FBI for
fraud - which will cost hundreds of billions, the Paulson "shock and awe"
demand for $700 billion fund to buy up Wall Street's "toxic" debt was just
too much for most working people. This is true whether they were leaning
toward voting for McCain or Obama. This explosion of outrage at giving such
an amazing amount to the very people who have caused the crisis in the
financial system came before the actual proposal was made public. Since then
the anger has deepened.

Paulson's proposal was contained in three pages! This reflects the lack of
details on just what will happen. He just said the fund would be used to buy
up the bad debts of banks and other financial institutions. But no-one knows
exactly how much bad debt there is, because it is has been bundled up with
other debts and then resold as complicated financial instruments. If the
government bought them at their actual market value, then the bailout
wouldn't be necessary since they could be sold at that level in the market.
So what will happen is that the government will pay for those toxic assets
at prices much higher than their market value, giving the banks and Wall
Street brokers an influx of cash in the hope that they will use that money
to make more loans and alleviate the credit crunch. And, by the way, pocket
millions for themselves.

It is not at all clear that this plan would even work, since the squeeze on
credit was not caused by a lack of money but by the larger financial crisis
that began with the collapse of the housing bubble. Many economists from
Harvard, Yale, MIT, the University of Chicago,  and other prestigious
institutions have written to members of Congress saying the Paulson plan
will not work.

Paulson's proposal was that he be given absolute power to decide what to buy
and from whom, at what price and with immunity from review "by any court of
law or any administrative agency." Furthermore, he would hire "contractors"
to help make those decisions, and they would be given the same immunity,
taking a page from US policy in Iraq. Who would those "contractors" be?
Experts, of course - that is, bankers!

It wasn't President Bush who made the proposal, but Paulson. And he did it
without consultation with Obama or McCain. Bush and the candidates were
brushed aside. The bombshell was dropped to play on the real fears of
working people about the economy to ram it through. Paulson, a former CEO of
the Goldman Sachs investment bank who reportedly "earned" $37 million in
2005, was on the cover of Newsweek with the caption "King Henry". Goldman
Sachs will be a major beneficiary of the bailout plan.

Paulson and Federal Reserve Board chief Ben Bernanke thought they could get
a repeat of the way fears after the 9/11 attacks were used to ram through
the Patriot Act and congressional backing for the invasion of Iraq. But it
backfired.

The whole context of the election campaign has changed. The Democrats are
tinkering with the proposal and many Republicans, including leading
conservatives, are opposed to the Paulson plan. There may be some kind of
compromise plan that still has as its heart "cash for trash". But any such
plan will not quell the public anger.

In the September 24 Washington Post there was a report of a new poll taken
after the Paulson announcement. "Turmoil in the financial industry and
growing pessimism about the economy have altered the shape of the
presidential race, giving Democratic nominee Barack Obama the first clear
lead of the general-election campaign over Republican John McCain, according
to the latest Washington Post- ABC News national poll", the Post reported.
The poll found Obama now leads McCain by 52% to 43%. It also found that more
voters trusted Obama to deal with the economy than his opponent. 

McCain panicked, announcing that he had unilaterally suspended election
campaigning and a call for postponing the September 26 nationally televised
debate with Obama, to concentrate on achieving bipartisan congressional
support for a financial bail-out plan.  He is being pressured to reverse
this stand. If Obama shows up and McCain doesn't, it would make him look
weak and unable to address the issue.

The McCain campaign received a boost at the Republican convention when he
chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. She
is an extreme right-winger, and this choice energised the Republican base
among the white Christian right and others. But the bailout plan has
eclipsed the Palin effect, and crystallised the economy as the main issue in
the election.

On the front of foreign policy, the two candidates are becoming closer. Both
think that more US troops should be sent to Afghanistan. Obama's position,
stated months ago. that the US should militarily strike into Pakistan with
or without Islamabad's agreement is now official US policy. It turns out
that Bush authorised such attacks last July.

Obama's position on Iraq has become murkier. He had said that he would, if
elected president, immediately begin to draw down combat troops, and have
them all pulled out in 16 months, that is, by May 2010. Now he seems to be
going along with the Iraqi puppet president's proposal that the combat
troops would leave by December 2011. McCain still maintains that all the
troops should stay in Iraq until the US "wins". but he hasn't been pressing
this as much. The reality is that it will be hard to increase troops in
Afghanistan without drawing down troops in Iraq.

While Obama is pulling ahead in the polls, in past elections where a black
candidate was running, the number of votes they received was less than what
the polls predicted. Many whites will not vote for a black person, but are
ashamed to admit this to a pollster.

Republicans have been using code words to fan racist flames. One of these is
"uppity". In the US south before the 1960s civil rights movement, blacks
were often referred to as "uppity" if they stood up for their rights. A
Georgia Republican, Representative Lynn Westmoreland, recently referred to
Obama as "uppity". In Georgia the meaning of the word is clear: Obama
doesn't know his "place". Representative Geoff Davis, Republican from
Kentucky, earlier in the year used an old racist term for black men, calling
Obama a "boy".

The McCain campaign ran a TV ad accusing Obama of being "disrespectful" of
Sarah Palin. In the US south, it was common before the civil rights movement
for a black man accused of being "disrespectful" of a white woman to be
physically attacked, even lynched. Racism remains an underground theme in
this campaign.&#9679;

  



From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Wed Oct  1 23:32:21 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:32:21 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Hoping for credible "bailout,
 " Times presses needs of 6 million mortgage victims
Message-ID: <0A02EF3A26C24E7CAB37DA78EB5C4F6D@office1pc>

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/opinion/02thu1.html

October 2, 2008
Editorial
Show Us the Hope 
Falling house prices are driving the collapse of the financial system. But
the bailout bill, even the ?sweetened? version that was approved by the
Senate Wednesday night, does little to avert the defaults and foreclosures
that are pushing house values ever downward. 

At last count, six million people were expected to default on their
mortgages this year and next, putting them at risk of losing their homes
unless they can catch up in their payments or catch a break on their loan
terms. And they?re not the only ones at risk. As prices drop, millions of
people who have never missed a mortgage payment stand to lose their home
equity.

Leaving these Americans out of the bailout bill is unwise and unfair, but
neither Congress nor the Bush administration has ever shown anywhere near
the sense of urgency to rescue homeowners at the bottom of the collapse as
they have for the financiers at the top of it. 

Take, for example, a new government program that took effect on Wednesday
with the aim of helping as many as 400,000 struggling homeowners keep their
homes. Even before it got started, the program ? called Hope for Homeowners
? was looking like a lead balloon. 

Under the program, the government will insure up to $300 billion in new,
more affordable loans for troubled borrowers. For the insurance to kick in,
however, lenders must first voluntarily refinance the delinquent mortgages
by reducing the loan balances to 90 percent of the home?s current market
value. 

In exchange, lenders would avoid the expense of foreclosure and uncertainty
about being repaid. The government would stem the social and economic damage
of more foreclosures, at presumably little risk to taxpayers.

There?s just one problem. At a Congressional hearing in September, lenders
were lukewarm about participating in the new program ? reluctant, it seems,
to take the loss that comes with reducing loan balances.

The lenders, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and
CitiMortgage, a unit of Citigroup, all said they were taking other steps to
help troubled borrowers, like reducing a loan?s interest rate or extending
its term. That?s helpful, but the industry?s efforts don?t go far enough:
defaults and foreclosures continue to outstrip efforts to rework bad loans. 

As home prices fall, the most effective modification is to reduce the loan
balance; otherwise, borrowers are in the position of repaying a loan higher
than the value of the property. That burden can become unbearable when
combined with unemployment or reduced work hours or unexpected expenses like
medical bills.

There are two sides to the mortgage mess. The mortgage industry, in pursuit
of upfront fees, deliberately made loans to people who could not afford the
payments over time. They justified their actions on the self-serving and
unsound basis that rising home values would forever postpone a day of
reckoning. 

Many borrowers ? na?vely, foolishly or selfishly ? took on those loans. Yet
well over a year into the housing bust, the mortgage industry still calls
the shots, as if it is a victim of the borrowers.

Congress could change that dynamic, by amending the bankruptcy code to allow
the court to modify troubled mortgages. But lawmakers still are afraid to
hold the industry accountable. Instead, they are offering Hope for
Homeowners that looks to be anything but. 





From Jscotlive at aol.com  Thu Oct  2 00:16:28 2008
From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 02:16:28 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Communism and socialism
Message-ID: <ca7.36413a0e.3615c13c@aol.com>


Eli:
 
Would 
that mean the old definition of "communism" has to be thrown out,  or 
re-thought?

Reply:
 
Not at all, Eli. I've always felt the Leninist definition of socialism  as 
constituting the lowest stage of communism to be apt. The focus of the work  of 
Marx and Engels was the deconstruction and analysis of capitalism, its  
provenance and how its development fit in with their materialist  conception of 
history. Marx never gave much thought to the transition from  capitalism to 
communism, I think because he was clever enough to know that  predictions of the 
future are about as useful to a revolutionary as  indicators on a submarine. He 
certainly did not envisage  underdevelopment as offering the potential for 
socialist revolution,  as was the case in Russia. Lenin and Trotsky understood 
that due  to Russia's underdevelopment they were relying on the Russian  
Revolution to act as a catalyst for international revolution, and that without  this 
international revolution they could go no further than an attempt to  develop 
Russia's productive forces under socialist planning, knowing full  well that 
socialism under conditions of underdevelopment is impossible  to achieve. The SU 
was thereafter stuck in a transitional stage  from capitalism to socialism, 
with communism nothing more than a dream  for a future society far beyond their 
grasp given the material conditions they  were facing. They adopted the word 
communism to describe their party  and state as much for propaganda and 
agitational reasons as any other.
 
Communism in this light requires not only the superabundance of an advanced  
capitalist society, but also a massive shift in consciousness. The social  
conditioning undergone by humanity under capitalism has lasted 350  years. It 
seems reasonable to expect communist ideas and consciousness just  as long to 
create the 'new man' that Che described.
   



   

From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 00:54:53 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 02:54:53 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Marxist hip hop
In-Reply-To: <C4BE8DA0.7893%n.fredman.11@scu.edu.au>
References: <Acj2/CyRaujQFGLvEd2YMwAZ4zahlA==>
	<C4BE8DA0.7893%n.fredman.11@scu.edu.au>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810012354k35830c4u2d9c820529b81dbc@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Nick Fredman <n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au> wrote:
> "Ruthless Critic of All that Exists":
>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_hip_hop>
>>
>> which lists several artists, including one who calls himself "Marxman".
>
> Marxman was a group (of men) rather than a man, around in the early 90s.



I recently came across the film "Cuban Hip Hop", which features many
socialist-leaning Cuban hip hop artistes who support the Cuban
revolution (while at times being sharply critical of Cuban social
reality).

A review of this film is at:

<http://www3.arts.umich.edu/lounge/viewtopic.php?p=875#875>

A preview (with links to the trailer) is at:
<http://www3.arts.umich.edu/lounge/viewtopic.php?t=687>

RC


From mqduck at sonic.net  Thu Oct  2 00:54:56 2008
From: mqduck at sonic.net (Jeffrey Thomas Piercy)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:54:56 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Immigration Raids Framed As "Anti-Gang Crackdown" in
 NYT
In-Reply-To: <de3b89110810012053p5c37252etc46b598f582517e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <de3b89110810012053p5c37252etc46b598f582517e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48E47040.4040704@sonic.net>

Speaking of gangs, I have a question. Do you people, as Marxists, feel 
that there is (at least sometimes) something empowering or otherwise 
positive about these organized groups of minorities united by the need 
to just get by? Are all gangs necessarily at "war" with other gangs, or 
directly destructive to their own community?

Sky Keyes-Vogt wrote:
> As the following article from the NYT shows, one of the ways that the ruling
> class is trying to form a united front (of sorts) against immigrants is by
> framing the debate about crime/gangs instead.  So we saw that the killing of
> high school football phenom Jamiel Shaw in L.A. by an "illegal" immigrant
> became transformed into a campaign against Special Order 40 (protecting
> latinos from being stopped by the police to check for immigration status in
> L.A.) that amplified anti-gang and anti-violence rhetoric above
> anti-immigrant rhetoric to obfuscate the issue at hand.  Note how this
> article blurs the lines between between violent gang members and "illegal"
> immigrants.  And what about this line:  "[The Justice Department] has wide
> latitude to initiate deportation proceedings against noncitizens, he said,
> even if they are found not guilty of crimes."  So basically if you're caught
> up in this gang sweep and are totally innocent you can still be deported.
> Nationally prominent gang expert Alex Alonso in L.A. has written quite a few
> pieces about the dubious gang identification process, which is basically at
> an officer's discretion and has no oversight.  Mis-identify them as gang
> members, arrest them, guilty or not they get deported.
> 
> I don't deny that there are violent gang members out there, maybe this raid
> even caught some of them.  But we must be aware of the fact that when the
> media and the police talk about "gangs" its usually a code word for poor and
> oppressed people that they want to amp up persecution of.
> Hundreds Are Arrested in Antigang Crackdown
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/us/02gangs.html?ref=us
> 
> By SOLOMON MOORE
> Published: October 1, 2008
> 
> A four-month nationwide crackdown on gangs has brought the arrest of 1,759
> people ? gang members and their associates, other criminals and
> immigration<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>violators
> ? from more than 20 countries, the federal authorities announced
> Wednesday.
> 
> Dozens of state and local law enforcement agencies joined federal officers
> in raids carried out in 28 states, including New York and New Jersey,
> focusing on gang hubs like Los Angeles, Miami and Boston.
> 
> The annual crackdown, which ended Wednesday, is another sign of the
> increasing prevalence of gangs with a presence in more than one country, and
> of the high degree of law enforcement cooperation required to counter them.
> 
> "We now have over 890 gangs in the United States that we've been able to
> target," said Brandon Alvarez-Montgomery, a spokesman for Immigration and
> Customs Enforcement<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/immigration_and_customs_enforcement_us/index.html?inline=nyt-org>.
> 
> 
> The crackdowns began in February 2005 as a way to combat the Salvadoran gang
> MS-13. The program has since expanded to make targets of all gangs with
> international ties and, the authorities say, has led to the arrest of 11,106
> gang members and associates.
> 
> This year's sweep, the largest so far, resulted in the arrest of 730 people
> on new criminal charges, 338 of them foreigners. The others picked up are
> charged with immigration violations.
> 
> Nearly all the arrested foreigners face proceedings leading to deportation,
> Mr. Alvarez-Montgomery said. Non-American suspects are to be prosecuted by
> the Justice Department or state and local agencies on charges including
> murder, rape, drug distribution, firearms violations and illegal re-entry
> after deportation, a federal felony.
> 
> Those found guilty will be subject to incarceration, and then deportation
> proceedings upon release, Mr. Alvarez-Montgomery said. His agency has wide
> latitude to initiate deportation proceedings against noncitizens, he said,
> even if they are found not guilty of crimes.
> 
> State and local law enforcement agencies depend on the annual federal
> crackdown for intelligence and other resources to deal with international
> gangs. Rusty Grant, a special agent with the Georgia Bureau of
> Investigation, said the government had provided invaluable assistance in an
> investigation of eight killings, from 2000 to 2006 in Cedartown, Ga., that
> were related to a methamphetamine-running operation. Three of the victims'
> bodies were set on fire to destroy evidence.
> 
> "The individuals committing these drug crimes were Mexican illegal aliens,"
> Mr. Grant said. "ICE provided expertise in dealing with the immigration
> aspects of the case and also provided Spanish-speaking agents as well."
> 
> Mr. Grant said federal and local officers had arrested about 80 people in
> that particular investigation, including all the killers. They also arrested
> several methamphetamine distributors, among them a man who was hauling 1,000
> pounds of the drug.

-- 
Human: An animal so lost in loathing contemplation of what it thinks it 
is as to overlook what it to be.


From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 01:08:24 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 03:08:24 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Immigration Raids Framed As "Anti-Gang Crackdown" in
	NYT
In-Reply-To: <48E47040.4040704@sonic.net>
References: <de3b89110810012053p5c37252etc46b598f582517e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<48E47040.4040704@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810020008x2b2b8eb3rb311cf8e5ee923d7@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:54 AM, Jeffrey Thomas Piercy <mqduck at sonic.net> wrote:
> Speaking of gangs, I have a question. Do you people, as Marxists, feel
> that there is (at least sometimes) something empowering or otherwise
> positive about these organized groups of minorities united by the need
> to just get by? Are all gangs necessarily at "war" with other gangs, or
> directly destructive to their own community?

On a somewhat related note:

October 1, 2008

Somali Pirates Tell Their Side
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

NY Times

<http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/q-a-with-a-pirate-we-just-want-the-money/index.html?ref=africa>

Sugule Ali, the spokesman for the Somali pirates holding hostage the
Faina, a Ukrainian freighter loaded with weapons, spoke to me by
satellite telephone today from the bridge of the seized ship.


Q. Tell us how you discovered the weapons on board.
A. As soon as we get on a ship, we normally do what is called a
control. We search everything. That's how we found the weapons. Tanks,
anti-aircraft, artillery. That's all we will say right now.

Q. Were you surprised?
A. No, we weren't surprised. We know everything goes through the sea.
We see people who dump waste in our waters. We see people who
illegally fish in our waters. We see people doing all sorts of things
in our waters.

Q. Are you going to sell the weapons to insurgents?
A. No. We don't want these weapons to go to anyone in Somalia. Somalia
has suffered from many years of destruction because of all these
weapons. We don't want that suffering and chaos to continue. We are
not going to offload the weapons. We just want the money.

Q. How much?
A. $20 million, in cash. We don't use any other system than cash.

Q. Will you negotiate?
A. That's deal making. Common sense says human beings can make deals.

Q. Right now, the American Navy has you surrounded. Are you scared?
A. No, we're not scared. We are prepared. We are not afraid because we
know you only die once.

Q. Will you kill the hostages if attacked?
A. Killing is not in our plans. We don't want to do anything more than
the hijacking.

Q. What will you do with the money?
A. We will protect ourselves from hunger.

Q. That's a lot of money to protect yourselves from hunger.
A. Yes, because we have a lot of men and it will be divided amongst all of us.

Q. [There are 20 crew members, most of them Ukrainian, being held
hostage.] How are you interacting with the hostages? Eating with them?
Playing cards?
A. We interact with each other in an honorable manner. We are all
human beings. We talk to one another, and because we are in the same
place, we eat together.

Q. What if you were told you could leave peacefully, without arrest,
though without any ransom money. Would you do it?
A. [With a laugh] We're not afraid of arrest or death or any of these
things. For us, hunger is our enemy.

Q. Have the pirates been misunderstood?
A. We don't consider ourselves sea bandits ["sea bandit" is one way
Somalis translate the English word pirate]. We consider sea bandits
those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and
carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of
us like a coast guard.

Q. Why did you want to become a pirate?
A. We are patrolling our seas. This is a normal thing for people to do
in their regions.

Q. Isn't what you are doing a crime? Holding people at gunpoint?
A. If you hold hostage innocent people, that's a crime. If you hold
hostage people who are doing illegal activities, like waste dumping or
fishing, that is not a crime.

Q. What has this Ukrainian ship done that was a crime?
A. To go through our waters carrying all these weapons without permission.

Q. What is the name of your group? How many ships have you hijacked before?
A. I won't say how many ships we have hijacked. I won't talk about
that. Our name is the Central Region Coast Guard.


From craig at red-bean.com  Thu Oct  2 01:31:04 2008
From: craig at red-bean.com (Craig Brozefsky)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:31:04 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Immigration Raids Framed As "Anti-Gang Crackdown" in
	NYT
In-Reply-To: <48E47040.4040704@sonic.net> (Jeffrey Thomas Piercy's message of
	"Wed\, 01 Oct 2008 23\:54\:56 -0700")
References: <de3b89110810012053p5c37252etc46b598f582517e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<48E47040.4040704@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <87iqsbmp1j.fsf@piracy.kokonino.net>

Jeffrey Thomas Piercy <mqduck at sonic.net> writes:

> Speaking of gangs, I have a question. Do you people, as Marxists, feel 
> that there is (at least sometimes) something empowering or otherwise 
> positive about these organized groups of minorities united by the need 
> to just get by? Are all gangs necessarily at "war" with other gangs, or 
> directly destructive to their own community?

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

Omar Lopez, who was the YL minister of information, is now running for
the Illinois 4th Congressional District.

-- 
Sincerely, Craig Brozefsky              <craig at red-bean.com>


From mqduck at sonic.net  Thu Oct  2 01:53:25 2008
From: mqduck at sonic.net (Jeffrey Thomas Piercy)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:53:25 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Marxist hip hop
In-Reply-To: <C4BE8DA0.7893%n.fredman.11@scu.edu.au>
References: <C4BE8DA0.7893%n.fredman.11@scu.edu.au>
Message-ID: <48E47DF5.6050907@sonic.net>

Nick Fredman wrote:
> "Ruthless Critic of All that Exists":

> I guess Michael Franti isn't a Marxist either but I think he's written two
> of the best lyrical expressions of revolutionary politics, in 'Rock the
> Nation' and 'Yell Fire'

Man, don't forget his song "Television, the Drug of the Nation" from his 
former group, The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgOWTM5R2DA

--
T.V. is the reason why less than ten percent of our
Nation reads books daily
Why most people think Central America
means Kansas
Socialism means unamerican
and Apartheid is a new headache remedy
[...]
Sugar sweet sitcoms
that leave us with a bad actor taste while
pop stars metamorphosize into soda pop stars
You saw the video
You heard the soundtrack
Well now go buy the soft drink
Well, the only cola that I support
would be a union C.O.L.A. (Cost of Living Allowance)
--

Fucking great stuff.


-- 
Human: An animal so lost in loathing contemplation of what it thinks it 
is as to overlook what it to be.


From mkaradjis at theplanet.net.au  Thu Oct  2 03:18:24 2008
From: mkaradjis at theplanet.net.au (mkaradjis at theplanet.net.au)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:18:24 +1000 (EST)
Subject: [Marxism] China milk scandal
In-Reply-To: <fa3ec0b0519e.48e4b744@scu.edu.au>
References: <fa3ec0b0519e.48e4b744@scu.edu.au>
Message-ID: <57581.210.245.10.203.1222939104.squirrel@webmail.theplanet.net.au>

> I'm currently writing an article for Green Left, that takes up the points
> made here, but also the question of the commodification of infant
> nutrition. I.e. the push, particularly in poor countries, to replace
> breastfeeding with artificial formula. One of the bigger disasters
> produced by corporate dominated orthodox medicine in recent decades.
>

Nick you might be interested in this on Vietnam's decision to ban 22
Chinese milk brands:

Health Ministry tightens up on imported milk supplies

Viet Nam News (24-09-2008)

HCM CITY ? The Ministry of Health (MoH) has ordered authorities nationwide
to ban entry to any imports of milk, milk powder or milk-based products
that have non-standard labels or do not contain information about supply
sources.

Recent tests by the city have shown that the Chinese brand Yili Pure Milk,
which was imported last month and sold by Kim An Ltd. Co., is contaminated
with melamine, an industrial chemical used to make plastics and
fertiliser.

Melamine, which is banned from use in food in China, was illegally added
by a number of Chinese dairy companies to artificially raise the protein
levels in milk, according to news reports.

At least 13,000 Chinese children who drank contaminated milk or milk
formula have been hospitalised, with most being treated for kidney stones.
The Chinese Health Ministry said 104 of them were in serious condition,
the International Herald Tribune reported on Tuesday.

The Yili milk sample was tested at the HCM City Experiment Analysis
Service Center on Monday.

Nguyen Van Chau, director of HCM City?s Health Department, has asked the
HCM City Customs Department to supply a list of imported milk brands to
hasten the inspection work now being done.

Chau also asked the MoH to re-check its list of all officially imported
milk brands that had been issued food safety certificates.

The MoH said the 22 Chinese banned milk brands are: Yili, Sanlu, Xiongmao,
Shengyuan, Shanxi Gucheng, Bao Ji Hui min, Meng Niu, Jia Duo Tianjin,
Guangdong Yashili, Jiang xi Guang ming ying xiong, Hunan Pei yi, Qining,
Shanxi Yashili, Jin Bi Min, Shi Yi, Jin dinh, Aomeiduo, Soukang, Baiyue,
Leilei, Baoanli and Chenguan. ? VNS



From ssschwartz8 at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 03:46:24 2008
From: ssschwartz8 at gmail.com (yossi schwartz)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:46:24 +0200
Subject: [Marxism] Vote for Obama, McQuain, Nader,
	or McKinney-vote for the oppression of the Palestinians and
	imperialist wars .
Message-ID: <685ad9b30810020246x44b8064eu705f2923de770b5@mail.gmail.com>

Our position during the Russian ?Georgian war was that while this war
reflects the growing tension between US and Russian imperialism; the right
wing regime in Georgia  which  at the same time is not an imperialist state,
acted on his own when it sent its army to Oppress South Ossetia and Abhazia.










However, once the Russian imperialist army entered the war we took the
position of revolutionary defeat for Russia and for Revolutionary defense
for Georgia . To besure it  does not imply any political support for the
regime. In our opinion this is the only internationalist stand that can
unite the workers for a new workers revolution that will unify the region
under a workers state.



At that time many of the left groups refused to see the essential point that
Russia is an imperialist state unlike Georgia. They either took openly or
indirectly the position of defense of Russia. In this position they  echoed
the position of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela that is moving  to close
cooperation with Russia on oil and weapons.



Venezuela has the right of course to receive weapons from Russia to defend
itself from US imperialism; however this does not mean that the concern of
Chavez a bourgeois populist is with  working class internationalism.



Interestingly enough this is the same position of  Boris Spiegel the head of
the Zionist United Israel Appeal a close supporter of Putin







"Six weeks ago, during Russia's conflict with Georgia, Spiegel condemned
Georgia's leaders in the name of the World Congress of Russian Jewry,
claiming they should be tried for war crimes and genocide against the
residents of South Ossetia".



"

Avi Pazner, world chairman of Keren Hayesod, told Haaretz: "I don't want to
see him faulted for being an associate of Putin. He is a Russian Jew and he
is a senator from Putin's party, and it's totally legitimate that he adheres
to our positions



While being on the same side as the Zionists in a world event not necessary
proves that the position is wrong from Marxist point of view. It is likely
so.

For example not only Obama and Mc Quain compete who is a stronger supporter
of Israel, but Ralph  Nader  is for peace between Israel and the Arab
states, thus supports the Israeli state even though may critical of this or
other government.


And what about  Cynthia    McKinney  According to the Jewish Times: "Despite
her strained relationship with AIPAC, her votes on their issues rates a
"pretty good" from Mark Moskowitz, AIPAC regional director in Atlanta"



The most radical vote she took eas to cut 30 millions out of 2.88 billion to
support Israel.



So it is clear that those who do not want to struggle for building a
revolutionary workers party in the US at the end of the day ends with one or
another version of supporters  of the Israeli state's  oppression of the
Palestinians.

From danreadfreelance at googlemail.com  Thu Oct  2 04:17:47 2008
From: danreadfreelance at googlemail.com (Daniel Read)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:17:47 +0100
Subject: [Marxism] Communism and socialism
In-Reply-To: <BAY127-W307496015662E606A06276D73D0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY127-W307496015662E606A06276D73D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <b4c7f93b0810020317v539aacd9y57852cd254425d8@mail.gmail.com>

I think the problem is that when the media talks about a shortage ?
for instance the "global food crisis" ? they rarely let on that often
this shortage is something brought on my the system itself, not an
actual literal state of privation. The UN itself has admitted before
that with our current level of technology it would be possible to
cater for everyone on the planet in terms of foodstuffs, yet as you
pointed out this simply does not happen due to the inherent nature of
capitalism. There is no food crisis, but there is a crisis of those
able to pay for food. A lack of a market does not necessarily imply a
lack of need.

In regards to oil, well I think that is more clear cut, although it
must be said that fossil fuels are ? at least when compared to
potential technology ? largely becoming redundant.

With water; again I doubt anyone would claim that there is a literal
shortage of water on a planet covered in two thirds of the stuff, it
is more the case that capitalism isn't about to build mass
desalination plants to provide for all six billion of us.

Cheers

Dan


2008/10/2 Eli Stephens <elishastephens at hotmail.com>:
>
> I'm going to throw out a question for discussion on which I definitely don't
> have the answer: As I understand it, "communism" is only possible under
> conditions of material abundance. It used to be axiomatic that there were enough
> resources, the problem was one of distribution (the rich having too much, the
> poor too little, e.g., grain stored in the U.S. while people elsewhere go
> hungry). But with increasing resource shortages, not just oil but water, and the
> current and future world populations, perhaps the possibility of material
> abundance (at least for a significant portion of humanity) is precluded. Would
> that mean the old definition of "communism" has to be thrown out, or re-thought?
>
> Again, no answers, just questions.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/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/danreadfreelance%40googlemail.com
>


From aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm  Thu Oct  2 05:12:35 2008
From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm (Aaron Aarons)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 04:12:35 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Communism and socialism
In-Reply-To: <ca7.36413a0e.3615c13c@aol.com>
References: <ca7.36413a0e.3615c13c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20081002111521.DA5D7B9F8@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com>

>From: Jscotlive at aol.com
>Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 02:16:28 EDT
>Subject: [Marxism] Communism and socialism
>
>Eli:
> 
>Would that mean the old definition of "communism" has to be thrown out,  or re-thought?
>
>Reply:
> 
>Not at all, Eli. I've always felt the Leninist definition of socialism as constituting the lowest stage of communism to be apt. The focus of the work of Marx and Engels was the deconstruction and analysis of capitalism, its provenance and how its development fit in with their materialist conception of history. Marx never gave much thought to the transition from capitalism to communism, I think because he was clever enough to know that predictions of the future are about as useful to a revolutionary as indicators on a submarine. He certainly did not envisage underdevelopment as offering the potential for socialist revolution, as was the case in Russia. Lenin and Trotsky understood that due to Russia's underdevelopment they were relying on the Russian Revolution to act as a catalyst for international revolution, and that without this international revolution they could go no further than an attempt to develop Russia's productive forces under socialist planning, knowing full we
 ll that socialism under conditions of underdevelopment is impossible to achieve.

Is "underdevelopment" definable in absolute terms, or is it relative to the level of "development" of the most "developed" countries.

>The SU was thereafter stuck in a transitional stage from capitalism to socialism, with communism nothing more than a dream for a future society far beyond their grasp given the material conditions they were facing. They adopted the word communism to describe their party and state as much for propaganda and agitational reasons as any other.
> 
>Communism in this light requires not only the superabundance of an advanced capitalist society,

Even the less industrialized countries today produce more material goods per capita than the most advanced capitalist society did in the days of Marx and Engels. If they don't produce enough of basics like food, it's because their ruling elites would rather produce goods for export to the imperialist countries in exchange for luxury goods and weapons.

The planet can't afford "the superabundance of an advanced capitalist society". And, as long as that "superabundance" is desired, it's definition will expand to include a superabundance of whatever is the latest gadget or trinket. As some insightful thinker said, "You can't ever get enough of what you don't really want."

>but also a massive shift in consciousness. The social conditioning undergone by humanity under capitalism has lasted 350  years. It seems reasonable to expect communist ideas and consciousness just  as long to create the 'new man' that Che described.

That logic is absurd! You might as well say that "the social conditioning undergone by humanity under class society has lasted 3,000 years. [etc.]" Moreover, in many parts of the world, capitalism is fairly recent, except perhaps as an alien force that ruled at the point of a gun.

But the need for "a massive shift in consciousness" is real, and it's not helped along by leftists who talk about "providing jobs" as if the highest human goal were to be a worker bee in a capitalist or "socialist" hive, or producing more junk to substitute quantity for quality of life.

There's more than enough production in the world to provide a decent life for all in a socialist/communist society. But without socialism/communism, no amount of production will be enough.

 - Aaron


From markalause at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 05:32:18 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:32:18 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Vote for Obama, McQuain, Nader,
	or McKinney-vote for the oppression of the Palestinians and
	imperialist wars .
In-Reply-To: <685ad9b30810020246x44b8064eu705f2923de770b5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <685ad9b30810020246x44b8064eu705f2923de770b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810020432u7527d39dy209bbdb2da4ab414@mail.gmail.com>

yossi offers more sage advice, predicated on generalizations about
American politics on which he is as charmingly clueless as a newborn
babe.

If we'd just hold hands and chant the right words, we'd be able to
levitate that Pentagon yet.

If we wish hard enough, we'll be able to resurrect V.I. Tinker Bell.

ML


From schaffer at optonline.net  Thu Oct  2 05:33:11 2008
From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:33:11 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] (fwd) Socialists and/or communists?
Message-ID: <48E4B177.1040601@optonline.net>

[forwarded for Einde ]



Joaquin Bustelo wrote:

<snip>
>
> I said, among other things, "Marx and Engels were never comfortable 
> with the
> term 'socialist' and somewhat chagrined that it came to be identified 
> with
> their followers, as Engels made a point of stressing late in his life 
> in the
> introductions to the Communist Manifesto, if I remember right."
<snip>

> I merely reproduce what it took me about 15
> seconds to find on the Internet. It is from Engels's 1888 introduction 
> to a
> new English edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party:
>
> "The history of the Manifesto reflects the history of the modern
> working-class movement; at present, it is doubtless the most wide spread,
> the most international production of all socialist literature, the common
> platform acknowledged by millions of working men from Siberia to 
> California.
>
> "Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist
> manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the
> adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, 
> Fourierists
> in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, 
> and
> gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social 
> quacks
> who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any 
> danger to
> capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men
> outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the "educated"
> classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become
> convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had
> proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist.
> "It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; 
> still, it
> touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working 
> class
> to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in
> Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, 
> communism a
> working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least,
> "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, 
> from the
> very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the 
> act of
> the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two
> names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from 
> repudiating
> it."
>
I'm afraid that the passage quoted by Joaquin doesn't bear the 
interpretation Joaquin puts on it. It was written in 1888 to explain why 
they called it "The COMMUNIST Manifesto" and referred to the meaning of 
the word socialism in 1848. In the passage cited above Engels was merely 
saying that he still held the same opinions as in 1848.

In 1884 With Engels' support Eleanor Marx, William Morris and Edward 
Aveling founded the Socialist League with Engels' active support after 
they split from H.M. Hyndman's Social Democratic Federation. In 1889 the 
Second International was founded again with the active support of 
Engels, who actively supported Eleanor Marx's intervention to ensure a 
unified International despite the fact taht two congresses had been 
called by opposing French tendencies.

In 1890 Engels  published a pamphlet called "Socialism: Utopian and 
Scientific" (or to translate the German title "The development of 
Socialism from utopia to science") in which he explicitly described 
Marxism as "scientific socialism", a term that had also been used in 
Anti-D?hring (the longer text from which it had been extracted). This 
work had been written in close collaboration with Marx. In the 1893 
Italian preface to the Manifesto contains the following statement: 
"Thus, if the Revolution of 1848 was not a socialist revolution, it 
paved the way, prepared the ground for the latter," i.e. he saw 
"socialist revolution" as the aspiration of his movement, whether it 
called itself communist, social democratic (as did many of the 
organisations in the International) or socialist.

None of these sound like a man uncomfortable with the designation 
"socialist".

Joaquin's mail also calls Lenin as a witness, citing his demand in the 
April Theses and elsewhere that the partyhe headed should change its 
name to "Communist Party". What Lenin was explicitly arguing about was 
changing the name of the "Russian SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC Labour Party" to 
"Russian Communist Party". He says nothing about the designation 
"socialist" - indeed he uses the words "socialist" and "socialism" quite 
extensively. The Bolsheviks and later the early Comintern had absolutely 
no problem with calling what they were fighting for "socialism".

And Eli Stephens raises a valid point about the meaning of the word 
"communism" today - at least in the minds of the majority of the 
population in Western countries (particularly English-speaking 
countries) or Eastern Europe. What it means in other parts of the world 
I can't judge.

Einde O'Callaghan



From nmgoro at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 05:35:38 2008
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 08:35:38 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] Wall Street crisis deepens divisions in South America
In-Reply-To: <517f3cab0810011301r2313fb83w397dfef2e4b7ade9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48E371B8.9010509@panix.com>
	<2fa158550810011250j2b579cdred028e0e5239bb90@mail.gmail.com>
	<517f3cab0810011301r2313fb83w397dfef2e4b7ade9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fa158550810020435h6edb309bp3b899e36c8b7ae38@mail.gmail.com>

2008/10/1, Dan Russell <proletariandan en gmail.com>:
>  The article doesn't seem to be implying (though the title does) that Latin
>  America is dividing amongst itself but from the US, which is all the better.

Exactly.

That is what headlines are for.

Most people read JUST the headlines.


-- 

N?stor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a

From nmgoro at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 05:47:24 2008
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 08:47:24 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] Can a socialist country be Christian - Tiny
	discussion I stumbled across
In-Reply-To: <3593D46A745A4B0B9D1A4E55795BFCE3@albanta>
References: <195004.62877.qm@web55601.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
	<48E3F4BF.8040704@sonic.net>
	<BB9F8690559545BE9EE887B1DDF17AA0@albanta> <48E415C5.30908@sonic.net>
	<3593D46A745A4B0B9D1A4E55795BFCE3@albanta>
Message-ID: <2fa158550810020447y2c462f53vb9bf59de74a8b6c@mail.gmail.com>

In countries belonging to what one can broadly define as the "Western"
popular tradition, most of popular imagery and many of popular
comparisons, arguments, metaphors, and so on, have roots in religion
(Catholics as well as Protestants). This is natural, if one comes to
think about it.

Hugo Ch?vez, like many other popular leaders (and even scholars -did
we forget Dr. Marx's "Holy Family"?), needs to reach people
ideologically moulded by the society of the past. The language of the
sermons in the Church (and the language of schoolteachers in the
public system: Ch?vez is son to a couple of elementary school
teachers) is a very vivid and useful tool when trying to reach the
masses.

It is of no avail to wage an Enlightenment battle without the material
conditions for Enlightenment. On the other side, Marxists are
dialectical people, that is they don't consider religious belief as a
"mistake", but as a moment in the development of
philosophical-historical consciousness. If we can win the religious to
our struggle, much the better.

2008/10/1, Joaquin Bustelo <jbustelo en gmail.com>:
> Okay Jeff, apologies. I had a very frustrating day.
>
>  I think the statement that would be true is that whenever Chavez speaks in

-- 

N?stor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a

From david at miradoiro.com  Thu Oct  2 06:00:33 2008
From: david at miradoiro.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?David_Pic=F3n_=C1lvarez?=)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 14:00:33 +0200
Subject: [Marxism] Communism and socialism
References: <BAY127-W307496015662E606A06276D73D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <7BD923B9D5C14E81917C7A17DA0104F6@Nautilus>

My view:

1) Conditions of abundance are still possible given the tech base and the 
population, and the delta of the population.

2) If they weren't, the reasonable thing to do would be instituting a 
programme of progressive population decrease, until they were. Note that one 
child per woman would probably be a sufficient constraint. That said talking 
about it is premature because: 1) I don't think we're at all at that stage, 
and 2) it would be a matter for people to decide at that point in time.

--David.



From walterlx at earthlink.net  Thu Oct  2 06:44:25 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 08:44:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Latin America Responds to Bailout
Message-ID: <7329126.1222951465433.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Washington politicians may dismiss and vilify Fidel Castro
and Hugo Chavez. But the voice of Lula and others whom the
US media has portrayed as a "responsible left" alternative
to the Cuban and Venezuelan leaders cannot be dismissed in
the same manner. Today people of the United States watch
the spectacle of its capitalist economy being presented as
being at the edge of collapse of the U.S. Congress doesn't 
give Wall Street corporations more or less whatever they
want. Voices like those of Lula and others cannot today be
ignored, and will find an audience even in the heartland 
of dollar-worship, the United States of America. 

Brazil has normal and friendly relations with countries
Washington reviles. This helps demonstrate how far out of
step the U.S. is with the rest of the planet. It's time
and overtime for the United States to adopt a more cooper-
ative, less combative profile on the international arena.

Chavez, too, whose policies have included low-priced home
heating oil to poor communities in the United States, is
also finding an audience. Some may only be based on oil's
lower price when it comes from Venezuela. But thoughtful
people must be wondering why someone offers cheap oil as
others think they have a right to take whatever the market
will bear, especially when the latter group also support
the bankrupting of the US economy through the invasions
and occupations of foreign countries from Afghanistan to
Iraq and beyond. This is especially true as we face an 
oncoming election as winter weather begins to approach 
the United States of America.


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
=========================================================

FROM PORTSIDE:
Latin America Responds to Bailout

1. Brazil's Lula Calls US Bailout Plan Unfair to Poor 
2. Latin America Leftists Slam U.S. on Financial Crisis

==

Brazil's Lula Calls US Bailout Plan Unfair to Poor

Reuters Sep 28, 2008
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2833889320080928

BRASILIA, Sept 28 (Reuters) - Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da
Silva blamed the United States for the global financial crisis and
said its financial bailout plan was unfair to poor people.

U.S. lawmakers on Sunday were set to sign off on a deal to create a
$700 billion government fund to buy bad debt from ailing banks in a
bid to stem a credit crisis threatening the global economy.

"They want to help the banks and not help the poor," Lula said late
on Saturday in Sao Paulo during a campaign rally ahead of Oct. 5
municipal elections.

"Why give $700 billion to the banks and no money to the poor guys who
lost their houses," Lula asked, according to local media. He referred
to the troubled U.S. housing market.

The former factory worker, who obtained record approval ratings this
month, said the United States had the primary responsibility to fix a
crisis with global repercussions that it had caused.

"I'm not at fault if they turned their economy into a casino," Lula
said in reference to accusations that lax U.S. financial regulations
worsened the crisis.

Brazil was in a better position to withstand the crisis than it was
years ago, the former union leader said.

"I don't want to say we're at ease but ... today we depend less on
the United States for our exports," Lula said.

Brazil's economy is growing by more than 5 percent annually but is
expected to slow to around 4 percent growth next year. A few
Brazilian exporters announced last week large derivatives losses
related to currency fluctuations caused by the global financial
crisis. (Reporting by Raymond Colitt; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

===

Latin America leftists slam U.S. on financial crisis

GuardianUK September 30 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7840720

MANAUS, Brazil, Sept 30 (Reuters) - Latin America's socialist leaders
accused the United States on Tuesday of "irresponsibility" in its
handling of a financial crisis that has dried up credit markets and
threatens economies around the world.

While Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez warned the crisis could slow
economic growth across Latin America, he still took a stab at
Washington and predicted that U.S. economic power is in dramatic
decline.

"This crash of capitalism and of neoliberalism will be worse than
that of 1929," Chavez told reporters at a meeting with the leaders of
Brazil, Bolivia, and Ecuador in Brazil's Amazon city of Manaus.

"The world will never be the same after this crisis. A new world has
to emerge, and it's a multipolar world," he said. "We are decoupling
from the wagon of death."

Many Latin American countries depend heavily on exports of
commodities, such as oil, soy, copper and bananas, and falling prices
combined with tighter credit are raising fears of a sharp slowdown.

"Financing will become more difficult," Chavez said. "Raw material
prices could come down, starting with the price of oil, and including
copper, minerals and food stuffs."

With world money markets in trouble, policymakers are hoping the U.S.
Congress will quickly revive and approve a $700 billion rescue
package that would allow the U.S. Treasury to buy up bad debt from
struggling banks.

But Bolivian President Evo Morales, who is a close ally of
Venezuela's Chavez and has nationalized the natural gas industry as
part of his socialist reforms, criticized the U.S. plan as a bail-out
for the rich.

"In Bolivia, we nationalized for the people to have money, while the
United States wants to nationalize debt and a crisis of the wealthy,"
Morales said before meeting with Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula
da Silva, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa and Chavez.

Correa, Morales and Chavez all promote socialist reforms and have
been harsh Washington critics. Lula, a former labor leader, has ties
with all three but has been much more market friendly and also has
good relations with Washington. (Reporting by Fernando Exman; writing
by Raymond Colitt; editing by Stuart Grudgings and Kieran Murray)


=========================================
     WALTER LIPPMANN
     Los Angeles, California
     Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
     "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================


From sabocat59 at mac.com  Thu Oct  2 06:52:46 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:52:46 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] To Hell with Wall St.
Message-ID: <3887D64C-526A-4DA4-8164-C235C669C048@mac.com>



The Huffington Post

October 2, 2008

Alec Baldwin
Posted October 1, 2008 | 11:25 AM (EST)

To Hell with Wall Street

If you give them the $700 billion, make them issue stock. Make every  
recipient of the bailout issue stock in return for our "investment."  
Don't give them the dough. Make them sell a stake in their companies.  
Banks, investment firms, insurance companies, you name it.

Put the money in accounts to fund Social Security.

Or, as my friend David said over dinner tonight, only give the money  
to small, local banks. Savings and loans. To rebuild the mortgage  
market on the local level. Borrow the money from a guy who lives in  
your town. To Hell with Wall Street. The current Wall Street. Why  
prop up a system that may soon devolve into Three Big Banks, only to  
watch one of those fold after the election?

Remember one of the most damning things about this government: they  
lie. All the time. There is likely more to come. And $700 billion  
will not cover it. So, they'll come back for more. A lot more.

Don't give them the money. Don't loan it. Make them sell us a piece  
of the action.

  
    


From nmgoro at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 07:21:37 2008
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:21:37 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] To Hell with Wall St.
In-Reply-To: <3887D64C-526A-4DA4-8164-C235C669C048@mac.com>
References: <3887D64C-526A-4DA4-8164-C235C669C048@mac.com>
Message-ID: <2fa158550810020621m72b23c95u66bd4fe1a8482119@mail.gmail.com>

2008/10/2, Greg McDonald <sabocat59 en mac.com>:
>
>
>  The Huffington Post
>
>  October 2, 2008
>
>  Alec Baldwin
>  Posted October 1, 2008 | 11:25 AM (EST)
>
>  To Hell with Wall Street
>
>  If you give them the $700 billion, make them issue stock. Make every
>  recipient of the bailout issue stock in return for our "investment."
>  Don't give them the dough. Make them sell a stake in their companies.
>  Banks, investment firms, insurance companies, you name it.

If I was a high-level Chinese policy maker I would already be counting
the dollars to purchase USAmerican banks.

-- 

N?stor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a

From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Oct  2 07:26:14 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:26:14 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Battle for the Amazon
Message-ID: <48E4CBF6.4020406@panix.com>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/01/brazil
Battle for the Amazon
A massive increase in deforestation has put two branches of the 
Brazilian government on collision course
by Conor Foley

Brazil's new environment minister, Carlos Minc, announced this week that 
he will be pressing for criminal charges against 100 of the worst 
individuals or companies responsible for most of the deforestation since 
2005. New figures just released show that the rate of deforestation has 
increased by 133% since last month in the nine states of the Amazon 
region, which is an increase of 228% compared to a year ago.

Minc also said that the government will create an environmental police 
force with 3,000 heavily armed and specially trained officers to enforce 
the law. "I am a pacifist and environmentalist," he told journalists, 
"but without greater repression we are not going to end the destruction 
of the Amazon."

Top of Minc's list of culprits is the Brazilian National Institute for 
Agrarian Reform (Inrca), responsible for finding land for Brazil's large 
landless population, whose settlements in the Amazon are ranked amongst 
the top eight worst offenders. However, Incra's president, Rolf 
Hackbart, rejected the idea of bringing criminal proceedings as "absurd" 
saying that it will only serve to undermine the government's agrarian 
reforms.

Brazil faces two related environmental problems, based on its highly 
unequal system of land ownership, which means that a tiny elite hold 
massive estates, while millions remain landless. Increased mechanisation 
and the spread of cash crops has driven large numbers of these into the 
Amazon, where they clear land for farming using cash and burn 
techniques. This, and illegal logging for Brazil's high quality wood, 
has steadily increased the pressure on the rainforest and is also a 
major cause of global warming.

Under President Lula, Brazil has had some success reversing 
deforestation in recent years, but this year saw a sharp increase in the 
levels of destruction. The rising price of food is undoubtedly one of 
the major reasons for this, but Minc also stressed that it was down to a 
lack of inspection and enforcement of the law.

Hackbart, however, blamed the "economic model of agriculture" as the 
main reason for the destruction. He said that Mato Grosso, one of the 
states bordering the Amazon, is "a sea of soya and cattle ranches." The 
big farmers are destroying the environment through the production of 
cash crops and cattle, he said, and pushing smaller farmers into the 
Amazon. He argued that the crisis needs to be tackled holistically and 
blaming Incra and the small farmers is to attack the principal victims 
of the crisis.

Minc assumed office two months ago after the resignation of Marina 
Silva, a native of the Amazon and an internationally respected 
campaigner. She had clashed repeatedly with other members of President 
Lula's government, in particular, Dilma Rousseff, Lula's chief of staff, 
who is leading its flagship programme for accelerated growth and Roberto 
Mangabeira Unger, the "minister for long-term planning". Although she 
was a long-time friend and colleague of Lula's, he also sided against 
her, stressing that the preservation of the Amazon should be "balanced 
against economic development and the needs of the people who live there".

Silva had also come up against some entrenched vested interests at the 
local level and Minc again warned at the weekend that a lack of 
cooperation by some state governors was a major part of the problem.

Brazil's environmentalists have repeatedly criticised Blairo Maggi, the 
governor of Mato Grosso and the world's largest soya bean producer, for 
being one of the chief causes of the Amazon's destruction. Greenpeace 
awarded him their Golden Chainsaw Award in 2006.

Five years ago Maggi told the new York Times:

"To me, a 40% increase in deforestation doesn't mean anything at all, 
and I don't feel the slightest guilt over what we are doing here. We're 
talking about an area larger than Europe that has barely been touched, 
so there is nothing at all to get worried about."



From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Oct  2 07:27:43 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:27:43 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The specter of Wall Street
Message-ID: <48E4CC4F.9030007@panix.com>

The Specter of Wall Street
Wall Street's Comeback as the Place Americans Love to Hate
By Steve Fraser

Wall Street sits at the eye of a political hurricane. Its enemies 
converge from every point on the compass. What a stunning turn of events.

For well more than half a century Wall Street has enjoyed a remarkable 
political immunity, but matters were not always like that. Now, with 
history marching forward in seven league boots, we are about to revisit 
a time when the Street functioned as the country's lightning rod, 
attracting its deepest animosities and most passionate desires for 
economic justice and democracy.

For the better part of a century, from the 1870s through the tumultuous 
years of the Great Depression and the New Deal, the specter of Wall 
Street haunted the popular political imagination. For Populists it was 
the "Great Satan," its stranglehold over the country's credit system 
being held responsible for driving the family farmer to the edge of 
extinction and beyond.

For legions mobilized in the anti-monopoly movement, Wall Street was the 
prime engine house of monopoly capitalism, leaving behind it a trail of 
victimized businesses, consumers, captive municipalities, and crushed 
workers. For Progressive reformers around the turn of the twentieth 
century, Wall Street's "money trust" was the mother of all trusts, its 
tentacles -- and the octopus was indeed a popular image of the time -- 
choking off economic opportunity for all but a favored few. Its 
political power in Congress, in presidential cabinets, in statehouses, 
in both major political parties was seen as so overwhelming as to 
threaten to suffocate democracy itself.

All the periodic panics and depressions -- 1873, 1884, 1893, 1907, and 
1913 -- that, with numbing regularity, punctuated economic life until 
the Crash of '29 and the Great Depression brought the house down seemed 
to begin on the Street. And whether they actually began there or not, 
all the misery that followed in their wake -- the homelessness, the 
armies of tramps and hobos, the starvation, the bankruptcies, the broken 
families, the crushing sense of dispossession -- was regularly laid at 
the feet of the Street.

Despite the hot-tempered invective directed its way, the "Great Satan" 
didn't face its comeuppance until the New Deal in the 1930s. Then, all 
its transgressions -- its speculative greed, its felonious 
insider-dealing, its cynical manipulation of popular credulity, its 
extravagant incompetence and seemingly limitless capacity for 
self-delusion -- left Wall Street truly vulnerable. Its reputation had 
struck bottom.

full: 
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174984/steve_fraser_wall_street_and_the_return_of_the_repressed


From sabocat59 at mac.com  Thu Oct  2 07:36:16 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:36:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Marxist hip hop
Message-ID: <223CF27B-B38A-4630-8A66-7861E08ABD38@mac.com>

Jeffrey Thomas Piercy wrote:

<Man, don't forget his song "Television, the Drug of the Nation" from  
his
former group, The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy.>

This brings to mind the words of Brother Mouzan, fictional character  
on the HBO tv series "The Wire":

"The most dangerous weapon in this country is a n(word) with a  
library card".

Of course you may note the irony in quoting from a fictional  
character on a TV program.

Greg McD


From sabocat59 at mac.com  Thu Oct  2 07:43:26 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:43:26 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] To Hell with Wall St.
Message-ID: <4B2B98A4-1DFF-4E92-98F4-098950B40A49@mac.com>

Nestor G. wrote:

<If I was a high-level Chinese policy maker I would already be counting
the dollars to purchase USAmerican banks.>

Would that be a good thing for workers?

Greg McD



From ecosocialism at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 07:46:28 2008
From: ecosocialism at gmail.com (Ian Angus)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:46:28 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Canada's Election: What's the Alternative to the Tories?
Message-ID: <733b65360810020646naa49a89nfeb829a549658d99@mail.gmail.com>

SOCIALIST VOICE
Marxist Perspectives for the 21st Century
www.socialistvoice.ca

CANADA'S ELECTIONS: WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE TORIES?

By Roger Annis

Canada's minority Conservative Party government has called a federal
election for October 14. Serious issues confront voters ? war in the
Middle East and Afghanistan, the economic downturn that that will grow
out of the U.S. financial crisis, and climate change that endangers
human life on our planet. But four of the five parties in the federal
parliament are avoiding serious debate on these issues.

The fifth, the labour-based New Democratic Party (NDP), has a platform
that responds to many working class needs, but it is evading vital
issues. Only action by trade unions and social justice movements can
place working class concerns at the center of the electoral spectacle.

Read this article: http://www.socialistvoice.ca/?p=336


From sabocat59 at mac.com  Thu Oct  2 07:50:50 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:50:50 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] We Have the Money, by Chalmers Johnson
Message-ID: <FF496F7D-F0F5-4905-A182-7EA5AD51F5D4@mac.com>



We Have The Money- If Only We Didn't Waste It on The Defense Budget

By Chalmers Johnson

29 September, 2008
Tom Dispatch

There has been much moaning, air-sucking, and outrage about the $700  
billion that the U.S. government is thinking of throwing away on rich  
New York bankers who have been ripping us off for the past few years  
and then letting greed drive their businesses into a variety of  
ditches. In fact, we dole out similar amounts of money every year in  
the form of payoffs to the armed services, the military-industrial  
complex, and powerful senators and representatives allied with the  
Pentagon.

On Wednesday, September 24th, right in the middle of the fight over  
billions of taxpayer dollars slated to bail out Wall Street, the  
House of Representatives passed a $612 billion defense authorization  
bill for 2009 without a murmur of public protest or any meaningful  
press comment at all. (The New York Times gave the matter only three  
short paragraphs buried in a story about another appropriations  
measure.)

The defense bill includes $68.6 billion to pursue the wars in Iraq  
and Afghanistan, which is only a down-payment on the full yearly cost  
of these wars. (The rest will be raised through future supplementary  
bills.) It also included a 3.9% pay raise for military personnel, and  
$5 billion in pork-barrel projects not even requested by the  
administration or the secretary of defense. It also fully funds the  
Pentagon's request for a radar site in the Czech Republic, a hare- 
brained scheme sure to infuriate the Russians just as much as a  
Russian missile base in Cuba once infuriated us. The whole bill  
passed by a vote of 392-39 and will fly through the Senate, where a  
similar bill has already been approved. And no one will even think to  
mention it in the same breath with the discussion of bailout funds  
for dying investment banks and the like.

This is pure waste. Our annual spending on "national security" --  
meaning the defense budget plus all military expenditures hidden in  
the budgets for the departments of Energy, State, Treasury, Veterans  
Affairs, the CIA, and numerous other places in the executive branch  
-- already exceeds a trillion dollars, an amount larger than that of  
all other national defense budgets combined. Not only was there no  
significant media coverage of this latest appropriation, there have  
been no signs of even the slightest urge to inquire into the  
relationship between our bloated military, our staggering weapons  
expenditures, our extravagantly expensive failed wars abroad, and the  
financial catastrophe on Wall Street.

The only Congressional "commentary" on the size of our military  
outlay was the usual pompous drivel about how a failure to vote for  
the defense authorization bill would betray our troops. The aged  
Senator John Warner (R-Va), former chairman of the Senate Armed  
Services Committee, implored his Republican colleagues to vote for  
the bill "out of respect for military personnel." He seems to be  
unaware that these troops are actually volunteers, not draftees, and  
that they joined the armed forces as a matter of career choice,  
rather than because the nation demanded such a sacrifice from them.

We would better respect our armed forces by bringing the futile and  
misbegotten wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to an end. A relative degree  
of peace and order has returned to Iraq not because of President  
Bush's belated reinforcement of our expeditionary army there (the so- 
called surge), but thanks to shifting internal dynamics within Iraq  
and in the Middle East region generally. Such shifts include a  
growing awareness among Iraq's Sunni population of the need to  
restore law and order, a growing confidence among Iraqi Shiites of  
their nearly unassailable position of political influence in the  
country, and a growing awareness among Sunni nations that the ill- 
informed war of aggression the Bush administration waged against Iraq  
has vastly increased the influence of Shiism and Iran in the region.

The continued presence of American troops and their heavily  
reinforced bases in Iraq threaten this return to relative stability.  
The refusal of the Shia government of Iraq to agree to an American  
Status of Forces Agreement -- much desired by the Bush administration  
-- that would exempt off-duty American troops from Iraqi law is  
actually a good sign for the future of Iraq.

In Afghanistan, our historically deaf generals and civilian  
strategists do not seem to understand that our defeat by the Afghan  
insurgents is inevitable. Since the time of Alexander the Great, no  
foreign intruder has ever prevailed over Afghan guerrillas defending  
their home turf. The first Anglo-Afghan War (1838-1842) marked a  
particularly humiliating defeat of British imperialism at the very  
height of English military power in the Victorian era. The Soviet- 
Afghan War (1979-1989) resulted in a Russian defeat so demoralizing  
that it contributed significantly to the disintegration of the former  
Soviet Union in 1991. We are now on track to repeat virtually all the  
errors committed by previous invaders of Afghanistan over the centuries.

In the past year, perhaps most disastrously, we have carried our  
Afghan war into Pakistan, a relatively wealthy and sophisticated  
nuclear power that has long cooperated with us militarily. Our recent  
bungling brutality along the Afghan-Pakistan border threatens to  
radicalize the Pashtuns in both countries and advance the interests  
of radical Islam throughout the region. The United States is now  
identified in each country mainly with Hellfire missiles, unmanned  
drones, special operations raids, and repeated incidents of the  
killing of innocent bystanders.

The brutal bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Pakistan's capital,  
Islamabad, on September 20, 2008, was a powerful indicator of the  
spreading strength of virulent anti-American sentiment in the area.  
The hotel was a well-known watering hole for American Marines,  
Special Forces troops, and CIA agents. Our military activities in  
Pakistan have been as misguided as the Nixon-Kissinger invasion of  
Cambodia in 1970. The end result will almost surely be the same.

We should begin our disengagement from Afghanistan at once. We  
dislike the Taliban's fundamentalist religious values, but the Afghan  
public, with its desperate desire for a return of law and order and  
the curbing of corruption, knows that the Taliban is the only  
political force in the country that has ever brought the opium trade  
under control. The Pakistanis and their effective army can defend  
their country from Taliban domination so long as we abandon the  
activities that are causing both Afghans and Pakistanis to see the  
Taliban as a lesser evil.

One of America's greatest authorities on the defense budget, Winslow  
Wheeler, worked for 31 years for Republican members of the Senate and  
for the General Accounting Office on military expenditures. His  
conclusion, when it comes to the fiscal sanity of our military  
spending, is devastating:


"America's defense budget is now larger in inflation-adjusted dollars  
than at any point since the end of World War II, and yet our Army has  
fewer combat brigades than at any point in that period; our Navy has  
fewer combat ships; and the Air Force has fewer combat aircraft. Our  
major equipment inventories for these major forces are older on  
average than any point since 1946 -- or in some cases, in our entire  
history."

This in itself is a national disgrace. Spending hundreds of billions  
of dollars on present and future wars that have nothing to do with  
our national security is simply obscene. And yet Congress has been  
corrupted by the military-industrial complex into believing that, by  
voting for more defense spending, they are supplying "jobs" for the  
economy. In fact, they are only diverting scarce resources from the  
desperately needed rebuilding of the American infrastructure and  
other crucial spending necessities into utterly wasteful munitions.  
If we cannot cut back our longstanding, ever increasing military  
spending in a major way, then the bankruptcy of the United States is  
inevitable. As the current Wall Street meltdown has demonstrated,  
that is no longer an abstract possibility but a growing likelihood.  
We do not have much time left.

Chalmers Johnson is the author of three linked books on the crises of  
American imperialism and militarism. They are Blowback (2000), The  
Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American  
Republic (2006). All are available in paperback from Metropolitan Books.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Oct  2 07:51:51 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:51:51 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Racist scapegoating in financial crisis
Message-ID: <48E4D1F7.4000506@panix.com>

The Huffington Post, October 2, 2008

Conservatives Seek To Shift Blame For Crisis Onto Minority Housing Law
by Thomas B. Edsall

Blame for the current economic crisis has been laid on many doorsteps, 
including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 
1999; credit default swaps; hedge funds; the Commodity Futures 
Modernization Act of 2000; Alan Greenspan; and Phil and Wendy Gramm.

But it has fallen to right-wing pundit Ann Coulter to blaze a truly 
simple path through the maze of credit derivatives, collateralized loan 
obligations, tranches, securitization transactions, and Thomson 
Financial League Tables.

This gentle lady spells out the source and origin of the current 
economic crisis:

"THEY GAVE YOUR MORTGAGE TO A LESS QUALIFIED MINORITY!"

Coulter is putting forward an argument popular (who could be surprised?) 
among besieged conservatives, that "social engineering" is the root 
cause of the current economic crisis -- in the form of a 31-year-old law 
passed during the Carter administration by a Democratic Congress, the 
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, "intended to encourage depository 
institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which 
they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, 
consistent with safe and sound operations."

In Coulter's words, traditional yardsticks of a mortgage applicant's 
ability to make payments were replaced with "nontraditional measures of 
credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing 
child named 'Caylee';" the result, Coulter continues, is that 
"middle-class taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the 
Democrats' two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street 
bankers and welfare recipients."

To make sure her meaning is clear, Coulter echoes a line from the famous 
anti-affirmative action "White Hands" commercial Jesse Helms used in his 
1990 campaign against black challenger Harvey Gantt. The ad shows a pair 
of white hands crumpling a job rejection slip as the voiceover intones, 
"You needed that job, you were the best qualified. But they have to give 
it to a minority because of a racial quota."

Coulter is in the forefront of a concerted drive to shift the partisan 
consequences of the collapse on Wall Street from helping Democrats to 
favoring the GOP. To this end, conservatives have initiated a racially 
explosive argument, shifting the blame for the current economic crisis 
to legislation designed up improve access to mortgage financing for 
African Americans, other minorities and residents of low-income 
neighborhoods generally.
Story continues below

The campaign is being conducted by such leading advocates of the right 
as Charles Krauthammer, Mona Charen, Jeff Jacoby, television hosts like 
Lou Dobbs, and the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, Investors 
Business Daily and the Washington Times.

Krauthammer, for example, makes the case that, "For decades, starting 
with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been 
bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to 
people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because 
of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? 
But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who 
in turn pressured banks and other lenders -- to extend mortgages to 
people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime 
lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

For those inclined to blame Democratic liberals, this argument is 
appealing. Neither Krauthammer nor Charen quotes any sources to back up 
their respective cases, and the only expert cited by Boston Globe 
columnist Jacoby is Loyola College economist Thomas DiLorenzo. DiLorenzo 
is most famous as a defender of the Confederacy and for his anti-Abraham 
Lincoln books, including The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham 
Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War and Lincoln Unmasked: What 
You're Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe.

The Community Reinvestment Act has, however, received some attention 
from more mainstream economists, including Robert Litan of the Brookings 
Institution. Litan told the Washington Post that when banks sought to 
merge, "they had to show they were making a conscious effort to make 
loans to subprime borrowers....If the CRA had not been so aggressively 
pushed, it is conceivable things would not be quite as bad. People have 
to be honest about that."

There are a host of experts who sharply dispute that blame for the 
current Wall Street crisis should be directed at the Community 
Reinvestment Act (CRA).

Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San 
Francisco, made the following case in a March 31 speech:

     "There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the 
subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to 
low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a 
distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository 
institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, 
and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of 
responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households. We should 
not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the 
goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since 
access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one 
of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families 
build wealth over the long term."

University of Michigan Law Professor Michael Barr, a specialist in 
banking and finance law, flatly rejected claims that the CRA was "a 
significant factor in the current crisis. CRA was enacted more than 30 
years ago. It would be quite odd if this 30-year old law suddenly caused 
an explosion in bad subprime loans from 2002-2007....Subprime mortgages 
were mostly made by mortgage brokers and lenders and securitized by 
investment banks -- institutions not covered by CRA," he told the 
Huffington Post, adding, "CRA only covers banks and thrifts, and these 
institutions mostly have not suffered to the same extent or kind from 
bad lending as the non-CRA-covered institutions at the core of the 
current crisis. The problem here is not CRA. It is what the late former 
Fed Governor Ned Gramlich called 'the giant hole in the supervisory 
safety net' -- bad lending by firms outside the banking sector's rules 
for prudential supervision, capital requirements, consumer protection 
and yes, the CRA."

Along similar lines, University of Oregon economist Marc Thoma also 
cited for the Huffington Post the long delay between enactment of CRA 
and the current crisis and the fact that only 20 percent of subprime 
loans were made by CRA-regulated lenders, adding two other points: that 
"subprime loans grew twice as fast in institutions that did not have to 
meet the conditions of the CRA" and that the scope of coverage of CRA 
was reduced in 2004 under the Bush administration, "but even though 
fewer banks were subject to CRA restrictions, the growth of the subprime 
market continued unabated."

This idea of faulting the CRA originated in the anti-regulation wing of 
the far right, and the goal is to blame government intervention for the 
current economic meltdown, and to score political points by blaming 
Democrats.

While the preponderance of evidence suggests that the role of the CRA in 
the current meltdown was modest at most, that does not prevent it from 
becoming a useful wedge issue for a Republican presidential candidate on 
the ropes, and there is already some evidence that McCain could well be 
tempted to pounce on it. In an April interview with Larry Kudlow, the 
two had the following exchange:

     KUDLOW: Would you consider, by the way, rolling back the Community 
Reinvestment Act, which a lot of people say triggered this, mandating 
banks and other lenders to make substandard loans in the first place, 
and the creator of the subprime mortgages back in the middle '90s? Is it 
time to take a look at the Community Reinvestment Act?


     McCAIN: Absolutely, Larry. There were people who predicted that the 
Community Reinvestment Act might lead to reckless and unsound lending 
practices just to sort of fill a--you know, a amount of--I don't like to 
use the word "quota," but certain percentages of a--of a home--of the 
bank's lending practices. Yes, it has to be re-examined, it has to be 
judged by its effect, and we need to find out how this particular system 
affected the overall insolvency of the subprime lending issue. And I 
think it--I'm not saying it needs to be repealed, but it certainly needs 
to be re-examined and what its effects have been. And we'll be able to 
figure that out.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Oct  2 07:54:16 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:54:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Diagramming Sarah
Message-ID: <48E4D288.70207@panix.com>

http://www.slate.com/id/2201158/
The good word: Language and how we use it.
Diagramming Sarah
Can Palin's sentences stand up to a grammarian?
By Kitty Burns Florey
Updated Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2008, at 7:07 PM ET

There are plenty of people out there?not only English teachers but also 
amateur language buffs like me?who believe that diagramming a sentence 
provides insight into the mind of its perpetrator. The more the diagram 
is forced to wander around the page, loop back on itself, and generally 
stretch its capabilities, the more it reveals that the mind that created 
the sentence is either a richly educated one?with a Proustian grasp of 
language that pushes the limits of expression?or such an impoverished 
one that it can produce only hot air, baloney, and twaddle.

I found myself considering this paradox once again when confronted with 
the sentences of Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee. 
No one but a Republican denial specialist could argue with the fact that 
Sarah Palin's recent TV appearances have scaled the heights of inanity. 
The sentences she uttered in interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean 
Hannity, and Katie Couric seem to twitter all over the place like 
mourning doves frightened at the feeder. Which left me wondering: What 
can we learn from diagramming them?

(clip)


From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Oct  2 07:56:45 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:56:45 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Chinese science
Message-ID: <48E4D31D.70805@panix.com>

The Times Literary Supplement, October 1, 2008
What the West makes of Chinese science
Early China's scientific achievements and Joseph Needham, their 
controversial advocate
John Keay

Simon Winchester
BOMB, BOOK AND COMPASS
Joseph Needham and the great secrets of China
336pp. Viking. ?20.
978 0 670 91378 7

Donald B. Wagner
SCIENCE AND CIVILISATION IN CHINA
Volume Five: Chemistry and Chemical Technology Part Eleven: Ferrous 
Metallurgy
478pp. Cambridge University Press. ?120 (US $220).
978 0 521 87566 0

Until fifty years ago, it was widely assumed that China had no tradition 
of scientific thought and innovation. Meticulous observation and 
reasoned deduction were taken to be European traits, as was the 
application of scientific principles to industrial production. The 
Chinese were supposed to be good at imitating, not originating; and the 
notion that the West?s scientific and industrial revolutions owed 
anything to the East?s inventiveness seemed laughable. We now know 
better. Ancient China?s precocity in almost every field of scientific 
achievement has since been acknowledged ? in medicine, metallurgy, 
ceramics, mechanics, chemistry, physics, mathematics. Ridicule has 
turned to awe, tinged with trepidation.

This dramatic reversal is credited to one man, the redoubtable Dr Joseph 
Needham, plus a small team of devoted disciples and a monumental work of 
scholarship. All three provide rich matter for Simon Winchester?s Bomb, 
Book and Compass, while the stature of Needham?s great work may be 
judged by the appearance of a new volume on ferrous metallurgy, the 
twenty-fourth in his Science and Civilisation in China series. Fifty 
years since the first volume appeared, and thirteen since Needham died, 
the work of assessing pre-Qing China?s scientific achievement goes on. 
?Sci[ence] in general in China ? why [did it] not develop??, wondered 
Needham in an aide-memoire jotted down in 1942. Later touted as ?the 
Needham question?, this conundrum about why so promising a tradition 
failed to generate its own industrial revolution has never been 
satisfactorily answered ? by Needham or anyone else. But the idea behind 
it ? that China did indeed once excel in science ? has generated an 
industry of its own. Mining the world?s most richly documented culture 
for references to scientific and technological practice now provides 
employment for a host of scholars; many of them enjoy the resources on 
offer at Cambridge University?s specially built Needham Research 
Institute; and seldom has there not been a volume of Science and 
Civilisation in China making its stately progress across the print floor 
of the University Press.

For revealing how, in almost every conceivable field of scientific 
endeavour, the Chinese had preceded other nations, Needham was hailed as 
?the Erasmus of the twentieth century?, fawned on by the Left and feted 
by international academe. The Fellows of Caius College, Cambridge, made 
him their Master; Beijing, no less than Taipei, showered him with 
honours. Yet, boisterous and headstrong, Needham was not without his 
critics. Cambridge had cause to resent his long absences and reluctance 
to teach. Washington steadfastly refused him entry following his 
endorsement of Communist claims that US aircraft had dropped 
cholera-infected rats on North Korea. Forums designed to further the 
cause of international understanding were something of a deathtrap for 
Needham. He was hoodwinked by his Maoist friends ? and by a Soviet-laid 
germ-trail in respect of the rats. It was not until the Cultural 
Revolution that his faith in Communist China began to waver. His flaws 
and foibles were legion, and it is these that seem to have recommended 
him to that connoisseur of bookish eccentricity, Simon Winchester.

Bomb, Book and Compass (these being some of the undisputed products of 
Chinese invention) is no more a standard biography than was The Surgeon 
of Crowthorne (Winchester?s book about William Minor and the OED). 
Instead, Winchester delivers a masterly narrative, rich in description 
and quirky asides, and as undemanding as it is compelling. Needham, we 
learn, though a distinguished embryologist, self-taught sinologist and 
general polymath, was susceptible to distractions. He was keen on steam 
engines, morris dancing, singing and swimming in the nude. A Communist 
in all but party membership, he yet remained a devout Anglo-Catholic; 
and a dedicated husband in so far as his compulsive womanizing permitted.

Nearly half of Winchester?s book is devoted to the years (1943?6) that 
Needham spent in China as the head of a wartime agency called the 
Sino-British Scientific Co-operation Office. Winchester insists it had 
nothing to do with intelligence gathering and was solely concerned with 
offering encouragement and materials to scientific institutions uprooted 
by the Japanese invasion. But it does seem to have involved more 
adventurous travel than the distribution of books and laboratory 
equipment strictly required. Though based in Chongqing, the capital of 
unoccupied China, Needham was seldom there. It was his first visit to 
China and would be his only extended residence in the country; he was 
determined to make the most of it. His three major journeys, one by 
truck to Gansu in the north-western desert, another by road to Yunnan in 
the south-west, and a third mainly by rail to Fuzhou in the south-east, 
were as notable for what he learned about Chinese science as for what he 
imparted to it. Indeed, the immense collection of books and artefacts 
that he brought back probably outweighed the largesse he distributed. 
Shipped to Cambridge, they would provide the raw material for Science 
and Civilisation in China and the core of the Needham Research 
Institute?s extensive library.

Winchester has retraced these expeditions exhaustively. He makes good 
use of the reports submitted at the time, and writes of China with real 
affection. The Man Who Loved China, which is the title of his book in 
the US, could as well apply to the author as the subject. But all this 
leaves little room for the rest of Needham?s career, which is sketched 
in the broadest of strokes, and none at all for the ongoing debate over 
the methodology of Science and Civilisation in China.

Needham?s purpose was to demonstrate not just the scale of early China?s 
scientific achievement, but its importance in the development of world 
science. Even his disciples have had difficulty with this. In his 
handsome contribution on ferrous technology ? Part Eleven of the fifth 
volume, Chemistry and Chemical Technology, in Science and Civilisation 
in China ? Donald B. Wagner dissociates himself from Needham?s faith in 
both ?the essential virtue of Progress? and ?modern natural science as a 
measure of historical value?. Like others, he is also unhappy with 
Needham?s extraction of Chinese science from its geographical, cultural 
and social context and his categorization of it into essentially Western 
disciplines ? chemistry, physics, biology, etc ? that were unfamiliar to 
the Chinese. And finally, though he wrestles with the Needham dictum 
that the West owed its eventual technological superiority to the East, 
Wagner concludes that in respect of iron, ?the results are not by any 
means conclusive?.

Unfazed by such apostasy, Needham stuck to his task well into his 
nineties (he died in 1995). He devoured every available text and 
interrogated every known authority for the earliest Chinese references 
to any relevant technology. Finding that these generally predated 
anything in other cultural traditions, he then awarded to China a 
precedence based on priority and offered conjectures as to how this 
technology might subsequently have spread to other receptive societies. 
He was, in short, a committed diffusionist; he made no allowance for the 
possibility of independent invention and parallel development elsewhere. 
He also made no allowance for the profusion and antiquity of Chinese 
textual sources compared with those of other cultures. The doubtful 
nature of references to ferrous technology in, for instance, India?s 
historiography does not prove that this material was unknown there; 
witness the famous iron pillar at the Qutb in Delhi. It merely affirms 
the comparative paucity of the textual resources available for 
pre-Islamic India.

Notching up these Chinese ?inventions and discoveries? and awarding to 
each a date based on the earliest known reference became something of an 
obsession for Needham. Several such listings appear in his published 
works and have since been adapted by admirers; Winchester reproduces a 
representative example. But while one can hardly quarrel with ?Blast 
furnace ? 3rd century b.c.?, ?Book, printed, first to be dated ? a.d. 
868?, or ?Crank handle ? 1st century b.c.?, the whole exercise invites 
ridicule with the inclusion of items such as ?Wheelbarrow, sail-assisted 
? 6th century a.d.?, ?Great Wall of China ? 3rd century b.c.?, or 
?Bookworm repellent ? no date?. For reducing the painstakingly 
researched and elegantly written tomes of Science and Civilisation in 
China to the level of general knowledge trivia, Needham himself must 
bear much blame. But what Donald Wagner?s new volume well demonstrates 
is the extent to which recent archaeology, while modifying some of 
Needham?s conclusions, generally supports the veracity of the textual 
testimony and so the value of his life?s great work.


John Keay?s China: A history was published earlier this year. He is 
co-editor of The London Encyclopaedia, third edition, 2008.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Oct  2 08:00:10 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:00:10 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] George W. Bush discovers Woodrow Wilson
Message-ID: <48E4D3EA.30401@panix.com>

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/09/hbc-90003638
September 30, 5:13 PM  ?Publisher's Note
The Presidency in Wartime: George W. Bush discovers Woodrow Wilson
By John R. MacArthur

Excerpted from Chapter 10 of You Can?t Be President: The outrageous 
barriers to democracy in America, published by Melville House. John R. 
MacArthur is the publisher of Harper?s Magazine.

To understand what war?hot or cold?does to American democracy, examine 
the last three years of the administration of President Woodrow Wilson, 
from 1917 to 1920. Wilson?s reputation today remains essentially 
positive, even glorious. This professor-turned-politician is remembered 
for the most part as a visionary who was martyred in the cause of world 
democracy and peace. A self-styled idealist who called World War I ?a 
war to end all wars,? Wilson claimed that America was fighting to make 
the world ?safe for democracy,? not for any crass political motives. For 
these reasons, millions of high school students have been taught more 
about Wilson?s Fourteen Points and his failed crusade for American entry 
into the League of Nations than about George Washington?s or Dwight 
Eisenhower?s prescient, regrettably unheeded farewell addresses, which 
argued for restraint in foreign policy and against the dangers of a 
large, permanent military establishment.

But the Woodrow Wilson of dramatic oration and lofty principles was also 
an intolerant demagogue whose repressive policies and personal ambition 
sullied his stated aspiration to save the world from war and corruption. 
Long before there was McCarthyism, there was Wilsonianism, with its own 
?red scare? tactics and assaults on civil liberties that may have made 
Joe McCarthy envious. Although he had always insisted he was trying to 
avoid war, as early as his December 7,1915, State of the Union Address 
to Congress, Wilson was hinting at the war-fevered crackdown to come:

     The gravest threats against our national peace and safety have been 
uttered within our own borders. There are citizens of the United States, 
I blush to admit, born under other flags but welcomed under our generous 
naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America, who 
have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our 
national life; who have sought to bring the authority and good name of 
our Government into contempt, to destroy our industries wherever they 
thought it effective for their vindictive purposes to strike at them, 
and to debase our politics to the uses of foreign intrigue?. A little 
while ago such a thing would have seemed incredible. Because it was 
incredible we made no preparation for it. We would have been almost 
ashamed to prepare for it, as if we were suspicious of ourselves, our 
own comrades and neighbors! But the ugly and incredible thing has 
actually come about and we are without adequate federal laws to deal 
with it. I urge you to enact such laws at the earliest possible moment 
and feel that in doing so I am urging you to do nothing less than save 
the honor and self-respect of the nation. Such creatures of passion, 
disloyalty, and anarchy must be crushed out.

What was incredible, and ugly, was the ferocity of Wilson?s 
antidemocratic impulse. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote in his 
book Secrecy, Wilson?s ?plea? astonishes still, as much for its passion 
as for what it proposes? No president had ever spoken like that before; 
none has since.?

(clip)


From Jscotlive at aol.com  Thu Oct  2 08:01:05 2008
From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:01:05 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Communism and socialism
Message-ID: <c71.311eb8bf.36162e21@aol.com>

Aaron:
 
Is "underdevelopment" definable in absolute terms, or is it relative to the  
level of "development" of the most "developed" countries
 
Reply:
 
Relative to the level of developed countries, whose development is in  
inverse relationship and largely contingent upon the continuance of  this imbalance.
 
Aaron:
 
Even the less industrialized countries today produce more material goods  per 
capita than the most advanced capitalist society did in the days of Marx and  
Engels. If they don't produce enough of basics like food, it's because their  
ruling elites would rather produce goods for export to the imperialist 
countries  in exchange for luxury goods and weapons
 
Reply:
 
Per capita as a measure of output is an onerous statistic  given that it 
doesn't measure distribution and levels of equality. But your  second sentence 
makes the point vis-a-vis the global system of economic  penetration, 
imperialism, which has kept the majority of the world's population  in poverty, both 
relative and absolute.
 
Aaron:
 
The planet can't afford "the superabundance of an advanced capitalist  
society". And, as long as that "superabundance" is desired, it's definition will  
expand to include a superabundance 
 
Reply:
 
Superabundance measured by the development of productive forces -  i.e., the 
ability to produce the means of existence. Exactly what is produced,  how it 
is produced and distributed, is where socialist planning comes  in.
 
Aaron:
 
That logic is absurd! You might as well say that "the social conditioning  
undergone by humanity under class society has lasted 3,000 years. [etc.]"  
Moreover, in many parts of the world, capitalism is fairly recent, except  perhaps 
as an alien force that ruled at the point of a gun.

But the need  for "a massive shift in consciousness" is real, and it's not 
helped along by  leftists who talk about "providing jobs" as if the highest 
human goal were to be  a worker bee in a capitalist or "socialist" hive, or 
producing more junk to  substitute quantity for quality of life.

Reply:
 
You appear to contradict yourself here. In the first para you claim it  is 
absurd, whilst in the second you agree that the need for a 'massive  shift in 
consciousness is real'. Of course no one can predict how long such a  process 
will take, but history can't be measured in years, can it? It's  measured in 
entire epochs. The point is that over the course of the life of  industrial 
capitalism generation after generation has come into the  world instilled with the 
received truth that capitalism, the capitalist  mode of production and the 
society it spawns, is as natural as the rain. This is  a huge factor in 
explaining its resilience even during times of massive  crisis such as The Great 
Depression, a period when capitalism was  not only facing complete collapse as a 
consequence of its own contradictions,  but was doing so at a time when a rival 
economic and social  system led by the SU was at its height as an example to 
the international  working class of an alternative.  
 
Socialism hasn't even had a chance to take root by comparison, much less  
communism.
 
 



   

From sabocat59 at mac.com  Thu Oct  2 08:06:21 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:06:21 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Is the Bailout Marxist?
Message-ID: <DE8B3529-3465-434F-85C6-AD5055487046@mac.com>

What would be the difference between state capitalism and corporatism?

Greg McD


From walterlx at earthlink.net  Thu Oct  2 08:32:47 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:32:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Chinese science
Message-ID: <29870511.1222957967711.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Today we are at the beginning of the sixtieth year of the great
Chinese revolution, which took a once depressed and over-exploited
victim of imperialism out of the orbit of foreign domination.
Through a raft of contradictory stages, one of the world's oldest
civilizations has demonstrated its capacity for growth and renewal.

The China of Chang Kai-shek could could never have become the world
factor which the People's Republic of China has become. Harnessing
foreign capitalist investment and allowing extensive use of private
business domestically have brought a mixture of results, positive
and negative. Tearing itself out of the control of the foreign
capitalist powers, yet integrating itself within the capitalist
world as well, China presents a compelling portrait to the world
today. Some features are admirable, others obviously are not, but
the socialist revolution which began with the establishment of the
PRC on October 1, 1949, was the first step which was prerequisite
to everything which has followed. The fall of the Soviet Union 
has led to a scramble for foreign investments everywhere and the
Chinese have been able to benefit from this. Some fear that China
has gone too far in accepting foreign and private investments and
business opportunities. 

There seems to be more resistance to the privatization of China 
than we often here of in the West where the trumpeting of China's 
evolution toward capitalism are often told. The following link is
to an article much too long to post to Marxmail, but worth looking
at and pondering at this time. All the more remarkable to read it
as it comes from a Trotskyist tendency based in Australia today.

While I don't call myself a Trotskyist any longer, I've learned
a great deal from my own Trotskyist experience, and continue to
find useful material in the Trotskyist media, which always gives
me something else, some other way to think out of the box.

Private Equity Executives Walk Away Empty Handed
Greedy Privatisation Bid Smashed in China 
http://220.233.218.73/Xugong.html
==================================================================

FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM
Posted on Wed, Oct. 01, 2008

Castro's daughter says Cuba will resemble China
By GENE TRAINOR
gtrainor at star-telegram.com

http://www.star-telegram.com/localelections/story/946258.html

HURST -- Alina Fernandez, the estranged daughter of Cuban leader Fidel Castro,
said she does not expect much to change in Cuba soon after her father?s death.

She considers her uncle Raul Castro an ardent communist. Raul Castro has taken
over the Cuban government as his brother?s health deteriorates.

Fernandez talked about Cuba's future with reporters after she spoke to about 200
people in the student union today at Tarrant County College Northeast Campus.
Her talk was part of the college?s Hispanic Heritage Month program. Fernandez
wrote the 1997 book Castro's Daughter: An Exile's Memoir.

Fernandez said that she has heard reports that Cuba might liberalize its
economy. But she thinks the country will resemble China more than a Western
democracy.

"I don?t see any changes for tomorrow," she said.
Gene Trainor, 817-390-7419

==================================================================
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
China's first spacewalk: no cold-war race this time
The Shenzhou 7 launches Thursday in an era of global space cooperation.
By Peter N. Spotts | Staff Writer for The Christian Science Monitor

from the September 26, 2008 edition

Fifty years after the dawn of the Space Age, China is solidifying its
position as only the third nation to launch humans in orbit.

If all goes well, three ?taikonauts? will embark Thursday on a
three-day Earth-orbit mission, which includes the country's first
spacewalk.

But space is no longer the domain of the US, Russia, or even China.
It's a global affair.

?It's not two players any more. In space exploration and Earth
observation, you have capabilities around the world. So the question
is: How do we move forward? [together]? says Vincent Sabathier, a
former official with the French Space Agency CNES and now a senior
fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington.

Eleven nations launch satellites, and 50 countries are operating
their own satellites. The cold-war concept of a ?space race? is
yielding to deepening international cooperation. China and the US are
even talking about working together.

China's latest mission is part of a carefully orchestrated program to
advance the country's technological capabilities. And it's driven by
China's desire for ?a place for [its] mat? on the international
spaceflight stage, says Gregory Kulacki, who specializes in global
security issues and China with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

For the United States, whose human spaceflight program is in the
middle of an uneasy transition from space shuttle to Constellation
program, cooperation with China has proceeded in fits and starts,
analysts say.

China's antisatellite weapon

Not surprisingly, China's test of an antisatellite weapon in January
2007 ? followed by the US Navy's downing of a crippled US spy
satellite in February ? chilled cooperative overtures. Indeed, prior
to China's weapon test, members of the US-China Working Group in the
US House of Representatives had expressed interest in exploring the
possibility of inviting the Chinese to take part in the International
Space Station (ISS) project, Dr. Kulacki says.

Recently, however, prospects for closer US-Chinese space cooperation
appear to have brightened. In June, the US Treasury Department lifted
sanctions against China imposed after allegations surfaced that China
was helping Iran develop its missile program.

?That was important,? says Peggy Finarelli, a former National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) official and a senior
fellow at the Center for Aerospace Policy Research at George Mason
University in Fairfax, Va.

A month later, NASA's Michael O'Brien, assistant administrator for
external relations, who is responsible for the agency's international
relations, traveled to China and met with top Chinese space
officials.

They reportedly agreed to work more closely on Earth- and
space-science efforts. These agreements, Ms. Finarelli says,
typically precede meetings between program-specific people on
individual projects.

For its part, China is increasingly integrating into global space
efforts, space analysts say. It's striving to become the satellite
and launch service provider of choice to the developing world, notes
David Vaccaro, senior analyst at the Furton Corporation, an aerospace
consulting and market analysis firm in Bethesda, Md.

In May 2007, he says, the Chinese launched the Nigerian government's
NIGCOMSAT 1, which aims to provide a satellite telecommunications
system across a broad swath of Africa. Beijing has collaborated with
Brazil on remote sensing satellites. And it's taking part in Europe's
Galileo project ? a global navigation system similar to the US's
satellite-based global positioning system (GPS) and Russia's emerging
Glonass navigation system.

Moreover, China co-chairs, along with the US, South Africa, and the
European Commission, the executive committee governing the Group on
Earth Observations. The group is coordinating the establishment of a
broad network of environmental monitoring systems, including
satellites.

Although technologically China could be on the verge of having
capabilities that would allow it to participate in the International
Space Station, such a move would require a significant political
decision in the US, several space policy analysts say.

To join the ISS would require changes in the way China conducts
itself, suggests Scott Pace, who heads the Space Policy Institute at
George Washington University. ?The lesson from a lot of human
spaceflight work is the incredible degree of transparency that's
required? in order to operate joint manned projects safely.

It took a decade of working together with the Russians after they
joined the space station project in 1993 to reach a point where both
sides were comfortable working with each other as truly integrated
partners, he says.

Indeed, he says, a long period elapsed and a historic political shift
in the former Soviet Union occurred before the first US-Soviet joint
mission ? Apollo-Soyuz in 1975 ? took place and the US and its
partners embraced Russia as a full partner in a manned-spaceflight
project.

With respect to China, ?people need to be fairly modest in starting,
and recognize all the other things that have to be done before you
take on more ambitious activities,? says Dr. Pace.

For some analysts, it's unclear how badly China wants in. The Chinese
government's own white papers on space stress that it should develop
an independent capability for human spaceflight, including a space
station. And like Europe, China funds its space effort over several
years at a time.

US space budget a ?mess?

In speaking with Chinese space officials and aerospace-industry
officials, the Chinese remain concerned that if they do become
involved in projects the US leads, changes in the US budget process
or in bilateral relations would ?mess up their timetables,? Kulacki
says.

In the end, several space policy specialists say, much of the talk of
a new space race, at least on the civilian side, comes from the US,
where political interests want to try to garner more money for an
admittedly cash-strapped NASA. After all, they say, if China puts
humans on the moon around 2020 ? about the time the US plans to
return ? it will still be the second country in history to send
people to the moon and back.

?Space is an international, highly symbolic and strategic thing,?
Pace says. ?It is something that follows from US foreign-policy
objectives; it doesn't drive them. It's a mistake to take the space
race term and just blindly apply it. On the other hand, it does
matter if the US is not there and others are. It does matter if
others have capabilities to do things that we no longer have. We
should not look at this so much as a race with them but as a question
to ourselves: What are we as a nation capable of, and is this still
important to us.?

Find this article at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0926/p25s02-stgn.html


=========================================
     WALTER LIPPMANN
     Los Angeles, California
     Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
     "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================


From edgeorge1963 at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 08:36:40 2008
From: edgeorge1963 at gmail.com (Ed George)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:36:40 +0200
Subject: [Marxism] Chinese Science
Message-ID: <48E4DC78.5080803@gmail.com>

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20061019.shtml>


From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Oct  2 08:42:40 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:42:40 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Chinese science
In-Reply-To: <29870511.1222957967711.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <29870511.1222957967711.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <48E4DDE0.10804@panix.com>

Walter Lippmann wrote:
> While I don't call myself a Trotskyist any longer, I've learned
> a great deal from my own Trotskyist experience, and continue to
> find useful material in the Trotskyist media, which always gives
> me something else, some other way to think out of the box.
> 
> Private Equity Executives Walk Away Empty Handed
> Greedy Privatisation Bid Smashed in China 
> http://220.233.218.73/Xugong.html

Trotskyist media? This is a link to a website calling itself "The 
Trotskyist Platform" but by all appearances they (he?) have nothing to 
do with Trotskyism. Politically, it is almost indistinguishable from 
Walter's own peculiar Manicheanism which we must assume is what prompted 
him to crosspost it.


From schaffer at optonline.net  Thu Oct  2 08:54:57 2008
From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:54:57 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The Current Crisis: A Socialist Perspective
In-Reply-To: <48E39822.2080001@optonline.net>
References: <295BA9B9-28EF-4463-A8E7-DCEC194CF37E@mac.com>
	<908b689f0809300809j1033b3f9va8f6e0a213230061@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fa158550809300824q5882a598o22fad9395fc563ef@mail.gmail.com>
	<908b689f0809300829y7d295673g59102b1a26ce282a@mail.gmail.com>
	<48E2471B.4020105@optonline.net>
	<48E247DF.6010107@optonline.net> <48E39721.2000800@igc.org>
	<48E39822.2080001@optonline.net>
Message-ID: <48E4E0C1.1020004@optonline.net>

Les Schaffer wrote:
> does everyone here who wants to participate know how to use a Wiki, 
> or  do we need to provide a brief explanation?

pbwiki has its own set of help pages here:

    http://pbwiki.com/help.php?wiki=marxmail

Les


From walterlx at earthlink.net  Thu Oct  2 09:13:41 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:13:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Chinese science
Message-ID: <5474121.1222960421494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

The Chinese Revolution made possible everything which has followed,
from the economic development to the Chinese space walk and the
triumphant recent Olympic games which further cemented China's
rise to world prominence. 

If we take moment to take a further look at the way Trotskyist
Platform describes its politics, it has many of hallmarks of the
Trotskyist methodology which inspires it. Trust me, I could never
imagine myself in any such organization, but we can learn from
others if we are open to doing so. That's why I read the Grant-
Woods tendency, Workers World, the Spartacists, and THE MILITANT,
because there's something to be learned from all of these groups.

TROTSKYIST PLATFORM EXPLAINS ITSELF:
http://220.233.218.73/Cuba.html

Today we are at the beginning of the sixtieth year of the great
Chinese revolution, which took a once depressed and over-exploited
victim of imperialism out of the orbit of foreign domination.
Through a raft of contradictory stages, one of the world's oldest
civilizations has demonstrated its capacity for growth and renewal.

The China of Chang Kai-shek could could never have become the world
factor which the People's Republic of China has become. Harnessing
foreign capitalist investment and allowing extensive use of private
business domestically have brought a mixture of results, positive
and negative. Tearing itself out of the control of the foreign
capitalist powers, yet integrating itself within the capitalist
world as well, China presents a compelling portrait to the world
today. Some features are admirable, others obviously are not, but
the socialist revolution which began with the establishment of the
PRC on October 1, 1949, was the first step which was prerequisite
to everything which has followed. The fall of the Soviet Union 
has led to a scramble for foreign investments everywhere and the
Chinese have been able to benefit from this. Some fear that China
has gone too far in accepting foreign and private investments and
business opportunities. 


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
=================================================================
LOUIS PROYECT WRITES
> While I don't call myself a Trotskyist any longer, I've learned
> a great deal from my own Trotskyist experience, and continue to
> find useful material in the Trotskyist media, which always gives
> me something else, some other way to think out of the box.
> 
> Private Equity Executives Walk Away Empty Handed
> Greedy Privatisation Bid Smashed in China 
> http://220.233.218.73/Xugong.html
>
>Trotskyist media? This is a link to a website calling itself "The 
>Trotskyist Platform" but by all appearances they (he?) have nothing to 
>do with Trotskyism. Politically, it is almost indistinguishable from 
>Walter's own peculiar Manicheanism which we must assume is what prompted 
>him to crosspost it.
>

=========================================
     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 Oct  2 09:29:11 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:29:11 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Chinese science
In-Reply-To: <5474121.1222960421494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <5474121.1222960421494.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <48E4E8C7.8040403@panix.com>

Walter Lippmann wrote:
> If we take moment to take a further look at the way Trotskyist
> Platform describes its politics, it has many of hallmarks of the
> Trotskyist methodology which inspires it. Trust me, I could never
> imagine myself in any such organization, but we can learn from
> others if we are open to doing so. That's why I read the Grant-
> Woods tendency, Workers World, the Spartacists, and THE MILITANT,
> because there's something to be learned from all of these groups.
> 
> TROTSKYIST PLATFORM EXPLAINS ITSELF:
> http://220.233.218.73/Cuba.html
> 

Walter, there is nothing to be learned from these groups, especially the 
Trotskyist Platform which it turns out to a guy who was expelled from 
the Australian Spartacists 3 years ago. I would strongly recommend to 
the younger comrades on this mailing list to use Walter's reading habits 
only as a guide to what to avoid. With all the tremendous Marxist 
scholarship being produced on and off the Internet, why would you waste 
your time reading the tired, dogmatic, insane drivel of the dregs of the 
"Marxist-Leninist" left?

That is unless you aspire to think and write like Walter.

Finally, a word on Walter's attempt to derail a potentially interesting 
thread for the 10,000th time. I posted about Needham because the 
question of early Chinese civilization is fascinating. For example, 
Janet Abu-Lughod's "Before 1492" has extensive discussions of Chinese 
naval prowess. It also would lead to a broader discussion of whether the 
West was destined to leapfrog China, thus entailing a review of the 
Brenner thesis and attempts to refute it, particularly Kenneth 
Pomeranz's "The Great Divergence".

But no, Walter is not interested in anything that is germane to the 
article on Needham I posted. He saw the word China and like a robot 
cranked out item 10,000 on why radicals should back the Chinese government.

WARNING: If you persist, Walter, you will get thrown off Marxmail.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Oct  2 09:37:51 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:37:51 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Ralph Nader on deregulation and the financial crisis
Message-ID: <48E4EACF.2060400@panix.com>

Counterpunch, October 2, 2008
Bailing Out the Casino
Soulmates in Deregulation

By RALPH NADER

The current finger pointing by the deregulation crowd in Congress and 
their ideological soul mates in the media reminds me of the 1939 film 
classic The Wizard of Oz. It is as though these spin masters want us to 
pay no attention to the government officials behind the deregulation 
curtain.

Indeed, the right-wing pundits and the revisionists in Congress are 
spending an inordinate amount of time falsely claiming that our nation?s 
current financial disaster stems from the Community Reinvestment Act, a 
law passed by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 
1977. The primary purpose of this modest law is to require banks to 
report on where and to whom they are making loans. Community 
organizations have used the data produced as a result of this law to 
determine if banks were meeting their lending obligations in the 
minority and lower-income communities in which they do business. 
Congress passed this law because too many lenders were discriminating 
against minority borrowers. ?Redlining? was the name given to the 
practice by banks of literally drawing a red line around minority areas 
and then proceeding to deny people within the red border home loans ? 
even if they were otherwise qualified. The law has been in place for 30 
years, but the right-wing fringe claims it somehow is responsible for 
predatory lending practices that date back just to the beginning of this 
decade.

Notice what these revisionists are not mentioning.

No ?thank you? to former Senator Phil Gramm for pushing the repeal of 
the Glass-Steagall Act.. This law was passed in the wake of the stock 
market crash of 1929 - and designed to separate banking from securities 
activities. In 1999, when Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and 
in so doing repealed Glass-Steagall the banks strayed into rough waters 
by looking for fast money from risky investments in securities and 
derivatives.

As predatory lending mushroomed out of control, the regulators -- key 
among them, the Federal Reserve and the Office of Comptroller of 
Currency -- sat on their hands. The Federal Reserve took exactly three 
formal actions against subprime lenders from 2002 to 2007. Bloomberg 
news service found that the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, which 
has authority over almost 1,800 banks, took three consumer-protection 
enforcement actions from 2004 to 2006.

No ?tip of the hat? to the Bush Administration for preempting state 
regulators and Attorneys General from using state consumer laws to crack 
down on predatory and sub-prime lending by national banks.

And, let us not forget the folks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Imagine 
allowing these two government sponsored enterprises--that were weakly 
regulated by HUD--to claim they were meeting the national housing goals 
by counting the purchase of subprime loans. Back in May of 2000, our 
associate Jonathan Brown warned that it would be inappropriate and 
counterproductive to encourage Fannie and Freddie to meet the housing 
goals by purchasing subprime loans. Too bad our members of Congress and 
the regulators at HUD were infected with deregulatory zeal. Former Texas 
Senator and current UBS executive Phil Gramm -- would-be President John 
McCain's Treasury Secretary-in-waiting -- pushed through the Commodities 
Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which deregulated the derivatives 
market. With help from his wife, Wendy, the former head of the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission who went on to a post on the Enron board of 
directors, Gramm removed the controls on Wall Street so it could 
innovate all sorts of exotic financial instruments. Instruments far 
riskier than advertised, and now at the core of the financial meltdown.

The SEC, through its "consolidated supervised entities" program, decided 
that voluntary regulation would work for the investment banking sector. 
Not surprisingly, this was a scheme cooked up by Wall Street itself. The 
investment banks were permitted to double, triple and go 20 times (and 
more) down on their bets by using lots of borrowed money. They made 
minimal disclosures to the SEC about what they were doing, and the SEC 
didn't bother to review those disclosures adequately. Too bad for the 
investment banks -- and the rest of us -- they made lots of bad bets. 
The SEC has now closed the voluntary program, though now there aren't 
any major investment banks left (the two remaining ones have converted 
themselves into conventional banks).

It is time to start paying very close attention to government officials 
behind the deregulation curtain. Let your Members of Congress know you 
are not willing to bailout the gamblers on Wall Street with a no-strings 
attached pile of taxpayer dollars. The time for regulation is upon us.

Ralph Nader is running for president as an independent.


From ajax381 at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 09:51:28 2008
From: ajax381 at gmail.com (Austin Jackson)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:51:28 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Marxism Digest, Vol 60, Issue 6
In-Reply-To: <mailman.25176.1222957974.2559.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
References: <mailman.25176.1222957974.2559.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <4ed01f3d0810020851j5bc45f1die62a1fdcaf208a86@mail.gmail.com>

 Greg McDonald wrote:

<<<This brings to mind the words of Brother Mouzan, fictional character
on the HBO tv series "The Wire":

"The most dangerous weapon in this country is a n(word) with a
library card" >>>

And what just what the fuck is this supposed to mean?  Please explain.

Additional Marxist Hip Hop:

1.  dead prez, *Let's Get Free* (2000)

2.  The Coup, *Pick a Bigger Weapon* (2006)

3.  Immortal Technique, *Revolutionary Vol 1. (2001) "The Poverty of
Philosophy"), Revolutionary Vol. 2* (2003)

From elishastephens at hotmail.com  Thu Oct  2 10:20:51 2008
From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:20:51 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Alternative Presidential Candidates' Debate in Nashville,
	TN
Message-ID: <BAY127-W7FA4030115AC316E48B3CD73D0@phx.gbl>


Alternative Presidential Candidates' Debate in Nashville, TN

Monday, October 6
7:00pm - 9:00pm

Vanderbilt University
Stevenson Center, Room 4309
Nashville, TN 37240

The Coalition for October Debate Alternatives (CODA) is organizing the 
Presidential Candidate's Alternative Debate to take place October 6 in 
Nashville, Tennessee. The debate is open to all third party candidates for 
President in the United States as well as the major party nominees. The debate 
is taking place one day prior to the Presidential Debate between Barack Obama 
and John McCain that is happening at Belmont University in Nashville on October 7.

Featuring Presidential Candidates:
- Brad Lyttle, US Pacifist Party
- Brian Moore, Socialist Party USA
- Charles Baldwin, Constitution Party
- Charles Jay, Boston Tea Party
- Frank McEnulty, New American Independent Party
- Gloria LaRiva, Party of Socialism and Liberation

Moderated by Bruce Barry, Professor of Management and Sociology at Vanderbilt 
University

Organized by The Coalition for October Debate Alternatives (CODA)

http://calendar.vanderbilt.edu/calendar/2008/10/06/us-presidential-debate-the-alternatives


_________________________________________________________________
Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093185mrt/direct/01/

From sabocat59 at mac.com  Thu Oct  2 10:22:07 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:22:07 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] whatever
Message-ID: <F1C41AD1-8763-45FE-80CD-FEADFB02E6D2@mac.com>

Greg McDonald wrote:

<<<This brings to mind the words of Brother Mouzan, fictional character
on the HBO tv series "The Wire":

"The most dangerous weapon in this country is a n(word) with a
library card" >>>

Austin Jackson asks:

<And what just what the fuck is this supposed to mean? Please explain.>

OK, let me put in arid marxist drivelspeak: The self-education of the  
exploited masses, in particular among the doubly oppressed black  
lumpen elements, is a most necessary phase toward the creation of a  
class of organic intellectuals who can lead the oppressed onward  
toward the victory of socialism over capitalism. A first step toward  
this education takes place when future organic intellectuals turn off  
their tv set and go to the library.

Is that more fucking clear now?

Greg McD



From skeyesvogt at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 10:25:27 2008
From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes-Vogt)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:25:27 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Immigration Raids Framed As "Anti-Gang Crackdown" in NYT
Message-ID: <de3b89110810020925u5e3f6ee6oa870d946074b38fd@mail.gmail.com>

Jeffrey Thomas Piercy:

Do you people, as Marxists, feel that there is (at least sometimes)
something empowering or otherwise
positive about these organized groups of minorities united by the need to
just get by? Are all gangs necessarily at "war" with other gangs, or
directly destructive to their own community?

me:

As Marxists we can look at street gangs sociologically or politically.
Sociologically, Marxists favor a much more sympathetic view towards gangs
then the mainstream view, for the reasons Piercy stated.  We acknowledge
that these groups are almost entirely composed of impoverished people and
are often targets of the blame game when capitalist politicians need a
scapegoat for the system and its results.  As Mike Davis so brilliantly
noted in an interview he gave in the DVD 'Bastards of the Party,' if you had
39,000 union jobs in L.A. you could very well get 39,000 gang members to
leave the negative aspects of their gang lives behind.  Gang leaders
pursuing reform often complain that without jobs they find it extremely
difficult to stop members from pursuing monetary gain through illicit
means.

However, while we advocate for the oppressed we have to keep a very sober
analysis of gangs especially when it comes to politics.  When gangs get
political the best results can be seen in groups like the Black Panther
Party who incorporated the most advanced layer of the 5,000 strong Slauson
Gang in L.A. (led by Alprentice "Bunchy" Carter) into its L.A. Black Panther
Party chapter.  But there have been other times where gangs have made
reforms or individuals have advanced to the mainstream political stage that
led to nothing or Democratic Party reformism.  The DVD *Black & Gold* (
http://www.akpress.org/2008/items/blackandgolddvd) and excellent book *The
Almighty Latin King And Queen Nation* by Brotherton/Barrios details an
instance of the former, where criminal drug charges sidelined a leadership
pursuing reform and an advanced political direction along the lines of The
Black Panthers and Young Lords.  Since individual neighborhood gangs are
often very autonomous and their members are difficult to control, people
that participate in crime to make ends meet open up these organizations to
comparatively easy infiltration and neutralization as principled political
forces.  Since these groups are usually more concerned with the daily
struggle we often don't have opportunities to work with them until the
environment becomes more politicized and a joint action of many groups can
be taken such as a protest against police brutality.

As Marxists we have to note that the material reality has a large effect on
the distance gangs usually travel down the political road.  The Watts
uprising of 1965, for instance, united different gangs in their struggle
against police bruatily which paved the way for a formation like the Black
Panthers which could recruit from different gangs and put aside petty
differences in favor of revoulutionary struggle and unity.  And the heydey
of the Black Panthers was the late 60s, no one on this list needs to be
reminded of the political climate during that time.  Or more recently the
police killing of New York City resident and black man Sean Bell created a
climate where the Bloods and Crips (who are usually in a state of war with
each other) both marched together to protest police brutality in NYC.

There are efforts across the country to negotiate peace treaties between
warring gangs or 'nations.'  From the epic peace deal between the L.A.
Bloods and Crips after the Rodney King uprising in 1992 to more recently the
efforts of gang leader Jorge Cornell to make peace among all the gangs and
fight against racism (http://www.malcolm-che.com/?p=11) in North Carolina.
These efforts are excellent because they pave the way for the gangs to turn
away from internecine violence and focus on the real struggle against social
and economic injustice.

Sky Keyes
University of Hartford Center for Social Research

From marxistfront at yahoo.co.in  Thu Oct  2 10:29:30 2008
From: marxistfront at yahoo.co.in (marxist front)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 21:59:30 +0530 (IST)
Subject: [Marxism] Italian solidarity with Graziano Workers
Message-ID: <688036.31721.qm@web8606.mail.in.yahoo.com>





Forwarded:


From: Teoria & Prassi Web <scintilla_mail at yahoo.it>
Subject: solidarity
To: grazianoworkerssolidarity at yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 7:26 AM


We express our internationalist solidarity to the workers of Graziano
Trasmissioni under attack. Please send us statements and informations so we can
translate them. Brotherly from Italy. Piattaforma Comunista.


      Scopri il blog di Yahoo! Mail:
Trucchi, novit?  e la tua opinione.
http://www.ymailblogit.com/blog



--
Will the all new Indica Vista zip ahead of the Suzuki Swift? Read the expert
review on Zigwheels.com
http://zigwheels.com/b2cam/reviewsDetails.action?name=Ro11_20080829&path=/INDT/Reviews/Ro11_20080829&page=1&pagecount=9

_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
Marxist-Leninist-List at lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list



      Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/

From sabocat59 at mac.com  Thu Oct  2 10:48:49 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:48:49 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Another Indigenous Leader Assassinated in Colombia
Message-ID: <AE837DA6-414A-46A0-94DB-5AF935C51148@mac.com>


Another Indigenous Leader Assassinated in Colombia 	
Written by Indigenous Regional Council of Cauca
Monday, 29 September 2008

Raul Mendoza, indigenous governor of the cabildo Pe??n, from the  
municipality of Sotar?, and former member of the council of chiefs of  
the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca, and ex-president of the  
Association of Cabildos of Tierradentro, Nasa Uus, was assassinated  
in cold blood, at 4:00pm, on September 28, when he was in his room,  
in his home, located in the Barrio Solidaridad in the city of  
Popay?n, Cauca?s departmental capital.

The indigenous governor was leading an important process connected to  
the campaign for the Liberation of Mother Earth, in the Los Naranjos  
estate, located in the municipality of Sotar?, which had been claimed  
by the displaced Nasa community that was affected by the earthquake  
and avalanche that took place in Tierradentro in 1994. The Naranjos  
estate had not been properly handed over to the community, despite  
the fact that they had carried out every necessary step required by  
the INCODER, The Colombian Institute for Rural Development, to do so.  
This is the result of the negligence of the national government,  
which prevented the negotiation over the land titles through the  
Municipal Council for Rural Development.

In the last few weeks, the Indigenous Governor Mendoza had made  
repeated pronouncements, before organisms of the state, as well as to  
the office dealing with indigenous issues, about ongoing threats  
against his life and the community as a whole, but to no avail. This  
situation of threats led the indigenous authorities, organized under  
the banner of CRIC, to release a missive on August 22, 2008, where  
they energetically rejected the ongoing threats, specifically three  
attacks against the community within the cabildo of ?El Pe?on?,  
carried out by the public force (Cauca Police), in an area peacefully  
occupied by sectors of the community for the last three years.

The death of an Indigenous Leader, like the one that occurred today,  
is part of a chain of assassinations that have been carried out in  
the last eight days against leaders of social organizations in the  
department of Cauca, like the case of Ever Gonz?lez of CIMA, and  
C?sar Mar?n of the ANUC.

Through these means, the ominous threats carried out in an anonymous  
fashion by paramilitaries who called themselves ?campesinos  
embejucados? or ?angry peasants,? sent to the offices of the  
Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca, ACIN on August  
11th, are materializing. These same threats are also manifest in the  
irresponsible accusations made by the President of the Republic  
regarding social protests, for example, his offer of rewards to break  
the unity of the indigenous communities of Cauca, and his claim in a  
Community Council he held on September 27, where he linked the just  
struggles of the sugar cane workers, now on strike for over two  
weeks, with the guerillas of FARC.

The Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca, CRIC, calls on human rights  
organizations, the international community, on neighboring countries  
who are fighting for a more just and democratic society, to remain on  
high alert and to express solidarity with the social processes that  
continue to get attacked by violence promoted from the spheres of the  
central government of Colombia.

In the face of these acts, the indigenous people of Cauca remain firm  
in our commitment to work in Minga, in a state of social and  
community resistance, expressing in unison that the word will not be  
silenced and our march will not be stopped!

CONSEJER?A MAYOR ? Council of Chiefs

CONSEJO REGIONAL IND?GENA DEL CAUCA ?CRIC-

Popay?n, septiembre 28 de 2008

This translation was provided by http://www.mamaradio.blogspot.com/.
  
  

From lueko.willms at t-online.de  Thu Oct  2 10:50:57 2008
From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:50:57 +0200 (MES)
Subject: [Marxism] To Hell with Wall St.
Message-ID: <100-f1fbe448-24007.021@lws-media.de>

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:21:37 -0300, N?stor Gorojovsky wrote:

> If I was a high-level Chinese policy maker I would already be counting
> the dollars to purchase USAmerican banks.

  A Chinese bank or fond tried to buy the German bank "Dresdner Bank", 
which was then sold to the German competitor "Commerzbank". 

  The trade union at Dresdner Bank favored the Chinese, because they would 
not shlash jobs by "synergies". But the German government favored a 
"national solution" in order to have more than one "national champions". 

  
Comradely, 
L?ko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------
visit http://www.mlwerke.de Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotzki in 
German


From lueko.willms at t-online.de  Thu Oct  2 03:48:30 2008
From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:48:30 +0200 (MES)
Subject: [Marxism] Hoping for credible "bailout,
	" Times presses needs of 6 million mortgage victims
In-Reply-To: <0A02EF3A26C24E7CAB37DA78EB5C4F6D@office1pc>
References: <0A02EF3A26C24E7CAB37DA78EB5C4F6D@office1pc>
Message-ID: <100-ee98e448-26521.014@lws-media.de>

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:32:21 -0400, Fred Feldman wrote:

> There are two sides to the mortgage mess. The mortgage industry, in 
pursuit
> of upfront fees, deliberately made loans to people who could not afford the
> payments over time. They justified their actions on the self-serving and
> unsound basis that rising home values would forever postpone a day of
> reckoning. 

  Or when they throw the home owner out of their house, they could sell if 
for more than its original price. But that failed...

  They also gave credits with variable interest rates, and then rose the 
interest payments to a level the borrower could no longer pay. 

> Many borrowers  na?vely, foolishly or selfishly ? took on those loans. Yet
> well over a year into the housing bust, the mortgage industry still calls
> the shots, as if it is a victim of the borrowers.

  Some did not take into account that the lender could raise the interest rates 
to a level well beyond the budget, and others did not think that they might 
lose their job and thus be no longer able to pay the mortgage, or have an 
accident and get a larger medical bill which destroyed all the fine budget 
planning. 


Comradely, 
L?ko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------


From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Thu Oct  2 11:03:52 2008
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 13:03:52 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] "Wash Post's Pearlstein: Anyone opposing the bailout is
	ignorant "
Message-ID: <c08.4986d939.361658f8@aol.com>



 
"Thank God  there is a mainstream media out there that actually does 
reporting and has  people who understand things."

Glenn  Greenwald

_http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/01/pearlstein/index.html_ 
(http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/01/pearlstein/index.html) 




**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial 
challenges?  Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and 
calculators.      (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)

From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Thu Oct  2 11:46:32 2008
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 13:46:32 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Bolivia - anti-imperialism and national division
Message-ID: <d3c.2b55f0e5.361662f8@aol.com>


<_http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2008/10/paradoxical-coexistence-between-an
ti.html_ 
(http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2008/10/paradoxical-coexistence-between-anti.html) >  
 
Eduardo Paz Rada 
When the political and economic decisions of Bolivia are, directly or  
indirectly, in the hands of the authorities of other countries, it is impossible  to 
not put on the table a discussion over the forms and mechanisms of  
dependence, an issue that marks the characteristic features for defining the  level of 
sovereignty of a republic that prides itself for being emancipated.  Spanish 
colonialism was replaced by the new colonialism of imperialist  capitalism, 
firstly the English and later by the United States. The US has  maintained 
control and hegemony in Latin America, and of course in Bolivia,  under the Monroe 
Doctrine of 1823 ?America for Americans?, which has been  systematically 
carried out during the last two centuries.  
There have been innumerable examples of military, diplomatic, political  and 
economic interventions. Today, in Latin American and Carribean, the debate  
over how will the United States impede the process of emancipation in various  
countries of the subcontinent has returned. In the case of Bolivia, the issue  
has acquired a high level of importance because relations between the 
government  of La Paz and Washington have been broken like never before. Declarations 
and  actions by President Evo Morales against ?Yankee imperialism?, and the 
following  expulsion of Ambassador Philip Goldberg in the last few weeks, are 
testimony to  this new situation.  
This can not be totally understood without taking into consideration  the 
context of a multipolar world and the regional context of strategic  
reaccomodation. The strengthening of UNASUR and the weakening of the OAS, the  drive 
towards a South American military pact and the almost disappearance of  TIAR, the 
advance of a regional bank and the regression of the IMF and World  Bank are, 
amongst other things, what define the state of the current  geopolitical 
situation. But, in the case of Bolivia, and particularly in the  context of the 
political crisis generated by the autonomist conspiracy of the  oligarchs of the 
east, allied with the oil transnationals, the situation  deserves some 
reflection. UNASUR and particularly the governments of Chile and  Brazil have assumed 
an extremely dangerous role in regards to internal  decisions; they have 
converted themselves into the ?godfathers? of the  government of Evo Morales and 
the seditious prefects, in the open dialogue in  Cochabamba.  
Never before has an ex Foreign Minister of Chile, in this case Gabriel  
Valdez, carried out the task of advising and leading the Bolivian political  scene, 
taking into consideration the geopolitical and economic interests of the  
Chilean oligarchy that has a historic debt with Bolivia. On the other hand, the  
oil transnational have made of Petrobras and the Lula government of Brazil 
their  principal pawns in order to maintain the policies of gas exploration in 
the  country. The Brazilian government has even converted itself into a middle 
man  for the conspiring prefects and civic committees.  
We have to warn that new forms of dependency are emerging over Bolivia,  
above all when neighbouring countries consider it solely as a cheap source of  gas 
energy, which is vital for the powerful industries in Sao Paulo, for  
domestic consumption in Argentina and from the Chilean mining sector, while  breaks 
are put on projects for the construction of internal gas ducts and the  
diversification of the consumption of cheap energy for the majority of the  
population.  
This situation occurs at a time when the civil radicals of the east are  
demanding to convert Beni, Santa Cruz, Pando or Tarija into ?Protectorates?,  
that is, into regions under the control of other sovereign powers, and where  
sectors financed by some NGOs are asking for the creation of 36 nations within  
the current Bolivian territory, with no reference to the Bolivian nation, the  
Republic of Bolivian and the national state. Here lies the contradiction of 
the  Evo Morales government that at the same time as carrying out important 
reforms  to strengthen the national economy and the national state and raising the 
 patriotic tricolour flag against the conservative reaction, nevertheless,  
pontificates about a plurinational project that is both a threat to  
disintegration and foments the fragmentation of Bolivia into unviable nations.  
The position of important popular sectors, of national institutions and  of 
the Armed Forces, who made known their criticisms in front of the Constituent  
Assembly regarding the possibility of dividing Bolivia, seems very frightening 
 in the face of the certain risk of national disintegration, in the sense 
that  there will no longer be a homeland to defend. We are not talking about an  
immediate process, of four or five years, but rather of a process, like that 
in  Yugoslavia, of 15 or 20 years. Paradoxically, in the present 
anti-imperialist  and anti-oligarchic process, some elements are unfolding of a future 
national  disintegration, beyond the criteria of more or less dependency.  
Translated from Bolpress



**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial 
challenges?  Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and 
calculators.      (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)

From isedairi at econs.umass.edu  Thu Oct  2 12:08:12 2008
From: isedairi at econs.umass.edu (Ian Seda)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 14:08:12 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] UMass/Amherst Economists speak about crisis
Message-ID: <954d37190810021108r6c54721ft4b07643ed577b708@mail.gmail.com>

These videos seem to bring back the important distinction between being
heterodox and being radical within economics.

http://www.amherstwire.com/features/market-meltdown-101/


-- 
Ian J. Seda-Irizarry
Department of Economics
818 Thompson Hall
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Phone: (413)-687-3889

From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Thu Oct  2 12:11:37 2008
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 14:11:37 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Somalia is the invisible third front in the "war on
	terror"
Message-ID: <cae.341da58a.361668d9@aol.com>


 
<_http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1619-silent-surge-bip
artisan-terror-war-intensifies-in-somalia.html_ 
(http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1619-silent-surge-bipartisan-terror-war-intensifies-
in-somalia.html) >





**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial 
challenges?  Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and 
calculators.      (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)

From bhandari at berkeley.edu  Thu Oct  2 13:01:31 2008
From: bhandari at berkeley.edu (Rakesh Bhandari)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 12:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Washington Post's Pearlstein
Message-ID: <55696.128.32.9.136.1222974091.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu>

I don't get Greenwald's comment. Isn't Pearlstein in favor a direct
recapitalization of banks as well (and praises the bill because it allows
Treasury to do this to some degree) but thinks that with Bush and Paulson
at top and with a need for quick action this package is the best we can
get, and will allow quick action to be taken as we are days away from a
meltdown of the financial system. I thought some of the economists whom
Greenwald cites actually agree with Pearlstein about that. Oh well read it
quickly.
Rakesh






From nmgoro at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 14:40:13 2008
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:40:13 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] To Hell with Wall St.
In-Reply-To: <4B2B98A4-1DFF-4E92-98F4-098950B40A49@mac.com>
References: <4B2B98A4-1DFF-4E92-98F4-098950B40A49@mac.com>
Message-ID: <2fa158550810021340u64ec98a9v46f62309738c4e5@mail.gmail.com>

I don't know. I just wanted to stress one of the alternatives that now
lay open. It will be most interesting to see what will the USAmerican
bourgeoisie do if this comes to happen.

Workers will be saved by workers, only.

In the USofAmerica and in China.

2008/10/2, Greg McDonald <sabocat59 en mac.com>:
> Nestor G. wrote:
>
>  <If I was a high-level Chinese policy maker I would already be counting
>  the dollars to purchase USAmerican banks.>
>
>  Would that be a good thing for workers?
>
>  Greg McD
>
>
>  ________________________________________________
>  YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
>  Send list submissions to: Marxism en lists.econ.utah.edu
>  Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/nmgoro%40gmail.com
>


-- 

N?stor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a

From nmgoro at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 14:48:24 2008
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:48:24 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] To Hell with Wall St.
In-Reply-To: <100-f1fbe448-24007.021@lws-media.de>
References: <100-f1fbe448-24007.021@lws-media.de>
Message-ID: <2fa158550810021348h7e858e24hac7a9a7505ef80aa@mail.gmail.com>

2008/10/2, L?ko Willms <lueko.willms en t-online.de>:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:21:37 -0300, N?stor Gorojovsky wrote:
>
>  > If I was a high-level Chinese policy maker I would already be
>  > counting the dollars to purchase USAmerican banks.
>
>   A Chinese bank or fond tried to buy the German bank "Dresdner
> Bank",  which was then sold to the German competitor
> "Commerzbank".

So that the German bourgeois policy makers don't follow their standard
advice to others? Namely, to give away the assets of bankrupt or
tottering German bourgeois to foreign owners in strategic issues?

Maybe _some_ bourgeoisies act differently to others. Maybe old
fashioned Lenin's  "Imperialism", nay, older-fashioned Hilferding
"Finanzkapital", nay, still-older-fashioned Hobson's "Imperialism"
still has a saying on our current globe?

-- 

N?stor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a

From sabocat59 at mac.com  Thu Oct  2 15:22:52 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:22:52 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Nader says vote NO on Bailout
Message-ID: <08EB45BC-BCEF-4F6A-9D94-8DBAEDF09C14@mac.com>

But for now, we're back at it, trying to derail the $700 billion  
Mother of All Bailouts.

The bill will be voted on by the House of Representatives tomorrow.

So, here's what we need you to do now.

Call Congress' main switchboard number at 202.224.3121.

Ask for your member of Congress.

(If the main switchboard number is jammed, you can Google your  
member's name and find a direct dial phone number.

Tell the person who answers the phone to please take a message for  
your elected representative.

The message for your member of Congress is this:

Please vote against the bailout bill.

Call 202.224.3121.

Tell your member of Congress:

Please vote no on the bailout.

Let's crank it up.

And get it done.


Onward to November

The Nader Team

PS: We're not sure what will be in the bill that the House will vote  
for, but we are pretty sure that it will be similar to the Senate  
bill. Which is the MOB bill -- the Mother of All Bailouts, supported  
by McCain Obama and Bush. That is -- big relief for the big banks.  
Little relief for homeowners facing foreclosure. That's one.

Two, Warren Buffett recently invested in Goldman Sachs. What did  
Warren Buffett get in return? Ownership. So, if the American  
taxpayers are going to inject money into the big banks, why don't we  
get ownership in return?

Three, there is no provision in the bill for cracking down on the  
corporate criminals that brought us to this point. Why not?

Four, the federal government can take action now to prevent  
foreclosures, to keep homeowners in their homes. Why is the first  
move to bail out those who engaged in "a sustained orgy of excess and  
reckless behavior?" (As Dallas Federal Reserve chairman Richard  
Fisher put it last week.) In sum, it's a bailout bill for Wall Street  
crooks. Reach for your phone. Dial that there number -- 202.224.3121.  
Leave a message for your member of Congress. Vote no on the bailout.




From gary.maclennan at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 15:37:11 2008
From: gary.maclennan at gmail.com (gary.maclennan at gmail.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 14:37:11 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Racist scapegoating in financial crisis
In-Reply-To: <48E4D1F7.4000506@panix.com>
References: <48E4D1F7.4000506@panix.com>
Message-ID: <ff5b77d90810021437h689d9c22y6c99e6bd69235189@mail.gmail.com>

What total scumbags.

I am hoping that this financial crisis will all turn into a huge
legitimation crisis, that might even develop a political dimension, despite
the continuing dominance of the Rep-Dem Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee game. Go
Nader go!

regards

Gary

From markalause at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 15:47:11 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:47:11 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810021447o374874c1qf28a418fb15f7eb@mail.gmail.com>

...that 5,000 Americans were executed in Louisiana at the time of Katrina.

Can anybody else venture a guess as to why Fox New might be the only
ones picking up on this story?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nc-DouFzYM

ML


From csoc21 at btinternet.com  Thu Oct  2 15:48:44 2008
From: csoc21 at btinternet.com (noah tucker)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 21:48:44 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [Marxism] Chinese science
Message-ID: <908875.73362.qm@web87114.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

Thanks Louis for starting the discussion here on this issue. 

The question of why Europe, rather than China, became the centre of modern scientific development and, linked to this, the scene of the industrial revolution, is extremely important.

A couple of very preliminary thoughts:

The answer which immediately springs to mind is that the cultural conditions in Europe, created on the basis of the changing relations of production- the transition from feudalism to capitalism- favoured the development of science.

But the development of knowledge is an international process. European science did not invent itself independently- rather, Europe acquired scientific discoveries made in China and elsewhere in the world; and also re-acquired some very important discoveries, which had been made in antique Europe but were preserved elsewhere in the world.

This could take place because of the rising position of Europe as the chief trading, and then the main colonial, continent. Europe accrued not merely material wealth, but also intellectual wealth, from its partners and subjects; and then it concentrated, developed, and applied this knowledge, using it to develop the forces of production- and to conquer and suppress subject nations.

Anyway, thanks again for pointing to some useful literature on this subject, to which I'll apply myself in the next couple of weeks.

However, Louis. I have to remark again on your treatment of Walter. Although Walter did not directly engage with the points which you were trying to raise, he did nevertheless make some points which were not irrelevant to this discussion. 

Although Walter made some useful points; you, as moderator, you could have asked, quite correctly, that contributors should apply themselves to the main issue.

Instead, you took the opportunity to lambast and ridicule Walter, as if you were a teenage bully who owns the playground.

As I've said before, I don't agree with Walter on some very key issues. But his heart is in the right place, he is hard working, he espouses some very important principles, and his affinity with Cuba can only be admired.

Louis, you are a middle-aged man, not a teenager. I'm sorry to have to say this, but your behaviour towards Walter is becoming embarrassing. 

By all means, remove Walter from your list if he annoys you so much. But please, either do it, or if you are not going to do it, cease your threats towards him.





























From michael at ecst.csuchico.edu  Thu Oct  2 16:01:13 2008
From: michael at ecst.csuchico.edu (michael perelman)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:01:13 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Chinese science
In-Reply-To: <48E4D31D.70805@panix.com>
References: <48E4D31D.70805@panix.com>
Message-ID: <48E544A9.2030408@ecst.csuchico.edu>

I enjoyed Winhester's bio very much.  He is not thrilled by Needham's 
left politics.

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA
95929

530 898 5321
fax 530 89 591


From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Oct  2 16:23:52 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:23:52 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Chinese science
In-Reply-To: <908875.73362.qm@web87114.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
References: <908875.73362.qm@web87114.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20081002222351.DE82122F44@mailbackend.panix.com>

Noah wrote:
>However, Louis. I have to remark again on your treatment of Walter. 
>Although Walter did not directly engage with the points which you 
>were trying to raise, he did nevertheless make some points which 
>were not irrelevant to this discussion.

What discussion? The one that we have had nonstop for 4 years about 
the obligation of radicals to support the Chinese government?

>Although Walter made some useful points; you, as moderator, you 
>could have asked, quite correctly, that contributors should apply 
>themselves to the main issue.

I would have done that with a new subscriber, not somebody who has 
been abusing his privileges here for 4 years.

>Instead, you took the opportunity to lambast and ridicule Walter, as 
>if you were a teenage bully who owns the playground.

You go start a mailing list and see how long it will take your 
patience to run out after 4 years of the same arguments debated over 
and over and over and over and over and over again.

>As I've said before, I don't agree with Walter on some very key 
>issues. But his heart is in the right place, he is hard working, he 
>espouses some very important principles, and his affinity with Cuba 
>can only be admired.

I am interested in one thing and one thing only on this mailing list, 
which is to advance the Marxist agenda. When I post something about 
Joseph Needham's research focused on breakthroughs 500 years ago, I 
don't want to put up with trolling diversions that use the word China 
as a convenient peg.

>Louis, you are a middle-aged man, not a teenager. I'm sorry to have 
>to say this, but your behaviour towards Walter is becoming embarrassing.

Of course this has nothing to do with your own bouquets to the 
Chinese government. I really admire your Olympian detachment.

>By all means, remove Walter from your list if he annoys you so much. 
>But please, either do it, or if you are not going to do it, cease 
>your threats towards him.

Thanks for the useful advice.




From billyoc at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 16:33:51 2008
From: billyoc at gmail.com (Bill O'Connor)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:33:51 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] To Hell with Wall St.
In-Reply-To: <4B2B98A4-1DFF-4E92-98F4-098950B40A49@mac.com> (Greg McDonald's
	message of "Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:43:26 -0400")
References: <4B2B98A4-1DFF-4E92-98F4-098950B40A49@mac.com>
Message-ID: <871vyy7hkg.fsf@t22.Belkin>

Greg McDonald <sabocat59 at mac.com> writes:

> Nestor G. wrote:
>
> <If I was a high-level Chinese policy maker I would already be counting
> the dollars to purchase USAmerican banks.>
>
> Would that be a good thing for workers?

The workers would have a chance of having their money returned to them
if they're issued stock in the failing institutions.  


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 16:35:13 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:35:13 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] against diversity
In-Reply-To: <20080929090412.EFDE09DC0@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com>
References: <d4b821240809271233l6a7d7e5bq12fe5bc7df17e183@mail.gmail.com><08DC66C727B44CC1973FD3D11BC173F3@albanta><20080928090847.ABC747F52@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com><5024A5E3A92241DB8AEA4F959E5CD4B3@albanta>
	<20080929090412.EFDE09DC0@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <EC12E2374DFD45368997AB2D41E13373@albanta>

AA writes: "I'm curious, Joaquin: Did you as a member of the SWP at the time
(I gather you were!) support their line that "The ANC is the sole legitimate
representative of the South African people"? Do you support it now? If you
do, I don't see any prospects for our agreeing on much about South Africa. "

I don't remember whether or not the SWP had such a line when I was a member.
But as for now, I neither support nor oppose it. I'm not very familiar with
South Africa, have zero intention of changing this, and therefore don't have
a lot of opinions about things South African.

Joaquin



From billyoc at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 16:59:24 2008
From: billyoc at gmail.com (Bill O'Connor)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:59:24 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <b16d8daf0810021447o374874c1qf28a418fb15f7eb@mail.gmail.com>
	(Mark Lause's message of "Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:47:11 -0400")
References: <b16d8daf0810021447o374874c1qf28a418fb15f7eb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87wsgq61tf.fsf@t22.Belkin>

"Mark Lause" <markalause at gmail.com> writes:

> ...that 5,000 Americans were executed in Louisiana at the time of Katrina.
>
> Can anybody else venture a guess as to why Fox New might be the only
> ones picking up on this story?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nc-DouFzYM

I'll venture to guess that Fox is more interested in marginalizing the
Green Party, which I think this story and this candidate does.


From mqduck at sonic.net  Thu Oct  2 17:32:14 2008
From: mqduck at sonic.net (Jeffrey Thomas Piercy)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:32:14 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] To Hell with Wall St.
In-Reply-To: <2fa158550810020621m72b23c95u66bd4fe1a8482119@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3887D64C-526A-4DA4-8164-C235C669C048@mac.com>
	<2fa158550810020621m72b23c95u66bd4fe1a8482119@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48E559FE.6030208@sonic.net>

N?stor Gorojovsky wrote:
> If I was a high-level Chinese policy maker I would already be counting
> the dollars to purchase USAmerican banks.

They'll probably pay in euros.

-- 
Human: An animal so lost in loathing contemplation of what it thinks it 
is as to overlook what it to be.


From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Thu Oct  2 17:41:14 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:41:14 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
Message-ID: <1193F950E6A44048BE956215AD7EB14F@office1pc>

Does someone have McKinney's reported statement on this? Fox News reports
are  not a good basis for a discussion.

I assume there is a statement. I doubt that Fox News would target her simply
out of whole cloth. (For them, this has to be simply a way to get at her
co-national Obama -- the danger of Black people in high office -- except
MAYBE Condoleeza and even more Clarence. I think the far right regards Rice
as a little pink compared to Thomas.)

It seems hard to believe that the "execution" of 5,000 people in New Orleans
could have been carried out without repercussions -- including determined
missing persons reports by suspicious family members. I've always assumed
more people died and were killed than has been reported, but this seems
disproportionate. My opinion, of course, is not proof this did not happen.

One way or the other, her position will not change my position on this. The
Rev. Wright brouhaha was a good reminder of the vulnerability of the Black
community to conspiracy theories and the importance of having this in a
historical perspective. And also the old saying: "Just because you're
paranoid doesn't mean they aren't plotting against you."
Fred Feldman
 



From billyoc at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 18:05:53 2008
From: billyoc at gmail.com (Bill O'Connor)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:05:53 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <1193F950E6A44048BE956215AD7EB14F@office1pc> (Fred Feldman's
	message of "Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:41:14 -0400")
References: <1193F950E6A44048BE956215AD7EB14F@office1pc>
Message-ID: <87skreh7a6.fsf@t22.Belkin>

"Fred Feldman" <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net> writes:

> Does someone have McKinney's reported statement on this? Fox News reports
> are  not a good basis for a discussion.

This is her statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nc-DouFzYM


From mikedf at amnh.org  Thu Oct  2 18:17:11 2008
From: mikedf at amnh.org (Mike Friedman)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:17:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism]  Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1222970403.26662.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
References: <mailman.3.1222970403.26662.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <52559.216.73.245.20.1222993031.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org>

Keep in mind that Louisiana has the most repressive, backward prison
system in the U.S., maybe the world. I've heard it reported that prisoners
(NOT lifers) in Angola, Louisiana, have an almost 100% mortality rate,
lifers or not. It wouldn't surprise me that in the chaos of Katrina,
prison officials and police would offer this "solution."

> This is her statement:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nc-DouFzYM



From mikedf at amnh.org  Thu Oct  2 18:25:11 2008
From: mikedf at amnh.org (Mike Friedman)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:25:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism]  Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
Message-ID: <52735.216.73.245.20.1222993511.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org>

This from Counterpunch on "The Farm" (Angola penitentiary):

Inside Angola Prison, Louisiana's Last Slave Plantation

Organizing for Freedom

By JORDAN FLAHERTY

At the heart of Louisiana?s prison system sits the Louisiana State Prison
at Angola, a former slave plantation where little has changed in the last
several hundred years. Angola has been made notorious from books and films
such as Dead Man Walking and The Farm: Life at Angola, as well as its
legendary bi-annual prison rodeo and The Angolite, a prisoner-written
magazine published within its walls. Visitors are often overwhelmed by its
size ? 18,000 acres that include a golf course (for use by prison staff
and some guests), a radio station, and a massive farming operation that
ranges from staples like soybeans and wheat to traditional Southern
plantation crops like cotton.

Recent congressional attention has again brought Angola into the media
limelight. The focus this time is on the prison?s practice of keeping some
inmates in solitary confinement for decades, especially two of Angola?s
most well-known residents ? Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox. Woodfox and
Wallace are the remaining members of the Angola Three, political activists
widely seen as having been interned in solitary confinement as punishment
for their political activism.

Modern plantation

Norris Henderson, co-director of Safe Streets/Strong Communities, a
grassroots criminal justice organization in New Orleans, spent twenty
years at Angola ? a relatively short time in a prison where 85 percent of
its 5,100 prisoners are expected to die behind its walls. ?Six hundred
folks been there over 25 years,? he explains. ?Lots of these guys been
there over 35 years. Think about that: a population that?s been there
since the 1970s. Once you?re in this place, it?s almost like you ain?t
going nowhere, that barring some miracle, you?re going to die there.?
Prisoners at Angola still do the same work that enslaved Africans did
there when it was a slave plantation. ?Angola is a plantation,? Henderson
explains. ?Eighteen-thousand acres of choice farmland. Even to this day,
you could have machinery that can do all that work, but you still have
prisoners doing it instead.? Not only do prisoners at Angola toil at the
same work as enslaved Africans hundreds of years ago, but many of the
white guards come from families that have lived on the grounds since the
plantation days.

[...]

> This is her statement:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nc-DouFzYM



-- 
Michael Friedman
Ph.D. Candidate in Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior
City University of New York

Institute for Comparative Genomics
Department of Invertebrate Zoology
American Museum of Natural History
79th Street and Central Park West
New York, NY 10024

Office: 212-313-8721
--------------------
"Ya me gritaron mil veces
que me regrese a mi tierra,
Porque aqui no quepo yo
Quiero recordarle al gringo:
Yo no cruce la frontera,
la frontera me cruzo"
- Los Tigres del Norte



From n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au  Thu Oct  2 18:36:30 2008
From: n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au (n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:36:30 +1000
Subject: [Marxism] Marxist hip hop
Message-ID: <fa1ea22036c0.48e5f5ae@scu.edu.au>

Jeffrey Thomas Piercy:

>>Man, don't forget his song "Television, the Drug of the Nation" from his?
former group, The Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy<<.

Yes great stuff, but the Spearhead songs I mentioned, Rock the Nation and Yell Fire, are more politically advanced as they clearly advocate the masses taking power through direct action (while managing to be witty and funky, quite a lyrical feat).?

Also for Marxist hip hop trivia fans, "Television" was first recorded by Franti's first group, The Beatnigs, in 1988?http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=82m6FrqHFFg This outfit wasn't so much hip hop as the sort of industrial electronica at that time also represented by Meat Beat Manifesto, Consolidated and Tackhead in the UK (all of which are lefties who have had various interactions with each other - as I previously mentioned in this thread Consolidated also took a hip hop turn in the 90s, if in a bit of an earnest, and, well, white way).?

Wikipedia tells me?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatnigs?that the Beatnigs album has been recently re-released on Jello Biafra's Alternative Tentacles label (for the 20th anniversary I guess, jeepers!). And another highlight of the Disposable Heroes album is a great cover of the Dead Kennedys 'California Uber Alles'.?

When I saw the Disposable Heroes in 1993 I was impressed that Franti didn't bother to mention that he was playing at a big rock festival the next day, but urged the crowd to go to an Indigenous music festival in another part of Sydney, it being "Australia Day", or more correctly, Invasion Day. The Heroes continued the Beatnigs industrial bent with banging of metal junk and sparks flying from angle grinders on stage. Perhaps more mesmerising was Charlie Hunter seemingly playing lead,?rhythm?and bass jazz guitar simutaneously on his 8 string instrument. There was also masks and stylised dancing.

All fun and a bit Bretchtian I suppose, but it probably dated very fast and Franti became much more rootsy with Spearhead from 1994.?Their 2006 album Yell Fire had a lot of reggae, and their new one, All Rebel Rockers, seems even more so. I've just seen the poster for their Australian tour and it's so reggae you feel stoned looking at it: black, red, green, and cool dudes lounging around enormous speakers. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I'm hoping to see them next week. 


From markalause at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 18:40:06 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:40:06 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <87skreh7a6.fsf@t22.Belkin>
References: <1193F950E6A44048BE956215AD7EB14F@office1pc>
	<87skreh7a6.fsf@t22.Belkin>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810021740g20b8cff3iae4c7c4eade42db9@mail.gmail.com>

Fred,

I sent the YouTube link earlier.  Guess you didn't read it.

ML


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 19:23:37 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 21:23:37 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] What seems like a sound poll assessment of
	Obama/McCainstanding today
In-Reply-To: <50AC3471B5D3425DB57FABDAD4BC6167@office1pc>
References: <50AC3471B5D3425DB57FABDAD4BC6167@office1pc>
Message-ID: <3AF1C0D23A5144DD915A559213724FE9@albanta>

On Monday, Fred Feldman quoted from fivethirtyeight.com: "Here's the long
and short of it for John McCain: Barack Obama has as large a lead in the
election as he's held all year. But there is much less time left on the
clock than there was during other Obama periods of strength, such as in
February, mid-June or immediately following the Democratic convention. This
is a very difficult combination of circumstances for him."

It's now Thursday, and McCain is deeper in a hole. Despite the problems with
and limitations of polling, the volume of data coming out all pointing in
the same direction suggests very strongly that as things stand now, McCain
would lose, and pretty badly.

Both the post-debate focus groups and polls of those that watched the first
Obama-McCain mano-a-mano give a victory to Obama -- not a knockout, just on
points, but this was the debate that McCain was *supposed* to win -- on
foreign policy. 

Following the debate, Obama is consolidating a fairly significant lead --6%
in CNN's "poll of polls," an average of three two six of the most recent
among ten or so of the most reputable polls, recomputed every time a new
national number is available from one of those polls, which is once or twice
a day. 

Heading into Monday, this CNN figure showed Obama was ahead by 4%, with
results including pre- and post-debate interviews. By Tuesday he was up to
5%, and last night made it to 6%. CNN is also doing "poll of polls" for
"battleground" states and they, too, show a clear Obama trend. Whether the
debate was a significant factor in boosting Obama is doubtful: clearly the
economic and financial crisis is driving these numbers. But it perhaps did
"clear the way," in the sense that Obama is perceived as weaker on foreign
policy than McCain, and stronger on the economy. By making a good showing on
foreign policy, he may have reduced the significance of foreign policy,
allowing his perceived economic strength to then shift a layer of voters.

That same pattern has been the same on a web site that has a similar
averaging of various polls, though they cast their net wider than CNN.
Obama's lead is now 5.7% in the RealClearPolitics.com national average. 

And Obama also has had a +4 to +8 percent lead in the Rasmussen and Gallup
daily tracking polls results for a week or more, averaging around 6%. These
two polls interview about 1000 people each day, and present each day the
results of the previous three days of polling. One consequence is that they
have large sample sizes (about 3,000) and thus +/- 2% margins of sampling
error. 

State polls are now coming in fast and furious and they present a very
problematic picture for McCain, which can be seen here:
<http://www.politico.com/convention/swingstate.html>. That map has every
single state assigned on the basis of the latest polling data, and Obama
takes 353 electoral college votes to McCain's 185. That's virtually a
landslide by the traditional definition (a 2-1 margin in the electoral
college).

But even more problematic for the Republicans is that if you shift all the
battleground state polls 3% or a hair more in McCain's favor, which
political nerds who work for TV networks and such figure is about the most
you can do in the last month before the election absent a suicidal mistake
by your opponent or some humongous crisis that works in your favor, Obama
STILL wins the electoral college vote by 282 to 256.

And McCain's campaign, seeing the numbers become insurmountable in an
increasing number of states, has now publicly abandoned Michigan (and
probably privately some other states too), increasingly targeting all their
resources at a handful of the swing states where the figure their chances
are best for achieving a modest electoral college majority. 

Of course, this situation is the result of a humongous crisis that
overwhelmingly favors the Democrats -- the meltdown in the financial
industry and sharp declines in the stock market. Unfortunately for McCain,
ALL the financial and economic news between now and election day will likely
be dismal, even if the sense of immediate crisis fades somewhat. And over
the next few days, everyone with a 401K or an IRA is going to be getting
their quarterly statement, which will bring the feeling of crisis home to a
lot of people. 

The upshot of this is that I now believe something I've been saying for
months is no longer true. And that is that if the electorate was about the
same as it was in 2000 and 2004, Obama would lose: that he could only win by
inspiring a significantly larger than normal turnout by Blacks, Latinos and
young people. Now, I think, Obama can win even with just a traditional
electorate.

But there is even MORE bad news for McCain, and it is being reflected in the
polls. By this stage of the campaign, pollsters have mostly shifted to using
a "likely voter" sample rather than simply a "registered voter" sample.
Among the factors taken into account in classifying an interviewee as a
"likely voter" is whether they say they're sure they are going to vote,
whether they say they are sure who they are voting for, and whether they say
they are enthusiastic in their support for their candidate. Usually this
means the "LV" sample is more Republican than the "RV" one.

But not only has Obama's support increased a few percent over the past
couple of weeks, all the polls I've looked at in detail indicate a very
strong consolidation of his base of support. And thus contrary to the usual
pattern in presidential elections, the "Likely Voter" sample isn't
noticeably more pro-Republican than the broader "registered voter" sample. 

And this coincides with anecdotal evidence of very large and enthusiastic
rallies as well as a LOT of volunteer activity -- voter registration and
get-out-the-vote early drives and so on, in the Obama camp. The financial
"melt-down" has energized Obama's base, while creating disarray on the
Republican side.

Because, while it is true a large number of the more left Democrats voted
against the bail-out, by and large they say quite openly that their votes
could be bought with more "sweeteners" (left cover) like help for individual
homeowners in trouble with their mortgages or punitive-sounding conditions
on firms taking advantage of the bail-out. 

But a lot of the Republican opposition is "principled" -- if you have the
government helping rich people (as opposed to letting rich people help
themselves), the next thing you know it'll be helping regular people too,
and that's socialism. This disarray in the Republican camp is reflected in
McCain's somewhat ambivalent performance. He aggressively thrust himself
into the crisis but then didn't really have much to say that was relevant to
the giveaway cooked up by Paulson and Bernanke.

Thus while McCain's support is also solidifying, as is normal for this stage
of the campaign, its not to the same degree as Obama's. One indication is
that even though McCain is trailing, there are somewhat more McCain-leaning
voters who say they might switch to Obama than Obama-leaning voters who say
they might switch. And among the unswitchables, there seems to be somewhat
less enthusiasm (people who say they "strongly support" their candidate)
although the numbers I've seen on that involve fairly small samples so most
network or web site political  analysts are hesitant to talk about it. 

McCain is ALSO at a disadvantage in that the Democrat ticket has three
independently active campaigners, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Joe
Biden. Palin is mostly being used on the Republican side to attract people
to McCain events, based on people's interest in her as a novelty and/or dyed
in the wool social conservative. And Mrs. McCain isn't much of an active
campaigner.

One final downer for McCain, which is tonight's debate. Biden can make a
fairly poor showing and not really hurt Obama significantly, both because
it's taken for granted he's "qualified" to take over and one bad night won't
change that, and because the need for him to ever do so is viewed as remote.
If Palin does poorly, it's likely this will fuel misgivings about McCain's
judgment in picking her, especially since the odds SHE may have to take over
are higher. And of course, prejudices against women will magnify the effect.

Among the big unknowns in all this, however, is that Obama's numbers now
include a layer of especially older white voters who were extremely reticent
to support him previously. Some of this pro-Obama swing of the past few
weeks may evaporate between now and election day if the panic about the
economy abates somewhat, or at the voting booth, with these kinds of voters
seeing McCain as "safer" than the "exotic" Obama. 

Expect all kinds of questions with a subtle (and sometimes not so subtle)
racist subtext to become increasingly prominent over the next few days in a
concerted effort to peel those sorts of people away from Obama. That's what
McCain's "experience" shtick was really about, ditto the "hero" bs, and
there will be more.

One Republican meme that already seems to be breaking through into the
mainstream media is that Obama is secretly much more liberal or radical than
he pretends, as is shown by his refusal to preemptively renege on campaign
promises on health care and tax cuts on the basis that the government won't
be able to afford them after the bailout.

Joaquin



From michael at ecst.csuchico.edu  Thu Oct  2 19:25:25 2008
From: michael at ecst.csuchico.edu (michael perelman)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:25:25 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] My Third Crisis Commentary
Message-ID: <48E57485.7060204@ecst.csuchico.edu>

I just posted my third Crisis Commentary

http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/crisis-commentary-third-installment/

-- 

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
www.michaelperelman.wordpress.com



From michael at ecst.csuchico.edu  Thu Oct  2 20:10:35 2008
From: michael at ecst.csuchico.edu (michael perelman)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:10:35 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Sorry.  I fixed the problem
Message-ID: <48E57F1B.9080505@ecst.csuchico.edu>

The URL now works.  Sorry.


http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/crisis-commentary-third-installment/

-- 

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
www.michaelperelman.wordpress.com



From markalause at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 20:11:07 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:11:07 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <52735.216.73.245.20.1222993511.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org>
References: <52735.216.73.245.20.1222993511.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810021911l5dec0999m3bec2d7e033c2324@mail.gmail.com>

The question's not the character of the Louisiana's prison system.
There's been ample evidence that it sucks and has sucked...well, as
long as there's been a Louisiana.

Is there evidence that the government might have executed 5,000
prisoners during Katrina?

We're not discussing what's possible.  As far as that goes, it's
possible that the government might be covering up its own explosions
of the Twin Towers or lying about UFO crashes or hiding Biblical
artifacts in a big warehouse.  Possible that Dubya's an alien himself.

But...first, don't we have enough real issues to address without being
sidetracked into maybes?

And, more importantly, reality matters..and how we determine realities
matter.  I have asked on half a dozen lists for evidence of or
information on this mass murder.

Nothing.

In fact, I've seen or heard nothing more evidence for 5,000 than for
50,000 or 500,000.  Wouldn't keeping such a thing under wraps require
getting rid of all the friends, family members and neighbors of the
5,000?  And what about all the people doing the executing or watching
or bury?

Prison systems haven't been able to keep under wraps the killing of a
lot smaller numbers.

ML


From ehrbar at lists.econ.utah.edu  Thu Oct  2 20:17:48 2008
From: ehrbar at lists.econ.utah.edu (ehrbar)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:17:48 -0600
Subject: [Marxism] Test, please ignore
Message-ID: <E1KlaEm-0007tC-DE@lists.econ.utah.edu>


Test, please ignore.


From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Thu Oct  2 21:04:42 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:04:42 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
Message-ID: <CD13FF1CCC0B43708191A8CBE35DEED9@office1pc>

Mark Lause:
Is there evidence that the government might have executed 5,000
prisoners during Katrina?

Fred comments:
Well, we could be starting from the wrong end of the horse -- the 5,000
figure.

What if the figure was only "500" or even "50".

How was the question of prisoners in New Orleans and other areas affected by
Katrina handled? I have always wondered. We know that prisons were left
unguarded as guards, etc. fled? What happened to the prisoners? Did they
escape?  Drown like rats? Simply survive unguarded in their cells? Were they
evacuated under guard in an orderly way? (There was little sign of that?) Or
were they taken care of beforehand "to protect society" from their potential
depredations? How many families in this region ARE still trying to find out
what happened to missing persons?

I would note that a confidentiality agreement to cover up such facts, which
McKinney's informant's mother said he was obliged to sign, would have no
legal standing in any court, but of course it would be easy to use it to
convey the message that he would never get to court if he tried to reveal
it.

One thing happened in a New Orleans hospital that gives me pause in simply
rejecting the story out of hand.  Some of the doctors and nurses killed
patients in order to save them from Black mobs (actually imaginary media
creations) who, raping and killing and plundering as they went, were
supposedly advancing on the hospital. Of course, killing the patients
allowed the staff to get out of "harm's way." We were never told  how many
patients were killed. The doctor and staff members were subsequently tried
and convicted. 

The "Pentagon computer" thing sounds tacked on. But I would like to hear
more about what happened to the prisoners -- a question at the time that was
never answered -- and less about the implausibility of the 5,000 figure in
this urban legend.

If this leads to more information on what happened to prisoners in NO and
environs, that would be a good thing, regardless of what happens to the
totality of this "urban legend" itself.
Fred Feldman



From pbond at mail.ngo.za  Thu Oct  2 21:14:41 2008
From: pbond at mail.ngo.za (Patrick Bond)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:14:41 +0200
Subject: [Marxism] Sorry.  I fixed the problem
In-Reply-To: <48E57F1B.9080505@ecst.csuchico.edu>
References: <48E57F1B.9080505@ecst.csuchico.edu>
Message-ID: <48E58E21.90906@mail.ngo.za>

Michael, please put the commentary into a text box, ok?

For many who download on a dial-up system and then hang up, and then 
have to redial to make these connections, it's a pain.

Thanks!

michael perelman wrote:
> The URL now works.  Sorry.
>
>
> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/crisis-commentary-third-installment/
>
>   


From markalause at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 21:14:48 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 23:14:48 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <CD13FF1CCC0B43708191A8CBE35DEED9@office1pc>
References: <CD13FF1CCC0B43708191A8CBE35DEED9@office1pc>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810022014l734ca6dw36373edc5bab458e@mail.gmail.com>

Fred,

We are agreed that we want information.  In fact, I asked for it some days ago.

I don't know why you put "urban legend" in quotes when discussing the
5,000 executions.  At this stage, that's all the story of mass
executions are.

Finally and preemptively, I didn't come up with the 5,000 figure which
makes at urban legend or uncritically pick it up while watching Fox
News (as you earlier suggested).

I heard this story from the candidate you support for president.
Questions are in order, are they not?

ML


From mqduck at sonic.net  Thu Oct  2 21:19:41 2008
From: mqduck at sonic.net (Jeffrey Thomas Piercy)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:19:41 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Growth of illegal immigration population grinds to a halt
Message-ID: <48E58F4D.3040503@sonic.net>

Perhaps this will provide impetus to the "guest worker program" again 
(now or in the future). Indentured servitude instead of illegal wages is 
better than nothing to our plantation owners, right??

http://www.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_10622542

***
"It's possible that the down economy can be either discouraging people 
from staying or discouraging them from coming in," said D'Vera Cohn, 
senior writer for the Pew Research Center and the report's co-author. 
"It's possible that enforcement issues are making people feel less secure.'"

A second Pew report released Thursday found that the economic slowdown 
is hitting both legal and illegal immigrants hard. Median household 
income for non-citizen immigrants was down 7.3 percent from 2006 to 
2007. Among citizen households, median income was up 1.3 percent.

"The current economic slowdown, which one can trace to the end of the 
housing boom in late 2006, is taking a much greater toll on non-citizen 
immigrants" than on U.S. citizens, said Rakesh Kochhar, associate 
research director for the Pew Hispanic Center.

In California, the illegal population isn't growing either. The homeland 
security report estimated that California had 2.8 million illegal 
immigrants in January 2007, virtually the same population the agency 
estimated for January 2006. The federal report pegged the nation's 
illegal population at 11.8 million people in January 2007 ? roughly 
consistent with the Pew estimates.
***

-- 
Human: An animal so lost in loathing contemplation of what it thinks it 
is as to overlook what it to be.


From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 21:22:16 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 23:22:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <b16d8daf0810022014l734ca6dw36373edc5bab458e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CD13FF1CCC0B43708191A8CBE35DEED9@office1pc>
	<b16d8daf0810022014l734ca6dw36373edc5bab458e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810022022oae0fba6saaa90212d6da26c5@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Mark Lause <markalause at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Finally and preemptively, I didn't come up with the 5,000 figure which
> makes at urban legend or uncritically pick it up while watching Fox
> News (as you earlier suggested).
>
> I heard this story from the candidate you support for president.
> Questions are in order, are they not?

We should be just as hard on McKinney if she makes unaccountable,
exaggerated statements, as we should be of Sarah Palin.

In fact, we should be even harder on McKinney. Socialists need to be
exemplary in terms of their accuracy and facticity. If the candidate
supported by many socialists is not so, socialists would lose whatever
trust they enjoyed of the people.

I hope the McKinney supporters among us (and I include myself in that
category) treat this matter with the utmost seriousness.


From michael at ecst.csuchico.edu  Thu Oct  2 21:26:34 2008
From: michael at ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Perelman)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:26:34 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Sorry.  I fixed the problem
In-Reply-To: <48E58E21.90906@mail.ngo.za>
References: <48E57F1B.9080505@ecst.csuchico.edu> <48E58E21.90906@mail.ngo.za>
Message-ID: <20081003032634.GA7078@tiglon.ecst.csuchico.edu>

Patrick, just remind me next time & I will send a text message.  I hope all 
is well in Durban.


On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 05:14:41AM +0200, Patrick Bond wrote:
> Michael, please put the commentary into a text box, ok?
> 
> For many who download on a dial-up system and then hang up, and then 
> have to redial to make these connections, it's a pain.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> michael perelman wrote:
> > The URL now works.  Sorry.
> >
> >
> > http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/crisis-commentary-third-installment/
> >
> >   
> 
> ________________________________________________
> 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/michael%40ecst.csuchico.edu

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com


From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 21:26:56 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 23:26:56 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <1193F950E6A44048BE956215AD7EB14F@office1pc>
References: <1193F950E6A44048BE956215AD7EB14F@office1pc>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810022026g536add75od8e67532f20b13e@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Fred Feldman <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> Does someone have McKinney's reported statement on this? Fox News reports
> are  not a good basis for a discussion.
>
> I assume there is a statement. I doubt that Fox News would target her simply
> out of whole cloth.


<http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/02/mckinney-accuses-government-slaughtering-prisoners-dumping-bodies-katrina/>

    Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, known for her
provocative statements when she was a congresswoman from Georgia,
accused the Department of Defense this week of using Hurricane Katrina
to cover up the slaughter of 5,000 prisoners.

    At a news conference in Oakland, Calif., on Sunday, McKinney
claimed the Pentagon authorized the execution of the prisoners with
one bullet to the head three years ago and then dumped their bodies in
a Louisiana swamp.

    "I suspect that these are prisoners. ? So this investigation of
the whole prison industrial complex is extremely important and it
should not end with just a question of the nature of prisons in our
country," she said to a captivated audience. "These 5,000 souls also
need some justice too."

[...]

A Defense Department spokesman dismissed McKinney's accusation.

"The claim is outrageous on the very face of it and doesn't merit any
further consideration," said  Lt. Col. Les' Melnyk. "It would be
inconceivable that 5,000 people would go missing in America without
anyone noticing it prior to this."

Psychologists and psychology professors contacted by FOXNews.com
wouldn't comment on McKinney's mental condition, but they expressed
shock at her assertion.

"Wow! What a conspiracy theory," one professor exclaimed before
declining comment and hanging up the phone.

Dr. Celia Ward, a clinical psychologist in Washington, D.C., said she
wouldn't speculate on McKinney's state of mind because McKinney heard
the story from someone else.

"This sounds like a game of telephone," Ward said, explaining how a
rumor can change as it passes from one person to another. "But to take
something that has so many questions attached to it and to treat a
rumor as fact is the basis for mass distortion. It's really a good
example of Swift-boating."

Ward said McKinney could have easily verified the story by checking
prison records.

"This is the kind of rumor that warrants fact-checking," she said.

McKinney's presidential campaign did not respond to a request for comment.


From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 21:34:06 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 23:34:06 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <b16d8daf0810021911l5dec0999m3bec2d7e033c2324@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52735.216.73.245.20.1222993511.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org>
	<b16d8daf0810021911l5dec0999m3bec2d7e033c2324@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810022034p5670d6c8wfa5a1d06c2c8b2a3@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Mark Lause <markalause at gmail.com> wrote:

>  I have asked on half a dozen lists for evidence of or
> information on this mass murder.
>
> Nothing.
>
> In fact, I've seen or heard nothing more evidence for 5,000 than for
> 50,000 or 500,000.  Wouldn't keeping such a thing under wraps require
> getting rid of all the friends, family members and neighbors of the
> 5,000?  And what about all the people doing the executing or watching
> or bury?


<http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/02/mckinney-accuses-government-slaughtering-prisoners-dumping-bodies-katrina/comments/#commentPaginationTop>

"McKinney said she heard the story from the mother of a National Guard
soldier who said her son was assigned to help dispose of the bodies.

"  "And these were mostly males and her son was afraid to talk because
he had signed a silence agreement," McKinney told the crowd. "So he
only complained to his mother. But the data was entered into a
Pentagon computer."

"McKinney said she verified the story from "insiders" who wanted to
remain anonymous."

<http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/02/mckinney-accuses-government-slaughtering-prisoners-dumping-bodies-katrina/comments/#commentPaginationTop>


From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Thu Oct  2 21:44:59 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:44:59 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
Message-ID: <E8B36CAE8D6D4A93AF53404E4FFE6B27@office1pc>

I heard this story from the candidate you support for president.
Questions are in order, are they not?

Fred Feldman responds:
I have no sympathy at all with Mark's gaffe-focused approach to this
question, based on the central issue here of which propaganda candidate
deserves support, but then this is situation normal between Mark and myself.
It is a sign of virtual political homogeneity on the left when we are in
agreement.

For me, the issue is the still-unanswered (at least for me) question of what
happened to prisoners during Katrina. I insist that there is an issue there.
He says he has asked questions about it, and I am very happy to hear it. But
the approach he is taking in his posts is strictly wrong end of the horse.

I am inclined to take McKinney's reported informant seriously to some
extent, and assume they may be talking about something that actually
happened.

I hope a real investigation of what was done to the people of New Orleans
during Hurricane Katrina etc. takes place. I do not place this in the same
category at all as 9/11 mythologizing. 

Does it change who I support for president? No. Live with it. I will not
participate more knowledgably about the facts of Katrina and New Orleans. I
thus free Mark to end the exchange between us as he pleases.
Fred Feldman







From shmage at pipeline.com  Thu Oct  2 21:48:07 2008
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 23:48:07 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <908b689f0810022022oae0fba6saaa90212d6da26c5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CD13FF1CCC0B43708191A8CBE35DEED9@office1pc>
	<b16d8daf0810022014l734ca6dw36373edc5bab458e@mail.gmail.com>
	<908b689f0810022022oae0fba6saaa90212d6da26c5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D97FDC6C-F157-4230-8F01-C958DE1D3FB7@pipeline.com>


On Oct 2, 2008, at 11:22 PM, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote:
> ...Socialists need to be exemplary in terms of their accuracy and  
> facticity.

Accuracy and facticity are near antonyms.

Shane Mage

"Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to  
be called Zeus."

Herakleitos of Ephesos





From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Thu Oct  2 21:52:00 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:52:00 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
Message-ID: <6D81267B0BCA494F98C650043E456E32@office1pc>

I typically garbled this paragraph in my last post:

Does it change who I support for president? No. Live with it. I will not
participate more knowledgably about the facts of Katrina and New Orleans. I
thus free Mark to end the exchange between us as he pleases

The second sentence should have read: I will not participate further in this
thread until I can do so more knowledgeably about the facts of Katrina and
what happened in New Orleans at that time.



From markalause at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 21:54:09 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 23:54:09 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <E8B36CAE8D6D4A93AF53404E4FFE6B27@office1pc>
References: <E8B36CAE8D6D4A93AF53404E4FFE6B27@office1pc>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810022054x26d64d6aj7e02d9e5578e9577@mail.gmail.com>

Fred changes the subject, as is his habit.

McKinney says the government executed 5000 people.  I am skeptical and
ask information.

Fred says the subject is really what happened to an indefinately tiny
fraction of such prisoners.  It may be a subject, but it's not the
subject McKinney raised.

I point this out and Fred then walks away.

Well, at least he can't expell me with a trial...

The question stands.

ML


From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Thu Oct  2 21:54:22 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 23:54:22 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <E8B36CAE8D6D4A93AF53404E4FFE6B27@office1pc>
References: <E8B36CAE8D6D4A93AF53404E4FFE6B27@office1pc>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810022054k6189caderf8c638be5a6b2b40@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Fred Feldman <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net> wrote:

> I am inclined to take McKinney's reported informant seriously to some
> extent, and assume they may be talking about something that actually
> happened.

Wouldn't the families of these 5,000 prisoners wonder what happened to them?


From Midhurst14 at aol.com  Thu Oct  2 22:13:07 2008
From: Midhurst14 at aol.com (Midhurst14 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 00:13:07 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Immigration Raids Framed As "Anti-Gang Crackdown" in
	NYT
Message-ID: <d28.3391c6ef.3616f5d3@aol.com>

Remember the wolf childern of Hamburg
The Gestapo never took them on
George Anthony



   

From davidw at marxists.org  Thu Oct  2 22:32:49 2008
From: davidw at marxists.org (David Walters)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 21:32:49 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...,
Message-ID: <48E5A071.5020403@marxists.org>

I wrote this to the SWP-USA list on yahoo.

This didn't come out of the blue from Cynthia nor did it originate
with her...

There were testimonies presented at the Katrina Tribunal, held a few
years ago, that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of prisoners disappeared
and were never accounted for. In the confusion that ensued, it was not
clear whether the prisoners were put on buses and sent to Baton Rouge,
whether they drowned (many did, as the prison guards bailed and left
prisoners in their cells as the waters rose), or whether they escaped
and were killed on bridges (some were) or whether they were executed
by rightwing fanatics, or whether they escaped and are in hiding.
Malik Rahim gave testimony that indicated that rightwing vigilantes
went to prisons to execute prisoners.

The number, however, is a new one, much higher than even speculated 
during the Kratina Tribunal,
and does sound weird. But it is most definitely not a "9/11" thing as 
this fits in with other abuses
by the State against the Black community there.

--David


From jeremy at infowells.com  Thu Oct  2 23:36:34 2008
From: jeremy at infowells.com (Jerry Wells)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:36:34 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] SEP Election campaign: The origins and implications of
 the	financial crisis: A Marxist analysis
Message-ID: <1223012195.4594.50.camel@pool-96-251-85-147.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net>

FYI:

SEP election meetings
The origins and implications of the financial crisis: A Marxist analysis
3 October 2008

Between now and Election Day, Socialist Equality Party presidential
candidate Jerry White and vice presidential candidate Bill Van Auken
will speak at a series of meetings throughout the country.

Full details of dates and locations, from California to New York,
check the link at:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/mtgs-o03.shtm



From n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au  Fri Oct  3 00:41:48 2008
From: n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au (n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:41:48 +1000
Subject: [Marxism] China milk scandal
Message-ID: <f712a40bc3d.48e64b4c@scu.edu.au>

Mike Karadjis:

>>Nick you might be interested in this on Vietnam's decision to ban 22
Chinese milk brands:

Thanks Mike. You're previously mentioned what seems to be VN's sensible regulatory approach to natural therapies, have you seen anything more generally about the approach to infant nutrition there, given increased recognition of the problem of with formula pushing, especially in the third world?

E.g. the World Health Organisation recommends breastfeeding for a *minimum* of 2 years, which seems to surprise some people, including some doctors.?



From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Fri Oct  3 00:47:17 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 02:47:17 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
Message-ID: <EE04660EB2354B1183EFDC80656EDC9C@office1pc>

Mark's ersatz version of the discussion leads me to respond one more time.
After that, he may misrepresent me, Cynthia McKinney, or anyone else on this
matter to his heart's content.

Mark states:
McKinney says the government executed 5000 people. I am skeptical and ask
information.

Fred responds:
McKinney reported that a woman told her that her son participated in
disposing of the bodies. She then speculates that they might have been
prisoners. She clearly gives the claim credence, but she did not
definitively commit herself to the 5,000 figure as a fact. 

Mark insists that the issue that demands to be discussed here is the 5,000
figure, and accuses me in various colorful ways -- "Fred changes the
subject, as usual, as is his habit." And Fred "walks away." And "the
question stands" -- of evading this issue.


But I wrote in my first response on this thread: 
"It seems hard to believe that the "execution" of 5,000 people in New
Orleans could have been carried out without repercussions -- including
determined missing persons reports by suspicious family members. I've always
assumed more people died and were killed than has been reported, but this
seems disproportionate. My opinion, of course, is not proof this did not
happen."

Nothing I said subsequently reverses that assessment, but admittedly I did
shift to what I saw as a more important, though related, matter the
unreported killings of an indefinite number of people that do seem to have
taken place in New Orleans and, in particular, the lack of accounting for
the prisoners.

Mark insists that my attention be focused on differing with the propaganda
candidate I support in this election for the quite likely exaggerated
figure. This is a sectarian axis, and all the more so since the subject I
shifted to, after expressing my doubts about the 5,000 figure, is actually
an important one in US politics.

And Mark declares with a flourish:
"Well, at least he can't expel me with a trial..."

Talk about changing the subject.
Fred Feldman 













From aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm  Fri Oct  3 00:50:44 2008
From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm (Aaron Aarons)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 23:50:44 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] URLs for Michael Perelman's three crisis commentaries
In-Reply-To: <48E57485.7060204@ecst.csuchico.edu>
References: <48E57485.7060204@ecst.csuchico.edu>
Message-ID: <20081003065049.D2050A8FB@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com>

I thought it might be less confusing if all the links were in one place.

The direct URLs for the .doc files are:
<http://michaelperelman.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/radical-notes.doc>
<http://michaelperelman.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/crisis-21.doc>
<http://michaelperelman.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/commentary-3.doc>

The URLs for the entries in Michael's blog that refer to these files are:
<http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/the-financial-crisis-goes-beyond-finance/>
<http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/crisis-commentary-second-installment/>
<http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/crisis-commentary-third-installment/>

If Michael changes the URLs when he edits the .doc files, I presume he'll let us know.

 - Aaron


From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 01:03:50 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 03:03:50 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <EE04660EB2354B1183EFDC80656EDC9C@office1pc>
References: <EE04660EB2354B1183EFDC80656EDC9C@office1pc>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810030003n7dc92904p79f7b9b922dd13aa@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Fred Feldman <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net> wrote:


> Nothing I said subsequently reverses that assessment, but admittedly I did
> shift to what I saw as a more important, though related, matter the
> unreported killings of an indefinite number of people that do seem to have
> taken place in New Orleans and, in particular, the lack of accounting for
> the prisoners.

Democracy Now reported in 2005 that a writ of habeas corpus was
"recently filed" for an accounting of the prisoners.


September 13, 2005

After Katrina, Where Have All the Prisoners Gone?

<http://www.democracynow.org/2005/9/13/after_katrina_where_have_all_the>

A makeshift prison has been set up in the Greyhound bus and train
station in downtown New Orleans. The nearby prison, was flooded after
hurricane Katrina. What happened to the prisoners there and in other
parish prisons in New Orleans? A writ of habeas corpus was recently
filed for an accounting of the prisoners. [...]

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/9/13/after_katrina_where_have_all_the


From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 02:11:08 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:11:08 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Alternative Presidential Candidates' Debate in
	Nashville, TN
In-Reply-To: <BAY127-W7FA4030115AC316E48B3CD73D0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY127-W7FA4030115AC316E48B3CD73D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810030111u171b7ad5m3f232b13a96cfe8e@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Eli Stephens
<elishastephens at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alternative Presidential Candidates' Debate in Nashville, TN
>
> Monday, October 6
> 7:00pm - 9:00pm
>
> Vanderbilt University
> Stevenson Center, Room 4309
> Nashville, TN 37240
>
> The Coalition for October Debate Alternatives (CODA) is organizing the
> Presidential Candidate's Alternative Debate to take place October 6 in
> Nashville, Tennessee. The debate is open to all third party candidates for
> President in the United States as well as the major party nominees. The debate
> is taking place one day prior to the Presidential Debate between Barack Obama
> and John McCain that is happening at Belmont University in Nashville on October 7.
>
> Featuring Presidential Candidates:
> - Brad Lyttle, US Pacifist Party
> - Brian Moore, Socialist Party USA
> - Charles Baldwin, Constitution Party
> - Charles Jay, Boston Tea Party
> - Frank McEnulty, New American Independent Party
> - Gloria LaRiva, Party of Socialism and Liberation
>
> Moderated by Bruce Barry, Professor of Management and Sociology at Vanderbilt
> University
>
> Organized by The Coalition for October Debate Alternatives (CODA)


It is quite interesting to note that neither Ralph Nader nor even
Cynthia Mckinney figures in this list.
	
As the announcement says, "The debate is open to all third party
candidates for President in the United States as well as the major
party nominees."

If Nader or McKinney chose to join the debate, they would (presumably)
be welcome. (As would Obama and McCain, too.)
	
So, do Nader and McKinney consider it beneath their dignity to attend
this debate?

While Nader or McKinney  is not invited to Obama-McCain debate, do
they  in turn appear to consider inappropriate to participate in this
alternate debate?

Maybe they consider it below their standings?

If so, what is the difference in principle between their attitude and
that of the Democrats and Republicans?


From mqduck at sonic.net  Fri Oct  3 03:02:27 2008
From: mqduck at sonic.net (Jeffrey Thomas Piercy)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 02:02:27 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Alternative Presidential Candidates' Debate
 in	Nashville, TN
In-Reply-To: <908b689f0810030111u171b7ad5m3f232b13a96cfe8e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BAY127-W7FA4030115AC316E48B3CD73D0@phx.gbl>
	<908b689f0810030111u171b7ad5m3f232b13a96cfe8e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48E5DFA3.8060501@sonic.net>

Isn't the whole point of their campaigns to get their message out?

Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Eli Stephens
> <elishastephens at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Alternative Presidential Candidates' Debate in Nashville, TN
>>
>> Monday, October 6
>> 7:00pm - 9:00pm
>>
>> Vanderbilt University
>> Stevenson Center, Room 4309
>> Nashville, TN 37240
>>
>> The Coalition for October Debate Alternatives (CODA) is organizing the
>> Presidential Candidate's Alternative Debate to take place October 6 in
>> Nashville, Tennessee. The debate is open to all third party candidates for
>> President in the United States as well as the major party nominees. The debate
>> is taking place one day prior to the Presidential Debate between Barack Obama
>> and John McCain that is happening at Belmont University in Nashville on October 7.
>>
>> Featuring Presidential Candidates:
>> - Brad Lyttle, US Pacifist Party
>> - Brian Moore, Socialist Party USA
>> - Charles Baldwin, Constitution Party
>> - Charles Jay, Boston Tea Party
>> - Frank McEnulty, New American Independent Party
>> - Gloria LaRiva, Party of Socialism and Liberation
>>
>> Moderated by Bruce Barry, Professor of Management and Sociology at Vanderbilt
>> University
>>
>> Organized by The Coalition for October Debate Alternatives (CODA)
> 
> 
> It is quite interesting to note that neither Ralph Nader nor even
> Cynthia Mckinney figures in this list.
> 	
> As the announcement says, "The debate is open to all third party
> candidates for President in the United States as well as the major
> party nominees."
> 
> If Nader or McKinney chose to join the debate, they would (presumably)
> be welcome. (As would Obama and McCain, too.)
> 	
> So, do Nader and McKinney consider it beneath their dignity to attend
> this debate?
> 
> While Nader or McKinney  is not invited to Obama-McCain debate, do
> they  in turn appear to consider inappropriate to participate in this
> alternate debate?
> 
> Maybe they consider it below their standings?
> 
> If so, what is the difference in principle between their attitude and
> that of the Democrats and Republicans?
> 
> ________________________________________________
> 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/mqduck%40sonic.net
> 


-- 
Human: An animal so lost in loathing contemplation of what it thinks it 
is as to overlook what it to be.


From aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm  Fri Oct  3 05:01:49 2008
From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm (Aaron Aarons)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:01:49 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Who "lost" the Bolivian recall referendum?
In-Reply-To: <14642918.1221830483735.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.e
	arthlink.net>
References: <14642918.1221830483735.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.e
	arthlink.net>
Message-ID: <20081003110155.BC27039A84@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com>

I know this response is two weeks late, but here goes:

At 09:21 -0400 2008/09/19, Walter Lippmann wrote, in the thread, "Bolivia: Unity pact between COB and indigenous, peasant social movements":

<< Evo an MAS won the referendum. Your side lost, but you refuse to recognize and accept your defeat. But you lost and you and your perspectives were defeated in these skirmishes. >>

I presume this was addressed to S. Artesian, but it surely was addressed to someone who opposed Evo from the left. It is an extremely dishonest and reactionary argument on several counts:

1) A revolutionary perspective was not on the ballot, and therefore could not have lost!

2) Revolutionaries who are defeated in a "skirmish" recognize the defeat only to fight better in the future. They don't politically compromise with those who have, for the moment, defeated them.

3) The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and its allies doesn't come about through elections. In Russia, even after the seizure of power, the Constituent Assembly elections were won by the anti-revolutionary Right Social Revolutionaries, so the Bolsheviks and their allies quite properly dissolved the Constituent Assembly.

I keep on reading on this list how Evo got 67% of the vote in the recall. But that means, as far as I can tell, that 67% of those who voted either for or against Evo voted for him. That gives no information about how many people on the left abstained or didn't vote. I don't know what S. Artesian's position was, but I would argue that abstention (or a spoiled ballot) was correct, while voting for recall was wrong.

BTW, the workers and others who drove Goni from power in 2003 didn't do it by winning a vote. If there had been a vote, Goni might have won, since elections are a terrain that favors the ruling class.

 - Aaron


From sabocat59 at mac.com  Fri Oct  3 05:41:42 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:41:42 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Who lost the Bolivian recall referendum
Message-ID: <70B5A49C-8866-4C7F-967C-5A970AB24EC1@mac.com>

Aaron writes:

<BTW, the workers and others who drove Goni from power in 2003 didn't  
do it by winning a vote. If there had been a vote, Goni might have  
won, since elections are a terrain that favors the ruling class.>

Actually, since a majority of people in all countries are working  
class or unemployed, FAIR elections favor the people if they vote  
their own interests. Of course this depends on whether or not they  
have someone decent to vote for. All of the revolutionary changes in  
Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia have been ratified at the polls buy  
overwhelming majorities. This does not mean that action in the street  
is unnecessary, but rather there seems to be a dialectical process of  
voting and mass mobilization in defense of the revolutionary projects.

Greg McD


From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Fri Oct  3 05:55:55 2008
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 07:55:55 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Michael Moore: Here's How to Fix the Mess on Wall Street
Message-ID: <d4c.30ebc7eb.3617624b@aol.com>


I usually detest Moore and his self-promoting, but this is what a left  party 
in the US should be demanding - if only one existed!
 
_http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/101230/_ 
(http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/101230/)   


Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from  their worst 
motives, will somehow produce the most good. 



**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial 
challenges?  Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and 
calculators.      (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)

From sabocat59 at mac.com  Fri Oct  3 05:57:57 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:57:57 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] California may need $7 billion loan
Message-ID: <E26BCE73-04EA-427F-A092-DB8074517A90@mac.com>

Schwarzenegger to U.S.: State may need $7-billion loan

In a letter obtained by The Times, the governor warns that tight  
credit has dried up funds California routinely relies on and it may  
have to seek emergency aid within weeks.

By Marc Lifsher and Evan Halper
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

October 3, 2008

SACRAMENTO ? California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, alarmed by the  
ongoing national financial crisis, warned Treasury Secretary Henry M.  
Paulson on Thursday that the state might need an emergency loan of as  
much as $7 billion from the federal government within weeks.

The warning comes as California is close to running out of cash to  
fund day-to-day government operations and is unable to access routine  
short-term loans that it typically relies on to remain solvent.

The state of California is the biggest of several governments  
nationwide that are being locked out of the bond market by the global  
credit crunch. If the state is unable to access the cash,  
administration officials say, payments to schools and other  
government entities could quickly be suspended and state employees  
could be laid off.

Plans by several state and local governments to borrow in recent days  
have been upended by the credit freeze. New Mexico was forced to put  
off a $500-million bond sale, Massachusetts had to pull the plug  
halfway into a $400-million offering, and Maine is considering  
canceling road projects that were to be funded with bonds.

California finance experts say they know of no time in recent history  
when the state has sought an emergency loan of this magnitude from  
the federal government. The only other such rescue was in 1975, they  
said, when the federal government lent New York City money to avoid  
bankruptcy.

"Absent a clear resolution to this financial crisis," Schwarzenegger  
wrote in a letter Thursday evening e-mailed to Paulson, "California  
and other states may be unable to obtain the necessary level of  
financing to maintain government operations and may be forced to turn  
to the federal treasury for short-term financing."

The letter, obtained by The Times, came on the eve of a vote by the  
House of Representatives on a $700-billion rescue package, but it was  
too soon to know how the package would affect the nation's paralyzed  
credit markets. The Senate approved the so-called rescue bill  
Wednesday night.

A top Schwarzenegger aide followed up the letter with a call to the  
Treasury secretary Thursday night. Treasury Department officials  
could not be reached for comment.

It's customary for California to borrow billions of dollars at the  
start of the fiscal year to fill its coffers until the usual flood of  
sales tax receipts comes in after Christmas and income tax receipts  
arrive in the spring.

"California is so large that our short cash-flow needs exceed the  
entire budget of some states," Schwarzenegger wrote.

The cash needs to be in the state's bank account by Oct. 28 to be  
available to fund a scheduled $3-billion payment to more than 1,000  
school districts.

Said Matt David, Schwarzenegger's communications director:  
"California faces the potential of a perfect storm created by the  
financial crisis' effect on liquidity, lower-than-anticipated  
revenues currently coming into the state, and our late budget. The  
governor is taking steps to prepare for this scenario to ensure that  
the state can make critical payments."

But those payments won't be forthcoming if the state can't do routine  
borrowing. For now, "the window is shut, and if it stays shut, we are  
in deep trouble," said an administration official, who asked not to  
be identified, citing the sensitive talks with Washington.

Quick passage of the rescue bill by the House of Representatives  
today and a signature by President Bush could inject more money into  
the international financial system and allow California to borrow at  
a reasonable interest rate, the official said.

But there are no guarantees that the economic recovery plan before  
Congress will succeed, said California Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who  
has been working with Schwarzenegger to keep the state solvent.

Asking the federal government for a loan "is one option on the  
table," said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for Lockyer. The treasurer, he  
added, is working with outside financial advisors on a possible  
emergency plan to sell short-term debt notes to the U.S. government.  
Lockyer believes that such a plan is both feasible and legal,  
Dresslar said.

"I don't think we have ever gone to the feds," said Fred Silva,  
senior fiscal policy advisor with California Forward, a state budget  
think tank.

Silva said the closest California came may have been in the days  
after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, when at the request of the  
state, Washington sped up payment of federal funds that the state was  
owed.

State officials now fear they face a potential cash crisis worse than  
California confronted in 2003, in the final days of Schwarzenegger's  
predecessor, Gov. Gray Davis.

At that time, the precipitous decline of state revenue in the middle  
of a budget year forced officials to pay a syndicate of banks a  
premium of hundreds of millions of dollars for what amounted to an  
expensive "payday loan."

Even that option, administration officials say, would not be  
available during the current credit drought. They say if Congress  
does not approve a bailout plan -- and maybe even if it does -- there  
will be no lenders available to provide the state with the money it  
needs, regardless of the premium the state is willing to pay.

"We need to go as wide as possible to try to find buyers at  
reasonable rates," said Robert Fayer, an attorney advising the state  
on its planned $7-billion bond sale.

"Whether it could ultimately be the federal government, I have no  
idea. It is a fairly radical concept."



From owsky2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Oct  3 05:58:31 2008
From: owsky2003 at yahoo.com (Owen Richards)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Chavez: One day the US will go socialist
Message-ID: <361801.7068.qm@web53802.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Chavez: One day the US will go socialist

Caracas.
2 Oct. ABN.- Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez declared this Thursday that the different strategies the governmnet has tried to pursue to rescue the finance sector are a clear sign the US is on the road to socialism.

Chavez's comments were made on the occasion of the inauguration of the the International Fair
of Venezuela Tourism (Fitven 2008), in the state
of Bolivar, where he pointed out that ten years ago the policy was
the privatization of everything, ?to reduce the State to the minimum
to please the empire. Intervention? Populism? That was
unthinkable, and now, by contrast, the North American State had to come out and save the private banks.

?Comrade Bush has had to make decisions in the style of Vladimir
Lenin, and now everyone's asking will the United States go socialist? (...) I have the answer: ?YES Sir!, the
United States someday will go socialist; I don't have the
slightest doubt?.

From: http://www.abn.info.ve/noticia.php?articulo=151733&lee=3

Translation: Owen Richards
http://www.directaction.org.au/







      Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas pr?cticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/

From sabocat59 at mac.com  Fri Oct  3 06:13:42 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:13:42 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Trade Agreements: Defending the rights of corporations at
 the cost of the rights of the people, by Hector Mondragon
Message-ID: <4AD5617C-F6C5-433A-B55D-9B89F6647139@mac.com>

<http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=13352>


From markalause at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 06:38:30 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:38:30 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <908b689f0810030003n7dc92904p79f7b9b922dd13aa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EE04660EB2354B1183EFDC80656EDC9C@office1pc>
	<908b689f0810030003n7dc92904p79f7b9b922dd13aa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810030538w2445f52bgdb855fb339ad9cf9@mail.gmail.com>

The subject isn't the prison system in Louisiana.  It isn't whether or
not prisoners are killed in Louisiana.  It isn't whether prisoners
were killed during Katrina.  McKinney injected this charge without
providing any evidence.

While Fred acknowledges the absence of any evidence for this, he
asserts that emphasizing that lack of evidence grabs the wrong end of
the horse...oh, yes, and I'm being a sectarian for asking whether this
charge speaks to the question of political judgment.

My original question stands. Fred sniffs aloofly and says this is not
discussable without further information, as if it is my responsibility
to provide evidence demonstrating to him that this incident did not
take place.

Now, taking it as given that I'm a low-life bastard for noticing,
injecting 5,000 murders without providing any evidence raises issues
on many levels.

For the present, let's just address one: what this tells us about the
level of organization and coherence of her campaign.  I've suggested
before that the GPUS, the Power to the People coalition, the national
shadow of the Reconstruction Party, the various competing socialist
sectlets supporting McKinney all seem to me to be running their own
McKinney campaigns with little or not connection to each other with
the candidate essentially running a one-person show.

ML


From markalause at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 06:53:52 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:53:52 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Alternative Presidential Candidates' Debate in
	Nashville, TN
In-Reply-To: <48E5DFA3.8060501@sonic.net>
References: <BAY127-W7FA4030115AC316E48B3CD73D0@phx.gbl>
	<908b689f0810030111u171b7ad5m3f232b13a96cfe8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<48E5DFA3.8060501@sonic.net>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810030553q58c461acgf663066258ab2ce2@mail.gmail.com>

I saw nothing of this event until it was posted here.  Brian Moore and
Gloria LaRiva are the most well known participants in this event.  I
suspect that, with some foreplanning, Nader and McKinney would have
been there, but neither of them has the space on their dance card of a
candidacy such as Frank McEnulty of the New American Independent
Party.

Nader's running a national campaign with organized committees, a
viable campaign budget, and a pretty tightly organized schedule. My
guess is that he's on the road somewhere on October 6 and has had
commitments to be there for some time.

McKinney is also in demand, but faces the additional burden of having
a campaign that's rather disorganized and, apparently, nearly broke.

The implication that either of them are worried about not being able
to hold their own on the same platform as Charles Jay of the Boston
Tea Party is a chuckle.

ML


From sabocat59 at mac.com  Fri Oct  3 07:08:06 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:08:06 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Alternative Presidential Candidate's Debate in
	Nashville, TN
Message-ID: <FD31E5F3-B99F-40B0-9EB5-A73965D1493B@mac.com>

Mark Lause wrote:

<Nader's running a national campaign with organized committees, a
viable campaign budget, and a pretty tightly organized schedule. My
guess is that he's on the road somewhere on October 6 and has had
commitments to be there for some time.>

Nader will be in Amherst, MA this sunday, speaking at U MASS at 11:00  
am. I'm going to drive up and get some materials to canvass in the  
berkshire area in support of the campaign.

Greg McD



From shmage at pipeline.com  Fri Oct  3 07:45:50 2008
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:45:50 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Alternative Presidential Candidates' Debate in
	Nashville, TN
In-Reply-To: <908b689f0810030111u171b7ad5m3f232b13a96cfe8e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BAY127-W7FA4030115AC316E48B3CD73D0@phx.gbl>
	<908b689f0810030111u171b7ad5m3f232b13a96cfe8e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4768BDC4-70A6-489F-ABEB-27AFC3241B9C@pipeline.com>


On Oct 3, 2008, at 4:11 AM, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote:
>> Alternative Presidential Candidates' Debate in Nashville, TN
>>
> It is quite interesting to note that neither Ralph Nader nor even
> Cynthia Mckinney figures in this list.
Nor does Bob Barr--making the three candidates whom anyone has heard of
(though Baldwin, now that he has been endorsed by Ron Paul, may have  
gotten a
little name recognition).	
>
>
> So, do Nader and McKinney consider it beneath their dignity to attend
> this debate?
>
> While Nader or McKinney  is not invited to Obama-McCain debate, do
> they  in turn appear to consider inappropriate to participate in this
> alternate debate?
>
> Maybe they consider it below their standings?
>
> If so, what is the difference in principle between their attitude and
> that of the Democrats and Republicans?


Not speaking for Barr, Baldwin, or McKinney--but Nader has said that the
criteria for inclusion in debates must be the potential electability  
of the
participants.  Those four are on enough state ballots to win an
electoral-college majority.  The others (and they are many more than
six--why were all the others not invited?) don't meet the criteria.  If
everybody qualified for a ballot anywhere were included there would
be many more on stage than in the audience.  Even a nine-person
debate (including only five of the non-qualifiers) would be more of a  
circus
than the Dumbocrat and Repugnicon shows of the early primary season.

Nader is a serious candidate.  Obama is afraid of him.  Not of any of  
the others.

Shane Mage

"Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to  
be called Zeus."

Herakleitos of Ephesos





From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Oct  3 07:46:48 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:46:48 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Venezuela: a process locked in its contradictions
Message-ID: <48E62248.8080905@panix.com>

IV Online magazine : IV404 - September 2008
Venezuela

The process is locked in its contradictions
Fernando Esteban

Like the image of the emblematic Hugo Chavez, the Bolivarian process 
never fails to surprise by the contradictions that it generates. Of 
course it is advisable to strongly remind ourselves that it is the most 
interesting experience that exists up to now.

But the laboratory of ideas that is Venezuela today gives rise not only 
to the most insane hopes but also to a considerable degree of 
exasperation, without either of these two feelings being able to make us 
say definitively that the Bolivarian process is one more abortive 
revolution, or the framework of the future socialist society to which we 
aspire.

We will not go over again the advances of the process. They are known 
and recognized, and have been the subject of many articles. It is rather 
to the figure of Hugo Chavez that it is necessary to pay attention, 
because it has to be recognised that he is the essential keystone for an 
understanding of what has been going on in this country for ten years 
now. The contradictions of Chavez?s personality have a profound impact 
on a process which, in reality, can only be chaotic. By turns 
spellbinding by the force of his discourse and the smoothness of his 
analyses and disconcerting by his alliances against nature with Russia 
or his volte-faces with Alvaro Uribe, the Colombian president, Chavez 
troubles, provokes, questions us and in fact, makes it difficult to 
develop a pertinent analysis of a process that is ceaselessly in 
movement, and which can from one day to the next render invalidate our 
view of what is happening with the Bolivarian revolution. And over the 
last few months, the actions and speeches of the Venezuelan president 
have been more than a little destabilising.

full: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1534


From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Oct  3 08:07:54 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:07:54 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Stiglitz on the financial crisis
Message-ID: <48E6273A.2000308@panix.com>

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/11/stiglitz200811

Reversal of Fortune
Describing how ideology, special-interest pressure, populist politics, 
and sheer incompetence have left the U.S. economy on life support, the 
author puts forth a clear, commonsense plan to reverse the Bush-era 
follies and regain America?s economic sanity.
by Joseph E. Stiglitz November 2008

When the American economy enters a downturn, you often hear the experts 
debating whether it is likely to be V-shaped (short and sharp) or 
U-shaped (longer but milder). Today, the American economy may be 
entering a downturn that is best described as L-shaped. It is in a very 
low place indeed, and likely to remain there for some time to come.

Virtually all the indicators look grim. Inflation is running at an 
annual rate of nearly 6 percent, its highest level in 17 years. 
Unemployment stands at 6 percent; there has been no net job growth in 
the private sector for almost a year. Housing prices have fallen faster 
than at any time in memory?in Florida and California, by 30 percent or 
more. Banks are reporting record losses, only months after their 
executives walked off with record bonuses as their reward. President 
Bush inherited a $128 billion budget surplus from Bill Clinton; this 
year the federal government announced the second-largest budget deficit 
ever reported. During the eight years of the Bush administration, the 
national debt has increased by more than 65 percent, to nearly $10 
trillion (to which the debts of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should now be 
added, according to the Congressional Budget Office). Meanwhile, we are 
saddled with the cost of two wars. The price tag for the one in Iraq 
alone will, by my estimate, ultimately exceed $3 trillion.

This tangled knot of problems will be difficult to unravel. Standard 
prescriptions call for raising interest rates when confronted with 
inflation, just as standard prescriptions call for lowering interest 
rates when confronted with an economic downturn. How do you do both at 
the same time? Not in the way that some politicians have proposed. With 
gasoline prices at all-time highs, John McCain has called for a rollback 
of gas taxes. But that would lead to more gas consumption, raise the 
price of gas further, increase our dependence on foreign oil, and expand 
our already massive trade deficit. The expanding deficit would in turn 
force the U.S. to continue borrowing gargantuan sums from abroad, making 
us even more indebted. At the same time, the higher imports of oil and 
petroleum-based products would lead to a weaker dollar, fueling 
inflationary pressures.

Millions of Americans are losing their homes. (Already, some 3.6 million 
have done so since the subprime-mortgage crisis began.) This social 
catastrophe has severe economic effects. The banks and other financial 
institutions that own these mortgages face stunning reverses; a few, 
such as Bear Stearns, have already gone belly-up. To prevent America?s 
$5.2 trillion home financiers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, from 
following suit, Congress authorized a blank check to cover their losses, 
but even that generosity failed to do the trick. Now the administration 
has taken over the two entities completely, a stunning feat for a 
supposedly market-oriented regime. These bailouts contribute to growing 
deficits in the short run, and to perverse incentives in the long run. 
Market economies work only when there is a system of accountability, but 
C.E.O.?s, investors, and creditors are walking away with billions, while 
American taxpayers are being asked to pick up the tab. (Freddie Mac?s 
chairman, Richard Syron, earned $14.5 million in 2007. Fannie Mae?s 
C.E.O., Daniel Mudd, earned $14.2 million that same year.) We?re looking 
at a new form of public-private partnership, one in which the public 
shoulders all the risk, and the private sector gets all the profit. 
While the Bush administration preaches responsibility, the words are 
addressed only to the less well-off. The administration talks about the 
impact of ?moral hazard? on the poor ?speculator? who borrowed money and 
bought a house beyond his ability to pay. But moral hazard somehow isn?t 
an issue when it comes to the high-stakes speculators in corporate 
boardrooms.

(clip)


From walterlx at earthlink.net  Fri Oct  3 08:26:07 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:26:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Stiglitz on the financial crisis
Message-ID: <13943959.1223043967897.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Stiglitz was also on Democracy NOW yesterday:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/2/nobel_laureate_joseph_stiglitz_bailout_wall

As this is written it's not yet clear whether or not the Congress will 
pass the sweetened bailout. One can hope that it won't, but obviously
there's been a lot of arm-twisting by lobbyists to purchase support to
pass the thing. Millions in subsidies will go to Hollywood if they're
willing to make movies inside of the United States instead of going to
Canada and elsewhere, and that's just some of what is in the bill which
seems to have gone from Monday's three-page document (defeated) to the
one on today's agenda, which is over 400 pages long. I would seem that
only a miracle could defeat the thing, but there's a lot of anger out
there on Main Street where it's clear that this is a bailout for Wall
Street, not ordinary working people. Sure, the idea that the FDIC will
or can guarantee savings accounts of $250,000.00 instead of $100,000.00
remains just an idea, not a fact. Who'd have thought this whole thing
was going to come asunder a few weeks ago? Few ordinary people.

On the hopeful sign, lots of people from lots of perspectives are now
thinking about political questions, and how these things affect their
own lives individually. This isn't coming about voluntarily. Reality
is imposing itself on the people of the United States, and, indeed,
bring the people of this country a bit closer to the rest of the 
world. Rosa Brooks had a terrific column not long ago here in the
LA Times, Welcome to the Third World, which gives a sense of this:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey U.S., welcome to the Third World!
It's been a quick slide from economic superpower to economic basket case.
Rosa Brooks

September 18, 2008

Dear United States, Welcome to the Third World!

It's not every day that a superpower makes a bid to transform itself
into a Third World nation, and we here at the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund want to be among the first to welcome you
to the community of states in desperate need of international
economic assistance. As you spiral into a catastrophic financial
meltdown, we are delighted to respond to your Treasury Department's
request that we undertake a joint stability assessment of your
financial sector. In these turbulent times, we can provide services
ranging from subsidized loans to expert advisors willing to perform
an emergency overhaul of your entire government.

As you know, some outside intervention in your economy is overdue.
Last week -- even before Wall Street's latest collapse -- 13 former
finance ministers convened at the University of Virginia and agreed
that you must fix your "broken financial system." Australia's Peter
Costello noted that lately you've been "exporting instability" in
world markets, and Yashwant Sinha, former finance minister of India,
concluded, "The time has come. The U.S. should accept some monitoring
by the IMF."

We hope you won't feel embarrassed as we assess the stability of your
economy and suggest needed changes. Remember, many other countries
have been in your shoes. We've bailed out the economies of Argentina,
Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea. But whether our work is in Sudan,
Bangladesh or now the United States, our experts are committed to
intervening in national economies with care and sensitivity.

We thus want to acknowledge the progress you have made in your
evolution from economic superpower to economic basket case. Normally,
such a process might take 100 years or more. With your oscillation
between free-market extremism and nationalization of private
companies, however, you have successfully achieved, in a few short
years, many of the key hallmarks of Third World economies.

Your policies of irresponsible government deregulation in critical
sectors allowed you to rapidly develop an energy crisis, a housing
crisis, a credit crisis and a financial market crisis, all at once,
and accompanied (and partly caused) by impressive levels of
corruption and speculation. Meanwhile, those of your political
leaders charged with oversight were either napping or in bed with
corporate lobbyists.

Take John McCain, your Republican presidential nominee, whose senior
staff includes half a dozen prominent former lobbyists. As he
recently put it, "I was chairman of the [Senate] Commerce Committee
that oversights every part of the economy." No question about it:
Your leaders' failure to notice the damage done by irresponsible
deregulation was indeed an oversight of epic proportions.

Now you are facing the consequences. Income inequality has increased,
as the rich have gotten windfalls while the middle class has seen
incomes stagnate. Fewer and fewer of your citizens have access to
affordable housing, healthcare or security in retirement. Even life
expectancy has dropped. And when your economic woes went from chronic
to acute, you responded -- like so many Third World states have --
with an extensive program of nationalizing private companies and
assets. Your mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now state
owned and controlled, and this week your reinsurance giant AIG was
effectively nationalized, with the Federal Reserve Board seizing an
80% equity stake in the flailing company.

Some might deride this as socialism. But desperate times call for
desperate measures.

Admittedly, your transition to Third World status is far from over,
and it won't be painless. At first, for instance, you may find it
hard to get used to the shantytowns that will replace the exurban
sprawl of McMansions that helped fuel the real estate speculation
bubble. But in time, such shantytowns will simply become part of the
landscape. Similarly, as unemployment rates continue to rise, you
will initially struggle to find a use for the expanding pool of
angry, jobless young men. But you will gradually realize that you can
recruit them to fight in a ceaseless round of armed conflicts, a
solution that has been utilized by many other Third World states
before you. Indeed, with your wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are
off to an excellent start.

Perhaps this letter comes as a surprise to you, and you feel you're
not fully ready to join the Third World. Don't let this feeling
concern you. Though you may never have realized it, you've been
preparing for this moment for years.

rbrooks at latimescolumnists.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thursday's NY Times had an editorial sweating about the bailout now
in the works, and they're sounding pretty panicked about how it's
all going to play out. Will what remains of societal stability in
this country be further frayed to the point where the public will
seek more radical options than this or that bill? Check out their
nervous look at the situation in this editorial:

EXCERPT, SOUNDING PRETTY PANICKY TO ME:
At last count, six million people were expected to default on their
mortgages this year and next, putting them at risk of losing their
homes unless they can catch up in their payments or catch a break on
their loan terms. And they?re not the only ones at risk. As prices
drop, millions of people who have never missed a mortgage payment
stand to lose their home equity.

Leaving these Americans out of the bailout bill is unwise and unfair,
but neither Congress nor the Bush administration has ever shown
anywhere near the sense of urgency to rescue homeowners at the bottom
of the collapse as they have for the financiers at the top of it.

Take, for example, a new government program that took effect on
Wednesday with the aim of helping as many as 400,000 struggling
homeowners keep their homes. Even before it got started, the program
? called Hope for Homeowners ? was looking like a lead balloon.
FULL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/opinion/02thu1.html 

It remains to be seen if the House will cave in as the Senate has.
There's no particular reason to have confidence in the house, but
you never know. Public pressure is what got the house to vote the
first package down. Whether it will overcome all the pressure now
being applied is anyone's guess. I'm not obtimistic, but how many
expected the house to say now to a virtual 9/11 blizzard of PR on
the matter, from the Decider in Chief to McCain and Obama, united.

Robert Borosage and others are campaigning against the new bill:

The Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass a bad bailout bill last
night. Nothing to kick-start the real economy, except tax breaks for
business. No help for homeowners.. No mandate for taxpayers to get
shares in the banks that are bailed out. Virtual unchecked discretion
for the Treasury Secretary to dispense $700 billion. It?s a good
morning to be one of Hank Paulson?s friends on Wall Street.
FULL:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008104002/bailout-unacceptable

The Nation of Islam is looking at the situation as well, and they
aren't blaming the Jews or the Zionists for the situation:
FULL:
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_5285.shtml

All of this is helping the people of this country to begin to be
able to see things in broad social and political terms, or it can
make that more possible.

Activist groups across the country are taking steps to educate, to
organize and to mobilize public protest against the bailout of the
rich today. These protests, which are beginning to force their way
into public awareness and consciousness are but the first steps in
what must be a long-term strategy of domestic resistance with the
United States of America. This is but one example of what is being
proposed. Marxists should be enthusiastic about every instance of
protest as they develop and grow. 

Each and every such initiative should be welcomed and supported as
any one of them may well prove effective in encouraging broader and
even more powerful protests against the giant ripoff which is today
being perpetrated in the United States of America. A broad, united
protest movement against the bailout can find an audience in today's
volatile environment. I like much of what McKinney is saying, but
in the efforts of other alternative candidacies, new directions for
U.S. politics can be found, considered, and pondered as the masses
of the people seek to understand, and find a way out, of the plight
which most working people find themselves in at this time.

What's most needed in now are broad, united protest movements to
resist the bailouts, the foreclosures, and the rest of the highway
and low-way robberies which are the price of maintaining the empire
which the masses of the working people of the United States are now
being told they must pay to retain "the American Way of Life" as it
is being perpetrated now. Today we're IN "the American Way of Life".
Privatize the booty, socialize the costs to keep the rich rich/


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
==============================================
NYC Central Labor Council takes on Wall St.
http://www.workers.org/2008/us/protests_1009/
---------------------------------------------
Bailout plans spark nationwide protests
http://www.workers.org/2008/us/protests_1009/
---------------------------------------------
Blaming Wall Street?s victims
http://www.workers.org/2008/us/blame_1009/
---------------------------------------------
Handout to the rich ignites people?s anger
Fight for a workers? program to save jobs, homes!
By Fred Goldstein
Published Oct 1, 2008 4:50 PM 
http://www.workers.org/2008/us/handout_1009/
---------------------------------------------
The Pentagon bailout (Workers World editorial)
http://www.workers.org/2008/editorials/pentagon_1009/
---------------------------------------------
ANSWER is also involved in promoting protests on these issues:
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5329
---------------------------------------------
COMMON DREAMS reported broad protests as well:

Major Groups Demand Bailout Conditions Together
Statement Tells Congress, ?Don?t Write President Bush 
A $700B Blank Check?, Hundreds of Events To Be Held 
on Thursday Calling For Conditions
FULL:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2008/09/24-19 
=====================================================================
The Specter of Wall Street
Wall Street's Comeback as the Place Americans Love to Hate
By Steve Fraser

Despite the hot-tempered invective directed its way, the "Great Satan"
didn't face its comeuppance until the New Deal in the 1930s. 
Then, all its transgressions -- its speculative greed, its felonious 
insider-dealing, its cynical manipulation of popular credulity, 
its extravagant incompetence and seemingly limitless capacity for 
self-delusion -- left Wall Street truly vulnerable. Its reputation had 
struck bottom.

full: 
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174984/steve_fraser_wall_street_and_the_return_of_the_repressed



=========================================
     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 Oct  3 08:30:50 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:30:50 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] FDR's Response to the Plot to Overthrow Him
Message-ID: <48E62C9A.3040802@panix.com>

Counterpunch Weekend Edition
October 3 - 5, 2008
A Paradigm for Today's Democrats?
FDR's Response to the Plot to Overthrow Him

By ALAN NASSER

Perhaps the most alarming slice of twentieth-century U.S. political 
history is virtually unknown to the general public, including most 
scholars of American history.

In 1934 a special Congressional committee was appointed to conduct an 
investigation of a possible planned coup intended to topple the 
administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and replace it with a 
government modelled on the policies of Adolf Hitler and Benito 
Mussolini. The shocking results of the investigation were promptly 
scotched and stashed in the National Archives. While the coup attempt 
was reported at the time in a few newspapers, including The New York 
Times, the story disappeared from public memory shortly after the 
Congressional findings were made available to president Roosevelt. It 
was the recent release from the Archives of the Congressional report 
that prompted the BBC and Horton commentaries.

The Congressional committee had discovered that some of the foremost 
members of the economic elite, many of them household names at the time, 
had indeed hatched a meticulously detailed and massively funded plot to 
effect a fascist coup in America. The plotters represented prominent 
families - Rockefeller, Mellon, Pew, enterprises like Morgan, Dupont, 
Pew, Remington, Anaconda, Bethlehem and Goodyear, along with the owners 
of Bird?s Eye, Maxwell House and Heinz. Totaling about twenty four major 
businessmen and Wall Street financiers, they planned to assemble a 
private army of half a million men, composed largely of unemployed 
veterans. These troops would both constitute the armed force behind the 
coup and defeat any resistance this in-house revolution might generate. 
The economic elite would provide the material resources required to 
sustain the new government.

The plotters hoped that widespread working-class discouragement at the 
stubborn persistence of the Great Depression would have sufficiently 
disenchanted the masses with FDR?s policies to make the coup an easy 
ride. And they were appalled at Roosevelt?s willingness after 1933 to 
initiate economic policies that economists and businessmen considered 
dangerously Leftist departures from economic orthodoxy. Only a 
fascist-style government, they thought, could enforce the kind of 
economic ?discipline? that would reverse the Great Depression and 
restore profits.

Interestingly, it was a military man, Major General Smedley D. Butler*, 
assigned the task of raising the 500,000-man army, who blew the whistle 
after uncovering the details of the operation he was asked to lead. FDR 
was thus able to nip the plot in the bud.

The president might have used the occasion to alert the public to the 
anti-democratic impulses of a major segment of the capitalist class. But 
this would only have bolstered the fortunes of Communist, Socialist and 
other anti-capitalist political tendencies here, which were already 
gaining some ground among artists, intellectuals and a surprising number 
of working people. It is well known that Hollywood screenwriting in the 
1930s was replete with Communist-inspired sentiment.

And we must not forget that FDR was himself a (somewhat renegade) member 
of the very class that would have toppled him. While FDR was open to 
watered-down Keynesian policies in a way that very few of his class 
comrades were, his commitment (like Keynes?s) to the ?free enterprise? 
system was unconditional. He had no interest in publicizing a plot that 
might constitute a public-relations victory for anti-capitalist 
politics. He therefore refused to out the plotters, and sought no 
punitive measures against them. In the end, class solidarity carried the 
day for Roosevelt. The Congressional committee cooperated by refusing to 
reveal the names of many of the key plotters.

Thus, fascist tendencies gestating deep within the culture of the U.S. 
ruling class were effectively left to develop unhindered by mass 
political mobilization.

Might this grisly episode have important implications for our 
understanding of the current political moment? One may be inclined to 
think so on the basis of the fact that one of the architects of the plot 
was one Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush. Bush, along with 
many other big businessmen, had maintained friendly relations in 1933 
and 1934 with the new German government of Chancellor Adolf Hitler, and 
was designated to form for his class conspirators a working relationship 
with that government.

While I highly recommend Bush-bashing, the implications of this 
unsettling piece of history for contemporary politics run deeper than 
many ?especially soi disant ?oppositional? liberals- would like to 
think. There is the temptation to point triumphantly to George W. Bush?s 
commitment to the irrelevance of the Constitution, his corresponding 
contempt for hitherto taken-for-granted fundamental human rights, his 
Hobbesian notion of unbridled sovereignty, his militarized notion of 
political power - there is the temptation to regard these fascist 
elements as the most significant contemporary remnant of the 1934 
conspiracy.

But no less important is the utter absence in 1934 of liberal attempts 
to educate the public to, and mobilize the population against, the 
fascist threat. FDR stood down.

Although Rooseveltian/New Deal liberalism is dead, contemporary 
Democrats do sustain one of FDR?s least seemly qualities, namely his 
refusal to encourage effective mass opposition to fascist and 
imperialist politics. John Kerry boasted of having contributed to the 
drafting of the Patriot Act. And in the first round of legislation 
regarding continued funding of the war in Iraq, after the 2006 elections 
gave the Democrats a majority in the House and the Senate, the Democrats 
gave Bush everything he wanted. All the major presidentail contenders of 
both parties support a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq. None has 
repudiated the conceit that Uncle Sam is the permanent global hegemon. 
And most importantly, no mainstream Democrat has repudiated the 
Neoliberal Consensus, the notion that the market should be left to 
operate as ?freely? as the public can be persuaded to allow it to act, 
and, crucially, that this is a model that should be imposed globally 
through the power of the U.S. working in tandem with such global 
institutions as the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO.

To the extent that this policy has been successful, inequalities between 
national classes and between the global North and South have widened 
dramatically since the decline of the Keynesian consensus in the 
mid-1970s. Since the Mondale candidacy, no Democrat has had a 
full-employment plank in his presidential platform. The median wage has 
been in secular decline since 1973, and the distribution of national 
income between capital and labor has not been as skewed toward capital 
since the Great Depression. But no Democrat has made a major issue of this.

These tendencies toward ever-widening inequality and the increasing 
immiseration of the working population will surely be exacerbated by the 
deepening slow-motion recession (depression?) that is certain to follow 
the unfolding financial meltdown. These conditions, and the deep 
resentment felt by masses of working people toward the lords of Wall 
Street and their political henchpersons, threaten to generate social 
?instability? in the form of increasing crime rates and a host of direct 
and indirect forms of resistance to the claimed legitimacy of the 
political order. The emergence of what Mike Whitney has called ?soup 
kitchen America? requires a response from our rulers. And they are 
prepared with (literally) fascist legislation already in place for 
situations just like this.

Developments over the last day or two in connection with Monday?s House 
rejection of the bailout package for Wall Street indicate that 
allegations of fascist tendencies in U.S. political culture are in these 
times not to be taken lightly. Influential voices in the U.S. media have 
lamented the susceptability of the political leadership to the will of 
the people. On Tuesday the Washington Post ran a piece by Michael 
Gerson, Bush?s former speechwriter, complaining that ?It is now clear 
that American political elites have lost the ability to quickly respond 
to a national challenge by imposing their collective will.? The same day 
Rupert Murdoch?s Times of London headlined a column ?Congress is the 
Best Advert For Dictatorship.? And yesterday Rep. Brad Sherman 
(D-California), who voted against the bailout bill, was quoted in the 
Los Angeles Times as saying ?I?ve seen members turn to each other and 
say if we don?t pass this bill, we?re going to have martial law in the 
United States.? ?going to have?? We?ve already got it, at least on the 
books.

On October 17, 2006, Bush signed three Acts that instantly transformed 
the republic into a police state. The John Warner Defense Authorization 
Act (DAA) effectively repeals the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act which 
prohibits military operations directed against the American people. The 
DAA declares that ?the president may employ the armed forces to restore 
public order and enforce the laws of the United States when?[among other 
reasons]? the President determines that domestic violence has occurred 
to such an extent thet the constituted authorities of the State or 
possession are incapable of (or ?refuse? or ?fail in?) maintaining 
public order --- in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, 
domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.?

There is of course nothing in the legislation that specifies what 
precisely may count as ?insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful 
combination, or conspiracy.? The lone Democrat to express reservations 
about DAA was Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), who entered into the 
Congressional Record that the Act ?[makes] it easier for the president 
to declare martial law? [T]he implications of changing the [Posse 
Comitatus] Act are enormous?Using the military for law enforcement goes 
against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.? Nothing was made 
of Leahy?s protestations by complicit Democrats.

The Military Commissions Act permits the President, in order to 
?suppress public disorder?, to assign military troops anywhere in the 
United States in order to trump the authority of state-based National 
Guard units, and without the consent of the governer.

Finally, the National Defense Authorization Act allows the President to 
declare martial law, dispatch National Guard units around the country 
and authorize military action against the domestic population should His 
Majesty identify a ?national emergency?.

Liberal Democrats, upon being apprised of these developments (of which 
the vast majority are ignorant) will declare themselves shocked, shocked 
that Bush has ?declared himself dictator?. But Bush has not signed 
legislation which expires when he passes from office. Every future 
President will have these powers. Would President Obama seek to erase 
these abominations? Don?t bet on it. Obama has not jettisoned the entire 
legacy of FDR. Like Roosevelt, Obama will stand down.

* Butler underwent a major political epiphany shortly before his 
retirement from the Marine Corps in 1931. In that same year, he 
addressed an American Legion convention on his assessment of his career. 
His audience was stunned by his reflections: ?I spent 33 years being a 
high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. 
In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism?. I helped purify Nicaragua 
for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I 
helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil 
interests inb 1916. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for 
American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent 
place for the National City boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the 
rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall 
Street.? It remains a mystery why the conspirators would approach this 
man. But they did.

Alan Nasser is professor emeritus of Political Economy and Philosophy at 
The Evergreen State College.


From markalause at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 08:56:59 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:56:59 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] FDR's Response to the Plot to Overthrow Him
In-Reply-To: <48E62C9A.3040802@panix.com>
References: <48E62C9A.3040802@panix.com>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810030756t4d6a5244mf96187a8b8efcba1@mail.gmail.com>

A good and thoughtful piece.  Thanks.

It's interesting that one or another of the Democratic Congressional
leaders responded this way to the complaints of Leftists that they had
not moved to impeach Bush-Cheney (and, by implication, why they had
not acted to resist the settlement of the 2000 election in favor of
the candidate with less votes than Gore).  The off-the-record answer
was that several Democratic leaders said that they actually feared a
military seizure of power, particularly after the 9-11 events and the
passage (with Democratic votes) of the Patriot Act.  At the time I
heard this story (I think on one or another of Green lists, but I'm
not sure), it struck me as a convenient excuse.  Still....

Smedley Butler warned very particularly against the American Legion as
the vehicle of this planned coup, and had inside information on the
leadership of that organization.  Of course, those who funded this
effort expected the members of the Legion to respond like sheep, which
I don't think they would have.  The would be junta had not entirely
taken control of it either.  They were bringing Butler paper bags full
of cash to finance bringing his own people to the conventions and
taking over.  It's an interesting story with great significance.

Butler remained true to his course because he was ideologically a
republican in the oldest and most honorable sense of the term, and
because, as he described it, he used to hear regularly from the young
men who had served with him and felt a deep and abiding loyalty to
their interests and concerns.  As he describe it, the people who
wanted that coup were not concerned with the ranks at all and could
care less about the plight of the average veteran and their class.

ML


From walterlx at earthlink.net  Fri Oct  3 09:02:00 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:02:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] CIRCLES ROBINSON Workplace Theft: Indicator of
	Mismanagement
Message-ID: <23249598.1223046120739.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Fidel has a new reflection, just out this morning, alerting Cubans
of the urgent need to conserve energy in light of the damages the
island suffered from the recent hurricanes. And the season for 
hurricane is NOT yet over in Cuba. He explains the cost of Cuban
energy use and shows its so much more than the island is able to
make up due to sales in the world market, that conservation is a
matter of national security. This commentary will put the issue 
on the agenda at every political meeting in Cuba today, and thus
Marxmail readers should find it of interest to see the way that a
revolutionary leadership informs its people, and strives to bring
them into the process, first of all by being straight with them
about the problems confronting their blockaded country.

If the Cuban Revolution demonstrates anything, on is surely that a
revolutionary socialist overthrow makes it possible to begin to
address long-avoided social and political problems by mobilizing an
entire nation's resources in the nation's interest. But a socialist
revolution cannot overcome the combined impact of an inhospitable
international environment, nor of the many historical, cultural and
environmental challenges one relatively modestly-sized island can
face, and which Cuba does face today.

The recent hurricanes have brought to light again problems within
Cuban society in a quite dramatic manner. Fidel Castro has written
about them more than once in his REFLECTIONS columns, and they've
also been addressed in a range of other articles. Monday's GRANMA
daily editorial took up the ENTIRE front page discussing this.

Circles Robinson, who wrote the column here, has lived in Cuba for
seven years, and before that for seventeen in Nicaragua. He works as
a translator in Cuba, and blogs from Cuba about the issues and
challenges he sees. Cubans have been writing about these issues for
years, especially since Fidel Castro's dramatic five-hour speech on
November 17, 2005 at the University of Havana. Since those of us
providing an alternative flow of information about Cuba spend so much
of our efforts correcting and criticizing the so-often negative
reporting from the hostile foreign media, it's tempting to gloss over
or downplay some of the negative elements which occur in Cuban life.

Everyone living in Cuba knows about the things discussed here, and
friends of the Cuban Revolution don't do either themselves or the
Cuban Revolution any favors if we gloss over them at the same time.

Washington's blockade and its numerous consequences have a big role
as context for these phenomena, but it's not the only factor. There
are no simple solutions to these problems, which even an end to the
U.S. blockade won't guarantee. They're inherent in efforts to build a
society based on different principles than the dog-eat-dog individ-
ualism which characterize capitalist life.

Living here in the United States of America, which presents itself as
judge, jury and executioner of the Cuban people's right to create an
alternative society, we're living through eloquent illustrations of
the way capitalism organizes, or more, DISORGANIZES society. We watch
as a desperate regime demands that society as a whole pay off the
misdeeds of the private banks which have extorted billions from the
people of this country. As the U.S. Senate voted Wednesday to grant
the rich their wet-dream wish list for a bailout, some voices of
opposition and resistance are being expressed, in the halls of
Congress and beyond. This is all to the good, as they are an
indication of the battles to come.

Cuba's ability to solve its problems depends on both the ability of
its own society and revolutionary leadership to organized its own
domestic capacities, and on various forms of international solidarity
which the country receives from the world. As Marti put it, "Patria
es humanidad", which roughly means "Homeland is humanity". This is
analogous to "A world without borders", and is the basis for Cuba's
internationalist politics. It's why they have doctors working in
eighty countries, and students of medicine from around the world
receiving a free medical education which they'll then be able to take
to their home countries where underserved populations will be able to
benefit from their education.

I hope Marxmail subscribers will share their thoughts on these topics.
The Cuban Revolution is also OUR revolution. Its fate and ours are 
very closely linked and intertwined. There are no simple solutions.
If only there were!  

Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
===========================================================================

Workplace Theft: Indicator of Mismanagement

By Circles Robinson
September 30, 2008
  
With Gustav and Ike, Cuba?s proven civil defense system once again
demonstrated how well Cubans can organize. Despite the hurricanes? enormous
destruction, only seven people died. The population responded with a high
level of family, neighborly and community solidarity, customary among Cubans
during times of crisis.

However, the storms have greatly magnified the shortcomings in the island?s
economy and addressing them has become all the more pressing. 

One problem that most everyone agrees has reached epidemic proportions is
workplace pilfering. Although by far not the only problem in the Cuban
economy, it has combined with other factors including low productivity to
keep the country from operating anywhere near capacity. 

Workplace theft and cheating of consumers is widespread in both the service
sector and industries. The problem exists in many countries, but management
oversight, at best, or complicity at the worst, has greatly exacerbated its
magnitude in Cuba. It seems particularly contradictory with a people known
for their solidarity, and a system whose profits are earmarked for the
public good.

A common topic of my co-workers and friends is the habit of overcharging at
stores, cafeterias and restaurants. It is so common that being on guard has
become the norm. Like my neighbors, I am also wary of adulterated products
sold at state-owned facilities, be it a bottle of rum, stick of butter or a
bottle of dishwashing liquid. 

For those of us who have attempted to report problems to the supervisors,
the frustration has only deepened, as their low level of concern indicates
that they too may be involved. 

Time and time again I?ve personally had the experience at supermarkets,
agricultural markets, cafeterias, restaurants, bars and taxis, even most
recently at the airport duty free store. Surprisingly though, most Cubans
don?t complain about being overcharged, which makes a foreigner doing so
seem even more out of place.


Eating at the Soul And Society
 
Over a month before the hurricanes, economic analyst Ariel Terrero pointed
out that "theft is corrupting both the individual soul and society." Terrero
was addressing the issue of disappearing building materials and shoddy
construction work at different job sites.
 
His statement rings all the more true today as Cubans begin to feel the
impact of the damage caused by the hurricanes that struck between August 31
and September 10. 

Hard times, including shortages of some foodstuffs and an even greater lack
of building materials are expected. This makes even more troubling the
practice of treating state property as booty ripe for the taking and
consumers as victims to be fleeced. 
 
Likewise, while price gauging often accompanies the shortages that follow
major disasters anywhere, in Cuba such price hikes are likely to serve as
even greater incentive to buy or sell goods of a dubious origin. 

On September 19, former President Fidel Castro wrote in a newspaper
commentary: "It?s now, in the aftermath of the devastating blow dealt by the
hurricanes, when we must show what we are capable of." 
 
Without directly pointing any fingers Fidel Castro wrote that "every
manifestation of privilege, corruption or robbery must be eradicated" and
that "for a true communist, there can be no possible excuse for such
conduct." 
 
 
Where to Begin
 
How to change the widespread practice of workplace mismanagement and
stealing is a matter of contention and opinions abound. Some pessimistically
believe it?s impossible to deal with at this point, while others think it?s
never too late to begin. 
 
In discussions in my living room, some friends have said drastic punishment
is needed for the higher ups involved, which would also serve as an example
to those below them. 
 
Others say an incentive system for sound management is needed so the
managers will feel motivated to do their best to benefit the state coffers.
Most would extend that proposal to labor, saying that employees should have
a better grasp on the finances of their workplace, participate in decision
making, and then have a clear stake in its performance through pay
incentives. 

No one is certain exactly where the culture of deteriorated workplace ethics
began. Most blame the low buying power of salaries and fewer extras since
the early 1990s. Some say the seeds were already there before but hadn?t
gotten so out of hand. 

Despite the social benefits of free education and health care, subsidized
public utilities, transportation and some basic items, the reality is that
today?s workers still scramble to feed and clothe their families. The
contradiction between resolving ones personal problems and a country that
needs to save on resources and make the most of what it has is rarely
discussed.
 
It?s obvious that a major salary increase is not going to happen without
increasing production, and most believe that such an increase in production
is unlikely to occur without attractive pay incentives.
 
The idea of economic incentives for those that make a greater effort in a
given workplace makes sense and is consistent with the earliest notions of
socialism. Such a system should help increase productivity, thus boosting
revenue for the recovery effort and for social and economic investment
programs.  

However, if a manager or employee that is stealing obtains considerably more
than what they could earn through incentives I highly doubt they will stop
their habit without much tighter controls and strong disciplinary measures. 
 
While the problem is light weight compared to the financial crisis currently
sweeping the United States and Europe, failing to put a dent in workplace
mismanagement and theft in Cuba will act as a counterweight to the attempts
to rebuild from the extensive hurricane damage and continue on the road to a
healthier socialist economy.
 
 
*Circles Robinson?s reports and commentaries from Havana can be read at:
www.circlesonline.blogspot.com



=========================================
     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  Fri Oct  3 09:15:23 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:15:23 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] INCA COLA NEWS/XINHUA/EFE: Bolivian opposition suspends
	dialogue with government
Message-ID: <43DA85F54A7F462887F8C092ABCAF74B@mainframe2008>

10/2/08

The fascists walk away from Bolivia peace talks

http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2008/10/
fascists-walk-away-from-bolivia-peace.html

Why they've walked away speaks volumes. A Tarija thug was arrested
yesterday for being the ringleader in last month's attack on the
local gas pipeline installations (remember all that about Brazil's
supply getting cut off? Yeah, that's the one). The dude, named Jos?
Vaca, admitted being involved in the attack and was arrested in
proper style by police. This prompted the prefect of Tarija, Mario
Cossio, to accuse his democratically elected national gov't of
"hunting" and "kidnapping" civilians. Aren't these guys beautiful,
eh? This is regional-sponsored terrorism, no bones about it. So Evo's
gov't shows major restraint yet again, points out that the arrest of
Jos? Vaca was on strict orders of the Fiscal General (i.e. head
honcho of judiciary and not connected to the gov't), and asks the
fascist scum to come back to the negotiation table.

There comes a point when patience will run out. This is not a
question of state terrorism or gov't sponsored clandestine operations
(that's the USA's speciality in the region, not Evo's). This is
simple rule of law. You attack a gov't owned gas installation and
block supply? You get arrested. Normal. These separatist shits seem
to forget that nobody supports them outside of their tiny bastions.



Bolivian opposition suspends dialogue with government

LIMA, Oct. 1 (Xinhua) -- Bolivian opposition governors suspended the
ongoing dialogue with President Evo Morales on Wednesday, stranding
the president's efforts to end the political crisis in the country,
reports from La Paz said.

Mario Cossio, governor of the major opposition province of Tarija in
the south of the country, said Morales' government did not obey its
early promises which laid the foundation for the dialogue.

He accused the government of "hunting" and "kidnapping" civilians who
took part in the opposition's protests against the government last
month.

Five of the nine Bolivian provinces including Tarija and Santa Cruz
have been demanding autonomy from the central government. They are
also against Morales' new constitution that allows more wealth
distributed to the poor.

The government is "intensifying blockage, besieging Santa Cruz and
continuing the media campaign in favor of the new constitution,"
Cossio said.

Cossio set a condition for reviving the dialogue, demanding the
release of the detained opposition members.

According to reports from La Paz, Bolivia's administrative capital,
Cossio said the continuation of the negotiation is "in the
president's hands."

The dialogue between the opposition and the government began on Sept.
18 in the central province of Cochabamba after the country's
political crisis sliding into a national turmoil that left dozens
dead.

======================================================================

Gobierno boliviano llama a prefectos opositores a volver al di?logo
http://www.lanacion.com.py/noticias_um-205945.html

El Gobierno de Bolivia llam? hoy a los prefectos (gobernadores)
opositores a que retornen al proceso de di?logo abierto para
pacificar el pa?s y se mostr? "extra?ado" y "preocupado" por su
"ruptura unilateral" de las negociaciones.

La Paz. EFE.

"Exhortamos a los prefectos a retornar a la mesa del di?logo", dijo
en conferencia el ministro de la Presidencia, Juan Ram?n Quintana,
poco despu?s de que los gobernadores anunciaron la suspensi?n
temporal de las negociaciones.

Los prefectos autonomistas justifican la interrupci?n de las
negociaciones en que el Gobierno de Evo Morales ha incumplido las
bases del proceso con una "cacer?a" contra ciudadanos y l?deres de
sus regiones.

El desencadenante de la ruptura fue la detenci?n de un ciudadano del
departamento de Tarija (sur) acusado por el Gobierno de participar en
uno de los atentados contra gasoductos y refiner?as perpetrados
durante las protestas opositoras de septiembre pasado.

Con el proceso de di?logo abierto en Cochabamba tanto el oficialismo
como la oposici?n regional buscan pacificar Bolivia tras la ola de
enfrentamientos que azot? varias regiones y en las que murieron al
menos 18 personas.

El ministro de la Presidencia insisti? en que la detenci?n del
ciudadano tarije?o "obedece estrictamente a una decisi?n de la
Fiscal?a General".

"No es posible que los prefectos quieran postergar o suspender el
di?logo con la intenci?n de proteger o encubrir un delito com?n",
agreg?.

Quintana sostuvo que "el Gobierno en ning?n momento ha incumplido
compromisos para sostener el di?logo", aunque tambi?n aclar? que son
"innegociables los procesos penales que se deben llevar adelante"
para dirimir responsabilidades en las protestas en septiembre.

El ministro adelant? que los procesos seguir?n "contra todos aquellos
que atentaron contra los bienes p?blicos, asaltaron las oficinas del
Estado, destruyeron la propiedad y que, en otros casos, mataron o
asesinaron a campesinos inocentes".

As? aludi? al peor episodio de la ola de choques, el que se vivi? en
la regi?n de Pando el pasado 11 de septiembre, donde el Gobierno
decret? el estado de sitio y detuvo al entonces prefecto, Leopoldo
Fern?ndez, por violar esa medida y por su presunta responsabilidad en
lo que considera fue una masacre de campesinos.

Sin embargo, la oposici?n sostiene que fueron los oficialistas los
que iniciaron el enfrentamiento.

Para el ministro Quintana los gobernadores opositores "no solamente
debieran censurar y condenar los actos de terrorismo que se han
cometido en Tarija, sino tambi?n ponerse al lado de la ley".

"No hay argumento razonable para que quieran suspender el di?logo",
dijo, y anunci? que el Gobierno va a sostenerlo y a "insistir" para
que tenga un final "satisfactorio".

=========================================
WALTER LIPPMANN
Los Angeles, California
Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
"Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo"
========================================= 




From giobon at comcast.net  Fri Oct  3 09:17:36 2008
From: giobon at comcast.net (Bonnie Weinstein)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:17:36 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Labor Board Limits Political Strikes By Robert Schwartz
In-Reply-To: <48E62C9A.3040802@panix.com>
Message-ID: <C50B85A0.4BDEB%giobon@comcast.net>

Labor Board Limits Political Strikes
By Robert Schwartz

An overlooked order by the Labor Board?s lead lawyer this summer dealt a
serious blow to the rights of U.S. workers to protest government policies.

On May Day 2006, hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers walked off their
jobs to protest restrictive immigration legislation. Some were fired, and
brought complaints to the board. Ronald Meisburg, the National Labor
Relations Board general counsel, responded by posting a directive on
?political advocacy? this July that enables bosses to immediately fire
employees who participate in work stoppages of a political nature.

The directive, as yet apparently unnoticed by both unions and labor lawyers,
cannot be appealed.

Traditionally, workers around the world have used two kinds of walkouts to
achieve their goals, economic strikes over workplace issues and political
strikes directed at government policies.

Political strikes in the U.S. are not as common as in Europe and Latin
America. But they have happened, as in the 1970s strike by coal miners for
black lung legislation and in this year?s walkout by West Coast dockworkers
against the Iraq war.

The massive immigrants rights marches in May 2006 may have been the largest
political strike in U.S. history. In the aftermath, numerous workers, mainly
Latino, were fired from their jobs. Among them were employees at three
restaurants. La Veranda, a Philadelphia eatery, terminated five workers who
told their manager they would miss work. In Fresno, California, a restaurant
fired eight of 13 workers for violating its attendance rules. And an
Applebee?s restaurant whose location is unclear in the directive fired
several workers who left work early. None of the workers belonged to a
union.

The 2006 May Day cases appear to be the first to reach the NLRB where
workers lost their jobs because of a politically inspired work stoppage.

Since labor law gives all workers?not just union members?a protected right
to strike over matters affecting their livelihoods, some of these workers
filed unfair labor practice charges at the NLRB seeking reinstatement and
back wages.

The workers asserted that they had the same rights as union strikers, in
particular, the right to conduct stoppages over workplace-related matters
without permission.

Meisburg?s office dismissed the workers? charges. In his directive,
Meisburg, a management lawyer appointed by President Bush, asserted for the
first time that work stoppages are protected by the National Labor Relations
Act only if they are ?directed at an employer who has control over the
subject matter of the dispute.?

Thirty years ago the Supreme Court ruled that workers can take part in
political activity in their workplaces if the issues involved have a
substantial impact on workers? rights or job conditions. Meisburg said his
position was consistent with a footnote in that case, although no other
legal authority had drawn such a conclusion.

Although the Meisburg directive does not go so far as to make political
strikes illegal, the effect is the same. Unless the next general counsel
reverses the order, union and non-union workers who hit the bricks over
government policies on immigration, health care, or fuel prices, no matter
how closely related these matters are to their employment, do so at the risk
of immediately and permanently losing their jobs.

Robert Schwartz is the author of Strikes, Picketing, and Inside Campaigns: A
Legal Guide for Unions.

?Labor Notes, October 3, 2008

http://labornotes.org/node/1921 <http://labornotes.org/node/1921> 



From skeyesvogt at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 09:27:37 2008
From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes-Vogt)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:27:37 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Development in Haiti: Marxists' View
Message-ID: <de3b89110810030827t5b8557a2xf2ed7717e247182e@mail.gmail.com>

Greeting Comrades,

I write on this subject because of a conversation I had with my brother
after an assignment he was given in college.  The assignment given to him is
to act as if he was an advisor to the Haitian government and advise them on
how to best develop the Haitian economy (this is obviously skewed towards
reformism from the starting point).  Aside from his assignment I wanted to
facilitate a discussion with him about what this would mean for Marxists.  I
wanted to take as my starting point what activists' demands in Haiti
relating to the economy are but also wanted to hear what Marxists (either on
this list or if anyone has articles/books they can recommend) think would be
the proper path.  My brother noted that there are many small farmers and
that infrastructure and industry are barely developed in that country.

Thanks For Your Time,

Sky Keyes

From skeyesvogt at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 09:31:32 2008
From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes-Vogt)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:31:32 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] FDR's Response to the Plot to Overthrow Him
Message-ID: <de3b89110810030831h37811fb4n28e7cc8b5036b652@mail.gmail.com>

I picked up Major General Smedley D. Butler's book "War is a Racket" at an
anti-war protest a couple of years ago, and have found it very good for
agitational purposes because he is one of the most highly decorated Marines
in U.S. history.  Even though he approaches it from a isolationist point of
view, he still makes valid observations about imperialism and the
business/profits of war.

-Sky

From ethanyoung at earthlink.net  Fri Oct  3 09:31:13 2008
From: ethanyoung at earthlink.net (Ethan Young)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:31:13 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Subject: [Marxism] FDR's Response to the Plot to Overthrow Him
Message-ID: <15167778.1223047873680.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

The coup plot against FDR was the basis for Frank Capra's 
antifascist melodrama "Meet John Doe" [1941]. Capra had a 
Hearst figure [played by Edward Arnold, a H'wood lefty] 
recruit a down-and-outer [Gary Cooper, later a friendly 
witness during HUAC's H'wood witch hunt] to serve as a 
populist figurehead for a plutocrat conspiracy. Love 
[Barbara Stanwyck] and a wised-up populace save the day.

This is the least-known of Capra's 'little guy meets the 
ruling class' trilogy. "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" [1936] 
takes on the wealthy and famous; "Mr. Smith Goes to 
Washington" [1939], Congress. "Smith" is arguably the 
hallmark of Popular Front culture worldwide. Capra 
himself was a conservative Republican. That's show biz.

ey


From skeyesvogt at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 09:37:08 2008
From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes-Vogt)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:37:08 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] INCA COLA NEWS/XINHUA/EFE: Bolivian opposition suspends
	dialogue with government
Message-ID: <de3b89110810030837k3fadde4ax60f3ba30470cc538@mail.gmail.com>

Inca Cola blogger wrote:  "These separatist shits seem to forget that nobody
supports them outside of their tiny bastions."

This blogger may have been only referring to people inside Bolivia, but I
think its worth noting that they are supported by the international ruling
class, which counts for a whole hell of a lot.

From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Oct  3 09:52:45 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:52:45 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Development in Haiti: Marxists' View
In-Reply-To: <de3b89110810030827t5b8557a2xf2ed7717e247182e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <de3b89110810030827t5b8557a2xf2ed7717e247182e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48E63FCD.6030808@panix.com>

Sky Keyes-Vogt wrote:
> Greeting Comrades,
> 
> I write on this subject because of a conversation I had with my brother
> after an assignment he was given in college.  The assignment given to him is
> to act as if he was an advisor to the Haitian government and advise them on
> how to best develop the Haitian economy (this is obviously skewed towards
> reformism from the starting point).  Aside from his assignment I wanted to
> facilitate a discussion with him about what this would mean for Marxists.  I
> wanted to take as my starting point what activists' demands in Haiti
> relating to the economy are but also wanted to hear what Marxists (either on
> this list or if anyone has articles/books they can recommend) think would be
> the proper path.  My brother noted that there are many small farmers and
> that infrastructure and industry are barely developed in that country.
> 

This doesn't exactly answer your question but it gives you an idea of 
the contradictions that Haiti has to deal with:

Los Angeles Times
May 13, 2008 Tuesday
Home Edition

The World;
Tracing roots of food crisis in Haiti ;
As the price of U.S. rice soars, experts urge a return to homegrown 
staples. But farmers find many obstacles.

BYLINE: Carol J. Williams, Times Staff Writer
DATELINE: BOKOZEL, HAITI

Although her countrymen can no longer afford the imported rice that has 
come to dominate their diet, Josiane Desjardin sees little hope of 
reviving the domestic crop that once grew abundantly in the fertile 
estuary of the Artibonite River.

There's no turning back the clock, farmers here say dejectedly, in a 
countryside ravaged by floods, soil erosion, misguided trade policy and 
ongoing landownership disputes.

Subsidized U.S. rice began flooding in 30 years ago, so cheap that 
Haitians began eating it instead of the corn, sweet potatoes, cassava 
and domestic rice that had sprouted from plains and mountainsides from 
the colonial era to the late 1980s.

"Miami rice," as Haitians call the U.S. import, drove rice farmers out 
of business and incited a rural exodus that swelled the slums of the 
capital, Port-au-Prince.

--

Food riots

Today, more than 70% of Haitians live on less than $2 a day, and the 
U.S. rice that is the staple of their diet has doubled in price in 
little more than a year. Hungry hordes rioted in the capital last month, 
leaving at least six dead by the time President Rene Preval restored 
calm by announcing that foreign aid and subsidies would lower the price 
of a 110-pound bag of rice to $43 from $51.

But importers and economists warn that those supports are unsustainable 
and predict further unrest in this poorest country in the Americas when 
the subsidies run out in late summer and, based on current price trends, 
the same sack will cost $70.

The answer, experts say, is revitalizing domestic production and 
returning to more traditional foods.

Rice requires large quantities of water and fertilizer, but the former 
is in short supply because of recent droughts and neglected irrigation 
canals, and the latter is soaring in cost as fast as the rice it 
nurtures. Yet even if Desjardin could afford to invest her meager $300 
proceeds from the past year's harvest in expansion, the reed-thin 
peasant has heard speculation about impending land redistribution and 
worries that the 1.25-acre plot she rents could be seized by the state.

"No one knows what will happen to us," Desjardin, 50, said of the 300 or 
so families that rent land from 78-year-old Edouard Vieux, a 
sixth-generation descendant of a slave general awarded more than 12,000 
acres for his role in the victorious battle that led to Haiti's 
independence from France in 1804.

--

Peasants expelled

Many Artibonite sharecroppers and tenants were displaced a dozen years 
ago when Preval, during his previous term as president, oversaw a land 
reform that took the properties of large estate owners like Vieux and 
carved them into tiny plots for thousands of peasants. But the 
recipients were never provided with tools, fertilizer, seeds or 
transportation, so they couldn't grow the crops the private landlords 
had earlier financed. Never given legal title, the idle peasants were 
expelled when owners returned to reclaim their lands after a February 
2004 rebellion drove then-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide into exile.

It was the second land recovery for Vieux, who lost all but 740 acres of 
his ancestor's estate during the Duvalier era, when the father-son 
dictatorship sold off most of his property while he took refuge in New 
York, Los Angeles and Montreal.

Back on Vieux's land for the last four years, Desjardin recently 
harvested her modest paddies. She spread the brown-hulled kernels with 
her bare foot to dry in the sun while explaining the disincentives to 
expansion.

Of the 12 or 13 bags she produces each year, she needs to keep eight to 
feed herself and the families of her four jobless children. The 
remaining four or five bags bring just enough to pay the 2,000-gourde 
(about $52) annual rent, buy fertilizer and pay the local miller.

Even with the lure of record prices for rice, local farmers can't 
achieve the economies of scale enjoyed by the U.S. growers, says 
Anasthace Vieux, one of the landowner's 14 children. He recalls visiting 
a Louisiana rice farm as a student in 1988 and being "terrified by the 
size of it. It was like a whole country of rice."

In the three decades since the United States began selling subsidized 
rice in Haiti, consumption has doubled to 400,000 metric tons a year, 
forcing Haiti to import three-quarters of its need. The USA Rice 
Federation last year sold $111.5 million worth here, making Haiti the 
fourth most important market for U.S. producers, federation spokesman 
David Coia said.

Those trying to feed Haiti's poor lament the dependence on costly 
imports, and they fear for the future.

"In retrospect, it was a mistake [to drop tariffs on U.S. imports], but 
at the time it looked like the right thing to do because it lowered the 
prices," said Clement Belizaire, the son of rice farmers who is project 
director for the Florida-based relief organization Food for the Poor, 
which daily feeds at least 30,000 people in the slums of Port-au-Prince.

--

Handouts

Fernande Cochard, a widow with eight children waiting at a food kitchen 
in the Cite Soleil slum for a scoop of cold rice and vegetables, looked 
perplexed when asked why she didn't return to her family's farm in the 
southwest.

"I would have trouble finding someone to live with," she said of her 
family, which has no shelter in the capital either. At least in the 
city, she added, there are food handouts.

As the food crisis persists, relief workers fear its effect on housing, 
security, health and school enrollment.

"People can't afford to send their kids to school now. They need the 
cash for food," said John Wesley Charles, Haiti office director for the 
relief group World Vision. "It's planting season now, and some people 
are so desperate they are eating their seeds."

World Food Program aid in the impoverished countryside over the last few 
years had halved malnutrition levels in the most vulnerable places, but 
that success is at risk of being erased by the current crisis. The 
rising prices are leaving more Haitians unable to buy food, said the 
United Nations agency's spokesman for Latin America, Alejandro Chicheri.

Preval, an agronomist with a successful bamboo farm northeast of here, 
has vowed to get more land into the hands of the peasantry, spurring 
expectations of another redistribution.

"The problem is that Haiti doesn't have the land to give every peasant 
family enough to allow them to make a living," said Bernard Etheart, 
head of the National Institute for Agrarian Reform, which Preval created 
in 1995. Etheart estimates that if all arable land was planted, each 
farmer would have no more than half a hectare, or 1.25 acres -- the 
average size of the plots rented by Vieux's tenants.

Although Etheart advocates transferring ownership of idle private lands 
to peasants, he concedes that the same obstacles to productivity persist 
today that turned the 1996 redistribution into a rural disaster.

Those who owned land before the turmoil of the last decades insist that 
they are the best hope of reviving output.

"We just want to be left alone," said Max-Edouard Vieux, who complains 
that local authorities harass his father's tenants.

He accuses land reform supporters of being behind a Nov. 28 drive-by 
attack by men who fired on his renters, wounding three of them. Similom 
Wilgens, listening in on his landlord's story, pulls up his shirt to 
show the track-like scar left on his belly.

The Haitian Constitution allows the state to seize lands "in conflict," 
which the Vieuxs say has been encouraging a wave of attacks on 
properties by would-be recipients. Etheart observes with dismay that 
"every time you improve the value of the land, you are provoking conflict."

Land reform advocates are also fighting against owners' use of farmland 
for any purpose but growing.

"The state should have the authority to intervene in cases where owners 
are building houses on farmland," said Charles Suffrard of the Peasants' 
Affairs Committee for Integration and Progress.

Committee leaders are pressing Preval to seize and redistribute farmland 
that is idle, contending that action is needed to grow crops more 
suitable to Haiti's climate.

Rice used to be a luxury, not the national dish, recalls Cantave 
Jean-Baptiste, country director for the World Neighbors rural 
development agency.

"In my family, we had it maybe once a month, for special occasions," he 
said. "People only started eating it as their main food when it was very 
inexpensive. Now, we need to educate people that rice is not more 
nutritious than the corn and sweet potatoes we can more easily grow


From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Oct  3 10:11:27 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:11:27 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] From subprime to slump
Message-ID: <48E6442F.10406@panix.com>

 From Subprime to Slump?
By Jon Amsden

The collapse of Lehman Brothers has got the mainstream media hitting the 
panic button and talking of systemic crisis. But the crisis isn't just 
spreading to the real economy, it began there, argues Jon Amsden

In May of this year, Brian Marks made a valiant attempt to tie together 
inflation, the current crisis in financial markets, and struggles of the 
world working class. Marks wrote:

"The food and energy crises are key ways capital is trying to displace 
the costs of devaluation onto the working class. (Foreclosures, the 
manipulation of interest rates, and the outright bailout of banks with 
public money are other important measures). The transfer of workers' 
wealth through energy and food costs to the energy sector is then 
conveyed in a concentrated form to save (by buying up) the banks in 
crisis. That is where primitive accumulation meets fictitious capital."

Marks argued that inflation is a special form of ?looting' whereby the 
capitalist class attempts to appropriate ?the wealth of the workers', 
for the purpose of ?propping up fictitious capital'. In a discussion on 
the Meltdown mailing list Ben Seymour queried Marks' logic on this 
point, noting that since inflation essentially devalues the workers' 
portion, at least in monetary terms, such would not be a particularly 
effective form of ?looting'. For Seymour, the very thing that is 
supposed by Marks to constitute an accelerated ?looting' of the working 
class, ?an escalation of the ongoing compulsion of work' which 
presumably increases the rate of surplus value extraction, is at the 
same time undermining or cancelling out the value extracted. Thus, 
crisis can increase the economic pressure on the working class, but the 
actual rate of exploitation is offset by the devaluation of the currency 
which measures the product and price of their labour power. We will 
visit the ?increased economic pressure' that inflation places on the 
working class a bit later on. In one respect, however, inflation can, in 
fact, be favorable to that part of the working class who may be net 
debtors. For example, Joe Sixpack has an outstanding credit card balance 
of $9,000 US. As the real value of this figure is diminished by 
inflation, Joe will have to contribute less value to pay it back than he 
received (on credit) in the first place.

full: http://www.metamute.org/en/content/from_subprime_to_slump


From jeremy at infowells.com  Fri Oct  3 10:19:26 2008
From: jeremy at infowells.com (Jerry Wells)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:19:26 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] (Link) SEP Election campaign: The origins and
 implications of	the financial crisis: A Marxist analysis
Message-ID: <1223050766.4388.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Note: The link to the previous post does not work due to
missing final letter "l".

Here is correct link:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/mtgs-o03.shtml

FYI:

SEP election meetings
The origins and implications of the financial crisis: A Marxist analysis
3 October 2008

Between now and Election Day, Socialist Equality Party presidential
candidate Jerry White and vice presidential candidate Bill Van Auken
will speak at a series of meetings throughout the country.

Full details with dates and locations on the corrected link above.





From pance at rogers.com  Fri Oct  3 10:56:38 2008
From: pance at rogers.com (Pance Stojkovski)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] "Joe Six-Pack" and "Hockey Mom"
Message-ID: <226032.95077.qm@web88002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

I didn't watch either political debate on TV last night - I can't stand watching mainstream "politicians" debating. But I did see a clip this morning and the most referenced quote was by Sarah Palin about "Joe Six-Pack and Hockey Mom". Does anybody really like being called this? 

I think the first time I heard the term "Joe Six-Pack" was in a derogatory tone used by Mr. Burns on the Simpsons. Do regular middle class and working class people like being refered to by these terms? It sounds folksy and friendly - but if people really think about it, they should be offended.

And it's not like the gay community reclaiming the terms "gay" and "queer". "Joe Six-Pack" and "Hockey Mom" are still insulting.

pance.





From johnaimani at earthlink.net  Fri Oct  3 11:38:16 2008
From: johnaimani at earthlink.net (johnaimani)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:38:16 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] "1873, not 1929"
Message-ID: <01c001c9257e$d18ff7b0$6600a8c0@D4PKYZ41>

 

There is a simple explanation as to why the United States is in the financial mess that it is.  At bottom, the financial crisis is merely symptomatic of this underlying cause.  No, it is not the GSE's lending of money to subprime borrowers; no it is not CDOs, SIVs, ABSs, nor any of the other exotic financial instruments created by Wall Street to sucker Main Street out of its pensions and savings.  The simple explanation is that we have ceased to work.

 

"What's that?" you say.  We are working longer, harder (and for less) than at any time in modern history.  True.  But what kind of work?  The vast and rich array of value-adding jobs that we once performed are either going or gone.  In their place, this economy has split into, at one end, highly paid professional activities; and, at the other, low-paying service jobs.  In a word, those that make the money and those that serve them.  In a word, trickle-down economics on a societal basis. 

 

Where is the capacity for manufacturing steel, machine tools, automobile, television and consumer electronics in general?  Gone.  Gone overseas.  These and many more truly 'value-adding' positions have been shipped to areas of cheaper labor and the jobs will only return until our wages have been levered down to the level of this competition (as witness the Asian manufacturer's shift from the export of automobiles to the export of their factories to the United States).  And where do the products that we need use come from?  Overseas.  And how do we pay for these imports since we no longer have make goods in equal qualities and equal quantities to effect a fair exchange?  Debt.  Debt is nought but future labor promised for present goods.  But how are we to pay off these balances due if we are no longer laboring as we ought could would?  Simple.  Sell off pieces of the rock.  Now the Asians are exporting capital not in the form of factories but in the form of money-capital seeking equity (ownership) in US financial institutions.  It is the beginnings of many such chickens coming home to roost.  There will be more deals such as the purchase of a portion of Morgan Stanley and all of Union Bank by the Japanese bank MUFG.  What will the Chinese seek with the $1 trillion of promissory notes they now possess?

 

Beneath this financial crisis, harkening back to eerily similar mortgage and financial crisis of the Panic of 1873, it can be discerned that this financial crisis is but a reflection of a crisis of production within the real economy itself.  Old Europe then found itself faced with, what has been termed, the American Commercial Invasion.  A mass of wheat, corn and soybeans as well as products of a mighty manufacturing infrastructure, built up during the Civil War, took the rug out from European agriculture, industry and finance that was at that time undergoing a period of intense speculative activities.  And when Europe crashed America and the whole industrial world followed suit. 

 

Today Old America has been similarly undermined.  In place of millions upon millions of workers employed in value-adding trades there now exist thousands upon thousands of workers employed watching computer screens, yelling into cell phones, pushing paper, moving vast sums of money at the slightest hint of arbitrage; making not planes, trains and automobiles but wagers, guesses and bets.  This is not a confidence crisis, this is not a mortgage crisis, this is not a financial crisis, this is a crisis of capitalism itself.

 

We must get back to working, truly working.  We must get back to building houses, parks and gardens, schools, libraries, highways, bridges, cities.  Capitalism denies us our rights to do so, shifting our jobs, designs and inventions, our factories, our livelihoods away to ports to lower labor costs with not the slightest bit of concern until its own house of cards threatens to come tumbling down.  Then, then it cries out that what is bad for Wall Street is worse for Main Street.  They didn't give a damn before.  And as soon as this bailout bill is passed, they won't give a damn after.  We must invoke eminent domain and seize and take hold of what is left of our productive capacity, rebuild it up, in consonance with the needs of nature and the and wants of human beings.  Only then will these altogether absurd threats of recession, if not outright depression, fade and be consigned to the ashbin of history. 

 

JAI



[Marxism] 1873, not 1929
Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com 
Wed Oct 1 06:43:42 MDT 2008 


  a.. Previous message: [Marxism] Further information requested 
  b.. Next message: [Marxism] The playboy philosopher 
  c.. Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

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

The Chronicle of Higher Education  The Chronicle Review

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i08/08b09801.htm

 From the issue dated October 17, 2008
The Real Great Depression

The depression of 1929 is the wrong model for the current economic crisis

By SCOTT REYNOLDS NELSON

From elishastephens at hotmail.com  Fri Oct  3 11:55:30 2008
From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:55:30 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] "Joe Six-Pack" and "Hockey Mom"
Message-ID: <COL110-W39E26124CD29CE27135736D73C0@phx.gbl>


Pance asks if anyone really likes being called "Joe Six-Pack and Hockey Mom". 
Well, I'm neither, but my impression is that the two expressions are very 
different. "Hockey Mom," like "Soccer Mom," is definitely something people would 
call themselves. "Joe Six-Pack," on the other hand, is not, Pance's description 
of it as a "derogatory tone used by Mr. Burns on the Simpsons" sounds accurate 
to me.

But the Republicans have hoards of focus groups and marketing people, so if they 
think it's a smart thing for Palin to openly appeal to "Joe Six-Pack" (or even 
refer to herself as that), I may well be wrong.


_________________________________________________________________
See how Windows Mobile brings your life together?at home, work, or on the go.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093182mrt/direct/01/

From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Oct  3 12:12:37 2008
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:12:37 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The playboy philosopher
Message-ID: <48E62858.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>


Louis Proyect quoted:


?You and your fellow Americans,? he wrote, ?should realize that BHL is 
not a philosopher but a clown and a buffoon. You want real French 
philosophy, read Derrida, Foucault, Badiou, Baudrillard, if you are a 
right winger, read Aron, 

^^^
CB: They are a bunch of clowns and harlequins , too.

^^^

but please forget about this pompous arrogant 
shmuck BHL and his unending and shameless self-promotion. As a 
Frenchman, I am ashamed of BHL.?





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 12:43:08 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 14:43:08 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The playboy philosopher
In-Reply-To: <48E62858.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
References: <48E62858.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810031143j3f0813bavb92d0b47d0e45da7@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Charles Brown
<charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote:
>
> Louis Proyect quoted:
>
>
> "You and your fellow Americans," he wrote, "should realize that BHL is
> not a philosopher but a clown and a buffoon. You want real French
> philosophy, read Derrida, Foucault, Badiou, Baudrillard, if you are a
> right winger, read Aron,
>
> ^^^
> CB: They are a bunch of clowns and harlequins , too.

This is just anti-intellectualism -- no better than Palin.

Badiou is a serious philosopher who was trained as a mathematician and
has done important work on the philosophical basis of set theory.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Oct  3 12:44:24 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:44:24 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Gwen Ifill partisanship?
Message-ID: <48E66808.9040803@panix.com>

http://www.harpers.org/subjects/WashingtonBabylon
October 2, 2:06 PM
Ifill on George Bush: ?Part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan?

I?ve already said that I can understand why some Republicans are 
complaining about Gwen Ifill being the moderator for tonight?s debate, 
even though the charges about Ifill?s partisanship are wildly overblown. 
For those who think Ifill is a rabid Democrat and liberal, here she is 
on Washington Week back on May 2, 2003:

"Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. 
The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific. 
We look at the images, the messages and the consequences of the 
president?s week. In another victory lap, Donald Rumsfeld goes to 
Afghanistan and Iraq and lays out his vision for a remade military."


From bob.morris at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 13:26:18 2008
From: bob.morris at gmail.com (Bob Morris)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:26:18 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Follow-up on McKinney's charge...
In-Reply-To: <b16d8daf0810030538w2445f52bgdb855fb339ad9cf9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EE04660EB2354B1183EFDC80656EDC9C@office1pc>
	<908b689f0810030003n7dc92904p79f7b9b922dd13aa@mail.gmail.com>
	<b16d8daf0810030538w2445f52bgdb855fb339ad9cf9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <275dee160810031226v4c81e3c9j954a1b3212ae2247@mail.gmail.com>


From m.elgizouli at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 13:33:30 2008
From: m.elgizouli at gmail.com (Magdi Elgizouli)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 22:33:30 +0300
Subject: [Marxism] Communism and socialism
In-Reply-To: <7BD923B9D5C14E81917C7A17DA0104F6@Nautilus>
References: <BAY127-W307496015662E606A06276D73D0@phx.gbl>
	<7BD923B9D5C14E81917C7A17DA0104F6@Nautilus>
Message-ID: <d4b821240810031233x445f3c1dr636b828772c26e62@mail.gmail.com>

the question is unfounded, first scarcity in the absolute sense does not
exist in the world of today, rather the grand issue is resources management
and surplus distribution. Of course, the communist hypothesis relies on
abundance, however a the discussion of stages is more or less silenced by
the realities of socialist experience in the twentieth century. Lenin's
political attempt has ever doomed the watchful waiting for the right
economic moment, and it has a become a scapegoat for leftist inaction. The
concrete and the now is where communism starts, not the dogma but the
hypothesis.

regards
M

2008/10/2 David Pic?n ?lvarez <david en miradoiro.com>

> My view:
>
> 1) Conditions of abundance are still possible given the tech base and the
> population, and the delta of the population.
>
> 2) If they weren't, the reasonable thing to do would be instituting a
> programme of progressive population decrease, until they were. Note that
> one
> child per woman would probably be a sufficient constraint. That said
> talking
> about it is premature because: 1) I don't think we're at all at that stage,
> and 2) it would be a matter for people to decide at that point in time.
>
> --David.
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism en lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/m.elgizouli%40gmail.com
>

From bob.morris at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 13:35:53 2008
From: bob.morris at gmail.com (Bob Morris)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:35:53 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] What seems like a sound poll assessment of
	Obama/McCainstanding today
In-Reply-To: <3AF1C0D23A5144DD915A559213724FE9@albanta>
References: <50AC3471B5D3425DB57FABDAD4BC6167@office1pc>
	<3AF1C0D23A5144DD915A559213724FE9@albanta>
Message-ID: <275dee160810031235j3a355ff2qa759d983a4d61e9c@mail.gmail.com>

McCain bailed out of Michigan yesterday, a new poll has Obama up by 12 in
NH, and Krauthammer just said he thinks Obama will win.


On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Joaquin Bustelo <jbustelo at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's now Thursday, and McCain is deeper in a hole.

From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Fri Oct  3 13:39:36 2008
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:39:36 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Two flyers
Message-ID: <48E63CBB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>

Two flyers: Cleveland AFL-CIO on Obama's support of veterans and a
comparative look at voting records of Obama and McCain on important
issues:

http://sites.google.com/site/electionaction08/ 





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Oct  3 13:44:07 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:44:07 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Walden Bello on the financial crisis
Message-ID: <48E67607.6070303@panix.com>

http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/bello031008.html


From walterlx at earthlink.net  Fri Oct  3 14:32:04 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 16:32:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] WSJ: Merkel Slows NATO Bids by Georgia and Ukraine
Message-ID: <22793873.1223065924191.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Washington's encouragement to the Georgian regime has not worked out
so well for Washington as it's turning some countries to the east. 
It's quite unlikely that someone as conservative as PM Angela Merkel
likes having to turn away from Washington, but US economic mischief is
causing problems for the rest of the capitalist world which has felt
forced to come to Washington's aid to prevent the entire system 
from collapsing. I believe that also there's also an element here of
Merkel preparing for upcoming German elections and hoping to prevent
more growth by the Left party just now. There's been a run of articles
about the red threat in Germany recently in the WSJ, in part reflecting
deep opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

German readers: tell us more. Thanks!


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
=========================================================================

WALL STREET JOURNAL
OCTOBER 3, 2008

Merkel Slows NATO Bids by Georgia and Ukraine
By MARC CHAMPION

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization won't give Georgia and Ukraine
a road map to membership at a meeting later this year, German
Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday.

Meanwhile, Kiev took a step away from the West and closer to Moscow,
as Ukraine's Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko announced gas deals with
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and voiced support for Russian
accession to the World Trade Organization.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, at a news conference with Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev, dealt a setback to two NATO hopefuls.

Mrs. Merkel's rejection of a NATO track for Georgia and Ukraine, at a
news conference with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in St.
Petersburg, would effectively act as a veto. The Western military
alliance operates by consensus.

U.S. officials had hoped a NATO ministerial meeting set for December
might be the occasion for the alliance to extend a so-called
Membership Action Plan, or MAP, to the two ex-Soviet States. However,
any quick move toward their NATO membership grew less likely after
Georgia's five-day war with Russia in August.

The U.S. State Department declined to comment, saying it hadn't seen
or heard Mrs. Merkel's remarks.

Russia opposes NATO expansion to include more countries of the
ex-Soviet Union beyond the three Baltic states that joined the
U.S.-led alliance in 2004. Russian leaders have claimed Georgia's
NATO aspirations encouraged it to take military action that triggered
the August invasion. Georgia and Western nations have called Russia
the aggressor.

Georgian Integration Minister Temuri Yakobashvili said it would have
been better for Mrs. Merkel to wait to make her decision in December,
and base it on NATO's reports on Georgia's progress toward meeting
the alliance's criteria for MAP. "This is becoming a highly
politicized, rather than a technical, performance-based decision," he
said.

Mrs. Merkel also opposed MAP for Georgia and Ukraine before the
alliance's last summit in April, where NATO members split, despite
efforts by President George W. Bush to persuade reluctant European
NATO leaders to back the plan. As a result, no road map was offered,
but the decision was to be reviewed in December.

Georgian and some U.S. officials believe NATO's failure in April to
show clear commitment to Georgia encouraged Moscow to prepare
Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two Russian-controlled separatist
territories within Georgia, for independence during the summer -- and
then to invade. Russia says it attacked in response to a Georgian
attempt at genocide against South Ossetian civilians.

Membership in NATO can come as long as a decade after the start of
MAP. But Mrs. Merkel argued ahead of the April summit that the move
would provoke Russia unnecessarily, and that so long as Georgia had
two open territorial disputes it wasn't a suitable NATO member. NATO
guarantees it will defend members of the alliance when necessary.

Moscow has been just as determined in opposing efforts by Ukrainian
President Viktor Yushchenko to lead his country into NATO. Since the
Georgia conflict, Mr. Yushchenko's pro-Western coalition with his
political rival Prime Minister Tymoshenko has disintegrated, damping
hopes of NATO accession.

Ms. Tymoshenko has taken a much softer line toward Moscow than Mr.
Yushchenko and has declined to criticize Russian actions. In Moscow
Thursday, she secured a deal with Mr. Putin on natural gas supplies
to Ukraine.

While details were unclear, Ms. Tymoshenko said the two sides had
agreed to set a three-year transition for Russia to raise the price
at which it sells gas to Ukraine to world-market levels, according to
news agency reports. Ukraine now pays less than half the global
market price for gas.

Nevertheless, tensions persist between Kiev and Moscow. Mr. Putin on
Thursday again accused Ukrainian personnel of manning guns that shot
down Russian aircraft during the war in Georgia.

?-- Louise Radnofsky contributed to this article.

GRANMA INTERNATIONAL
Havana. October 3, 2008

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/octubre/vier3/Russian.html

The era of U.S. economic domination is over, says Russian president

MOSCOW, October 2.? Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced today
that the era of U.S. economic domination is over and the world needs a
more equitable financial system, EFE reports.

"The problems generated by the financial crisis demonstrate that the
era of domination by one single economy has been left behind," said
Medvedev, who was attending a political forum in St. Petersburg
together with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

According to the Kremlin leader, "in order to find a solution to the
current crisis, generated to a considerable extent by financial
egotism, collective measures are needed," according to the Interfax
agency.

"We must work together to create a new and more just world economic
and financial system, and ensure that it is based on the principles of
multilaterialism, the supremacy of the law and mutual respect of
interests."

For his part, the on Wednesday, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
accused the U.S. authorities of being "incapable" of taking the
necessary measures to stem the current financial crisis.

"It is not so much the irresponsibility of specific officials but the
irresponsibility of the system that, as is known, attempted to be the
world leader," stated Putin during a meeting with the Russian government.

Translated by Granma International

WALL STREET JOURNAL
SEPTEMBER 8, 2008

Merkel to Face Test From Left
Foreign Minister Is the Top Pick Of Social Democrats
By MARCUS WALKER


BERLIN -- Faced with crumbling support and a growing challenge from
the far left, Germany's Social Democrat party nominated Foreign
Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier to lead the party into national
elections next year.

The nomination effectively kicks off Germany's election campaign with
a year to go until the September 2009 poll, pitting Mr. Steinmeier
against Chancellor Angela Merkel. That rivalry, say analysts, could
add to the paralysis in Germany's already-fractious coalition
government, where the Social Democrats are junior partners to Ms.
Merkel's conservatives.

Like center-left parties in Britain and France, Germany's Social
Democrats are in deep trouble as they compete with conservatives for
the center ground on economic policy while at the same time trying to
hold on to voters who feel Europe's mainstream leftist parties have
abandoned their roots.

Wooing those voters back could prove difficult for the 52-year-old
Mr. Steinmeier, who until 2005 was chief of staff to then-chancellor
Gerhard Schr?der. Many voters and party rank and file haven't
forgiven Mr. Schr?der's Social Democrat government for cutting back
Germany's generous welfare state while in office and want to roll at
least some of the changes back. Mr. Steinmeier helped design Mr.
Schr?der's policy.

A meeting of Social Democrat leaders on Sunday also replaced party
chairman Kurt Beck, who has moved the party to the left in the past
two years but was unable to unite it. The new party chairman will be
Franz M?ntefering, another Schr?der-era veteran and leading moderate.

Mr. Steinmeier told reporters Sunday his party had to end its
internal faction fighting. "We need to stand together now," he said.

German voters give Mr. Steinmeier high personal approval ratings. But
he has mostly kept out of the rough and tumble of domestic-policy
arguments and has never run for public office. Although an
experienced technocrat, he lacks the charisma of past Social Democrat
election winners such as Mr. Schr?der and Willy Brandt, who united
the West German left in the early 1970s.

"Steinmeier has no chance" of reuniting the German left and little
chance of winning next year's election, says German historian Manfred
G?rtemaker. "He is a competent, pragmatic man, but he has no charisma
and he isn't popular with left-wingers," Mr. G?rtemaker says.

Germany's Social Democrats face a particularly strong challenge from
the hardline leftist party Die Linke (German for 'The Left'), an
alliance of former East German Communists, discontented West German
trade unionists and ex-Social Democrats. Die Linke has eaten into the
Social Democrats' voter base with a populist promise of pacifism
abroad and anticapitalism at home. Opinion polls say about 14% of the
German electorate would now vote for Die Linke, up from 9% at the
last elections in 2005. Many of their supporters are former Social
Democrat voters.

Ms. Merkel has added to the Social Democrats' woes by shifting to the
left herself on economic policy, dropping her former free-market zeal
after it proved a vote loser. After campaigning in opposition to
deepen Mr. Schr?der's economic reforms, she has watered parts of them
down in office.

Mr. Steinmeier is expected to lead a centrist campaign with themes
including investing in education and renewable energy and challenging
Ms. Merkel for the middle ground. But Social Democrats also are
likely to push for more redistribution, via minimum wages, heavier
taxes on the rich and lower social-security levies for average
households.

Germany's economy, the biggest in Europe, is teetering on the brink
of recession, threatening to add to voters' discontent with rising
food and energy prices, stagnant incomes and years of welfare
cutbacks. That is eroding support for both of Germany's traditionally
dominant parties, Mr. Steinmeier's Social Democrats and Ms. Merkel's
Christian Democrats.

The two parties together used to enjoy the support of over 80% of
German voters. Opinion polls currently put the Christian Democrats on
about 36% and the Social Democrats on only 25%. Ms. Merkel has strong
personal-approval ratings, but her party is short of the roughly 40%
voter support she would need to govern without the Social Democrats.

The question of whether to support American military interventions
around the world has also tested the unity of Europe's left. Though
Mr. Steinmeier, like Mr. Schr?der, opposed the U.S.-led invasion of
Iraq, he supports Germany's continued involvement in NATO operations
in Afghanistan. That mission is widely unpopular with German voters.

Die Linke's figurehead, firebrand ex-Social Democrat Oskar
Lafontaine, wants to pull German troops out of Afghanistan and
reverse the free-market changes Germany made under Mr. Schr?der.

According to economists, Mr. Schroder's welfare cutbacks worked:
Unemployment is down to 7.6% from its peak of over 12% in 2005, and
economic growth picked up strongly until the global economic downturn
reached Germany this spring. But the strategy split the Social
Democrats.

The Social Democrats' left wing wants to return to traditional
policies of boosting workers' rights and state welfare support to win
back voters. Many party traditionalists also want to ally with Die
Linke, fearing that otherwise the Social Democrats will be condemned
to remain, at best, junior partners in governments led by Ms. Merkel.



WALL STREET JOURN
SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

Germany's 'Red Scare'
By MARIAM LAU | FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE

Berlin

When Willy Brandt, probably the most beloved Social Democratic Party
leader ever, was a schoolboy in the city of L?beck during the 1910s,
he often had to go hungry. One day, his stepfather's boss saw him
staring at the window display of a bakery. Feeling pity for the boy,
the man went in and got two loaves of bread for him. Delirious with
joy he ran home and showed off his trophy. But his parents sent him
right back:

"Workers don't accept donations, thank you very much."

It is this proud tradition of Germany's oldest party, which is
appreciated even by those who would never dream of voting for good
old "auntie SPD," that its members long for. Back in the Weimar
Republic, the SPD stood for empowering workers, giving them better
education and encouraging them to attend the theater. The SPD opposed
Hitler and helped to soften the Iron Curtain by ushering in a policy
of d?tente toward the Soviet Union.

Compare that with the political tempest that swept away Kurt Beck,
the SPD's luckless leader. He claims to have been brought down by
"deliberate false information," not from first-tier party members,
but from those in the second and third tiers. But what really brought
him down, and rightly so, was his flip-flopping on whether to
cooperate in western Germany with the Left Party, a curious amalgam
of West German academics with vintage revolutionary fantasies and the
remnants of East German communism. For weeks and weeks he had ruled
it out. But after the Left won enough votes in January in Hesse to
hold the balance of power, he said yes. Hesse's SPD plans to take
power in the state in a minority coalition with the Greens backed by
the Left Party.

The 145-year-old SPD is in a fix. To the right stands its "grand
coalition" partner, the Christian Democrats and their chancellor,
Angela Merkel, who gets all the credit whenever the government does
something popular. To the left is, well, the Left Party plus the
usual antiglobalizationists and malcontents.

Between the two there is not much room for maneuver for the SPD. In
addition, the party, which has been in power now for the past 10
years, is still badly divided. The much-needed welfare reforms
introduced by former Chancellor Gerhard Schr?der nearly split the SPD
in two as traditionalists opposed the free-market changes. It was in
response to these reforms that many disappointed supporters left the
SPD for the Left Party. The Social Democrats have lost nearly half of
their members, from more than one million at the beginning of the
1990s to just below 550,000 now. For the first time, the CDU has
taken over as the party with the most members, although it too is
losing card-carrying supporters. The SPD is trailing the CDU by some
15 percentage points in the polls, while the Left Party is quickly
closing the gap with the Social Democrats.

It was in this dire situation that Kurt Beck was replaced by two
looming party figures: Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the
second-most popular politician after Angela Merkel, will be the SPD's
chancellor candidate in next year's general election. Mr. Steinmeier,
a former chief of staff and the engineer of the welfare reforms under
Gerhard Schr?der, is usually regarded as a "gray efficiency," a
competent bureaucrat but not exactly an inspiring orator. The fiery
speeches will be more the domain of Franz M?ntefering, who will take
over as party chairman. The former vice chancellor, who left his job
last year to care for his sick wife (who then passed away in July),
can rouse beer tents and lecture halls with his flaming oratory.

Together they could make a formidable campaign duo. Despite Mr.
Steinmeier's assurances to the contrary, it is hard to see how much
governing can be done in the final year ahead of elections in autumn
2009: All political forces will be devoted to campaigning.

The question is this: Will these two politicians, both of them
supporters of the reform agenda, be able to gain enough support in
the center while keeping traditional Social Democratic voters happy?
The Left is already gleefully offering disgruntled SPD left-wingers
"asylum" in its own ranks. Many have already switched alliances to
the Left in previous years.

If anybody can play to both wings of the SPD -- the "New Labour" and
"Old Labor" types -- it is Mr. M?ntefering. At a rally in Munich he
called for the SPD to stop dwelling on the past. "Look forward, look
ahead," he shouted, and later introduced a draft program full of
buzz-words that resonate with moderates -- "innovation" being one of
them. At the same time, Mr. M?ntefering, who famously called hedge
funds "locusts" not long ago, demands tougher taxes for the rich and
easier retirement rules for those in strenuous jobs.

The leadership reshuffle is already paying dividends. The SPD's
numbers are up, according to Forsa polling institute, from barely
one-fifth of the electorate to 26%. The mood is brighter. "I haven't
felt this good coming to a party meeting in a very long time,"
rejoiced a woman outside a town hall.

The CDU, meanwhile, is playing it down. "There might have been a
change in leadership," said Ronald Pofalla, secretary general, at a
press conference, "but the problems and divisions have remained." Mr.
Pofalla has declared Hesse a litmus test of whether the change is
genuine, knowing very well that neither Mr. Steinmeier nor Mr.
M?ntefering will be able to prevent a coalition with the Left there.

But Mr. Pofalla's remarks only gloss over the fact that the CDU
suffers from similar tensions between welfare proponents and
reformers -- albeit not as tormenting and public as those of the
Social Democrats. When it comes to unemployment benefits for older
jobless, for example, the CDU is just as divided, with the Christian
Democratic unionist wing in favor and the pro-business wing against
the plan.

The rise of the Left Party, though, means that the next election may
still not see a clear winner. Just like in the last election, neither
of the two main parties may gain enough votes to form a government
with its preferred coalition partners: the Greens in the case of the
SPD, and the Free Democratic Party for the CDU.

Instead of going again for a grand coalition, next time there could
be new configurations. Should the SPD ever decide that the Left Party
is no longer taboo, the outlook for the CDU would be very bleak:
Already, the combined votes for the SPD, the Greens and the Left
amount to a "structural left majority," as policy wonks call it.

Because of their more middle-of-the-road policies, though, Messrs.
Steinmeier and M?ntefering have opened another possibility for their
beleaguered party: a coalition with the Green Party and the Free
Democrats. Such a three-way partnership would combine traditional
Social Democratic values with ecological street credibility and
pro-business attitudes.

The CDU, although leading in the polls for now, has to come up with
more than a "red scare" campaign to counter this threat.

Ms. Lau is chief correspondent for Die Welt.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Walter concludes: Note this as well:
Cuba Accepts Political Dialogue with European Union 
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3650244,00.html


=========================================
     WALTER LIPPMANN
     Los Angeles, California
     Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
     "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================


From davidw at marxists.org  Fri Oct  3 14:39:15 2008
From: davidw at marxists.org (David Walters)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:39:15 -0700
Subject: [Marxism]  WSJ: Merkel Slows NATO Bids by Georgia and Ukraine
Message-ID: <48E682F3.6010503@marxists.org>

I want to second Walter's request for more information on this from list 
members in Germany or who pay attention to such things.

Energy supplies from Russia still make up a huge amount of trade between 
both countries. I believe 100% of Germany's natural gas comes from 
Russia and a new line, owned wholly by Gasprom, now runs from Russia 
under the Baltic right to Germany. Could this be one of the reason's for 
Merkel's "slowness"?

David


From davidw at marxists.org  Fri Oct  3 15:02:47 2008
From: davidw at marxists.org (David Walters)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:02:47 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Venezuela, France mull nuclear energy deal
Message-ID: <48E68877.1060602@marxists.org>

According the CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/10/02/venezuela.france.ap/

My comment:
Venezuela and France's state owned Aveva nuclear reactor builders are 
talking as Venezuela continues to send out feelers for building up a 
nuclear energy infrastructure to compliment it's huge carbon-free (but 
methane producing) hydro electric production (70% of of it's power comes 
from hydro).

Venezuela has actually wanted to diversify it's power production because 
even though it gets its power from hydro, it does some from basically 
one dam, or series of dams on one river. While clean, and friendly to 
the environment (these damns only incrementally raised the level of 
already existing high altitude lakes and rivers) there is little 
"security" if the dam and hydro-electric station is sabotaged by 
opponents of the government, domestic or foreign.

As part of this they are going to build dozens of small, diesel and 
natural gas fired power plants to back up the hydro electric, all over 
the country. These plants are polluters, albeit if they run only in 
emergency situations, it's not a real issue.

Venezuela has taken a pro-nuclear stance early on during it's revolution 
and has also recently announced collaboration with Russia in developing 
the initial stages of a nuclear energy industry. This usually means 
setting up a nuclear R&D labatory & reactor and the required 
complementary nuclear physics departments at universities. This is a 
step that Vietnam took a few years ago and is now on course to built 
about 4000 MWs of nuclear energy.

In large part motivation to set up such a nuclear industry is spurred on 
by the world hyrdo-carbon industry. The more power that can be produced 
by non-fossil fuel sources, the more a country can sell on the world 
market, thus increasing foreign reserves.

Venezuela will join Mexico, Argentina and Brazil in Latin America that 
have working nuclear industries and all are proposing expansion.

David


From einde at gmx.de  Fri Oct  3 15:26:52 2008
From: einde at gmx.de (Einde O'Callaghan)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 23:26:52 +0200
Subject: [Marxism] WSJ: Merkel Slows NATO Bids by Georgia and Ukraine
In-Reply-To: <48E682F3.6010503@marxists.org>
References: <48E682F3.6010503@marxists.org>
Message-ID: <48E68E1C.7080809@gmx.de>

David Walters schrieb:
> I want to second Walter's request for more information on this from list 
> members in Germany or who pay attention to such things.
> 
> Energy supplies from Russia still make up a huge amount of trade between 
> both countries. I believe 100% of Germany's natural gas comes from 
> Russia and a new line, owned wholly by Gasprom, now runs from Russia 
> under the Baltic right to Germany. Could this be one of the reason's for 
> Merkel's "slowness"?
> 
The pipeline under the Baltic is still in the planning phase. The 
Swedish government has just laid down some very strict environmental 
conditions since it runs in part through Swedish territorial waters.

Merkel's predecessor, Schr?der of the SPD, is a prominent promoter of 
the Baltic pipeline and is now on the board of the Russian firm Gazprom.

Einde O'Callaghan
-------------- next part --------------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1705 - Release Date: 03.10.2008 08:18

From fred.fuentes at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 15:25:58 2008
From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 18:25:58 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] Hugo Blanco: My Arrest
Message-ID: <b5a2a8180810031425k268f314dve3fd553047c30fe0@mail.gmail.com>

My Arrest
Hugo Blanco
October 3, 2008
Cuzco -
http://www.ubnoticias.org/en/article/my-arrest

Firstly, I would like to express my profound gratitude to all of the
people and institutions who, upon hearing of my arrest, demanded my
liberation. Every one of those was important. But among those that
touched me most, I should mention the pronouncement made by my
Canadian brothers and sisters with whose support I am able to continue
publishing Lucha Ind?gena the call from the Conacami (The Peruvian
National Confederation of Communities Affected by Mines) with whom I
share the anxious desire for a political project that emanates from
the indigenous, campesino and grassroots organizations; and the
support of Wilbert Rozas, the mayor who instituted the indigenous
communities' municipal government and went immediately to Paruro after
learning of my arrest. Thanks to this solidarity, I was quickly?though
temporarily?released.

My connection to this case dates back to my childhood in Huanoquite,
Paruro, Cuzco, when I first heard that the ranch owner Bartolom? Paz
had branded his initials, BP, into the buttock of an indigenous
campesino. Naturally, Mr. Paz was not arrested; this was simply not
done to a respectable person such as he. It is very likely that this
event marked me for life. Now, Rosendo Paz, who inherited the ranch,
has snatched lands from the Markhura annex of the Tantarcalla
indigenous community, and has even put up a corral on these lands into
which he puts stolen cattle, according to denouncements made.

The community has documents that prove their ownership of the land. In
20o6, some of this community's resident came to the Cuzco Campesino
Federation, of which they are members, to request that a Federation
delegates be present for the members' upcoming land distribution
ceremony. I was assigned to the task by the Federation; I carried out
my orders, immediately communicating this all to the local police
station. The police did not object to my presentation.

Subsequently, the ranch owner ordered the Huanoquite police under his
control to assault the community members, an order which the police
immediately complied. Since the community members had the imprudence
to resist the attack, they were beaten?women and crying children
included?until driven back to the town and then to the city of Cuzco.
I was not present when this incident took place but was called to
testify. Naturally, those classified as criminals were not the
aggressors, but rather the victims of aggression.

When, upon my arrest, I was told that I was being charged with
"Violence and Resisting Authority," I thought it had something to do
with the incident during which I was not present. I was wrong, the
judge graciously clarified. The crime of "Violence and Resisting
Authority" was for having presided over the land distribution
ceremony, during which there was neither violence, nor any State
authority present.


(c) Caretas.

I understand. We are in a country in which Parliament, abdicating its
responsibility, authorizes the government to legislate in its place
when it comes to "Organized Crime." Alan Garcia used this
authorization to legislate against the calls of the organized
population, thus criminalizing protest. Victims of this magical twist
on language are the hundreds of prisoners or accused throughout Peru
who demand their rights. These comrades have the misfortune of not
being well-known and for this reason have no one crying in protest on
their behalf, as I was fortunate enough to have and to which I owe my
freedom. I therefore call on those voices of solidarity whose quick
action pulled me out of prison, to join me in defending all victims of
protests' criminalization. It seems as if Conacami has already
initiated this campaign, so let's join it. I will hold on to the
contact info of those who freed me with their voices in order to
invite you to organize in defense of the other victims of repression.

In terms of my legal case, it is not over yet. The system gets used to
letting Damocles' sword hang in mid-air as it descends on the heads of
those who protest, with the tacit threat that those who do not improve
their behavior and shut their mouths, will feel the sword soon
complete its fall.

The esteemed judge handed me an ambiguous document in which I supposed
to show in court on November 21, a date "?which should be met
irrevocably, the official orders for his detention remaining legally
valid". It's ambiguous because it does not say that I will be arrested
should I not show, it simply says "the official orders for his
detention remaining legally valid." This thus leaves the
interpretation of the phrase to the repressors to carry out depending
on the political necessities.

It is this kind of document which is now the norm and which means: "If
you shut up, nothing will happen to you, but if you continue
protesting, you will end up in jail."

How can they explain that two years after the event at hand, I was
captured by surprise without having been notified that I was due in
court, when in the course of those two years, I had already been
subpoenaed, appeared and testified in court on a separate matter?

The explanation is that two years ago, they were minimally bothered by
my presence. But now, heated attack on indigenous communities put the
entire countryside in turmoil, various organizations across the
country are inviting me to debate the attack and coordinate a defense.
The prime Minister has started calling me a "nightowl" and my
activities are clearly upsetting them.

I promise to continue in the five century old struggle against the
oppression of our people, until I draw my last breath.

October, 3 2008


From markalause at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 15:26:02 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 17:26:02 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Two flyers
In-Reply-To: <48E63CBB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
References: <48E63CBB.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810031426j69f965ecp13add521fccf035@mail.gmail.com>

Voting records on what the pirates put to a vote.  Cool.

Ya got anything on their astrological signs?

ML


From mikedf at amnh.org  Fri Oct  3 16:43:36 2008
From: mikedf at amnh.org (Mike Friedman)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 18:43:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Rachel: Rising acidity in the ocean: The other CO2
 problem (from Sci. Am.)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1223056802.5950.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
References: <mailman.1.1223056802.5950.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <52630.216.73.245.20.1223073816.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org>

RISING ACIDITY IN THE OCEAN: THE OTHER CO2 PROBLEM

[Rachel's introduction: The oceans quickly absorb 25 to 30 percent of
humankind's CO2 emissions and about 85 percent in the long run, as water
and air mix at the ocean's surface. We have "disposed" of 530 billion tons
of the gas in this way, and the rate worldwide is now one million tons per
hour, faster than experienced on earth for tens of millions of years. How
well marine life can adapt to rapid acidification remains an open
question, but there is real reason for concern.]

By Peter G. Brewer and James Barry

Climate change caused by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)
is now widely recognized. But the other side of the equation -- the
massive absorption of CO2 by the ocean -- has received far less attention.
The planet's seas quickly absorb 25 to 30 percent of humankind's CO2
emissions and about 85 percent in the long run, as water and air mix at
the ocean's surface. We have "disposed" of 530 billion tons of the gas in
this way, and the rate worldwide is now one million tons per hour, faster
than experienced on earth for tens of millions of years. We are acidifying
the ocean and fundamentally changing its remarkably delicate geochemical
balance. Scientists are only beginning to investigate the consequences,
but comparable natural changes in our geologic history have caused several
mass extinctions throughout the earth's waters.

That careful balance has survived over time because of a near equilibrium
among the acids emitted by volcanoes and the bases liberated by the
weathering of rock. The pH of seawater has remained steady for millions of
years. Before the industrial era began, the average pH at the ocean
surface was about 8.2 (slightly basic; 7.0 is neutral). Today it is about
8.1.

Although the change may seem small, similar natural shifts have taken
5,000 to 10,000 years. We have done it in 50 to 80 years. Ocean life
survived the long, gradual change, but the current speed of acidification
is very worrisome. Emissions could reduce surface pH by another 0.4 unit
in this century alone and by as much as 0.7 unit beyond 2100. We are
hurtling toward an ocean different than the earth has known for more than
25 million years.

About 89 percent of the carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater takes the
form of bicarbonate ion, about 10 percent as carbonate ion, and 1 percent
as dissolved gas. Modern marine life has evolved to live in this
chemistry. A wide variety of organisms use carbonate ion to manufacture
their skeletons: snails, urchins, clams, crabs and lobsters. And notably,
it forms the calcified plates of microscopic phytoplankton that are so
abundant and crucial to the entire marine food chain. Meanwhile carbon
dioxide levels influence the physiology of water-breathing organisms of
all kinds, which for most creatures has been optimized to operate in a
narrow range of dissolved CO2 and ocean pH.

We are now carrying out an extraordinary chemical experiment on a global
scale. Our fossil-fuel emissions raise the dissolved CO2 levels in the
ocean, which reduces carbonate ion concentrations and lowers pH. The
ocean's sunlit surface layer (the top 100 yards or so) could easily lose
50 percent of its carbonate ion by the end of this century unless we
reduce emissions dramatically. Marine animals will find it harder to build
skeletons, construct reefs, or simply to grow and breathe. Compared with
past geologic events, the speed and scale of this conversion is
astonishing.

We therefore have a dilemma. The ocean's absorption of CO2 helps to keep
atmospheric change in check. For decades, climate scientists described the
uptake as a blessing for society, and ocean chemists hoped that calcium
carbonate sediments on the seafloor would dissolve in sufficient
quantities to offset a drop in pH. But research has shown that the rate at
which sediments dissolve cannot possibly keep pace with the far faster
rate of acidification. Society can continue to depend on the ocean for
help, but the cost is a rising threat to all marine life.

Although our understanding remains murky, the fossil record shows that
ocean life has suffered massive extinctions during periods of rapidly
rising carbon dioxide levels. Marine animals' metabolic functions are
typically tuned to narrow, internal pH ranges. In addition to reducing the
calcification of skeletons, more acidic water will acidify body fluids,
likely raising respiratory stress and depressing metabolism.

Some organisms may tolerate a certain amount of change, but thinner shells
will make others more vulnerable to damage or predators. Some organisms
might also tolerate acidification of internal fluids to a point, yet even
so many will expend more energy to maintain their optimal acid-base
balance or will struggle to supply their body with oxygen and to sustain
cellular functions vital to life. The extra expense of coping with
acidification may make them more prone to dying. These stresses will be
particularly severe for deep-sea animals, which have adapted to an
extremely stable environment. And even if animals survive, the stresses
will sap energy they would otherwise use for growth and reproduction.

We would probably see the effects of ocean acidification first in animal
groups that have finely tuned environmental ranges, particularly those
already "living on the edge" such as coral reefs, which have already
suffered widespread bleaching and death from warming ocean temperatures.
Less appreciated are effects on massive communities of tiny animals that
live in the ocean's midlevels. These creatures migrate en masse to the
surface layer at night to feed yet sink to deep water during the daytime
to avoid predators. In so doing, they form a critical link between the
warm, oxygenated surface layer and the cold, oxygen-depleted waters of the
deep, as well as a critical link in the oceanwide food chain.

Increased acidity and expanding zones of low oxygen in some regions may
force these midwater organisms into shallower waters where they would be
more exposed to predators. And if, as expected, the zones of low oxygen
expand and intensify, many of these migrators could die. Together these
effects could slice through this daily, migratory lifeline between shallow
and deep waters -- an outcome that could impact society's ocean fisheries.

How well marine life can adapt to rapid acidification remains an open
question, but there is real reason for concern. Ocean life has weathered
large environmental perturbations during the earth's history, just barely;
some 250 million years ago massive volcanism is thought to have caused
ocean acidification and other factors that left 90 percent of marine
species dead.

Although man-made climate change will be much milder, strong and immediate
action to stabilize CO2 levels is essential to minimize our disruption of
ocean chemistry and ecosystems. We can no longer deny our role in global
climate change. Now is the time for serious discussion among science,
business and political leaders about ways to minimize our impact on our
air and water, to set limits on the effects of our fossil-fuel use, and to
plan how to adapt to coming change.





From pieinsky at igc.org  Fri Oct  3 17:56:51 2008
From: pieinsky at igc.org (Jay Moore)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:56:51 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Robert Kurz???
Message-ID: <48E6B143.8010906@igc.org>

A quick question: Does anybody know anything substantial about Robert 
Kurz?  He's some kind of German Marxist or neo-Marxist academic whose 
name I have encountered several times lately in the context of who has 
something worthwhile to say about the economic crisis and what to do 
about it.  I can't seem to find anything much about him, in English 
anyhow.  In German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kurz.  What's 
his schtick?  Do we have any Germans on the List at the present?

jay
www.jaysleftist.info


From farmelantj at juno.com  Fri Oct  3 18:53:33 2008
From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 20:53:33 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] What seems like a sound poll assessment of
	Obama/McCainstanding today
Message-ID: <20081003.205334.4456.0.farmelantj@juno.com>

 
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:35:53 -0700 "Bob Morris" <bob.morris at gmail.com>
writes:
> McCain bailed out of Michigan yesterday, a new poll has Obama up by 
> 12 in
> NH, and Krauthammer just said he thinks Obama will win.

Wasn't Michigan previously a battleground state?  All of the
polls that I have seen have showing McCain slipping further
and further behind Obama in the key battleground states.
____________________________________________________________
Get educated.  Click here for Adult Education programs.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nNbXOqMMd9OR565yRgtrcLAsH0yrfk4rL6hvRypHC36NYv1/


From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Fri Oct  3 18:57:19 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:57:19 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] UK rep in Afghanistan  sees NATO failure,
	urges "acceptable dictator"
Message-ID: <C0518BACDF7248CAB0D45B6E4D8D6F13@office1pc>


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/world/asia/04afghan.html
October 4, 2008
Afghan ?Dictator? Proposed in Leaked Cable 
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
PARIS ? A coded French diplomatic cable leaked to a French newspaper quotes
the British ambassador in Afghanistan as predicting that the NATO-led
military campaign against the Taliban will fail. That was not all. The best
solution for the country, the ambassador said, would be installing an
?acceptable dictator,? according to the newspaper.

?The current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so
is corruption, and the government has lost all trust,? the British envoy,
Sherard Cowper-Coles, was quoted as saying by the author of the cable,
Fran?ois Fitou, the French deputy ambassador to Kabul. 

The two-page cable ? which was sent to the ?lys?e Palace and the French
Foreign Ministry on Sept. 2, and was leaked to the investigative and
satirical weekly Le Canard Encha?n?, which printed excerpts in its Wednesday
issue ? said that the NATO-led military presence was making it harder to
stabilize the country. 

?The presence of the coalition, in particular its military presence, is part
of the problem, not part of its solution,? Sir Sherard was quoted as saying.
?Foreign forces are the lifeline of a regime that would rapidly collapse
without them. As such, they slow down and complicate a possible emergence
from the crisis.? 

Within 5 to 10 years, the only ?realistic? way to unite Afghanistan would be
for it to be ?governed by an acceptable dictator,? the cable said, adding,
?We should think of preparing our public opinion? for such an outcome. 

Sir Sherard, as quoted, was critical of both American presidential
candidates, who have vowed, if elected, to substantially increase American
military support for Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. 

In the short run, ?It is the American presidential candidates who must be
dissuaded from getting further bogged down in Afghanistan,? he is quoted as
saying. 

On Wednesday, General David D. McKiernan, the senior American military
commander in Afghanistan, called on NATO to send more troops and other
support as soon as possible to counter the insurgency. 

British officials said that the comments attributed to Sir Sherard were
distorted and did not reflect official British policy. 

?It?s not for us to comment on something that is presented as extracts from
a French diplomatic telegram, but the views it quotes are not in any way an
accurate representation of the government?s approach,? said a spokeswoman
for the British Foreign Office, who, like other French and British
officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic
rules. 

The spokeswoman confirmed, however, that the two men did have a meeting, but
said that the British ambassador?s comments were taken out of context. But
Sir Sherard, a British career Foreign Service officer who has served as
ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Israel, is known for his frank talk, and
other British officials who know him say that his words ring true. 

Mr. Fitou, meanwhile, is considered a responsible and precise diplomat who
would be unlikely to misreport a conversation, a senior French official
said. The cable did not say whether the two men spoke in English or French. 

French officials, who said they were deeply embarrassed about what they
called a serious leak, criticized the broad dissemination of the cable and
have started a leak investigation. 

The senior French official described it as a ?diplomatic disaster? that
could put French soldiers at more risk. 

Reached by telephone, Seyamak Herawy, a spokesman for President Hamid
Karzai, attributed Afghanistan?s problems, in part, to the ?multiplicity in
the viewpoints of the international community about Afghanistan.?

Claude Angeli, one of the executive editors of Le Canard Encha?n? and the
author of the article, defended its publication. 

?This is not the first time we have been the target of a leak
investigation,? he said in a telephone interview. ?The cable is authentic,
and we reported its contents accurately.? 

The pessimistic British analysis comes as France has increased its troops in
Afghanistan amid concern over a further erosion of popular support for
French troops present there. 

At the last NATO summit meeting in April, President Nicolas Sarkozy
announced that he would send an additional 700 French soldiers to fight the
Taliban in Afghanistan, bringing the total to about 3,000. He was criticized
by the Socialist opposition, criticisms that grew louder after the deaths of
10 French soldiers in a Taliban ambush in August. 

The deaths represented the highest death toll suffered by France in a
military attack since the bombing of a French barracks in Beirut in 1983
that killed 58 French paratroopers. 

In his cable to Paris, Mr. Fitou quoted the British ambassador as saying
that the reinforcement of military troops ?would have perverse effects: it
would identify us even more strongly as an occupation force and would
multiply the targets? for the insurgents. 

The cable also quoted the British envoy as saying that despite public
statements to the contrary, ?the insurgency, although still incapable of a
military victory, has the capacity to make life more and more difficult,
including in the capital.? 

Acknowledging that there is no option other than supporting the Americans in
Afghanistan, the ambassador reportedly added, ?but we must tell them that we
want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one.? The American
strategy, he is quoted as saying, ?is destined to fail.? 

Sarah Lyall contributed reporting from London, and Sangar Rahimi from Kabul.



From farmelantj at juno.com  Fri Oct  3 19:03:47 2008
From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:03:47 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] FDR's Response to the Plot to Overthrow Him
Message-ID: <20081003.210348.4456.1.farmelantj@juno.com>


On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:30:50 -0400 Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> writes:
> Counterpunch Weekend Edition
> October 3 - 5, 2008
> A Paradigm for Today's Democrats?
> FDR's Response to the Plot to Overthrow Him
> 
> By ALAN NASSER
> 
>

The first time I had ever heard about the
plot to overthrow FDR, was when
former Speaker of the House, John
McCormack mentioned it when he spoke at my high school.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_McCormack)
The story of the plot was certainly not
in our history textbooks, and I suspect
you wouldn't find it in today's high school
history textbooks either.

Jim F.
____________________________________________________________
Get help now! Click to find the right drug rehab solution for you.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nCeK9nelnd6nBVCAHqayEH6Q4JSE8eZScEv1yg7aUmeOhAb/


From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Fri Oct  3 19:36:36 2008
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:36:36 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Tariq Ali : Dueling partners: Pakistan and America:
Message-ID: <bd5.3cd172ac.361822a4@aol.com>


Tariq Ali : Dueling partners: Pakistan and America: 

A country once  callously shrugged off simply as India?s ?lesser? neighbor, 
now commands global  attention and scrutiny as the next, crucial battleground 
on the never ending  ?war on terror.?
_http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/n/2827/_ (http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/n/2827/) 
 


Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting  from their worst 
motives, will somehow produce the most good. 



**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.  
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!      
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)

From markalause at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 19:45:33 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:45:33 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] FDR's Response to the Plot to Overthrow Him
In-Reply-To: <20081003.210348.4456.1.farmelantj@juno.com>
References: <20081003.210348.4456.1.farmelantj@juno.com>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810031845p73e90bc7hf8b23f54852f34ac@mail.gmail.com>

It's generally not in the college textbooks used where I teach either.
 In fact, I'd not be too surprised if I'm the only one at this
university who teaches about the conspiracy.

History is based on the written and largely published sources, so it
can't be too surprising that the expansion of advertising, public
relations and mass media would frame and shape how the textbooks deal
with events through the twentieth century.

ML


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 19:46:09 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:46:09 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] "1873, not 1929"
In-Reply-To: <01c001c9257e$d18ff7b0$6600a8c0@D4PKYZ41>
References: <01c001c9257e$d18ff7b0$6600a8c0@D4PKYZ41>
Message-ID: <7B25CDEEBCD14246A1A47EE2347A3DB4@albanta>

 johnaimani writes: "Where is the capacity for manufacturing steel, machine
tools, automobile, television and consumer electronics in general?  Gone.
Gone overseas."

I was under the impression that the United States was still the largest
industrial and agricultural producer in the world. 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Joaquin



From cbcox at ilstu.edu  Fri Oct  3 20:16:25 2008
From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:16:25 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] "1873, not 1929"
References: <01c001c9257e$d18ff7b0$6600a8c0@D4PKYZ41>
	<7B25CDEEBCD14246A1A47EE2347A3DB4@albanta>
Message-ID: <48E6D1F9.28376CC6@ilstu.edu>



Joaquin Bustelo wrote:
> 
>  johnaimani writes: "Where is the capacity for manufacturing steel, machine
> tools, automobile, television and consumer electronics in general?  Gone.
> Gone overseas."
> 
> I was under the impression that the United States was still the largest
> industrial and agricultural producer in the world.
> 
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct as far as I know. The shrinnkage of production work in
the u.s. is primarily due to technnology annd greater productivity, not
to transfer overseas.

Of course the former well=paid factory worker now reduced to a miserable
service job doesnn't really care whether his/her job was transferred
overseas or to a new machine or to a reduced and overworked workforce.

Carrol



From carlosatros at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 20:22:57 2008
From: carlosatros at gmail.com (Carlos A. Tros)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 04:22:57 +0200
Subject: [Marxism] Robert Kurz???
In-Reply-To: <48E6B143.8010906@igc.org>
References: <48E6B143.8010906@igc.org>
Message-ID: <20738780810031922w71e65489w598b8e221e264c23@mail.gmail.com>

I'm not German but you can find some Kurz's translated  texts in Exit's
website (www.exit-online.org):
http://www.exit-online.org/text1.php?tabelle=transnationales&index=1



2008/10/4 Jay Moore <pieinsky at igc.org>

> A quick question: Does anybody know anything substantial about Robert
> Kurz?  He's some kind of German Marxist or neo-Marxist academic whose
> name I have encountered several times lately in the context of who has
> something worthwhile to say about the economic crisis and what to do
> about it.  I can't seem to find anything much about him, in English
> anyhow.  In German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kurz.  What's
> his schtick?  Do we have any Germans on the List at the present?
>
> jay
> www.jaysleftist.info
>
> ________________________________________________
> 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/carlosatros%40gmail.com
>

From michael at ecst.csuchico.edu  Fri Oct  3 20:26:51 2008
From: michael at ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Perelman)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 19:26:51 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] FDR's Response to the Plot to Overthrow Him
In-Reply-To: <b16d8daf0810031845p73e90bc7hf8b23f54852f34ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20081003.210348.4456.1.farmelantj@juno.com>
	<b16d8daf0810031845p73e90bc7hf8b23f54852f34ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20081004022651.GA8194@tiglon.ecst.csuchico.edu>

Nice treatment:

Archer, Jules. 1973. The Plot to Seize the White House (NY: Hawthorn Books). 


-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com


From bauerly at yorku.ca  Fri Oct  3 21:04:53 2008
From: bauerly at yorku.ca (bauerly at yorku.ca)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 23:04:53 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Bello on the crisis
Message-ID: <1223089493.48e6dd55e8a4d@mymail.yorku.ca>

A Primer on Wall Street Meltdown
by Walden Bello
Flying into New York Tuesday, I had the same feeling I had when I arrived in
Beirut two years ago, at the height of the Israeli bombing of that city -- that
of entering a war zone.

The immigration agent, upon learning I taught political economy, commented,
"Well, I guess you folks will now be revising all those textbooks?"

The bus driver welcomed passengers with the words, "New York is still here,
ladies and gentlemen, but Wall Street has disappeared, like the Twin Towers."

Even the usually cheerful TV morning shows felt obligated to begin with the bad
news, with one host attributing the bleak events to "the fat cats of Wall
Street who turned into pigs."

This city is shell-shocked, and most people still have to digest the momentous
events of the past two weeks:

a trillion dollars' worth of capital going up in smoke in Wall Street's steep
plunge of 778 points on Black Monday II, Sept. 29, as investors reacted in
panic to the US House of Representatives' rejection of President George W.
Bush's gargantuan $700 billion bailout of financial institutions on the verge
of bankruptcy;
the collapse of one of the Street's most prominent investment banks, Lehman
Brothers, followed by the largest bank failure in US history, that of
Washington Mutual, the country's largest savings and loan institution;
Wall Street's effective nationalization, with the Federal Reserve and the
Department of Treasury making all the major strategic decisions in the
financial sector and, with the rescue of the American International Group
(AIG), the amazing fact that the US government now runs the world's biggest
insurance company.
Over $5 trillion in total market capitalization has been wiped out since October
of last year, with over a trillion of this accounted for by the unraveling of
Wall Street's financial titans.

The usual explanations no longer suffice.  Extraordinary events demand
extraordinary explanations.  But first. . .

Is the worst over?

No, if anything is clear from the contradictory moves of the last week --
allowing Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual to collapse while taking AIG
over and engineering Bank of America's takeover of Merrill Lynch -- there is no
strategy to deal with the crisis, just tactical responses, like the fire
department's response to a conflagration.

The proposed $700 billion buyout of banks' bad mortgaged-backed securities is
not a strategy but mainly a desperate effort to shore up confidence in the
system, to prevent the erosion of trust in the banks and other financial
institutions and preventing a massive bank run such as the one that triggered
the Great Depression of 1929.

What caused the collapse of global capitalism's nerve center?  Was it greed?

Good old-fashioned greed played a part.  This is what Klaus Schwab, the
organizer of the World Economic Forum, the yearly global elite jamboree in the
Swiss Alps, meant when he told his clientele in Davos earlier this year: "We
have to pay for the sins of the past."

Was this a case of Wall Street outsmarting itself?

Definitely.  Financial speculators outsmarted themselves by creating more and
more complex financial contracts like derivatives that would securitize and
make money from all forms of risk -- including exotic futures instruments such
as "credit default swaps" that enable investors to bet on the odds that the
banks' own corporate borrowers would not be able to pay their debts!  This is
the unregulated multi-trillion-dollar trade that brought AIG down.

On Dec. 17, 2005, when International Financing Review (IFR) announced its 2005
Annual Awards -- one of the securities industry's most prestigious awards -- it
had this to say: "[Lehman Brothers] not only maintained its overall market
presence, but also led the charge into the preferred space by . . . developing
new products and tailoring transactions to fit borrowers' needs. . . .  Lehman
Brothers is the most innovative in the preferred space, just doing things you
won't see elsewhere."

No comment.

Was it lack of regulation?

Yes -- everyone acknowledges by now that Wall Street's capacity to innovate and
turn out more and more sophisticated financial instruments had run far ahead of
government's regulatory capability, not because government was not capable of
regulating but because the dominant neoliberal, laissez-faire attitude
prevented government from devising effective mechanisms with which to regulate.
 The massive trading in derivatives helped precipitate this crisis, and the US
Congress paved the way when it passed a law in 2000 excluding derivatives from
being regulated by the Securities Exchange Commission.

But isn't there something more that is happening?  Something systemic?

Well, George Soros, who saw this coming, says what we are going through is the
crisis of the "gigantic circulatory system" of a "global capitalist system that
is . . . coming apart at the seams."

To elaborate on the arch-speculator's insight, what we are seeing is the
intensification of one of the central crises or contradictions of global
capitalism, which is the crisis of overproduction, also known as
over-accumulation or overcapacity.

This is the tendency for capitalism to build up tremendous productive capacity
that outruns the population's capacity to consume, owing to social inequalities
that limit popular purchasing power.  Profitability is thus eroded.

But what does the crisis of overproduction have to do with recent events?

Plenty.  But to understand the connections, we must go back in time to the
so-called Golden Age of Contemporary Capitalism, the period from 1945 to 1975.

This was a period of rapid growth both in the center economies and in the
underdeveloped economies -- one that was partly triggered by the massive
reconstruction of Europe and East Asia after the devastation of the Second
World War, and partly by the new socioeconomic arrangements that were
institutionalized under the new Keynesian state.  Among the latter, key were
strong state controls over market activity, aggressive use of fiscal and
monetary policy to minimize inflation and recession, and a regime of relatively
high wages to stimulate and maintain demand.

So what went wrong?

Well, this period of high growth came to an end in the mid-1970s, when the
center economies were seized by stagflation, meaning the coexistence of low
growth with high inflation, which was not supposed to happen under neoclassical
economics.

Stagflation, however, was but a symptom of a deeper cause: The reconstruction of
Germany and Japan and the rapid growth of industrializing economies like Brazil,
Taiwan, and South Korea added tremendous new productive capacity and increased
global competition, while social inequalities within countries and between
countries worldwide limited the growth of purchasing power and demand, thus
eroding profitability.  This was aggravated by the massive oil price rises of
the '70s.

How did capitalism try to solve the crisis of overproduction?

Capital tried three escape routes from the conundrum of overproduction:
neoliberal restructuring, globalization, and financialization.

What was neoliberal restructuring all about?

Neoliberal restructuring took the form of Reaganism and Thatcherism in the North
and Structural Adjustment in the South.  The aim was to invigorate capital
accumulation, and this was to be done by (1) removing state constraints on the
growth, use, and flow of capital and wealth, and (2) redistributing income from
the poor and middle classes to the rich on the theory that the rich would then
be motivated to invest and reignite economic growth.

The problem with this formula was that in redistributing income to the rich,
they were gutting the incomes of the poor and middle classes, thus restricting
demand, while not necessarily inducing the rich to invest more in production. 
In fact, what the rich did was to channel a large part of their redistributed
wealth to speculation.

The truth is neoliberal restructuring, which was generalized in the North and
South during the 1980s and '90s, had a poor record in terms of growth: Global
growth averaged 1.1 percent in the '90s and 1.4 in the '80s, whereas it
averaged 3.5 percent in the '60s and 2.4 percent in the '70s, when state
interventionist policies were dominant.  Neoliberal restructuring could not
shake off stagnation.

How was globalization a response to the crisis?

The second escape route global capital took to counter stagnation was "extensive
accumulation" or globalization, or the rapid integration of semi-capitalist,
non-capitalist, or pre-capitalist areas into the global market economy.  Rosa
Luxemburg, the famous German revolutionary economist, saw this long ago as
necessary to shore up the rate of profit in the metropolitan economies.  How? 
By gaining access to cheap labor, by gaining new, albeit limited, markets, by
gaining new sources of cheap agricultural and raw material products, and by
bringing into being new areas for investment in infrastructure.  Integration is
accomplished via trade liberalization, removing barriers to the mobility of
global capital and abolishing barriers to foreign investment.

China is, of course, the most prominent case of a non-capitalist area to be
integrated into the global capitalist economy over the past 25 years.

To counter their declining profits, a sizable number of the Fortune 500
corporations have moved a significant part of their operations to China to take
advantage of the so-called "China Price" -- the cost advantage deriving from
China's seemingly inexhaustible cheap labor.  By the middle of the first decade
of the 21st century, roughly 40-50 percent of the profits of US corporations
were derived from their operations and sales abroad, especially in China.

Why didn't globalization surmount the crisis?

The problem with this escape route from stagnation is that it exacerbates the
problem of overproduction because it adds to productive capacity.  A tremendous
amount of manufacturing capacity has been added in China over the past 25 years,
and this has had a depressing effect on prices and profits.  Not surprisingly,
by around 1997, the profits of US corporations stopped growing.  According to
another index, devised by economist Philip O'Hara, the profit rate of the
Fortune 500 went from 7.15 in 1960-69 to 5.30 in 1980-90 to 2.29 in 1990-99 to
1.32 in 2000-02.

What about financialization?

Given the limited gains in countering the depressive impact of overproduction
via neoliberal restructuring and globalization, the third escape route became
very critical for maintaining and raising profitability: financialization.

In the ideal world of neoclassical economics, the financial system is the
mechanism by which the savers or those with surplus funds are joined with the
entrepreneurs who have need of their funds to invest in production.  In the
real world of late capitalism, with investment in industry and agriculture
yielding low profits owing to overcapacity, large amounts of surplus funds are
circulating and being invested and reinvested in the financial sector -- that
is, the financial sector is turning in on itself.

The result is an increased bifurcation between a hyperactive financial economy
and a stagnant real economy.  As one financial executive notes, "There has been
an increasing disconnection between the real and financial economies in the last
few years.  The real economy has grown . . . but nothing like that of the
financial economy -- until it imploded."

What this observer does not tell us is that the disconnect between the real and
the financial economy is not accidental -- that the financial economy exploded
precisely to make up for the stagnation owing to overproduction of the real
economy.

What were the problems with financialization as an escape route?

The problem with investing in financial sector operations is that it is
tantamount to squeezing value out of already created value.  It may create
profit, yes, but it does not create new value -- only industry, agriculture,
trade, and services create new value.

Because profit is not based on value that is created, investment operations
become very volatile and prices of stocks, bonds, and other forms of investment
can depart very radically from their real value -- for instance, the stock of
Internet startups that keep on rising, driven mainly by upwardly spiraling
financial valuations, and that then crash.

Profits then depend on taking advantage of upward price departures from the
value of commodities, and then selling before reality enforces a "correction,"
that is, a crash back to real values.

The radical rise of prices of an asset far beyond real values is what is called
the formation of a bubble.

Why is financialization so volatile?

Profitability being dependent on speculative coups, it is not surprising that
the finance sector lurches from one bubble to another, or from one speculative
mania to another.

Because it is driven by speculative mania, finance-driven capitalism has
experienced about 100 financial crises since capital markets were deregulated
and liberalized in the 1980s.

Prior to the current Wall Street meltdown, the most explosive of these were the
Mexican Financial Crisis of 1994-95, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98, the
Russian Financial Crisis of 1996, the Wall Street Stock Market Collapse of 2001,
and the Argentine Financial Collapse of 2002.

Bill Clinton's treasury secretary, Wall Streeter Robert Rubin, predicted five
years ago that "future financial crises are almost surely inevitable and could
be even more severe."

How do bubbles form, grow, and burst?

Let's first use the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98 as an example.

First, capital account and financial liberalization at the urging of the IMF and
the US Department of Treasury;
Then, entry of foreign funds seeking quick and high returns, meaning they went
to real estate and the stock market;
Overinvestment, leading to a fall in stock and real estate prices, leading to
panicky withdrawal of funds -- in 1997, $100 billion left the East Asian
economies in a few weeks;
Bailout of foreign speculators by the IMF;
Collapse of the real economy -- recession throughout East Asia in 1998.
Despite massive destabilization, efforts to impose both national and global
regulation of financial system were opposed on ideological grounds.

Let's go to the current bubble.  How did it form?

The current Wall Street collapse has its roots in the Technology Bubble of the
late 1990s, when the price of the stocks of Internet startups skyrocketed, then
collapsed, resulting in the loss of $7 trillion worth of assets and in the
recession of 2001-02.

The loose money policies of the Fed under Alan Greenspan had encouraged the
Technology Bubble, and when the US fell into a recession, Greenspan, to try to
counter a long recession, cut the prime rate to a 45-year low of 1.00 per cent
in June 2003 and kept it there for over a year.  That had the effect of
encouraging another bubble: the real estate bubble.

As early as 2002, progressive economists, such as Dean Baker of the Center for
Economic Policy Research, were warning about the real estate bubble.  However,
as late as 2005, Ben Bernanke, then chairman of the Council of Economic Adviser
and now chairman of the Federal Reserve, attributed the rise in US housing
prices to "strong economic fundamentals" instead of speculative activity.  Is
it any wonder that he was caught completely off guard when the subprime crisis
broke in the summer of 2007?

And how did it grow?

Let's hear it from one key market player himself, George Soros: "Mortgage
institutions encouraged mortgage holders to refinance their mortgages and
withdraw the excess equity.  They lowered their lending standards and
introduced new products, such as adjustable mortgages (ARMs), 'interest only'
mortgages, and promotional 'teaser rates.'  All this encouraged speculation in
residential housing units.  House prices started to rise in double-digit rates.
 This served to reinforce speculation, and the rise in house prices made the
owners feel rich; the result was a consumption boom that has sustained the
economy in recent years."

Looking at the process more closely, the subprime mortgage crisis was not a case
of supply outrunning real demand.  The "demand" was largely fabricated by
speculative mania among developers and financiers that wanted to make great
profits from their access to foreign money -- lots of it from Asia -- that
flooded the US in the last decade.  Big-ticket mortgages or loans were
aggressively made to millions of people who could not normally afford them by
offering low "teaser" interest rates that would later be readjusted to jack up
payments from the new homeowners.

But how could subprime mortgages going sour turn into such a big problem?

Because these assets were then "securitized" with other assets into complex
derivative products called "collateralized debt obligations" (CDOs), by the
mortgage originators working with different layers of middlemen who understated
risk so as to offload them as quickly as possible to other banks and
institutional investors.  These institutions in turn offloaded these securities
onto other banks and foreign financial institutions.  The idea was to make a
sale quickly, make a tidy profit, while foisting the risk on the suckers down
the line.

When the interest rates were raised on the subprime loans, adjustable mortgages,
and other housing loans, the game was up.  There are about six million subprime
mortgages outstanding, 40 percent of which will likely go into default in the
next two years, according to Soros' estimates.

And five million more defaults from adjustable-rate mortgages and other
"flexible loans" will occur in the next several years.  But securities whose
values run in the trillions of dollars have already been injected, like a
virus, into the global financial system.  Global capitalism's gigantic
circulatory system is fatally infected.

But how could Wall Street titans collapse like a house of cards?

For Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns,
the losses represented by these toxic securities simply overwhelmed their
reserves and brought them down.  And more are likely to fall once their books
-- since lots of these holdings are recorded "off the balance sheet" -- are
corrected to reflect their actual holdings of these assets.

And many others will join them as other speculative operations, such as credit
cards and different varieties of risk insurance, seize up.  American
International Group (AIG) was felled by its massive exposure in the unregulated
area of credit default swaps, derivatives that make it possible for investors to
bet on the possibility that companies will default on repaying loans.  Such bets
on credit defaults now make up a $45 trillion market that is entirely
unregulated.  It amounts to more than five times the total of the US government
bond market.  The mega-size of the assets that could go bad should AIG collapse
was what made Washington change its mind and salvage it after it let Lehman
Brothers collapse.

What's going to happen now?

We can safely say, then, that there will be more bankruptcies and government
takeovers, with foreign banks and institutions joining their US counterparts;
that Wall Street's collapse will deepen and prolong the US recession; and that
in Asia and elsewhere, a US recession will translate into a recession, if not
worse.

The reason for that last point is that China's main foreign market is the US and
China in turn imports raw materials and intermediate goods that it uses for its
exports to the US from Japan, South Korea, and Southeast Asia.  Globalization
has made "decoupling" impossible.  The US, China, and East Asia are like three
prisoners bound together in a chain gang.

In a nutshell. . .?

The Wall Street meltdown is due not only to greed and the lack of government
regulation of a hyperactive sector.  It stems ultimately from the crisis of
overproduction that has plagued global capitalism since the mid-1970s.

Financialization of investment activity has been one of the escape routes from
stagnation, the other two being neoliberal restructuring and globalization. 
With neoliberal restructuring and globalization providing limited relief,
financialization became attractive as a mechanism to shore up profitability. 
But financialization has proven to be a dangerous road, leading to speculative
bubbles that lead to the temporary prosperity of a few but which ultimately end
up in corporate collapse and in recession in the real economy.

The key questions now are: How deep and long will this recession be?  Does the
US economy need another speculative bubble to drag itself out of this
recession?  And if it does, where will the next bubble form?  Some people say
the military-industrial complex, or the "disaster capitalism complex" that
Naomi Klein writes about, is the next one, but that's another story.




From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 21:38:41 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 23:38:41 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Brian Moore, SP USA Pres. candidate, on Fox News
Message-ID: <908b689f0810032038t29f0dd90o6f21948b85596790@mail.gmail.com>

> On Saturday, October 4, Socialist Party USA presidential
> candidate Brian Moore will be a guest on the Fox News
> Channel show, "Cavuto on Business," at 11 AM with
> host Neil Cavuto to discuss the recent financial crisis.


From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Fri Oct  3 21:39:55 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 23:39:55 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Brian Moore, SP USA Pres. candidate, on Fox News
In-Reply-To: <908b689f0810032038t29f0dd90o6f21948b85596790@mail.gmail.com>
References: <908b689f0810032038t29f0dd90o6f21948b85596790@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810032039s7ecf7449vc5bdb99a1686deab@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists
<ok.president+marxml at gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Saturday, October 4, Socialist Party USA presidential
>> candidate Brian Moore will be a guest on the Fox News
>> Channel show, "Cavuto on Business," at 11 AM with
>> host Neil Cavuto to discuss the recent financial crisis.

Brian Moore's interview for Saturday, October 4, has
been moved from 11 AM to 11:30 AM on Fox News Channel.


From shmage at pipeline.com  Fri Oct  3 22:08:52 2008
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 00:08:52 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] "1873, not 1929"
In-Reply-To: <7B25CDEEBCD14246A1A47EE2347A3DB4@albanta>
References: <01c001c9257e$d18ff7b0$6600a8c0@D4PKYZ41>
	<7B25CDEEBCD14246A1A47EE2347A3DB4@albanta>
Message-ID: <1E010BD6-1733-44D2-9A24-995792A49D6E@pipeline.com>


On Oct 3, 2008, at 9:46 PM, Joaquin Bustelo wrote:

> johnaimani writes: "Where is the capacity for manufacturing steel,  
> machine
> tools, automobile, television and consumer electronics in general?   
> Gone.
> Gone overseas."
>
> I was under the impression that the United States was still the  
> largest
> industrial and agricultural producer in the world.
>
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


That depends on whether war spending counts as "industrial production."


Shane Mage

"Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to  
be called Zeus."

Herakleitos of Ephesos





From johnaimani at earthlink.net  Fri Oct  3 22:14:19 2008
From: johnaimani at earthlink.net (johnaimani)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:14:19 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] "1873, not 1929"
Message-ID: <02de01c925d7$ac720640$6600a8c0@D4PKYZ41>

Message: 22
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:46:09 -0400
From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Marxism] "1873, not 1929"

<<I was under the impression that the United States was still the largest
industrial and agricultural producer in the world.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Joaquin>>

That may be so.  It is entirely possible that a decreasing workforce may 
produce
a greater amount than a (substantially larger) workforce had previously 
done.
This is history as shown in the below:

Number (in millions) of workers employed in the United States

      YEAR
     1932
     1945
     1950
     1970
     1975
     1980
     1985
     1990

      Agricul
     10.2
     8.6
     7.2
     3.5
     3.4
     3.4
     3.2
     3.2

      Goods
     8.6
     17.5
     18.5
     23.6
     22.6
     25.7
     24.9
     25.0

      Service
     15.0
     22.9
     36.7
     47.3
     54.3
     64.7
     72.7
     85.0


Source:  1992 Information Please Almanac.  Houghton Miflin.  Boston.  p59.

You will note that as GDP was growing (save for the Great Depression 
interregnum) the workforces in
agriculture and in Goods showed declines or at dbest stasis in the face of a 
growing population.  You will also
see that the service sector has, in th emain, swallowed these up (albeit in 
positions at a lesser wage).

And yet the effects of deindustrialization are pronounced (esp in urban 
areas.
In addition to the citations and aphorisms below it is also of note that US 
wages have, adjusted for inflation,
not yet recovered from the highs reached in the early 1970's.

But please see the note below the evidentiary notes below:



From johnaimani at earthlink.net  Fri Oct  3 22:49:42 2008
From: johnaimani at earthlink.net (johnaimani)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:49:42 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] "1873, not 1929"
Message-ID: <031d01c925dc$9e5fa170$6600a8c0@D4PKYZ41>

Sorry, sent plain text.  The table reads:

Number (in millions) of workers employed in the United States

      YEAR         
     1932
     1945
     1950
     1970
     1975
     1980
     1985
     1990
     
      Agricul
     10.2
     8.6
     7.2
     3.5
     3.4
     3.4
     3.2
     3.2
     
      Goods
     8.6
     17.5
     18.5
     23.6
     22.6
     25.7
     24.9
     25.0
     
      Service
     15.0
     22.9
     36.7
     47.3
     54.3
     64.7
     72.7
     85.0
     

Source:  1992 Information Please Almanac.  Houghton Miflin.  Boston.  p59.

 

From lueko.willms at t-online.de  Fri Oct  3 23:35:20 2008
From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 07:35:20 +0200 (MES)
Subject: [Marxism] WSJ: Merkel Slows NATO Bids by Georgia and Ukraine
In-Reply-To: <48E682F3.6010503@marxists.org>
References: <48E682F3.6010503@marxists.org>
Message-ID: <100-9800e748-13668.575@lws-media.de>

On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:39:15 -0700, David Walters wrote:

> I want to second Walter's request for more information on this from list 
> members in Germany or who pay attention to such things.

   I have written a contribution a few days ago -- didn't you read it? Also the 
links to articles from Der Spiegel. It's worth reading that stuff to find out what 
the German bourgeoisie is up to. 


Cheers, 
L?ko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------


From lueko.willms at t-online.de  Fri Oct  3 15:51:19 2008
From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 23:51:19 +0200 (MES)
Subject: [Marxism] WSJ: Merkel Slows NATO Bids by Georgia and Ukraine
In-Reply-To: <48E68E1C.7080809@gmx.de>
References: <48E682F3.6010503@marxists.org> <48E682F3.6010503@marxists.org>
	<48E68E1C.7080809@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <100-d793e648-13976.388@lws-media.de>

On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 23:26:52 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:

> Merkel's predecessor, Schr?der of the SPD, is a prominent promoter of 
> the Baltic pipeline and is now on the board of the Russian firm Gazprom.

  No, he is on the board of the joint-venture planning the pipeline thru the 
Baltic Sea. Gazprom is just one partner in that joint venture, although with 
51%, together with BASF (for Wintershall) and E.on (Ruhrgas). 


Comradely yours, 
L?ko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------


From aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm  Sat Oct  4 05:32:42 2008
From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm (Aaron Aarons)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 04:32:42 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Robert Kurz???
In-Reply-To: <20738780810031922w71e65489w598b8e221e264c23@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48E6B143.8010906@igc.org>
	<20738780810031922w71e65489w598b8e221e264c23@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20081004113250.5CDD7B201@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com>

For those who can read Portuguese, there's a tremendous amount by and about Robert Kurz in that language on the web -- almost as much as in German and a lot more than in English or Spanish.

In fact, when I was checking out Kurz's work a few years ago, most of the Spanish versions of his writings were translations from the Portuguese versions, and, if memory serves, so were the English versions, sometimes through the Spanish ones (i.e. German -> Portuguese -> Spanish -> English).

 - Aaron



From sabocat59 at mac.com  Sat Oct  4 07:08:45 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:08:45 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] McCain bombs his brain
Message-ID: <D0C91E14-55AB-4733-81EB-3F0EF6D03B74@mac.com>

Absurdity of the day:

<In a televised interview last spring, Senator John McCain, Mr.  
Obama?s Republican rival, asked, ?How can you countenance someone who  
was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html? 
_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin>



From sabocat59 at mac.com  Sat Oct  4 07:18:26 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:18:26 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Bolivia in Dialogue
Message-ID: <2777E71B-9DDD-48D5-8C9B-B49FA1D9BF14@mac.com>

  Bolivia in Dialogue: Between Hope and Civil War
Written by Clifton Ross
Thursday, 02 October 2008

MAS Supporters March in La Paz

"If 85% of Bolivia is owned by 15% of the country, that means that  
85% of us are sharing the 15% that's left," Eleodoro explains to me,  
his words hissing through the gaps left by his missing teeth.  
Eleodoro is a campesino I've just met, and his analysis sums up the  
current reality of Bolivia. (1)

We're attending the Third Latin American Meeting on Ecological  
Agriculture at Casa Campestre, a relatively elegant wood resort in  
Cochabamba, the exact location of a dialogue between the Bolivian  
government and the opposition. While campesinos, researchers, NGO and  
social movement activists laugh or chat in the lobby, just beyond the  
four or five military guards hovering around the doorway (one  
snoozing in a chair, one text messaging and the other three on full  
alert) is the large meeting hall where Bolivia's fate is being  
decided. No one knows which way it will go. Inside that large meeting  
hall the government and the opposition are trying to hash out an  
agreement to keep the country from civil war.

Since taking office in January 2006, President Evo Morales and the  
Movement to Socialism (MAS) have set about to bring greater political  
and economic equality to Bolivia's indigenous majority. Their project  
has stirred violent opposition and calls for autonomy from the  
richer, whiter "Media Luna" region that arcs through the eastern part  
of Bolivia, north to south. At the time of this writing, the nation  
is enjoying a truce, but it still teeters precariously between  
peaceful change and civil war.

Most of the country is full of hope for peace, as the Morales  
government negotiates with a clearly weakened opposition. The  
dialogue between the Morales government and the opposition is being  
observed by members of the Organization of American States (OAS), the  
Union of South American Nations (Unasur), the UN, the European Union,  
the Catholic church and representatives of other institutions. They  
say "progress is being made" toward a peace settlement but no one  
knows how long the truce will hold or what it will bring.

Libertad is sceptical. She's a young teacher from Cochabamba I met a  
few days before as she was finishing her cup of coca tea in the  
market near Plaza San Franciso in La Paz. She shook her head and  
admitted that she was still convinced that civil war is inevitable.  
As a member of the Anti-Fascist Youth of Bolivia, and one who has  
studied her opponent well, Libertad feels she has every reason to  
believe that the fascists who work for the Media Luna prefects  
(governors of the departments in opposition) haven't yet slaked their  
thirst for blood.

On the other hand, the eighty-five percent, or a sizeable  
representation of them, have held massive demonstrations in La Paz  
since the September 11 massacres of their comrades in the department  
of Pando where a still-unknown number of campesinos, unarmed or armed  
with sticks, were slaughtered by paramilitaries trained and commanded  
by the prefect, Leopoldo Fernandez.

"We're on our way to burn down the U.S. Embassy because it has  
betrayed us," Ismael, a union leader from El Alto, told me at a  
September 15th march which cut off a lane of traffic on the main  
avenue through La Paz for the better part of the busy Monday morning.  
For better or for worse, Ismael never fulfilled his objective, but  
his statement alone demonstrated the rage he and hundreds of  
thousands of Bolivians feel toward the U.S. government, which they  
blame for having supported the autonomist movement, and therefore  
partly responsible for the Sept. 11 massacre.

ImageThis atrocity was the culmination of a wave of opposition  
attacks that included the May 24 assaults on, and humiliation of,  
indigenous MASistas in the department of Sucre; destruction of  
government offices; the sacking of the public market Santa Cruz and  
blockades of the nation's highways. Most of these attacks have had a  
specifically racist and classist character, like the May 24 attack of  
indigenous campesinos in Sucre and the attacks on the market in Santa  
Cruz, since the public markets are traditionally the places in Latin  
America where primarily working class people attempt to eke out a  
living.

The violence has ended in most areas of the Media Luna, but there is  
still, at the time of this writing, ongoing violence in Pando,  
including the rape of children as young as 11 and the stalking of MAS  
members and survivors of the massacre.

In response to the violence perpetrated by the opposition, many  
leftist social movements staged a relatively peaceful seige of Santa  
Cruz for nearly two weeks. They made it clear to the area's  
residents, known as Cruce?os, that they would lift the blockade when  
government offices were turned back over to the proper authorities.

As is common with Bolivia?s regular road blockades, this siege of  
Santa Cruz cost South America's poorest country dearly. Corn and soy  
crops rotted, awaiting shipment out of Santa Cruz or on the roads  
awaiting the lifting of the blockades. Chickens, in turn, starved to  
death, and the price of poultry skyrocketed, almost doubling in a  
little more than a week. The economic impact on Expocruz, the big  
fair where Cruce?os annually exhibit their goods, has yet to be  
reckoned.

After the meeting of Unasur in Santiago, Chile, which backed the  
Morales government and the capture and detention of Leopoldo  
Fernandez, the Media Luna was forced to negotiate. Nevertheless,  
negotiations in Cochabamba between the government and opposition are  
hobbled by what many consider to be the unreasonable demands of the  
Media Luna. The main sticking points continue to be the issue of  
autonomy, the proposal for a Direct Hydrocarbon Tax to fund a modest  
sort of Social Security program, and the proposed reforms to the  
Constitution.

Israel Quispe, who works in the central government's Office of Social  
Movements, says of the Media Luna's idea of autonomy that, "they want  
their own army, their own police force and if they get the kind of  
autonomy they want, we indigenous people will have to get passports  
and visas to go to Santa Cruz. What they're really asking for is a  
separate country, to divide Bolivia -- and that's impossible!"

Writer and long-time observer residing in La Paz, Keith Richards,  
doesn't think the Media Luna has much chance acheiving its goals.  
"Sure, they can declare themselves independent, but the world has  
already let them know they won't be recognized.  It's sort of a  
meaningless act to declare independence when only the U.S. appears to  
be willing to recognize them, isn't it?"

It's commonly held among Morales supporters that the autonomists, in  
whose regions are found the greatest reserves of natural gas, are  
fighting the Direct Hydrocarbon Tax because they're selfish and don't  
want any money to go to La Paz. While that may be true, the tax also  
reflects the autonomist's sense that they are being "taxed without  
being represented," leading them to the conclusion that the Morales  
government is a tyranny, and they, an oppressed group akin to the  
fathers of the American Revolution.

ImageNevertheless, the Media Luna prefects are anything but a ragtag  
group of colonists fending off a formidable empire: quite the  
contary, the issue is that the wealthy Media Luna "cambas" (as the  
easterners are known) don't want to share with the poorer, altiplano  
"collas." And as for not being represented, many would say they have  
no one to blame but themselves, given their intransigence, their use  
of boycotts and walk-outs and their unwillingness to negotiate with  
MASistas who are in the majority. Finally, the violence of the past  
months have been anything but a tea party.

Nowhere have the counterproductive political strategies of the  
opposition been more in evidence than in the writing of the  
Constitution. In September of 2007 the opposition decided to withdraw  
and boycott the Constituent Assembly (where they were a minor third  
of the whole) rather than work with the majority (MASistas) to  
moderate aspects they found contrary to their interests. In addition  
to further recognizing the indigenous peoples, the constitution would  
put limits on the amount of land the "latifundistas" (large  
landholders) could keep and ensure that some of that 80% of the land  
return to the 70% of the people.

The opposition found these, and other modest reforms, unbearable and  
so launched protests, which led to riots, ultimately leaving three  
dead. As a result, the constituent assembly found it necessary to  
move from Sucre to Oruro in December, 2007 to finish writing what  
would ultimately become known as the "MASista Constitution." The  
opposition withdrew, taking their toys with them, then complained  
loudly that they hadn't been included in the game.

It was then that the struggle of the Media Luna for autonomy began  
again in earnest, culminating in their defeat in the August, 2008  
referendum on Morales' (and the prefects?) rule and their violent  
response to his victory which resulted in the blockades and, finally  
the massacre in Pando.

The social movements responded: the miners, workers from an array of  
unions (and now including the recently reintegrated Bolivian Worker's  
Central (COB) a relatively powerful Trotskyist union which returned  
to the MAS fold on September 17th), women's organizations, squatters,  
indigenous and campesino organizations marched on Santa Cruz, the  
heart of the Media Luna and as many as 20,000 laid seige to the town,  
demanding that the prefects turn back over government offices and  
allow the Constitution to come up for a vote. Some organizations say  
that if the opposition doesn't allow the vote on the Constitution,  
they will again lay seige to Santa Cruz.

This would be a real danger, especially since a seige of Santa Cruz  
and marches into the city by MASistas could spark more and greater  
violence, such as more attacks by the Union of Cruce?a Youth (UJC), a  
racist organization that grew out of the Bolivian Black Shirts,  
organized by Croatian Nazis in the 1960s.

Libertad says a member of her organization infiltrated the UJC and  
reported that the organization is in possession of machine guns,  
grenades and other arms. The MASista protesters, when armed, are  
often armed only with sticks and, in some cases, shotguns and rifles.

In a worst case scenario, a violent confrontation between the social  
movements aligned with MAS and the UJC could bring in the Santa Cruz  
police on the side of the UJC. This would be ironic, but not  
impossible, given that the Santa Cruz police took a beating at the  
hands of the UJC and the "civic movement" of the autonomous  
opposition forces two weeks ago. Nevertheless, Daniel, a youth from  
Santa Cruz and now living in La Paz, thinks this is likely. "The  
police may not like the UJC but after it's all over, they're going to  
have to live in that community. And I think they're also very  
frightened of the MASistas," he told me.

Such a confrontation could lead to another state of emergency in  
Santa Cruz, similar to the one declared in Pando just after the  
September 11 massacre, and that would involve the Bolivian Armed  
Forces. Residents of nearby Plan Three Thousand, an enormous city  
next to Santa Cruz composed mostly of former residents of Cochabamba  
and La Paz and referred to by some as the "MAS bubble in Santa Cruz,"  
would also likely get involved in the confrontation. Eighteen  
truckloads of armed UJC recently entered the municipality and were  
driven back by the mostly unarmed residents. Since then there have  
been sporadic battles between the UJC and MASistas, who continue to  
conduct armed community watch in the city.

To add to the overall confusion, this massive city beside Santa Cruz  
has just declared autonomy from the autonomist Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz  
can take that as a message that the residents of the neighboring city  
of Plan Three Thousand are either opposed to the Media Luna or, at  
the very least, want to be left out of the dispute with the national  
government.

ImageBolivians I have spoken with, with very few exceptions, hope  
none of this plays out. They're banking on the dialogue, but tempers  
on all sides are still running hot, and any spark of violence could  
potentially bring that dialogue to an end.

This is probably the reason social movement leaders hoped to turn  
their movements' attention from a seige of Santa Cruz to a blockade  
of the Congress in La Paz. That possibility was to be discussed in a  
meeting on Saturday, September 27, by the National Coordinator for  
Change (Conalcam) in Cochabamba. Leading up to the meeting,   
President Morales was reported to have said in the daily, La Razon,  
"...if the prefects don't guarantee an agreement there will again be  
movilizations until the prefects understand this loud demand of the  
Bolivian people for the refounding of Bolivia with a new  
constitution." Julio Salazar, leader of the cocaleros, said,  
"Personally, I think that it would be better to pressure Congress so  
as to avoid confrontations between Bolivians with a seige on Santa  
Cruz."

On September 27, the day of the meeting, Conalcam had good news for  
the peace-loving people of Bolivia. After a day-long meeting with  
President Morales and Vice President Alvaro Garc?a Linera, Conalcam  
issued a statement that it would beseige the congress "until  
obtaining approval of a law to convoke a referendum for the approval  
of the new CPE (Political Constitution of the State)."

This is good news for several reasons. First, the seige of the  
national legislature minimizes confrontations between MASistas of the  
social movements on one hand, and the Media Luna paramilitaries,  
fascist UJC and the "civic unionists" on the other. Secondly, it  
would more clearly direct the power of the social movements toward  
the political struggle in the congress where the old neoliberal  
parties and sectors in support of the oligarchy and the Media Luna  
are putting their focus. Finally, it would bring the MASista social  
movements back to where they have their greatest support from the  
community of La Paz and from the legitimate government of President  
Morales. From that vantage point they could launch a struggle that  
might help settle the current conflict -- and without a civil war.

Postscript:

Four of the five opposition prefects and political parties of the  
opposition suspended talks with the government on October 1st as a  
result of the detention of Jose Vaca, an opposition activist accused  
of blowing up a natural gas viaduct that provided gas to Brazil.  
MASistas are planning to lay siege to the Congress in two weeks and  
well-known campesino leader and MASista, Isaac Avalos, promised more  
protests against the opposition prefects, although it isn't yet clear  
what that might imply.

Clifton Ross is the translator and co-editor with Ben Clarke of  
"Voice of Fire: Communiques and Interviews from the Zapatista  
National Liberation Army." He has also written, edited or translated  
a half dozen other books of poetry, fiction, interviews and  
translations from Latin America. Most recently, Ross wrote, directed  
and produced "Venezuela: Revolution from the Inside Out," a feature- 
length documentary released May 20 of this year and available from PM  
Press (www.pmpress.org). He can be reached at clifross1 at yahoo.com.

Note:

1. According to the National Security Encyclopedia, approximately 30%  
of the population in Bolivia controls 80% of the wealth.
  

From walterlx at earthlink.net  Sat Oct  4 07:29:43 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 09:29:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Bolivia in Dialogue
Message-ID: <6450785.1223126983407.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Looks like there is some encouraging news here:
>The social movements responded: the miners, workers from an array of  
>unions (and now including the recently reintegrated Bolivian Worker's  
>Central (COB) a relatively powerful Trotskyist union which returned  
>to the MAS fold on September 17th), women's organizations, squatters,  
>indigenous and campesino organizations marched on Santa Cruz, the  
>heart of the Media Luna and as many as 20,000 laid seige to the town,  
>demanding that the prefects turn back over government offices and  
>allow the Constitution to come up for a vote. Some organizations say  
>that if the opposition doesn't allow the vote on the Constitution,  
>they will again lay seige to Santa Cruz.
=======================================================================
Below, latest Bolivia updates from Inca Kola News. Inca Kola, by the 
way, is a Peruvian soft drink. I highly recommend the Inca Cola daily
news release, which covers many aspects of Bolivian and other Latin
American topics, particularly Venezuela and Argentina. Today's Inca
cola has a link to a Mark Weisbrot comment on Argentina's economic
situation which readers here might want to check out.


Walter Lippman
Los Angeles, California
=======================================================================
10/3/08

http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2008/10/evo-draws-line.html

Evo draws the line

"Otro Golazo de Evoooooo!"

Seems like your prescient Otto was spookily correct yesterday when
writing "There comes a point when patience will run out" about the
way the racist scum decided to break off negotiations with Bolivia's
democratically elected government.

Just to recap, the fascists decided to throw a tantrum when one of
their own was arrested for the trivial matter of state terrorism.
Only in the warped minds of the separatists can a legal arrest made
on someone who actually admits to the wrongdoing (i.e. the attack on
gas pipeline installations in Tarija) but they said that it was a
kidnapping, broke off talks and said they'd reconvene Monday 29th.
Well today Evo just called their bluff; he's called this Sunday 28th
as the deadline for any definitive agreeement. In the words of Doctor
Morales;

"Sunday is definitive, I'm going to be there (in Cochabamba at the
meeting place) on Sunday and hopefully the prefects will be there,
too"

Other Evo zingers include, "Apparently the prefects are suspending
dialogue in an attempt to protect those who committed acts of
terrorism and common crimes during the protest of last September",

....and also, "(the talks) cannot be conditioned to certains claims
that must be dealt with by the judiciary."

So Evo once again shows them who's boss. And as a reminder, what's in
play is the contents of the new constitutional referendum. Morales
has shown he is willing to adapt the draft resolution on some points
with the media luna states (a policy expressly against the wishes of
many indigenous organizations, it should be noted), but if the
prefects from the rebel states don't agree to anything by Sunday's
deadline, they get no changes. Zip, nada, zilch. The constitution
goes to referendum as stands and Evo gets to say "Look, I tried to
talk with the dumbasses....gave them a chance...they want to be
idiots, that's fine."

Evo: You are the man. And over 67% of Bolivians agree with me. And
all of Unasur, come to think of it.

Observers Push for Bolivia Dialog

La Paz, Oct 3 (Prensa Latina) National and foreign observers boost
Friday negotiation between the Bolivian government and opposition
prefects to solve the current political crisis gripping the country.

After meeting with government authorities, Bolivian religious
representatives and envoys from several international organizations
predict to negotiate today with opposition leaders from Santa Cruz,
Beni, Tarija and Chuquisaca.

Deputy Decentralization Minister Fabian Yaksic and Rural Development
Minister Carlos Romero ratified to the group of observers the
Executive"s will of continuing talks and not to waste results of the
dialogue.

They expect to continue the legal actions against the masterminds of
the attack by force on public entities and economic targets, in the
wave of violence the country lived last month.

Local mediators and those from the Union of South American Nations
and the Organization of American States coincided to defend
agreements reached in the last few days.

Juan Claude Martinez, deputy from the European Parliament, sent a
letter to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, to intervene before his
Bolivian counterpart to re-establish the process.

nm/iff/fmv/mf PL-5


=========================================
     WALTER LIPPMANN
     Los Angeles, California
     Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
     "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================


From sabocat59 at mac.com  Sat Oct  4 07:41:44 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:41:44 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Bachelet tells a funny
Message-ID: <E5B66C17-2087-4BFD-9375-D4857B871AF9@mac.com>

BACHELET WRAPS UP U.S. VISIT WITH A BIT OF HUMOR  	
Monday, 29 September 2008

Chilean President Michelle Bachelet wrapped up her trip in the United  
States last Friday but didn?t leave until getting the last laugh.  
?Why has there never been a coup in the United States?? joked  
Bachelet to a group of prominent U.S. investors.  ?Because there is  
no U.S. embassy in the United States.?

Although Bachelet?s ribbing aimed at America?s involvement in several  
Latin American coups prompted widespread laughter, she later  
backtracked.

?And I?m not saying I agree with the joke, but I think that the U.S.  
should participate in Latin American progress,? she said. ?The U.S.  
should treat us as equals, and not like kids, we are like adults and  
we are doing well.?

Bachelet also talked about her relationship with Venezuelan President  
Hugo Ch?vez, affirming the strictly business attitude of their  
meetings. Recently, Ch?vez made news by expelling the U.S. ambassador  
to Venezuela. A week later, he expelled Human Rights Watch leader  
Jos? Miguel Vivanco.

?Sometimes we are friends as leaders, other times no, but that is not  
the issue,? said Bachelet. ?Right now this is not a meeting amongst  
friends; our current relations are between the heads of States.?

Bachelet returned to Santiago Friday night after her busy trip in the  
United States attending the 63rd session of the United Nations  
General Assembly last week.

Bachelet ended her U.S. trip at a breakfast meeting with several of  
the world?s most important female leaders. Lead by U.S. Secretary of  
State Condoleezza Rice, the breakfast featured prominent females in  
government from over 40 nations.

Bachelet was also one of 35 international leaders invited to dine  
with UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon.

During the trip, Bachelet met with several leaders and celebrities,  
ranging from Bill Gates to Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward  
Kennedy, who she awarded with the Order to the Merit of Chile - the  
Chilean government's highest level civilian award ? for his work on  
behalf of democracy during Pinochet?s 17-year dictatorship (ST Sept.  
24).

SOURCE: LA TERCERA
By Jeff MacMullen ( editor at santiagotimes.clThis e-mail address is  
being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it )




From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Sat Oct  4 07:55:02 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 09:55:02 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Left's Bailout Statement Mentioned in Wall Street Journal
Message-ID: <908b689f0810040655l5bd8f00bobd4723d25bb4ea65@mail.gmail.com>

Is the Rescue Plan Socialism? The Far Left Says, 'No Way, Comrade'
Wall Street Journal - USA

During a transport workers union protest on Wall Street this week,
members of the Socialist Party USA handed out fliers that screamed "NO
to the Banker ...

<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122306950849703363.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>


From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Sat Oct  4 07:56:59 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:56:59 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Call for Peruvians to mobilize to hold Garcia to his
 promises, after concessions to protests?
Message-ID: <B3DD637DABD7484D9EC07D41A5C06EE9@office1pc>

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44106

PERU: Mobilising to Hold President to His Promises By Milagros Salazar

LIMA, Oct 2 (IPS) - Social movements, trade unions, peasant farmer and
indigenous organisations are holding strikes and demonstrations to demand
that Peruvian President Alan Garc?a fulfil the social commitments he has
made, in writing and at negotiating tables.

"We are organising throughout the length and breadth of the country to plan
a day of repudiation and condemnation of a political programme that lacks
credibility, because the government does not keep its word and is ignoring
our social demands," the vice president of the General Confederation of
Peruvian Workers (CGTP), Olmedo Auris, told IPS. 

The CGTP is preparing for a nationwide day of demonstrations against the
government's economic, political and social measures on Oct. 7, because in
its view the administration is failing to respect 34 agreements signed by
the authorities over the past two years, nearly all of them as a means of
temporarily halting protests. 

Public school teachers, construction workers, farmers, miners and regional
associations will join the strike action begun Sept. 15 by public sector
medical personnel, who are demanding salary increases and a larger budget
for the health sector. 

Doctors signed an agreement with the government in January, in which the
administration promised to address 15 demands. But the executive branch
offered a "humiliating solution" when it proposed to spend only 3.4 million
dollars on meeting them, since at least 103 million dollars are needed, the
president of the Peruvian Medical Federation (FMP), Julio Vargas, told IPS. 

When the government failed to come up with a satisfactory response, the FMP
radicalised its protest and announced that it would empty five hospitals of
medical personnel and hand them over to the authorities, after stabilising
patients and sending them home, and transferring the chronically ill to
other hospitals. 

"The government will ask the Attorney General's Office to prosecute any
doctor who abandons his or her patients, for the crime of endangering
people's lives," Prime Minister Jorge del Castillo replied. 

Tighter budget constraints, which will intensify next year in order to curb
inflation in the context of the international financial crisis, have
exacerbated public discontent and triggered a number of protests. 

In addition to the demonstrations against the increased cost of living and
the government's economic policies, regional demands have resurfaced, such
as those of the southern provinces of Moquegua and Tacna. 

On Wednesday, protests broke out in both provinces over the distribution of
the "canon minero", the portion of the mining company taxes that is
transferred to the provinces. The "canon" represents half of the total taxes
paid by mining companies to the state. 

The economy of both provinces depends on the mining tax transfers they
receive for social spending, public works and infrastructure, in
compensation for the activities in their territories of the Southern Peru
Copper Corporation, controlled by Mexican capital. 

Since 2001 the two provinces have received over one billion dollars from the
mining company's activities in two places, Cuajone in Moquegua, and
Toquepala in Tacna. 

In the last three years, however, a distortion has occurred, because the
criterion for distributing the transferred taxes according to the volume of
earth moved for copper extraction has led to Tacna receiving close to 80
percent of the funds. 

In June the province of Moquegua went on an indefinite strike that
immobilised the south of the country, after giving the government several
warnings about the distribution of the transferred taxes, and demanding that
they be distributed in proportion to the company's net income from its
operations. 

To defuse the conflict, Prime Minister del Castillo signed an agreement with
provincial authorities and leaders, committing himself to draw up separate
accounts for Southern Peru tax transfers to the provinces within 30 days,
but without specifying what criteria would be used to ensure equitable
distribution. 

More than three months later, on Sept. 25, the government sent a draft law
to parliament proposing that the tax transfers be distributed based on the
value of the copper concentrate extracted from the mines. 

This would entail a reduction of over 120 million dollars in Tacna's
receipts, the provincial authorities told IPS, saying they would hold
demonstrations against the initiative on Thursday and Friday. 

Moquegua, in turn, is unhappy about the delay and went on strike Wednesday
and Thursday. 

"The executive branch has sent the ball into parliament's court, without
honouring its word, and the only result is delay," the head of the Moquegua
Defence Front, Zen?n Cuevas, told IPS. 

The Garc?a administration has adopted two misguided strategies in handling
social conflicts, Carlos Reyna, a sociologist at the Catholic University,
told IPS. "On the one hand, it is postponing problems and signing agreements
that it does not fulfil, instead of resolving the disputes. On the other, it
has encouraged polarisation by attacking representatives of social sectors."


Del Castillo said on Tuesday that the protests in the south are due to
manipulation by people with links to the radical leftwing party Patria Roja
(Red Homeland), and declared that "going on strike is irrational." 

"Every social sector has a satchel full of agreements that are very unlikely
to be fulfilled, because the government insists on maintaining a neoliberal
(free market) economic model that will not permit this to happen," said
Reyna. 

Juan Manuel Figueroa, coordinating secretary for the presidency of the
Council of Ministers, said that the agreements have not been fulfilled 100
percent because certain commitments undertaken by the provincial
governments, such as the construction of roads, irrigation ditches and other
investments, have not been completed. 

Discussion of the 2009 budget has fuelled competition between different
sectors that want to negotiate to obtain more resources for their demands,
Reyna said. 

According to the analyst, another new development is the attempt by social
organisations to centralise conflicts through the CGTP, in order to exert
nationwide pressure. Therefore, several provincial opposition groups are
trying to persuade their members of the need to support the union-led
demonstrations on Oct. 7. 

The head of the Cuzco Regional Assembly, Efra?n Y?pez, told IPS that 16
provincial umbrella groups have confirmed they will take part in the strike,
many of them from the south of the country and the jungle areas, where the
centre-right Garc?a did not win a majority of votes in the 2006 elections. 

Indigenous and peasant organisations in the Amazon jungle, which are
demanding the repeal of dozens of decrees they regard as violating their
collective rights, will begin an indefinite strike on Nov. 10. 

"Our position is consistent, because we have never backed Garc?a," said
Y?pez, who also said that the CGTP's Political and Social Coordinating
Committee, to which the provincial opposition groups belong, is promoting a
proposal to hold a referendum to remove the president from office. 

The decisions by their support bases on whether or not to call for a
referendum, and on the legal and constitutional means to achieve it, will be
taken at a Peoples' Assembly on Nov. 4, to be held in parallel with the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, which Peru is hosting. 

"Social organisations should also assess whether a proposal to remove the
president from power will help the legitimacy of their demands. They must be
careful," said Reyna. (END/2008)




From walterlx at earthlink.net  Sat Oct  4 08:34:10 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:34:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] WSJ and LMD look at South Africa today
Message-ID: <7508194.1223130850886.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Writing from unrelated but hardly antagonistic points of view
these two commentators from South Africa look at the present
political situation in their country. Both understand that the
many tensions within South African society has still not ended
the political support which the great majority of blacks there
continue to give to the African National Congress. Prospects 
for a split from the ANC seem unlikely, based on the reports
I've seen, and on what these authors, not by any means leftist,
have to tell us. South African society is shot through with
deep contradictions, and is challenged from many sides, such 
as the desperate desire of many from countries which are even
worse off than South Africa, like Zimbabwe, to seek a better
life, or better prospects, in South Africa. It's reminiscent
of the desperate desire of undocumented immigrants to enter
the United States as well. 

This situation causes immense frustration among some people on
the South African left. The fruits of liberation from apartheid
have not been evenly distributed, as many hoped. South Africa
remains a capitalist society, but one without the racist laws
and regulations which dominated it for the preceding decades.

South Africa's government is obviously conscious of this and
doesn't seem to present to its friends abroad that it has
solved its problems. Here's what the South African Ambassador
to Cuba told a Juventud Rebelde interview about this in April:
http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs1921.html 

Particularly ironic, one day after the United States government,
with the endorsement of the Wall Street Journal, voted to fund 
the biggest government bailout of mischief-makers in the private 
capitalist sector, is this concluding paragraph from the Wall 
Street Journal's commentary:

----------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not Mr. Zuma but the people around him who worry business and
investors. Economic policy was at the center of the fight between Mr.
Mbeki and the unions. It is unthinkable that they will go along with
Mr. Zuma's assurances to business that there will be no change in
economic policy. They want to see more government intervention."
---------------------------------------------------------------- 


  Venezuelan president Hugo Ch?vez called the various
  strategies implemented by the US government to save its
  financial sector a clear sign that the country is headed
  for socialism.

  He made this statement last Thursday on the occasion of
  Venezuela?s International Tourism Fair (Fitven 2008) in
  Bol?var state, and added that ten years ago it was all
  about privatization and the Empire?s plans to ?reduce the
  State?s role to almost nothing. Intervention, populism?
  That was unthinkable. But now the American State had to go
  out to save the private banks.?

  ?Comrade Bush has had to make decisions in the style of
  Vladimir Lenin, and now everybody wonders: is the US by any
  chance moving towards socialism? (...) I have the answer:
  Yes, sir! One day the United States will be socialist, 
  I?m sure of that,? he said emphatically, asserting that
  ?Tourism is a profoundly human economic current and a major
  way to achieve people?s integration, rapprochement and
  happiness?.

  FULL:
  http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs2181.html

As this indicates, President Chavez has an good sense of humor.

Chavez also went to South Africa a month ago where on practical
matters, he signed energy accords expanding economic ties:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/message/90847


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
=========================================================

WALL STREET JOURNAL
* OCTOBER 3, 2008

Zuma's Turn 
By BARNEY MTHOMBOTHI


JOHANNESBURG
Thabo Mbeki's dismissal as president of South Africa came as no
surprise. It was the swiftness of his dispatch that caught many of
his compatriots off-guard, and left some apprehensive.

Mr. Mbeki had been living on borrowed time since he lost a bruising
contest for the leadership of his ruling ANC to Jacob Zuma, his
former deputy, last December. That contest split the party down the
middle and led to calls for Mr. Mbeki to resign, especially among
Zuma supporters who were eager to see a change in economic policy.
After a high court judge last month accused Mr. Mbeki of interfering
in the corruption prosecution of Mr. Zuma, it took less than a week
for the 66-year-old president to abide by the party's renewed call
for his dismissal. Kgalema Motlanthe, a former trade unionist and Mr.
Zuma's right-hand man, was soon sworn in as a caretaker president.
Mr. Zuma is expected to take over after the elections due in April
next year, provided he is not convicted of the corruption charges.

Although Mr. Mbeki won plaudits for his dignified acceptance of his
fate, few of his compatriots shed any tears at his going. Nobel Peace
laureate Desmond Tutu criticized the treatment of Mr. Mbeki, saying
he feared South Africa could descend into a banana republic. But in a
continent where leaders tend to overstay their welcome or rule by the
gun, a peaceful removal of a sitting president is a welcome change.

That's not to say it's been an entirely smooth transition. A day
after Mr. Mbeki announced his resignation, his office said 14 members
of his cabinet, including Trevor Manuel, his respected finance
minister, would also leave. Mr. Manuel, who was on a visit to the
U.S., immediately called a press conference to say he was prepared to
serve under Mr. Mbeki's successor -- but not before the South African
currency and the stock exchange fell hard.

Mr. Zuma's left-wing allies were apoplectic with rage, seeing Mr.
Manuel's so-called "resignation" as Mr. Mbeki's parting shot. But it
was a sobering lesson in the realities of international economics for
them. At the root of the differences between Mbeki and Zuma
supporters is the direction of economic policy. The labor unions and
the communist party, which were instrumental in unseating Mr. Mbeki,
complain that government's macroeconomic policy has been too
restrictive and that ordinary working people have not benefited from
the economic boom, the longest in the country's history.

Most of their fire has been directed at Mr. Manuel, finance minister
for the past 12 years. They were hoping to see him removed, but the
events of the past few days may have strengthened Mr. Manuel's hand.
The new president has reinstated the finance minister and has given
an assurance that there will be no change in economic policy. That
seems to have calmed the markets. * * *

So what will change post-Mbeki? For starters, there should be a
welcome change in HIV/AIDS policy now that Mr. Mbeki and his health
minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who gained international notoriety
for denying that HIV causes AIDS and opposing antiretroviral drugs,
are out of the way. South Africa has the highest number of people
living with HIV in the world. Health workers believe that the country
can now begin to concentrate all its efforts in tackling the
pandemic.

One person who's definitely sad to see Mr. Mbeki go is Robert Mugabe,
president of neighboring Zimbabwe. For almost a decade Mr. Mbeki used
South Africa's clout to shield Mr. Mugabe from international
opprobium. But Mr. Zuma has been very critical of Mr. Mugabe's
antics, especially the violence he has unleashed against his
opponents. And the South African labor unions who back Mr. Zuma are
sympathetic to Zimbabwe's opposition Movement for Democratic Change,
which emerged from the labor movement.

President Motlanthe's brief seems to be to keep the seat warm for Mr.
Zuma and to prepare for next year's elections. So far he's been a
calming influence after the political turmoil of the past few weeks.
Many people are even suggesting that he should stay on.

Mr. Zuma can only become president if he avoids jail, and there's
concern that his allies, now in charge, will prevail on prosecutors
not to pursue charges against their man. However, there's hope that
Mr. Zuma and his supporters have learned from Mr. Mbeki's experience.
It was the perception that Mr. Mbeki interfered in the prosecution of
Mr. Zuma that ultimately cooked his goose. But even if Mr. Zuma is
charged again, it is unlikely that the case can be concluded before
the elections. South Africa could face the spectacle of a president
taking office with a cloud over his head.

All this could prove to be academic if the ruling ANC is split.
Rumors of a new party formed by disgruntled ANC members, including
former cabinet ministers, are growing by the day. The ANC has a
strong hold on black South Africans and they are unlikely to desert
it unless encouraged by a strong personality.

Such a party can only be viable if Mr. Mbeki, who has around 40%
support in the ANC, becomes part of it. But Mr. Mbeki is unlikely to
leave a party which has been part of his life for 52 years. His late
father, Govan Mbeki, spent many years in prison on Robben Island with
Nelson Mandela.

The view among observers is that a breakaway group, probably led by a
former cabinet minister, will split from the ANC, but that the party
under Mr. Zuma will be returned to power with a reduced majority in
next year's elections. The sad reality of South African politics is
that opposition parties have not been able to exploit the ANC's woes.
Black people still vote identity instead issues. They view the ANC as
the party that brought them liberation and will not easily reject it
for a white party. Opposition parties, however, are hoping to deny
the ANC the two-thirds majority that would allow it to change or
amend the constitution.

Mr. Zuma is a genial, likable man. But a Zuma presidency is
unappealing to many unaligned South Africans because he is seen as a
flawed character. He was acquitted in a highly publicized rape trial,
and he's spent the past five years in courtrooms trying to avoid
corruption charges. He's not a man to walk in the footsteps of Nelson
Mandela.

It is not Mr. Zuma but the people around him who worry business and
investors. Economic policy was at the center of the fight between Mr.
Mbeki and the unions. It is unthinkable that they will go along with
Mr. Zuma's assurances to business that there will be no change in
economic policy. They want to see more government intervention.

Mr. Zuma himself remains a mystery. If he has any views, he has yet
to share them with the rest of humanity.

Mr. Mthombothi is editor of the Financial Mail.


Le Monde diplomatique
-----------------------------------------------------

October 2008
ANC IN DISARRAY, COUNTRY UNSTABLE
South Africa: change but no change
___________________________________________________________

South Africa isn't a stable liberal democracy merely changing its
government. Its traditional elite system of government goes back 150
years and continues to the present. It isn't working.

by Johann Rossouw
___________________________________________________________

Moeletsi Mbeki, brother of the former president, Thabo Mbeki, gave a
serious warning on the front page of the Johannesburg Sunday Times on
21 September. He wrote that the ANC was exposing South Africa to the
risk of civil war because of its decision to recall Thabo Mbeki. But
nobody paid much attention to this warning from one of SA's best
political analysts.

Much of the political analysis since Mbeki was toppled makes it sound
as if SA is a stable liberal democracy in the middle of a simple
change of government. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
South Africa's most important historical challenge remains the
establishment of harmony between its communities on the basis of
economic self-sufficiency. A number of policies that could achieve
this include mother tongue-based education and economic development;
the devolution of capital to local community level; a strategy for
rural development; and a social pact between business, labour, civil
society and the state to carry out these policies.

None of this is present on the current political scene. Perhaps it is
absent because so much of South Africa's political analysis compares
everything with the previous political dispensation. This has some
worth, but it fails to take account of the continuities in the
political economy over the past 150 years. To make sense of what is
happening now in SA, these might be useful.

Since the middle of the 19th century, South Africa has had a state
with executive capacity under the control of a minority elite,
maintaining its control through a strategy of divide and rule.
Historically this elite has, in conjunction with the corporate
sector, acted as intermediary with the SA's most important trading
partners. It has maintained an economic structure benefiting a
limited part of the population, but not recognising or mobilising
SA's cultural diversity and its communities.

Tools with which other countries have been modernised - the state,
education, transport and communication - have been used for elite
modernisation and to ensure cheap energy and labour.

Whenever the controlling elite in SA has been challenged, by
Afrikaner and African nationalists, its response has been co-option.
In the long run this is not sustainable, and the way the Mbeki
administration ran the country might have taken the system to its
limits. Instead of learning from the failures of Afrikaner
nationalism, the Mbeki administration applied its peculiar mixture of
neoliberal economics and African nationalism to South Africa. One of
its main challenges was to make real the fiction of a black middle
class. This was done by using the state, and policies like
affirmative action and BEE (Black Economic Empowerment), to create a
black middle class. Both policies maintained the elite strategy of
co-option (on the basis of race), instead of seriously reforming the
political economy responsible for social inequality.

In the process the state and infrastructure was seriously weakened.
Restoring it will take much more than just a new government: up to
60% of the population have not tasted the ANC promise of a better
life for all, and 14 years of commodity-based economic growth have
not bought stability or narrowed the gap between rich and poor. The
country now has one the highest rates of public protest in the world,
as Patrick Bond from the Centre for Civil Society of the University
of KwaZulu-Natal points out.

It is unlikely that a new black middle-class party will threaten the
ANC hegemony: Mbeki's defeat at Polokwane already showed how weak
this class is. It is also unlikely that the ANC will rupture further
in the short term, as too many economic interests for a new
generation of patronage seekers in the current ANC leadership depend
on the illusion of party unity.

The ANC is a party in disarray, and internal division is on the rise.
The clash between big capitalists and socialists within the ANC is an
explosion waiting to happen. For both sides know all too well that
there is no serious vision in the ANC unifying them. This lack of
vision is illustrated by the increasing violence and rhetoric within
the ANC, as well as the tendency to use quasi-religious revolutionary
purity as a political yardstick.

There is serious instability in the country. The government's
commodity bonanza-financed grant system was unable to prevent May's
xenophobic violence. Mbeki, in the last four weeks of his term of
office, had twice to remind the security forces to act professionally
and maintain the constitution. In August representatives of the SA
Security Forces Union said that they would not intervene if the crowd
outside any court appearance of Jacob Zuma got out of hand, since
they support him (1). There is growing militarisation at ANC
gatherings, with MK veterans (2) in military outfits more visible.
The biggest labour federation, Cosatu, is also a serious player in
the ANC factional fighting (3).

Those who think that Jacob Zuma will provide the necessary leadership
to ensure stability need perhaps to think again. Since December 2007,
when Zuma beat Mbeki to become ANC president, he often said that he
wanted Mbeki to finish his full term. But Zuma failed his first big
political test when the mavericks in his party succeeded in toppling
Mbeki. The country now faces protracted instability. Its best hope is
to get business and civil society together around a
post-nationalistic, community-centred vision for South Africa.
________________________________________________________

Johann Rossouw is editor of the Afrikaans edition of Le Monde
diplomatique

(1) Zuma's complex legal battles with the National Prosecuting
Authority (NPA) now stretch over more than seven years. The NPA is
claiming that Zuma has benefited financially from SA's arms deals.

(2) MK refers to the ANC military wing during the anti-apartheid
struggle, Umkhonto we Sizwe (The spear of the nation). Zuma was an MK
commander, and over the past 18 months strengthened his ties with the
MK Veterans Association, often visible at public rallies addressed by
Zuma. At a rally in January to celebrate Zuma's election as ANC
president. a video glorifying MK was shown.

(3) Cosatu made it a public goal in 2007 to take control of the ANC,
and was an indispensable supporter of Zuma in his campaign to become
ANC president.

Original text in English


=========================================
     WALTER LIPPMANN
     Los Angeles, California
     Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
     "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================


From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Sat Oct  4 09:26:47 2008
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 11:26:47 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] the decline of US manufacturing
Message-ID: <d4b.3d9f91b6.3618e537@aol.com>


Joaquin Bustelo wrote -
 
<johnaimani writes: "Where is the capacity for manufacturing steel,  machine
tools, automobile, television and consumer electronics in general?  Gone.
Gone overseas."

I was under the impression that the United  States was still the largest
industrial and agricultural producer in the  world. 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.>
 
 
"It is commonly said that industrial production in the U.S. has declined.  
That is very misleading. If you take U.S. manufacturing industry and consider  
its share in global manufacturing, it probably hasn't changed. It's just that 
it  is doing its production overseas. But, from the point of view of the CEO of 
 Dell, what does it matter where they do their manufacturing? McKinsey, the 
big  financial analysis house, did a study a year or two ago which was reported 
in  the Wall Street Journal. They made an interesting calculation. They said, 
 suppose that you analyze the U.S. trade deficit by considering the U.S., not 
as  a place on a map, but in terms of the people who own the country (the 
corporate  sector). If, say Dell, is bringing computers it makes in China into 
the U.S., we  call those domestic production, not imports, which it is from the 
point of view  of Dell management. It turns out that most of the trade deficit 
 disappears."
 
Chomsky: "If the U.S. Carries Out Terrorism, It Did Not Happen"
_http://www.alternet.org/rights/101530_ 
(http://www.alternet.org/rights/101530)  


Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting  from their worst 
motives, will somehow produce the most good. 



**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.  
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!      
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)

From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Sat Oct  4 10:08:02 2008
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 12:08:02 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Bipartisan Beltway Terrorists Launch Economic 9/11 on the
	American People
Message-ID: <d15.34645179.3618eee2@aol.com>


 
Chris Floyd - Empire Burlesque
 
 
clip --

 
You've seen the news. You know the score. _The House of Representatives has 
now  completed_ 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/business/economy/04bailout.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1223075171-Dge9/7jGrCc9oVeKUa/0OQ)  the economic 
terrorist attack inflicted  on the American people by the nation's elite. 

The bailout bill -- or as  Arthur Silber _more rightly terms it_ 
(http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/10/rainbow-called-obama.html) , the "Extortion 
Bill" -- is already law, thanks to the Democrats  in Congress, and to Barack 
Obama, who spent the day working the phones and  twisting arms to make sure the 
$700 billion bonanza for the filthy rich passed  without any more of the 
hiccups that held it up earlier this week.

The  plan that Obama made his own -- despite its origins in the poison 
kitchen of the  Bush White House -- is far worse than the version voted down on 
Monday. Every  reputable economic expert says that the plan is unworkable; it will 
not solve  the problems at the root of the current economic crisis, but will 
only make them  worse. It entrenches many of the fraudulent practices that led 
to the meltdown  in the first place, and rewards the perpetrators for their 
misdeeds with a  gargantuan amount of public money, which they can now use to 
carry on largely as  before, albeit with a few new toothless "oversight" 
mechanisms operated by their  own Wall Street cronies, and their bribed-and-bought 
hirelings on Capitol  Hill.

There were many viable, reasonable, eminently centrist alternatives  to the 
radical, plutocratic Bush-Obama scam -- alternatives which would have  been 
politically palatable to a broad spectrum of the electorate. One of the  best 
ones of this ilk that I've seen was outlined in the eminently mainstream  
Washington Post earlier this week by two eminently respectable Yale economists.  
(_You can find it here._ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002316.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) ) There were many other such 
practical and effective plans offered  by reputable experts, any one of which 
could have gone a long way toward  protecting ordinary citizens now exposed by 
the meltdown, supporting the banks,  and stabilizing the markets -- all 
without effecting one of the largest single  redistributions of wealth since the 
Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917.  

None of these plans were considered or debated or even mentioned, not  even 
for a single moment, by the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate.  
Instead, they joined the Republican leadership and the Bush Administration in  
repeating, over and over, the Big Lie that there was NO OTHER CHOICE but some  
basic version of the unworkable Bush plan. The Democrats -- led by Barack Obama 
 -- not only threw a political lifeline to the most despised president in  
American history (in the middle of an election year!), they deliberately took  
ownership of a measure widely rejected by the American public -- a class war  
weapon of mass destruction whose malign effects will reverberate through  
American society for years, perhaps generations to come. 


full  article -
 
<http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1622-shock-and-awe-bipar
tisan-beltway-terrorists-launch-economic-911-on-the-american-people.html>





Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting  from their worst 
motives, will somehow produce the most good. 



**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.  
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!      
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)

From cbcox at ilstu.edu  Sat Oct  4 10:37:55 2008
From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:37:55 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Bello on the crisis
References: <1223089493.48e6dd55e8a4d@mymail.yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <48E79BE3.F7EF9E56@ilstu.edu>



bauerly at yorku.ca wrote:
> 
> A Primer on Wall Street Meltdown
> by Walden Bello
> 
> 
> But isn't there something more that is happening?  Something systemic?
> 
> Well, George Soros, who saw this coming, says what we are going through is the
> crisis of the "gigantic circulatory system" of a "global capitalist system that
> is . . . coming apart at the seams."
> 
> To elaborate on the arch-speculator's insight, what we are seeing is the
> intensification of one of the central crises or contradictions of global
> capitalism, which is the crisis of overproduction, also known as
> over-accumulation or overcapacity.

Yes, but . . . .

If you don't hit it won't fall - and only a mass movement can hit it.

It is _not_ the "capitalist system" as such which is coming apart but
merely (merely!) one capitalist 'regime;,' and unless that regime is
replaced by socialist revolution capitalism will rise from its ashes.

Moreover, assuming  (which may or may not be the case) that we are to
plunge into a period of deep depression as in 1873 or 1930, the next 5
years or so will be politically barren from the viewpoint of the left,
for such catastrophes in t heir early stages result in the
demoralization of the populace and flight to merely individiual means of
survival. Only when the first shock is over, and only then if some
flicker of hope emerges, can mass struggle develop.

So what should leftists be doing in the meantime?

Note that I say "leftists," not "the left," for the latter does not
exist in any coherent form. Hence it is ridiculous to speak of left
strategy or tactics - tactics and strategy are military metaphors and
only relevant when there is an army (or at least some semblance of a
general staff) to implement them. That does not exist now.

So what leftists have to think about is how to moblize forms of
organization (plural: there will never again be a Single Party directlng
the struggle) that as possibilities open up in the next decade can merge
with a mass movement of resistance.


Carrol



From spalmer999 at yahoo.com  Sat Oct  4 11:02:07 2008
From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Bello on the crisis
In-Reply-To: <1223089493.48e6dd55e8a4d@mymail.yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <438256.131.qm@web81907.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Underconsumption again. This has great commonsense appeal and hooks nicely into notions about unequal distribution of income, exploitation etc. It is simple, appealing and completely wrong.

Were this explanation true, then the solution to the problem would be to reform capitalism by using the state to reduce income inequality and switch credit from 'financialization' to infrastructure programs etc. If it is not true, if it is not caused by the distribution of income, but if the problem is inherent in the capital relation itself, then we need (not simply want) to get rid of capitalism. To tinker with it or to get rid of it?

Since 'the population' can, under capitalism, never consume everything, how come capitalism ever gets off the ground? How come it has lasted so long? Since it is a permanent condition of capitalism, how come there are more or less regular booms and crises? Since in *all* class societies 'the population' doesn't consume everything, always surrendering some to the ruling class, how come it is only capitalism which suffers from purely social, not only natural, crises?

Since the capitalists get everything which 'the population' doesn't consume, underconsumption/overproduction as such may or may not occur. Marx spent the last 1/3rd of Capital 2 showing that disproportion between consumption and production is not a necessary condition of capitalism.

The less 'the population' consumes, the *more* profit the capitalist makes. Since real living standards are steady or have been falling for 'the population' while producivity has been rising, the mass of profits has, until recently, been rising. So, why then should the profit rate be falling, as Bello acknowledges? The reason is the rising value of accumulated and employed capital compared to the mass of profits.

The idea of a 'disconnect between the real and the financial economy' is an idea that can be traced back through bourgeois economics at least as far as Hume. For Marx there is no such disconnect: commodities must continually connect with money which must connect with commodities which must ... The 'financial economy' is not just another sector - it provides the lifeblood of capitalism, it is the mortar between the bricks.

Finance is not purely parasitic - it has a contradictory character, since it can help advance and reorganize capitalist production: "the credit system accelerates the material development of the productive forces and the establishment of the world-market. It is the historical mission of the capitalist system of production to raise these material foundations of the new mode of production to a certain degree of perfection. At the same time credit accelerates the violent eruptions of this contradiction ? crises ? and thereby the elements of disintegration of the old mode of production."


--- On Fri, 10/3/08, bauerly at yorku.ca <bauerly at yorku.ca> wrote:

> From: bauerly at yorku.ca <bauerly at yorku.ca>
> Subject: [Marxism] Bello on the crisis
> To: "Steve Palmer" <spalmer999 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Friday, October 3, 2008, 8:04 PM
> A Primer on Wall Street Meltdown
> by Walden Bello

snip

> To elaborate on the arch-speculator's insight, what we
> are seeing is the
> intensification of one of the central crises or
> contradictions of global
> capitalism, which is the crisis of overproduction, also
> known as
> over-accumulation or overcapacity.
> 
> This is the tendency for capitalism to build up tremendous
> productive capacity
> that outruns the population's capacity to consume,
> owing to social inequalities
> that limit popular purchasing power.  Profitability is thus
> eroded.


      


From cbcox at ilstu.edu  Sat Oct  4 11:14:21 2008
From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:14:21 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Re Kurz,
	from [Fwd: Re: [lbo-talk] Telling the Truth About Class]
Message-ID: <48E7A46D.C8A9DD1B@ilstu.edu>



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Telling the Truth About Class
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Angelus Novus <fuerdenkommunismus at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org


Dear John Blazek,

> Given your enthusiasm for Michael Heinrich, and the
> fact that on your site (Negative Potential is you, >
right?) I have read a commentary or two on the
> Anti-Germans that (as I recall) made no reference 
> to Kurz's 2003 book Die Antideutsche Ideologie, I 
> had tentatively inferred that you are probably not >
in agreement with (a number of) Kurz's theoretical >
positions.

> Could you write something about your views on him 
> and/or the orientation of the Exit group more 
> generally?  It would be of great interest.

Kurz, I think, is best appreciated as a feuilletonist and a publicist,
rather than a systematic or scientific thinker like Heinrich and
Postone.  Kurz's main contributing is writing in a polemical, somewhat
popular style for journals like _Die Zeit_ and the _Frankfurter
Rundschau_ (or at least that was the case ten to fifteen years ago. 
These days his writings appear regularly in the weekly Freitag and in
the daily Neues Deutschland). 

It's fun to watch Kurz strut his stuff in a journalistic way, but often
times he employs Marxian terminology outside of context and as a result
terms get muddied (he plays far too fast an loose with phrases like
"abstract labor", for example). 

Kurz's book _Die Antideutsche Ideologie_ is fantastic, I think the best
theoretical settling of counts with the version of Anti-German thought
represented by the ISF Freiburg and the Berlin journal Bahamas.  It
doesn't really deal with "Anti-German" as it is understood by
traditional Communist currents (like the monthly magazine Konkret) or
Post-structuralists (like G?nther Jacob and the defunct journal 17
Grad), but rather with the specific type of "value-critical"
Anti-Germanism that dresses up it's pro-Israeli and pro-USA perspectives
in the language of the critique of political economy. 

Kurz is a very polemical guy, often downright abusive, and I think that
played no small role in the Krisis split.  When he wrote _Die
Antideutsche Ideologie_, he didn't just critique ISF and Bahamas, an
honorable task in itself, but also accused large swathes of the radical
left of basically being "useful idiots".  As a result, he sort of burned
his bridges with some broad left journals like Konkret and Jungle World,
and I've noticed that in some extra-parliamentary circles, Kurz and his
school don't have the influence they once seemed to had. 

I will note that I think it's definitely the case that when Michael
Heinrich's introductory book on Capital was published (I am currently
working on an English translation), Heinrich supplanted Kurz as an
explainer of the critique of political economy in a lot of left
circles.  Kurz's polemical jabs at Heinrich in the first two issues of
_Exit_ I think at least party exhibit a sort of bitterness about this.

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

      
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



From pieinsky at igc.org  Sat Oct  4 11:24:28 2008
From: pieinsky at igc.org (Jay Moore)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 13:24:28 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Robert Kurz???
In-Reply-To: <20081004113250.5CDD7B201@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com>
References: <48E6B143.8010906@igc.org>	<20738780810031922w71e65489w598b8e221e264c23@mail.gmail.com>
	<20081004113250.5CDD7B201@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <48E7A6CC.90803@igc.org>

Thanks, Carlos and Aaron.  I can read a bit of German but not 
Portuguese, I'm afraid.  Why do you think Kurz has been so popular in 
Portugal (or is it Brazil)?
jay

Aaron Aarons wrote:
> For those who can read Portuguese, there's a tremendous amount by and about Robert Kurz in that language on the web -- almost as much as in German and a lot more than in English or Spanish.
>
> In fact, when I was checking out Kurz's work a few years ago, most of the Spanish versions of his writings were translations from the Portuguese versions, and, if memory serves, so were the English versions, sometimes through the Spanish ones (i.e. German -> Portuguese -> Spanish -> English
>   


From spalmer999 at yahoo.com  Sat Oct  4 11:34:51 2008
From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Bello on the crisis
In-Reply-To: <48E79BE3.F7EF9E56@ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <40265.6642.qm@web81904.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

On Sat, 10/4/08, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> 
> Yes, but . . . .
> 
> If you don't hit it won't fall - and only a mass
> movement can hit it.
AFAIK this is not in dispute.

> It is _not_ the "capitalist system" as such which is coming apart but
> merely (merely!) one capitalist 'regime;,' and unless that regime is
> replaced by socialist revolution capitalism will rise from its ashes.
Interesting. I would put it the other way round: the capitalist system is coming apart, but the regime is quite stable. 

> Moreover, assuming  (which may or may not be the case) that we are to
> plunge into a period of deep depression as in 1873 or 1930, the next 5
> years or so will be politically barren from the viewpoint of the left,
> for such catastrophes in t heir early stages result in the
> demoralization of the populace and flight to merely individiual means of
> survival. Only when the first shock is over, and only then
> if some flicker of hope emerges, can mass struggle develop.
It's certainly going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And it can only get better by squeezing the middle class and ramping up exploitation of the working class. I wouldn't dare put a timescale on this. All we know is the direction.

The middle class is about to get it in the neck (is getting it ...) and will certainly seek individual ways out, probably very unpleasant politically. A strong element of right-wing ideologies is the denunciation of the financial system and has strong commonsense appeal to people whose lives are ruled by credit.

The working class will respond collectively, albeit initially in various spontaneous local and partial ways. It is a basic law of history that you can't crap on the mass of the people forever and get away with it. 

> So what should leftists be doing in the meantime?
>
> Note that I say "leftists," not "the left," for the latter does not
> exist in any coherent form. Hence it is ridiculous to speak of left
> strategy or tactics - tactics and strategy are military metaphors and
> only relevant when there is an army (or at least some semblance of a
> general staff) to implement them. That does not exist now.
I would put it differently: without battles and war, strategy and tactics are meaningless speculation.

> So what leftists have to think about is how to moblize forms of
> organization (plural: there will never again be a Single Party directlng
> the struggle) that as possibilities open up in the next decade can merge
> with a mass movement of resistance.
(When has a single party ever 'directed' the struggle, I wonder ...)
It is a question of constantly and patiently explaining the connection between all the important issues and their basis in capitalism itself. Of attempting to broaden struggles (eg beyond foreclosure to the issue of housing), of explaining the connection with imperialism (most obviously around the War and immigration).

They will come, but will we build it? In the past, the Democratic Party has shown itself adaptable enough to put on a left face - and, I am sure, can go further. Arguments along Bello's lines are compatible with 'left' Dems.

Steve


      


From giobon at comcast.net  Sat Oct  4 11:37:26 2008
From: giobon at comcast.net (Bonnie Weinstein)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:37:26 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] U.S. Command for Africa Established
In-Reply-To: <40265.6642.qm@web81904.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C50CF7E6.4BE46%giobon@comcast.net>

U.S. Command for Africa Established
"But concerns remain that whatever arena the Pentagon enters, it has more
money, more personnel and more power than any other government organization,
American or foreign."
By THOM SHANKER
October 5, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/world/africa/05command.html?ref=world

WASHINGTON ? For decades, Africa was rarely more than an afterthought for
the Pentagon.

Responsibilities for American military affairs across the vast African
continent were divided clumsily among three regional combat headquarters,
those for Europe, the Pacific and the Middle East. Commanders set priorities
against obvious threats, whether the old Soviet Union and then a resurgent
Russia, a rising China or a nuclear North Korea, or adversaries along the
Persian Gulf.

If deployment of fighting forces is an indicator, that historic focus north
of the equator endures. But since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a new view
has gained acceptance among senior Pentagon officials and military
commanders: that ungoverned spaces and ill-governed states, whose
impoverished citizens are vulnerable to the ideology of violent extremism,
pose a growing risk to American security.

Last week, in a small Pentagon conference hall, Defense Secretary Robert M.
Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
inaugurated the newest regional headquarters, Africa Command, which is
responsible for coordinating American military affairs on the continent.

There are barely 2,000 American combat troops and combat support personnel
based in Africa, and the new top officer, Gen. William E. Ward of the Army,
pledges that Africa Command has no designs on creating vast, permanent
concentrations of forces on the continent.

?Bases? Garrisons? It?s not about that,? General Ward said in an interview.
?We are trying to prevent conflict, as opposed to having to react to a
conflict.?

Already, though, analysts at policy advocacy organizations and research
institutes are warning of a militarization of American foreign policy across
Africa.

Mr. Gates said the new command was an example of the Pentagon?s evolving
strategy of forging what he called ?civilian-military partnerships,? in
which the Defense Department works alongside and supports the State
Department and the Agency for International Development, as well as host
nations? security and development agencies.

?In this respect, Africom represents yet another important step in
modernizing our defense arrangements in light of 21st-century realities,?
Mr. Gates said. ?It is, at its heart, a different kind of command with a
different orientation, one that we hope and expect will institutionalize a
lasting security relationship with Africa, a vast region of growing
importance in the globe.?

Mr. Gates and General Ward said that this work to complement and support
American security and development policies would include missions like
deploying military trainers to improve the abilities of local
counterterrorism forces, assigning military engineers to help dig wells and
build sewers, and sending in military doctors to inoculate the local
population against diseases.

While that thinking has influenced the work of all of the military?s
regional war-fighting commands, it is the central focus of Africa Command.

And over the past two years, it has quietly become the central focus of the
military?s Southern Command, once better known for the invasions of Grenada
and Panama, but now converting itself to a headquarters that supports
efforts across the United States government and within host nations to
improve security and economic development in Latin America.

A number of specialists in African and Latin American politics at
nongovernmental organizations express apprehension, however, that the new
emphasis of both these commands represents an undesirable injection of the
military into American foreign policy, a change driven by fears of
terrorists or desires for natural resources.

Officials at one leading relief organization, Refugees International, warned
of the risk that Africom ?will take over many humanitarian and development
activities that soldiers aren?t trained to perform.?

In a statement, Kenneth H. Bacon, the president of Refugees International,
said that the creation of Africa Command was ?a sign of increased U.S.
attention to Africa.? But he also said that it was ?important that Africom
focus on training peacekeepers and helping African countries build
militaries responsive to civilian control and democratic government.?

Mr. Bacon, a Pentagon spokesman in the Clinton administration, added, ?The
military should stick to military tasks and let diplomats and development
experts direct other aspects of U.S. policy in Africa.?

Refugees International released statistics showing that the percentage of
development assistance controlled by the Defense Department had grown to
nearly 22 percent from 3.5 percent over the past 10 years, while the
percentage controlled by the Agency for International Development dropped to
40 percent from 65 percent.

General Ward rejected criticisms that Africa Command would result in a
militarization of foreign policy, and he said it was specifically structured
for cooperative efforts across the agencies of the United States government.

For example, a deputy commander at Africom is Ambassador Mary Carlin Yates,
a career Foreign Service officer. And General Ward himself previously served
in a combined diplomatic and military role, as director of efforts to help
reform the Palestinian security services.

But concerns remain that whatever arena the Pentagon enters, it has more
money, more personnel and more power than any other government organization,
American or foreign.

?If we can bring a capability that can be an assist to one of our
interagency partners, then I think we ought to do that,? General Ward said.
?But I draw a distinction between leading that effort and supporting that
effort. We don?t create policy. This is not the job of a unified command. We
implement those aspects of policy that have military implications. And we
support others.?

Planners abandoned early intentions to base Africa Command in Africa,
perhaps with a major headquarters and regional satellite offices. Owing to
local sensitivities, security concerns and simple logistics of moving around
the vast continent, which often requires routing through Europe, the command
will for now have its headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.

General Ward said that in creating the Africa Command, he had been in close
contact with his counterpart atop the military?s Southern Command, Adm.
James G. Stavridis, who has received high marks from Pentagon leaders for
converting the military presence in Central and South America. Where
previously Southern Command emphasized direct military action, it now
focuses on programs to train and support local forces, and assist economic
development, health services and counternarcotics efforts.

?The more I look at this region over the two years I have been at Southcom,?
Admiral Stavridis said in an interview, ?the more convinced I am that the
approach we need to take for U.S. national security in the region is really
an interagency approach.

?Think of the problems that afflict this region ? natural disasters,
poverty, the narcotics trade, lack of medical care,? he said. ?Our thought
at Southcom is, How can we be supportive of an interagency approach? How can
we partner with other interagency actors, and then tie that together with
our international partners??

Admiral Stavridis said Southern Command was ?very directly and consciously
not taking the lead.?

?We are trying to be part of the team, to be a facilitator,? he added.

But George Withers, a senior fellow at the Washington Office on Latin
America, a nonprofit research and human-rights advocacy organization, said
in a statement that ?while improved delivery of U.S. assistance is certainly
an admirable goal,? putting Southern Command into a coordinating role on
issues like corruption, crime or poverty ?drains authority from the State
Department and resources from the Defense Department.? 



From giobon at comcast.net  Sat Oct  4 11:38:55 2008
From: giobon at comcast.net (Bonnie Weinstein)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:38:55 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] U.S. Command for Africa Established
In-Reply-To: <48E7A46D.C8A9DD1B@ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <C50CF83F.4BE48%giobon@comcast.net>

U.S. Command for Africa Established
"But concerns remain that whatever arena the Pentagon enters, it has more
money, more personnel and more power than any other government organization,
American or foreign."
By THOM SHANKER
October 5, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/world/africa/05command.html?ref=world

WASHINGTON ? For decades, Africa was rarely more than an afterthought for
the Pentagon.

Responsibilities for American military affairs across the vast African
continent were divided clumsily among three regional combat headquarters,
those for Europe, the Pacific and the Middle East. Commanders set priorities
against obvious threats, whether the old Soviet Union and then a resurgent
Russia, a rising China or a nuclear North Korea, or adversaries along the
Persian Gulf.

If deployment of fighting forces is an indicator, that historic focus north
of the equator endures. But since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a new view
has gained acceptance among senior Pentagon officials and military
commanders: that ungoverned spaces and ill-governed states, whose
impoverished citizens are vulnerable to the ideology of violent extremism,
pose a growing risk to American security.

Last week, in a small Pentagon conference hall, Defense Secretary Robert M.
Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
inaugurated the newest regional headquarters, Africa Command, which is
responsible for coordinating American military affairs on the continent.

There are barely 2,000 American combat troops and combat support personnel
based in Africa, and the new top officer, Gen. William E. Ward of the Army,
pledges that Africa Command has no designs on creating vast, permanent
concentrations of forces on the continent.

?Bases? Garrisons? It?s not about that,? General Ward said in an interview.
?We are trying to prevent conflict, as opposed to having to react to a
conflict.?

Already, though, analysts at policy advocacy organizations and research
institutes are warning of a militarization of American foreign policy across
Africa.

Mr. Gates said the new command was an example of the Pentagon?s evolving
strategy of forging what he called ?civilian-military partnerships,? in
which the Defense Department works alongside and supports the State
Department and the Agency for International Development, as well as host
nations? security and development agencies.

?In this respect, Africom represents yet another important step in
modernizing our defense arrangements in light of 21st-century realities,?
Mr. Gates said. ?It is, at its heart, a different kind of command with a
different orientation, one that we hope and expect will institutionalize a
lasting security relationship with Africa, a vast region of growing
importance in the globe.?

Mr. Gates and General Ward said that this work to complement and support
American security and development policies would include missions like
deploying military trainers to improve the abilities of local
counterterrorism forces, assigning military engineers to help dig wells and
build sewers, and sending in military doctors to inoculate the local
population against diseases.

While that thinking has influenced the work of all of the military?s
regional war-fighting commands, it is the central focus of Africa Command.

And over the past two years, it has quietly become the central focus of the
military?s Southern Command, once better known for the invasions of Grenada
and Panama, but now converting itself to a headquarters that supports
efforts across the United States government and within host nations to
improve security and economic development in Latin America.

A number of specialists in African and Latin American politics at
nongovernmental organizations express apprehension, however, that the new
emphasis of both these commands represents an undesirable injection of the
military into American foreign policy, a change driven by fears of
terrorists or desires for natural resources.

Officials at one leading relief organization, Refugees International, warned
of the risk that Africom ?will take over many humanitarian and development
activities that soldiers aren?t trained to perform.?

In a statement, Kenneth H. Bacon, the president of Refugees International,
said that the creation of Africa Command was ?a sign of increased U.S.
attention to Africa.? But he also said that it was ?important that Africom
focus on training peacekeepers and helping African countries build
militaries responsive to civilian control and democratic government.?

Mr. Bacon, a Pentagon spokesman in the Clinton administration, added, ?The
military should stick to military tasks and let diplomats and development
experts direct other aspects of U.S. policy in Africa.?

Refugees International released statistics showing that the percentage of
development assistance controlled by the Defense Department had grown to
nearly 22 percent from 3.5 percent over the past 10 years, while the
percentage controlled by the Agency for International Development dropped to
40 percent from 65 percent.

General Ward rejected criticisms that Africa Command would result in a
militarization of foreign policy, and he said it was specifically structured
for cooperative efforts across the agencies of the United States government.

For example, a deputy commander at Africom is Ambassador Mary Carlin Yates,
a career Foreign Service officer. And General Ward himself previously served
in a combined diplomatic and military role, as director of efforts to help
reform the Palestinian security services.

But concerns remain that whatever arena the Pentagon enters, it has more
money, more personnel and more power than any other government organization,
American or foreign.

?If we can bring a capability that can be an assist to one of our
interagency partners, then I think we ought to do that,? General Ward said.
?But I draw a distinction between leading that effort and supporting that
effort. We don?t create policy. This is not the job of a unified command. We
implement those aspects of policy that have military implications. And we
support others.?

Planners abandoned early intentions to base Africa Command in Africa,
perhaps with a major headquarters and regional satellite offices. Owing to
local sensitivities, security concerns and simple logistics of moving around
the vast continent, which often requires routing through Europe, the command
will for now have its headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.

General Ward said that in creating the Africa Command, he had been in close
contact with his counterpart atop the military?s Southern Command, Adm.
James G. Stavridis, who has received high marks from Pentagon leaders for
converting the military presence in Central and South America. Where
previously Southern Command emphasized direct military action, it now
focuses on programs to train and support local forces, and assist economic
development, health services and counternarcotics efforts.

?The more I look at this region over the two years I have been at Southcom,?
Admiral Stavridis said in an interview, ?the more convinced I am that the
approach we need to take for U.S. national security in the region is really
an interagency approach.

?Think of the problems that afflict this region ? natural disasters,
poverty, the narcotics trade, lack of medical care,? he said. ?Our thought
at Southcom is, How can we be supportive of an interagency approach? How can
we partner with other interagency actors, and then tie that together with
our international partners??

Admiral Stavridis said Southern Command was ?very directly and consciously
not taking the lead.?

?We are trying to be part of the team, to be a facilitator,? he added.

But George Withers, a senior fellow at the Washington Office on Latin
America, a nonprofit research and human-rights advocacy organization, said
in a statement that ?while improved delivery of U.S. assistance is certainly
an admirable goal,? putting Southern Command into a coordinating role on
issues like corruption, crime or poverty ?drains authority from the State
Department and resources from the Defense Department.? 



From sabocat59 at mac.com  Sat Oct  4 12:57:57 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:57:57 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Builder busted in kickback-suit beatdown plot
Message-ID: <C453E834-E63F-441B-9F6F-3E1972FF98AD@mac.com>

Builder busted in kickback-suit beatdown plot
John Marzulli
New York Daily News - October 3, 2008

THE OWNER OF A Brooklyn construction company and four cohorts were  
charged yesterday with plotting to beat up laborers who sued the  
company for skimming their wages, authorities said yesterday.

     Josef Wolosz, who operated Keystone Renovations Corp., allegedly  
directed a campaign of intimidation against the workers, including  
anonymous calls urging them to settle the case and an acid-throwing  
incident against one man's girlfriend, according to court papers  
unsealed yesterday. The woman suffered first and second-degree burns  
on her back.

     Wolosz allegedly started his offensive after 11 handymen,  
carpenters, masons, and painters sued in Brooklyn Federal Court in  
2005, alleging they were forced to return a portion of their wages to  
Wolosz to keep their jobs, authorities said. The case was settled in  
July with Wolosz ordered to pay up.

     Two months later, Wolosz allegedly told an informant that he  
wanted revenge against the plaintiffs and even their lawyer. "I have  
to rebuild my company again...Those people who f------ did this to  
me. I will f------ get them, one by one," he said, according to  
excerpts of the secretly recorded conversation. Earlier, Wolosz's  
crony Robert Dziedziach promised the informant $25,000 per beating  
victim, the tapes showed.

     Wolosz, 50, of Norwalk, Conn., and Dziedziach, Rafal Kredens,  
Kaniej Ropelewski and Dariusz Lapinski were ordered held without bail.

From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au  Sat Oct  4 13:39:54 2008
From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 06:39:54 +1100
Subject: [Marxism] Classic documentary: Venezuela --The revolution will not
 be televised | Links
Message-ID: <48E7C68A.2010208@greenleft.org.au>

The now classic and historic documentary by *Kim Bartley* and *Donnacha
O'Brian* about the April 2002 US-backed coup attempt, which briefly
deposed Venezuela's President *Hugo Ch?vez*. A television crew from
Ireland's Radio Telif?s ?ireann happened to be recording a documentary
about Ch?vez during the events of April 11, 2002.

Shifting focus, they followed the events as they occurred. During their
filming, the crew recorded images that contradicted explanations given
by the anti-Ch?vez opposition, the private media, the US State
Department and then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. The
documentary reveals that the coup was the result of a conspiracy between
various old guard and anti-Ch?vez factions within Venezuela and the
United States.It also graphically shows how Venezuela's poor and working
people -- the overwhelming majority of the population -- mobilised in
their hundreds of thousands to defeat the coup.

http://links.org.au/node/664



From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Sat Oct  4 14:49:40 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:49:40 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Crisis Will Wreck Both Parties
Message-ID: <84B784AD94C94A3A8D8B3083109523A3@office1pc>

I think there is a lot of insight in this Glen Ford analysis. I have come to
think of him as a very perceptive observer and commentator on politics,
despite our differences over the Obama candidacy, where I believe there is
an element of sectarianism. 

I think he is right to suggest that this poses the possibility of the
dissolution-destruction of BOTH bourgeois parties. Such things have
definitely happened before, for instance in Italy, after the collapse of the
Soviet bloc.

I have suspected for some time -- I expressed this during the Obama-Clinton
primary fights -- that both parties might be disintegrating, or dividing
sharply. I am not claiming priority over Ford who I suspect did not just
think of this when he sat down at his computer.

I think, in the context of the real bourgeois election, Obama is the
preferable bourgeois (i.e., real, not propaganda) candidate this year, not
just the lesser evil, although I do not deny at all that he represents the
enemy class politically. And it does not surprise me that the election of a
Black president would become not only a possibility but a probability only
in a time of national and international crisis. 

I continue to vote for my political perspective for the American working
people, which is best expressed by McKinney. In saying this, I also concede
that I do not start as a third-partyist, with the needs of the Green Party
or the "Nader movement" or whatever. I try to start with what seems to me
like the way to forge a movement of the oppressed and exploited. 

I do not start with a 300-year minimum perspective for an American
revolution (which would make all effort in that direction irrelevant --
imagine presenting a perspective for a national democratic revolution in
France in 1489, a perspective of an American bourgeois-democratic revolution
in 1476, or a Russian national and socialist revolution in 1617 -- obviously
idiotic)., but I have no short term expectations of big accomplishments. And
though I personally plan to live forever if I can pull it off, I do not
expect to see the hopefully positive of my tiny bits of work or that of t

Like most leftists, Ford approaches the bailout as a genuine independent
issue in the class struggle. I favored opposing the bailout, but I always
considered this propaganda, not an agitation question, despite the deep and
intense mass feelings that were expressed.

Because in real politics, there was no alternative to the bailout unless you
had the alternative -- even just the beginnings of an alternative -- to the
bailout. But no such exists in the masses. They are helpless AND THEY KNOW
IT. I recently visited my stepmother and relatives in Philadelphia. My
mother -- a lower middle class working person.  She was the head of the
periodicals department at the UofP Wharton School library, which is how I
got to graduate from college. A wonderful human being, but that is beside
the point.

Her UofP pension is in danger of being wiped out by the crash of the stock
market, to which it is linked and from which she is barred from separating
it. Does she hate the bailout? Yes. Does she think it is plundering the
masses and especially the poor? Yes she does. But does she really think the
bailout can be progressively denied at this point? No, she doesn't. Today
there is no alternative.

The road toward this could be advanced not primarily by "no to bailout"
propaganda, which was legitimate, but by a fight against every effort to
take this out of the flesh of working people, starting with the no
foreclosures fight. I think the New York Times was afraid of this kind of
fight when they editorialized against the bailout.

Noone -- not even the most skilled Marxists -- knows what will happen next,
although I kind of suspect the stock market will go up 1,000 on Monday,
which will convince some that the crisis is over. The late afternoon will be
a good time to sell, however, if you were in a position to buy after the
House rejected the bailout.
Fred Feldman


www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com

Bailout Lesson: Capital Crisis Will Wreck Both Parties        
Wednesday, 01 October 2008  
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford 

The crisis of finance capital has thrown both big business parties into
extreme disarray and split the Congressional Black Caucus right down the
middle. "In the aftermath of Monday's bloody siege, it was difficult to tell
who Wall Street guns-for-hire John McCain and Barack Obama hated most: each
other, or the citizens who despite their outraged confusion had the presence
of mind to bar the doors to the national treasury." As the
Obama-McCain-Bush-Pelosi Axis struggles to serve a common master, "the rest
of us must fashion new institutions to perform the societal tasks that were
purportedly the domain of the now-extinct investment bankers." 

Bailout Lesson: Capital Crisis Will Wreck Both Parties
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford 

"The Democratic and Republican Parties, creatures of capital, are
decomposing in full view." 

In their role as mercenaries in service of finance capital, three-fifths of
Democrats joined one-third of Republicans in a (temporarily) failed heist of
$700 billion of the people's funds - a nest-egg the public needs to hold
onto to weather the unfolding collapse of the Lords of Capital. In the
aftermath of Monday's bloody siege, it was difficult to tell who Wall Street
guns-for-hire John McCain and Barack Obama hated most: each other, or the
citizens who despite their outraged confusion had the presence of mind to
bar the doors to the national treasury. 

Understandably disoriented from having had to charge backwards - pretending
to lead the people while simultaneously assaulting them - Obama peered
across the field at the hastily-erected barricades that had broken Hank
Paulson's Charge.  "I'm confident we're going to get there," said the
frustrated thief-enabler, "but it's going to be rocky." 

To paraphrase Oscar Brown, Jr., "What you mean WE, Obama-man?" The Illinois
senator and his pretend-opponents in the other business party just had their
colluding asses kicked by the most motley, disorganized crew imaginable: the
American public, who bombarded their legislators with threats of retaliation
in November if they bowed to Wall Street's extortionist demands. 

Never has Republican-Democratic co-subservience to finance capital been on
such naked display. But then, "We the People" have never before been witness
to the terminal unraveling of late-stage global finance capital. (See BAR,
"Death Rattles of a Criminal Class," September 24.) When the New York Times
features no less than three articles declaring the nation's investment
bankers ready for burial, as did last Sunday's paper, it is time for the
Democrats, especially, to find another paymaster. 

Black Caucus Split 

Obama's party is wedded to Wall Street. At the local level the Democrats
have long been the party of "developers" - the money bags who shape urban
policy to fit the needs of corporations. These gentrifiers are the
"Renaissance Men" that insist Black politicians earn their campaign and
graft payments by helping to expel their own constituents from the cities,
so as to make them more congenial to business. Betrayal starts at home.  So
it's not surprising to find Rep. Charles Rangel (NY), the corporate-loving
Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, among the 18 members of the
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to vote with the Bush-McCain-Obama Wall
Street Axis. Edolphus Towns (NY), Gregory Meeks (NY), and Artur Davis (AL)
are also in their element, reeking as they do of corporate excretions.
However, it is strange - and sad - to see Maxine Waters (CA), Gwen Moore
(WI) and other relatively progressive members aligned with the rump end of
the Black Caucus. 

Among the slim, 21-member majority of the CBC that defied Speaker Nancy
Pelosi's edicts, one finds more curious company. Voting alongside usually
reliable progressives such as Barbara Lee (CA), John Conyers (MI), Donna
Edwards (MD) and Bobby Scott (VA), are some of the Caucus's most rightwing
members: William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson (LA) and David Scott (GA), once
described as the "Worst Black Congressman" in the House. Panic makes strange
bedfellows. 

Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott summed up the "No" position: "There's no point in
spending all this money on worthless assets" such as toxic mortgages.
Detroit's Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick said of the Obama-McCain-Bush-Paulson
plan, "This helps the banks in their book of mortgages. It doesn't help the
little person who needs it." 

"It is strange - and sad - to see Maxine Waters (CA), Gwen Moore (WI) and
other relatively progressive members aligned with the rump end of the Black
Caucus." 

These are eminently good reasons to resist the bipartisan, flag-waving,
hyper-ventilating and increasingly ill-looking Wall Street mob, now
regrouping for another bum-rush of the Congress. However, the anxious
thieves are only a 12-vote switch away from consummating the Greatest Theft
Ever. Pelosi's wing of the Business Party is confident they can assemble the
blandishments and threats to do the trick. 

The Last Hold-up 

The criminal-minded and mortally wounded Lords of Capital believed, as Pam
Martens has written, that they could "loot and collapse a 200-year old
financial system and...be rewarded with a fresh $700 billion of public money
to disperse among your cronies who aided and abetted in the collapse." 

Or, as Mike Whitney puts it: 

"...the $700 billion is just part of a massive 'pump and dump' scheme
engineered with the tacit approval of the US Treasury and the Federal
Reserve. Once the banksters have offloaded their fraudulent securities and
crappy paper on Uncle Sam, they will do whatever they need to do to pad the
bottom line and drive their stocks up. That means they will shovel capital
into hard assets, foreign currencies, gold, interest rate swaps, carry trade
swindles, and Swiss bank accounts. The notion that they will recapitalize so
they can provide loans to US consumers and businesses in a slumping economy
is a pipedream." 

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and his designated wrecking crew have but
one objective: theft. Their own world is doomed - "The system is
de-leveraging and nothing can stop it," says Whitney - so they are pulling
off one last, mega-heist before it sinks beneath the waves. 

The rest of us must fashion new institutions to perform the societal tasks
that were purportedly the domain of the now-extinct investment bankers: to
gather large amounts of capital for projects of social value - for example,
a Marshall-type Plan for the cities, a nationwide infrastructure makeover,
and fulfillment of the 70-year old federal commitment to provide truly
affordable housing for everyone. And of course, jobs, jobs, jobs. 

"We must fashion new institutions to perform the societal tasks that were
purportedly the domain of the now-extinct investment bankers." 

We have many other uses for that $700 billion - what Barack Obama called
"our last bullet," although intending to make it a gift to mega-thieves -
for instance, to provide relief to current and future homeowner (and rental)
victims of the housing bubble that will take years to fully deflate, as
prices (and rents) decrease to levels consistent with wages and other social
factors. 

In a perverse way, Henry Paulson and his co-conspirators have done the
public a great favor. He has told us that, Yes, the federal government can
come up with $700-plus billion, in an instant, if the health of the nation
demands it. He has expanded the fiscal scope of the domestic political
conversation, so that it may encompass projects of transformational size.
Never again can the corporate class speak of socially valuable projects
being so large as to "break the bank" or the budget. Popular forces are now
free to think large, too, without being ridiculed from the corporate Right. 

The demise of finance capital's premiere institutions, and the brutal
arrogance with which their servants moved to strip the commonweal of every
squeezable drop of cash, has alerted vast sectors of the citizenry to the
reality of capitalism-in-crisis in ways that no amount of Left agitation
could have accomplished. 

Technical public "ownership" of previously "private" institutions has been
thrust upon us by the capitalists, themselves. But this is merely an opening
for the great debates and struggles that must follow. Power does not devolve
to "the people" by simple virtue of majority shares in failing institutions
or even outright nationalization. And "the people" have no need of
institutions that serve no purpose but as creatures of capital. 

The second casualty of the current crisis, after the collapse of the
financial sector, is surely the twin-party game of musical chairs that
served to legitimize the rule of capital. The obscenity of a
Democrat-Republican syndicate arrayed against the roaring, raging sentiments
of citizens of all self-described political persuasions, cannot be erased
from the collective national memory - even if congressional party leaders
succeed in whipping their members into line, later this week. 

"The second casualty of the current crisis is the twin-party game of musical
chairs." 

When catastrophe hits, radicals must be ready. Recent events have proven
Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente to be amazingly prescient in their belief
that the Green Party can be - I emphasize can be - a vehicle for presenting
and popularizing a truly transformational program for social change. (See
McKinney "The Financial Crisis: Seize the Time!" BAR September 24.) McKinney
and Clemente always intended that the Green Party become a nexus for the
roiling social currents set in motion by the inexorable decomposition of
ruling class institutions. The Democratic and Republican Parties, creatures
of capital, are decomposing in full view, as witnessed by the events of this
week. Too fragile to weather real political storms, they will not survive
the larger, unfolding crisis of capital as twin hegemons. As the crisis
deepens, the parties will crack - at a pace dictated by the increasing
frequency of convulsions. 

When we are confronted with the surreal spectacle of John McCain and Barack
Obama attempting to destroy each other even as they rush to deliver nearly a
trillion dollars to the same master, while the people scream at both of them
to "Stop!" - we know that "change" is coming. But not the kind the Democrats
or Republicans anticipate. 

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at
Glen.Ford at BlackAgendaReport.com



From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Sat Oct  4 15:59:08 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:59:08 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Geopolitical significance of  events in Brazil, India,
	and Russia
Message-ID: <B65F2F29FEDD4042AB6B48C736C79C08@office1pc>

The following is an article from the Snow-news website led by Prof. Mark
Jensen, an amazingly attuned kinsprit of mine at least on "foreign policy"
questions (at least in terms of what we think is important). I don't know
how many times I have posted an article to Marxmail and then found that he
has posted the same to his website. And of course he produces much more
material that I pick up from him.

Nonetheless, I disagree with him on one point in his analysis which I
reprint below along with the valuable Stratfor article he posted.	

Stratfor writes: "First, Stratfor believes that Brazil's exclusion of a
Russian jet fighter from a list of finalists signifies a decision "a
potential clash of interests [between Brazil and the U.S.] has moved from
the possible to the rather
unlikely."

Jensen accepts this analysis, but I think it is faulty and too centered, as
Stratfor is prone, on Russia as the main enemy of the US today. But in fact,
the central area of conflict between the Brazilian regime and the United
States is Latin America. The Brazilian government continues to defend, in
its own way and for its own reasons, the radical-left regimes in Bolivia,
Venezuela, and Ecuador.

And, perhaps more importantly, the Lula government continues to support and
participate in efforts for Latin American economic integration, which
Washington regards as a long-term threat to its imposed trade agreements.

Obviously, if Washington saw an easy way to restore the most reactionary
landlords, capitalists, and militarists to power, they would do so and
change all this.

The rejection of Russia for now may simply be the reflex of a left-bourgeois
government to avoid more conflict with the imperialists than they are ready
to deal with, and on issues not central to their concerns. This is
completely missed by Stratfor because of their Russophobic focus.
Fred Feldman

ANALYSIS: Week's events in Brazil, India, and Russia hint at geopolitics
of the 2010s

[In a "geopolitical diary" entry, the private intelligence company
Stratfor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor) called attention to three
events that "together will weave together the tapestry of the next decade
-- and, no, those events do not include the $700 billion Wall Street
bailout or the U.S. vice presidential candidate debate."[1] -- First,
Stratfor believes that Brazil's exclusion of a Russian jet fighter from a
list of finalists signifies a decision "a potential clash of interests
[between Brazil and the U.S.] has moved from the possible to the rather
unlikely." -- Second, the conclusion of a U.S.-India agreement allowing
full nuclear trade between them decisively seals what has been an ongoing
U.S. tilt away from Pakistan toward India, and is "the start of a broad,
deep strategic alliance based on concerns about China and Islam." -- 
Third, a biannual bilateral German-Russian summit did not produce a clear
decision from Germany about whether to challenge Moscow or cut a deal with
the nation upon which Germany is dependent for energy supplies: "Germany
faces a truly agonizing choice: a confrontation that will make it suffer
greatly, or a conciliation that will make its neighbors suffer even more."
--Mark]

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/7946/

1.

Geopolitical diary

THREE EVENTS AND THE TAPESTRY OF THE NEXT DECADE

Stratfor
October 3, 2008

http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/20081002
Three completely disconnected events occurred this week that will weave
together the tapestry of the next decade -- and, no, those events do not
include the $700 billion Wall Street bailout or the U.S. vice presidential
candidate debate.

First, Brazil on Oct. 1 made its short list of finalists to supply it with
modern jet fighters as part of a large defense modernization program. The
final list included the French Dassault Rafale, the Swedish Saab Gripen
NG, and the American Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

By any measure, Brazil is a rapidly rising power, and this has nothing to
do with the fact that it has discovered an obscene amount of oil in its
offshore regions in the past year. Brazil's traditional competitors --
Argentina and Venezuela -- are in the process of mismanaged economic
collapse, leaving Brazil with no competitors in its neighborhood.

Of course, it takes more than incompetent neighbors to make one a regional
hegemon. And in many ways -- with its ridiculous labor laws, endemic
corruption, runaway crime, and rampant poverty -- Brazil is its own
most-limiting factor. But one of the ways in which Brazil can start
acting like a real country -- and thus a regional hegemon -- is to develop
a military with real power-projection capabilities. Setting aside a few
billion dollars for the purchase and integration of jet fighters is an
excellent way to turn potential into reality. The Brazilian moment has
not yet arrived, but it may finally be on the horizon.

More notable than what designs made Brazil's final cut is the design that
failed to: Russia's Sukhoi Su-35.

Brazil is emerging on the world stage. The decisions it makes now will
shape its policy -- and thus that of the rest of the world -- for decades
to come. Brazil deliberately chose to go with a Western system for its
airpower.

Of the potential options, the Sukhoi was the only system that would have
given Brazil the option of challenging U.S. military primacy (which is not
to say that there are not solid technical and military reasons why Brazil
did not choose the Russian system). The provider of a system can always
choose to halt parts, supplies, and support should the buyer adopt
policies hostile to the supplier (ask the Venezuelans -- they've got
F-16s). American relations with France and Sweden do not need to be
love-filled -- and right now they are at their warmest in decades -- for
Washington to be able to pressure them into not supplying offensive
products to a rival in its own backyard. Put simply, rising Brazil has
either made a conscious decision to pursue a modernization program that
will put it at American mercy or made a conscious decision not to adopt a
hostile attitude toward the United States. That does not necessarily mean
an alliance is inevitable or even probable, but it does mean that a
potential clash of interests has moved from the possible to the rather
unlikely.

The second major event occurred in Washington, where the U.S. Senate gave
final approval to a U.S.-Indian agreement allowing full nuclear trade
between the two states. Until now, India had languished under nuclear
sanctions explicitly designed to retard New Delhi's nuclear weapons and
electricity programs.

India too is an emerging power, and, like Brazil, it has been its own
worst enemy for decades: Overpopulation and the government that does
perhaps the best job in the world of stifling innovation and development,
combined with a particularly vibrant streak of anti-Americanism that has
not generated Soviet subsidies for New Delhi for 20 years. The United
States has always viewed India as a potential ally: It is a large market,
is democratic, is a rival of China and is sufficiently hedged in by
geography to never really be a long-term threat to American interests.

But there has always been the Pakistani problem. During the Cold War, the
United States needed Pakistan as a means of securing China in de facto
alliance against the Soviet Union. In the jihadist era, the United States
needed Pakistan to help fight the Afghan war. No matter how much
Washington may have wanted India as an ally for the long haul, it needed
Pakistan in the short run.

Well, not anymore. Evolutions in the Afghan war are leading the United
States toward considering Pakistan a lost cause -- and perhaps even a
state hostile to American interests. As that feeling slowly coalesces
into policy, India is the natural -- even greatly desired -- alternative. 
The nuclear deal does more than simply allow for U.S. industry to help the
Indians out with their nuclear program -- it is the start of a broad, deep
strategic alliance based on concerns about China and Islam.

The third event happened in St. Petersburg, Russia: Germany and Russia
held their biannual bilateral government summit.

Germany is the closest thing that Russia has to a friend in Europe these
days. And considering that Chancellor Angela Merkel is openly distrustful
and critical of the Russian government, that is truly saying something. 
Merkel certainly wants to stand up to Russia -- she is from the former
East Germany after all and knows full well what it means to live under
Russian "influence" -- but she has found herself trapped by geography and
history. Her country is economically dependent on Russian energy
supplies. Even if Berlin could muster the political will to challenge
Moscow, and suffer through the energy dislocation and economic weakness
that would come from a massive defense buildup, the thought of the Germans
rearming to fend off Russian expansionism is something that sows more than
a little terror among Germany's neighbors.

It could be far easier for the Germans to cut a deal with the Russians to
share influence in the regions that lie between them. This has happened
before -- and has been known to lead to a world war. The winds of history
are blowing through Merkel's window, and it would be truly odd for her to
not have felt a bitter chill.

And, with that, the broad lines of the next decade have already been
sketched. Brazil and India are both emerging as major powers, and doing
so in a way that will not challenge -- and may well dovetail with --
American power. Germany faces a truly agonizing choice: a confrontation
that will make it suffer greatly, or a conciliation that will make its
neighbors suffer even more.






From csoc21 at btinternet.com  Sat Oct  4 16:48:59 2008
From: csoc21 at btinternet.com (noah tucker)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:48:59 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [Marxism] the decline of US manufacturing
Message-ID: <70780.20510.qm@web87107.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

Dbachmozart at aol.com quoted Chomsky as follows:

"It is commonly said that industrial production in the U.S. has declined. 
That is very misleading. If you take U.S. manufacturing industry and consider 
its share in global manufacturing, it probably hasn't changed. It's just that
it? is doing its production overseas. But, from the point of view of the CEO of
Dell, what does it matter where they do their manufacturing? McKinsey, the
big? financial analysis house, did a study a year or two ago which was reported
in? the Wall Street Journal. They made an interesting calculation. They said,
suppose that you analyze the U.S. trade deficit by considering the U.S., not
as? a place on a map, but in terms of the people who own the country (the
corporate? sector). If, say Dell, is bringing computers it makes in China into
the U.S., we? call those domestic production, not imports, which it is from the
point of view? of Dell management. It turns out that most of the trade deficit
disappears."

http://www.alternet.org/rights/101530

Sure. And thanks for posting the link to this very useful and interesting interview. Indeed, from the point of view of the management & shareholders of an individual industrial firm, eg Dell, the transfer of production operations to China does not in the least reduce their profits & corporate power- the reverse, in fact.

Nevertheless. The key issue is whether, taken together, these transfers affect the overall relative strategic power of the ruling class of that 'place on a map' which we call the USA. 

To the extent that these transfers of industrial functions are also transfers of technology, they do affect the power of the US ruling class. The Chinese government, in recompense for access to its lower-paid workforce, good infrastructure and lucrative consumer market, insists that the US (and European) corporations hand over some of their advanced technological knowledge. Chinese state programmes then generalise that knowledge to improve the production efficiency of Chinese-owned firms and raise the country's ability to produce products of increasing complexity and quality.

Which should not be taken as a suggestion that anything Made in China can safely be fed to ones children!

BTW- Louis. Your riposte regarding my lack of "Olympian detachment" re: China and my approach to what one could describe as the 'Walter Lippman question' was extremely funny, and I concede that the joke is on me :-)

However. Please note that my article which accorded "bouquets" to the People's Republic following this year's Olympic Games, at:

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/feat_of_gold_01713.html

gave equal space to an analysis of the stunning success of my own country at the 2008 summer Olympics, which was achieved by using Chinese, or more accurately, Soviet methods.

I am sufficiently detached to ascribe bouquets to Hu Jintao, Gordon Brown, Leonid Brezhnev, or even to Louis Proyect and Walter Lippman- when they are due. 




From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Sat Oct  4 17:12:12 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:12:12 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] A world war would sort things out nicely
Message-ID: <A20DB00E142640D2BDE8666073A79FBB@office1pc>

Perhaps this rout, too, will stop at the gates of Rome AVNER MANDELMAN 

Avner Mandelman is president and chief investment officer of Giraffe Capital
Corp. and the 

author of The Sleuth Investor. 
amandelman at giraffecapital.com


September 27, 2008

After Hannibal had crossed the Alps and beaten the Roman army twice, the
alarmed Roman Senate spent the nation's treasure and sent eight legions
against the invader. Up to then, Rome had rarely thrown more than two
legions into battle. But when the state was in danger, there was no limit to
what the authorities would do.

And so it is today. The financial system has just buckled before a financial
marauder - Freddie and Fannie's huge debt - and to save the system, the U.S.
government took over their $5-trillion (U.S.) of debt, annihilating its own
balance sheet. It is just as the eight Roman legions that gave battle to
Hannibal in Cannae in 216 BC also were annihilated. And, just as after
Cannae the moneyless Roman state lay defenceless before Hannibal, so does
the broke U.S. government now lie defenceless before the remaining debt -
which is a hundred times bigger than F&F's. 

Yes, you read it correctly: A hundred times bigger. F&F cost $5-trillion, or
8 per cent of the $60-trillion global GDP; but there are $600-trillion of
derivatives out there, or about 10 times the world's GDP. What would happen
if some of these crumbled, as did F&F?

AIG had a "mere" $1-trillion of derivatives, which was enough for the U.S.
Federal Reserve to pale and renege on its vow not to bail out anyone after
F&F. And AIG is small compared with, say, JPMorgan, which has perhaps
$20-trillion of derivatives; or other insurance companies and banks each of
which has half-a-trillion of derivatives here, half-a-trillion there.

Almost every exchange-traded fund has derivatives (called swaps), every
insurance company and every bank. It's a huge daisy chain of obligations.
What would happen if a few trillion cracked? How would the now-broke U.S.
authorities fight the problem? Back to Rome then, for clues.

When, after Cannae, the Roman state had no more money or soldiers, the
Senate sent collectors to confiscate private citizen's horses, food and
money for the coming battles; then sent out impressers to draft any
able-bodied man into the army. Because when the state is at risk, no private
wealth, nor private body, is safe.

And so it is today. The market just had its Cannae; the U.S. Treasury is
broke. Foreign governments won't hand over their cash. Yet an even larger
debt problem - derivatives - is looming. And so the authorities must gather
money from wherever they can, any way they can - and they are already doing
it.

First were resource stocks. The U.S. Treasury, in concert with the Fed,
bumped the U.S. dollar up, drove resource prices down, and so sucked money
out of anyone who was long commodities and short financials, thus giving
broke banks breathing room to refinance. (BMO's Don Coxe has written a
terrific piece about it.)

The authorities then forbade shorting most financial stocks - and bang! The
shorts had to rush to cover - contributing a piece of their hide to the debt
battle's costs. What's next?

Probably no shorts allowed at all - the California Public Employees
Retirement System already announced it won't lend its stocks any more (after
the Feds allegedly leaned on it), and so more shorts should rush to cover
(helping the market rise - perhaps a lot).

And after this rascality, just about anything is possible, because the
authorities are desperate. Thus one by one, sectors of the market, parts of
the economy, whole asset classes, are likely to be raided for fresh money -
just like the Roman Senate did, post Cannae.

Will this be enough? Not very likely - there's just too much debt. So the
coming war against it must eventually resort to a Fabian strategy: The Roman
general Fabius knew he could not stand up to Hannibal in direct battle, so
he let the invader destroy the Italian countryside with impunity until the
invading army dissipated its strength. (Foolhardy Roman generals who tried
to fight Hannibal directly, lost.)

Similarly, today's debt tsunami may have to be allowed to exhaust itself by
eating up the only store of value left: Everyone's savings (including
foreigners'), following massive money printing. And so inflation must come
back, the U.S. dollar must decline, gold must rise, and bonds must tank -
eventually. And if bonds fall, they would take the market down with them -
and the economy.

Unless. Unless.

Unless this financial debacle ends the same way the previous one did in the
late Thirties - in a large-scale war. Because with so much capital
destroyed, democracies look mostly inward, their will to respond firmly and
early to mad rulers and evil dictators is diminished, and so evil can run
unchecked for a while - until it becomes intolerable and war becomes
inevitable. And a large-scale modern war, unfortunately, boosts the economy
- at least for a while. 

Will the late Thirties' history repeat? I hope not. But time will tell.
Meanwhile, see gold as an inflation substitute for cash, and get ready to
enjoy the market rise after this lengthy, scary bottom. Hannibal, remember,
stopped at the gates of Rome, and so will this market slide stop - very
soon.



From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Sat Oct  4 17:59:03 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:59:03 -0400
Subject: [Marxism]  A world war would sort things out nicely
Message-ID: <B99EA205BDC64AF39E435771DDBC518F@office1pc>

I did not comment on the last article I submitted because I had not thought
through the issues it raised. Of course, this is on one level a typical
stock-seller magician with his own theories of crisis linked to Rome, the
Fed, or whatever, but mostly aiming to get his customers back in the market.
Understandably, of course.

But I suggest that the aggressiveness of the federal government in
intervening to save the situation for the capitalist class, which is now
totally entwined in mortgages, derivatives, and god knows what else they
developed without our knowing about it, should tip us off that we MAY not be
in for a long period of years before the US ruling class turns decisively
toward world war as the solution of their problems.

Perhaps this is reflected in the somewhat bizarre level of hostility to
Russia, reflected in Palin's -- unchallenged by any other candidate --
suggestion that NATO membership for Georgia was worth an issue worth going
to war with Russia. (Of course, in raising this, I am challenging the
Conventional Wisdom that anything Palin says is completely Out To Lunch.)

The threat of Iranian nuclear weapons, or North Korean nuclear weapons, of
Russian claims that there are limits to NATO expansion and US influence, as
against the US claim that US domination must recognize and accept no
primitive national borders. All this can be turned into a world war -- not
without differences in the EU and so forth. But what is there alternative is
world capitalism must have a war? 

I admit that I think the process will be more complicated than what I
presented above and will probably take more time, but the comparison of the
aggressiveness of the US ruling class from 1929-33, and the way it is
proceeding now indicates the prospect of more international aggressiveness
as well, at least under a new administration if not (unlikely on any huge
scale) before.
Fred Feldman



From sabocat59 at mac.com  Sat Oct  4 18:15:45 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:15:45 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] crisis will wreck both parties
Message-ID: <28AAC0E8-35D0-43EB-9914-B6ACB76CBE75@mac.com>

Fred Feldman posted:

<When catastrophe hits, radicals must be ready. Recent events have  
proven
Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente to be amazingly prescient in their  
belief
that the Green Party can be - I emphasize can be - a vehicle for  
presenting
and popularizing a truly transformational program for social change. >

Given the disorganization of the Green party, and McKinney's  
conspiracy moment, (5,000 inmates executed post-katrina) reminiscent  
of Kucinich and his "UFO" speech, I find the idea that the green  
party could be a vehicle for social change to be little more than  
wishful thinking.

The democratic and republican parties may indeed be in a state of  
permanent disarray, but this does not mean a meaningful alternative  
exists at this moment. I think there will be a bit of a lag before  
something coalesces, and it will probably begin spontaneously here  
and there before new leadership comes to the fore.

  greg mcd


From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Sat Oct  4 18:16:47 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:16:47 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] A world war would sort things out nicely
Message-ID: <F65A5A5B95E84596B4C0A1F4B8001596@office1pc>

Well I hurriedly garbled a thought again as is my wont (even more than
changing the subject);
I should have written:
the comparison of the passivity of the US ruling class from 1929-33, and the
aggressive way they are proceeding now indicates the possibility of a more
accelerated international aggressiveness as well, at least under a new
administration if not (unlikely on any huge scale) before.



From sabocat59 at mac.com  Sat Oct  4 18:48:46 2008
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (Greg McDonald)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:48:46 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Crisis will wreck both parties
Message-ID: <007E3D8E-18EA-40D1-8CFF-38249FADF84F@mac.com>

Fred Feldman writes:

<The road toward this could be advanced not primarily by "no to bailout"
propaganda, which was legitimate, but by a fight against every effort to
take this out of the flesh of working people, starting with the no
foreclosures fight. I think the New York Times was afraid of this  
kind of
fight when they editorialized against the bailout.>

I'm posting this article on Starbucks and the IWW, not as a sectarian  
suggestion that the IWW is in any position to "lead the working  
class", but rather to put some meat on the bones of Fred's idea that  
the working class will pay dearly for this financial crisis.  The new  
"Optimal Scheduling" strategy of Starbucks to hold employees captive  
to the possibility they will be needed for work even if they are not  
on the schedule is almost worse than slavery. The owners are  
asserting ownership over their workers' time, even when they are not  
working, yet the workforce has to pay for its own social  
reproduction. Starbucks gets the best of both worlds in this hybrid  
slave/wage system.  I'm certain we will see similar strategies  
adopted wholesale in the corporate service sector. We may soon reach  
the stage when the need to control the workforce and drive down wages  
will provoke a backlash. When I say soon I am suggesting in the next  
few years.

Greg McD

For Immediate Release:
IWW Starbucks Workers Union

Contact: StarbucksUnion (at) yahoo.com

October 3, 2008

Starbucks to Require Employee Availability Around the Clock and Cut  
Workforce in Major National Initiative

New York, NY- The Starbucks Coffee Co. is in the process of an  
extreme revamping of its workforce policies according to company  
documents obtained by the Starbucks Workers Union of the Industrial  
Workers of the World.  The initiative, dubbed "Optimal Scheduling",  
will require employees to make themselves available to work  
essentially around the clock to obtain so-called full-time status.   
Even for workers able to make the extraordinary sacrifice to obtain  
"full-time" status, no work hours are guaranteed- identical to  
Starbucks' current system of part-time status for all retail hourly  
workers.  In addition, Starbucks will lay off workers who cannot meet  
minimum availability requirements.  As baristas learn of the new  
program, discontent is rising.

"I've had to make myself available each week from Tuesday to Sunday  
starting at 4:45am until 11pm in the hopes of possibly getting 32  
hours of work but not being guaranteed a single hour," said Liberte  
Locke, a Starbucks barista in New York and member of the IWW  
Starbucks Workers Union.  "It's impossible for me to get a second job  
now even though I need one and impossible to have a life outside of  
work."

Under the new system, baristas who opt for pseudo full-time status  
have to make themselves available to work 70% of the total hours  
their store is open during the week.  In an example given in the  
company documents, a store open 115 hours per week requires a barista  
to be available to work 80.5 hours each week - over double the  
standard work week.  Week-to-week Starbucks can then schedule workers  
anywhere within that availability.  In addition, workers who cannot  
make themselves available for at least three shifts a week will be  
fired, absent a "compelling reason" which Starbucks has not defined.   
Weekend workers must be available for at least 16 hours to avoid  
termination.

"Starbucks' 'Optimal Scheduling' sacrifices family life on the altar  
of business flexibility," said Daniel Gross, an organizer with the  
IWW Starbucks Workers Union and a former barista at the coffee  
chain.  "Once upon a time in America, employees got a work schedule  
they and their families could count on.  The Starbucks and Wal-Marts  
of the world are doing everything in their power to put an end to  
that security.

The union vows actions around the country against 'Optimal  
Scheduling'.  Founded in 2004, the IWW Starbucks Workers Union is an  
organization of over 200 current and former baristas united to win a  
living wage and secure work hours.  Through direct action, advocacy,  
and legal victories, the union has won important workplace  
improvements for Starbucks baristas around the country.


From markalause at gmail.com  Sat Oct  4 18:57:25 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 20:57:25 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] crisis will wreck both parties
In-Reply-To: <28AAC0E8-35D0-43EB-9914-B6ACB76CBE75@mac.com>
References: <28AAC0E8-35D0-43EB-9914-B6ACB76CBE75@mac.com>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810041757u2b545819p204853dd42a4cfda@mail.gmail.com>

People are entirely free to take their strategic advice about the GPUS
anywhere they want to get it, including those who've suddenly
discovered how peachy keen the Greens and urge everybody to build the
GPUS.

And people are also entirely free to disregard the advice of those of
us who've put a lot of time and energy in the GPUS (and been denounced
as petty bourgeois tree hugging reformists by some of those who now
suggest we should put a lot of time and energy into the GPUS).

People have written very extensively on their experiences.  (See the
archives.)

Of course, it will be said Sarah-Palin-like, that we're just dwelling
in the past and everything's oh-so-different now that the GPUS
nominated McKinney and the legions--well dozens--of socialists in
several groups have suddenly discovered the wonders of the GPUS.

Still, you can ignore the past and do something right now if you want
to know what this strategy will be.

Get involved in the McKinney campaign.  Go down to the local
headquarters and meet some of the people involved with it.  Get
involved in one of the groups on the road for the campaign.  Or join a
campus group.  Get together with your neighbors and canvas.  Allowing
for some possible exceptions, the GPUS isn't really doing any of this
stuff generally.  The GPUS, where it exists in this part of the
country, certainly isn't and it would rather not return your phone
calls if it suspects you might be a socialist.

If these options aren't available, then the strategy falls flat on its
face before it takes the first step.

ML


From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Sat Oct  4 20:00:50 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:00:50 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] crisis will wreck both parties
Message-ID: <24F33109CA2746208D8B4AD30D816863@office1pc>

I have no idea exactly what Mark is meowing about this time. I am beginning
to think that somebody should have the decency to open a can of Fancy Feast
for the poor fella. It's late and his meowing is keeping people up.

Mark seems to have decided that McKinney is a "spoiler", relative to the
Nader campaign. Thus his apparent anger at anybody who supports McKinney and
his efforts to "expose" her. To me, both are propaganda candidates and
nothing else. The race for president is between Obama and McCain, period.

Aside from that, I am neither guilty nor innocent of committing myself to
building the Green Party. I simply haven't done anything of the kind. I
frankly admitted in my own words that I am not a third partyist. As I said
explicitly in my latest contribution, I do not start from the immediate
needs of either the Green Party or the "Nader movement." 

I don't believe that a real challenge to the two-party system will arise
from either of these basically progressive and supportable expressions. And
I support McKinney not as a third party but as a class/national opposition
to the existing order -- something I feel strongly about in my strategic
conception. 

You are free to disagree with me to your lovable heart's content. But
frankly, I would like to hear less meowing. Not obligatory. Just my opinion.

If you have to meow, go right ahead. I've managed to sleep through worse.
Fred Feldman




From michael at ecst.csuchico.edu  Sat Oct  4 21:09:40 2008
From: michael at ecst.csuchico.edu (michael perelman)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:09:40 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] 4th Crisis Commentary: Capitalism 101
Message-ID: <48E82FF4.6040207@ecst.csuchico.edu>

This commentary deals more with the nature of the efficiency of market 
investment.

http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/4th-crisis-commentary-capitalism-101/

If someone writes me off-list about how to put the material in a better 
format, I would like to know how.

-- 

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
www.michaelperelman.wordpress.com



From larrydamms at yahoo.com  Sat Oct  4 23:46:42 2008
From: larrydamms at yahoo.com (Larry Damms)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Walden Bello on the financial crisis
Message-ID: <964082.7127.qm@web58507.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Lou Proyect posted:
?
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/bello031008.html
?
LD sez:
?
This is both a comprehensive and lucid piece.
Just a technical note. As far as I understand it, the EU, not the US, is now the PRC's leading export market... but not by much though, and the EU is also headed for recession. And so too is the PRC's other major export market, Japan. And given the export dependency of the PRC's growth model, the invalidity of the "decoupling thesis" still holds.
And now for a more political note. I find even the best?quasi-Marxist structural analysis of the present crisis to be disappointing if not surprising in its underlying social vision. It promotes the idea that the primary flaw of capitalist development is the way in which its inner contradictions undercut the expansion of the "productive" economy. At a time when there exists on one side the hoarding of wealth/refusal to invest?and on the other side a plague of home foreclosures/job losses, this sort of critique is understandable. But should we not be taking advantage of this moment of severe rupture to push a more radical questioning of the _purpose_ of economic expansion? What happened to the ecological socialist critique of GDP growth? When the financial meltdown overtook East Asia in 1997-1998, Bello used it as a platform to attack not only the Washington Consensus, but also to call into question the normative ends of the East Asian development
 project. I don't see any such orientation here or in other varieties of left structural analysis on the current unwinding, despite the fact that in the last ten years great strides have been made in refining and popularizing a cultural and ecological critique of the rampant commofidication of everything. (A critique pushed along of course by the twin realities of looming energy bottlenecks and runaway global warming).
Look, I now work and live in South Korea, not so long ago the poster child for successful "development." And what have been the results of this "successful" drive? A widespread preoccupation with celebrity news, reality TV, luxury brands, plastic surgery, and status competition grips the country. The sex trade composes a higher percentage of GDP than agriculture, fisheries, and forestry combined. The suicide rate is one of the highest (perhaps the very highest) among the OECD countries. Christian fundamentalist mega-churches are recruiting like gangbusters. (Wonderfully satirized?in Lee Chang-dong's _Miryang_, by the way.)?The spontaneous mass protests of the early summer (largely driven by an easily manipulable populist nationalism in any event) have come and gone like the latest K-drama fad.
Yes, I guess I am going off on a tangent here and simply venting, but I find it disconcerting that in the midst of a systemic seizure leftists preoccupy themselves with the ultimate sideshow issue of how to get the machinery of accumulation operative again, if in a more fair and equitable manner.
?
?


      

From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 01:28:41 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 03:28:41 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The Current Crisis: A Socialist Perspective
In-Reply-To: <48E247DF.6010107@optonline.net>
References: <295BA9B9-28EF-4463-A8E7-DCEC194CF37E@mac.com>
	<908b689f0809300809j1033b3f9va8f6e0a213230061@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fa158550809300824q5882a598o22fad9395fc563ef@mail.gmail.com>
	<908b689f0809300829y7d295673g59102b1a26ce282a@mail.gmail.com>
	<48E2471B.4020105@optonline.net> <48E247DF.6010107@optonline.net>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810050028h52e1b9b3q8b13a72b3ea48578@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Les Schaffer <schaffer at optonline.net> wrote:
> http://marxmail.pbwiki.com/
>
> i've made it so i have to approve people who will use this, but i simply
> will approve anyone who is a member of marxmail. or do "you" desire
> differently?

It seems that other than myself and Anthony Boynton, no one else has
worked on the leaflet. The last change (by Anthony Boynton) was made
yesterday.

Do we conclude, then, that everyone on Marxmail approves of the
leaflet it its present form?

If so, do not delay: start printing it out, and putting it up in
restroom stalls and other public, eye-catching places EVERYWHERE!


From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Sun Oct  5 01:44:21 2008
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 03:44:21 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] crisis will wreck both parties
Message-ID: <9118BD928FD04052AD51457701051BCB@office1pc>

Apologies to Mark and others for my last post in this thread. I overamped
and flamed. Working on putting a stop to that.
Fred



From lueko.willms at t-online.de  Sat Oct  4 02:36:04 2008
From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:36:04 +0200 (MES)
Subject: [Marxism] "Joe Six-Pack" and "Hockey Mom"
In-Reply-To: <226032.95077.qm@web88002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <226032.95077.qm@web88002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <100-f42ae748-25235.648@lws-media.de>

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:56:38 -0700 (PDT), Pance Stojkovski wrote:

> And it's not like the gay community reclaiming the terms "gay" and "queer". 
"Joe Six-Pack" and "Hockey Mom" are still insulting.

  Ms. Palin accepted the term "Hockey Mom" for herself in the speech at the 
Republican circus in the Twin Cities, with this famous phrase which went like 
"you know what the difference is between a hockey mom and a pitbull? 
Lipstick!" So she also wanted her to be seen as a pitbull. 

  BTW, this term "hockey mom" is completely unfamiliar with me. Would the 
Usanians on this list help to understand it? 


Comradely yours, 
L?ko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------


From lueko.willms at t-online.de  Sun Oct  5 01:32:00 2008
From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 09:32:00 +0200 (MES)
Subject: [Marxism] A world war would sort things out nicely
In-Reply-To: <B99EA205BDC64AF39E435771DDBC518F@office1pc>
References: <B99EA205BDC64AF39E435771DDBC518F@office1pc>
Message-ID: <100-706de848-25192.008@lws-media.de>

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:59:03 -0400, Fred Feldman wrote:

> But I suggest that the aggressiveness of the federal government in
> intervening to save the situation for the capitalist class, which is now
> totally entwined in mortgages, derivatives, and god knows what else they
> developed without our knowing about it, should tip us off that we MAY not 
be
> in for a long period of years before the US ruling class turns decisively
> toward world war as the solution of their problems.

  The previous world war was successful in opening up a period of capitalist 
prosperity not only because it ended the sqabbles among the European 
powers about a re-division of the world, i.e. mainly a re-division of the British 
Empire, by imposing the USA as the real world power, dictating its terms to 
her allies and her enemies, setting up a United Nations and a Bretton Woods. 

  Capitalism could also restart because of the immense destruction of real 
capital by the war, which made possible higher _rates_ of profit because the 
capital to be increased was smaller. 

  In Germany, i.e. the Western separate state which the imperialist victors and 
the German bourgeoisie formed to prevent a united German state with a 
strong working class allied with the Red Army, also practically every form of 
paper money was destroyed by the W?hrungsreform, the currency reform of 
1948, where all monetary titles were canceled and turned into paper without 
value, every citizen got 40 Deutsche Mark to start with, but property relations 
to land and factories remained untouched. 

  Sure, a real world wide war destroying huge amounts of capital would 
enable capitalism a fresh start. But which power has the means to start it? 
Even if the working class organisations are very poor today, in no major 
power a fascist movement has crushed the working class and atomised the 
class. Former colonies raise their heads and assert their independence. 

  So what now? Some European capitalist leaders speak of the death of 
Bretton Woods and the need to establish a new world monetary order. But do 
they have the power? At the meeting of the European members of the G8 in 
Paris on Saturday, the four leaders agreed that everybody has to look himself 
after the financial institutions in their "own" countries, that there would be no 
common European Union programme, just a coordination. 


Comradely yours, 
L?ko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------


From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 03:42:54 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 05:42:54 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] "Joe Six-Pack" and "Hockey Mom"
In-Reply-To: <100-f42ae748-25235.648@lws-media.de>
References: <226032.95077.qm@web88002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<100-f42ae748-25235.648@lws-media.de>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810050242r41e246c6i22f920ee386294a3@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 4:36 AM, L?ko Willms <lueko.willms at t-online.de>wrote:

>
>
>  BTW, this term "hockey mom" is completely unfamiliar with me. Would the
> Usanians on this list help to understand it?


<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_mom>

From lueko.willms at t-online.de  Sun Oct  5 03:52:35 2008
From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:52:35 +0200 (MES)
Subject: [Marxism] "Joe Six-Pack" and "Hockey Mom"
In-Reply-To: <908b689f0810050242r41e246c6i22f920ee386294a3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <226032.95077.qm@web88002.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<100-f42ae748-25235.648@lws-media.de>
	<100-f42ae748-25235.648@lws-media.de>
	<908b689f0810050242r41e246c6i22f920ee386294a3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <100-638ee848-26217.001@lws-media.de>

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 05:42:54 -0400, Ruthless Critic of All that Exists wrote:

> >  BTW, this term "hockey mom" is completely unfamiliar with me. Would 
the
> > Usanians on this list help to understand it?
  
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_mom>

  Whow! Thanks a lot, I did not expect to find an Wikipedia article about such 
a colloquial item. 


Comradely, 
L?ko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------


From lnp3 at panix.com  Sun Oct  5 07:35:42 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 09:35:42 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Fukuyama on the fall of America, Inc.
Message-ID: <20081005133555.41B2B10027@mailbackend.panix.com>

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162401
The Fall of America, Inc.

Along with some of Wall Street's most storied firms, a certain vision 
of capitalism has collapsed. How we restore faith in our brand.
Francis Fukuyama
NEWSWEEK
 From the magazine issue dated Oct 13, 2008

The implosion of America's most storied investment banks. The 
vanishing of more than a trillion dollars in stock-market wealth in a 
day. A $700 billion tab for U.S. taxpayers. The scale of the Wall 
Street crackup could scarcely be more gargantuan. Yet even as 
Americans ask why they're having to pay such mind-bending sums to 
prevent the economy from imploding, few are discussing a more 
intangible, yet potentially much greater cost to the United 
States?the damage that the financial meltdown is doing to America's "brand."

Ideas are one of our most important exports, and two fundamentally 
American ideas have dominated global thinking since the early 1980s, 
when Ronald Reagan was elected president. The first was a certain 
vision of capitalism?one that argued low taxes, light regulation and 
a pared-back government would be the engine for economic growth. 
Reaganism reversed a century-long trend toward ever-larger 
government. Deregulation became the order of the day not just in the 
United States but around the world.

The second big idea was America as a promoter of liberal democracy 
around the world, which was seen as the best path to a more 
prosperous and open international order. America's power and 
influence rested not just on our tanks and dollars, but on the fact 
that most people found the American form of self-government 
attractive and wanted to reshape their societies along the same 
lines?what political scientist Joseph Nye has labeled our "soft power."

It's hard to fathom just how badly these signature features of the 
American brand have been discredited. Between 2002 and 2007, while 
the world was enjoying an unprecedented period of growth, it was easy 
to ignore those European socialists and Latin American populists who 
denounced the U.S. economic model as "cowboy capitalism." But now the 
engine of that growth, the American economy, has gone off the rails 
and threatens to drag the rest of the world down with it. Worse, the 
culprit is the American model itself: under the mantra of less 
government, Washington failed to adequately regulate the financial 
sector and allowed it to do tremendous harm to the rest of the society.

Democracy was tarnished even earlier. Once Saddam was proved not to 
have WMD, the Bush administration sought to justify the Iraq War by 
linking it to a broader "freedom agenda"; suddenly the promotion of 
democracy was a chief weapon in the war against terrorism. To many 
people around the world, America's rhetoric about democracy sounds a 
lot like an excuse for furthering U.S. hegemony.

The choice we face now goes well beyond the bailout, or the 
presidential campaign. The American brand is being sorely tested at a 
time when other models?whether China's or Russia's?are looking more 
and more attractive. Restoring our good name and reviving the appeal 
of our brand is in many ways as great a challenge as stabilizing the 
financial sector. Barack Obama and John McCain would each bring 
different strengths to the task. But for either it will be an uphill, 
years-long struggle. And we cannot even begin until we clearly 
understand what went wrong?which aspects of the American model are 
sound, which were poorly implemented, and which need to be discarded 
altogether.

Many commentators have noted that the Wall Street meltdown marks the 
end of the Reagan era. In this they are doubtless right, even if 
McCain manages to get elected president in November. Big ideas are 
born in the context of a particular historical era. Few survive when 
the context changes dramatically, which is why politics tends to 
shift from left to right and back again in generation-long cycles.

(clip)



From lnp3 at panix.com  Sun Oct  5 08:06:25 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:06:25 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Pro-immigrant rights video games
Message-ID: <20081005140623.EFA081EB32@mailbackend.panix.com>

NY Times, October 5, 2008
Death of Detained Immigrant Inspires Online Game With Goal of Educating Players
By NINA BERNSTEIN

The death last year of Boubacar Bah, a Guinean tailor held in a New 
Jersey jail for overstaying his visa, showed immigration detention to 
be one of the most secretive corners of American life. But now Mr. 
Bah's story is being retold in an unusually public way: in an online 
video game.

The game ? created by Breakthrough, an international human rights 
organization in New York that is trying to get the public behind 
efforts to strengthen oversight, due process and medical help in 
immigration detention ? uses Mr. Bah's story to walk players through 
a simulated detention center, and into the documented ordeals of 
other detainees. They include a pregnant woman kept in shackles 
during labor and an Army veteran held for three years while he fought 
deportation.

The video game (which can be found at http://66.232.104.66 
/homelandgitmo.com/) casts the player as a reporter seeking clues in 
the death of Mr. Bah, 52, who suffered a skull fracture and brain 
hemorrhages in the Elizabeth Detention Center in New Jersey. A 
cartoon guide leads the way to actual video testimonials of former 
detainees and information that unlocks the mystery of Mr. Bah's fate.

The fictional framework plays fast and loose with traditional rules 
of journalism ? the reporter takes an undercover job as a detention 
guard and writes a first-person appeal for change rather than an 
article ? but the content encountered along the way is backed by 
links to real newspaper articles, court documents and other factual material.

Mallika Dutt, executive director of Breakthrough, said the video 
game, part of a Web-based campaign called "End Homeland Gitmos," was 
inspired by a New York Times report in May 2008 on Mr. Bah's death.

The article cited internal records of the Corrections Corporation of 
America, which runs the Elizabeth Detention Center for the federal 
government, saying that after Mr. Bah was injured, he was left in an 
isolation cell without treatment for more than 13 hours. For five 
days, no official notified the family of the detainee, who had been 
taken to a hospital. After four months in a coma, Mr. Bah died in May 
2007, despite emergency brain surgery.

Federal immigration officials said a review of the death was under way.

Kelly A. Nantel, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, said on Thursday that the video game was "a work of 
fiction that dehumanizes the individuals depicted and grossly 
distorts conditions in detention facilities." She added, "I believe 
that most informed people know that they leave reality at the door 
when they enter the world of video games."

Mixing fact and fantasy is familiar territory for Breakthrough, which 
seeks to galvanize young people by using the new tools of popular 
culture to put them in the shoes of legal and illegal immigrants. In 
February, it introduced "ICED ? I Can End Deportation," a game in 
which players assume the role of one of five characters with 
uncertain immigration status, trying to avoid deportation and to 
secure citizenship.

Ms. Dutt said that game, which drew widespread media attention, had 
been downloaded 110,000 times. Some supporters of stricter 
enforcement called the game propaganda for illegal immigration. But 
many educational, religious and immigrant advocacy groups embraced it 
as an antidote to "Border Patrol," an Internet game in which the 
player shoots at caricatured Latinos running across the United 
States-Mexico border.

"The Department of Homeland Security's enforcement measures have 
become increasingly draconian and are leading to severe consequences, 
including death, for many," Ms. Dutt said in an e-mail message last week.

"We hope this will encourage support for the new bill, Protect 
Citizens and Residents from Unlawful Raids and Detention Act," she 
said, referring to legislation introduced by two Senate Democrats, 
Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. 
The bill would create due process protections during immigration 
enforcement actions, establish an ombudsman to investigate complaints 
and promote alternatives to detention, among other measures. It is 
not expected to be taken up by committee this session, but there are 
plans to reintroduce it early next year.

Meanwhile, another bill, introduced Friday by Representative Lucille 
Roybal-Allard, a Democrat from California, seeks to create legally 
enforceable minimum humane standards at detention facilities.

Another relevant piece of legislation, the Death in Custody Reporting 
Act, had been expected to quickly win passage in Congress, but 
Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, put a hold on it last week.

On Sept. 25, the Senate Judiciary Committee had not only reauthorized 
the act, which was expiring, but also expanded it by adding 
immigration detention centers to the state and local jails that had 
to report deaths in custody to the attorney general in order to 
receive federal anticrime money. Senator Coburn has said the federal 
government should not impose a reporting requirement on states and localities.

Joanne Lin, legislative counsel of the American Civil Liberties 
Union, was among the supporters of the act who expressed frustration. 
"Without the reauthorization, there are no reporting requirements in 
place," she said. "Now we're going to have to rely on word of mouth 
to learn about deaths of U.S. citizen prisoners as well as 
immigration detainees."

In the new video game, word of mouth eventually leads to a "memorial 
wall" that lists the names of 87 detainees who have died since 2003, 
including Mr. Bah.



From nmgoro at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 08:07:55 2008
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:07:55 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] [Spanish] Not a FAILURE but a VICTO RY of "the market"
Message-ID: <2fa158550810050707r2bb41305pef1a5a72a6b5e541@mail.gmail.com>

This is quite interesting, particularly for USAmericans and those
trying to use the current situation with a socialist end in mind.

The comrade below argues that the whole crisis is anything BUT  a
failure of the market. It is a VICTORY of the market. And as such it
should be understood, which means in the end that THIS IS WHAT THE
MARKET HAS FOR ALL OF US AND EVERYONE SO WE SHOULD MOVE TO GREENER
PASTURES AND IT IS NOT TOO EARLY FOR THAT.

Few words, clear concepts. Conclusions may (may?) be debatable, but I
think that anyone interested in giving a clear idea of what is taking
place in the USAmerican economy today can profit from what follows


 El 4/10/08, Ezequiel Beer <ebeer en telecentro.com.ar> escribi?:

>
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > El ciento por ciento de los economistas vulgares se ha anotado en la lista
 > de los que dicen que la crisis en curso es una prueba del fracaso del
 > mercado. Se nota que no entendieron ni entender?n nada, porque ha ocurrido
 > lo contrario: el mercado se ha impuesto en toda la l?nea. En efecto, los
 > precios inflados de los activos acumulados durante el proceso ascendente de
 > la especulaci?n no correspond?an a los valores reales de los bienes que
 > dec?an representar como un contravalor. Bast? que alg?n deudor hipotecario
 > manifestara su incapacidad para pagar las cuentas onerosas que le hab?an
 > impuesto, para que el precio de esas hipotecas y de los t?tulos que se
 > emitieron en su nombre se fueran al piso. Hab?a un enorme capital que era
 > ficticio - que se hab?a valorizado m?s all? del valor real que reclamaba
 > representar. Cuando fue forzado a verificar su valor real en el mercado, ese
 > capital descubri? que lo cotizaban a la tercera parte de lo que dec?an sus
 > libros.
 >
 > La victoria del mercado es tan aplastante que el Estado interviene para
 > evitar que ese ajuste entre el capital ficticio y el capital real se haga
 > efectivo. De este modo, sin embargo, bloquea la salida a la crisis, que
 > depende de que los valores inscriptos se conviertan en valores reales. Esto
 > ocurrir?a, por ejemplo, si se descontara el 70% de los valores comprometidos
 > y las casas y sus hipotecas pasaran a valer 30 centavos de su valor
 > unitario. Los deudores podr?an pagar de este modo las deudas a costa,
 > naturalmente, de una enorme p?rdida de capital (ficticio) de los acreedores.
 > Claro que esto provocar?a un enorme reflujo de capital y una depresi?n de la
 > econom?a. Para evitarlo, el Estado deber?a expropiar a los capitalistas
 > (acreedores) y, concentrando los recursos de la econom?a, reiniciar un
 > proceso econ?mico sobre nuevas bases. Esa intervenci?n estatal tendr?a un
 > car?cter revolucionario.
 >
 > Pero si el mercado le ha recordado a las fuerzas productivas que se han
 > desarrollado en forma capitalista, que han ido m?s all? de sus propios
 > l?mites y que han generado un enorme capital ficticio, esto significa que la
 > organizaci?n social que se regula por medio del mercado ha cumplido su
 > tiempo ?til y que es un freno para el desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas.
 > El mercado capitalista, como forma hist?rica de organizaci?n social,
 > demuestra que ha llegado a su l?mite en el momento en que, precisamente, se
 > impone bajo la forma violenta del estallido econ?mico.
 >
 > El capital ha tratado, en toda su historia, de superar esas limitaciones del
 > mercado. El intervencionismo estatal ha sido uno de sus instrumentos. Pero
 > este intervencionismo estall? en las crisis de la d?cada del '70 y dio pas?
 > a otra clase de intervenci?n estatal, que se puede resumir en la
 > privatizaci?n en gran escala de todos los patrimonios p?blicos y de las
 > formas no capitalistas de producci?n (por ejemplo, la conversi?n en
 > asalariados de las profesiones liberales). La crisis actual es por lo tanto
 > una crisis de escala superior, porque sintetiza y hace estallar las
 > tentativas de salida precedentes: la del estatismo capitalista y la de la
 > privatizaci?n capitalista.
 >

-- 

N?stor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a

From lnp3 at panix.com  Sun Oct  5 08:13:27 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:13:27 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Boris Yefimov
Message-ID: <20081005141325.5184E10836@mailbackend.panix.com>

NY Times, October 5, 2008
Boris Yefimov, Sharp Russian Cartoonist Who Was Beloved by Stalin, Dies at 109
By DOUGLAS MARTIN

Boris Yefimov, a Russian cartoonist despised by Hitler and beloved by 
Stalin who for 70 years and 70,000 drawings wielded his talent as a 
keen sword to advance the goals of his country, died in Moscow on Wednesday.

He was 109, old enough to have seen the last czar pass in a coach; 
become friends with Trotsky; have Stalin personally edit his 
cartoons; and vote for Vladimir V. Putin. In dispatches about his 
death, his age was first reported as 108, then corrected by his family.

When Mr. Yefimov was just 107, several Israeli newspapers reported 
that he was very likely the oldest living Jew, though he began to 
practice his religion only when he was 100.

The death of Mr. Yefimov, whose name is sometimes transliterated from 
the Cyrillic as Efimov, was widely reported by Russian news media. 
Some reporters could not resist leading with his oddly warm but 
necessarily precarious relationship with Stalin, that famous lover of cartoons.

Others first mentioned Hitler, whom Mr. Yefimov depicted as a 
sinister mix of the crazy and creepy. Hitler vowed to shoot the 
cartoonist as soon as he captured Moscow.

Over almost the entire history of the Soviet Union, Mr. Yefimov's 
cartoons provided sharp commentary on subjects as varied as laziness 
on collective farms, bureaucratic inefficiency, the trials of Nazi 
leaders at Nuremberg, foreign policy trouble spots like Berlin and 
Yugoslavia, the Kennedy assassination and Mikhail S. Gorbachev's 
attempt to reform and salvage communism.

The most famous story about Stalin and Mr. Yefimov is about something 
that happened in 1947, when Mr. Yefimov drew a cartoon for Pravda 
that is sometimes described as an opening shot in the cold war. It 
showed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower arriving at the North Pole to find 
Eskimos and polar wildlife. Mr. Yefimov's caption had the general 
exclaiming that the greatest threat to American freedom was right there.

The pretext for the cartoon was a report that United States troops 
were penetrating the Arctic to counter a Russian threat. Stalin 
ordered the cartoon to illustrate how ludicrous he considered such an 
action. But it came at a time of mounting tension between the 
nations, and American media reported the cartoon as serious news.

The tension Mr. Yefimov felt was at least as intense. In 1940, for 
political reasons, Stalin ordered the execution of Mr. Yefimov's 
brother, Mikhail Koltsov, a leading Soviet journalist who had been 
the model for the character Karkov in Hemingway's novel "For Whom the 
Bell Tolls." His brother's death was very much in Boris Yefimov's 
mind when Stalin summoned him to hear his idea for a cartoon.

Mr. Yefimov told Stalin it was a great idea. The cartoonist did not 
know whether to rush to finish it quickly, or take more time to show 
how important he considered the project. He proceeded methodically, 
until Stalin called him at 3:30 the next afternoon. He wanted the cartoon by 6.

In an interview with Russian Life in 1999, Mr. Yefimov said, "A cold 
shiver went down my spine."

Mr. Yefimov finished on time. For many years, the original cartoon, 
with Stalin's personal editing marks in red pencil, hung on his wall.

Mr. Yefimov was born as Boris Fridland in Kiev on Sept. 28, 1899, the 
second son of a Jewish shoemaker. Within three years, his family 
moved to Bialystok, which is now part of Poland. It was there that he 
began to draw, when he was 5, and saw Czar Nicholas II, when he was 
11. He studied art and then law before going to Moscow to escape the 
chaos of the civil war in Ukraine.

In the 1920s, he and his brother changed their last name, Fridland, 
partly because it sounded Jewish at a time when anti-Semitism was on 
the rise. He got a job at Izvestia through his brother's connections.

Throughout his life, Mr. Yefimov was at the center of his country's 
cultural elite. He and the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky became friends, 
despite Mr. Mayakovsky's remark upon first seeing Mr. Yefimov's drawings.

"Rather poor, aren't they," Mr. Mayakovsky said, according to The 
Morning Star, a London newspaper. "In fact, very poor."

Trotsky, however, liked Mr. Yefimov's cartoons so much that he wrote 
the introduction to the first book collecting them, in 1924. Only 
reluctantly did the editor of Izvestia agree to print the words of 
Trotsky, who by then was on Stalin's bad side. The editor was 
executed for this decision.

But even after Mr. Yefimov's brother fell into disfavor with Stalin, 
he himself remained one of Stalin's favorites. Stalin criticized the 
buckteeth he gave Japanese characters as racist, but nothing happened 
to the man who drew them.

Mr. Yefimov worked for many prestigious publications, and some of his 
cartoons in effect became national icons, like the one showing frozen 
German soldiers carrying a coffin labeled "the myth of the invincible 
German Army." He received two Stalin prizes, among many honors.

Mr. Yefimov ? who said his longevity might or might not have been 
affected by his taste for vodka, cognac and beer ? married twice and 
outlived both his wives. Obituaries in British newspapers said he had 
a son but did not specify whether he was still living.

Mr. Yefimov said he hated Stalin for killing his brother but was 
proud of the Soviet Union's successes and glad he propagandized about 
them. He told Russian Life, "When you are a political cartoonist, you 
have to keep pace with politics."

One of his potentially huge mistakes was putting a penguin at the 
North Pole in the famous 1947 drawing. But Stalin, who loved the 
cartoon, apparently did not notice that the Antarctic bird was out of 
place in the Arctic. Nobody said anything.



From walterlx at earthlink.net  Sun Oct  5 08:45:34 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:45:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Fukuyama on the fall of America, Inc.
Message-ID: <21465074.1223217934231.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

FRANCIS FUKUYAMA wrote:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162401
The Fall of America, Inc.
The choice we face now goes well beyond the bailout, or the 
presidential campaign. The American brand is being sorely tested at a 
time when other models?whether China's or Russia's?are looking more 
and more attractive. Restoring our good name and reviving the appeal 
of our brand is in many ways as great a challenge as stabilizing the 
financial sector. Barack Obama and John McCain would each bring 
different strengths to the task. But for either it will be an uphill, 
years-long struggle. And we cannot even begin until we clearly 
understand what went wrong?which aspects of the American model are 
sound, which were poorly implemented, and which need to be discarded 
altogether.
--------------------
The unedifying response to the Wall Street crisis shows that the
biggest change we need to make is in our politics. The Reagan
revolution broke the 50-year dominance of liberals and Democrats in
American politics and opened up room for different approaches to the
problems of the time. But as the years have passed, what were once
fresh ideas have hardened into hoary dogmas. The quality of political
debate has been coarsened by partisans who question not just the
ideas but the motives of their opponents. All this makes it harder to
adjust to the new and difficult reality we face. So the ultimate test
for the American model will be its capacity to reinvent itself once
again. Good branding is not, to quote a presidential candidate, a
matter of putting lipstick on a pig. It's about having the right
product to sell in the first place. American democracy has its work
cut out for it.

====================================================================

WALTER COMMENTS
Fukuyama sees to understand that U.S. capitalism has taken a heavy
ideological and moral hit in the aftermath of the fraudulently-based
Iraq war, now exacerbated by the collapse of the US banking system,
hardly corrected by the recent "little" $700 BILLION bailout.

For the time being Obama seems to be bringing a lot more money into
this, and there are some differences being teased out in the campaign:
It's hard to see the overall trend when we rely on what' being put in
and left out of the capitalist media accounts, but a few notable items
are posted below.


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
===================================================================

The announcement that McCain has decided to end campaigning and
spending in Michigan on Friday has brought to light a trend to
support for Obama in recent days and in some notable places, 
like Florida. The campaign seems to be polarizing and McCain's
decision to "fuggedaboutit" in Michigan is an indication of that.
Tens of millions of dollars are being spent now to influence the
final result in both absolute and in manipulative terms (efforts
to suppress votes which would be presumed to be going Democratic.)

FIRST, a short piece from a much longer NYT article on Florida:

THE NEW YORK TIMES
In Florida's Economic Pain, Obama Gains Ground
Saturday 04 October 2008
by: Damien Cave, The New York Times

Obama has pulled ahead of McCain in Florida polls. (Photo: Zach
Boyden-Holmes / Getty Images)

New Port Richey, Florida - Jim Piccillo lost his job as a bank vice
president in August, applied for food stamps to support his two young
daughters and swore off a life of loyalty to the Republican Party. He
now volunteers here in Pasco County for Senator Barack Obama of
Illinois.

Madeline Aquanno's change of heart came more recently. Two weeks ago,
she said, she had planned to vote for Senator John McCain of Arizona,
the Republican, who impressed her with his knowledge of the world.
But as the economy began to scare her more than terrorism, she
reconsidered.

"Obama is more for the people," she said, near the pool at her
middle-class retirement community in Broward County. "I'm worried
about the jobs that are being lost, for my son, my daughter, my
granddaughter. You have to look down the line."

Here in a swing state of severe economic hurt - a leader in
foreclosures where empty offices now litter strip malls - there are
signs that Mr. Obama is gaining ground. In interviews and surveys,
voters across Florida said the debate in Washington over how to fix
the credit crisis had fueled frustration with the Bush administration
and pushed them away from the Republican ticket.

http://www.truthout.org/100408Z
=================================================================
SECOND, an item on Minnesota where comedian Al Franken seems to
be pulling ahead of McCain as well. Of course there will be who
knows how many surprises - this is October, after all, and we'll
see what comes up, but we're certainly living in interesting times.

THIRD, a short item from another much longer NYT article on the
growing support for Obama in light of the economic crisis and the
bailout. Palin made a big campaign point about this on Saturday,
so what you're seeing in the NYT is the much-sanitized version of
what's being spread on the net and by the ultra-right:

THE NEW YORK TIMES
October 5, 2008 
Economic Unrest Shifts Electoral Battlegrounds 
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY

The turmoil on Wall Street and the weakening economy are changing the
contours of the presidential campaign map, giving new force to
Senator Barack Obama?s ambitious strategy to make incursions into
Republican territory, while leading Senator John McCain to scale back
his efforts to capture Democratic states.

Mr. Obama has what both sides describe as serious efforts under way
in at least nine states that voted for President Bush in 2004,
including some that neither side thought would be on the table this
close to Election Day. In a visible sign of the breadth of Mr.
Obama?s aspirations, he is using North Carolina ? a state that Mr.
Bush won by 13 percentage points in 2004, and where Mr. Obama is now
spending heavily on advertisements ? as his base to prepare this
weekend for the debate on Tuesday.

By contrast, Mr. McCain is vigorously competing in just four states
where Democrats won in 2004: Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, followed
by Wisconsin and Minnesota. His decision last week to pull out of
Michigan reflected in part the challenge that the declining economy
has created for Republicans, given that they have held the White
House for the last eight years.

But Mr. McCain?s abrupt decision, which caught many members of his
own party by surprise, also underlined the tactical political squeeze
he finds himself in: by using his fund-raising advantage to compete
in so many places, Mr. Obama has forced Mr. McCain to spend money to
hold on in what had been viewed as safe Republican states, like
Indiana and Missouri, while limiting Mr. McCain?s ability to play
offense on Democratic turf.

Mr. Obama now has a solid lead in states that account for 189
electoral votes, and he is well positioned in states representing 71
more electoral votes, for a total of 260, according to a tally by The
New York Times, based on polls and interviews with officials from
both campaigns and outside analysts. It takes 270 electoral votes to
win the presidency.

Mr. McCain has solid leads in states with 160 electoral votes and is
well positioned in states with another 40 electoral votes, according
to the Times tally, for a total of 200. Just six states representing
78 electoral votes ? Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio
and Virginia ? are tossups.
FULL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/us/politics/05map.html 

FOURTH, there's also a big item in Sunday's NYT about the supposed
connection between Obama and Bill Ayers, the former member of the
Weatherman SDS in the sixties, which is the polite version of the
much nastier stuff which must be circulating widely on the net:
FULL: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html 

ATLANTIC MONTHLY COMMENT ON Obama, Palin and Ayers:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/wm_ayers_v_todd_palin_tales_fr.php

FINALLY, if the capitalist media, in this case HAARETZ the liberal
Israeli daily, has to start trying to convince its readers that
"the market economy is not dead", you have to know that there are
people out there who are wondering just how alive it actually is.
And, in the article about that, there's an hilarious video by a
Jewish comic named Sarah Silverman whose purpuse is convincing
the grand-children of old Jewish residents of Florida why they
should vote for. She threatens not to visit them if they aren't 
going to vote for Obama. Hysterical. And makes some good points.

So we've just begun a very rocky ride of the the next four weeks.
There's no predicting with certainty how it's all going to end,
but it looks like a very, very intense campaign, to put it mildly.


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles
=================================================================
The market economy is not dead
By Nehemia Shtrasler
Tags: Credit crisis
Fri., October 03, 2008 Tishrei 4, 5769

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1026028.html
=================================================================

Senator Norm Coleman was in the Student Mobilization Committee
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/swp_usa/message/952
=================================================================

Franken bypasses Coleman as voters react to attack ads
By Kevin Duchschere , Star Tribune
October 3, 2008

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/30451119.html?elr=KArksUUUU

DFL U.S. Senate candidate Al Franken has moved into his first solid
lead over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, according to a new Star
Tribune Minnesota Poll.

The survey, conducted Tuesday through Thursday by Princeton Survey
Research Associates International among 1,084 likely Minnesota
voters, shows Franken leading Coleman 43 to 34 percent. Independence
Party candidate Dean Barkley is supported by 18 percent of
respondents.

Franken?s lead is outside the poll?s margin of sampling error, plus
or minus 3.7 points.

For Coleman, there is little good news in the poll. The number of
voters who view him unfavorably continues to grow, the number who see
him favorably is falling, and his job-approval rating has slipped to
38 percent ? his lowest ever in the Minnesota Poll.

Coleman led Franken by four points in last month?s Minnesota Poll.

The new results stand in contrast to the findings of a SurveyUSA
poll, commissioned by KSTP-TV and also conducted this week, that
shows Coleman with a 10-point lead over Franken, 43 to 33 percent.

Citing that poll, the Coleman campaign called the Minnesota Poll and
its methodology ?flawed,? campaign spokesman Luke Friedrich said.

?Minnesotans should take the Star Tribune poll for what it?s worth,?
Friedrich said.

?This is an independent pollster who is respected across the
country,? Star Tribune editor Nancy Barnes said. ?It?s the same
pollster who found the presidential race in Minnesota to be a dead
heat last month. All polls have a margin of error, but on the whole
we trust that these results have merit.??

The Minnesota Poll results suggest Franken may be riding the
coattails of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who has
widened a lead over Republican John McCain in polls across the
country. But the advertising war in the race also appears to be a
factor decidedly in Franken?s favor.

Colleen Murray, a spokeswoman for the Franken campaign, called the
poll ?great news for people across Minnesota who are hungry for
change in Washington.? Franken?s lead, she said, reflects the belief
of Minnesotans that he will fight for the middle class in Washington
and that Coleman hasn?t.

Barkley?s 18-percent showing represents a bump of five points from
last month?s poll and an attention-getting show of support for the
third-party candidate who has spent far less time and money
campaigning than the two leading contenders.

But in the three weeks since the last poll Barkley?s name recognition
hasn?t budged. A third of likely voters in this week?s poll still say
they?ve never heard his name.

Chris Truscott, spokesman for the Barkley campaign, said they were
excited by recent poll numbers.

?We?re consistently moving in the right direction and that?s a result
of Minnesotans looking for something better,? he said. ?We just got
our radio ads up, and we?ve got five debates coming. This campaign is
just getting underway.?

Ad wars doing damage

The new poll suggests that one reason for Franken?s gain is voters?
reaction to the abrasive advertising in the campaign.

The survey shows that 56 percent of poll respondents consider ads
criticizing Franken to be ?mostly unfair personal attacks.? Only 42
percent said the same about ads criticizing Coleman.

Some of the ads by the Coleman campaign and national Republicans show
Franken when he was an entertainer, cursing and ranting on political
subjects. Others stress the tax and accounting mistakes of his
private corporation when he was living in New York.

Said Franken supporter Lori Miller, a 46-year-old small-business
owner from Staples: ?I feel we need something new, and I feel like
[Franken?s] out for the middle class. I don?t know if I really
believe all the bad things they?re saying about him.?

The Rev. Philip Geoffrion, a pastor in Cokato, is a Republican who?s
tempted to vote for Barkley except for the fact that, as he said,
?when he doesn?t have a chance to win, I figure I?ll waste my vote.?
For now, he?s sticking with Coleman.

Barkley hurting Coleman

The poll shows that Barkley is drawing more votes from Coleman than
Franken, although Franken would still be ahead of Coleman even if
Barkley wasn?t in the race.

More Barkley supporters, 49 percent, said they leaned toward Coleman
than Franken, who drew support from 33 percent of them. In a
head-to-head match without Barkley, Franken topped Coleman by 49
percent to 42 percent.

The poll detected a significant increase in Minnesotans who label
themselves as Democrats. Forty-two percent of likely voters
identified themselves as Democrats, compared with 27 percent who said
they were independents, and 26 percent who said they were
Republicans.

According to the poll, Coleman?s support has slid among men and those
in upper- and lower-income brackets. Last month, Coleman led Franken
among men, 46 to 36 percent; in the recent poll Franken is ahead, 45
to 34 percent.

Coleman continues to get strong support from white evangelicals, 
but white Catholics are about evenly split between the two leading
candidates. Both Coleman and Franken are struggling equally to keep
their respective bases from drifting to the Barkley camp; each has
the support of 78 percent of their party members, while 12 percent of
Democrats and Republicans alike support Barkley.

And Barkley has cut into Coleman?s former lead among independents,
leaving them divided almost evenly among Coleman (34 percent),
Barkley (33 percent) and Franken (29 percent).

David Roeser, 65, a retired General Mills mechanic who lives in
Minneapolis, said he was for Barkley in part because of all ?the
crap? in the TV ads.

?This has really alienated me from both [Coleman and Franken]. I?ve
read some of Franken?s satire ? I?m not a big fan of the stuff ? and
I?ve watched Coleman in Congress a bit,? he said. ?But these ads have
turned me totally away. Barkley seems like more my kind of person.?

Kevin Duchschere ? 612-673-4455

? 2008 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.




=========================================
     WALTER LIPPMANN
     Los Angeles, California
     Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
     "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================


From markalause at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 09:03:08 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:03:08 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] crisis will wreck both parties
In-Reply-To: <9118BD928FD04052AD51457701051BCB@office1pc>
References: <9118BD928FD04052AD51457701051BCB@office1pc>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810050803h9d0772er5641f8d009323e73@mail.gmail.com>

Apology accepted and returned to Fred, if I gave any offense.  None
was intended.

ML


From skeyesvogt at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 09:06:16 2008
From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes-Vogt)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:06:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?BAR=3A_White_America_Lives_in_Vicious_?=
	=?windows-1252?q?Racial_Denial_=96_Obama_Is_Making_It_Worse?=
Message-ID: <de3b89110810050806k1f34b197scfd011cad6651f1e@mail.gmail.com>

White America Lives in Vicious Racial Denial ? Obama Is Making It Worse

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=811&Itemid=1

by Paul Street

Defending Barack Obama against blatantly racist attacks is made more
complicated by - Obama, himself, who avers that, if he loses in November, it
won't because of his race. This, despite abundant and compelling evidence to
the contrary. But then, Obama denies that race is an important factor in
American life - again, against all the evidence. Worse, "Obama has bent over
backwards to align himself with mainstream white hostility to blacks."
Rather than being a "transformative" influence on race relations, Obama
hopelessly muddies the waters and gives comfort to the enemy: white
supremacy.


White America Lives in Vicious Racial Denial - Obama Is Making It Worse

by Paul Street

"Obama has offered blacks nothing in the way of any specific anti-racist
agenda, only the simple fact of his color."

I'd like to suggest a different headline for USA Today's recent cover story
on racial attitudes in the United States: "White America's Head Still Up Ass
on Race: Obama Not Helping."

The "nation's newspaper's" story is titled "Beyond Black and White: Obama's
Rise Spotlights Gains in Race Relations." It is based on a USA TODAY/ABC
News/Columbia University poll of 1,941 adults (1032 blacks, 543 non-Hispanic
whites, and 315 Hispanics) conducted between September 11 and 14, 2008 [1].

Below, I present some of the survey's not-so "beyond black and white"
findings and reflect on the difference between the American racial terrain
as it really is and how most whites see it.

WHITE AMERICA: RACIAL EQUALITY HAS BEEN ACHIEVED OR WILL BE SOON

By USA TODAY's findings, fully 39 percent of whites think blacks have
achieved racial equality in the U.S., compared to just 11 percent of
blacks.  Seventy-five percent of white Americans believe that "equality for
blacks has been achieved already or will be achieved in the foreseeable
future."

Reality Check: The current racial wealth gap is so bad that median black
household wealth is equivalent to seven cents on the median white household
dollar.  Blacks get 56 cents on the white dollar when it comes to income.
Black poverty and unemployment rates are more than double those of whites.
Blacks are very disproportionately concentrated at the bottom of all the
United States' steep social and economic hierarchies.  That is why 63
percent of blacks think that addressing poverty should be one of the next
president's highest priorities, compared to just 38 percent (!) of whites.

The notion that blacks have achieved equality or are on the cusp of
achieving it is preposterous.  It is on par with thinking that 2 + 2 = 5 or
will soon.

DENYING THAT RACISM WOULD BE THE MAIN REASON FOR AN OBAMA DEFEAT

Just 5 percent of the 50 percent of whites surveyed who told USA TODAY that
John McCain will win in November think that racism will be the main reason
(blacks who think McCain will prevail cite racism as the leading factor).

Reality Check: If Obama loses next November, racism will not be the only
reason but it will certainly be the leading factor.  Given the recent record
and massive unpopularity of the Republican Party and the dangerous
inadequacy of its stupid and vicious presidential ticket (its blustering
militarist, misogynist, and moronic standard-bearer voted 90 percent of the
time with the Worst President Ever and its hard right evangelical vice
presidential nominee is an open imbecile), it is clear that a reasonably
articulate and moderately inspiring white-male Democratic presidential
candidate (a John Edwards minus affair) would be leading John McCain by at
least 20 points and preparing for a landslide victory. Instead the
candidates have been running close to even for most of the general election
race.

A recent Yahoo/Associated Press/Stanford survey found that white prejudice
is costing Obama six percentage points in national polls.  Six points sounds
low to those like me who are canvassing in the white, small-town field [2].

Consistent with my suspicions at least, the USA TODAY poll finds that whites
prefer the atrocious, decrepit, miserable misogynist and war monger John
McCain over the outwardly hyper-eloquent centrist Obama by 56 to 36 percent!


But even 6 points could be enough to de-rail Obama given the closely divided
nature of the U.S. electorate.  The last two presidential elections have
essentially been statistical ties.

The GOP ticket is so malicious and dim-witted and the conjuncture is so poor
for the Republicans that Obama may win anyway, but his margin of victory
will be far below what a Caucasian Democratic candidate could reasonably
expect.

BLAMING BLACKS, OPPOSING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

By 56 to 29 percent, USA TODAY found, white Americans think that "lack of
initiative" is a bigger factor than racism in producing black difficulties
in the U.S. USA TODAY encapsulates dominant white sentiment on deepening
black misery by providing the following quote from Caucasian retiree Tom
McKenna, who lives in Aurora, Indiana: "You have a lot of [black] people who
want something for nothing."

Consistent with the sentiment, USA TODAY found that 61 percent of white
Americans reject affirmative action programs (supported by 76 percent of
black Americans) that give preference to racial minorities in such areas as
hiring, promotions, and college admissions. Consistent with that number,
just 8 percent of whites, compared to 24 percent of blacks, think
reparations for slavery should be a priority for the next U.S. president.

Reality Check: numerous studies and endless personal testimony and
observation reveal the widespread, persistent, and ubiquitous presence and
practice of anti-black institutional racism and cultural prejudice in the
United States. Institutional racism remains deeply entrenched in how U.S.
real estate and labor markets operate, how the U.S. education system
functions, how home mortgages are marketed, how credit is extended, how the
U.S. criminal justice system works, how economic development is directed,
how health care is structured, and much more [3].

At the same time, numerous polls show that Black Americans strongly uphold
the so-called "American work ethic" and very much prefer "work" (wage labor)
over idleness and "welfare."  Thanks to inherited, deeply entrenched and
living historical forms of class-race discrimination and privilege, whites
are much more likely than blacks to enjoy "something for nothing." Blacks
exert inordinate amounts of "personal responsibility" just to keep their
heads above water while many whites are free to exercise minimal or negative
effort at little or no cost to their economic status.

If Tom McKenna wants to see Americans who "want something for nothing," he
should visit any number of American universities.  There he can witness
masses of middle- and upper-class young white adults acting on the belief
that they are entitled by birth to remunerative, high-status occupations
without having to work hard or maintain basic personal decorum and decency,
much less any sense of social responsibility.

"Most white Americans object strenuously to the idea that "past racial
discrimination matters in the present."

I once stood in front of a Northern Illinois University lecture hall and
heard sneering Caucasian collegians from Chicago's lily-white northwest
suburbs instruct me on how "blacks'" supposed "bad culture" and
"dysfunctional behavior" was the reason that tens of thousands of
African-Americans were marooned in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina [4].
I received this counsel from derelict white students who could not bother to
read simple and modest assignments in American History, who could not
provide elementary identifications for historical personalities like Abe
Lincoln, and who were often too hung-over to stay awake through sparkling
presentations on the history of American Indian Removal, American Slavery,
the American Revolution, the rise of early industrial capitalism, and the
causes of the Civil War.

This sort of racial double standard - I give one example among thousands I
have witnessed over many years - goes back to the deeply racist origins of
British North America and the United States, founded largely on the basis of
a slave system that continues to cast a powerful influence on contemporary
U.S. "race relations." Most white Americans object strenuously to the idea
that "past racial discrimination matters in the present." But, as anyone who
examines capitalism in an honest way knows, what people get from the present
and future so-called "free market" is very much about what and how much they
bring to that market from the past. Supposedly "ancient" racism continues to
exact a major cost on current-day black Americans, raising the question of
whether unresolved historical inequity is really "past."  Slavery and then
Jim Crow segregation in the South and for that matter the open racial
terrorism, discrimination and apartheid imposed on black northerners in
places like Chicago and Detroit "long ago" continue to shape present-day
racial inequality.

As Michael K. Brown and his colleagues note in their book Whitewashing Race:
The Myth of a Color-Blind Society, racial "inequalities are cumulative, a
fact adherents of the new public wisdom on race ignore in their rush to
celebrate [racial] progress." Because the "inequalities accumulate over
time," the authors argue, the distinction frequently made by "racial
conservatives" between "past and present racism" is often inadequate and
deceptive" [5].

OBAMA MAKING IT WORSE?

There is irony in the possibility that Obama will lose the election because
of his color.  As USA TODAY noted in its cover story, "Obama usually hasn't
chosen to emphasize his race, focusing instead on winning over white voters
critical in the Democratic primaries earlier this year and in general
election Nov. 4."

That's an understatement. Obama has gone to great lengths to downplay his
technical half-blackness and above all to distance himself from specifically
black grievances and the supposedly obsolete notion that the U.S. continues
to be deeply scarred by anti-black racism. In calling for Americans to put
race aside in pursuit of shared solutions to social and economic problems,
Obama's instantly famous Philadelphia Race Speech last March drastically
low-balled the nation's racial disparities by saying that "race" is "a part
of our union that we have yet to perfect." "Yet to perfect" was more than a
bit mild in a nation where a shocking 1-to-11 black-to-white wealth gap
afflicts black American households and one in three black males possess a
felony record and blacks make up 12 percent of the population but nearly
half of its more than 2 million prisoners. This statement was reminiscent of
Obama's claim the previous March (in Selma Alabama's historic Brown Chapel)
that blacks had come "90 percent" of the way to equality in the U.S. [6].

The other disturbing aspect of Obama's Philadelphia speech was its portrayal
of the racism that created his former pastor Jeremiah Wright and other black
Americans' anger as a function mainly of "memories" of the past.  This was
profoundly misleading and insulting. and revealing. The racial oppression
that angers Wright and many other black Americans, young and old, is more
than an overhang from the bad old past..  Black resentment and bitterness is
being generated within the U.S. by racist policies and practices in the
present, not just the past.  New "memories" of racial tyranny are being
created right now, beneath the national self congratulation over white
folks' readiness to vote for a certain kind of black presidential candidate.
As Bill Fletcher noted, Obama spoke "as if Rev. Wright is stuck in a time
warp," deleting the fact "that Rev. Wright's anger about the domestic and
foreign policies of the USA are well rooted - and documented - in the
current reality of the USA." [7].

Along his path to the presidential election, Obama has bent over backwards
to align himself with mainstream white hostility to blacks who "carp" about
racial disparities and (in black Left writer and activist Glen Ford's words)
"to paint young Black men with the broad brush of irresponsibility" [8].
Obama has offered blacks nothing in the way of any specific anti-racist
agenda, only the simple fact of his color.  He has said nothing to address
or avert the danger that his political success so far has given white
America yet another chance to congratulate itself over its alleged and
mythical transcendence of racism and to claim that blacks have only
themselves to blame for whatever persistent racial inequality white America
is still willing to acknowledge.

Here's a question USA TODAY might have asked: "Doesn't the rise of Barack
Obama - the Obama phenomenon - show that white racism is no longer a serious
obstacle to black advancement and racial equality and that blacks should
therefore finally once and for all time stop complaining?"

Take your guess on the percentage of whites - including a number who will
vote for the "good black" Obama while fearing and hating poor and "bad
blacks" in their local communities - who would answer that question with a
resounding "Yes, Yes, Yes!"

Obama has won the gratitude of millions of whites (Democrats as well as
Republicans) for gladly playing along with their vicious racial denial and
for refusing to call white America on the racist policies, practices,
beliefs, and structures that live on beneath and beyond the carefully
calibrated corporate-crafted colored-lights clash of candidate brands.

Veteran radical ex-historian and activist Paul Street (
paulstreet99 at yahoo.com This e-mail address is being protected from spam
bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) is the author of Empire and
Inequality (2004), Segregated Schools (2005), and Racial Oppression in the
Global Metropolis (2007). His latest book (just released) is "Barack Obama
and the Future of American Politics" (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers,
September 2008, order at
www.paradigmpublishers.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=186987)

 NOTES

1.Susan Page and William Risser, "Beyond Black And White: Obama's Rise
Spotlights Gains in Race Relations - and How Ethnicity Remains a Dividing
Line on Some Issues," USA TODAY, September 23, 2008, pp. 1A, 8A. Note the
soft language in the sub-title: "race relations," not "racism," and
"ethnicity" in the place of the much sharper and more on-point reality of
skin color - race.

2.Ron Fournier and Trevor Tompson, "Poll: Racial Views Steer Some Dems Away

From nmgoro at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 09:55:25 2008
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:55:25 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] Crisis Will Wreck Both Parties
In-Reply-To: <84B784AD94C94A3A8D8B3083109523A3@office1pc>
References: <84B784AD94C94A3A8D8B3083109523A3@office1pc>
Message-ID: <2fa158550810050855l777ffe5dn93464f36e3df30ee@mail.gmail.com>

2008/10/4, Fred Feldman <ffeldman en bellatlantic.net>:
>
>  I do not start with a 300-year minimum perspective for an American
>  revolution (which would make all effort in that direction irrelevant --
>  imagine presenting a perspective for a national democratic revolution in
>  France in 1489, a perspective of an American bourgeois-democratic
> revolution  in 1476, or a Russian national and socialist revolution in 1617 --
> obviously idiotic)., but I have no short term expectations of big
> accomplishments.

Idoitic, really?

We Marxists, BECAUSE

-- 

N?stor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a

From nmgoro at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 09:57:10 2008
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:57:10 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] SORRY, SENDING AGAIN
Message-ID: <2fa158550810050857x73abf8bbic8c2660d71fc8afe@mail.gmail.com>

2008/10/4, Fred Feldman <ffeldman en bellatlantic.net>:

>
 >  I do not start with a 300-year minimum perspective for an American
 >  revolution (which would make all effort in that direction irrelevant --
 >  imagine presenting a perspective for a national democratic revolution in
 >  France in 1489, a perspective of an American bourgeois-democratic
 > revolution  in 1476, or a Russian national and socialist revolution
in 1617 --
 > obviously idiotic)., but I have no short term expectations of big
 > accomplishments.


Idoitic, really?

We Marxists, BECAUSE we are serious, are ready to wait for a
revolution 300 years as well as 300 minutes... or 300 months.

That is, maybe, the core of our, er, SCIENTIFIC approach to things human...


 --

 N?stor Gorojovsky
 El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a


-- 

N?stor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a

From lnp3 at panix.com  Sun Oct  5 11:21:00 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:21:00 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Financial crisis,
	the welfare state and disaster capitalism
Message-ID: <20081005172058.CD90C185A5@mailbackend.panix.com>

On September 7th, before the financial crisis had reached a full head 
of steam, I blogged about the Peter G. Peterson Foundation full-page 
ad in the N.Y. Times that warned about the burden Social Security and 
other "entitlements" placed on the young. The "young" signatories of 
the ad turned out to be a bunch of rightwing operatives like Patrick 
Wetherille, a frequent contributor to Human Events, a long-time 
ultraright magazine.

Peterson, reaching into his deep pockets again, has another full-page 
ad in today's N.Y. Times, this time connecting the war on the 
remnants of the New Deal with the financial crisis, implying strongly 
that the bailouts will make it impossible to afford Social Security, 
Medicare, etc.

You can read the ad on the Peter G. Peterson Foundation 
website.  Under the heading "Think the Current Financial Crisis is 
Bad? You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet," it issues these warnings:

"Americans are seeing the heavy price the country pays when our 
leaders don't take steps to fix serious and undeniable problems. We 
waited for a crisis to hit before anyone moved to act.

"As disruptive and damaging as today's mortgage sub-prime crisis is, 
we're looking at a 'super sub-prime' crisis which, if left 
unaddressed, will hurt many more Americans - and hurt much worse.

"Our federal government is in a deep financial hole, yet Washington 
keeps on digging."

When I read the ad, I couldn't help but think of Naomi Klein's theory 
of disaster capitalism, the subject of her latest book "The Shock 
Doctrine". Although I have not read the book, I am familiar with her 
ideas, which she has been pushing in a variety of venues, from Bill 
Maher's television show to the Nation Magazine. Put succinctly, the 
theory tries to demonstrate that in case after case capitalist 
governments-particularly in the 3rd world-exploit disaster to deepen 
the attack on workers and poor farmers. A Village Voice review said 
that "Using stirring reportage, she shows the ways that disasters- 
unnatural ones like the war in Iraq, and natural ones like the Asian 
tsunami and Hurricane Katrina-allow governments and multinationals to 
take advantage of citizen shock and implement corporate-friendly 
policies: Where once was a Sri Lankan fishing village now stands a 
luxury resort."

full: 
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/financial-crisis-the-welfare-state-and-disaster-capitalism/



From cbcox at ilstu.edu  Sun Oct  5 11:44:19 2008
From: cbcox at ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:44:19 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Walden Bello on the financial crisis
References: <964082.7127.qm@web58507.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <48E8FCF3.E92528C5@ilstu.edu>



Larry Damms wrote:
> 
> Lou Proyect posted:
> 
> http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/bello031008.html
> 
> LD sez:
> 
> This is both a comprehensive and lucid piece.
> Just a technical note. As far as I understand

PLEASDE insert double spaces between paragraphs. I have to expand type
size a good deal before my eyes can see the thext, and when for all
purposes it is one continuous jparagraph on screen, I get completely
lost. This looks interesting but I gave up reading it. It doesn't look
interesting enough to go to the trouble of pasting it into a Word file
and reformatting it.

Do you put out leaflets with such little consideration for the reader.
If so, your theory is useless in practice bedause it can't get
practiced.

Carrol



From larrydamms at yahoo.com  Sun Oct  5 12:08:26 2008
From: larrydamms at yahoo.com (Larry Damms)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Walden Bello on the financial crisis (reformatted --
	I hope -- for Carol Cox)
In-Reply-To: <964082.7127.qm@web58507.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <840439.70041.qm@web58503.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Here you go Carrol, I'm sorry about the annoying formatting... damn Yahoo webmail
program. If it is still a mess then my apologies only quadruple. As for whether or not it's
genuinely interesting to you, well there's not much I can do about that! LD
?
********************************************************************************************************
Yes, this is both a comprehensive and lucid piece.
?
Just a technical note. As far as I understand it, the EU, not the US, is now the PRC's
leading export market... but not by much though, and the EU is also headed for recession.
And so too is the PRC's other major export market, Japan. And given the export
dependency of the PRC's growth model, the invalidity of the "decoupling thesis" still holds.
?
And now for a more political note. I find even the best left structural analysis of the present
crisis to be disappointing if not surprising in its underlying social vision. It promotes the
idea that the primary flaw of capitalist development is the way in which its inner
contradictions undercut the expansion of the "productive" economy. At a time when there
exists on one side the hoarding of wealth/withholding of investment?and on the other side a
plague of foreclosures/cascading job loss this sort of critique is understandable. But should
we not be taking advantage of this moment of severe rupture to push a more radical
questioning of the _purpose_ of economic expansion? What happened to the ecological
socialist critique of GDP growth? When the financial meltdown overtook East Asia in 1997
1998, Bello used it as a platform to attack not only the Washington Consensus, but also to
call into question the ends of the East Asian development project. I don't see any such
orientation here or in other varieties of left structural analysis, despite the fact that in the
last ten years great strides have been made in refining and popularizing a cultural and
ecological critique of the rampant commofidication of everything. (A critique pushed along of
course by the twin realities of looming energy bottlenecks and runaway global warming).
?
Look, I now work and live in South Korea, not so long ago the poster child for successful
"development." And what have been the results of this "successful" drive? A widespread
preoccupation with celebrity news, reality TV, luxury brands, plastic surgery, and status
competition grips the country. The sex trade composes a higher percentage of GDP than
agriculture, fisheries, and forestry combined. The suicide rate is one of the highest (perhaps
the very highest among the OECD countries. Christian fundamentalist mega-churches are
recruiting like gangbusters. The spontaneous mass protests of the early summer (largely
driven by an easily manipulable populist nationalism in any event) have come and gone like
the latest K drama fad.
?
Yes, I guess I am going off on a tangent here and simply venting, but I find it disconcerting
that in the midst of a systemic seizure leftists preoccupy themselves with the ultimate
sideshow issue of how to get the machinery of accumulation operative again, if in a more
fair and equitable manner.
?


      

From lueko.willms at t-online.de  Sun Oct  5 09:23:28 2008
From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:23:28 +0200 (MES)
Subject: [Marxism] [Spanish] Not a FAILURE but a VICTO RY of "the market"
In-Reply-To: <2fa158550810050707r2bb41305pef1a5a72a6b5e541@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fa158550810050707r2bb41305pef1a5a72a6b5e541@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <100-f0dbe848-24773.004@lws-media.de>

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:07:55 -0300, N?stor Gorojovsky wrote:

> The comrade below argues that the whole crisis is anything BUT  a
> failure of the market. It is a VICTORY of the market. 

  to be more precise: it is a victory of the law of value, which Financial 
Capital tried to overcome by creating "derivatives" and other ficticious values, 
called "products" for sale.

> And as such it should be understood, which means in the end 
> that THIS IS WHAT THE MARKET HAS FOR ALL OF US AND EVERYONE 
> SO WE SHOULD MOVE TO GREENER PASTURES AND IT IS 
> NOT TOO EARLY FOR THAT.
> 
> Few words, clear concepts. Conclusions may (may?) be debatable, but I
> think that anyone interested in giving a clear idea of what is taking
> place in the USAmerican economy today can profit from what follows

  not only the USA. Today they have a crisis meeting in Berlin after yesterday 
Deutsche Bank and others declared the failure of the "saving" of "Hypo Real 
Estate", Germany's second largest real estate bank, claiming that much more 
than the 34'000 million Euros are required which were given as guarantee last 
Thursday. 

  The only solution which can avoid a catastrophy for working people is the 
full nationalisation of banks and other financial institutions. 


Cheers, 
L?ko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------


From proletariandan at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 14:22:24 2008
From: proletariandan at gmail.com (Dan Russell)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:22:24 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Venezuelan Govt. Accused of Training Guerrillas with
	Cuban, FARC Advisors
Message-ID: <517f3cab0810051322s4d6c0741qd71a644bacb25e8c@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/story/713632.html

From jbustelo at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 14:29:48 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 16:29:48 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] On the Leaflet on Financial Bailouts
Message-ID: <E5099F64DABF49E7939B78B3E37041D0@albanta>

I've changed the thread name from "a socialist perspective".

"No bailout: Why not buy the banks?" The leaflet asks. But a nationalization
by this bourgeois government is PRECISELY the likely next step in the
bail-out.

In saying that, I'm assuming that the $700 billion giveaway won't work,
which it probably won't, as the repeated efforts of the Fed and Treasury to
stabilize the situation show the problem is not liquidity but solvency, and
the 700 billion is designed to restore liquidity with a confidence-building
measure, not restore solvency with a massive infusion of capital.

It is based on the theory that the jam is that the market hasn't been able
to figure out a way to assign a correct price to mortgage backed securities
and other financial derivatives, and that the Treasury can play the role of
a market maker, therefore allowing these securities to find their price
levels, thereby restoring solvency.

But the real problem is that this is a ponzi-like pyramid, and to deflate
the bubble, zillions of dollars of fictitious capital, excess liquidity,
must be lost, must be wiped out. We can't be certain perhaps even on the
order of magnitude of those "zillions," 

But wiping out this capital wipes out with it the capitalization of the
financial sector, especially because it is so over-leveraged already. And
this is at bottom why there is a liquidity crisis. Banks aren't willing to
led to each other because they aren't sure the bank they are lending to,
even the biggest names in the business, will be there the day after tomorrow
to pay them back. 

The fictitious capital in question was created as the capitalized value of
the income flows anticipated to come from rising house prices. Since house
prices declined instead, the paper created to represent claims on these
future income flows has no real backing and MUST be marked down to zero. But
ALL securities are simply the Net Present Value of anticipated income flows
in the future, calculated at different rates of interest representing
perceived risk, and the securitization of the income flows from future
increases in real estate prices is intimately intertwined with the rest,
often in the same security.

You can unwind this in two ways, "from below" by forcing a renegotiation of
all bad mortgages to where they mostly become good mortgages and then
calculating the real value of the derivatives from those new marked-down
mortgage contracts on the basis of their new, real, principal amounts and
interest rates, or "from above" by bringing the obligations of the
counterparties under one roof with bottomless pockets so the obligations
either cancel each other out or can be "unwound" from the perspective of
what is best for the system rather than just the interests of one firm. 

To bring the obligations under once roof by buying them, $700 billion is too
little, unless valuations are set ruinously low for the financial system as
a whole. But those very low valuations are the problem now, which is what is
leading in the direction of nationalization right now. 

The other way to bring them under one roof is just direct, straight-up
nationalization, which is my best guess as to what will happen.

This "nationalization" is nothing resembling anything socialists should be
for. It is the equivalent of Chapter 11 for financial firms. The way the
bankruptcy code works, even a Chapter 11 filing by a financial firm pretty
much leads to its liquidation. They are not treated the same as an airline
company or a manufacturing company, where the aim is to restore the firm to
normal functioning, with those who were not paid the money they were owed as
the new owners.

When thinking about THIS government "nationalizing" the banks, comrades
should ask themselves: have you ever demanded a company file for protection
against those it owes money to under chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code? Have
you ever heard of anyone on the left raising this as a demand? 

THAT is the "nationalization" that is in the offing and we may well have
before the cherry trees bloom once again in Washington, under either McCain
or Obama. A temporary government "preservatorship" --I think that was the
term used for Fannie and Freddie-- to restructure and then relaunch once
again as the property of individual capitalists, as opposed to the property
of the capitalist class as a whole, much or all of the financial sector.

I know the comrades involved in the leaflet will say all their fine print
shows that they don't mean this sort of bourgeois nationalization but a
genuine working class socialist nationalization. But no other
nationalization save a bourgeois one is possible right now, and people don't
remember the fine print even if they read it, which they don't, for the most
part.

I think we should stay away from "global" or "overall" solutions to the
crisis, and focus instead on how it impacts working people. For that reason
I believe the starting point of ANY socialist perspective should be an
immediate halt to all foreclosures and evictions. 

Joaquin




From jbustelo at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 15:09:31 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:09:31 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] BAR: White America Lives in Vicious Racial Denial -
	Obama Is Making It Worse
In-Reply-To: <de3b89110810050806k1f34b197scfd011cad6651f1e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <de3b89110810050806k1f34b197scfd011cad6651f1e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CEE67E50AB544D9FB8AF02C3153A9054@albanta>

I don't think the latest "dump" by Black Agenda Report against Barack Obama
is worth answering. Attacks like  "Obama has gone to great lengths to
downplay his technical half-blackness" betray such animus that either you
get it or you don't, but nothing I say is likely to matter.

I did, however, want to remind people about the record of author Paul Street
in covering presidential politics.

In the October 28, 2004, issue of In These Times he wrote an article under
the headline: 

"Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Despite the claims of some leftists, there's
a dire difference between Bush and Kerry for African-Americans."

The article begins with a cheap amalgam: "Beneath their vast moral and
ideological differences, George W. Bush and Ralph Nader have something in
common: difficulty attracting black voters," and goes on to endorse the
Democrat (in the form of a "prediction"): "Kerry will sweep the black vote
because of Bush's terrible record on issues and an understanding that Nader
can only play a spoiler role under the winner-take-all rules of the
electoral system."

It concludes with a renewed attack on Nader supporters: "Those on the left
who think there's just a 'dime's worth of difference' between corporate-Coke
Kerry and corporate-Pepsi Bush will not get far with African-Americans this
fall. Most issue-attentive blacks know that small variation between the two
major-party presidential candidates translates into some very big
disparities for people of color and those at the bottom of the nation's deep
race and class wells. They know that one person's dime's worth of difference
is another person's dollar's worth and that that dollar's worth can be the
difference between keeping one's head above water or not. Kerry might be
Coke, but many blacks think, Bush is crack."

Joaquin




From schaffer at optonline.net  Sun Oct  5 15:13:45 2008
From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:13:45 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] On the Leaflet on Financial Bailouts
In-Reply-To: <E5099F64DABF49E7939B78B3E37041D0@albanta>
References: <E5099F64DABF49E7939B78B3E37041D0@albanta>
Message-ID: <48E92E09.8020404@optonline.net>

Joaquin Bustelo wrote:
> I think we should stay away from "global" or "overall" solutions to the
> crisis, and focus instead on how it impacts working people. For that reason
> I believe the starting point of ANY socialist perspective should be an
> immediate halt to all foreclosures and evictions. 
>
>   


so edit the leaflet to reflect this point. that's why we put it up on 
the Wiki, to see what would come about with such a collaboration. or 
start a second leaflet on a separate page.

Les


From lnp3 at panix.com  Sun Oct  5 15:58:47 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:58:47 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Time and Newsweek worries about 1929
Message-ID: <20081005215843.D792F12DC5@mailbackend.panix.com>

(This follows fast on the heels of Francis Fukuyama's similar "The 
Fall of America, Inc." at http://www.newsweek.com/id/162401)

Thursday, Oct. 02, 2008
The End of Prosperity?
By Niall Ferguson

Congress's initial rejection of the Bush Administration's $700 
billion bailout plan calls to mind an unhappy precedent. Back in 
1930, the Senate passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised 
duties on some 20,000 imported goods. Historians define this as one 
of the critical steps that led to the Great Depression ? a tipping 
point when the world realized that partisan self-interest had trumped 
global leadership on Capitol Hill.

It's fair to ask whether America's lawmakers could do it again. The 
bursting of the debt-fueled property bubble and the crippling losses 
suffered by banks, together with the political dithering of recent 
days, have set in motion a chain reaction that, in the worst-case 
scenario, could lead to something like a 21st century version of the 
Depression ? even if a bailout package does eventually get approved.

The U.S. ? not to mention Western Europe ? is in the grip of a 
downward spiral that financial experts call deleveraging. Having 
accumulated debts beyond what's sustainable, households and financial 
institutions are being forced to reduce them. The pressure to do so 
results from a decline in the price of the assets they bought with 
the money they borrowed. It's a vicious feedback loop. When families 
and banks tip into bankruptcy, more assets get dumped on the market, 
driving prices down further and necessitating more deleveraging. This 
process now has so much momentum that even $700 billion in taxpayers' 
money may not suffice to stop it.

full: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1846450,00.html



From walterlx at earthlink.net  Sun Oct  5 16:08:46 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Venezuelan Govt. Accused of Training Guerrillas
	with	Cuban, FARC Advisors
Message-ID: <17993406.1223244526383.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Francisco Aruca, the Miami talk-radio host
posted this response to the CubaNews list:

The worst aspect of this article is the sources used to
"make the case". They are either anonymous, for fear of
reprisals, or former elected officials who belong to the
opposition, particularly one who is also running for
Governor of the State of Tachira.

One of the anonymous sources is a woman named Berta, who
supposedly participated in the camp for a few months until
they expelled her because she was critical of the whole
thing. She remains anonymous for fear of reprisals, but it
seems obvious that if true, the camp organizers know her
identity.

The only believable source is a mayor of a nearby town, who
supports the Chavez government, who acknowledges that there
is a camp, but training cadres to do social work. Until
they find better sources, the article seems to me like a
total fabrication.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/message/92877


==============================================
From: Walter Lippmann <walterlx at earthlink.net>
To: CubaNews <CubaNews at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 6:28 am
Subject: [CubaNews] MH: Venezuelan Govt. Accused of 
Training Guerrillas with Cuban, FARC Advisors

(This doesn't jibe with the call by Chavez to release
all their hostages and completely lay down their arms.
but it certainly is designed to gain support for those
militant Miami congressman and McCain in the upcoming
U.S. presidential election just a month away from now.)
========================================================

MIAMI HERALD
Posted on Sat, Oct. 04, 2008

Cuba, FARC may be training guerrillas at Venezuelan camp

BY CASTO OCANDO

http://www.miamiherald.com/457/story/713632.html

=========================================
     WALTER LIPPMANN
     Los Angeles, California
     Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
     "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 16:40:19 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:40:19 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Venezuelan Govt. Accused of Training Guerrillas
	withCuban, FARC Advisors
In-Reply-To: <517f3cab0810051322s4d6c0741qd71a644bacb25e8c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <517f3cab0810051322s4d6c0741qd71a644bacb25e8c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1BCF523F621F40ACABEC7A6D03C0185F@albanta>

This article is a STUPID fabrication. STUPID because it ties the Cubans to
the FARC. As everyone who has followed these things knows, the Cubans have
NEVER had intimate relations with the FARC, and these have now sharpened to
publicly discussed differences by no less a figure than Fidel.

This smells of Uribe and the Colombian "intelligence" services who make
their living from U.S. financing of a supposed "war on drugs" that includes
a war on the FARC.

Joaquin




From jbustelo at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 16:44:16 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:44:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] On the Leaflet on Financial Bailouts
In-Reply-To: <48E92E09.8020404@optonline.net>
References: <E5099F64DABF49E7939B78B3E37041D0@albanta>
	<48E92E09.8020404@optonline.net>
Message-ID: <8FDC3F92D5984F7D87BA97A8901285E2@albanta>

Les says, "so edit the leaflet to reflect this point. that's why we put it
up on the Wiki, to see what would come about with such a collaboration. or
start a second leaflet on a separate page."

I'm not going to do that. I think the fight needs to start local in order to
be immediate and concrete. Generic leaflets are not the next step.

Joaquin



From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 17:06:46 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:06:46 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] On the Leaflet on Financial Bailouts
In-Reply-To: <8FDC3F92D5984F7D87BA97A8901285E2@albanta>
References: <E5099F64DABF49E7939B78B3E37041D0@albanta>
	<48E92E09.8020404@optonline.net>
	<8FDC3F92D5984F7D87BA97A8901285E2@albanta>
Message-ID: <908b689f0810051606j305fe407l1a52e8d6380dcd9a@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Joaquin Bustelo <jbustelo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Les says, "so edit the leaflet to reflect this point. that's why we put it
> up on the Wiki, to see what would come about with such a collaboration. or
> start a second leaflet on a separate page."
>
> I'm not going to do that. I think the fight needs to start local in order to
> be immediate and concrete. Generic leaflets are not the next step.

What stubborn-ness! So what exactly would be preventing people from
putting up the "generic" leaflet locally?


From lnp3 at panix.com  Sun Oct  5 17:30:41 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:30:41 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Swans Release: October 6, 2008
Message-ID: <20081005233038.7195610122@mailbackend.panix.com>

Swans Commentary
http://www.swans.com/
October 6, 2008


                                           $ $ $ $ $
Please, consider supporting our co-operative work financially. See
http://www.swans.com/about/donate.html -- We need help...
                                           $ $ $ $ $


"Trade liberty for safety or money and you'll end up with neither. Liberty,
like a grain of salt, easily dissolves. The power of questioning -- not
simply believing -- has no friends. Yet liberty depends on it."



Note from the Editors:  Well, we the People joined forces and gave them a
piece of our minds, bombarding Congress with threats should they pass the
Paulson Wall Street bailout plan, and they listened! Or so it seemed. What
they found missing from the 3-page plan was not help for the People; it was
the most important political ingredient -- pork! It was politics as usual,
and Congress compromised, not to appease the angry constituents who are
watching their retirement pittances and economic situations implode, but to
seduce the House Republicans who voted against the initial plan. As Gilles
d'Aymery puts it, we have a government of the DOW, by the DOW, and for the
DOW. Aymery offers a tangible bailout plan that would address the crisis by
helping Main Street. Read it, then send a copy to your Representatives,
remind them they work for you, and that it's you who decide if they keep
their jobs. Then, STOP VOTING FOR THE BUMS! If they have any ounce of sanity,
they'll get the message, though Charles Marowitz thinks that a touch of
analysis should be used to determine who is psychologically fit to lead. He
starts with John McCain, whose textbook personality type was born from the
trauma of his imprisonment.


As a child, Ted Dace had to retreat into a fantasy world to escape the wrath
of his father, and he learned the hard way that freedom can exist in an
otherwise deterministic universe -- a notion he explains with the help of
physics. Carol Warner Christen offers a modern-day socio-political parable of
survival of the fittest in the insect world that is relevant to our current
predicament and the difficult times ahead. Unfortunately, there are well-
hidden forces working against our ability to influence politics; however,
Michael Barker keeps digging, and in his current analysis uncovers the links
between democracy-manipulating organizations such as the National Endowment
for Democracy and the media. It will take many more of us -- an overwhelming
majority -- to heed R. Scott Porter's words and demand from our leaders that
the military-industrial complex be transitioned to peaceful enterprises.


If you need an excellent primer on activism, read Louis Proyect's review of
Carlton Jackson's biography of Genora Dollinger, a remarkable woman who rose
to the occasion against racism, imperialist war, class oppression, and
alienation in the 1930s -- an inspiration to the similar world we confront
today. A second biography is reviewed by Peter Byrne -- that of Richard
Wright, a promising African-American writer who was unable to transcend race
and become a universal writer. Ardent book collector and Art Shay fan Raju
Peddeda attempts to extrapolate the meaning of Shay's being through his work.
We close with a haunting poem by Guido Monte and Alison Phipps (illustration
by Giuseppe Quattrocchi) that searches for a way of escape from our closed
"world limbo"; a Michael Eddins poem, whose tragedy requires a boy to escape
with his black lab into the woods; and your letters.


                                             # # # # #


http://www.swans.com/library/art14/desk074.html
Blips #74 - From the Martian Desk - Gilles d'Aymery


http://www.swans.com/library/art14/cmarow118.html
John McCain: Freud To The Rescue - Charles Marowitz


http://www.swans.com/library/art14/tdace03.html
Fate - Ted Dace


http://www.swans.com/library/art14/carenc46.html
What Parable Is This? The Old Woman Said - Carol Warner Christen


http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker05.html
Imperial Media Manipulators Assistance - Michael Barker


http://www.swans.com/library/art14/porter06.html
American Wars On Herself And Others - R. Scott Porter


http://www.swans.com/library/art14/lproy49.html
Carlton Jackson's "Child of the Sit-Downs" - Book Review by Louis Proyect


http://www.swans.com/library/art14/pbyrne82.html
Up From Mississippi - Book Review by Peter Byrne


http://www.swans.com/library/art14/rajup01.html
A Slow Shutter On Art Shay - Raju Peddada


http://www.swans.com/library/art14/gmonte52.html
Mondana Commedia n.4: Limbo (World Comedy n.4: Limbo)
  - Poem by Guido Monte & Alison Phipps


http://www.swans.com/library/art14/eddins02.html
Black - Poem by Michael Eddins


http://www.swans.com/library/art14/letter149.html
Letters to the Editor


                                            # # # # #


Swans (aka Swans Commentary), ISSN: 1554-4915, is a bi-weekly non- commercial
ad-free Web-only magazine which provides original content to its readers. We
encourage pulp publications to republish Swans' Work in print format. Please
contact the publisher at <aymery AT ix.netcom.com>. Please, do not repost
Swans' Work on the Web and other mailing lists: "Hypertext" links to any
pages of Swans.com are authorized; however, republication of any part of this
site, inlining, mirroring, and framing are expressly prohibited. We welcome
your comments and suggestions. When writing to Swans, please indicate your
first and last name as well as your city and state (country) of residence.


You are receiving this E-mail notification for you have expressed your
interest in Swans and the work of its team. If you wish not to receive these
short notifications, simply reply to this E-mail (delete the content) and
enter the word REMOVE in the subject line. We do NOT share your E-mail
address with anyone.


Cordially,
Gilles d'Aymery
--
Swans


"Hungry man, reach for the book: It is a weapon."  B. Brecht



From anthony.boynton at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 18:10:36 2008
From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:10:36 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] On leaflets produced by this list
Message-ID: <7b8a676d0810051710n75c749a4u89f85e20607bb96b@mail.gmail.com>

I think the experiment with producing a leaflet by Wiki has been a failure
so far. I contributed to the draft just to see what would happen. Not much
happened. Joaquin -dissolved as he is, pedictably poo-poo ed the whole
effort. Jim corrected the spelling, I wrote I 15 second attention grabber
based on Chavista 21st century socialism, and someone else wrote an
industrial smoke stack SLP sleeping pill. That was it.

However,even though this list does not seem to be much of a center for
organizing any kind of propraganda, or agitation, or Joaquin forbid,
organization, it might at tomse point serve for any of the above, and is
worth thiking about.

One thing that is lacking on this list, is a discussion of platform. Joaquin
at least is clead, he does not want to talk about anything beyond things
like "No foreclosures." This is clearly inadaquate, if simply for the reason
that lots of people are losing not just houses, but jobs and pensions.
Shouldn't we address thos issues too?

And the banks were headed under the waves. Will they be able to stay afloat
after the bail out? Joaquin thinks not. If not, shouldn't the left have
something to say about it?. Like buy their stock for a penny a share,
legalistically doing nothing unconstitutional but effectively confiscating
them?

If the brougeoisie nationaoizes corporations for their own reasons, this is
still a step towards socialism. At least that was Lenin's attitutde.
Monoplies in private hands are just a step from state owned monopolies,
which are just a step from socialcialized property.

Why should we put out any sort of leaflet? Because there are probably a lot
of people looking for answers that they are just not getting on TV or
finding on the internet.

And who better to try to answer their questions than people on this list?

Anthony

From markalause at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 18:54:26 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:54:26 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] On leaflets produced by this list
In-Reply-To: <7b8a676d0810051710n75c749a4u89f85e20607bb96b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7b8a676d0810051710n75c749a4u89f85e20607bb96b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810051754jbd32784s7ce1284cde874b32@mail.gmail.com>

What would be extremely useful for the list is for us to agree to
address specific themes for a particular period of time.

The entire problem of discussing program by email or via blog is
predisposed to take us to "an industrial smoke stack SLP sleeping
pill" (a great expression that I'll steal, if you don't mind,
Anthony).

What I proposed going into this presidential election is that Marxists
should focus on a handful of issues on which the public is already
with us and the two capitalist parties against the popular will, such
as..ending the War, socialized medicine, immediate action to address
global warming, the prosecution of wrongdoers in power, etc.  Of
course the purpose of this was to build towards a mass political (and
electoral) response not to construct a distinct socialist party or
program.

However, I think the idea of getting socialists together to cobble up
a program at this point--rather than getting the program from a
broader movement--won't quite work.

ML


From michael at ecst.csuchico.edu  Sun Oct  5 18:54:56 2008
From: michael at ecst.csuchico.edu (michael perelman)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:54:56 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Recent Interview on the Crisis
Message-ID: <48E961E0.8060602@ecst.csuchico.edu>

I was on Realnews yesterday.  The interview begins with a montage of 
congressional talks on the bailout, then a discussion with me for the 
final 3 minutes or so.

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2492&updaterx=2008-10-05+00%3A35%3A40 
<http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2492&updaterx=2008-10-05+00%3A35%3A40>

-- 

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
www.michaelperelman.wordpress.com




From schaffer at optonline.net  Sun Oct  5 18:59:56 2008
From: schaffer at optonline.net (Les Schaffer)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:59:56 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] On leaflets produced by this list
In-Reply-To: <b16d8daf0810051754jbd32784s7ce1284cde874b32@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7b8a676d0810051710n75c749a4u89f85e20607bb96b@mail.gmail.com>
	<b16d8daf0810051754jbd32784s7ce1284cde874b32@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48E9630C.7090204@optonline.net>

Mark Lause wrote:
> What would be extremely useful for the list is for us to agree to
> address specific themes for a particular period of time.
>
> The entire problem of discussing program by email or via blog is
> predisposed to take us to "an industrial smoke stack SLP sleeping
> pill" (a great expression that I'll steal, if you don't mind,
> Anthony).

what Mark says all sounds reasonable. but a leaflet IS different from a 
program, no? i thought a leaflet was to raise simple  points that would 
make people (locally!) want to sit down together and talk some more and 
see what comes of it.


Les


From fred.fuentes at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 19:15:32 2008
From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:15:32 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Brazil's Lula takes center stage in Latin America
Message-ID: <b5a2a8180810051815i66a9798bh463bbb4341593d2e@mail.gmail.com>

Brazil's Lula takes center stage in Latin America

The Brazilian president has emerged as the chief mediator in the
region, riding a wave of popularity and galloping economic growth at
home and acting as a counterweight to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
By Chris Kraul and Patrick J. Mcdonnell, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 5, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-latin5-2008oct05,0,3498953,full.story

SAO PAULO, BRAZIL -- Buoyed by a robust economy and his ability to
work with leaders across the ideological spectrum, Brazilian President
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has emerged as the chief power broker and
mediator in South America.

Lula's rise has paralleled the decline of U.S. influence in its
"backyard," analysts say, a result in part of Washington's plummeting
global prestige and the Bush administration's unremitting focus on the
Middle East.

A moderate with an unassailable leftist background, Lula has become
the point man for healing regional crises such as the current turmoil
in Bolivia and the recent escalation of tensions among Colombia,
Venezuela and Ecuador.

Lula, who survived overlapping corruption scandals, exudes the persona
of a level-headed leader who eschews ideology for solutions. The
can-do image and the country's economic prosperity have helped win him
soaring popularity at home and abroad.

"Lula is the ultimate pragmatist," said former Finance Minister Delfim
Netto, an advisor.

The president seems intent on fulfilling Brazil's long-unrealized
economic and political potential and making it a recognized world
power, starting by asserting its role as South America's preeminent
presence.

Lula's skills as a mediator probably will be tested as the region
enters a renewed period of uncertainty: the prospect of civil war in
Bolivia, a shaky leftist government headed by an ex-bishop in
Paraguay, Venezuela's emerging alliances with Russia and Iran, and a
new U.S. president to be elected in the midst of a financial crisis
that probably will continue sending ripples through the hemisphere.

Lula, who began a second term in 2007, has increasingly asserted his
influence as he and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez vie for the
hearts and minds of contemporary Latin Americans. Venezuela's arms
deals and foreign alliances have played a role in Brazil's decision to
bolster its military, analysts say.

"Since the beginning of his second term, Lula began to compete
vigorously to counter Chavez's aspirations as a regional leader,"
noted Julio Burdman, an Argentine political analyst.

But Lula's aims transcend any competition with Chavez, whose nation is
much smaller than Brazil. Lula has loftier goals, even pushing for a
permanent seat for Brazil on the U.N. Security Council, however
unlikely.

Whether he's sloughing off Chavez's strident anti-Americanism or
privatizing roads and power plants in Brazil, the former union
firebrand who emerged from the assembly lines of Sao Paulo has
repeatedly defied stereotypes since taking office in 2003 as the
avatar of a new generation of leftist leaders. He has gone from being
what some considered a radical bent on imposing socialism to a
free-market champion who still funds social programs for the poor.

Lula enjoys a warm relationship with President Bush and was a guest
last year at Camp David. But he's no U.S. patsy, challenging
Washington on economic and security issues when he sees Brazil's
interests at stake

On Tuesday, Lula assailed Bush's farewell address to the U.N. General
Assembly last month for downplaying the U.S. financial meltdown.

"I thought he would make a goodbye speech that talked a little about
the economic crisis," Lula, appearing disappointed, told reporters in
New York. "He took the option of talking about terrorism again."

Lula also has gone toe-to-toe with U.S. trade negotiators as informal
leader of the "Group of 20" developing nations, blocking trade deals
that incorporate U.S. and European farm subsidies that the group says
are unfair.

But for U.S. policymakers, Lula is a welcome counter-weight to
Chavez's yanqui-bashing bluster. Last month in Santiago, Chile, Lula
trumped Chavez at an emergency summit of South American leaders
seeking to calm widening conflict in Bolivia, which shares a long
border with Brazil.

The Brazilian president insisted that the group's final declaration
omit anti-Washington invective -- to the dismay of Chavez and Bolivian
President Evo Morales, both of whom have expelled U.S. ambassadors for
alleged coup-mongering.

Many analysts conclude that the days of Washington calling the shots
are gone -- collateral damage, in part, from the attacks of Sept. 11.

"That's when the U.S. clearly began focusing its attention on the
Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq, and many sensed the loss of
engagement with the region," said Peter De Shazo, a former deputy
assistant secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere now at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

In Venezuela, Chavez survived a short-lived 2002 coup that he blamed
on Washington, and returned with renewed anti-U.S. fervor. Chavez
lured allies with petrodollars and Cold War-era oratory as the Bush
administration went to war in Iraq.

"Part of the problem for the United States is the tremendous
antagonism with Venezuela, which makes a U.S. role very problematic,"
noted Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington
think tank. "But it's also much deeper. It reflects the fact that
Brazil and other countries in the region want greater independence
from the United States and want to resolve problems on their own."

Although Chavez has won wide popular appeal among the region's young
and disenfranchised -- and Venezuela's oil wealth has bought allies --
his divisive discourse has also alienated many.

With Chavez, Lula dances a delicate tango: He maintains cordial
relations with his oil-rich neighbor, a major client for Brazilian
goods and services, while sidestepping the Venezuelan's incendiary
rhetoric.

Still, Lula shares the United States' wariness about Chavez's
burgeoning arms deals and Venezuela's planned military exercises with
Russia, noted Amaury de Souza, a political analyst here.

Lula has ordered a strategic review of Brazil's military that could
result in massive rearming. Brazil is also considering a purchase of
jet fighters from U.S., French and Swedish bidders and a nuclear
submarine deal with France.

At home, Lula's popularity -- an opinion poll out last week put his
approval rating at 68% -- has little to do with submarines and foreign
policy. It's all about the galloping economy.

Brazil, a vast, fertile nation that is among the world leaders in
exports of soybeans, beef, iron and coffee, is shedding the vestiges
of its Third World image. It has scored big in the worldwide commodity
boom, spurred by voracious Asian demand. International investment is
pouring in.

In a nation notorious for its unequal distribution of wealth, Lula has
managed the difficult challenge of pleasing both the affluent and the
impoverished multitudes. While the rich are getting richer and the
middle class is expanding rapidly, Lula has dedicated massive social
spending to the less fortunate.

"Lula has been lucky: He has had big oil finds at home and economic
conditions around the world have been favorable for Brazil," said Aldo
Musacchio, a Brazil specialist at Harvard Business School. "The
current [U.S.] economic crisis may be a big worry, but in Brazil
incomes are growing and people don't think the situation is bad at
all."

chris.kraul at latimes.com

patrick.mcdonnell @latimes.com

Kraul reported from Sao Paulo and McDonnell from Buenos Aires and
Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Special correspondents Mery Mogollon in Caracas,
Venezuela, Marcelo Soares in Sao Paulo and Andr?s D'Alessandro in
Buenos Aires contributed to this report.


From anthony.boynton at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 19:23:37 2008
From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:23:37 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] leaflet and program
Message-ID: <7b8a676d0810051823r78f3dadbke6506d6715f40cdb@mail.gmail.com>

It's pretty hard to write a leaflet, in some sort of collective way, like a
wiki, if you do not basically agree on program. Of course it is even harder
if no one writes anything.

What kind of leaflet would you like Les? An educational one? an attention
grabbing one to get some people to think in a different way? Do you want to
agitate for some kind of action?

Locally produced leaflets, discussed and produced at the kitchen table by
motivated high school and college students might be the best thing in some
ways...but they will probably not do much more than express a combination of
anger of ignorance. What this list might provide is some kind of antidote to
the ignorance, if anyone wants to try to get the attention of those angry
people.

Anthony

From marvgandall at videotron.ca  Sun Oct  5 19:24:03 2008
From: marvgandall at videotron.ca (Marvin Gandall)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:24:03 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] On leaflets produced by this list
References: <7b8a676d0810051710n75c749a4u89f85e20607bb96b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87900E8CA65A4D5A821B9E33FF83FD92@MARV>

Anthony writes:

> If the brougeoisie nationaoizes corporations for their own reasons, this
> is
> still a step towards socialism. At least that was Lenin's attitutde.
> Monoplies in private hands are just a step from state owned monopolies,
> which are just a step from socialcialized property.
==================================
These are TEMPORARY nationalizations, Anthony. The state typically takes
over an ailing industry, assumes responsibilty for its debts to credtors,
recapitalizes and restructures it, and delivers the recovered patient
(slimmer and with the diseased limbs and organs removed) back to the private
sector. It's unlikely that the entire US financial industry will need to be
nationalized, but the government will almost certainly be forced to take
equity stakes in some banks when it becomes apparent that taking their bad
assets off their books will not be enough for them to resume lending or to
attact new investment to replenish their depleted reserves.

Unless there is a complete economic meltdown, the likeliest outcome will be
further consolidation of the sector, with hundreds of smaller banks and
hedge funds falling by the wayside or being taken over by industry giants
like Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo, and USBancorp.
The government might even have to take a controlling interest in one or more
of these big banks, with Citi coming first to mind. But it's well to
remember that the financial industry was not nationalized during the Great
Depression despite thousands of bank failures, and, while conditions are
deteriorating rapidly, we still have some way to go before we plumb those
depths.




From anthony.boynton at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 19:37:47 2008
From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:37:47 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Temporary nationalizations
Message-ID: <7b8a676d0810051837i50704a77q6cab5b9f7571cae6@mail.gmail.com>

We do not know if there will be any more nationalizations, nor do we know if
the nationalizations which have already taken place (e.g. Fannie and Freddy)
will be temporary. Of course the capitalists intend them to be temporary,
they are even afraid to call them nationalizations, the word burns their
palattes and singes their tongues. But whether or not they will be temporary
depends on how the criss unfolds and the class struggle develops.

If we have anything to do with the outcome, unlikely as that may seem to
many, the nationalizations should be permanent. Right?

So what can we do to that end?

Anthony

From markalause at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 19:50:12 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:50:12 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] leaflet and program
In-Reply-To: <7b8a676d0810051823r78f3dadbke6506d6715f40cdb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7b8a676d0810051823r78f3dadbke6506d6715f40cdb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810051850iec4ec21x327cf3fde399b0c5@mail.gmail.com>

Let's start with asking what the leaflet is for.  Is it a general
explanation of the crisis or a call for action or to a meeting or
what???

ML


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 19:55:21 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:55:21 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] On leaflets produced by this list
In-Reply-To: <7b8a676d0810051710n75c749a4u89f85e20607bb96b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7b8a676d0810051710n75c749a4u89f85e20607bb96b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8B3BD9BEA7FB48F3B7DEEB55E029590F@albanta>

Anthony says,

"Joaquin at least is clear, he does not want to talk about anything beyond
things like "No foreclosures." This is clearly inadequate, if simply for the
reason that lots of people are losing not just houses, but jobs and
pensions. Shouldn't we address those issues too?"

What Joaquin is opposed to is more of the same bullshit trot
hyper-propagandism that's never worked in the past and there's absolutely no
reason to believe will work now. What Joaquin is FOR is comrades trying to
get actual protests by working people going in local areas. My opinion is
that the foreclosure issue is the immediate issue around which there is the
most sentiment and thus the best action focus.

This is from an earlier post, a few days ago:

*  *  *

The problems that should concern us INSTEAD are, how can we begin to put at
least SOME of those working people into motion IN THE DIRECTION of cohering
the workers into a class in the social and political sense, what Marx called
"a class for itself" and not merely "in itself," which is all we have right
now.

There is certainly no lack of opportunity to at least explore the
possibilities AT THIS MOMENT, for the top Democrat and Republican
leaderships have so nakedly displayed themselves as a government of, by and
for the rich that even a majority in the House of Representatives voted down
the $700 billion giveaway to the banks, fearing the reprisal from the
majority working people voter bases they are relying on to get re-elected
when November 4 rolls around.

The question is, how to try to turn this massive sentiment among atomized
working people into the beginnings of motion on a CLASS basis.

My suspicion is that IF the conditions now exist for that, THEN the approach
that will advance it will be one initially centered on demanding an
immediate halt to foreclosures and evictions.

THIS IS NOT "a program" to solve the crisis, for no such "program" is
POSSIBLE without someone to carry it out. And the social force that CAN
carry out such a program IS NOT ON THE STAGE. And it can only EMERGE through
a series of partial and limited struggles that will teach working people,
not by preaching but from their own experience, that THEIR interests and
those of the rich are counterposed and irreconcilable, and EVENTUALLY that
the problem is not 1, 2 or 10 wrong government policies, but the wrong
people, the rich people, controlling the government. 

We all know the spiel, whether we call it "transitional program" or "mass
line," and can have grand debates on how best to present it once we get the
ball rolling, so as to steer it in the right direction. 

But the real challenge we face is simply to get the ball rolling, and for
that, what is needed is that LOTS of people PUSH together. What we're doing
right now is having hundreds of different trajectory experts each giving us
some supposedly infallible mathematical solution to three decimal places on
the exact direction, timing, and force to be applied in the push. 

For once in your life succumb to vulgar pragmatism, put down the political
calculators, remember how much easier it is to fine-tune the trajectory of a
ball once it is rolling than to get it on just precisely the right direction
at the right instant at the right speed, and get everyone you can find to
put their hands on this boulder and at the count of three, push.  

And let me be blunt. I am AGAINST raising the demand to "nationalize the
banks" in the United States today in any *immediate* way. 

[snip] 

Instead, I am for exploring the sentiment and possibilities of organizing a
movement to fight foreclosures and evictions, to demand an immediate,
complete, nationwide moratorium on them. By "movement" I don't mean
newspaper articles or blogging (well, not JUST), but actual activity in the
real world and in opposition to CONCRETE foreclosures and evictions. IF some
bank wants to send a couple of employees out to throw some poor family out
of their homes, they could be met with an education committee --some
preachers, students, and union members [preferably very large ones in all
categories], to help them learn that is not something they should do. 

If there is a monthly sale of foreclosed property on the courthouse steps
--as there are, for example, in every Georgia county-- see if a protest can
be organized with real social forces, churches, the NAACP, unions, students,
so that the heat in the "kitchen" becomes too high for these "cooks." My gut
instinct says a foreclosure auction frustrated by a protest by preachers,
unionists, students and other working people is something that might "catch"
and be copied under current conditions. So don't forget to invite the MSM
[Main Stream Media], but be clever about it. Better ONE somewhat sympathetic
TV reporter and crew grateful for an exclusive than 14 different media
organizations whose representatives you don't know.

And flowing from that, if it gets any echo, and depending on concrete
conditions, then we would try to broaden the movement, to cohere it locally,
regionally, statewide, and to extend it to other demands like open-ended
continuing unemployment benefits at a living wage, raising social security
payments to a living wage scale to compensate retirees for having been
swindled out of their life savings, or a large portion thereof, by the
hucksters of what Dominican President Leonel Fernandez quite rightly
denounced at the United Nations the other day as "Casino Capitalism," and
other concrete, specific and, even "modest" measures to ameliorate the
impact of the crisis on working people.

IF they were willing to spend $700 billion to help multibillionaire coupon
clippers and their $500 Gucci-loafer wearing con men and $600 Prada-handbag
toting con women, THEN the government can certainly afford this. And if more
money is needed, tons are available in the Pentagon budget, beginning with
the appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the reaction to the $700 Billion giveaway has shown, there is no lack of
atomized yet elemental CLASS sentiment among working people in the United
States. Now that it has been brought to the fore, that gives us something to
work with -- or at least TRY -- if we have the political imagination and
audacity to START from a level regular people can relate to.

*  *  *

So as Anthony can see, I am not against raising other immediate demands. But
I still believe an anti-foreclosure movement is what is most likely to be
able to "catch" initially in the U.S. right now. But it is a concrete,
practical, tactical question.

Joaquin



From billyoc at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 20:06:54 2008
From: billyoc at gmail.com (Bill O'Connor)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:06:54 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Temporary nationalizations
In-Reply-To: <7b8a676d0810051837i50704a77q6cab5b9f7571cae6@mail.gmail.com>
	(Anthony Boynton's message of "Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:37:47 -0500")
References: <7b8a676d0810051837i50704a77q6cab5b9f7571cae6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <873ajacw8x.fsf@t22.Belkin>

"Anthony Boynton" <anthony.boynton at gmail.com> writes:

> We do not know if there will be any more nationalizations, nor do we know if
> the nationalizations which have already taken place (e.g. Fannie and Freddy)
> will be temporary. Of course the capitalists intend them to be temporary,
> they are even afraid to call them nationalizations, the word burns their
> palattes and singes their tongues. But whether or not they will be temporary
> depends on how the criss unfolds and the class struggle develops.
>
> If we have anything to do with the outcome, unlikely as that may seem to
> many, the nationalizations should be permanent. Right?
>
> So what can we do to that end?

Perhaps  a demand  that no  re-privatizations be  allowed until  the tax
money used  for this bailout  is repaid in  full.  That should  at least
keep them  nationalized for a  good while.  I  can argue later  that the
treasury can't do without the profits from the healed enterprises.

I  remember that  the  state  of Massachusetts  promised  that the  toll
collection  on  the   Mass.  Turnpike  would  stop  when   the  cost  of
construction  of the  turnpike was  recovered.  But  once that  had been
done, the state simply said that they needed the revenue stream from the
toll  booths for  the general  fund.  That's  the sort  of  argument I'm
proposing for keeping the nationalized enterprises.


From anthony.boynton at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 20:07:48 2008
From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:07:48 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Petty Bourgeois bullshit
Message-ID: <7b8a676d0810051907t27d51110w3a36e0230911c797@mail.gmail.com>

Look Joaquin, your particular brand of bullshit never led anyone anywhere.
So get off your high horse. Trotsky led a revolution, and a lot of
Trotskyists have led struggles of importance. Hold your tongue and do
something useful. Geez

From jbustelo at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 20:10:06 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:10:06 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] leaflet and program
In-Reply-To: <b16d8daf0810051850iec4ec21x327cf3fde399b0c5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7b8a676d0810051823r78f3dadbke6506d6715f40cdb@mail.gmail.com>
	<b16d8daf0810051850iec4ec21x327cf3fde399b0c5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BCFC7BA206304CE0B3D946B05E455844@albanta>

Mark says,  "Let's start with asking what the leaflet is for.  Is it a
general explanation of the crisis or a call for action or to a meeting or
what???"

Well, in Akron, at least, how about to prevent any more cases like this:
<http://www.wkyc.com/news/regional/akron_article.aspx?storyid=97865&catid=6>

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/jbustelo%40gmail.com
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1709 - Release Date: 10/5/2008
9:20 AM



From jbustelo at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 20:17:34 2008
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:17:34 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Petty Bourgeois bullshit
In-Reply-To: <7b8a676d0810051907t27d51110w3a36e0230911c797@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7b8a676d0810051907t27d51110w3a36e0230911c797@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2A309184A0B9452D902D82E2FA363EF8@albanta>

"Trotskyists have led struggles of importance." So have a lot of Stalinists,
Maoists, Christians, Jews and Buddhists, to name just a few other cults.

At any rate, there are obvious ... limitations ... to a discussion with
someone who believes bourgeois nationalizations are a step towards
socialism.

Bourgeis nationalization in the United States, and most of all under current
circumstances, don't bring us one flea-hop closer to socialism. This should
be ABC to any Marxist who understands it isn't about property forms but
social relations.

Joaquin



From anthony.boynton at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 20:43:59 2008
From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:43:59 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Property forms vs. social relations
Message-ID: <7b8a676d0810051943o7949d7dape91a05ddf904fa13@mail.gmail.com>

ABC. Oh please Joaquin. Get off your high horse. If you haven't noticed
property forms are in a crisis in the United States, reflecting if you want,
the underlying crisis of social relations. How does the dialectical
interpenetration of opposites work out in a country like the United States
where social consicousness and class consciousness are both in negative
numbers? People start with the obvious, the crisis of proerty forms. Get
real.

From nmgoro at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 21:31:17 2008
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 00:31:17 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] Lula's assailable past
Message-ID: <2fa158550810052031x196f306ye9795c1852677de9@mail.gmail.com>

2008/10/5, Fred Fuentes <fred.fuentes en gmail.com>:
> Brazil's Lula takes center stage in Latin America
>
>
>  A moderate with an unassailable leftist background, Lula has become
>  the point man for healing regional crises such as the current turmoil
>  in Bolivia and the recent escalation of tensions among Colombia,
>  Venezuela and Ecuador.

?Unassailable? is absolutely wrong.

If there is something assailable in Lula it is his leftist background.

Lula began his carreer at the union training centers of USA, then
became the speaker for the privileged workers of imperialist concerns
in the Greater S?o Paulo imperialist-bourgeois enclave, afterwards
made an agreement with (or aquiesced witth the perverted political
move by) General Golbery Couto e Silva designed to make it impossible
for the true representative of popular nationalist left in Brazil
Lionel Brizola to get to Presidency (during the latter years of the
Brazilian dictatorship Lula had already become the political star of
the imperialist-dominated media while any publication that dared
mention Brizola was immediately closed by the regime), and so on.

He came to power as a workerist representation of the accomodation of
Brazil to the international statu quo. The points in common between
Lula and Cardoso are structural and thus deeper than those he shares
with the vast masses of the country, which are contingent on Lula's
social policies not political outlook. But history has been lenient
with him, and this child of the working class has begun to represent a
lot more than his original COMPLETELY ASSAILABLE background.

The very fact that even with this background Lula has become a mild
representative of the true "leftist" turn in Brazil is in itself a
miracle of history.


-- 

N?stor Gorojovsky
El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a

From ok.president+marxml at gmail.com  Sun Oct  5 23:50:41 2008
From: ok.president+marxml at gmail.com (Ruthless Critic of All that Exists)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 01:50:41 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The Communist Manifesto Turns 160
Message-ID: <908b689f0810052250h2d06560fm46bdd23d2009bf0e@mail.gmail.com>

The Communist Manifesto Turns 160
By Barbara Ehrenreich

October 1, 2008
[...]

Marx predicted that capitalism would fall in a spirited, proactive,
fashion: the workers, fed up with immiseration, would revolt, seize
the "means of production" and insist on running the show themselves,
that being the original, pre-Soviet, notion of socialism. The
revolution didn't happen, of course, at least not here. For the past
several years, American workers have sweetly acquiesced to declining
wages, rising prices, speed-ups at work, disappearing pensions and
increasingly threadbare health insurance. While CEO pay escalated to
the eight-figure range and above, so-called ordinary Americans took on
second jobs and crowded into multi-generational households with
uncomfortably long waits for the bathroom.

But all this immiseration--combined with fabulous enrichment at the
top--did end up destabilizing the capitalist system, if only because ,
in the last few years, America's substitute for decent wages has been
easy credit.

[...]

Full: <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081013/ehrenreich>


From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au  Mon Oct  6 00:40:50 2008
From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:40:50 +1100
Subject: [Marxism] What's new at Links: Financial crisis; climate change;
 Nepal; Peru; Canada; Venezuela; red postie; Bolivia; India
Message-ID: <48E9B2F2.8010205@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./*

* * *


    The financial crisis: A socialist perspective
    <http://links.org.au/node/666>

By *Leo Panitch* and *Sam Gindin*

September 30, 2008 -- /The Bullet/ -- '/They say they won't intervene. 
But they will/.' This is how Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's treasury 
secretary, responded to Paul O'Neill, the first treasury secretary under 
George W. Bush, who openly criticised his predecessor's interventions in 
the face of what Rubin called 'the messy reality of global financial 
crises.'[1] The current dramatic conjuncture of financial crisis and 
state intervention has proven Rubin more correct than he could have 
imagined. But it also demonstrates why those, whether from the right or 
the left, who have only understood the era of neoliberalism 
ideologically -- i.e. in terms of a hegemonic ideological determination 
to free markets from states -- have had such a weak handle on discerning 
what really has been going on over the past quarter century. Clinging to 
this type of understanding will also get in the way of the thinking 
necessary to advance a socialist strategy in the wake of this crisis.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/666>


    Climate change -- the case for public ownership
    <http://links.org.au/node/654>

By *Trent Hawkins*

Arising out of the UK Climate Camp in August 2008 there has developed an 
interesting debate between Ewa Jasiewicz, an activist in Britain, and 
well-known radical columnist George Monbiot about the role of so-called 
"state solutions" to climate change. Jasiewicz's article, published on 
the /Guardian/ website_^[i] and entitled "Time for a Revolution", was an 
attack on Monbiot for a "controversial presentation [at climate camp] 
... in which he endorsed the use of the state as a partner in resolving 
the climate crisis".

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/654>


    Nepal: Prachanda in New York -- A Maoist vision for a new Nepal
    <http://links.org.au/node/652>

`A Maoist Vision for a New Nepal' -- MP3 recordings of a talk by Nepal's 
Prime Minister *Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda)*, followed by questions 
and answers, presented to the India China Institute of New School 
University, New York City, on September 26, 2008. The MP3 audio clips 
were first presented on the Hegemonik site, and are posted here with 
permission

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/652>


    Peru: Hugo Blanco -- My arrest <http://links.org.au/node/665>

/ /By *Hugo Blanco*

Cuzco, Peru, October, 3 2008 -- First, I would like to express my 
profound gratitude to all of the people and institutions who, upon 
hearing of my arrest, demanded my liberation.* Every one of those was 
important. But among those that touched me most, I should mention the 
pronouncement made by my Canadian brothers and sisters with whose 
support I am able to continue publishing /Lucha Ind?gena/ the call from 
the Conacami (The Peruvian National Confederation of Communities 
Affected by Mines) with whom I share the anxious desire for a political 
project that emanates from the indigenous, campesino and grassroots 
organisations; and the support of Wilbert Rozas, the mayor who 
instituted the indigenous communities' municipal government and went 
immediately to Paruro after learning of my arrest. Thanks to this 
solidarity, I was quickly---though temporarily---released.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/665>


    Canadian election: Left and labour movement discuss way forward
    <http://links.org.au/node/663>

/A selection of articles from Canadian socialists discussing the October 
14 federal election and the debates and discussions in the Canadian and 
Quebec left and labour movements on electoral tactics./

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/663>


    The global financial crisis: implications for Asia
    <http://links.org.au/node/660>

By *Reihana Mohideen*

The Wall Street crisis seems light years away from the side streets of 
Manila's urban poor slums. For the labouring masses in the Philippines 
the capitalist system has been in crisis for some time now, unable to 
deliver life's basic necessities: jobs and a living wage; affordable 
quality healthcare and education; and food security.
According to official National Statistics Office data poverty levels 
have increased between 2003 and 2006, and 2008 is expected to be the 
worst year since the 1998 Asian economic crisis. Between April 2007 and 
April 2008 the labour force grew by only 81,000, while the number of 
unemployed rose by 249,000, i.e. triple the increase in the labour 
force. In 2008 the number of employed persons fell by 168,000 and there 
was no employment generation in April of this year. Jobs were being lost 
at a time when prices and inflation were skyrocketing.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/660>


    France: `Red postie' Olivier Besancenot makes international
    headlines <http://links.org.au/node/659>

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/659>


    Racism, domination and revolution in Bolivia
    <http://links.org.au/node/658>

By *Adolfo Gilly*

September 22, 2008 -- Mexico -- "The problem in Bolivia is that the 
country is undergoing a process of reforms, without abandoning the 
democratic framework, but both the opposition and the government act as 
if they were facing a revolution", stated Marco Aurelio Garc?a, a close 
international affairs advisor to [Brazil's president] Lula, according to 
an article by Jos? Natanson in the newspaper /Pagina 12/.
Allowing myself to not take this declaration literally, but instead in 
an ironic sense, Marco Aurelio Garc?a, an intelligent and well-informed 
man, can't help but realise that if the two protagonists of the Bolivian 
confrontation believe that they are dealing with a revolution, this 
belief is the best confirmation that, in effect, it is. The 
vice-president of Bolivia, ?lvaro Garc?a Linera, on the other hand, has 
said that what is happening is "an increase in elites, an increase in 
rights, and a redistribution of wealth. This, in Bolivia, is a revolution."

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/658>


    Walden Bello: A primer on the Wall Street meltdown
    <http://links.org.au/node/657>

By *Walden Bello*, Focus on the Global South
[Read more on the capitalist economic crisis HERE 
<http://links.org.au/taxonomy/term/137>.]
September 25, 2008 -- The Wall Street meltdown is not only due to greed 
and to the lack of government regulation of a hyperactive sector. It 
stems from the crisis of overproduction that has plagued global 
capitalism since the mid-seventies.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/657>


    Human Rights Watch report on Venezuela: An echo of US propaganda
    <http://links.org.au/node/656>

Statement by the *Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network*
September 30, 2008 -- As a broad network of organisations and 
individuals that has closely studied the significant changes in 
Venezuelan society since 1998 -- including organising eight study tours 
to Venezuela involving more than 150 Australians from diverse 
backgrounds -- we are obliged to respond to the biases, distortions and 
lies contained in the Human Rights Watch report /A Decade Under Chavez: 
Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights 
in Venezuela/, released in September 2008.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/656>


    India: What happens to a dream deferred? Does it explode?
    <http://links.org.au/node/655>

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/655>


    Australia's Socialist Alliance urges a 10-point plan to cut
    atmospheric CO2 <http://links.org.au/node/653>

September 25, 2008 -- The Australian federal government's climate change 
adviser, Professor Ross Garnaut, has released his recommendations for 
medium-term cuts to Australian greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/653>

* * *

/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 lueko.willms at t-online.de  Mon Oct  6 01:31:27 2008
From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:31:27 +0200 (MES)
Subject: [Marxism] Petty Bourgeois bullshit,
	or a case for a "Moderators Note"
In-Reply-To: <7b8a676d0810051907t27d51110w3a36e0230911c797@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7b8a676d0810051907t27d51110w3a36e0230911c797@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <100-cfbee948-39616.007@lws-media.de>

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:07:48 -0500, Anthony Boynton wrote: 

> Look Joaquin, your particular brand of bullshit never led anyone anywhere.
> So get off your high horse. Trotsky led a revolution, and a lot of
> Trotskyists have led struggles of importance. Hold your tongue and do
> something useful. Geez

  this form of "discussion" is unacceptable


Cheers, 
L?ko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------


From lueko.willms at t-online.de  Mon Oct  6 01:40:50 2008
From: lueko.willms at t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCko_Willms?=)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:40:50 +0200 (MES)
Subject: [Marxism] Fight every foreclosure,
	demand real nationalisation of banks (was: On leaflets produced by
	this list)
In-Reply-To: <8B3BD9BEA7FB48F3B7DEEB55E029590F@albanta>
References: <7b8a676d0810051710n75c749a4u89f85e20607bb96b@mail.gmail.com>
	<7b8a676d0810051710n75c749a4u89f85e20607bb96b@mail.gmail.com>
	<8B3BD9BEA7FB48F3B7DEEB55E029590F@albanta>
Message-ID: <100-02c1e948-12942.012@lws-media.de>

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:55:21 -0400, Joaquin Bustelo wrote:

> And let me be blunt. I am AGAINST raising the demand to "nationalize the
> banks" in the United States today in any *immediate* way. 

  Well, I am very much for a _real_ nationalization of all banks and other 
financial institutions right away, although not specifically aimed at the USA, 
but in general and concrete terms directed against any government I am 
under. 

  You, Joaquin oppose to that demand to hold mass protests against each and 
every single eviction, trying to prevent the evicion physically, and mass 
protests at foreclosure auctions, as farmers have done. 
  
  I don't see a contradiction among the two, on the contrary, the demand for 
the nationalisation of the banking system is the unifying central demand for 
such an anti-foreclosure movement, and concrete mass actions against 
concrete foreclosures and evictions are the form a mass movement for a 
_real_ nationalsation of the banking system can take. 

  Think about it -- the demand to nationalise the banks and other financial 
institutions is something like the demand for federal troops to Selma, 
Alabama, in order to protect the civilized people from the racist mob. 


Comradely yours, 
L?ko Willms
Frankfurt, Germany
--------------------------------


From aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm  Mon Oct  6 01:31:53 2008
From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm (Aaron Aarons)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 00:31:53 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Petty Bourgeois bullshit
In-Reply-To: <7b8a676d0810051907t27d51110w3a36e0230911c797@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7b8a676d0810051907t27d51110w3a36e0230911c797@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20081006073249.2D0E728F3B@heartbeat2.messagingengine.com>

>Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:07:48 -0500
>From: "Anthony Boynton" <anthony.boynton at gmail.com>
>
>Look Joaquin, your particular brand of bullshit never led anyone anywhere.
>So get off your high horse. Trotsky led a revolution, and a lot of
>Trotskyists have led struggles of importance. Hold your tongue and do
>something useful. Geez
>________________________________________________
>YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.

Here we have the opposite, and far worse, problem: the lack of non-extraneous text! I.e., Boynton starts a new thread attacking Joaquin without giving the slightist indication of what statements by Joaquin he is referring to.

 - Aaron


From walterlx at earthlink.net  Mon Oct  6 02:25:06 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 04:25:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] PORTLAND OREGONIAN "New welfare queens" (letter to the
	editor)
Message-ID: <16134039.1223281506702.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

From: Michael Munk <lastmarx at comcast.net>
Sent: Oct 6, 2008 4:09 AM
To: walterlx at earthlink.net
Subject: Bailout NOT socialism

PORTLAND OREGONIAN
October 5, 2008

Letters to the Editor

New welfare queens

While many are furiously challenging the giveaway of $700
billion of our federal taxes to Wall Street's shiftless
welfare queens, Oregon taxpayers are put on the hook for
another $40 million in corporate welfare to bribe a foreign
company to go into business near Salem ("Goodies help lure
Sanyo to Oregon," Sept. 27).

Not only that, but Marion County residents are being hit up
to give Sanyo discounted land, road improvements worth $1
million, worker training, free money for equipment and a
five-year exemption on property taxes for its plant and
machinery. If Congress renews its offer of federal tax
credits, the capitalist owners will see their risk shrink
to almost nothing.

Whatever happened to the fundamental capitalist value
foisted on Americans from childhood: that private owners
are entitled to great profits because they accept great
risks when they invest their money?

I hear lots of complaints these days that the Wall Street
bailouts are "socialism." As a socialist, I can assure you
they are not. Instead, they are the price exacted from all
of us to prop up a failed system based on greed and rewards
competition among us rather than cooperation.

If we actually enjoyed socialism in America, we would not
need to rescue capitalists who bet wrong or need to bribe
them to create jobs in our communities.

MICHAEL MUNK 
Southwest Portland

visit my website www.michaelmunk.com


=========================================
     WALTER LIPPMANN
     Los Angeles, California
     Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
     "Cuba - Un Para?so bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================


From darrencogavin at gmail.com  Mon Oct  6 02:25:19 2008
From: darrencogavin at gmail.com (Darren Cogavin)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:25:19 +0100
Subject: [Marxism] 'It's a form of torture' - Guardian article on the Cuban 5
Message-ID: <d9209ba00810060125x79f6af4dle4069a1f6702e5c5@mail.gmail.com>

Clip -- "(Olga) Salanueva and (Adriana) Perez are in Britain this
month to talk to members of the government and to anyone else who will
listen about a story that is a cause c?l?bre throughout Latin America
but is virtually unknown in the United States. It is a story that in
many ways encapsulates the conflict between Cuba and its mighty
neighbour for the past half-century and has ramifications both for the
current "war on terror" and for the US presidential election
campaign."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/06/usa.cuba


From skeyesvogt at gmail.com  Mon Oct  6 05:54:53 2008
From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes-Vogt)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 07:54:53 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Rival Gang Members Join Together In Peace
Message-ID: <de3b89110810060454q3af99c09w36652c7912c95daa@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.malcolm-che.com/?p=284

Aqeela Sherrills and Calvin Hodges grew up on opposite sides of the tracks
during the bloody gang conflicts of the Watts neighborhood in south L.A.
Aqeela was a member of the Crips gang and Calvin was a member of the Bloods.
They now both work for peace and reconciliation in Watts at the Community
Self-Determination Institute (CSDI).

Aqeela's Story

We didn't call ourselves gangs???society did. We were a bunch of kids who
had been wounded. Gangs were our surrogate families because so many of us
had lost our nuclear families.

As a young person, I lived life on the edge and made a lot of bad
decisions???robbing, stealing, and beating people. Our enemies lived on the
other side of the tracks, and Markham Junior High School stood in the
middle: a gladiator school dividing the two communities. When I was in ninth
grade, a close friend was shot at school and I realized then that I had to
get out. So I started selling candy door-to-door. This got me away from the
crazy stuff back in Watts. Eventually I made it to college. I was the only
one out of all of my friends who didn't go to jail.

Then came a pivotal moment. I was crazy about the girl I was with. She was
beautiful and looked after me, but I was jealous and thought I'd better
cheat on her before she cheated on me, which I did. Things got worse; I was
drinking and about to be kicked out of college.
But then I read James Baldwin's The Evidence of Things Not Seen; something
shifted inside me. I started digging deep and did the first noble thing I've
ever done in my life???I told my girlfriend Lisa the truth about what I'd
done and apologized. I also told her about being molested as a kid. It was
the first time I'd shared this secret, and doing so set me on fire. At last
I had something to blame! All my anger had been aimed at the government and
white people, and I became a total black national revolutionary.

[clip]

http://www.malcolm-che.com/?p=284

From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au  Mon Oct  6 05:59:08 2008
From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:59:08 +1100
Subject: [Marxism] Exclusive book excerpt: A manifesto for principled Darfur
 activism -- and beyond | Links
Message-ID: <48E9FD8C.1040703@greenleft.org.au>

/Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ publishes -- with the 
authors' permission -- an exclusive excerpt from *Kevin Funk* and 
*Steven Fake*'s just published book, /Scramble for Africa: Darfur 
Intervention and the USA /(Black Rose Books).

/In Scramble for Africa/ Kevin Funk and Stephen Fake provide a forensic 
and astute examination of the Bush administration's politically cynical 
and opportunist exploitation of the people of Darfur's terrible plight, 
using them as pawns to regain access to Sudan's oil riches and to 
promote the self-serving imperialist concept of ``humanitarian 
intervention''. Funk and Fake reveal the hypocrisy of Washington, which 
can in the same breathe declare the Sudan regime's slaughter of hundreds 
of thousands of Darfuris ``genocide'' while -- out the general public's 
earshot -- praise and collaborate the very same butchers as allies in 
its ``war on terror''. The mainstream ``Save Darfur'' movement's 
leadership also comes in for a similar investigation for its willingness 
to allow the interests of the people of Darfur to play second fiddle to 
Washington's foriegn policy double standards.

Full article at http://links.org.au/node/667

Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ -
at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373



From rfls12802 at blueyonder.co.uk  Mon Oct  6 06:37:30 2008
From: rfls12802 at blueyonder.co.uk (Paul Flewers)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:37:30 +0100
Subject: [Marxism] Competition -- Slump Sweepstake
Message-ID: <005001c927b0$4caa0cf0$e5fe26d0$@co.uk>

Here's something to do whilst watching the depression unfold.

Paul F

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

?1/US$2 per entry (or 1 Zambian Kwacha, whichever retains greater value by
end of competition).

1. Which OECD economy will be the first to default on its external sovereign
liabilities (since Turkey in 1980)?

2. Which OECD economy will be the first to default of domestic sovereign
liabilities (since USA in 1996)?

3. Which OECD stock exchange will be the next to suspend activity (since
Iceland this morning)?

Proceeds to fund collective purchase of major UK high street clearer once
government bailout fails (as per Barings).

Winner 1 - becomes Chair
Winner 2 - becomes CEO
Winner 3 - becomes Investment Strategist






From spalmer999 at yahoo.com  Mon Oct  6 06:28:46 2008
From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 05:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Competition -- Slump Sweepstake
In-Reply-To: <005001c927b0$4caa0cf0$e5fe26d0$@co.uk>
Message-ID: <375423.840.qm@web81901.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> Proceeds to fund collective purchase of major UK high
> street clearer once
> government bailout fails (as per Barings).
> 
> Winner 1 - becomes Chair
> Winner 2 - becomes CEO
> Winner 3 - becomes Investment Strategist

Haha! Then watch it disappear down the tubes, collect $125m golden parachute and get appointed to board of a major industrial conglomerate.


      


From spalmer999 at yahoo.com  Mon Oct  6 06:54:36 2008
From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 05:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Grande bourgeoisie at work ...
In-Reply-To: <7b8a676d0810051837i50704a77q6cab5b9f7571cae6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50498.4343.qm@web81904.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

U.S. Institutional Investors Boost Ownership of U.S. Corporations to New
Highs, Reports The Conference Board
Pension Funds Make Growing Investments in Hedge Funds

NEW YORK, Sept. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Institutional investors have, once
again, topped their previous record ownership levels in the largest 1,000 U.S.
corporations, The Conference Board reports today in the latest edition of its
Institutional Investment Report.
    Data on institutional investor ownership in the largest 1,000 U.S.
corporations show that institutions have substantially and consistently
increased their holdings from 1987 with an average of 46.6 percent of total
stock to an average of 61.4 percent of total stock by 2000 and then rising to
an unprecedented 76.4 percent of corporations by year-end 2007. Concentration
of ownership also tops all previous data when measured by the numbers of
companies which have the largest institutional ownership. For example, in
1985, no company had institutional ownership of 60 percent or above, whereas,
by 2007, 17 companies had institutional ownership of 60 percent or above,
including six with institutional ownership of 70 percent or above.
    Latest available year-end 2006 data show that total institutional
investors -- defined as pension funds, investment companies, insurance
companies, banks and foundations -- controlled assets totaling $27.1 trillion,
up from $24.4 trillion in 2005. Their 2006 level represents a ten-fold
increase from $2.7 trillion in 1980.
    The equity market value of total institutional equity holdings increased
from $571.2 billion in 1980 (or 37.2 percent of total U.S. equity markets) to
$12.9 trillion (or 66.3 percent of total U.S. equity markets) in 2006. "This
represents a historic all-time high in the amount of total U.S. equities
controlled by these institutional investors," says Dr. Carolyn Kay Brancato,
Director of The Conference Board's Governance Center and author, together with
Stephan Rabimov, of the report.
    Pension funds continue to account for the largest block of institutional
investor assets, with $10.4 trillion or 38.3 percent of total 2006 assets
under management. Within the pension fund category, state and local pension
funds -- which tend to be the most activist in terms of exerting corporate
governance pressures on companies -- have grown more rapidly than other types
of pension funds such as corporate pension funds.
    Moreover, these state and local pension funds have also been growing more
rapidly in the amount of assets they allocate to equities from bonds and other
types of investments. For example, public pension funds have increased their
share of equity markets from 2.9 percent in 1980 to 10 percent in 2006. By
comparison, private trusteed pensions (generally corporate funds) represent a
smaller share of equity markets in 2006 than they did in 1980; their share
declined from 15.1 percent in 1980 to 13.6 percent in 2006. Dr. Brancato
notes: "As the more activist state and local pension funds not only grow in
assets but also increase their equity base, they have more stock to vote at
annual meetings and in proxy contests."
    Historically, U.S. pension funds put very little of their assets into
international equities. This amount grew, however, and the largest 25
internationally invested U.S. pension funds put a total of 18.0 percent of
their 1999 assets into international equities. By 2005, this amount had
declined to 13.5 percent of their assets, although the number has risen to
15.3 percent for 2007.
    Pension Funds Make Growing Investments in Hedge Funds
    For the first time, the report tracks hedge fund investments generally and
investments by pension funds into hedge funds. As of September 2007, some $1.8
trillion in assets was estimated to have been managed by about 10,000 hedge
funds worldwide. This represents an increase of 23.6 percent in hedge fund
assets and 5.8 percent growth in the number of funds since 2006. Of these,
more than half are domiciled in the United States.
    Pension funds have been increasing the investments they make in hedge
funds during the past three years. The report shows the largest 200 U.S.
employee retirement plans with defined benefit assets in hedge funds. The
amounts invested in hedge funds by these pension funds rose from an
insignificant amount in prior years to $29.9 billion for the year ended
September 30, 2005, to $50.5 billion for the year ended September 30, 2006,
and then to $76.3 billion for the year ended September 30, 2007. This actually
represents a fairly small percentage of total assets for these pension funds
-- 0.7 percent in 2005, 1.0 percent in 2006 and 1.4 percent in 2007.  Thus,
while increasing rapidly, hedge fund investments remain a small portion of the
total defined benefit plan assets invested by these pension funds.
    Based on an analysis of data from Pensions & Investments, the report also
finds more and more pension funds are investing in hedge funds. As of
September 30, 2007, 62 out of the largest 200 defined benefit pension plans
invested in hedge funds compared with only 48 the year before. The majority
are "public" state and local funds; of the 62 funds investing in hedge funds
in 2007, 37 are state and local or "public" pension funds (which invested
$59.6 billion out of a total $76.3 billion for all funds) while 25 are
corporate pension funds (which invested $16.7 billion out of a total $76.3
billion for all funds).


      


From spalmer999 at yahoo.com  Mon Oct  6 07:01:50 2008
From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 06:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] leaflet and program
In-Reply-To: <BCFC7BA206304CE0B3D946B05E455844@albanta>
Message-ID: <150139.13102.qm@web81902.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Quite.

Here's the sickest part:

"We're going to forgive whatever outstanding balance she had on the loan and give her the house," said Fannie Mae spokesman Brian. "Given the circumstances, we think it's appropriate."


--- On Sun, 10/5/08, Joaquin Bustelo <jbustelo at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Joaquin Bustelo <jbustelo at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] leaflet and program
> To: "Steve Palmer" <spalmer999 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Sunday, October 5, 2008, 7:10 PM
> Mark says,  "Let's start with asking what the
> leaflet is for.  Is it a
> general explanation of the crisis or a call for action or
> to a meeting or
> what???"
> 
> Well, in Akron, at least, how about to prevent any more
> cases like this:
> <http://www.wkyc.com/news/regional/akron_article.aspx?storyid=97865&catid=6>
> 
> 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/jbustelo%40gmail.com
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1709 - Release
> Date: 10/5/2008
> 9:20 AM
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________
> 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/spalmer999%40yahoo.com


      


From markalause at gmail.com  Mon Oct  6 07:12:09 2008
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:12:09 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] leaflet and program
In-Reply-To: <150139.13102.qm@web81902.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <BCFC7BA206304CE0B3D946B05E455844@albanta>
	<150139.13102.qm@web81902.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0810060612m599acf87t43ef4c6b3abf7165@mail.gmail.com>

Well, this terrifying example--a worthwhile read to anyone likely to
forget that we are discussing people behind this crisis--still doesn't
answer the question.

Who are you calling upon to do something about such things?  What are
you asking them to do?  There are multiple answers, of course,
requiring different leaflets.

And I can't help but think that there are many cases in which direct
action against evictions might convey more than a leaflet, no?

ML


From lnp3 at panix.com  Mon Oct  6 07:15:49 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:15:49 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Race Will Survive the Obama Phenomenon
Message-ID: <48EA0F85.2070208@panix.com>

The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle Review

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i07/07b00601.htm

 From the issue dated October 10, 2008
RACE & THE ELECTION
Race Will Survive the Obama Phenomenon

By DAVID R. ROEDIGER

The idea of race emerged amid evolving processes in which the 
government, the economy, and the society sorted people into very 
different relationships to property, management, punishment, and 
citizenship, according to fictive biological categories. Great 
struggles, peaking in the 1860s and 1870s, and again a century later, 
forced important changes. But those struggles lost momentum and unity 
before effecting other political economic changes that might have 
decisively disconnected color from degradation and suspicion, leaving 
even formal, legal equality fragile. They also allowed room for the 
development of new racial sorting by state-sponsored incarceration and 
deportation.

With whites today having, on average, more than nine times the household 
wealth of African-Americans and Latinos, and with white-male 
incarceration rates at less than one-seventh those of African-American 
men, desires to claim white identity and to defend the relative 
advantages attached to it will persist unless substantial changes occur, 
even in the wake of post-civil-rights gains for some minority groups. 
That is so not only because the past of slavery and racial 
discrimination lingers on, but also because since the civil-rights 
movement, deep racial inequalities have now been recreated across two 
generations. Only a tiny remnant of the always inadequate palliative of 
affirmative action remains to address racial inequality, and that is 
seldom defended out loud by political leaders.

And yet we hear often that race is almost spent as a social force in the 
United States, eliminated by symbolic advances, demographic changes, and 
private choices, if not by structural transformations or political 
struggles. Nowhere is that argument more forcefully, or more 
contradictorily, made than in analyses of Barack Obama's campaign for 
president.

"Race Over" was the headline of the Harvard University sociologist 
Orlando Patterson's prognostications a few years ago in The New 
Republic. In 2050, Patterson assured readers, the United States "will 
have problems aplenty. But no racial problem whatsoever." 
Inconsistencies littered Patterson's predictions. Black people in the 
raceless United States would use new technologies to change their 
appearance. In the Northeast and Midwest, "murderous racial gang fights" 
would persist ? but allegedly without the issue of race being involved. 
In the Southeast, the racial divisions of the "Old Confederacy" would 
continue but would somehow make no difference in the national picture. A 
still more glaring contradiction obtruded when Patterson added another 
set of futurological observations in a New York Times article in 2001, 
which contested the common view of demographers that white people would 
become a minority in 21st-century America. Arguing that "nearly half of 
the Hispanic population is white in every social sense," Patterson 
forecast that the "white population will remain a substantial majority 
and possibly even grow as a portion of the population." Patterson's 
point ? that some of the children of intermarriages between non-Hispanic 
white and Hispanic white people will identify, and be identified, as 
simply "white" is not implausible, but the contrast between the two 
articles is jarring: Race will vanish ? but whiteness will persist.

In 2008, Patterson was back in the Times, analyzing Hillary Clinton's 
"red phone" campaign advertisement. In it, she answered an emergency 3 
a.m. phone call with an assurance that, according to the implication of 
the ad, Obama could not provide. Patterson observed that the commercial 
had Clinton defending white children (and perhaps some meant to be seen 
as Latino) in a way that implied that the nebulous danger evoked might 
be a black man. Not only did the advertisement cast Obama as unfit to be 
the reassuring solution; its subtext associated him with the menace 
itself. Race, over or almost done, still saturated public discourse.

Patterson is by no means alone in his vacillations. We are often told in 
the news media that race and racism are on predictable tracks to 
extinction. But we are seldom told clear or consistent stories why. 
Often multiracial identities and immigration take center stage. To take 
one instance, the 1993 issue of Time magazine, on the "New Face of 
America," used a computer to morph into existence a new "Eve," created 
out of images of those migrating to and mixing in the United States. The 
cover girl typified a future mixed America; at the same time, she 
represented an obsession with race, types, and genes.

The sunsetting of race by a fixed date acquired legal weight in the 2003 
Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which Justice Sandra 
Day O'Connor's majority opinion upheld the affirmative-action admissions 
policy at the University of Michigan Law School. O'Connor emphasized the 
benefits of diversity for majority students but added that the court 
"expects that 25 years from now," preferences would no long-er be 
needed. A research group on inequalities of wealth, United for a Fair 
Economy, reached a quite different and much better-grounded conclusion 
in its "Foreclosed: State of the Dream 2008" report assessing racial 
justice. The report estimated that existing trends would not equalize 
black and white median household wealth for more than half a millenium. 
On some measures, the report added, equality is several thousand years 
in the future.

The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 
2001, solidified the perception that race was almost over: Fear of a 
common enemy would erase divisions among Americans. Politicians, 
editorialists, and even comedians repeatedly emphasized the essential 
unity of everyone in America. However, the long aftermath of 9/11 has 
strongly challenged that idea.

 From the outset of the war on terror, the racial profiling of 
Arab-Americans and of Arab and Islamic travelers to the United States 
became a concern for many civil-rights supporters. Initially, jokes from 
black stand-up comics played on relief at getting to take a rest from 
being the subjects of suspicion. But such lines proved less funny as the 
broadcast faces of terror often resembled those of South Asians, 
African-Americans, and Latinos, not simply the imagined Arab stereotype. 
The possibility of an Obama presidential campaign matured in a 
post-September 11 moment, but that moment also created the dynamics 
leading some conservatives to miss no opportunity to use the candidate's 
full name, Barack Hussein Obama. It made good political sense.

The Obama campaign itself became the alleged proof that the United 
States had so quickly moved beyond race that even Justice O'Connor was 
too gloomy in her timetable. However, that campaign has also illustrated 
the tenacity of old racial divisions, and the force of new ones. The 
conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page greeted the earliest of 
Obama's primary triumphs as proof that the nation had transcended the 
bad old days of racism. The misnamed and conservative American Civil 
Rights Institute parlayed Obama's primary successes into proof of the 
absence of institutional racism ? and any need for affirmative action.

At the same time, the "colorblind" news media combined such assertions 
with strikingly reductionist resorts to race to "explain" voting 
patterns. Early in the campaign, for example, African-Americans were 
said to support Clinton because of an atavistic questioning of whether 
Obama was "black enough," as Time asked in a headline.

When Obama did well among black voters, such arguments were immediately 
cast aside, although there was no acknowledgment in the news media that 
its earlier reasoning had been egregious. Nor did commentators stop to 
notice that African-Americans were supporting a mixed-race candidate 
with a foreign-born father, making them perhaps the most cosmopolitan 
sector of the electorate. As the campaign progressed, the candidates 
were said to grapple over who would get the Hispanic vote or the "white 
male" vote, with the news media assuming simple equations between 
identity and voting. Crude racial profiling of voters jostled for space 
with extravagant claims regarding the transcendence of race.

Such careening representations of the Obama campaign reflect an 
overwhelming desire to transcend race without transcending racial 
inequality ? as well as the impossibility of doing so.

As the candidate himself seldom tires of saying, he is the product of 
Kenya on his father's side and Kansas on his mother's. Thus he evokes 
the promise that intermarriage will break down color lines. If his 
second-generation-immigrant success story has so far resonated only a 
little with the recent-immigrant population of the United States, it is 
nonetheless a part of his broader appeal. His elite education typifies a 
stratum of a new black middle class that has matured as segregated 
education has partially given way. Above all, his political 
attractiveness to a substantial minority of white voters is 
unprecedented, with the support of young white voters at times 
especially impressive. Among much else, it underlines how much 
African-American protest traditions, however hesitantly embraced by 
Obama, are associated with the possibility of change.

When Obama has deflected difficult questions regarding race with the 
charming response that, given his parentage, he could not be on any one 
side, he also reflects an increasing experience of the nation, 
especially its youth, with what cultural-studies scholars call 
"hybridity." Moreover, he appeals to a widespread sense that race is 
now, more than ever before, about choice. With Jim Crow illegal, with 
science firmly declaring against the biological import of race, with 
racial status on the census having for decades been determined by 
self-identification, and with the 2000 census offering an array of 
mixed-race choices for such self-identification, race is today a far 
more fluid category, both popularly and at law.

A huge share of the "white" population now regards itself as identifying 
with "nonwhite" peoples or culture in some way that respondents regard 
as central to their lives. Those identifications range from living and 
loving interracially, to parenting interracial children or adopted 
children of color, to devotion to Buddhism, intense reggae, salsa, jazz, 
hip-hop, blues, gospel, or world music, to wanting to be like Michael 
Jordan or Tiger Woods. The images are often powerfully, and at times 
superficially, connected with, to borrow from Yale University's Paul 
Gilroy, wanting to be free and to be seen as free. A mixture of the 
exalted, the everyday, and the fanciful ? of the intimate and the 
commercial ? informs the ways that white people identify with nonwhite 
cultures, figures, and products.

Fluidity and choice, however, exist within the very structures of deep 
contemporary inequality. Such inequality especially afflicts those 
readily identifiable as black and poor, or as Latino, poor, and 
"illegal," or as American Indians on or off reservations. Possibility 
and tragedy coexist, while two desirable changes remain impossible for 
both Obama and the larger society. The first impossibility is achieving 
meaningful black-immigrant unity; the second, speaking out in mainstream 
politics against the existence, persistence, and continued reproduction 
of racial hierarchies. Both of those impossibilities spawn endless 
discussion in the news-media coverage of Obama's campaign. Nonetheless, 
the full import of each goes largely unacknowledged.

It is possible that the growth of a mixed-race population and of 
immigrant communities divided more by nationality than race might 
someday simply overwhelm attempts to repackage what James Baldwin called 
"the lie of whiteness." But history should make us wary of predictions 
that demographic changes will cause race to disappear, rather than 
simply to be reconfigured. In any case, we are at this moment very far 
from such a reality, and we are not on a road that leads in any sure 
direction.

If we project the recent increase in births of mixed-race children over 
time, new patterns do emerge. However, the patterns remain 
contradictory. A recent study ? published in a conference paper, "Recent 
Trends in Intermarriage and Immigration and Their Effects on the Future 
Racial Composition of the U.S. Population," posted online ? by the 
population specialists Sharon M. Lee, Barry Edmonston, and Jeffrey S. 
Passel, who used computer modeling to project the population in 2100, 
concluded that, in that year, the "pure" (both parents of the same 
"race") and the mixed-race populations of the United States will be 
almost exactly equal. But that hybridity will be greatly concentrated 
among Latinos, a group in which the "pure" would make up 30 percent of 
the total population, while the Latino/mixed would total 70 percent. 
Among white people, on the other hand, 65 percent would be "pure" and 35 
percent white and mixed. Among African-Americans, 63 percent would have 
two African-American parents; 57 percent of Asian-Americans would have 
two Asian-American parents.

Interracialism, therefore, might well vary by race. Indeed, if present 
patterns of inequality persist, the projected 2100 population will 
contain 66 million "unmixed" African-Americans as well as new 
generations of desperately poor immigrants whose race, class, and 
illegality will be linked in popular perception. Those groups will 
almost certainly be racially despised. Offered as a serious effort at 
estimates, not an ironclad guide to an unpredictable future, such 
figures also remind us that no one knows what the racial identification 
of Latinos who are of mixed race, the largest single category projected, 
will be in 2100.

In particular, the ways in which those whom the Chicana feminist Cherrie 
Moraga called "21st-century mestizos" unite with other people of color, 
both in voting patterns and in struggles to end the material bases for 
thinking about race, will be key to whether the idea of race can survive.

But it is precisely on that point that Obama's candidacy has so far 
failed to offer hope for even symbolic change. Although he may be able 
to win over some voters as an African-American candidate, a mixed-race 
candidate, and an exemplar of racelessness, Obama has not been able to 
gain support as a second-generation-immigrant candidate. He lost in the 
California primary, despite his great successes among black and even 
white voters, because of Latino and Asian-American support for Clinton. 
Like most children of African and Afro-Caribbean immigrants, Obama is 
seen by those groups only as black.

The news media's drumbeat of emphasis on Obama's lack of support among 
Latinos says both too much and too little about race. It is manifestly 
false that black candidates cannot win significant majorities of Latino 
votes: Harold Washington did so in Chicago's mayoral election in 1983, 
as did David Dinkins in New York City in 1989 and 1993. In the 2005 Los 
Angeles mayoral election, black votes for Antonio Villaraigosa were 
pivotal. In most presidential elections, big majorities of 
African-American and Latino voters unite behind white Democrats. Up 
against a Clinton machine very experienced in turning out Latino voters, 
Obama ran a relatively poor campaign among Spanish-speaking voters, 
producing bilingual materials only late in the day. As the University of 
Chicago political scientist Michael Dawson astutely remarked after 
Obama's Philadelphia speech on race, "Most surprising, perhaps, was the 
minimal acknowledgment given to the recognition that the racial 
landscape has fundamentally changed with the large-scale immigration of 
particularly, but not exclusively, Latino and Asian populations into the 
United States."

With neither Democratic candidate forwarding ambitious plans for 
immigrant rights or concrete proposals for immigration reform, exit 
polls in Texas showed that over half of Latino voters counted the 
economy the dominant issue. The votes of that large bloc of economically 
concerned, Democratic Latinos went overwhelmingly to Clinton, although 
some in her camp joined the news media in turning a particular trend 
into a universal truth about Hispanic hostility to black candidates.

While the reality and the "racial" character of a black/Latino electoral 
divide has been inflated and inflamed by the news media, the fact 
remains that antiracist forces face significant legislative and 
structural hurdles in attempting to forge a black/immigrant coalition. 
Perhaps least noticed are the difficulties in creating unity between 
immigrants and their descendants. The 1965 immigration-reform act passed 
with negligible input from people of color. Its framers paid little 
attention to its potential impact on patterns of immigration among, and 
racial hatred toward, Latin American, Asian, and African migrants. 
Statutory openings to those advantaged by their professional, medical, 
and technical occupational status and by family networks somewhat 
delinked immigration and poverty for some newcomers, but imperial wars 
and neoliberal trade policies ensured that other sectors of the 
immigrant and refugee populations would be desperately poor.

At the same time, to rectify slights toward Eastern and Southern 
European nationalities victimized by discriminatory immigration quotas 
since 1924, the 1965 act applied quotas to immigration from the Americas 
and refused to adjust one-size-fits-all limits on legal immigration to 
acknowledge that Mexico, a large and nearby nation, was bound to furnish 
a number of immigrants far exceeding its quota. The results were 
predictable: 781,000 immigrants from Mexico suffered expulsion from the 
United States in 1976 alone. If legal status has been yet another source 
of division among immigrants, it has more tragically also served as the 
rallying point for overwhelmingly white anti-immigrant vigilante groups 
along the border and for political mobilizations purporting to defend 
the nation's racial character.

Divided as they are by class, immigration category, language, legal 
status, nationality, and race, migrants are very far from a unitary 
category. The massive 2006 immigrant-rights demonstrations in Los 
Angeles, the largest working-class mobilizations in American history, 
relied on the combination of an energized Mexican-American base and 
grass-roots leadership by many experienced in activism before their 
arrival in the United States. They succeeded in reaching across 
different immigrant nationalities, in uniting the undocumented minority 
with the "legal" majority of immigrants, giving immigrants common 
purpose, and in eliciting solidarity from those longer established in 
the country. That unity rested in no small measure on the extent to 
which people of color are subject to attacks based on both recognition 
and misrecognition: Sikhs were among those hurt in the post-9/11 
"anti-Arab" assaults in the United States, while Vincent Chin, whose 
1982 murder came to symbolize violence connected to resentment against 
Japanese, was actually Chinese. It is patterns like those that make 
opposition to anti-immigrant racism, often expressed as a demand for 
dignity, central to the immigrant-rights movement. Dramatic differences 
between, for example, the treatment of incarcerated Haitian refugees and 
Irish undocumented workers have likewise helped to make race a central 
part of some immigration-policy debates.

But so far, such struggles have not coalesced to produce enduring 
alliances. The labor movement, impressed by immigrant heroism in 
organizing campaigns and aware of the difficulties presented when 
employers can threaten union supporters with deportation, has belatedly 
adopted more-humane positions on immigration at the national level, 
although in some unions the impulse to exclude immigrants remains 
strong. Moreover, the unions are so weak that their insistence on 
immigrant rights, or on prosecuting employers of undocumented labor, 
tends to be ignored.

The question of what could anchor meaningful black/immigrant unity goes 
largely unexamined amid all of the talk about racial voting blocs. Even 
the insight that labor lies at the heart of the question is too easily 
oversimplified into the question of whether "Americans" (in this 
context, usually meaning jobless African-Americans) "want to work" in 
backbreaking, sub-minimum-wage jobs far from their homes. The structure 
of the debate continues to allow African-Americans to be damned as 
degraded if they do and as lazy if they do not.

Columbia University's Nicholas De Genova's recent study of Mexican 
Chicago shows how management in factories constructs a divide between 
immigrant unskilled labor and African-Americans, with Mexican workers 
being told they have been given jobs as a result of their being more 
tractable and less union-minded than their black predecessors. In urban 
hotels and in packinghouses in smaller Midwestern cities, management by 
race and nationality (and now by legal status) is ever more apparent, 
with the poor of the world vying to keep jobs and avoid immigration 
raids. To bring those concrete realities into dialogue with the demands 
of black communities is critical, but so far it has proved impossible 
within national presidential campaigns ? and largely impossible outside 
of them.

When Obama's primary campaign looked to be heading for victory in March, 
he came under sharp attack for his relationship with the Reverend 
Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of the church Obama attended. 
Influenced by black-liberation theology, Wright's jeremiads indicted 
American racism in ways reminiscent of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King 
Jr. After two weeks of calls to "denounce" Wright, Obama delivered his 
speech in Philadelphia, in which he sharply separated himself from the 
minister's message but did not abandon the man.

Whatever sympathy Obama professed for Wright stemmed from the latter's 
experience with the frustrations of Jim Crow, which had left many in 
Wright's generation refusing to see that the nation had changed. While 
Obama did call for expanded discussion of race and vigorous civil-rights 
enforcement, the speech lacked concrete proposals for producing 
equality. It managed to be vague to the point of indecipherability on 
affirmative action, broached as a source of understandable "white 
resentment" rather than as a policy worth defending. By April, Obama 
denounced Wright more stridently, reckoning his former pastor as the 
polar opposite of the unifying figure that the candidate himself worked 
to be. He attributed his angry opposition to Wright's divisiveness to 
something written in his own "DNA," in a perfect illustration of how 
biology-based conceptions of race persist in post-racial America.

The point here is not to expect that Obama, or any mainstream 
politician, will take risks to aggressively defend the last fragments of 
affirmative action. His reticence on the issue is widely shared. When 
pressed, he has vaguely suggested that affirmative action be based less 
on race and more on poverty, allowing that his daughters should not 
benefit from the policy. In making the case for "class based" 
affirmative action, he follows the impractical but high-sounding path of 
some conservative opponents of "race preferences" and of John Kerry and 
other Democrats. Indeed, many activists are tempted to give up the 
affirmative-action ghost. But it is nonetheless worth stressing that 
Obama does not represent the triumph of an advancing antiracist movement 
but rather the necessity, at the highly refracted level of electoral 
politics, of abandoning old agendas, largely by not mentioning them.

However, now, after the primaries, it will not be easy to avoid taking 
strong public positions on "divisive" racial issues like affirmative 
action, as Republicans aggressively raise "wedge" issues to split 
Democrats along racial lines. The Notre Dame political scientist Darrin 
Davis observes that "on every racial issue, Barack Obama is walking the 
tightrope." Conservatives have already organized several 
anti-affirmative-action referenda to coincide with the presidential 
election in pivotal states. "The more he supports traditional black 
issues like affirmative action, the more that will eat into his white 
base of support," Davis writes. Equally, open retreats from such issues 
will decrease enthusiasm among parts of his base.

Adroitly responsive to polling data, Obama's maneuverings nonetheless 
serve to distort how we conceptualize and address white supremacy, past 
and present. He moves from the casting of race as "divisive" to terming 
it a diversion from "real" issues affecting all Americans ? the 
environment, war, housing, jobs, and health care. However, the problem 
with settling for that partial truth is that racial inequality itself 
remains a fundamental problem, both in coalition-building and in 
everyday life. When Obama waxes nostalgic for the good old days of 
economic progress and calls for a focus on pocketbook issues like job 
training, trade policies, and gas prices, his narrative breaks faith 
with remembering the bitter days when Wright was growing up and likewise 
underplays the impact of the past on us. In critiquing race politics in 
his Philadelphia speech, Obama proposed a new departure based on 
too-easy appeals to economic unity: "This time we want to talk about the 
shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of 
every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from 
every religion, every region, every walk of life."

Not only is such a departure not new ? ironically, it was a staple of 
Bill Clinton's appeal to win back conservative "Reagan Democrats" ? but 
it posits as the objects of its nostalgia two historical arenas most 
responsible for present inequalities. The closed mills Obama refers to 
were presumably the Southern textile factories that were long the 
embodiment of Jim Crow employment practices, and the steel factories in 
which limited, much-resisted attempts to undertake affirmative action 
were so long delayed that their eventual implementation coincided with 
the industry's decline. And the overwhelming channeling of federal 
subsidies to home loans for white families and the construction of 
infrastructure for segregated suburbs have created and increased the 
tremendous racial gaps in wealth that exist in the contemporary United 
States.

Such blind spots have far more than mere historical importance, as they 
call into question the very way that Obama portrays today's issues as 
simply cutting across racial lines. Nowhere is that more apparent than 
in the subprime-mortgage crisis. The wholesale foreclosures accompanying 
that crisis fall into distinct racial patterns, reflecting the lack of 
resources that black and Latino home buyers bring to the market because 
of past discrimination, and the ways that they are still steered and 
preyed upon by lenders. Federal data show people of color to be more 
than three times as likely to have subprime loans as white people are, 
with a substantial majority of African-American borrowers in that 
category, as against one in six white borrowers.

The lack of an aggressive response by Obama to the subprime crisis has 
led some critics to propose that this issue best marks the limit of his 
economic populism, reflecting instead his close ties to banking and 
investment capital. Such critics are not wrong, but race has also 
mattered in the evasion of the full gravity of the crisis in home 
mortgages. The absence of any racial and historical framing of the 
subprime issue, a deficiency shared by Obama with Clinton and McCain, 
strengthens the tendency to rely for a cure on the same banks and 
investment firms that caused the problem. The subprime catastrophe was 
poised to serve either as a perfect vehicle to show how issues capable 
of dragging down much of the whole economy are about both race and 
class, or as an occasion for generalities, pro-mortgage-industry policy 
changes, and wishful thinking. The latter road is the one taken by Obama 
and all his major competitors.

To expect more that is concrete, forthright, and policy-oriented 
regarding race from Obama in the context of a presidential campaign is 
apparently fruitless. To sum up eloquently the ways in which the idea of 
race has and has not changed, the most important aspect of his campaign 
has been to show how much and how many people desire peace and want to 
find a way to move beyond race. To make their hopes and their 
commitments match up will require new, even unforeseeable, 
considerations of the role of white supremacy. It will require new 
alliances, especially of African-Americans with immigrants, and of 
feminist and working-class organizations with antiracist forces, in 
movements seeking not only to be represented within a highly unequal 
order but also to transform that order. The alternative is that 
race-thinking will survive in new and destructive permutations, and will 
continue to serve as a diversion from other brutalities and as a prop on 
which they rest.

David R. Roediger is a professor of African-American studies and history 
at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This essay is adapted 
from his book How Race Survived U.S. History: From the American 
Revolution to the Present, published this month by Verso.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Mon Oct  6 07:19:35 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:19:35 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] One out of four mammals face extinction
Message-ID: <48EA1067.80106@panix.com>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100600641.html
Survey Finds 'Bleak Picture' for World's Mammals

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 6, 2008; 8:00 AM

BARCELONA -- A quarter of the world's wild mammal species are at risk of 
extinction, according to a comprehensive global survey released here 
this morning.

The new assessment -- which took 1,700 experts in 130 countries a total 
of five years to complete -- paints "a bleak picture," leaders of the 
project wrote in a paper being published in the journal Science. The 
overview, made public at the quadrennial World Conservation Congress of 
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), covers 
all 5,487 wild species identified since 1500. It is the most thorough 
tally of land and marine mammals since 1996.

"Mammals are definitely declining, and the driving factors are habitat 
destruction and over-harvesting," said Jan Schipper, who is the paper's 
lead author and the IUCN's global mammals assessment coordinator.

The researchers concluded that 25 percent of the mammal species for 
which they had sufficient data are threatened with extinction, but 
Schipper added the figure could be as high as 36 percent because 
information on some species is so scarce.

Land and marine mammals face different threats, the scientists said, and 
large mammals are more vulnerable than small ones. For land species, 
habitat loss and hunting represent the greatest danger, while marine 
mammals are more threatened by accidental killing through fishing 
bycatch, ship strikes, and pollution.

While large species such as primates (including the Sumatran orangutan 
and red colobus monkeys) and ungulates (hoofed animals) may seem more 
physically imposing, the researchers wrote that these animals are more 
imperiled than small creatures such as rodents or bats because they 
"tend to have lower population densities, slower life histories, and 
larger home ranges, and are more likely to be hunted."

Primates face some of the most intense pressures: according to the 
survey, 79 percent of primates in South and Southeast Asia -- including 
the Hainan gibbon -- are facing extinction.

Conservation International president Russ Mittermeier, one of the 
paper's co-authors and a primate specialist, said the animals are 
experiencing "a triple whammy" in the region.

"It's not that surprising, given the high population pressures, the 
level of habitat destruction, and the fairly extreme hunting of primates 
for food and medicinal purposes," Mittermeier said in an interview. He 
added that some areas in Vietnam and Cambodia are facing "an empty 
forest syndrome," where even populous species such as the crab-eating 
macaque, or temple monkey, are "actually getting vacuumed out of some 
areas where it was common."

In some cases the scientists have a precise sense of how imperiled a 
species has become: There are 19 Hainan gibbons left in the wild now on 
the large island off China's southeast coast, Mittermeier said, which 
actually counts as progress since there used to be just a dozen. In 
other instances, such as with the beaked whale and jaguar, researchers 
have a much vaguer idea of their numbers.

Technological advances -- such as satellite and radio tagging, camera 
tracking and satellite-based GPS (global positioning system) mapping -- 
have helped scientists gauge the status of mammals and their habitat 
more thoroughly. The authors of the assessment wrote that most land 
mammals occupy "areas smaller than the United Kingdom," while "the range 
of most marine mammals is smaller than one-fifth of the Indian Ocean."

The findings come as other researchers are documenting new ways that 
human-generated emissions of greenhouse gases affect marine mammals. In 
a paper published Thursday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, 
a team at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute found that ocean 
acidification spurred by carbon emissions will cause sounds to travel 
farther underwater, because increasingly acidic seawater absorbs less 
low- and mid-frequency sound.

By 2050, the researchers predicted, sounds could travel as much as 70 
percent farther in parts of the Atlantic Ocean and other areas, which 
may improve marine mammals' ability to communicate but also increase the 
amount of background noise, which could prove disorienting.

"We understand the chemistry of the ocean is changing. The biological 
implications of that we really don't know," said the lead author, ocean 
chemist Keith Hester. "The magnitude to which sound absorption will 
change, based mainly on human contribution, is really astounding."

The authors of the IUCN's mammals assessment said the species declines 
they have observed are not inevitable. "At least 5 percent of currently 
threatened species have stable or increasing populations," they wrote, 
"which indicates that they are recovering from past threats."

"It comes down to protecting habitats effectively, through protected 
areas, and preventing hunting and other forms of exploitation," 
Mittermeier said. As one example of how conservation can work, he noted 
that in areas where scientific researchers work, animals stand a much 
better chance of surviving. "Where you have a research presence, it's as 
good or better than a guard force," he said.

Schipper offered the model of the U.S. effort to bring back the 
black-footed ferret, which was essentially extinct on the North American 
prairie as of 1996. "Now it's endangered which, in this case, is a huge 
improvement," he said. "When governments and scientists commit resources 
to a project, many species can be recovered."


From acpollack2 at gmail.com  Mon Oct  6 07:26:55 2008
From: acpollack2 at gmail.com (Andrew Pollack)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:26:55 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Fight every foreclosure,
	demand real nationalisation of banks
Message-ID: <2fa1449b0810060626y7fbe536cyf430fb046997ae33@mail.gmail.com>

I agree completey with L?ko. I would add that the lenders' strike --
especially the inability of corporations to sell commercial paper to fund
everyday activities -- is going to very soon lead to mass layoffs and
cutbacks, which will necessitate mass actions against these, and will, as
with antiforeclosure activities, make nationalization of the banks (and in
some cases of those corporations) which are denying these funds an eminently
discussible demand.

L?ko wrote:
I don't see a contradiction among the two, on the contrary, the demand for
the nationalisation of the banking system is the unifying central demand for

such an anti-foreclosure movement, and concrete mass actions against
concrete foreclosures and evictions are the form a mass movement for a
_real_ nationalsation of the banking system can take.

From lnp3 at panix.com  Mon Oct  6 07:37:40 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:37:40 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The evangelical roots of economics
Message-ID: <48EA14A4.7070305@panix.com>

Let there be markets:
The evangelical roots of economics

By Gordon Bigelow

When evangelical Christianity first grew into a powerful movement, 
between 1800 and 1850, studies of wealth and trade were called 
?political economy.? The two books at the center of this new learning 
were Adam Smith?s Wealth of Nations (1776) and David Ricardo?s 
Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817). This was the period 
of the industrial transformation of Britain, a time of rapid urban 
growth and rapidly fluctuating markets. These books offered explanations 
of how societies become wealthy and how they can stay that way. They 
made the accelerated pace of urban life and industrial workshops seem 
understandable as part of a program that modern history would follow. 
But by the 1820s, a number of Smith?s and Ricardo?s ideas had become 
difficult for the growing merchant and investor class to accept. For 
Smith, the pursuit of wealth was a grotesque personal error, a 
misunderstanding of human happiness. In his first book, The Theory of 
Moral Sentiments (1759), Smith argued that the acquisition of money 
brings no good in itself; it seems attractive only because of the 
mistaken belief that fine possessions draw the admiration of others. 
Smith welcomed acquisitiveness only because he concluded?in a 
proposition carried through to Wealth of Nations?that this pursuit of 
?baubles and trinkets? would ultimately enrich society as a whole. As 
the wealthy bought gold pickle forks and paid servants to herd their pet 
peacocks, the servants and the goldsmiths would benefit. It was on this 
dubious foundation that Smith built his case for freedom of trade.

By the 1820s and ?30s, this foundation had become increasingly troubling 
to free-trade advocates, who sought, in their study of political 
economy, not just an explanation of rapid change but a moral 
justification for their own wealth and for the outlandish sufferings 
endured by the new industrial poor. Smith, who scoffed at personal 
riches, offered no comfort here. In The Wealth of Nations, the shrewd 
man of business was not a hero but a hapless bystander. Ricardo?s work 
offered different but similarly troubling problems. Working from a basic 
analysis of the profits of land ownership, Ricardo concluded that the 
interests of different groups within an economy?owners, investors, 
renters, laborers?would always be in conflict with one another. 
Ricardo?s credibility with the capitalists was unquestionable: he was 
not a philosopher like Adam Smith but a successful stockbroker who had 
retired young on his earnings. But his view of capitalism made it seem 
that a harmonious society was a thing of the past: class conflict was 
part of the modern world, and the gentle old England of squire and 
farmer was over.

The group that bridled most against these pessimistic elements of Smith 
and Ricardo was the evangelicals. These were middle-class reformers who 
wanted to reshape Protestant doctrine. For them it was unthinkable that 
capitalism led to class conflict, for that would mean that God had 
created a world at war with itself. The evangelicals believed in a 
providential God, one who built a logical and orderly universe, and they 
saw the new industrial economy as a fulfillment of God?s plan. The free 
market, they believed, was a perfectly designed instrument to reward 
good Christian behavior and to punish and humiliate the unrepentant.

full: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/05/0080538


From lnp3 at panix.com  Mon Oct  6 07:45:32 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:45:32 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Child of the Sit-Downs
Message-ID: <48EA167C.6010607@panix.com>

Carlton Jackson?s Child of the Sit-Downs
by Louis Proyect

Book Review

Jackson, Carlton: Child of the Sit-Downs: the Revolutionary Life of 
Genora Dollinger, Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio, 2008 ISBN 
978-0-87338-944-0, 216 pages.

(Swans - October 6, 2008) Carlton Jackson?s Child of the Sit-Downs: the 
Revolutionary Life of Genora Dollinger is a valuable addition to the 
ongoing history of the American left. The book is not just worth reading 
for its account of Genora Dollinger?s heroic intervention into the 1937 
Flint sit-down strike, the struggle that she is best known for. It will 
also help long-time leftists figure out how to cope with and even rise 
above difficult times in American society through her example. The 
radicalizations of the 1930s and the 1960s were spearheaded by young 
people and when they subsided, new navigation skills had to be learned 
in order to cope with a society that had returned to a ?normalcy? of 
racism, imperialist war, class oppression, and alienation. As Carlton 
Jackson makes clear, Genora Dollinger mastered these skills with 
uncommon intelligence and a burning idealism that lasted until her death 
in 1995 at the age of 82.

Despite his academic background (he is now a professor emeritus at 
Western Kentucky State), Carlton Jackson has written an extremely 
readable book so much so that I missed my bus stop the other day as I 
turned the pages to see how Genora and her husband Sol were coping with 
1950s repression. Jackson has also written biographies of Hattie 
McDaniel, the famous African-American actress, and Martin Ritt, the 
liberal film director. Being able to see the contributions of the 
Hollywood left and labor activists alike is of course a gift that is 
shared by Paul Buhle, another academic who has learned to speak directly 
to the ordinary person.

One of the most eye-opening aspects of Child of the Sit-Downs is its 
account of how its subject radicalized in the 1930s. It turns out that 
the Methodist Church in her hometown of Flint had a lot to do with 
Genora?s evolution. Sunday School gave her an opportunity to learn about 
the Social Gospel ideas of Josiah Strong, Walter Rauschenbusch, and 
other reformers who believed that government should help the poor. With 
her rebellious streak, Genora soon found herself taking the opposite 
stance of her father Raymond Albro, who had become relatively prosperous 
in the photography business and a racist to boot. He had joined the KKK 
in keeping with Malcolm X?s observation that everything south of Canada 
was the South.

At the age of 17, Genora fell in love with and got married to Kermit 
Johnson, a boy she met in Sunday school. Kermit?s father Carl had been a 
?prairie populist? before finding work at the Chevrolet plant in Flint 
and soon became a member of the Socialist Party. Kermit brought Genora 
to party meetings where she heard his father and other socialists 
discuss the Molly McGuires, the Knights of Labor and the Brotherhood of 
Sleeping Car Porters, and other insurgent labor movements. In no time at 
all, her Christian idealism transformed into the socialist beliefs that 
she held for the rest of her life. As Carlton Jackson recounts:

"Always the most religious member of the Albro family, she taught Sunday 
school at the Methodist church and participated in church socials and 
singing events. While confined to bed during her bouts with TB, she read 
everything she could find about the world?s religions. She wanted to 
know how and why religions were created. She read lives of Zoroaster, 
Christ, Mohammed, and the Buddha, and she studied Baha-ism. Steadily she 
came to realize that the founders of the world?s great religions were 
simple - not simplistic - people who created beliefs that were 
noncomplicated. Later, these religions were institutionalized to include 
beliefs and requirements that had nothing to do with the founders. Human 
beings created dogma, she reckoned, and dogma was not a perfect 
persuader. Interspersed with her religious readings was Genora?s study 
of the various Socialist movements in the world. As she read Marx, 
Lenin, and Trotsky and learned of women labor reformers such as Rose 
Pesotta, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Rose Schneidermann, and Rose Pastor 
Stokes, she discovered totally different religious and philosophical 
worlds from the comfortable one in which she grew up. When she read and 
heard about the events of the day, including so much labor unrest at GM 
and elsewhere throughout the country, she began to see what in her own 
mind was the hardboiled capitalist attitude of management toward labor. 
Accordingly, she plunged herself into the Socialist activities of the time."

full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/child-of-the-sit-downs/


From charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us  Mon Oct  6 07:50:08 2008
From: charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us (Charles Brown)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:50:08 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The playboy philosopher
Message-ID: <48E9DF4F.84C9.00BF.0@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>


Ruthless Critic of All that Exists 

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

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Charles Brown
<charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote:
>
> Louis Proyect quoted:
>
>
> "You and your fellow Americans," he wrote, "should realize that BHL
is
> not a philosopher but a clown and a buffoon. You want real French
> philosophy, read Derrida, Foucault, Badiou, Baudrillard, if you are
a
> right winger, read Aron,
>
> ^^^
> CB: They are a bunch of clowns and harlequins , too.

This is just anti-intellectualism -- no better than Palin.

Badiou is a serious philosopher who was trained as a mathematician and
has done important work on the philosophical basis of set theory.

^^^
CB: I never really think of my self as anti-Intellectual. :>) But if
you say so.

 In the case of this group, I object to the distraction from Marxism
they seem to create in French intellectual life under the general rubric
of post-modernism and post-structuralism starting n the late 1960's and
early 70's.  So, it's anti- petit bourgeois revolutionist_
intellectuelle_.  Some of their stuff is very anit-intellectual,
anti-science intellectualism. There is some intelletual wrecking the
denial of the existence of objective reality. In a word, there is much
philosophical idealism in post-modernism and post-structuralism,
philosophical idealism in the sense that Engels and Lenin criticized it.
Post-modernism is a neo-Kantianism.

Why didn't they ( the French postologists) continue the tradition of
Sartre, if you want something with sources outside of Marxism. Sartre
had very good political views , and French ?




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com


From lnp3 at panix.com  Mon Oct  6 07:56:31 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:56:31 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Still on the Edge of the Abyss
Message-ID: <48EA190F.308@panix.com>

Counterpunch, October 6, 2008
Still on the Edge of the Abyss

By MIKE WHITNEY

French Premier Fran?ois Fillon: "We're on the edge of the abyss?

Years from today, when the current financial crisis is over, historians 
are likely to agree that it would have been far better if the Bush 
administration had declared a state of emergency earlier in the process 
so that the necessary steps could have taken to avoid a complete 
financial meltdown. The media could have been used to bring the American 
people up to date on market-related developments and educated in the 
bizarre language of structured finance. Knowledge is power; and power 
can prevent panic.

Now we're in a terrible fix. People are scared and removing their money 
from the banks and money markets. This  is intensifying the freeze in 
the credit markets and driving stocks into the ground like a tent stake. 
Meanwhile, our leaders are caught in the headlights, still believing 
they can finesse their way through the biggest economic cataclysm since 
the Great Depression.

  f something is not done to increase the flow of credit immediately, 
the stock market will tumble, unemployment will spike, and many 
businesses will grind to a standstill. We could be just days away from a 
severe shock to the system. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson's 
$700 billion bailout does not focus on the fundamental problems and is 
likely to fail. At best, it puts off the day of reckoning for a few 
weeks or months. Contingency plans should be put in place so the country 
does not have to undergo post-Katrina bedlam.

Does Congress have any idea of the mess they've made by passing the 
Bailout bill? Did any Senator or congressperson voting Yes even notice, 
that while they were busy mortgaging off America's future, the stock 
market was plummeting to new lows? Between the time the ballots were 
cast on Paulson's bailout, and the announcement of the final tally 
(which was approved by a generous margin) the market went from a 310 
point gain to a 157 point loss; a 467 point plunge in less than two hours.

Thus spake the Market: "Paulson's bill is a fraud!"

full: http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney10062008.html


From lnp3 at panix.com  Mon Oct  6 08:11:17 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:11:17 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] What Happened to the American Empire?
Message-ID: <48EA1C85.6040504@panix.com>

The New York Review of Books
Volume 55, Number 16 ? October 23, 2008

What Happened to the American Empire?
By Alan Ryan

On Empire: America, War, and Global Supremacy
by Eric Hobsbawm
Pantheon, 97 pp., $19.95

Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance?and Why They Fall
by Amy Chua
Doubleday, 396 pp., $27.95

The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order
by Parag Khanna
Random House, 466 pp., $29.00

The Post-American World
by Fareed Zakaria
Norton, 292 pp., $25.95

The Return of History and the End of Dreams
by Robert Kagan
Knopf, 116 pp., $19.95

 From time to time during the Bush administration there have been 
outbreaks of nostalgia for the days when lonely district commissioners 
ruled hundreds of square miles of British Africa, and a small number of 
civil servants and local magistrates managed the affairs of 350 million 
subcontinental Indians. The explanation is not hard to find: the memory 
of imperial order contrasts favorably with such recent events as 
genocide in Rwanda, continuous civil war in the Congo, and the horrors 
of Iraq under Saddam Hussein and after. The Roman imperium brought the P 
ax Romana to Europe, Asia Minor, and North Africa; and at its height the 
British Empire controlled a quarter of the land area of the globe and a 
quarter of its inhabitants. The spectacle of global disorder excites a 
desire for global government. The target of these longings is inevitably 
the United States.

Setting aside the problem of how peaceful the Pax Britannica truly was, 
and how far the empire?s subjects?or the majority of the British 
themselves?benefited from its existence, this hankering after a world 
made safe by a benign imperialism raises a very large question. Could 
the United States replicate the Victorian British Empire and establish a 
Pax Americana? Five years into the horrors of the failed invasion of 
Iraq, with two million refugees having left the country, it is hardly a 
surprise that the almost unanimous answer is No.

That simple negative raises the possibility that some subtler version of 
a Pax Americana might emerge, that the United States can become the 
leading player in a pluralistic international system rather than a 
?hyperpower? or hegemon, whose persuasiveness extends only as far as its 
military reach. On that, opinions vary. Nobody denies that the United 
States is uniquely equipped to wreak physical destruction anywhere it 
wants. It currently maintains more than seven hundred bases on foreign 
soil, including in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Apart from 
deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has about 200,000 troops 
stationed overseas, and since September 11, it has also created numerous 
bases in Iraq and across Central Asia, including in such brutal 
dictatorships as Uzbekistan. A Web site that tracks security issues has 
estimated that in 2008, the US defense budget will be $711 billion, or 
about 48 percent of overall world military spending. This would be close 
to twice as much as the budgets of Europe and China, the second- and 
third-biggest military spenders, combined.
New York Review Books Children

Nobody thinks America?s ability to construct social, economic, or 
political institutions is remotely as impressive. This is the problem of 
?soft power,? the concept used by Joseph Nye, the Harvard political 
scientist, to describe geopolitical influence that is exerted through 
the persuasive dissemination of culture, values, ideas, and economic aid 
rather than through direct projection of military or economic strength. 
The interesting question?although not to Robert Kagan, the foreign 
policy commentator, who sometimes seems to regard ?soft power? as close 
to a contradiction in terms?is whether the United States can learn, or 
relearn, how to exercise ?soft power.? Perhaps this thought has 
infiltrated the Department of Defense; the mandate of its newly created 
Africom, the US command for Africa, includes not only military security 
but economic development, humanitarian work, and nation-building.

1.

The beginning of wisdom is to recall just how unlike the British Empire 
in its heyday America really is. Historical realism matters here. The 
essays and lectures collected in Eric Hobsbawm?s On Empire are all worth 
reading, and the last, ?Why America?s Hegemony Differs from Britain?s 
Empire,? is especially so. ?Current [political] debates,? says Hobsbawm,

     are particularly cloudy, because the nearest analogy to the world 
supremacy to which the United States government is committed is a set of 
words??empire,? ?imperialism??which are in flat contradiction to the 
traditional political self-definition of America, and which acquired 
almost universal unpopularity in the twentieth century. They are also in 
flat conflict with equally strongly held positive beliefs in the 
American political value system, such as ?self-determination? and 
?law??both domestic and international.

This does not rule out the possibility that the United States is 
destined?if doomed is not the more appropriate word?to exercise a 
preponderant influence over the world?s future. The size of the US 
economy alone would ensure that. But the United States cannot institute 
anything resembling the empire of the nineteenth-century British. The 
British Empire grew on the back of a commercially driven expansion of 
overseas trade, and at its heart was a small island state off the coast 
of northwest Europe. Certainly, military aggression played a large part 
in the empire?s expansion, but one must set against that not only the 
ease with which Britain recovered from the loss of its American colonies 
in the eighteenth century, but the ease with which Britain gave up its 
empire after World War II. Decolonization was often violent and messy, 
but its political repercussions in Britain were minimal.

The United States resembles Russia rather than Britain in its history of 
expansion across a continent. It imports immigrants where the British 
Isles exported emigrants; and even now, it is not essentially a trading 
nation. The United States has an annual trade deficit of some $800 
billion, and it has borrowed over a trillion dollars from China. What 
America has is military might. For Hobsbawm that means that when the 
United States government sees itself having to exercise power overseas, 
it will do it fitfully, violently, and to secure change where it defines 
the activity of a state as inimical to the American way of life.

Many questions in Hobsbawm?s account are left dangling. The most obvious 
is whether he is so unalterably opposed to American military 
intervention overseas that he would rather see the innocent starved and 
massacred than see their tormentors evicted by the United States. It is 
not merely heartless to view intervention with skepticism, and to insist 
that it can easily do more harm than good. Kosovo has not so far been a 
great success, for instance. On the other hand, it is impossible to 
regret NATO?s intervention to stop Serbian atrocities in Bosnia, and 
many commentators think that one of the worst consequences of the Iraq 
debacle is that the international community will be deterred from 
intervening when it could really do some good. Darfur comes to mind.

One question that is tackled in passing by Hobsbawm, but that is less 
immediately relevant in a world where nobody admits to imperialist 
ambitions, is what makes for successful imperialism. The question is 
sparked by the observation that from the Achaemenid Empire onward, 
empires that persisted did so because subject populations cooperated 
with their imperial masters. The Romans could govern much of Europe, 
North Africa, and Asia Minor only with the more or less willing help of 
their subjects, just as the British could govern India only with the 
help of their Indian subjects. Amy Chua?s Day of Empire provides an 
answer to the question of what makes empires sustainable that is, at 
first sight, deeply astonishing. Successful empires, she argues, tend to 
be tolerant; if they become intolerant late in their history, as they 
often seem to, it is a sign of decay. To begin on the basis of 
intolerance is to start from the wrong place strategically. The Nazis 
could never achieve their project of world domination precisely because 
they could not tolerate the existence of not only Jews, but Gypsies, 
Slavs, and other ethnic ?inferiors? as well.

Most readers will be startled by the thought that the Mongol Empire?one 
of Professor Chua?s main exhibits?was tolerant, but she is not arguing 
anything so implausible as that the Mongols were good Enlightenment 
liberals avant la lettre. Indeed, she goes out of her way to distinguish 
between the kind of toleration that allows an imperial power to maintain 
its authority over a widely dispersed, multiethnic population and the 
principled, liberal toleration enshrined in the separation of church and 
state of the US Constitution. Toleration in Chua?s sense amounts only to 
a readiness on the part of an imperial power to allow its subjects to 
believe whatever they liked so long as they remained peaceful and 
cooperative?much as the Romans did. Day of Empire is a thought-provoking 
book, covering as it does the rise and fall of the hyperpowers of their 
day from the Persians of the sixth century BCE to the contemporary 
United States. Its history is inevitably of the scissors-and-paste 
variety, but Chua is a professor of law at Yale and has a lawyer?s eye 
for the telling example.

The purpose of the book emerges in the introduction; Chua is a second- 
generation immigrant. Her father became a successful academic but was 
fiercely hostile to any idea of his daughter moving out of the 
traditional family he had established in his new country; he then 
acclimatized to the idea and is now proud of her independence of spirit. 
The United States became a great power not by building bigger and better 
weapons than anybody else but by inspiring the talented and the 
energetic to join in the American project. It has been a superpower 
built on toleration, both in the very broad sense Chua employs in other 
contexts?a capacity to employ the talents of all comers in a common 
project?and in the narrower, Enlightenment sense. But the implication is 
that there simply could not be an American Empire in the sense in which 
there was a British Empire. The British happily called Queen Victo- ria 
their ?Queen-Emperor.? Americans preach self-determination as a 
universal value.

The unkind question lurking here is clear enough. Is the United States 
about to decline into insularity, xenophobia, and intolerance? Chua 
leaves the question open, hoping that the better angels of the American 
character will determine America?s future. The answer is certainly less 
simple than the question. In the 1990s, Lou Dobbs?s nightly ravings 
against immigrants from south of the border would have been dismissed as 
a joke, or at best a rather silly reprise of the hostility to Chinese 
migrants in the early twentieth century or the Red Scare of the early 
1920s. These are not normal times, as Lou Dobbs?s current popularity 
suggests.

Tolerance comes more easily when we do not feel under threat. In the 
past two decades, the United States has lurched from a sense of 
omnipotence following the end of the cold war to a deep sense of 
insecurity since the September 11 attacks. Neither is justified. There 
is a great deal that cannot be achieved by brute force, and America?s 
real advantages in international competition lie elsewhere. There will 
inevitably be many regimes around the world that are both authoritarian 
and hostile to the United States; the democratic opponents of such 
regimes may take the American political system as a reproach to the 
local autocracy. US culture, moreover, is dangerously alluring to young 
people, and although its voracious consumers have enabled China and 
Japan to prosper, American protectionism (together with that of the 
European Union) has been bad for third-world farmers. Such conflicts, 
both of interest and ideology, are to be expected of international 
relations; they are what diplomacy is supposed to keep within peaceful 
bounds.

The oddity of the past eight years has been the determination of the 
present administration to alienate its friends and encourage its 
enemies. During a visit to England, Bush acknowledged for a moment that 
his Wild West rhetoric had been unhelpful to the American cause, 
although like Tony Blair, he remains unapologetic about having, as both 
men see it, liberated Iraq. Even so, it is clear that outside the narrow 
and unrepresentative circles of Islamic fundamentalism, 
anti-Americanism, as distinct from a high degree of hostility to the 
government of President Bush, is a minority taste. To be against all 
things American is to be against a modern way of life, and almost nobody is.

The question is whether the United States can capitalize on its material 
and human resources to steer the world in a peaceful direction. Parag 
Khanna?s The Second World is an ambitious but flawed attempt to answer 
that question. The title may mislead readers with long memories; it does 
not refer, as once it would have, to the ?socialist states? that filled 
the space?both geographically and in the minds of political 
scientists?between the liberal democracies of the industrialized first 
world and the underdeveloped third world. Khanna?s ?second world? 
contains all the places where the global competition between the United 
States, Europe, and China is being played out. His geopolitical 
speculations include Russia, Taiwan, and India as well as some plausibly 
?second-world? states?those poised uneasily between Europe and Russia, 
the ?Southern Tier? of Islamic states on Russia?s southern borders, 
including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, as well as Latin 
America and the Middle East.

Reading The Second World is hard work. Its author seems to have set out 
to antagonize the reader by writing both clumsily and self-praisingly. 
?During my travels through the second world,? he writes,

     I never left a country until I had developed a sense of its meaning 
on its own terms, until I had assimilated a blend of perspectives from 
cities, villages, and landscapes, based on conversations with a wide 
variety of people, including officials, academics, journalists, 
entrepreneurs, taxi drivers, and students.

One?s confidence in his in-depth understanding of three quarters of the 
globe is not increased by his professed admiration for Arnold Toynbee?s 
sprawling volumes on the rise and fall of civilizations.

The virtue of The Second World is neither plausibility nor reliability, 
but boldness. The balance of world power, according to Khanna, is an 
unstable equilibrium between three imperial enterprises, the American, 
the European, and the Chinese. The striking absence from these pages is 
Russia. This will astonish European readers, whose confidence in the 
ability of the European Union to stand up to Russian bullying is 
currently very low. Russia sits on larger reserves of oil and natural 
gas than any other country, and it is a more important source of energy 
for Europe than the Middle East. Under Vladimir Putin, the Russian 
government was uninhibited in using the bargaining strength that its 
energy resources provide, and this will not change under Dmitri 
Medvedev. The ?Great Russian chauvinism? of the nineteenth century seems 
to be reascendant, and on the evidence of the recent presidential 
election appears to be highly popular with the Russian people.

Khanna praises the European Union for its skill in using soft power. It 
is not just that the European Union has taken in the Baltic States and 
contemplates Ukraine and Belarus as potential members. Khanna sees 
almost no limit to Europe?s ability to draw its neighbors into its 
orbit. Since the continent of Europe is physically the western ?nose? of 
the Eurasian land mass, the prospect of a European Union becoming a 
Eurasian Union ought not to be shocking. Nonetheless, it is, not least 
because the European Union either suffers, or thinks it suffers, a 
permanent crisis of identity. What makes Europe European? The idea that 
the European Union is the heir of ?Christendom? was repudiated during 
the attempt to create a European Constitution and no large conception 
has taken its place.

For Khanna, Europe?s only competitor in soft-power politics is China. 
Indeed, the Chinese in his account emerge as masters of both hard and 
soft power. The Chinese buildup of their naval forces not only in the 
Taiwan Strait but all the way west to the Gulf of Arabia is familiar 
enough; but Khanna is rightly even more impressed by the reach of 
Chinese commercial interests, not only into expected places such as 
Angola, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, but into much of Latin America as well. In 
this competition, the United States is outclassed as a practitioner of 
soft-power politics.

The reasons why the US has failed to use nonmilitary forms of influence 
effectively are familiar; it is common currency among all these writers 
that the United States has not taken the trouble to understand the rest 
of the world. Moreover, the professed ideological purity of the United 
States? motives?the argument that its foreign policy is aimed at 
spreading democracy and the rule of law?is doubly disastrous. It strikes 
half the world as hypocritical; it strikes the other half as 
threatening. The Chinese do not profess the universal values of the 
liberal democracies and they protect some of the world?s most disgusting 
regimes from censure and intervention by the United Nations. But as to 
that, Fareed Zakaria quotes a young Chinese official who asked the 
obvious question: ?And how is that different from your support for a 
medieval monarchy in Saudi Arabia?? (The Saudis, it must be said, are 
not recently responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.)
2.

Fareed Zakaria?s analysis of the multi-polar world starts from the 
unchallenged hegemony that the United States enjoyed at the time of the 
fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet bloc. Since 
then, there has occurred what he engagingly calls ?The Rise of the 
Rest.? ?This is a book? he begins, ?not about the decline of America but 
rather about the rise of everyone else.? Still, the rise of other world 
powers means that in some respects, the United States has suffered a 
relative decline, and the optimism of the opening does not persist. The 
fact that highly educated Indians write software for around a tenth of 
the salaries of their American counterparts does not mean that American 
incomes will immediately fall, but it certainly puts downward pressure 
on the prices of many goods and services that can be traded on the world 
market. Welcome to globalization, says Zakaria.

The central question is not about living standards. It is about global 
leadership. Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and Luxembourg are among the 
most prosperous countries, but none is in the running for great-power 
status. Zakaria is interested in one question above all: Who will 
provide leadership in a multipolar world? Much of The Post-American 
World is devoted to canvassing alternatives for the multipolar future. 
It is very elegantly done, with a journalist?s keen eye for telling 
contemporary detail and a historian?s curiosity about the way the past 
constrains the present. There are few surprises, but Zakaria has a sharp 
eye for historical parallels and?more importantly?for the points where 
they break down. He is especially good on the ways in which the United 
States is unlike late-Victorian Britain; whatever ails the United 
States, it is not imperial overstretch. It has no class of imperial 
civil servants willing to settle with their families in foreign regions 
and spend their lives governing.

Zakaria begins with the obvious question: Will the United States or 
China be the leading power of the late twenty-first century? He reminds 
his readers that eighty-seven years before Columbus inadvertently 
discovered the continent of America, the Chinese admiral Zheng He set 
out on the first of seven vastly better equipped expeditions that took 
him all over the Indian Ocean. Zakaria does not say so, but some 
admirers of Zheng He think he explored the west coast of both South and 
North America as well. Immediately after Zheng?s voyages, however, the 
Chinese deliberately turned away from outward exploration, while Europe 
embarked on a still- unfinished project of Westernizing the entire globe.

Even someone as fluent as Zakaria might hesitate to write the history of 
the rise and fall of European imperialism in thirty-five pages. But this 
is less economic history than moral lesson. Five centuries ago, Western 
Europe demonstrated the power of practical, utilitarian, economically 
rational thinking. The key was social learning; discoveries once made 
were not forgotten, but refined and developed. The Chinese not only 
discovered gunpowder before Western Europe, but were employing it in 
cannons in the thirteenth century. Then they stopped.

Three centuries later, they needed the Portuguese to make cannons for 
them and needed Portuguese gunners to show them how to fire them 
properly. This process of discovery and loss was not peculiar to China; 
the ancient world came up with many separate discoveries that nobody had 
an incentive to develop for productive?or even for more effectively 
destructive?purposes. Zakaria seizes on the Chinese example not because 
it is unique but because of the double contrast between early modern 
Europe and early modern China on the one hand and contemporary China and 
the contemporary United States on the other.

As to why it was in Western Europe that the capacity for sustained 
social learning became established, Zakaria is undogmatic. Europe had 
many advantages, such as political decentralization, a geography that 
facilitated trade, and after the Reformation a religious culture that 
placed a high value on literacy. Nonetheless, there was no historical 
inevitability about the process. Technologically, fifteenth-century 
Europe was hardly in advance of the Roman Empire. Then, everything changed:

     By the sixteenth century, Europe had moved ahead. With the 
revolution in thought that is termed the Renaissance, men like 
Copernicus, Vesalius, and Galileo gave birth to modern science. Indeed, 
the hundred years between 1450 and 1550 marked the most significant 
break in human history?between faith, ritual, and dogma, on the one 
hand, and observation, experimentation, and critical thought, on the 
other. And it happened in Europe, pushing that civilization forward for 
centuries.

This was not an industrial revolution. Until the development of steam 
power in the later eighteenth century, Europeans depended on human and 
animal muscle with the assistance of wind and water, as they had two 
millennia before. It was, as Zakaria suggests, a cultural revolution. 
The idea of efficiency?though not the word?had seized the minds of 
generals, entrepreneurs, philosophers, and theologians. The mechanical 
clock, invented in the late thirteenth century, has been seen by many 
writers as emblematic of this cultural change; but everything conspired 
together. A final twist was that compared with China, Europe was 
relatively short of labor; this provided an incentive to work larger 
farms and work them more efficiently, and it provided the same incentive 
to adopt the devices that launched the textile industry ?Hargreaves?s 
multispindle spinning jenny and Arkwright?s spinning frame. An average 
English farm in 1800 was around 150 acres, and a Chinese farm one acre.

Since 1960, the Asian economies have grown at a faster pace than those 
of the West. First it was Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, then mainland China 
and, less dramatically, India. But they have also remained very 
different societies from their Western competitors. Have they 
Westernized, modernized, or what? Samuel Huntington?whose question it 
is?has no doubt that modern development and ?Westernness? are quite 
different, and that the new Asian powers have modernized without 
Westernizing. Zakaria thinks they have done both. They have Westernized 
in those matters in which there is an obvious advantage in doing so, 
which is to say in technology, management, banking, and regulation; but 
they have also done so in their tastes as consumers and especially in 
their clothes. Unsurprisingly, where there is the greatest ambivalence 
about becoming part of the modern world, as for example in Saudi Arabia, 
there is?to take a telling example?the least willingness to see women 
adopt Western dress. Clothes make a cultural statement. Western dress 
for women says that they are men?s equals; the chador is not a fashion 
statement but an ideological commitment.

The most interesting rising powers are China and India, the first a 
former cold war enemy, the second increasingly an ally. Zakaria, 
originally from India himself, thinks that their politics, economies, 
and future prospects are very different. Although India?s economy has 
grown very rapidly in recent years, India began a long way behind China 
and the gap is not closing:

     If there ever was a race between India and China, it?s over. 
China?s economy is three times the size of India?s and is still growing 
at a faster clip.

Moreover, there is little prospect of India converting economic growth 
into geopolitical power: ?India is a strong society with a weak state. 
It cannot harness its national power for national purpose.?

That leaves China as the primary challenger to American hegemony. Like 
Kagan and Khanna, Zakaria emphasizes how differently China and the US 
approach the world; the rise of China is not the rise of an Asian United 
States. The Chinese do not want to export a vision of the world; they 
are not missionaries in the way Europeans and Americans have been. 
Certainly, Chinese foreign policy is motivated by a good deal of 
resentment at ?the century of humiliation? that stretches from the Opium 
Wars of the 1840s to the Japanese occupation of the 1940s. It is not 
motivated by an enthusiasm for regime change, and it is strikingly 
unconcerned to make the world safe for democracy and human rights.

The regime wants no interference in China?s own backyard, and is visibly 
unhappy at outside nagging over its repressive one-party state. The aim 
of its foreign policy is not ideological, but primarily to secure the 
raw materials China needs for its breakneck expansion and to head off 
its competitors. Nonetheless, however unideological, the protection of 
Iran or the subvention of corrupt African regimes or pressure on North 
Korea to reveal its weapons has large political implications. The 
Chinese have gained a degree of veto power over international 
intervention, whether in Zimbabwe or Iran.

3.

What comes next? In spite of aggressive rhetoric from the US government, 
there is no prospect of a US?China arms race to match the cold war 
rivalry of the United States and Soviet Union. But a more old-fashioned 
form of great-power rivalry seems all too likely. This is the theme of 
Robert Kagan?s essay The Return of History and the End of Dreams. As the 
title suggests, he writes with some animus against Francis Fukuyama?s 
1992 best seller, The End of History and the Last Man. It is puzzling 
that he bothers. Fukuyama has moved a long way from the views he 
espoused then, while Kagan himself agrees that capitalist liberal 
democracy is by far the most attractive prospect for most of the world?s 
population. The point he insists on is one that few readers will resist: 
there is nothing inevitable about the triumph of democracy and universal 
peace and cooperation. Knowing just where Kagan stands is not easy. He 
writes as an old-fashioned realist. But an old-fashioned realist would 
not have supported the war in Iraq as he did, and as he apparently still 
does. Indeed, the future direction of US foreign policy gives plenty of 
room for anxiety. The British experience of Afghanistan in the 
nineteenth century and of Iraq in the twentieth gives every reason to 
fear both Obama?s enthusiasm for a wider war in Afghanistan and McCain?s 
for a continuing presence in Iraq. Perhaps understandably, Kagan has 
little to say about Iraq in The Return of History. He writes that the 
country has shifted to ?dependence on the US,? mentioning neither any of 
the cost?hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded and some two million 
refugees?nor the greatly increased influence of Iran within both Iraq 
and the region.

Still, Kagan?s defense of disenchanted realism is well articulated. His 
negative thesis is that there is no particular reason to suppose that 
autocracies?Russia and China in particular?will naturally or inevitably 
evolve into liberal democracies. Autocracies can be, and often are, 
enthusiastically supported by large numbers of their subjects; for many 
of those who do not fall foul of the political leadership, they can 
provide peace, security, and prosperity. They can also engage in 
interventions such as the recent Russian incursion in Georgia, so long 
as they know that there are no national or international forces willing 
to stop them. This will not be news to anyone with the least knowledge 
of European history; but it is a useful corrective to overoptimism about 
the prospect of the rulers of Russia or China suddenly discovering a 
passion for human rights. Unlike Khanna and Zakaria, Kagan takes Russia 
seriously. He also takes seriously the old dictum that a great power has 
no permanent friends, but only permanent interests. One should not look 
to form alliances on the basis of common ideological positions but on 
the basis of common interests. Why would democratic India help protect 
the military dictatorship in Burma except to counter the influence of China?

Like most American commentators, Kagan finds it impossible to sustain 
the mood of disenchantment. Having led the reader to imagine a world 
that resembles nineteenth-century Europe with added nuclear 
weapons?liberal regimes on the one side, autocracies on the other, and 
great-power politics as a rather dangerous game of chess?he switches 
gear. Reaching for Immanuel Kant?s wonderful and prescient sketch of a 
league of nations in his essay Perpetual Peace, Kagan tells us that the 
goal of a concert of nations devoted to peace, cooperation, and the 
spread of liberal, representative institutions is a noble ideal, and one 
that the United States should certainly promote. Indeed, as Zakaria and 
Chua agree, the promotion of this goal by peaceful, cooperative means is 
exactly where the United States? comparative advantage should be. We 
simply should not kid ourselves that the process will, at best, be 
anything more than partial. As Kant himself observed, ?from such crooked 
timber as humanity is made of, no straight thing was ever constructed.?



From lnp3 at panix.com  Mon Oct  6 08:18:57 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:18:57 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Rosenberg advocate dies
Message-ID: <48EA1E51.7010009@panix.com>

NY Times, October 6, 2008
Aaron Katz, Advocate for Rosenbergs, Dies at 92
By DENNIS HEVESI

Aaron Katz, who for more than 50 years relentlessly and publicly sought 
the exoneration of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the central figures in 
the nation?s most controversial spying case, died on Sept. 28 in Venice, 
Fla. He was 92 and lived in North Port, Fla.

The death was confirmed by his wife, Cynthia.

Mr. Katz was director of the National Committee to Reopen the Rosenberg 
Case for 42 years, repeatedly leading demonstrations outside the federal 
courthouse on Foley Square in Manhattan on the anniversary of the 
couple?s execution in Sing Sing?s electric chair on June 19, 1953. They 
had been found guilty of conspiring to give the Soviets atomic bomb secrets.

Mr. Katz was the director of the group, originally called the Committee 
to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Case, from 1963 to 2005. He had been 
active with the committee since the early 1950s.

Year after year, on or about the execution date, Mr. Katz organized a 
picket line outside the courthouse, calling for a new investigation into 
the conviction of the Rosenbergs and their friend Morton Sobell. The 
Rosenbergs and Mr. Sobell were found guilty in 1951 on charges of 
conspiring to deliver classified military and industrial information to 
the Soviet Union.

The demonstrations ended only in 1992, after the death of Judge Irving 
R. Kaufman, who had presided over the Rosenberg case.

Mr. Sobell served more than 18 years in prison, and for years Mr. Katz 
worked to clear his name. But last month Mr. Sobell, 91, after 
maintaining his innocence for 57 years, admitted that he and Julius 
Rosenberg had been spies for the Soviets during World War II, when the 
Soviets were allies of the United States.

?Yeah, yeah, yeah, call it that,? he said of the espionage label, making 
his admission in an interview with The New York Times. ?I never thought 
of it as that in those terms.?

Mr. Sobell also said that Ethel Rosenberg had been aware of her 
husband?s espionage but had not participated in it. ?She knew what he 
was doing,? he said, ?but what was she guilty of? Of being Julius?s wife.?

On Tuesday, Mrs. Katz said she had not told her husband of Mr. Sobell?s 
admission.

?He would have been very upset, mortified, to know that all 50 years he 
was spending defending the Rosenbergs and Morton, and to find out that 
now Morton is saying he and Julius were guilty,? Mrs. Katz said. ?He 
really believed in Morton?s innocence, as well as the Rosenbergs?. He 
also believed Ethel was framed.?

The Rosenbergs had two young sons, Robert and Michael, who later took 
the last name of their foster parents: Meeropol.

Michael Meeropol, now chairman of the economics department at Western 
New England College in Massachusetts, said that Mr. Katz had ?always 
argued that if Ethel and Julius, in fact, had done anything, it was not 
the secret of the atom bomb and certainly didn?t warrant the death penalty.?

?Nor did it justify breaking the rules by which American justice is 
supposed to be administered,? Mr. Meeropol said.

A consensus among scientists maintains that the atomic bomb information 
that prosecutors said the Rosenbergs had conspired to give to the 
Soviets was of little value, except to corroborate what the Soviets 
already knew from other spies.

In addition to leading annual protests to refocus attention on the 
Rosenberg case, Mr. Katz lobbied all three branches of the federal 
government, wrote dozens of letters to editors, gave interviews and 
helped establish support committees in other countries, said Leonard 
Lehrman, co-director of the Rosenberg committee.

?It was thanks to Aaron,? Mr. Lehrman said, ?that the struggle to get 
Ethel and Julius Rosenberg exonerated regarding the crime for which they 
were unjustly executed 55 years ago has continued to have international 
focus.? In part because of Mr. Katz?s efforts, Mr. Lehrman said, 26 
towns in France have a street, a square or a school dedicated to the 
Rosenbergs.

Aaron Katz was born in Manhattan on Oct. 22, 1915, one of two sons of 
Max and Leah Feller Katz. His brother, Chaim, was killed in Spain in 
1938 while fighting with the American Lincoln Brigade against the 
nationalist forces of Gen. Francisco Franco. Like his father, Aaron Katz 
became an insurance broker. He served in the merchant marine in World 
War II.

Mr. Katz?s first marriage, to Dorothy Kaminof, ended in divorce. In 
addition to his wife, the former Cynthia Willis, he is survived by a 
daughter, Sara Rowe; two grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren.

Mr. Katz was in Israel when the Rosenbergs were executed. The reaction 
of friends and relatives there pushed him to join the Rosenberg 
committee when he returned home. But his advocacy went beyond the 
Rosenberg case. He joined civil rights and anti-Vietnam War marches and 
lobbied against the death penalty.

?Aaron believed in fighting injustice wherever he saw it,? Michael 
Meeropol said. ?He was tireless: the old joke about a bulldog on a bone 
who won?t let go.?


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Mon Oct  6 08:19:16 2008
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (s.artesian)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 16:19:16 +0200 (GMT+02:00)
Subject: [Marxism] Fall Street
Message-ID: <29633534.1223302756577.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Better to be here than at home in NYC

some things:

1. fictitious capital: all capital becomes fictitious when it cannot reproduce
and or refinance.

2. EU, Japan, BRIC are not capable of replacing the US as capital`s center of gravity
even when the gravityis that of a black hole.

3. Neither liquidity nor solvency are solutions, since the problem is all about
earnings, return on investment, which is why all capital markets, not just debt
markets are contracting.

4. Nationalize banks? Can`t we do better than that?  Damn if this isnt the time to
talk about the whole system and the need for expropriation....when will it be?

5. Aron is right;  abstain from Morales 8/10 recall

6. interesting article in IHT today about FNMA course to disaster.  Assume it has appeared also 
in NYT. 


From lnp3 at panix.com  Mon Oct  6 08:30:32 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:30:32 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Anarchism and gays
Message-ID: <48EA2108.2010904@panix.com>

Anarchism and Gays
By: DOUG IRELAND

It may come as a surprise even to gay activists well-read in their 
history that, more than a half-century before the 1950 founding of the 
Mattachine Society as the first, lasting modern association of 
homosexual liberationists, there was a strong and vibrant discourse in 
America which unfailingly defended the right to same-sex love.

It came not from homosexual intellectuals, but from American anarchists.

In the just-published "Free Comrades: Anarchism and Homosexuality in the 
United States, 1895-1917," Terence Kissack, the former executive 
director of San Francisco's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender 
Historical Society, has given us the first book-length study of this 
little-known phenomenon. The work is a vital and important addition to 
gay historiography.

It was thanks to American anarchist writers and propagandists that the 
defense of homosexuality developed in Europe by the likes of Karl 
Ulrichs and Magnus Hirschfeld in Germany and Edward Carpenter and John 
Addington Symonds in England crossed the Atlantic to these shores - at a 
time when no other political movement or notable public figure in the US 
dealt with the issue of same-sex eroticism and love.

"The anarchist sex radicals," Kissack writes, "were interested in the 
ethical, social, and cultural place of homosexuality within society, 
because that question lies at the nexus of individual freedom and state 
power."

The towering figure of American anarchism, Emma Goldman, was an 
extremely charismatic public speaker who lectured to large audiences all 
over the United States, reaching, she estimated, some 50,000 to 75,000 
people a year. And quite frequently she spoke about homosexuality, 
repeatedly devoting whole lectures to the subject.

A contemporary account of one of those Goldman lectures on homosexuality 
reported: "Every person who came to the lecture possessing contempt and 
disgust for the homo-sexualists [sic] and who upheld the attitude of the 
authorities that those given to this particular form of sex expression 
should be hounded down and persecuted, went away with a broad and 
sympathetic understanding of the question and a conviction that in 
matters of personal life, freedom should reign."

The reason that Goldman and other anarchist figures began to include a 
defense of same-sex love in their discourse toward the end of the 19th 
century was that "homosexuality had become a focus of surveillance and 
regulation by police and other authorities... convictions for the crime 
of sodomy jumped and medical journals began to feature articles on the 
subject..."

full: 
http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20096250&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=592782&rfi=6


From mkaradjis at theplanet.net.au  Sun Oct  5 05:13:08 2008
From: mkaradjis at theplanet.net.au (Michael Karadjis)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:13:08 +0700
Subject: [Marxism] China milk scandal
References: <f712a40bc3d.48e64b4c@scu.edu.au>
Message-ID: <A087C954FF1F4D12B010644420A42370@Mihalis>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <n.fredman.11 at scu.edu.au>

>>Nick you might be interested in this on Vietnam's decision to ban 22
Chinese milk brands:

Thanks Mike. You're previously mentioned what seems to be VN's sensible 
regulatory approach to natural therapies, have you seen anything more 
generally about the approach to infant nutrition there, given increased 
recognition of the problem of with formula pushing, especially in the 
third world?

E.g. the World Health Organisation recommends breastfeeding for a 
*minimum* of 2 years, which seems to surprise some people, including 
some doctors.

Reply:

It would be nice to think so Nick. In fact, the Women's Union heavily 
pushes breast milk, and it does spectacularly good grass-roots work.

Meanwhile, however, the 'market' does it spectacular work via 
advertising etc, spreading the opposite message. Fortunately, the WU's 
message is pretty effective among most poor women, if only because they 
can't afford imported powder. It is a bit of a different story among 
'middle class' urbanites, however. Many never breast feed, and even 
after that period oflife is over, still insist on giving their young 
children powder instead of Vietnam's excellent locally produced fresh 
milk, believing it to be of higher "nutritional value" etc. Discussions 
can be quite strange.



From spalmer999 at yahoo.com  Mon Oct  6 09:38:48 2008
From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 08:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Fight every foreclosure,
	demand real nationalisation of banks
In-Reply-To: <2fa1449b0810060626y7fbe536cyf430fb046997ae33@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <141036.81852.qm@web81906.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

What is 'real' nationalization contrasted with 'faux' nationalization. After all Bernanke supports nationalization (testimony to Congress)?

Just cancel all the mortgages, it's much simpler than getting involved in helping capital fix its system. Combined with anti-foreclosure, anti-homeless movements, infrastructure program locally to restore communities. At this point 'one step of real movement is worth a thousand programs'.

Steve


--- On Mon, 10/6/08, Andrew Pollack <acpollack2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Andrew Pollack <acpollack2 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Marxism] Fight every foreclosure, demand real nationalisation of banks
> To: "Steve Palmer" <spalmer999 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 6:26 AM
> I agree completey with L?ko. I would add that the
> lenders' strike --
> especially the inability of corporations to sell commercial
> paper to fund
> everyday activities -- is going to very soon lead to mass
> layoffs and
> cutbacks, which will necessitate mass actions against
> these, and will, as
> with antiforeclosure activities, make nationalization of
> the banks (and in
> some cases of those corporations) which are denying these
> funds an eminently
> discussible demand.
> 
> L?ko wrote:
> I don't see a contradiction among the two, on the
> contrary, the demand for
> the nationalisation of the banking system is the unifying
> central demand for
> 
> such an anti-foreclosure movement, and concrete mass
> actions against
> concrete foreclosures and evictions are the form a mass
> movement for a
> _real_ nationalsation of the banking system can take.
> ________________________________________________
> 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/spalmer999%40yahoo.com


      


From spalmer999 at yahoo.com  Mon Oct  6 09:44:57 2008
From: spalmer999 at yahoo.com (Steve Palmer)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 08:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] The evangelical roots of economics
In-Reply-To: <48EA14A4.7070305@panix.com>
Message-ID: <648013.14265.qm@web81908.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Wow. Where did the Chartists go?!?!?! A huge revolutionay proletarian movement of millions directed against capitalism and embryonic British imperialism (independence for Ireland) just written out of history? The evangelicals were a pimple on the backside of capitalism compared to the Chartists.

--- On Mon, 10/6/08, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:

> From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
> Subject: [Marxism] The evangelical roots of economics
> To: "Steve Palmer" <spalmer999 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 6:37 AM
> Let there be markets:
> The evangelical roots of economics
> 
> By Gordon Bigelow
> 
> When evangelical Christianity first grew into a powerful
> movement, 
> between 1800 and 1850, studies of wealth and trade were
> called 
> ?political economy.? The two books at the center of
> this new learning 
> were Adam Smith?s Wealth of Nations (1776) and David
> Ricardo?s 
> Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817). This
> was the period 
> of the industrial transformation of Britain, a time of
> rapid urban 
> growth and rapidly fluctuating markets. These books offered
> explanations 
> of how societies become wealthy and how they can stay that
> way. They 
> made the accelerated pace of urban life and industrial
> workshops seem 
> understandable as part of a program that modern history
> would follow. 
> But by the 1820s, a number of Smith?s and Ricardo?s
> ideas had become 
> difficult for the growing merchant and investor class to
> accept. For 
> Smith, the pursuit of wealth was a grotesque personal
> error, a 
> misunderstanding of human happiness. In his first book, The
> Theory of 
> Moral Sentiments (1759), Smith argued that the acquisition
> of money 
> brings no good in itself; it seems attractive only because
> of the 
> mistaken belief that fine possessions draw the admiration
> of others. 
> Smith welcomed acquisitiveness only because he
> concluded?in a 
> proposition carried through to Wealth of Nations?that
> this pursuit of 
> ?baubles and trinkets? would ultimately enrich society
> as a whole. As 
> the wealthy bought gold pickle forks and paid servants to
> herd their pet 
> peacocks, the servants and the goldsmiths would benefit. It
> was on this 
> dubious foundation that Smith built his case for freedom of
> trade.
> 
> By the 1820s and ?30s, this foundation had become
> increasingly troubling 
> to free-trade advocates, who sought, in their study of
> political 
> economy, not just an explanation of rapid change but a
> moral 
> justification for their own wealth and for the outlandish
> sufferings 
> endured by the new industrial poor. Smith, who scoffed at
> personal 
> riches, offered no comfort here. In The Wealth of Nations,
> the shrewd 
> man of business was not a hero but a hapless bystander.
> Ricardo?s work 
> offered different but similarly troubling problems. Working
> from a basic 
> analysis of the profits of land ownership, Ricardo
> concluded that the 
> interests of different groups within an economy?owners,
> investors, 
> renters, laborers?would always be in conflict with one
> another. 
> Ricardo?s credibility with the capitalists was
> unquestionable: he was 
> not a philosopher like Adam Smith but a successful
> stockbroker who had 
> retired young on his earnings. But his view of capitalism
> made it seem 
> that a harmonious society was a thing of the past: class
> conflict was 
> part of the modern world, and the gentle old England of
> squire and 
> farmer was over.
> 
> The group that bridled most against these pessimistic
> elements of Smith 
> and Ricardo was the evangelicals. These were middle-class
> reformers who 
> wanted to reshape Protestant doctrine. For them it was
> unthinkable that 
> capitalism led to class conflict, for that would mean that
> God had 
> created a world at war with itself. The evangelicals
> believed in a 
> providential God, one who built a logical and orderly
> universe, and they 
> saw the new industrial economy as a fulfillment of God?s
> plan. The free 
> market, they believed, was a perfectly designed instrument
> to reward 
> good Christian behavior and to punish and humiliate the
> unrepentant.
> 
> full: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/05/0080538
> 
> ________________________________________________
> 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/spalmer999%40yahoo.com


      


From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Mon Oct  6 09:48:39 2008
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:48:39 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Breaking The Silence - opposing the occupation
Message-ID: <d2e.2b0a637d.361b8d57@aol.com>



By Cherrie Heywood
 
RAMALLAH, West Bank, Oct 2 (IPS) - An Israeli police commander has  called 
them "provocateurs", "militants", and, "lawbreakers". Earlier in the year  the 
Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) decided that their presence in the city of  
Hebron, 30km south of Jerusalem in the Palestinian West Bank, constituted a  
security threat and banned them from the city, stating that any member of the  
organisation caught there would be expelled forthwith.

They've  been spat at, stoned and assaulted, but these former members of the 
IDF, many of  whom served in Hebron, are determined to expose what is being 
done in their name  and in the name of Israel's security. 

Breaking the Silence (BTS) was  co-founded in 2004 by Yehuda Shaul, 26, an 
Israeli soldier who served for nearly  three years in the volatile city of 
Hebron. 

The organisation's main aim  is to break the silence and taboo surrounding 
the behaviour of Israeli soldiers  in the Palestinian territories in an 
endeavour to enlighten ordinary Israelis on  what happens behind the scenes as their 
sons and daughters, husbands and wives  serve the Jewish state. 
 
full -  _http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44104_ 
(http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44104)  


Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting  from their worst 
motives, will somehow produce the most good. 



**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.  
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!      
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)

From walterlx at earthlink.net  Mon Oct  6 09:51:30 2008
From: walterlx at earthlink.net (Walter Lippmann)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:51:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Washington Post: A Choice for Latin America (editorial)
Message-ID: <1372137.1223308290206.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

This looks at things 180% the opposite of reality.

Latin American integration is on the order of the
day as the continent moves slowly away from the US
domination it has suffered for so long.

Comments:

The better question is should and for how long will
the people of the United States allow the government
to bail out the obscenely rich with money taken from
the working people in order to guarantee the private
ownership, domination and ultimate control of the
natural resources of the planet in which we exist?

As this makes obvious, the Washington Post, like many,
uphold the system of parliamentary democracy only for
so long as that system prevents people from taking up
their own interests, needs and struggles. They thrilled
at the April 2002 anti-Chavez coup in Venezuela and none
can have any confidence that they would not stoop to any
anti-democratic measures to maintain the domination of
capitalism in the United States were they to feel it in
danger, as they rather obviously DO feel it threatened.

Washington's anti-democratic posture will be coming home
to roost right here in the United States as some will be
campaigning against the subsidized home heating oil now
being sold in poorer communities in the U.S. northwest.

Perhaps most eloquent here is the concluding sentence of
this amazingly brazen editorial:

"Sooner or later they must be forced to choose
between Mr. Ch?vez's half-baked socialism and
the democracy of the 21st century."

To the Washington Post and the enemies of Venezuelan and
Bolivian democracy, "the democracy of the 21st century"
was on display on Friday in Congress, and today on Wall
Street, where the market has just gone below 10,000 for
the first time since 2004. THAT is the democracy which
Washington believes in. Let's be completely clear on it.

But democracy is a good thing, not a bad thing, as Fidel
Castro has been quite eloquently reminding us recently:

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM (a reflection on Chavez):

(two paragraphs only here, but really essential ones)

Hugo Ch?vez is a Venezuelan soldier. In his mind, Bolivar?s ideas
germinated only naturally. Suffice it to observe the way in which his
thinking went through different political stages, starting from his
humble origin, the school, the military academy, his readings of
History, the reality of his country and the humiliating presence of
the Yankee domination.

He was not a General; he didn?t have any armed institution under his
command. He didn?t perpetrate a coup d??tat; nor could he do so. 
He did not want to wait; nor could he. He rebelled himself; he took 
up full responsibility for the events and turned the prison into a
school. He conquered the sympathy of the people and gained their
support for his cause while being out of government. He won the
elections under a bourgeois Constitution. He took an oath under that
agonizing document and swore allegiance to a new Constitution. He
clashed with both right and left preconceived ideas and started the
Bolivarian Revolution in the midst of the most difficult subjective
conditions in the whole Latin America.

FULL: 
http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/reflexiones/2008/ing/f260908i.html

And this morning, the stock market has fallen below 10,000 for
the first time in four years, a further indication that the
bailout provided no magic bullet at all:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100600847.html


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
=========================================================

The Washington Post
Editorial
A Choice for Latin America
Should the United States continue
to subsidize governments that treat it as an enemy?
Monday, October 6, 2008; A14

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/05/AR2008100501851.html

WITH U.S. attention fixed elsewhere, a significant part of Latin America
continues to march away from the "Washington consensus" of democracy and
free-market capitalism that has governed the region for a generation. The latest
step came last week in Ecuador, where voters approved a new constitution that
concentrates power in the hands of President Rafael Correa. Mr. Correa has
adopted Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez's slogan of "socialism of the 21st
century" and has largely imported Mr. Ch?vez's political model. The new
constitution repeals a limit on presidential terms that had stood since the
country returned to democracy in 1979, and it could allow Mr. Correa to stay in
office until 2017. It also grants him control over the central bank and,
indirectly, the judiciary and electoral authority. The president already
dominates the media after seizing control of three private television networks
several months ago; so heavy-handed was government propaganda ahead of the
referendum that even the typically timid Organization of American States took
note.

In addition to Ecuador, Mr. Ch?vez's satellites now include Nicaragua, Bolivia
and Cuba; Honduras and Paraguay may be swinging his way. Most are moving to
embrace 20th-century economic policies that the world outside Latin America
almost universally recognizes as unworkable, like the state takeover of
industries. Their presidents seek to monopolize power, limit the freedom of the
press and independence of the courts, and paint the United States as an enemy.
Several are cultivating alliances with Iran, and Mr. Ch?vez is steadily
deepening his military relationship with Russia, which announced last month an
agreement to supply Venezuela with nuclear technology.

The Bush administration has struggled for years with the question of how to
respond to these developments. For the most part it has chosen to sidestep Mr.
Ch?vez's provocations, calculating that his regime will eventually
self-destruct -- a bet that looks better with each drop in the price of oil. The
U.S. Treasury has sanctioned individuals in Mr. Ch?vez's inner circle for
supporting terrorism, but the State Department refrained from designating the
government as a supporter of terrorism -- a step that could cripple the
Venezuelan economy. Last month, the administration moved to suspend trade
privileges for Bolivia, after President Evo Morales blocked U.S. aid programs
aimed at reducing coca production and expelled the U.S. ambassador. But with
administration support the House renewed the same trade preferences for Ecuador
last week.

Contrary to the rhetoric of their leaders, the United States retains enormous
leverage in Latin countries: Thirty thousand jobs in Bolivia and 400,000 in
Ecuador depend on the trade deals, while Nicaragua and Honduras profit through
the Central American Free Trade Agreement. That power to punish
already-impoverished countries should not be employed lightly. But neither
should rulers such as Mr. Morales, Mr. Correa and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega be
allowed to dismantle democratic institutions and attack U.S. interests while
benefiting from American subsidies. Sooner or later they must be forced to
choose between Mr. Ch?vez's half-baked socialism and the democracy of the 21st
century.











.

=========================================
     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  Mon Oct  6 10:59:24 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:59:24 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Jesus Fucking Christ
Message-ID: <48EA43EC.5080108@panix.com>

NY Times, October 6, 2008
It?s a Healthy Marriage of Faith and Filmmaking
By JULIE BLOOM

An almost all-volunteer cast and crew, including a star who was an ?80s 
teen heartthrob, and a plot about a firefighter who saves his marriage 
by turning to God ? it hardly sounds like a recipe for box office 
success, let alone a best-selling book. But that?s what the film 
?Fireproof? has spawned.

The movie features Kirk Cameron, an alumnus of the television show 
?Growing Pains,? as the firefighter, and it cost just $500,000 to 
produce. Yet it opened two weekends ago with $6.5 million in ticket 
sales, good for No. 4 at the box office, just a few spots behind the No. 
1 big-budget action thriller ?Eagle Eye? and five spots ahead of Spike 
Lee?s World War II epic, ?Miracle at St. Anna.? This past weekend 
?Fireproof? made $4.1 million more and so far has about $12.5 million 
total, according to estimates by Media by Numbers, a box office tracking 
company.

The movie is the benefit of a highly targeted marketing plan and the 
latest success for Sherwood Pictures, a tiny production company 
affiliated with Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga., about 100 miles 
southwest of Macon. It was directed by Alex Kendrick, 38, and written by 
Mr. Kendrick and his brother, Stephen, 35, with the church?s senior 
pastor, Michael Catt, serving as an executive producer.

In the film Mr. Cameron plays Caleb Holt, a type-A firefighter who 
rescues children from burning buildings but whose marriage is close to 
ruin. As he is about to go forward with a divorce, his father steps in 
and gives him a book called ?The Love Dare,? a 40-day challenge that 
teaches married couples to use Scripture to learn to love unconditionally.

full: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/movies/06fire.html

----

NY Times, October 6, 2008
Television Review | '17 Kids and Counting'; 'Opportunity Knocks'
O.K., but Can You Get a Cab in New York?
By GINIA BELLAFANTE

Whatever its other intentions ?17 Kids and Counting? has the potential 
to keep the culture wars raging along. This series, being shown Mondays 
on TLC, follows a round of specials documenting the daily logistics of 
the Duggars of Tontitown, Ark., the evangelical Christian family of a 
couple named Jim Bob and Michelle, who during the course of their 
24-year marriage have produced 10 sons and 7 daughters, spread out in a 
7,000-square-foot house with nine bathrooms.

The Duggars have been the subject of fierce debate online, where liberal 
women often condemn their choices as reckless and conservative women 
defend their patience and commitment as inspirational.

?Let?s pretend that the Duggars thought like you and tore off each 
other?s fingernails instead of having many children,? wrote a Christian 
blogger, responding to a woman who said she would mutilate her hands 
rather than go through labor so many times. ?If they did that, would you 
praise them? No, you would most likely blame their faith for that too.? 
For obvious reasons Michelle is also the scourge of women on infertility 
Web sites. (A typical post: ?I?d like to give birth to just one healthy 
baby, and this woman squeezes them out like Pez. Yeah, I?m bitter.?)

A call to parenthood that would cause 99.9 percent of American couples 
to sneak out in the middle of the night and leave their children with a 
lifetime supply of juice boxes does not even appear to overwhelm the 
Duggars, and that has the effect of making them seem denial-prone or 
indifferent even as they are shown to be paying considerable attention 
to the small nation state they oversee.

The Duggars home-school their children and create whole domains of 
responsibility rather than simply doling out chores. The laundry room, 
as Michelle puts it, ?currently that?s Jinger?s jurisdiction.? (All the 
Duggar children have names that begin with the letter J: Josiah, 
Jedidiah, Joy-Anna, Johannah.)

Michelle never seems to raise her voice or even grow tense. Jim Bob 
manages to keep his hair perfectly combed. This is all quite 
mesmerizing, as if a 300-pound person suddenly landed in an ice rink 
during a figure skating event and performed a quadruple axel without 
incident. The Duggars aren?t even so exhausted as to say, ?Seventeen is 
enough.? Another child is due in January, and the couple broke the news 
to the rest of the family during an appearance on ?Today? in May. When 
the obstetrician calls, who among us doesn?t want to tell Meredith 
Vieira first?

The premiere episode of ?17 Kids and Counting? tracked the Duggars? 
?Today? trip to New York. While the family toured the city, the 
producers of the TLC series prompted the children to deliver their 
streaming impressions, and the results are very ?Green Acres.? They 
cannot get over all the hustle and mayhem. ?In Central Park there?s 
actually children there,? one of the boys says. ?The rest of the city I 
didn?t see too many children, but Central Park there was a lot of kids.?

Jim Bob brought his prejudices with him, believing you can only hail a 
taxi if you?re waving money in your hand. Another boy is entranced by 
the large screens in Times Square even though some of the ads are 
?raunchy.? The Duggar children are not allowed to watch cable 
television, only obliged to appear on it.

The family has received so much news-media attention during the past 
year ? the Duggars are frequently recognized during their stay in 
Manhattan when they are not presumed to be Amish ? that ?17 Kids and 
Counting? presupposes a certain amount of knowledge on the viewer?s 
part. It does not address the most glaring question any newcomer will 
have: Why are there 17 Duggar children? While on the pill 20 years ago, 
Michelle had a miscarriage that left her bereft and turned her against 
birth control. ?They were grieved! They were Christians! They were 
pro-life!,? the family Web site, duggarfamily.com, explains. ?They asked 
God to bless them with as many children as He saw fit.?

?17 Kids and Counting? maintains a compassionate tone toward the 
Duggars. But its existence seems designed to make anyone watching it 
feel righteous. The mother of the well-spoken only child gets to feel 
smug. The religious mother of six gets to feel as though Christian 
families are sacred. This show doesn?t exploit the people in it; it 
exploits the divisions among everyone watching.


From mikedf at amnh.org  Mon Oct  6 11:25:55 2008
From: mikedf at amnh.org (Mike Friedman)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:25:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Marxism] On leaflets produced by this list
In-Reply-To: <mailman.25886.1223258871.2559.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
References: <mailman.25886.1223258871.2559.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <51108.216.73.245.20.1223313955.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org>

I've been out of the loop, so I wasn't even aware of this initiative until
I tried catching up on a marxmail backlog, but -- Joaquin's dismissal
notwithstanding -- it's a good idea. There is considerable potential for
this kind of effort to take off. Potential -- but, who knows? On several
occasions, internet organizing has had a major impact on national
demonstrations, but on others, it has just fizzled. As to the whys and
wherefores... I do agree with Joaquin that the approach shouldn't make a
call for the nationalization of the banks. I think we need to distinguish
clearly between nationalization by the bourgeois (U.S.) state and
nationalization by a workers's state. Not ALL nationalizations by
bourgeois states are impermissable. For example, we defend AMTRAK and
promote a NATIONAL health care program, but these are nationalizations
that respond to specific demands to meet human needs. They are part of
specific 'packages' of demands that address two things: athe inability of
capitalism to handle human needs given its commodification of everything
(such as transportation and health care) and the need for *socialization*
in order to address those needs. And when we raise demands for national
(i.e., state) programs or nationalization of this or that branch of
industry, we've traditionally also entwined this with a demand for
democratic control by working people. Maybe I'm looking at finance capital
the wrong way, but somehow, I can't see it as lending itself (pun
intended) to this sort of suite of demands. What we want for a financial
system is so radically different... I think we might want to call for
public scrutiny of the banks' records, which is a sort of nationalization,
but not state seizure of the financial institutions. All that would mean
is leaving former Goldmann-Sachs CEO Paulson as acting CEO of the whole
shebang.

Aside from that, in the current juncture, I see folks responding to a
totally different approach. The "bailout" is supposed to be a stimulus
package. A capitalist stimulus package. We need to put forward a working
peoples' stimulus package that starts from just those things that the
rulers don't and will not address: mortgate debt removal, public housing,
rent control, public works programs to build housing, schools, hospitals,
etc.,  universal health care, expansion of medicare coverage, and so on.



> Message: 13
> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:10:36 -0500
> From: "Anthony Boynton" <anthony.boynton at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Marxism] On leaflets produced by this list
> To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Message-ID:
> 	<7b8a676d0810051710n75c749a4u89f85e20607bb96b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I think the experiment with producing a leaflet by Wiki has been a failure
> so far. I contributed to the draft just to see what would happen. Not much
> happened. Joaquin -dissolved as he is, pedictably poo-poo ed the whole
> effort. Jim corrected the spelling, I wrote I 15 second attention grabber
> based on Chavista 21st century socialism, and someone else wrote an
> industrial smoke stack SLP sleeping pill. That was it.
>
> However,even though this list does not seem to be much of a center for
> organizing any kind of propraganda, or agitation, or Joaquin forbid,
> organization, it might at tomse point serve for any of the above, and is
> worth thiking about.
>
> One thing that is lacking on this list, is a discussion of platform.
> Joaquin
> at least is clead, he does not want to talk about anything beyond things
> like "No foreclosures." This is clearly inadaquate, if simply for the
> reason
> that lots of people are losing not just houses, but jobs and pensions.
> Shouldn't we address thos issues too?
>
> And the banks were headed under the waves. Will they be able to stay
> afloat
> after the bail out? Joaquin thinks not. If not, shouldn't the left have
> something to say about it?. Like buy their stock for a penny a share,
> legalistically doing nothing unconstitutional but effectively confiscating
> them?
>
> If the brougeoisie nationaoizes corporations for their own reasons, this
> is
> still a step towards socialism. At least that was Lenin's attitutde.
> Monoplies in private hands are just a step from state owned monopolies,
> which are just a step from socialcialized property.
>
> Why should we put out any sort of leaflet? Because there are probably a
> lot
> of people looking for answers that they are just not getting on TV or
> finding on the internet.
>
> And who better to try to answer their questions than people on this list?
>
> Anthony




From adambrichmond at yahoo.com  Mon Oct  6 11:28:15 2008
From: adambrichmond at yahoo.com (Adam Richmond)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Anarchism and gays
In-Reply-To: <48EA2108.2010904@panix.com>
Message-ID: <650498.13169.qm@web54604.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Ireland states:

Indeed, Wilde's critiques of Marx - who had used homosexuality to have
Bakunin thrown out of the First International - were very similar to
those of Bakunin. 

I'm not aware of Marx doing this.? Does anyone know what Ireland is talking about?
Adam Richmond
 

--- On Mon, 10/6/08, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
Subject: [Marxism] Anarchism and gays
To: "Adam Richmond" <adambrichmond at yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 7:30 AM

Anarchism and Gays
By: DOUG IRELAND

It may come as a surprise even to gay activists well-read in their 
history that, more than a half-century before the 1950 founding of the 
Mattachine Society as the first, lasting modern association of 
homosexual liberationists, there was a strong and vibrant discourse in 
America which unfailingly defended the right to same-sex love.

It came not from homosexual intellectuals, but from American anarchists.

In the just-published "Free Comrades: Anarchism and Homosexuality in the 
United States, 1895-1917," Terence Kissack, the former executive 
director of San Francisco's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender 
Historical Society, has given us the first book-length study of this 
little-known phenomenon. The work is a vital and important addition to 
gay historiography.

It was thanks to American anarchist writers and propagandists that the 
defense of homosexuality developed in Europe by the likes of Karl 
Ulrichs and Magnus Hirschfeld in Germany and Edward Carpenter and John 
Addington Symonds in England crossed the Atlantic to these shores - at a 
time when no other political movement or notable public figure in the US 
dealt with the issue of same-sex eroticism and love.

"The anarchist sex radicals," Kissack writes, "were interested
in the 
ethical, social, and cultural place of homosexuality within society, 
because that question lies at the nexus of individual freedom and state 
power."

The towering figure of American anarchism, Emma Goldman, was an 
extremely charismatic public speaker who lectured to large audiences all 
over the United States, reaching, she estimated, some 50,000 to 75,000 
people a year. And quite frequently she spoke about homosexuality, 
repeatedly devoting whole lectures to the subject.

A contemporary account of one of those Goldman lectures on homosexuality 
reported: "Every person who came to the lecture possessing contempt and 
disgust for the homo-sexualists [sic] and who upheld the attitude of the 
authorities that those given to this particular form of sex expression 
should be hounded down and persecuted, went away with a broad and 
sympathetic understanding of the question and a conviction that in 
matters of personal life, freedom should reign."

The reason that Goldman and other anarchist figures began to include a 
defense of same-sex love in their discourse toward the end of the 19th 
century was that "homosexuality had become a focus of surveillance and 
regulation by police and other authorities... convictions for the crime 
of sodomy jumped and medical journals began to feature articles on the 
subject..."

full: 
http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20096250&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=592782&rfi=6

________________________________________________
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/adambrichmond%40yahoo.com



      

From lnp3 at panix.com  Mon Oct  6 11:46:55 2008
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:46:55 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Anarchism and gays
In-Reply-To: <650498.13169.qm@web54604.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <650498.13169.qm@web54604.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <48EA4F0F.2000905@panix.com>

Adam Richmond wrote:
> Ireland states:
> 
> Indeed, Wilde's critiques of Marx - who had used homosexuality to have
> Bakunin thrown out of the First International - were very similar to
> those of Bakunin. 
> 
> I'm not aware of Marx doing this.  Does anyone know what Ireland is talking about?

That's a good question. I am cc'ing Doug Ireland. As somebody who has 
written about Marx and Engels's unfortunate but private prejudices 
against same-sexer's 
(http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/sex_gender/engels_homophobia.htm), 
I have never heard anything at all about Bakunin. I should add that I 
have also written in some depth about the Marx-Bakunin feud. 
(http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/Bakunin.htm)



From billyoc at gmail.com  Mon Oct  6 11:48:34 2008
From: billyoc at gmail.com (Bill O'Connor)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:48:34 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Jesus Fucking Christ
In-Reply-To: <48EA43EC.5080108@panix.com> (Louis Proyect's message of "Mon, 06
	Oct 2008 12:59:24 -0400")
References: <48EA43EC.5080108@panix.com>
Message-ID: <87zllhaa31.fsf@t22.Belkin>

Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> writes:

> NY Times, October 6, 2008
> It?s a Healthy Marriage of Faith and Filmmaking
> By JULIE BLOOM
>
> An almost all-volunteer cast and crew, including a star who was an ?80s 
> teen heartthrob, and a plot about a firefighter who saves his marriage 
> by turning to God ? it hardly sounds like a recipe for box office 
> success, let alone a best-selling book. But that?s what the film 
> ?Fireproof? has spawned.
>
> The movie features Kirk Cameron, an alumnus of the television show 

Ohh, yeah... That guy.  He was in those Christian Phalangist "Left
Behind" movies.  I know you're a film critic, Louis, I'm sorry you had
to see this.  ;(

> Whatever its other intentions ?17 Kids and Counting? has the potential 
> to keep the culture wars raging along. This series, being shown Mondays 
> on TLC, follows a round of specials documenting the daily logistics of 
> the Duggars of Tontitown, Ark., the evangelical Christian family of a 
> couple named Jim Bob and Michelle, who during the course of their 
> 24-year marriage have produced 10 sons and 7 daughters, spread out in a 
> 7,000-square-foot house with nine bathrooms.

Two great pics of the lovely Duggars family:

http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/1/16/DuggarVagina.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/80/213764858_97441bd4b7.jpg



From skeyesvogt at gmail.com  Mon Oct  6 11:49:47 2008
From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes-Vogt)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:49:47 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Poll: 60% say depression 'likely'
Message-ID: <de3b89110810061049t7a9ee622v773566b2e407da00@mail.gmail.com>

Poll: 60% say depression 'likely'
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/06/news/economy/depression_poll/index.htm?postversion=2008100613


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Nearly six out of ten Americans believe another
economic depression is likely, according to a poll released Monday.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, which surveyed more than 1,000
Americans over the weekend, cited common measures of the economic pain of
the 1930s:

   - 25% unemployment rate
   - Widespread bank failures
   - Millions of Americans homeless and unable to feed their families

In response, 21% of those polled say that a depression is very likely and
another 38% say it is somewhat likely.

The poll also found that 29% feel a depression is not very likely, while 13%
believe it is not likely at all.

Economists, even many of those who feel current economic risks are dire,
generally don't believe another depression is likely.

A survey taken last week by the National Association of Business Economists
asked members what would happen if the $700 billion bailout that passed
Friday fails to fix frozen credit markets. The consensus forecast of those
economists was that unemployment would rise to 7% in the second quarter of
next year even with continued problems choking off credit to businesses and
consumers.

Other economists recently contacted by CNNMoney.com said that the
unemployment rate could rise as high as 10% to 12% next year if the bailout
does not work. While that could be roughly double the current 6.1%
unemployment rate, it would be only half of the worst rate seen in the
depression.

The Great Depression of the 1930s also saw the gross domestic product, the
broad measure of the nation's economic activity, plunge by 13% in 1932.

The NABE survey forecast that GDP will drop 1.1% in the fourth quarter of
2008 if the bailout does not get credit flowing again, and another 0.5% in
the first quarter of next year. The economists surveyed by CNNMoney.com said
they saw a drop of 2% to 4% in a worst case scenario.

Part of the reason for the far less severe economic pain expected this time
is there are many social safety net programs not in place at the start of
the Great Depression, including Social Security, unemployment insurance and
insurance on bank deposits.

And experts on the Depression believe that the Federal Reserve and other
officials made many policy mistakes that are not likely to be repeated. In
fact, the Fed at that time kept lending tight, while today's Fed is pumping
hundreds of billions of dollars into the banking system to try to restart
lending and spur economic activity.

Still, other views of Americans found in the CNN poll were more in agreement
with those of top economists.

It found 84% of Americans polled believe that economic conditions are
som