From craig at red-bean.com  Wed Apr  1 00:27:00 2009
From: craig at red-bean.com (Craig Brozefsky)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:27:00 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] hacker balls Was:  Marx & Engels ebooks
In-Reply-To: <01E57A16-92A7-4092-8B9A-6A093B5B7BC7@gmail.com> (JC Helary's
	message of "Wed\, 1 Apr 2009 13\:55\:14 +0900")
References: <49D2C4CB.1040803@gmail.com>
	<92E21B955FC74B95815E40B717B9BE4D@Nautilus>
	<49D2D4A0.4010904@ix.netcom.com>
	<6E4E0873-4368-4AAC-B2E4-20388537DF70@gmail.com>
	<20b1e36e0903312031w29292726xfaed0e8b07568aa3@mail.gmail.com>
	<87vdpp9fms.fsf@piracy.kokonino.net>
	<01E57A16-92A7-4092-8B9A-6A093B5B7BC7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87ab70anyj.fsf_-_@piracy.kokonino.net>

JC Helary <brandelune at gmail.com> writes:

> On mercredi 01 avr. 09, at 13:12, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
>
> And maybe after googling you could actually read the papers.
>
> Basically the papers show that BT trackers can be manipulated to  
> redirect massive BT requests to _any_ port of _any_ site.

Understood, however...

If you are running a legit seeder and/or tracker on that host, it is
more expensive to discard said traffic (fragment requests or tracker
requests) at your border router, which is where you need to be dealing
with the DDoS attack.  You need to do stateful packet filtering with a
custom signature -- which is not exactly standard with web hosting
service.

I'm done on this.  I should not have been such a dick when pointing
out the papers. Sorry AA.  Let's all be communist hacker pals.

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


From ellard.yow at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 06:00:44 2009
From: ellard.yow at gmail.com (Ellard Yow)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:00:44 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] World economy
Message-ID: <c8a26a720904010500t440d0edfkef89de9b4c6e5bab@mail.gmail.com>

"World Bank Sees Global Contraction in 2009" by Annys Shin, Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/ar2009033100621.htm?hpid=sec=business

From J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk  Wed Apr  1 07:04:34 2009
From: J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk (J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:04:34 +0100
Subject: [Marxism] British Government Refuses To
	Discuss	Sovereignty	of	Malvinas
In-Reply-To: <D1D62556E92E4F02AC47BC936D689110@dmsthinkpad>
References: <D1D62556E92E4F02AC47BC936D689110@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <web-4822998@twum.lboro.ac.uk>

So, leaving aside all the bluff, bluster and bullshit, we 
get: "what was the step forward for the British working 
class, and for class struggle on the international scale 
as a whole. And this answer is-- defeat of the British 
military forces in the Malvinas." Boy, you do use a lot of 
meaningless material to make one small point, don't you?

And therefore, had the Argentinian military dictatorship 
and its supporting clique amongst the bourgeoisie defeated 
the UK armed forces and re-established control over the 
Falklands, thus reinforcing itself in power and 
strengthening its ability to oppress and commit mass 
murder against the Argentine working class, petit 
bourgeoisie and, well, lefties, academics, activists, the 
usual suspects, that would have been a step forward in the 
international class struggle, would it?


-- 
Jon Cloke


From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Wed Apr  1 07:35:51 2009
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:35:51 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] IMF economist: US is becoming a banana republic
Message-ID: <d4f.4ccabbfc.3704c7b7@aol.com>



 
 
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 08:18 PDT
_Simon Johnson's crusade against the oligarchs of Wall  Street_ 
(http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/03/31/the_imf_and_the_quiet_coup/index.html) 

 
Few magazine articles in recent memory have excited as much  
econo-blogospheric commentary as former International Monetary Fund chief  economist Simon 
Johnson's _"The Quiet Coup."_ (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice)  
For good reason: Johnson's  elucidation of how four decades of deregulatory 
ideology placed the interests of  Wall Street "oligarchs" above the interests 
of the general public is magisterial  and convincing. 
One can argue with his conviction that the Obama administration represents  
nothing more than a seamless continuation of such policies. Even Johnson, whose 
 views are now being showcased in a spectacular variety of media outlets, has 
 conceded in recent weeks that, in comparison with Europe, the U.S. is taking 
 much more aggressive action to confront the global economic mess. In _a Wall 
Street Journal Op-Ed piece published  Tuesday,_ 
(http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/03/31/guest-contribution-the-real-geithner-plan-a-nuclear-option/)  
Johnson also acknowledges that the White House's request for  new authority to 
regulate bank holding companies and other financial  institutions capable of 
threatening "systemic risk" would give the Treasury  Department the tools 
necessary to do exactly what he has long been recommending:  "walk into America's 
largest financial institutions, such as Citibank or Bank of  America, and 
liquidate them." 
Would Tim Geithner use such powers if he gets them? We don't know, but  
critics like Johnson and Paul Krugman serve a vital role in keeping the pressure  
on. There's no question: Breaking the back of the oligarchs who wrested control 
 of the global economy's commanding heights and then wrecked it almost beyond 
 repair is job No. 1, and aside from Krugman, no one has pushed the necessity 
for  strong action harder or with more visibility than Johnson. 
The central narrative gambit of "The Quiet Coup" is simple: The United States 
 is unwilling to take the same harsh medicine it would prescribe to a 
developing  nation that exhibited the same critical problem: domination of the 
political  process by self-interested economic elites. But there is more than a 
little  irony involved with the fact that this advice is coming from a former IMF  
chief economist. A great many people on the left who are applauding Johnson  
seem to have forgotten just how critical the IMF was in spreading exactly the  
kind of economic policies that helped secure Wall Street's absolute sway over 
 global markets. Doesn't anyone remember _"the Washington Consensus"_ 
(http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/01/06/washington_consensus/)  -- the belief that 
 deregulation, privatization and trade liberalization were the holy writ for 
all  developing nations? The IMF was one of the primary proseletyzers and  
implementers of this vision. If your economy got into trouble, the IMF would  
help you out, but only after requiring "structural adjustments" that often  
caused significant hardship. 
The result, particularly after the Asian financial crisis of the late '90s,  
was a massive rejection of IMF help by developing nations, particularly in 
East  Asia and South America. If you're looking for reasons why so many countries 
in  South America have turned sharply to the left, it is partially due to the 
pain  caused by following IMF advice. If you want to know why China and other 
East  Asian nations have built up huge reserves of foreign dollars, creating 
global  imbalances that contributed to the creation of today's economic 
crisis, it is  precisely because they wanted to avoid ever again being forced to 
come, hat in  hand, to the IMF. As the Wall Street Journal notes on Tuesday, in 
_"An Empowered IMF Faces Pivotal  Test,"_ 
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123845771243271677.html)  "where once the IMF demanded that borrowers dramatically 
 remake their economies, the IMF is now taking a softer stance, and attaching 
few  restrictions to its massive loans." This is not out of the goodness of 
its  heart, but because few developing nations are willing to accept the 
conditions  that the IMF once required. 
Harvard economist Dani Rodrik, the always dependable contrarian, has been  
practically _the lone voice to point this  out:_ 
(http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2009/03/simon-johnsons-morality-tale.html)  
Johnson writes: 
The challenges the United States faces are familiar territory to the people  
at the IMF. If you hid the name of the country and just showed them the  
numbers, there is no doubt what old IMF hands would say: nationalize troubled  
banks and break them up as necessary.... 
The second problem the U.S. faces -- the power of the oligarchy -- is just  
as important as the immediate crisis of lending. And the advice from the IMF  
on this front would again be simple: break the oligarchy.
To which Rodrik responds: 
I find it astonishing that Simon would present the IMF as the voice of  
wisdom on these matters -- the same IMF which until recently advocated  
capital-account liberalization for some of the poorest countries in the world  and which 
was totally tone deaf when it came to the cost of fiscal stringency  in 
countries going through similar upheavals (as during the Asian financial  crisis). 
Simon's account is based on a very simple, and I believe misguided, theory  
of politics and economics. It is an odd marriage of populist and technocratic  
visions. Countries fail because political elites always end up in bed with  
economic elites. The solution, apparently, is to let the technocrats (read the  
IMF) run your affairs. 
Among the many lessons from the crisis we should have learned is that  
economists and policy advisors need greater humility. Too many of us thought  we had 
the right model when it turned out that we didn't. We pushed certain  
policies with much greater confidence than we should have. Over-confidence  bred 
hubris (and the other way around). 
Do we really want to exhibit the same self-confidence and assurance now, as  
we struggle to devise solutions to the crisis caused by our own  hubris?
? Andrew Leonard
 
 
<http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/03/31/the_imf_and_the_quiet_coup/index.ht
ml>


**************New Low Prices on Dell Laptops ? Starting at $399 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220631247x1201390185/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubl
eclick.net%2Fclk%3B213540506%3B35046329%3Bx)

From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Wed Apr  1 07:36:03 2009
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:36:03 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Time for a Grand Inquest on the Financial Crisis
Message-ID: <d03.5403aa18.3704c7c3@aol.com>



Time for a Grand Inquest on the Financial Crisis

by Robert L.  Borosage Co-Director of the Campaign for
America's Future

Posted March  31, 2009 - 05:45 PM (EST)



Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has  called for
"sweeping regulation" of the financial community,
beginning a  discussion of how we restructure the
banking system -- in and out of the  shadows -- as we
emerge from what Robert Kuttner calls the Great
Collapse.  Literally trillions have already been
committed in loans, guarantees, swaps,  direct equity to
stave off a complete financial collapse, even as the
real  economy declines.

But before we decide on the salvation, we need a  public
probe of the fall. What caused the Great Collapse? We
need a grand  inquest -- either a special congressional
committee or an independent  commission like the 9/11
Commission armed with subpoena power -- to  expose
misbegotten policies, malpractices, and mistaken ideas
that allowed  the wizards of Wall Street to transport us
over the cliff.
 
 
full --
 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/time-for-a-grand-inquest_b_18
1475.html>
**************New Low Prices on Dell Laptops ? Starting at $399 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220631247x1201390185/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubl
eclick.net%2Fclk%3B213540506%3B35046329%3Bx)

From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Apr  1 07:36:23 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:36:23 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] East European basket cases
Message-ID: <49D36DD7.4030401@panix.com>

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4744


From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Apr  1 07:43:59 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:43:59 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] British Government Refuses To	Discuss	Sovereignty	of
 Malvinas
In-Reply-To: <web-4822998@twum.lboro.ac.uk>
References: <D1D62556E92E4F02AC47BC936D689110@dmsthinkpad>
	<web-4822998@twum.lboro.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <49D36F9F.6040709@panix.com>

J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk wrote:
> And therefore, had the Argentinian military dictatorship 
> and its supporting clique amongst the bourgeoisie defeated 
> the UK armed forces and re-established control over the 
> Falklands, thus reinforcing itself in power and 
> strengthening its ability to oppress and commit mass 
> murder against the Argentine working class, petit 
> bourgeoisie and, well, lefties, academics, activists, the 
> usual suspects, that would have been a step forward in the 
> international class struggle, would it?

Actually, Thatcher's triumph was a major step forward in the ascendancy 
of the neoliberalizing bourgeoisie.

The Washington Post
May 7, 1982, Friday, Final Edition
Thatcher's Party Wins a Vote of Confidence in Local Elections
BYLINE: By Leonard Downie Jr., Washington Post Foreign Service

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party won a strong vote 
of confidence for her government's handling of the Falkland Islands 
crisis in local government elections in Britain yesterday.

Politicians from all parties said the Conservatives did better than the 
national government party has in any mid-term local elections since 
World War II because of voters' support for the government in the 
conflict with Argentina over the Falklands.

It also appeared from election results still being tabulated this 
morning and a new national opinion poll published today that Thatcher's 
government lost only a small proportion of this support after the 
sinking of an Argentine cruiser and the destruction of a British 
destroyer caused the conflict's first large-scale casualties.

This is expected to strengthen Thatcher's hand as her "war cabinet" of 
senior ministers decides on Britain's next military and diplomatic moves.

Thatcher has been under conflicting pressures in recent days. 
Conservative hawks in Parliament have been pressing Thatcher to move as 
quickly as possible to invade the Falklands and bomb bases on the 
Argentine mainland. Others, including some members of her Cabinet, have 
been cautioning Thatcher to avoid further military escalation before 
exhausting every remaining diplomatic channel.

A leading academic political analyst here, Ivor Crewe, called 
yesterday's local government elections "an extraordinarily good result 
for the Conservatives, which has to have a great deal to do with the 
Falklands crisis."

A computer projection by BBC television from a sampling of city and 
district council constituencies across the country showed the 
Conservatives winning 39 percent of the vote, compared to 32 percent for 
the opposition Labor Party and 26 percent for the electoral alliance of 
the Social Democrats and the Liberal Party. This is in line with the 
most recent opinion polls here, and represents a strong recovery for the 
Conservatives from their position in the polls a year ago.

In a national parliamentary election, according to the BBC projection, 
yesterday's result would give the Conservatives 315 of the 635 seats in 
the House of Commons, compared to their majority of 334 seats now. Labor 
would win 266 seats, the Social Democratic Liberal alliance only 30 and 
minor regional parties 24.

The Conservatives appeared to match the support they won as a resurgent 
opposition party in the last elections for the same local councils in 
1978, which foreshadowed the Conservatives' national election victory 
the next year that produced the Thatcher government.

Conservative Party chairman Cecil Parkinson, who as paymaster general 
participates in Thatcher's Falklands crisis Cabinet of senior ministers, 
said, "Our vote is holding up well. We have retained seats won in the 
boom year of 1978, and added to them. These results are a firm 
endorsement of the determined leadership of Margaret Thatcher, not only 
over the past few weeks, but over the last three years."

"People feel the government is handling things well," said another 
member of Thatcher's Cabinet, James Prior. He attributed yesterday's 
"remarkably good result for the government" to both confidence in its 
handling of the Falklands crisis and a recovery of voter support for 
Thatcher's economic policies now that Britain's worst recession in a 
half century appears to be ending.

One of the Social Democrats' four co-leaders, William Rodgers, said, 
"The Falklands factor is a major one" in the disappointing showing of 
his party. It won five fewer council seats than it expected in large 
metropolitan areas like London and Birmingham. Many of the council 
members across the country who defected from Labor to the Social 
Democrats during the past year lost their seats, including all 26 
defectors from Labor in the London borough of Islington.

Although the Liberals did better, the Social Democratic-Liberal alliance 
polled only two-thirds as many votes as opinion polls indicated they 
might win just a few months ago. The alliance suffered during the local 
election campaign from being pushed off Britain's front pages by the 
Falklands crisis and the fact that the issue concentrated national 
attention on Thatcher and opposition Labor leader Michael Foot.

The Labor Party, which has become divided over the Falklands crisis, 
with many of its left-wingers demanding an immediate cease-fire by 
Britain, barely held its own in many traditional urban strongholds. It 
lost the city council of Birmingham to the Conservatives, a major defeat 
in Britain's second-largest city. Birmingham Labor Party leaders 
attributed it mostly to the Falklands crisis.

A new national opinion poll by the Markets Opinion Research 
International firm here, published in The Economist magazine today, 
shows that public support for Thatcher's Falklands' strategy declined 
slightly after recent Argentine and British casualties. But 71 percent 
of the respondents, who have been polled four consecutive weeks on the 
Falklands crisis, said they were still satisfied this week with 
Thatcher's handling of the crisis, down from 76 percent last week.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Apr  1 07:47:29 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:47:29 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?Obama=92s_Ersatz_Capitalism?=
Message-ID: <49D37071.5080804@panix.com>

NY Times, April 1, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Obama?s Ersatz Capitalism
By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ

THE Obama administration?s $500 billion or more proposal to deal with 
America?s ailing banks has been described by some in the financial 
markets as a win-win-win proposal. Actually, it is a win-win-lose 
proposal: the banks win, investors win ? and taxpayers lose.

Treasury hopes to get us out of the mess by replicating the flawed 
system that the private sector used to bring the world crashing down, 
with a proposal marked by overleveraging in the public sector, excessive 
complexity, poor incentives and a lack of transparency.

Let?s take a moment to remember what caused this mess in the first 
place. Banks got themselves, and our economy, into trouble by 
overleveraging ? that is, using relatively little capital of their own, 
they borrowed heavily to buy extremely risky real estate assets. In the 
process, they used overly complex instruments like collateralized debt 
obligations.

The prospect of high compensation gave managers incentives to be 
shortsighted and undertake excessive risk, rather than lend money 
prudently. Banks made all these mistakes without anyone knowing, partly 
because so much of what they were doing was ?off balance sheet? financing.

In theory, the administration?s plan is based on letting the market 
determine the prices of the banks? ?toxic assets? ? including 
outstanding house loans and securities based on those loans. The 
reality, though, is that the market will not be pricing the toxic assets 
themselves, but options on those assets.

The two have little to do with each other. The government plan in effect 
involves insuring almost all losses. Since the private investors are 
spared most losses, then they primarily ?value? their potential gains. 
This is exactly the same as being given an option.

Consider an asset that has a 50-50 chance of being worth either zero or 
$200 in a year?s time. The average ?value? of the asset is $100. 
Ignoring interest, this is what the asset would sell for in a 
competitive market. It is what the asset is ?worth.? Under the plan by 
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the government would provide about 
92 percent of the money to buy the asset but would stand to receive only 
50 percent of any gains, and would absorb almost all of the losses. Some 
partnership!

Assume that one of the public-private partnerships the Treasury has 
promised to create is willing to pay $150 for the asset. That?s 50 
percent more than its true value, and the bank is more than happy to 
sell. So the private partner puts up $12, and the government supplies 
the rest ? $12 in ?equity? plus $126 in the form of a guaranteed loan.

If, in a year?s time, it turns out that the true value of the asset is 
zero, the private partner loses the $12, and the government loses $138. 
If the true value is $200, the government and the private partner split 
the $74 that?s left over after paying back the $126 loan. In that rosy 
scenario, the private partner more than triples his $12 investment. But 
the taxpayer, having risked $138, gains a mere $37.

Even in an imperfect market, one shouldn?t confuse the value of an asset 
with the value of the upside option on that asset.

But Americans are likely to lose even more than these calculations 
suggest, because of an effect called adverse selection. The banks get to 
choose the loans and securities that they want to sell. They will want 
to sell the worst assets, and especially the assets that they think the 
market overestimates (and thus is willing to pay too much for).

But the market is likely to recognize this, which will drive down the 
price that it is willing to pay. Only the government?s picking up enough 
of the losses overcomes this ?adverse selection? effect. With the 
government absorbing the losses, the market doesn?t care if the banks 
are ?cheating? them by selling their lousiest assets, because the 
government bears the cost.

The main problem is not a lack of liquidity. If it were, then a far 
simpler program would work: just provide the funds without loan 
guarantees. The real issue is that the banks made bad loans in a bubble 
and were highly leveraged. They have lost their capital, and this 
capital has to be replaced.

Paying fair market values for the assets will not work. Only by 
overpaying for the assets will the banks be adequately recapitalized. 
But overpaying for the assets simply shifts the losses to the 
government. In other words, the Geithner plan works only if and when the 
taxpayer loses big time.

Some Americans are afraid that the government might temporarily 
?nationalize? the banks, but that option would be preferable to the 
Geithner plan. After all, the F.D.I.C. has taken control of failing 
banks before, and done it well. It has even nationalized large 
institutions like Continental Illinois (taken over in 1984, back in 
private hands a few years later), and Washington Mutual (seized last 
September, and immediately resold).

What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than 
nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and 
the socializing of losses. It is a ?partnership? in which one partner 
robs the other. And such partnerships ? with the private sector in 
control ? have perverse incentives, worse even than the ones that got us 
into the mess.

So what is the appeal of a proposal like this? Perhaps it?s the kind of 
Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves ? clever, complex and 
nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial 
markets. It has allowed the administration to avoid going back to 
Congress to ask for the money needed to fix our banks, and it provided a 
way to avoid nationalization.

But we are already suffering from a crisis of confidence. When the high 
costs of the administration?s plan become apparent, confidence will be 
eroded further. At that point the task of recreating a vibrant financial 
sector, and resuscitating the economy, will be even harder.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a professor of economics at Columbia who was 
chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1995 to 1997, was 
awarded the Nobel prize in economics in 2001.




From Jscotlive at aol.com  Wed Apr  1 07:50:47 2009
From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:50:47 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] British Government Refuses To Discuss Sovereignty of
	Malvinas
Message-ID: <c0a.58d3ef94.3704cb37@aol.com>

Jon Cloke:
 
And therefore, had the Argentinean military dictatorship 
and its  supporting clique amongst the bourgeoisie defeated 
the UK armed forces and  re-established control over the 
Falklands, thus reinforcing itself in power  and 
strengthening its ability to oppress and commit mass 
murder against  the Argentine working class, petit 
bourgeoisie and, well, lefties,  academics, activists, the 
usual suspects, that would have been a step  forward in the 
international class struggle, would it?

Reply:
 
The short answer is 'yes' it was in the interests of the international  
working class that Britain was defeated in the war over the Malvinas, which it  is 
notable you continue to call the Falklands, thus revealing where your  
sympathies like on the issue. I'm positive that many of the Argentine leftists  and 
trade unionists, etc. who suffered under the Junta would have supported  
Argentina's claim over the islands and viewed Britain as an imperialist power  whose 
writ still extended to the Southern Hemisphere. It is exactly why the  Junta 
attempted to resolve the issue through military means,  because it was 
guaranteed to win them a lot of support and, as you  previously noted, distract from 
the increasingly parlous state of the  Argentine economy during that period. 
But the notion that a moral  relativism can exist when it comes to the struggle 
against imperialism is naive  at best, and utterly devious at worst, smacking 
as it does of  liberalism. Whilst the Argentine working class was indeed 
suffering the  depredations of a brutal military regime, it paled when compared to 
the  role of Britain as a major ally of the United States, and under Thatcher 
a  champion of the free market. She and Reagan were hawks committed to  the 
destruction of communism, to the system responsible for the  immiseration and 
death of millions throughout the developing world, to the  destruction of any 
semblance of social and economic justice at home and  abroad. Thatcher's 
victory over the Malvinas was a victory for  the free market at home and abroad. It 
was a victory for imperialism. The Junta  in Argentina was a disaster for the 
Argentinean working class. Britain was, and  still is, a disaster for the 
international working class and the developing  world.
 
 

From J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk  Wed Apr  1 07:53:01 2009
From: J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk (J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:53:01 +0100
Subject: [Marxism] British Government Refuses To	Discuss	Sovereignty	of
	Malvinas
In-Reply-To: <49D36F9F.6040709@panix.com>
References: <D1D62556E92E4F02AC47BC936D689110@dmsthinkpad>
	<web-4822998@twum.lboro.ac.uk> <49D36F9F.6040709@panix.com>
Message-ID: <web-4824398@twum.lboro.ac.uk>

I absolutely, 100% agree with you - which just goes to 
reinforce my point that, in terms of the interests of 
working classes, whichever set of property rights got 
enforced it made absolutely no difference.

Steady on there, Louis; you're in danger of agreeing with 
me and you know Artesian and Craig won't ever talk to you 
again if you do ;-)

And, BTW, can I thank en masse those of you who keep 
mailing me off-list to urge me on? That really is jolly 
sporting of you!
  
  
Jon Cloke


From tcod at hotmail.com  Wed Apr  1 08:03:04 2009
From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:03:04 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] Newsweek's unintentional admission
In-Reply-To: <49D0CD9A.3030506@panix.com>
References: <49D0CD9A.3030506@panix.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W72BC9E0BCAF9F176FE4C4D38B0@phx.gbl>


Ironically, Evan Thomas is actually the grandson of Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas.



_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail?: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. 
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage1_042009

From nmgoro at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 08:08:31 2009
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:08:31 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] My final point
In-Reply-To: <web-5302813@frim.lboro.ac.uk>
References: <49D0FCD4.7050107@gmail.com> <web-4795993@twum.lboro.ac.uk>
	<49D23D54.4080705@gmail.com> <web-5302813@frim.lboro.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <49D3755F.1050800@gmail.com>

J.M.P.Cloke en lboro.ac.uk escribi?:
> 
> ...my respectful answer to Nestor is: I don't know if I'm a Marxist - 
> but neither do you; I don't know enough about it or myself - but neither 
> do you. An essential difference between us, however, seems to be that 
> I'm happy to debate my ideas and have them shot down - and you're not.


My avowedly disrespectful answer to this, Mr. Cloke, is that as a 
serious _radical Marxist in Argentina_ I volunteered to fight for the 
Argentinean side, that is, my side, during the South Atlantic War, and 
that I don?t care about shooting down imperialist ideas, I rather care 
about shooting down imperialists. Even at the risk of my own life, the 
case may come, which fortunately enough has not.

But I was not sent to the front (too old for that, they said, though in 
some cases other volunteers were sent to risky places with no 
cosideration to age but to abilities).

However, I helped in that war effort by a semicolonial country by 
confronting on the media the Thatcherian rant of imperialist preachers 
whose main line of attack was precisely the one you have raised here: 
that Britain was a "democracy", that the islands were "useless rocks" 
(pray tell  me then why did the NATO attack us on that ground?), and 
that the war was a war of the Argentiean military agaist the British 
people who had simply translated to the international scenario the war 
they had been waging against their own people, presumably just for their 
own benefit and against the will of every "democratic" and honorable 
nation in the Civilized Western World.

So that whenever I see the same old rant appear with "Leftish" cloak, I 
can?t but think of all the young Argentinean soldiers who were 
exchanging ammo (and not precisely by way of peaceful trade) with the 
British troops while I sat waging that keyboard war through the news 
agencies. Sorry if I get a bit sentimental on these issues. I am sure 
that your Bourdieu will not impede your understanding.

Ah, BTW, I feel that as a geographer, given you seem to consider 
yourself some kind of "radical", you are not up to the task of the 
subject matter you broach. I tell you this as a geographer.


From nmgoro at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 08:23:33 2009
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:23:33 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] My good bye to a thug
Message-ID: <49D378E5.7020103@gmail.com>

[I have been considering whether my "final note" to the Cloke`s thread 
was enough. It wasn?t. So that I am sending to the list something I 
drafted before that e-mail. There might be some repetitions. But there 
is also something else, which I would rather see on the list tan not.]

> Oh, my.
> 
> J.M.P.Cloke en lboro.ac.uk escribi?:
>>
>> And therefore, had the Argentinian military dictatorship and its 
>> supporting clique amongst the bourgeoisie defeated the UK armed forces 
>> and re-established control over the Falklands, thus reinforcing itself 
>> in power and strengthening its ability to oppress and commit mass 
>> murder against the Argentine working class, petit bourgeoisie and, 
>> well, lefties, academics, activists, the usual suspects, that would 
>> have been a step forward in the international class struggle, would it?
> 
> Mr. Cloke, the "Argentinian dictatorship" was not such because it was 
> "military" but because it was pro-oligarchic, sepoy and pro-imperialist.
> 
> You have not answered to my question on whether you are a Marxist or 
> not. From what I have been reading from you, I gather that you aren?t, 
> so that I will act, from this posting onwards, in that assumption.
> 
> Had you been a Marxist, I would have had to explain you that the 
> concrete derivations of a victorious warfare of a semicolonial country 
> with an imperialist and thuggish "democracy" have been analyzed, with 
> great cogency and interest by among others Lev Davidovich Bronstein, AKA 
> Trotsky, mainly through his experience with the Mexican governmet of 
> L?zaro C?rdenas. Among other conclusions, Trotsky discovered that in a 
> war between "fascist" Brazil and "democratic" Britain, every Marxist 
> should side with Brazil, not less because the defeat of the imperialist 
> thug -Britain, I mean- would be a great step ahead in the general 
> warfare of the working and oppressed classes against capitalism, but 
> also and essentially because once a pro-imperialist authoritarian regime 
> (and in a semicolony, this is the _one and single_ serious way you can 
> call a regime "fascist") cuts its ties with imperialism, it needs to 
> turn to the own people of the semicolony against the attack from 
> imperialists.
> 
> This is what would have happened in Argentina if the battles of 1982 had 
> been won by our Armed Forces. In fact, developments began to appear by 
> mid 1982 in that very direction. Which was the main reason why our own 
> "democratic" (that is, sepoy) defeatist pro-imperilaists, both military 
> and civilian, were so eager to bring the war to a fast British victory 
> and dedicated all their efforts to impose as received truth for the 
> Argentineans exactly all the rant you are posing here as a question.
> 
> But, as I said, I am not convinced at all that you are a Marxist.
> 
> Thus, I have to understand that you are just another "progressive" 
> imperialist.
> 
> Under _this_ assumption, my only answer to you can be "Fuck you, thug! I 
> hope we meet on the battlefield".





From nmgoro at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 08:47:02 2009
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:47:02 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] [Spanish, rather longish] March 24th and April 2nd
Message-ID: <49D37E66.8060306@gmail.com>

[First, an apology.

I don?t send so extensive notes in Spanish to English-language lists. 
But given the recent exchange on Malvinas, I believe that this article 
just produced by the Argentinean Marxist journalist and analyst Enrique 
Lacolla is worth reading for those who can tackle my own language and 
are really interested in the relations between pro-imperialist 
dictatorships (March 24) and anti-imperialist struggles (April 2nd) in 
Argentina. I do not fully agree with ALL that is written there, but I am 
sure this will be of interest.]

El 24 de Marzo y el 2 de Abril

Por Enrique Lacolla

/Dos fechas de significaci?n contrastante, pero que aun no terminan de 
ser percibidas en su relaci?n dial?ctica por gran parte del pueblo 
argentino./

El 24 de Marzo y el 2 de Abril son dos de los cinco feriados no 
removibles del almanaque. El dato refleja la significaci?n de esas dos 
fechas, aunque quiz? quienes prohijaron su inamovilidad no tengan muy en 
claro lo que representan. De todos modos el hecho es muy bueno en s? 
mismo, pues dichos momentos son representativos de dos de los puntos de 
inflexi?n en nuestra historia contempor?nea y se cargan con elementos 
inversamente significativos tanto de la decadencia del pa?s como de los 
fermentos que aun bullen en ?l y le hacen aspirar a un destino 
independiente. Destino burlado las m?s de las veces tanto por la 
ferocidad con que los estamentos dirigentes han reprimido sus intentos 
de manifestarse, como por el car?cter renunciatario y en ?ltima 
instancia traicionero de unas dirigencias trabajadas por su vinculaci?n 
activa o su complicidad con el /diktat/ imperialista. A las que viene a 
sumarse la aculturaci?n de los estratos medios, sobre los que mejor 
puede actuar la desintegraci?n identitaria que es consecuencia de esos 
factores.

El 24 de Marzo de 1976 signific? la culminaci?n del esfuerzo olig?rquico 
para liquidar el ascendente movimiento nacional que ven?a manifest?ndose 
desde 1945, y el 2 de Abril de 1982 represent? un intento ?fugaz y en 
gran medida inconsciente? de retomar ese camino cortado seis a?os antes.

Ambos episodios estuvieron connotados por la ignorancia en que se 
encontraban muchos de quienes los protagonizaron respecto a las razones 
profundas que los determinaban. Es decir, que actuaban sobre ellos de 
manera objetiva. Esa inconsciencia sigue presente aun hoy, despu?s de 33 
a?os, tanto en el rencor de partes que subsiste entre represores y 
sobrevivientes de los ?a?os de plomo? y de la represi?n practicada por 
la dictadura, como en la apreciaci?n de los factores que jugaron en el 
momento de la batalla por Malvinas.

El desastre de 1976 estuvo abonado por la locura de las formaciones 
armadas que se forjaron la ilusi?n de conquistar el poder sin tomar en 
cuenta el peso de las relaciones sociales en la Argentina, sin una 
comprensi?n clara del frente de clases que se conjugaba en la figura de 
Per?n y sin la m?s m?nima intuici?n pol?tica respecto de la posibilidad 
de fracturar el frente militar explotando los fermentos nacionales que 
exist?an y pod?an ser impulsados detr?s de su fachada. A su vez, las 
FF.AA., ya muy predispuestas por sus antecedentes inmediatos ??la 
revoluci?n fusiladora? ? y por el estado de subordinaci?n ideol?gica en 
que se encontraban respecto de Estados Unidos, reaccionaron frente a la 
actividad guerrillera de manera desmedida y se convirtieron, por v?a de 
su brutalidad intelectual y de su ceguera respecto de lo que estaba en 
juego, en los idiotas ?tiles del imperialismo. Su ignorancia respecto 
los factores no s?lo sociales sino tambi?n nacionales que signaban el 
enfrentamiento entre el comunismo y el capitalismo, la imagen 
distorsionada del mundo que era su consecuencia, su miedo a la 
revoluci?n cubana y su creencia petulante en que se hab?an convertido en 
unas aliadas necesarias de Estados Unidos para controlar el continente, 
las movi? a aprovechar el exterminio de las organizaciones armadas para 
lanzar una ofensiva contra los factores resistentes que hab?a en la 
sociedad argentina para elaborar un desarrollo autosostenido. Manejadas 
por la pandilla neoliberal encabezada por el ministro de econom?a Jos? 
Alfredo Mart?nez de Hoz, imprimieron un sesgo a la pol?tica econ?mica 
que inici? la destrucci?n de la industria e implic? el asentamiento en 
el pa?s del esquema neoliberal forjado por la ?escuela de Chicago?; 
aunque cabe reconocer que conservaron la propiedad estatal de ciertas 
industrias estrat?gicas, como la at?mica, propuls?ndola hasta el punto 
de que nuestro pa?s fue uno de los primeros, si no el primero despu?s de 
las grandes potencias, en dominar el ciclo del enriquecimiento del uranio.

Pero el retorno al pa?s agrario, exportador de /commodities/, se revel? 
muy dif?cil de imponer a la vuelta de pocos a?os. En parte porque 
comenz? la expulsi?n de sectores urbanos hacia la periferia social, 
suscitando la resistencia de los gremios, pero sobre todo porque la 
concepci?n que entend?a a grupos substanciales del pueblo como enemigos 
a extirpar implic? el desprestigio del gobierno militar. La sociedad 
empez? a sentirse harta de una experiencia que, en un principio, hab?a 
asumido con resignaci?n y hasta con una cierta simpat?a, en la medida en 
que cre?a que ?los militares ven?an a poner orden? al desplazar el 
ca?tico gobierno de Isabel Mart?nez de Per?n y a las pujas 
intersectoriales del peronismo que ensangrentaban al pa?s. El ?lado 
oscuro de la fuerza?, hacia 1982, era evidente para todos.

El mecanismo de la explosi?n

En este contexto estall? de pronto la cuesti?n Malvinas. ?Fue 
consecuencia de un acto desesperado del gobierno militar para recuperar 
prestigio y una iniciativa pol?tica que se le iban de las manos? Esta es 
la explicaci?n corriente entre los sectores progresistas, pero la 
realidad es mucho m?s compleja. Los preparativos para la Operaci?n 
Rosario (como se llam? a la reconquista de las islas) exist?an desde 
bastante tiempo atr?s. Gran Breta?a, por otra parte, no s?lo segu?a 
haciendo o?dos sordos a la reclamaci?n argentina por recuperar o al 
menos negociar la soberan?a de las islas, sino que hab?a endurecido su 
posici?n a partir del plan forjado de consuno con Washington en el 
sentido de establecer un s?lido predominio en las ?reas que asegurasen 
la perdurabilidad del dominio de las potencias mar?timas en la zona del 
creciente exterior o insular, para usar la terminolog?a geopol?tica de 
Halford Mackinder. A esto se sumaba la casi certidumbre de la existencia 
de grandes yacimientos petrol?feros /off shore/ en el ?rea del 
archipi?lago malvinense y tambi?n, por qu? no, la conveniencia 
estadounidense de sacarse de encima un aliado tan impredecible (la cuasi 
guerra con Chile por el Beagle as? lo demostraba) como era la dictadura 
argentina, cuya utilidad estaba agotada y que se hab?a ensuciado con 
actos atroces consumados contra su propio pueblo. Se estaba ingresando a 
la era de los Derechos Humanos como expediente diplom?tico utilizable 
para presionar o suprimir a gobiernos indeseables; esto es, a gobiernos 
in?tiles al Imperio o contrastantes respecto o a sus necesidades 
coyunturales. La dictadura argentina llenaba ambos requisitos.

Es imposible para nosotros conocer los entretelones de los movimientos 
que llevaron al rompimiento en torno de Malvinas, pero la sospecha de 
una emboscada (una ?cama?) tendida al gobierno militar por Londres y 
Washington no puede descartarse. Margaret Thatcher y Ronald Reagan eran 
los figurones de proa de un movimiento internacional que apuntaba a la 
globalizaci?n econ?mica concebida de acuerdo a la desregulaci?n salvaje 
y a la libertad absoluta del mercado. Sus entendimientos bajo cuerda (o 
los arreglos entre los fautores ingleses y norteamericanos de las 
coordenadas estrat?gicas que determinaban la evoluci?n del mundo) 
estaban a la orden del d?a. Mientras personeros del estamento militar 
norteamericano halagaban al general Galtieri defini?ndolo como una 
?personalidad imponente?, Gran Breta?a respond?a al crecimiento de la 
tensi?n originada por un incidente fabricado en las islas Georgias, 
deslizando la noticia de que un submarino nuclear estaba siendo enviado 
a la zona en conflicto.

Esta informaci?n ofici? de detonante. La llegada de una nave de ese tipo 
reduc?a la capacidad operativa de la Armada argentina casi a la 
impotencia. Desaparec?a la oportunidad de utilizar el factor militar de 
una ocupaci?n de las islas para jugarlo luego en la mesa de 
negociaciones. S?lo cab?a adelantarse a ese arribo acelerando el 
lanzamiento de la Operaci?n Rosario. As?, el 2 de Abril de 1982 tropas 
argentinas ocupaban el archipi?lago. Luego sobrevino lo inesperado para 
la dictadura militar. El impulso patri?tico determinado por la ocupaci?n 
del archipi?lago, que llen? la Plaza de Mayo con una multitud 
entusiasta, y la reacci?n brit?nica, frente a la cual Estados Unidos se 
limit? a simular el papel de mediador en la crisis, pusieron a la Junta 
Militar ante el peor de los escenarios: por un lado un entusiasmo 
popular que vedaba en buena medida la renuncia a la ocupaci?n de las 
islas, y por otro la ?traici?n? del aliado que se imaginaba tener. 
Puesto en la disyuntiva de tener que elegir entre el gobierno de Buenos 
Aires y el de Londres, a Washington no le quedaba duda acerca de cu?l 
iba a ser la v?a a seguir. Tras una ficci?n de mediaci?n, Estados Unidos 
volc? su apoyo a favor de los brit?nicos, mientras la Uni?n Europea 
tambi?n cerraba filas detr?s de uno de sus miembros. El respaldo 
norteamericano estuvo lejos de ser s?lo verbal: durante el conflicto se 
tradujo en apoyo log?stico, facilidades de acceso a sus bases en el 
Atl?ntico, flujo ininterrumpido de informaci?n satelital y de aviones 
esp?as para la fuerza expedicionaria brit?nica y provisi?n de misiles 
aire-aire SideWinder, de letal eficacia contra la aviaci?n argentina.

Una batalla desigual

As? las cosas y enfrentada Argentina a la alianza militar m?s poderosa 
del mundo, la OTAN, el resultado de la guerra estaba cantado desde un 
principio. Lo sorprendente no fue el resultado de la lucha, sino su 
prolongaci?n a lo largo de dos meses. La debilidad de nuestro pa?s se 
ve?a aumentada, por otra parte, por la actitud hostil de Chile  y la 
colaboraci?n que prestaba a la Flota brit?nica. En el resto de los 
pa?ses de Am?rica Latina la disposici?n era exactamente la contraria. 
Esto dio lugar a una de esas ?iron?as de la Historia? de que habla Hegel 
y que demostr?, de una vez y para siempre, que el destino de nuestro 
pa?s est? atado a la suerte del subcontinente y no a la figuraci?n de un 
europe?smo presunto, de espaldas a la Am?rica profunda, que hab?a 
fascinado a lo largo del tiempo a nuestras clases alta y media hasta el 
punto de convertirnos en un ped?nculo del sistema anglosaj?n. Las 
porciones de esa naci?n inconstituida que es Am?rica Latina prestaron su 
apoyo diplom?tico en los foros mundiales (en la OEA y en las Naciones 
Unidas), mientras que el TIAR (Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia 
Rec?proca), que obliga a todos los pa?ses del hemisferio a prestarse 
asistencia mutua en caso de una agresi?n externa, qued? deslegitimado 
por el papel jugado por Washington, que no hesit? en volcarse en apoyo 
de Gran Breta?a al intentar esta restituir una situaci?n colonial en 
territorio americano. El colmo se produjo cuando el canciller argentino 
Nicanor Costa M?ndez se abraz? en La Habana con Fidel Castro, hasta 
entonces la bestia negra del r?gimen militar.

?Qu? hab?a pasado? Pues simplemente que jugaron los lazos impl?citos de 
la comunidad iberoamericana, vivificados por la agresi?n de que uno de 
sus miembros era objeto y porque el ataque desnudaba ante nuestros 
pueblos la condici?n semicolonial en que est?bamos viviendo.

Ese apoyo pudo llegar a traducirse en respaldo militar, en los casos de 
Per? y Cuba. No fue as? porque la Junta Militar argentina no estaba en 
condiciones, ni ideol?gicas ni psicol?gicas, de batirse con un real 
compromiso en una causa en la cual en el fondo no cre?a, y porque 
hacerlo hubiera significado una radicalizaci?n social y nacional que se 
la hubiera llevado por delante. En vez de eso, una vez verificada la 
p?rdida de Puerto Argentino, la dictadura se limit? a repatriar a los 
combatientes, con tan mala conciencia que los escamote? de la vista del 
p?blico e impidi? que se sintieran arropados por el calor popular. Este 
abandono anticipaba el que sufrir?an en los a?os sucesivos, cuando las 
campa?as de ?desmalvinizaci?n? de que fue objeto el pueblo argentino 
durante el per?odo democr?tico hizo que el t?rmino Malvinas se 
convirtiera casi en una mala palabra, y que a los conscriptos veteranos 
se los bautizara como ?los chicos de la guerra?, suprimiendo as? toda 
connotaci?n heroica a su empresa y royendo sus contornos leg?timos.

La batalla en s? misma, sin embargo, m?s all? de las denuncias de mal 
trato de algunos oficiales para con los soldados que estaban a su mando, 
que pudieron tener algunos casos puntuales en los cuales engarzarse, fue 
sin embargo disputada con resoluci?n por las tropas en el terreno y por 
la aviaci?n y la armada.  La incompetencia pol?tica, la ignorancia de 
las realidades mundiales y el pobre papel del alto mando en la batalla, 
no suprimieron ese hecho, abonado por el sacrificio de cientos de vidas 
inmoladas en el aire, en la tierra y en el mar. Sacrificio que tuvo una 
pesada contrapartida en las bajas y da?os sufridos por los brit?nicos: 
una parte muy importante de la flota inglesa fue destruida o da?ada, 
poniendo por un momento a la fuerza expedicionaria brit?nica al borde de 
la derrota. Paul Kennedy ha expresado que s?lo ?bajo el paraguas de la 
alianza occidental pudo Gran Breta?a comprometer a los tres cuartos de 
su flota de combate en un escenario a ocho mil millas de distancia, sin 
preocuparse por las consecuencias estrat?gicas (que tal acto) pod?a 
tener en otros lados? La operaci?n de recuperaci?n de las Malvinas 
recibi? todo tipo de asistencia (inteligencia, log?stica) de parte de 
Estados Unidos, sin lo cual las cosas podr?an haber resultado muy 
diferentes??

Norte contra Sur

El compromiso tomado por los pa?ses de la OTAN en respaldar a Inglaterra 
y la decisiva contribuci?n norteamericana a la victoria brit?nica ponen 
tambi?n a la guerra de Malvinas como un factor premonitorio de lo que 
vendr?a despu?s. La actitud sovi?tica durante el conflicto, apagada y 
neutralista, no s?lo atestigu? la falta de preparaci?n diplom?tica de la 
batalla de parte de la dictadura militar, sino tambi?n el repliegue de 
la URSS ante una circunstancia mundial que empezaba a sobrepasarla. Por 
otro lado, el car?cter desigual del conflicto entre Gran Breta?a y 
Argentina anticipaba la guerras posteriores a la ca?da de la Uni?n 
Sovi?tica, significadas por una abisal diferencia entre la capacidad 
militar de la OTAN y la de los pa?ses que eran objeto de sus 
?atenciones?. La desigualdad militar puesta de manifiesto en el 
conflicto austral ser?a reproducida en una escala aun mayor en el 
episodio final de la guerra en los Balcanes, la separaci?n de Kosovo del 
cuerpo de la ex Yugoslavia, y en las guerras ?que pudieron considerarse 
como poco m?s que ejercicios de tiro? llevadas adelante por Estados 
Unidos en las dos guerras del Golfo y en Afganist?n. Al menos, en el 
caso iraqu?, mientras se trat? de batallas convencionales contra tropas 
regulares. Lo que sucedi? despu?s, durante la ocupaci?n estadounidense 
de esos escenarios, es otra historia, que est? lejos de haber terminado.

En ese sentido puede decirse que Malvinas fue un conflicto bastante m?s 
equilibrado que los que vinieron despu?s, y esto debe ser puesto en el 
activo de la pericia t?cnica y el coraje de los aviadores argentinos. De 
cualquier manera la guerra austral fue el primer acto de una pieza que 
estaba comenzando. La antinomia Norte contra Sur reemplazar?a a la 
confrontaci?n Este-Oeste que hab?a distinguido a los a?os de la guerra 
fr?a. En realidad ese desplazamiento del eje de la acci?n respondi? a 
una realidad que estaba presente desde mucho tiempo atr?s, aunque hab?a 
sido disimulada por la confrontaci?n ideol?gica entre el comunismo y el 
liberalismo burgu?s. En el fondo, de lo que se trataba y se trata es de 
las luchas de liberaci?n nacional contra el imperialismo.

En este cuadro lo que importa no son s?lo, o no son tanto, los 
contenidos ideol?gicos como la situaci?n objetiva de los contendientes 
en el desarrollo desigual que califica al mundo. Entre un pa?s 
?civilizado? que funda su vigencia en la supresi?n de la posibilidad de 
civilizarse que tienen los otros, la elecci?n no puede fundarse en el 
presunto refinamiento que ha alcanzado el primero sino en la necesidad 
que los segundos tienen de desarrollarse libremente.

La alianza noratl?ntica ha avanzado en la ruta de una globalizaci?n 
entendida a la medida de sus necesidades. Reci?n ahora, ante la 
emergencia de una crisis econ?mica tambi?n global que refleja la 
falencia de un modelo basado en la concentraci?n de la ganancia y en la 
explotaci?n implacable de los recursos de terceros pa?ses, ese esquema 
ha comenzado a ser puesto en entredicho. Pero que se observen sus 
falencias no significa que quienes comandan el juego est?n dispuestos a 
revisarlo a fondo. La decisi?n de controlar el mundo apropi?ndose de sus 
reservas naturales y ganando un posicionamiento geoestrat?gico que 
asegure la supremac?a, sigue actuando de forma relevante. Incluso se ha 
desnudado expl?citamente la amenaza nuclear para mantener este estado de 
cosas. Un conflicto en Medio Oriente que involucrase a Ir?n y 
comprometiese la situaci?n de Israel y de las tropas de Estados Unidos 
en el ?rea podr?a tener como respuesta la utilizaci?n de armas at?micas. 
Las amenazas en este sentido ya son expl?citas, aunque se las refiera a 
artefactos de utilizaci?n t?ctica y dirigidos a destruir b?nkeres 
subterr?neos que podr?an alojar ?armas de destrucci?n masiva?. Como si 
las bombas at?micas no lo fueran?

En este sentido la guerra de Malvinas fue tambi?n anticipatoria. Aunque 
no se ha podido saber qu? grado de consistencia ten?an los rumores 
acerca de que Margaret Thatcher estaba decidida a ?bombardear con 
cohetes nucleares el complejo militar de C?rdoba? en el caso de una 
derrota de la fuerza expedicionaria, el dato del desplazamiento de un 
submarino equipado con ese tipo de misiles desde una zona de vigilancia 
que amenazaba a la Uni?n Sovi?tica a otra que no afectaba a la URSS pero 
que pon?a a la Argentina dentro de su radio de alcance, no es cosa de 
poco. Una humillaci?n militar hubiera puesto fren?tica a ?la dama de 
hierro?, que en ning?n caso hubiera querido resignar el papel de 
Churchill de pacotilla que se hab?a asignado y que le vali? un 
perdurable control del gobierno cuando este vacilaba en medio de la 
crisis de la reconversi?n capitalista de comienzos de los a?os ?80.

A 27 a?os de la guerra de Malvinas es hora de que se la eval?e en su 
justa dimensi?n. Estuvo mal concebida y dirigida con torpeza por hombres 
cuyos antecedentes los descalificaban para la tarea, pero promovi? una 
emoci?n nacional que estuvo lejos de ser innoble, mal que les pese a 
ciertos exponentes de la tilinguer?a progresista, como una comentarista 
de temas literarios por televisi?n que en una oportunidad denomin? a la 
Plaza de Mayo del 2 de Abril como ?la plaza de la verg?enza?. Verg?enza 
deber?a sentir ella que, en su pedanter?a pseudo ilustrada, tiende a 
identificar toda efusi?n popular como el producto de la ignorancia m?s 
grosera y de la disposici?n a dejarse llevar ante cualquier oferta 
?demag?gica?. Las debilidades de la psicolog?a nacional pueden haberse 
puesto de manifiesto, en efecto, en la puerilidad de algunas de sus 
manifestaciones (?el que no salta es un ingl?s?) y sobre todo en la 
desinformaci?n que sembr?, de /motu propio/, gran parte de la prensa 
escrita y televisiva, ya que los comunicados oficiales sol?an ser 
bastante serios y exactos. Pero esas debilidades no pueden ser evaluadas 
desde arriba con un moh?n de desprecio sin mirar primero a las propias 
falencias y, sobre todo, no pueden ser usadas para escamotear lo 
sustancial del asunto, que no es otra cosa que una afirmaci?n 
identitaria mal servida o traicionada por los gobernantes.

Malvinas fue una derrota que todav?a estamos pagando. A causa de ella el 
pa?s se liber? de la dictadura militar, pero en los a?os que siguieron 
el imperialismo nos sigui? pasando la cuenta, con gran regocijo de los 
estratos econ?micos que hab?an acompa?ado con renuencia ir?nica a la 
aventura y que encontrar?an un acompa?amiento m?s acomodaticio en una 
clase pol?tica incapaz de elaborar seriamente la naturaleza de la 
guerra. Los Alemann, los Klein, los Cavallo y el conjunto de intereses 
que representaban, primeros beneficiarios de la represi?n de las clases 
populares por la dictadura, iban a seguir enquistados en los gobiernos 
democr?ticos que seguir?an a esta y promover?an una multiplicaci?n de la 
deuda externa, una timba financiera, una devastaci?n econ?mica y un 
desguace industrial que arrojar?an a la Argentina a la indigencia m?s 
absoluta.

Hoy ese per?odo parece haber remitido. Pero persiste en volver, en esta 
ocasi?n a trav?s de una s?bita reviviscencia de las tesis retr?gradas y 
suicidas de un pa?s volcado tan s?lo a la producci?n agraria. Nada est? 
aislado en la historia. En la guerra de Malvinas se puso de manifiesto 
la necesidad de contar con una potencia f?sica que s?lo puede derivarse 
del desarrollo estructural de la naci?n. Y asimismo se hizo evidente que 
la ?nica forma de compensar la falta de peso espec?fico de esta pasa por 
su integraci?n en un bloque latinoamericano que realice las aspiraciones 
incumplidas de la revoluci?n por la Independencia. En este marco, la 
experiencia b?lica de Malvinas resulta iluminante, tanto por sus errores 
como por la victoria potencial que estaba encerrada en ella.

(www.enriquelacolla.com)


From proletariandan at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 08:49:04 2009
From: proletariandan at gmail.com (Dan Russell)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:49:04 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Newsweek's unintentional admission
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-W72BC9E0BCAF9F176FE4C4D38B0@phx.gbl>
References: <49D0CD9A.3030506@panix.com>
	<BAY123-W72BC9E0BCAF9F176FE4C4D38B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <517f3cab0904010749y3bae845cmde18eda3dd948be3@mail.gmail.com>

http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2008/01/23/pages/9475/index.xml

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Tom Cod <tcod at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Ironically, Evan Thomas is actually the grandson of Socialist Party leader
> Norman Thomas.
>

From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Apr  1 09:04:08 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:04:08 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Said Sayrafiezadeh: David Horowitz wannabe
Message-ID: <49D38268.1090700@panix.com>

Q: So what do you say now when people start ranting about capitalism?s 
dying days?

A: People have been fucking saying that my whole life. I like my life, 
and I don?t really want to change. I don?t need society to be 
dismantled. I don?t want to feel guilty about the things I have. I have 
a 32-inch high-def flat-screen TV. I fucking love that thing, man.

So says Said Sayrafiezadeh in a New York Magazine interview. His newly 
published memoir ?When Skateboards Will Be Free? recounts his youthful 
misfortunes as the son of two members of the Socialist Workers Party in 
Dickensian terms. Like Oliver Twist, his parents were a couple of Fagins 
forcing Marxist politics down his throat while denying him skateboards, 
and even worse for a red-blooded American, the right to love consumer goods.

full: 
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/said-sayrafiezadeh-david-horowitz-wannabe/


From davidrail68 at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  1 09:49:22 2009
From: davidrail68 at yahoo.com (David Walsh)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Agent Orange International Solidarity Campaign
Message-ID: <875018.31877.qm@web45308.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>


from Green Left Weekly published in Australia by the Democratic Socialist Perspective -- Dave

www.vn-agentorange.org

Agent Orange International Solidarity Campaign
Vietnam calls for justice

Even though the Vietnam War ended 30 years ago, the US.s saturation chemical bombing is still wreaking havoc on millions, including the newly born . making them third-generation victims. Nobody knows when the congenital deformities, one of many horrific health consequences of the toxic chemicals, will end.

As well as being teratogenic, Class-one human carcinogen dioxin was the most lethal poison left by the 80 million litres of herbicides/defoliants . more than half of which were nicknamed Agent Orange . that the US military sprayed or dumped regularly in central and southern Vietnam for 10 years until 1971. The defoliants were intended to destroy the Vietnamese liberation fighters. forest cover and deprive them of food supply.

As a result of these chemical attacks, a cocktail of health nightmares have been plaguing millions of Vietnamese who, after 50 years of war, foreign invasion and embargo, have lived in peace only since 1989.

In more recent years, the Vietnamese authorities have begun to grasp the true scale and very long-term consequences of the devastation wreaked by Agent Orange. Meanwhile, the human toll arising from the growing problem is weighing down many communities. As well as the hundreds of thousands of victims who have died over the years, there are an estimated 3 million living victims.

International solidarity needed
In the 1973 Peace Accords that paved the way to end the Vietnam War, the US promised Vietnam reparations of US$3.5 billion. So far, not a cent has been paid.

Hanoi has also demanded that Washington honour its moral responsibility towards the victims devastated by its Agent Orange attacks, and help out in decontamination. Under .sovereign immunity., the US government cannot be sued. Hanoi, therefore, seeks redress from the major chemical corporations that supplied Agent Orange and other deadly chemicals to the US military during the war. Vietnam Association for the Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxins (VAVA) was formed in January 2004, partly to carry out this task.

According to VAVA first vice-president Do Xuan Dien, in January 2004 VAVA and three Agent Orange victims launched a test lawsuit in a US court against 37 US chemical corporations. The number of individual plaintiffs increased to 28 in September 2004, but the case was dismissed by a US court in March 2005. Do told GLW that VAVA and other plaintiffs planned to officially submit the appeal soon, expecting court sessions to begin March 2006.

On behalf of all Agent Orange victims in Vietnam, Do sent a special appeal to GLW readers for solidarity actions, especially in support of the court case. Maximum pressure before March 2006 will be particularly helpful.

Special appeal to Australia.s Vietnam War veterans
VAVA honourary president and former vice-president of Vietnam Mme Nguyen Thi Binh called on Australia.s Vietnam War veterans to lend their support. Any action or statement of solidarity clearly identifying the veterans. unique voice would be most appreciated, Do said.

What you can do
Do also called for support for an international online petition in solidarity with the Agent Orange victims. Launched in 2004, more than 600,000 signatures have been collected. VAVA is hoping to present the petition to Washington when the 1 million mark is reached.

To sign the petition, visit http://www.petitiononline.com/AOVN.
To contact VAVA, email <hnncddcvn at fpt.vn>
Donations can be made to this bank account: Hoi Nan nhan chat doc da cam/dioxin Viet Nam 001.1000.863681, Bank Transactions Office, Vietcombank.
Please inform GLW of your solidarity actions <eva at greenleft.org.au> or <glw at greenleft.org.au>
Australian veterans interested in further actions can email <intl at dsp.org.au> or <eva at greenleft.org.au>





      



From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Apr  1 10:09:13 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:09:13 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Mark Rudd memoir
Message-ID: <49D391A9.5000500@panix.com>

http://www.observer.com/2009/books/it-doesn%E2%80%99t-take-weatherman-%E2%80%A6

It Doesn?t Take a Weatherman
By Clay Risen
March 31, 2009 | 2:15 p.m

Underground: My Life with SDS and the Weathermen
By Mark Rudd
William Morrow, 324 pp., $25.99

Among the many  micro-celebrities strewn across the 2008 campaign 
landscape was Bill Ayers, the former Weatherman singled out by G.O.P. 
veep nominee Sarah Palin for his reputed ties to Barack Obama.

Pieces were penned and voices were raised over the Ayers-Obama 
connection; much less was said about the Weathermen themselves, let 
alone 1960s white radicalism. Ms. Palin?s attacks notwithstanding, 
Americans are at best ambivalent and confused about their recent history 
of violent middle-class radical activism. Who were the Weathermen, and 
what did they mean?

By way of explanation, Mr. Ayers has re-released his 2001 Fugitive Days: 
Memoirs of an Antiwar Activist, complete with a post-Palin afterword. 
The new edition coincides with Underground: My Life with SDS and the 
Weathermen, the memoirs of Ayers? Weather-comrade Mark Rudd, who helped 
lead the 1968 takeover of five buildings at Columbia by members of the 
Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and soon after became a poster 
boy for white radical chic.

Underground is not as fluid or well written as Fugitive Days, but what 
Mr. Rudd lacks in style he makes up for in moral seriousness. While Mr. 
Ayers concedes that some of the Weather Underground?s actions were 
unwarranted, he returns time and again to a base moral equivalency: 
Because the U.S. military was engaged in a racist war in Vietnam, he and 
his cohort were allowed, even required, to bring the war home.

Mr. Rudd, on the other hand, believes the Weathermen were from beginning 
to end ?a total failure as well as a tragic mistake??for themselves, 
their cause and their country. Through an exercise of self-righteous 
extremism, they not only failed to bring about a better America or a 
shorter war, but they helped usher in the disastrous Nixon presidency 
and with it a multigenerational conservative backlash.

THE MORAL DIFFERENCE between the two comes into clearest focus in their 
treatment of the ?Townhouse.? On March 6, 1970, a bomb being assembled 
by several Weathermen exploded in a Greenwich Village townhouse, 
destroying the building and killing three. The bomb was intended for an 
officers? dance at Fort Dix, N.J., a fact Mr. Ayers never mentions.

Central to Mr. Ayers? account is a vague character he calls ?C.W.??most 
likely based on Mr. Rudd?s college SDS comrade and fellow Weatherman, 
John ?J.J.? Jacobs?a die-hard leftist who pushed the group into ?a new 
reign of intellectual terror,? one that led directly to the Townhouse. 
?We had devolved from freedom fighters into criminals,? he writes.

When the Weatherman leadership regrouped in California after the 
explosion, Bernadine Dohrn, who had been dating C.W. and would later 
settle down with Mr. Ayers, kicked C.W. out of the organization. ?Where 
we?re going ? you?re not welcome,? she reportedly told him.

Since Jacobs died in 1997, it?s unlikely Mr. Ayers is protecting him. 
Rather, by creating a fictionalized character, Mr. Ayers is able to 
unload all the Weathermen?s original sins on him. As Mr. Ayers tells it, 
after the purge came a golden age: more bombings (though now they called 
in warnings), long communiqu?s, fund-raising-by-theft, and a deep-set 
sense that revolution really was around the corner.

But for Mr. Rudd, the Townhouse and J.J.?s purge confirmed a growing 
fear that the entire project was morally bankrupt: Ideological 
obscurantism and pointless violence had replaced the SDS vision of 
peaceful mass organizing. Jacobs, who readily assented to his exile, 
?seemed to me like a victim of one of Stalin?s purges ready to falsely 
confess,? Mr. Rudd writes. The group, he concludes, was little more than 
a secular cult. By 1971, Mr. Rudd was out, and in 1977 he turned himself 
in to New York City police.

Mr. Rudd doesn?t go as far as some of his erstwhile left-wing 
colleagues, like Todd Gitlin (who led the SDS in the mid-1960s but left 
before it truly radicalized), in condemning the Weathermen. But the 
value of Underground is not to be measured by the depth of its 
self-criticism. Rather, it is worth reading as a travel guide into hell, 
a story-lesson and a warning about the risks of ideology inherent in all 
militant activism.

Clay Risen is the managing editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas and 
the author of A Nation on Fire: America in the Wake of the King 
Assassination. He can be reached at books at observer.com


From jayroth6 at cox.net  Wed Apr  1 10:32:59 2009
From: jayroth6 at cox.net (J Rothermel)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:32:59 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Civil war in UNITE HERE
Message-ID: <49D3973B.4010609@cox.net>

http://socialistworker.org/2009/03/31/civil-war-in-unite-here

 


  Civil war in UNITE HERE


   

Ruby Wolf looks at the background to the battle that's breaking up a 
union widely seen as progressive.

 

March 31, 2009

 

THE CIVIL war in the UNITE HERE union has opened up a new front, with 
the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) giving support to a 
breakaway faction.

 

The split is the result of a power struggle between John Wilhelm, who 
was president of the former Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees (HERE) 
union, and Bruce Raynor, of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and 
Textile Employees (UNITE). Wilhelm and Raynor are leading factions 
struggling not only for control of UNITE HERE's 400,000 members, but 
also over the union's Amalgamated Bank, which had $4.7 billion in assets 
last year.

 

UNITE HERE, one of the larger and more liberal unions in the labor 
movement, is coming undone. The key differences are the rival leaders' 
competing notions of top-down union "reform," as well as which faction 
will wield power under the union's constitution.

 

In 2004, Raynor and Wilhelm agreed to merge their two unions, aiming to 
create a more powerful force. Raynor's UNITE had a lot of money at its 
disposal, yet a dwindling membership as a result of job losses in its 
core garment industry. For its part, Wilhelm's HERE had 300,000 members, 
but was short on funds.

 

The two unions did have some common ground in battles with three 
employers--Aramark, Sodhexo and Cintas, which are dominant players in 
uniform, laundry and food service industries. A joint union ought to be 
a much-needed weapon to take on these employers, who employ both uniform 
laundry workers represented by the old UNITE and food services employees 
organized by HERE.

 

Thus, the unions merged, allowing HERE to gain access to UNITE's much 
larger financial resources, while UNITE got the jurisdiction to organize.

 

During the 2004 founding constitutional convention of UNITE HERE, the 
merger was finalized with a peculiar structure. Essentially, the union 
was supposed to be run by the two presidents, Raynor and Wilhelm, giving 
unchecked decision-making power to both.

 

So despite being a single entity, the old organizational structures of 
UNITE and HERE remained intact. Raynor's loyal staff continued to run 
UNITE's old joint boards that oversee locals across the country, while 
Wilhelm's allies remained in charge of the former HERE locals.

 

Thus, if the two co-presidents disagreed, there was always the potential 
that the union would divide along the lines of the merger. And that's 
what has taken place.

 

Raynor has accused the HERE side of being too liberal with the union's 
money and argues that the union is not gaining enough members.

"Since 2005, UNITE HERE has spent more than $61 million on organizing in 
HERE's hotel and gaming sectors with little to show for it," Raynor 
wrote in a letter to union members. "The total membership of our union 
is stagnant, and only about 32,000 workers have been organized in those 
robust sectors. In contrast, only $10 million has been spent on 
campaigns in UNITE's traditional manufacturing, distribution and retail 
sectors, yet we have organized 7,000 new members in those struggling 
industries."

 

For his part, Wilhelm argues that locals need more money in order to 
help them grow. He accuses Raynor's organizers of agreeing to 
substandard contracts in order to entice employers into accepting 
unionization.

 

"President Raynor...openly admits that he believes his powers should be 
used unilaterally to trade away the contractual rights of our affiliates 
and their members to obtain voluntary recognition at non-union shops 
(i.e. "growth") from major corporations," Wilhelm wrote in his own memo 
to union members. "President Raynor has frequently stated that the 
union's greatest enemy is 'standards.' By 'standards,' he means 
contractual standards regarding our members' wages, benefits and working 
conditions--standards the union has fought hard to establish over many 
years."

 

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

THE DISAGREEMENTS between the two presidents came to a breaking point 
during UNITE HERE's national settlement with Aramark. A national boycott 
and strike campaign organized by the union pushed the company to the 
bargaining table. Wilhelm hoped to sign an agreement that would allow 
thousands of employees in a couple of major cities to sign union cards.

 

While both presidents were in negotiations with management, Raynor 
reportedly made a backroom deal with the company. The deal settled a 
national contract that allowed markedly fewer employees to sign cards 
than Wilhelm had wanted. And rather than concentrating new union members 
in key cities, the deal brings union recognition to shops scattered all 
across the country.

 

The situation deteriorated into an all-out war in the beginning of 
September when Raynor changed the bylaws of the Amalgamated Bank, giving 
more control to the bank directors. The move essentially gave control of 
the bank--a creation of one of UNITE's predecessor unions--back to Raynor.

 

Members from both sides then began to struggle for control of union 
locals and resources. In January, former UNITE staff forcibly removed 
the elected leadership from UNITE HERE Local 24 in Detroit from their 
offices, declaring that the local would be put under trusteeship. The 
Local 24 executive board then convinced most of its members to sign 
petitions to have the local disaffiliate from the joint board that 
oversees them. Similar struggles of control of locals have arisen in 
Phoenix.

 

In February, Raynor attempted to introduce resolutions that would have 
allowed UNITE to secede from the union at the general executive board 
meeting in Washington, D.C. However, the resolutions were voted down, 
with the majority of the executive board loyal to the HERE side.

 

The UNITE faction then filed a federal lawsuit against Wilhelm and his 
loyalists, arguing that the constitution of UNITE HERE should be 
declared null and void because the 2004 merger failed in its stated goal 
of unionizing large numbers of unorganized workers.

 

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

IT SEEMS unlikely, however, that Raynor will be able to secede from 
UNITE HERE through the courts or through the union's constitutional 
process. The UNITE faction on the general executive board had little 
prospect of gaining a majority of the board in advance of the UNITE HERE 
national convention, set to take place in June.

 

Thus, Raynor has resorted to forcing his way out of UNITE HERE with the 
support of SEIU President Andy Stern, who, ironically, was a guest 
speaker at the UNITE HERE merger conference.

 

The UNITE officials, with support from SEIU staff, have mobilized to 
disaffiliate joint boards from UNITE HERE. On March 21, they held a 
convention of a new union, Workers United, at which 450 delegates 
claimed to represent 150,000 workers. The new union, led by Edgar 
Romney, a former UNITE official, will be a satellite of SEIU, which will 
finance much of Workers United operations. The convention voted to raise 
the possibility of direct affiliation to SEIU in the future.

 

Raynor's claim that 150,000 members have already defected from the 
national union is shaky, given that his skeleton staff may not have been 
capable of successfully disaffiliating this many members in such short time.

 

Wilhelm alleges that UNITE's maneuvers are undemocratic, arguing that 
UNITE officials had circulated petitions to members about leaving the 
union, rather than holding a vote--and that some locals had no petition 
or votes at all.

 

A formal split between the merged unions is still far from certain. A 
number of locals under the old UNITE joint boards have disaffiliated 
from them in order to group with locals loyal to HERE.

 

What is certain is that friendly relations between Wilhelm and Stern 
have been severed. UNITE HERE and SEIU were the main leaders in the 2005 
split in the AFL-CIO that led to the establishment of the Change to Win 
federation. Now, however, with the SEIU's intervention in UNITE HERE, 
Wilhelm is trying to negotiate re-affiliating his union with the 
AFL-CIO. Yet at the same time, pressure from the White House has 
compelled Change to Win and the AFL-CIO to reunify as well.

 

The power struggle between two sections of the UNITE HERE bureaucracy 
comes at critical time for the labor movement. Corporate America is 
gearing up to destroy the Employee Free Choice Act that would make it 
easier to join a union, and employers are out to make workers pay for 
the worst economic crisis since the 1930s.

 

Neither faction battling for control of UNITE HERE--or other union 
leaders, for that matter--have offered a strategy capable of meeting 
that challenge. In the end, the revitalization of the unions will depend 
on workers themselves acting together in struggle.

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

Material on this Web site is licensed by SocialistWorker.org, under a 
Creative Commons (by-nc-nd 3.0) 
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0> [1] license, except 
for articles that are republished with permission. Readers are welcome 
to share and use material belonging to this site for non-commercial 
purposes, as long as they are attributed to the author and 
SocialistWorker.org.

 









From loupaulsen at sbcglobal.net  Wed Apr  1 11:12:45 2009
From: loupaulsen at sbcglobal.net (Lou Paulsen)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Good imperialists vs. evil governments of the oppressed,
	round 199
References: <49D378E5.7020103@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <637167.55866.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


?
Mr. Cloke wrote, sarcastically, as he thought:

> And therefore, had the Argentinian military dictatorship and its 
> supporting clique amongst the bourgeoisie defeated the UK armed forces 
> and re-established control over the Falklands, thus reinforcing itself 
> in power and strengthening its ability to oppress and commit mass 
> murder against the Argentine working class, petit bourgeoisie and, 
> well, lefties, academics, activists, the usual suspects, that would 
> have been a step forward in the international class struggle, would it?

Mr. Cloke apparently believes in the very popular theory that if an imperialist power suffers a military defeat at the hands of an oppressed country with a non-socialist/undemocratic government, this is bad for the oppressed workers because it strengthens that government.? Logically, it must follow that he also believes that when an imperialist power inflicts a military defeat on?an oppressed country with a non-socialist/undemocratic government, this is good for the workers in the oppressed country.? It does them a favor.? It weakens the rule of the bourgeois nationalist leaders, generals, dictators, mullahs, etc.

This theory is testable, though.? There have been plenty of military victories by imperialist powers over oppressed countries.? Perhaps Mr. Cloke can give us a brief listing of the cases in which?they have strengthened the workers.? My own?impression has been that, even leaving aside, as Mr. Cloke is willing to do, the fact that inflicting military defeat on the oppressed country inevitably means killing and maiming the oppressed workers, both those in the military and (as imperialist war is conducted in these days) those who are not, and impoverishing the country, etc., still, looking at the "domestic politics" alone, military defeats inflicted by the imperialists are?likely to leave?the workers?in those countries?weaker and?farther from power.

Well, if it is a good thing for the workers and oppressed for imperialist bullets and bombs to inflict miliitary defeats and weaken bad governments of oppressed countries, it?is only a small step (perhaps a step of zero length) to saying that it is a good thing for the oppressed if the imperialists completely exterminate those governments and conquer and occupy and "liberate" the oppressed?country entirely.? Why should the "favors" of the imperialists be limited to expelling the generals from some "rocks"?? If we have the interests of the Argentine workers at heart, why shouldn't the benevolent imperialists go on and expel them from Buenos Aires?*? 

This is not a new?discovery, of course.? I believe that in 1519 somebody must have asked?sarcastically if it would have been a good thing for the Aztecs to have defeated Cortez and to have gone on with human sacrifices.?In 1898 people asked sarcastically if the U.S. should just leave the oppressive Spanish imperialist government in place in Cuba, Puerto Rico?and the Philippines.? In 1903 someone must have asked if it would have been a good thing?if the Sokoto Caliphate?had defeated Lord Lugard's expedition and been free to go on with slave raids north of the Niger/Benue.? Certainly in recent years we have been taught that imperialist sanctions, blockades, destablization, war and conquest have been or would be good for the oppressed in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan,?Iraq, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela, and so on.? "Would it be a good thing for the Taliban to fight off the imperialists in Afghanistan and go on oppressing women?"? (Don't ask about
 the?U.S. occupation?government's record....!)? 

In fact, it just about always looks as if the imperialists are the party of good government for the oppressed, doesn't it?? And, after all, they are the economically, technologically, and culturally advanced countries, aren't they?? And the oppressed?country, not by chance,?is the "backward" country on all fronts, isn't it?? So imperialist conquest must inevitably bring more "advanced" politics, social thought, social relationships, and so forth, mustn't it?*

Mr. Cloke might protest that global imperialist hegemony?supplemented?perhaps by?an "after the imperialists, us!" slogan is not really what he had in mind, and that he wouldn't really have favored any further action beyond militarily securing the Malvinas in British hands, but on what basis can he draw the line there?? If?he is not REALLY primarily interested in keeping the rocks, sheep, possible oil, etc.,?in English hands, and is REALLY primarily interested in helping out our class brothers and sisters in Argentina, and if weakening the generals with military defeats is so good for them, then the Malvinas are beside the point, aren't they?? Go on, imperialists,?and defeat the oppressive governments?in the oppressed countries and put them out of existence!*

(*Since this might be read by speakers of non-English languages?from different cultures, and since humor and irony are sometimes difficult to translate or indeed even to share among speakers of the same language, I assure all readers that I am being completely sarcastic and mean entirely the opposite, and am attacking Mr. Cloke's position as?well as I can.? As all revolutionary Marxists have been aware since?before World War I at least,?opposition to imperialist war?on all fronts is the first duty of Marxists,?but?most particularly, without?possibility of evasion,?of the Marxists within those imperialist countries.? Imperialist victories and occupations are disastrous both for the masses of the oppressed countries and also for the workers of the imperialist?countries whose capitalists are strengthened and kept in power.? The short answer to Mr. Cloke's question as to whether it would have been a good thing for the international class
 struggle for Britain to have been thrown out of the Malvinas - and to analogous questions about the other examples referred to above - is "Yes.")

Lou Paulsen
member, WWP
Chicago


From nmgoro at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 11:36:04 2009
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:36:04 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] The social meaning of the "plague on both houses" thesis
 [was Re: Good imperialists vs. evil governments of the oppressed, round 199]
In-Reply-To: <637167.55866.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <49D378E5.7020103@gmail.com>
	<637167.55866.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <49D3A604.7060602@gmail.com>

Perhaps what follows is not worthless. Of course, the person in question
is now irrelevant to the argument, so that please at most take this by
me as a piece of socio-political enthomology.

Lou Paulsen wrote that those like Mr. Cloke, who "apparently believes in
the very popular theory that if an imperialist power suffers a military
defeat at the hands of an oppressed country with a 
non-socialist/undemocratic government, this is bad for the oppressed
workers because it strengthens that government.  Logically, it must
follow that he also believes that when an imperialist power inflicts a
military defeat on an oppressed country with a
non-socialist/undemocratic government, this is good for the workers in
the oppressed country.  It does them a favor.  It weakens the rule of
the bourgeois nationalist leaders, generals, dictators, mullahs, etc."

There is a third possibility, however, and this possibility is that 
since both situations are undesirable, what best fits this kind of 
progressivism is a permanent draw. No winners. No losers.

Simply business as usual. A 1984 kind of situation, where war operations 
are endemic in the global quadrangle of the "people of humble color" (as 
Jos? Luis Borges, one of the literary heroes of this kind of 
"progressives" once said). Add Keynesian economy to the global image and 
you have it.

Which is probably the social meaning of the "plague on both houses" 
thesis: let nothing chage in this world. It is horrible and you can?t 
but hate it. But since I find it comfortable, let it never change.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Wed Apr  1 11:36:37 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:36:37 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Moderator's note
In-Reply-To: <49D3A604.7060602@gmail.com>
References: <49D378E5.7020103@gmail.com>	<637167.55866.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<49D3A604.7060602@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49D3A625.3000806@panix.com>

I am not sure it is worth all these replies to J.M.P. Cloke. I doubt 
that are more than 3 or 4 people in the entire list who would still 
refer to the "Falklands". We really need to concentrate on real debates 
between positions that reflect major currents within Marxism, not this 
sort of thing. I should add that the only groups that I am aware of that 
defends this perspective are associated with Ted Grant. In any case, I 
would strongly urge moving on to more pressing matters.


From darrel.furlotte at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 11:55:50 2009
From: darrel.furlotte at gmail.com (Darrel Furlotte)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:55:50 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Interview with Fidel
Message-ID: <06F779BE9BD84AE6BC4788A19F0D24EC@DarrelLenovo>


Today, a two-part special: An interview with Fidel earlier this month by the Argentine sociologist Atilio Boron, which appeared on Boron's blog and was also published at Pagina 12.

Fidel and Boron discussed the G-20 meeting, and the motives for inviting Argentina, Brazil and Mexico to dine with the adults.  And Fidel talked about the recent cabinet changes: "If I expressed an opinion about the change in the cabinet," he said, "it was due to the necessity to cut off at the root the talk about a conflict between Fidel's men and those of Ra?l. I couldn't endorse this stupidity by my silence.Ra?l is the one who is governing. In Cuba, many people paid with their lives for the victory and consolidation of the Revolution, not just in the Sierra Maestra and in the struggle against Batista. Afterwards, they also killed our literacy teachers in Cuba, and they are still doing it outside of Cuba. The same thing goes on with our doctors, who risk their lives to make socialist internationalism a reality."

Finally, they discuss the ominous possibility of a rightward political swing in Latin America as a consequence of the economic crisis.



http://machetera.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/god-is-in-the-details/

From Waistline2 at aol.com  Wed Apr  1 11:56:35 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:56:35 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] My final point
Message-ID: <d19.3bd1426e.370504d3@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/1/2009 10:05:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
nmgoro at gmail.com writes:
J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk escribi?:
> 
>  ...my respectful answer to Nestor is: I don't know if I'm a Marxist - 
>  but neither do you; I don't know enough about it or myself - but neither  
> do you. An essential difference between us, however, seems to be that  
> I'm happy to debate my ideas and have them shot down - and you're  not.

Comment

Marxist as a tag spans from the left to the right and  everything in between. 

From J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk  Wed Apr  1 12:24:32 2009
From: J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk (J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:24:32 +0100
Subject: [Marxism] Good imperialists vs. evil governments of the
 oppressed, round 199
In-Reply-To: <637167.55866.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <49D378E5.7020103@gmail.com>
	<637167.55866.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <web-4829421@twum.lboro.ac.uk>

"Logically, it must follow that he also believes that when 
an imperialist power inflicts a military defeat on?an 
oppressed country with a non-socialist/undemocratic 
government, this is good for the workers in the oppressed 
country.? It does them a favor.? It weakens the rule of 
the bourgeois nationalist leaders, generals, dictators, 
mullahs, etc."

Having started all this, I could actually just stay out of 
it, couldn't I, and let you guys carry on with your fierce 
denunciations of things you've made up that I haven't said 
and don't believe.... having said which, you interestingly 
seem to be arguing that the transition from the military 
regime to the Alfonsin government was a *backward* step 
for the workers. I'd love to see you argue that one....

And I ask, humbly, as a swine-like supplicant whose 
inadequate thinking beseeches the enlightenment of your 
pearls of Marxist wisdom!?

Jon Cloke



From sartesian at earthlink.net  Wed Apr  1 12:27:19 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:27:19 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Moderator's note
References: <49D378E5.7020103@gmail.com>	<637167.55866.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com><49D3A604.7060602@gmail.com>
	<49D3A625.3000806@panix.com>
Message-ID: <EBD91453AC77427A800A992ECB69C0B6@dmsthinkpad>

I'm done with that dodgy geezer, but I would like one last go round at this 
and, even more importantly,  I would like to hear what all those people who, 
according to Mr. Cloke, have been contacting him offlist urging him on.

Why the John Alden?

So in answer to Mr. Cloke's question "would the defeat of the military 
forces of British finance capital, of Margaret Attila the Hen Thatcher, by 
the military of the Argentine dictatorship been a step forward for the 
workers's struggle internationally--"  the answer is not simply, but 
emphatically, positively, absolutely, definitely, YES.

And if the Marxists of the UK had successfully organized the workers against 
the mobilization, dispatchment, and engagement of UK troops, against the 
maintenance of the what remains of empire-- if the workers had come out 
against both combat and victory-- for the defeat of Thatcher abroad, then 
they would have created an opening, the necessary room to maneuver for the 
defeat of Thatcher at home.

And that is a principle worth repeating.....

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:36 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Moderator's note




From hartin at mail.desy.de  Wed Apr  1 12:40:48 2009
From: hartin at mail.desy.de (Anthony Hartin)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:40:48 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Marxism] Quantum Diaries
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904012040090.26126@flc26.desy.de>


This is a revival of a physicist blog site that first began in 2005.
Since there was a discussion of Physicists and Wall Street a little while ago, 
perhaps this (and other posts) may be of passing interest:

http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2009/04/01/kaos-theory-on-wall-street/


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Wed Apr  1 12:57:24 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:57:24 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Good imperialists vs. evil governments of the
	oppressed, round ...
Message-ID: <c18.518ca45c.37051314@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/1/2009 2:25:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk writes:

And I ask, humbly, as a swine-like supplicant whose 
inadequate  thinking beseeches the enlightenment of your 
pearls of Marxist wisdom!  

Jon Cloke
 
 
Comment 
 
Sir, I believe you are referring to the "no win scenario," rather than  
inadequate thinking, a category I clearly fit within. In my experience on this  
list, which spans some years, no one measure the rate at which neurons complete  
the leap at the synaptic juncture . . . thank God. 
 
This means I have a chance. 
 
In the "no win scenario" one can only push and advocate along the line of  
reform that possesses the broadest capability of enhancing the fighting capacity 
 of the workers and this fighting capacity has to be conceptualized. More 
often  than not, everyone conception of the probable future is wrong. This stops 
no one  from conceptualizing. Often thick ideology enters the fray. One must 
stripe the  thick ideology from propositions, proudly stepping forth, with a 
clear  understanding that history will judge us harsh and in error, while our 
children  file complaints over our errors of judgement.   
 
Before I read anything about Marx, I knew in my heart and soul that the war  
against the people of Vietnam was wrong and not justifiable by anyone other 
than  bandits, thieves and murderers. Then, I was raised in a neighborhood where 
the  people deeply felt it was proper to tend to ones own business first. And 
felt,  with biblical wisdom, it was proper and moral to "get the beam out of 
ones own  eye, before trying to get the speck out of another's eye."  
 
The old "beam" versus "speck" godspell - gospel.  
 
In respect to the colonial and formerly colonial world, my own profound  
feeling about their internal struggle and life and death conflicts, from the  
standpoint of living in America, appears as the speck. The actions of my  
imperialists is the beam. 
 
Perhaps after a century or two, if the world witness American communism  
systematically removing centuries of beams from our own eyes, perhaps this will  
inspire other to get the speck out of theirs.
 
Yes? 
 
 
 
WL. 
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From gdunkel at mindspring.com  Wed Apr  1 13:08:56 2009
From: gdunkel at mindspring.com (Greg Dunkel)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:08:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism]
 =?utf-8?q?Trot-diaper_baby_biography=3A_Sa=C3=AFd_Sayra?=
 =?utf-8?q?fiezadeh?=
Message-ID: <5479365.1238612937147.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

What can you expect from someone who works for Martha Stewart!




From loupaulsen at sbcglobal.net  Wed Apr  1 13:18:44 2009
From: loupaulsen at sbcglobal.net (Lou Paulsen)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Good imperialists vs. evil governments of the
	oppressed, round 199
References: <49D378E5.7020103@gmail.com>
	<637167.55866.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<web-4829421@twum.lboro.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <397977.60758.qm@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>




----- Original Message ----
From: "J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk" <J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk>
>Having started all this, I could actually just stay out of it, couldn't I, and let you guys carry on with your fierce denunciations of things you've made up that I haven't said and don't believe.... 

Which part of the logic don't you follow?? And do you really not follow it and not believe those things?? See below:

<[h]aving said which, you interestingly seem to be arguing that the transition from the military regime to the Alfonsin government was a *backward* step for the workers. I'd love to see you argue that one....

You are assuming that the "transition from the military regime to the Alfonsin government" was a direct result of the defeat of the Argentine forces in the Malvinas War.? This is exactly consistent with what I said your position is.? You believe that Margaret Thatcher brought down the junta and put Alfonsin in the presidency.? Since you believe that, you think a British victory was good for the Argentine workers.? But why don't you think it would have been even better for the workers if Thatcher had brought down the junta in 1982, by direct invasion?

However - and I would welcome Nestor's input here - I question your assumption.? The junta's economic policies were already failing before the war.? It's true that Galtieri resigned after the failure of his war policy, but the junta was still in place.? What brought down Bignone?? Wasn't it the economic struggle??And why do you believe that if Argentina had won the war, all its economic problems would have gone away and the working class would have been powerless?

Lou Paulsen



From elishastephens at hotmail.com  Wed Apr  1 13:44:04 2009
From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:44:04 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
Message-ID: <COL112-W182BD83898EEB724E12964D78B0@phx.gbl>


Poor David Lindorff. He so had his hopes set on Barack Obama.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff03312009.html

The Mendacity of Hope
The Obama Betrayal

By DAVE LINDORFF

We are witnessing one of the fastest betrayals of the Democratic Party base in modern memory, as President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate slither away from a crucial constituency, the labor movement, and from support of labor's key legislative agenda item: passage of a bill, "The Employee Free Choice Act," which would restore a measure of fairness to labor relations.

Obama, who once supported the measure, and who campaigned saying he would sign the bill, has stood shamelessly silent as a massive corporate campaign mounted by such lobbying powerhouses as the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation, hiding behind a fake "citizen action" organization called the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (sic), has descended on Congress, and especially the Senate, has worked to peel away support for the bill among both Democrats and swing Republicans who had formally backed the measure.

The business lobbying campaign is having considerable success. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who is facing a Republican primary threat next year from a conservative challenger, has already announced that he will not support allowing the Employee Free Choice Act to go to the floor for debate and a vote in the Senate.  As well, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), a former co-sponsor of the bill when it was last introduced in the Senate in 2007, now says she will not support it.

Since 60 votes are needed to move a bill past a Senate filibuster vowed by Republicans, Specter's defection is particularly damaging. It is also a betrayal of the many unions that have consistently backed this sometimes unpredictable Republican. But Feinstein's volte face is a particularly odious betraytal of her union backers in heavily unionized California.  With senators like Feinstein caving in to corporate anti-union pressure, it makes it less likely that Senate Democrats would or could move to push the bill through past a filibuster by more confrontational means, such as attaching it to a budget bill that would not be subject to a filibuster?something Republicans did a number of times when they had control of the Senate between 2002 and 2006.

Clearly, the key turncoat in this sorry tale is Obama, whose presidential campaign would have sunk into oblivion early had it not been for powerful support from key elements of organized labor. It was also undeniably organized labor's army of grass roots backers that handed him victory, a majority of the popular vote, and a mandate for "change" in November over Republican John McCain.

If Obama were to strongly advocate for Employee Free Choice, he could clearly line up the backing needed to win its approval in both houses. Moderate Republicans like Specter need Obama's support for their own pet bills, and would have no hope of accomplishing anything, much less bringing home the bacon that they need in order to win re-election, without the president's willingness to support them. This gives Obama enormous clout if he wants to use it.  Wavering members of his own party, like Feinstein, would also certainly respond favorably to his calls for backing on a key issue for his base.  But he has chosen instead to duck this issue.

Anyone who thought, as I once did out of an excess of optimism, that this president was positioned to act in this economic crisis as did the once equally reticent Franklin Roosevelt before him, should see clearly now that this president is not that same kind of bold risk-taker as FDR.  Obama, rather, is following in the well-worn path of gutless political hacks before him like President Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, kowtowing to the wishes of the corporate elite and taking the Democratic grassroots for granted.

Employee Free Choice, which would have reversed 50 years of steady erosion of workers' organizing rights by ending employers' ability to stall off union elections for years, fire union organizers with impunity, and intimidate pro-union employees,  by mandating that unions be recognized once they had obtained signature cards of support from over 50% of a work unit, is only one sign of this betrayal, of course, but it is a significant one.

Meanwhile, even as the Employee Free Choice bill is swirling around the drain, a new study is giving the lie to the main argument the corporate lobbyists have been using to win over one-time backers like Specter and Feinstein: the fear-mongering claim that facilitating unionization in a recessionary time could lead to business failures.

Not so, says labor economist John DiNardo of the University of Michigan, who just released a study titled "Still Open for Business: Unionization Has No Causal Effect on Firm Closures," published by the Economic Policy Institute

DiNardo's study cites two surveys of similar enterprises at which workers either narrowly won union votes by 51% or narrowly lost by 49%. These surveys, covering the period 1961-2004, found  "zero correlation" between a company's being unionized and the likelihood of its failing.

"I don't think business leaders or people like Sen. Specter are crazy," DiNardo says. "Many of them probably honestly do believe that having a union increases the likelihood of business failure, but the evidence is just not there. In fact, wages don't always even go up when a company is unionized."

DiNardo speculates that what really may cause many corporate managers and business owners to bitterly oppose unionization is not the fear of business failure or even perhaps of higher labor costs, but rather the fear of losing control over workers.

"Business managers in non-union firms are more like monarchs," he says. "With a union, a company becomes slightly more democratic, and the manager becomes more like a president."

That puts the name of the anti-Employee Free Choice Act business lobbying coalition in an interesting light. Obviously no corporate lobbying organization is actually in favor of democracy in the workplace, as their name deceptively implies.

This betrayal of workers is not the first betrayal of the Democratic base by Obama and Congressional Democrats.  Scarcely two-thirds of the way through his first 100 days, Obama has also already betrayed a vow to end the Iraq War, having announced his intention to leave upwards of 50,000 trooops in that benighted and blood-stained nation for years to come.

Instead of closing Guantanamo, he has made a vague promise to close that horror show a year from now, but then left open the possibility of continuing to hold people indefinitely without charge, and even left himself a loophole to torture them.

Instead of restoring the Constitution, Obama has already begun adopting the Bush practice of using signing statements to assert an unconstitutional presidential authority to ignore laws passed by the Congress.

Instead of assuring that the laws of the land be faithfully enforced, as he swore in his oath of office, and promised in his campaign, Obama has refused to order a Justice Department investigation into whether members of the prior administration should be charged with crimes such as torture or lying to Congress.

This litany of betrayals shows that rather than audacity, this president has chosen mendacity. Instead of change, he is giving us at best small change, and when it comes to abuse of the Democratic base, no change. (And I haven't even mentioned his wholesale betrayal of ordinary citizens in his pro-Wall Street bail-out of the big banks and financial institutions.)

At least President Clinton waited two years before he began a wholesale sell-out of Democratic voters.

Obama isn't even waiting for the honeymoon to end to start his betrayal.

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009

From nmgoro at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 13:49:07 2009
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:49:07 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] =?iso-8859-1?q?Alfons=EDn?=
In-Reply-To: <web-4829421@twum.lboro.ac.uk>
References: <49D378E5.7020103@gmail.com>	<637167.55866.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<web-4829421@twum.lboro.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <49D3C533.5030300@gmail.com>

J.M.P.Cloke en lboro.ac.uk escribi?:
> you interestingly 
> seem to be arguing that the transition from the military 
> regime to the Alfonsin government was a *backward* step 
> for the workers. I'd love to see you argue that one....
> 

So that you seem to know more on Argentina than your first cotributions 
made us think of.

The transition from the military to the Alfons?n _regimes_ was not a 
"backward" step for the workers nor for the Argentinean people in 
general. It would be stupid to argue like that, and from what I said 
there is no reason to extract this conclusion.

But the Alfons?n regime was the most pro-imperialist outcome possible 
after the defeat in Malvinas.

It has had good and bad things in its trail.

But it was absolutely anti-Argentinean on Malvinas, and of course on the 
organization of the working class. Suffice it to say that his first 
Minister of Labor was a member of the wing of the Socialist Party that 
had been in government with the Libertadora of 1955.

Alfons?n headed Argentina towards long years of colonial democracy.

The second part is his merit. The first part is his ruin.



From mjs at smithbowen.net  Wed Apr  1 14:01:49 2009
From: mjs at smithbowen.net (Michael Smith)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:01:49 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <COL112-W182BD83898EEB724E12964D78B0@phx.gbl>
References: <COL112-W182BD83898EEB724E12964D78B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <20090401160149.6c50087a@crashcart>

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:44:04 -0700
Eli Stephens <elishastephens at hotmail.com> wrote:

> a fake "citizen action" organization called the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (sic), has... worked to peel away support for the bill among both Democrats and swing Republicans who had formally backed the measure.

'Formally' is good. I daresay Lindorff meant 'formerly,' but it's an 
inspired parapraxis (paraphasis?) and more truthful as it stands. 

-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org


From nmgoro at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 14:08:23 2009
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:08:23 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] Good imperialists vs. evil governments of
 the	oppressed, round 199
In-Reply-To: <397977.60758.qm@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <49D378E5.7020103@gmail.com>	<637167.55866.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<web-4829421@twum.lboro.ac.uk>
	<397977.60758.qm@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <49D3C9B7.6060001@gmail.com>

 >
 > However - and I would welcome Nestor's input here - I question your
 > assumption.  The junta's economic policies were already failing before
 > the war.  It's true that Galtieri resigned after the failure of his
 > war policy, but the junta was still in place.  What brought down
 > Bignone?

 > Wasn't it the economic struggle? And why do you believe that if
 > Argentina had won the war, all its economic problems would have gone
 > away and the working class would have been powerless?
 >
 > Lou Paulsen

I have committed myself not to broach Cloke?s issue any more. But I have 
not said a word on broaching Alfons?n, who has died yesterday and seems 
to have been making the headlines as the "father of Arg democracy" as 
"La naci?n", the old oligarchic newspaper in Buenos Aires, headlined today.

Such a father, such a democracy. We had to wage a battle of many years 
to begin to turn our "democracy" into an useful tool in the hands of the 
people here, and this has been the consequence of Alfons?n.

A democratic outcome had become inevitable after the defeat in Malvinas, 
but Louis Pa. is right in that sooner or later the regime was bound to 
fall down. The issue was whether it would fall down due to popular 
struggle, which was gaining momentum or due to some kind of imperialist 
concoction. In fact, before the Galtieri period, the most "democratic" 
thugs -led by General Viola, who had replaced Videla as Prez- attempted 
a negotiated return to "democracy" in the Chilean style. Their non 
expressed but obvious candidate to Presidency was the then president of 
the Radical Party (that is Alfons?n?s party).

The hawks in the regime eventually broke the Viola line, and in the end 
set the stage for the Malvinas issue. I strongly recommend the article 
in Spanish by Lacolla to those interested in more details. But they were 
duped by history (and, perhaps, by their "allies", who wanted to get rid 
of these uncomfortable "friends").

Then, and to begin with: Bignone was himself the result of a coup, a 
_defeatist coup within the armed forces_, against Galtieri. To follow 
up: the non declared but obvious candidate of those coup officers was 
_no other than Ra?l Alfons?n_. Reasons why he defeated Peronism on 
elections are a most interesting issue. But not to be debated on this 
thread.

Maybe some day.


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Wed Apr  1 14:06:33 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:06:33 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] the last frontier
Message-ID: <bce.42937ebe.37052349@aol.com>

Notes: filed and stored For communists working in the electoral arena as a  
long term assignment. 
4/1/09 
 
Waistline 
 
Another issue arises in considering capital in the post 1980 era of   
Securitization and crisis. What is the probably trajectory of capital as  investment, 
or what are the probable paths of expansion? What does the next  decade or 
two hold in store for American communism? What will we face? 
 
While recovery is not possible, restoration of profitability will take  place 
and is the stuff of the current policy struggles faced by the Obama  
administration. There is more than meets the eye in the Obama administrations  push 
for infrastructure development, enhancement and evolution. 
 
Although, the outline is barely in view, the probable path forward for  
capital seems to reside within the state of the United States of North America  
itself. The historic push from the costal areas further into the interior. We  
seem - I would say we are, poised to complete the settlement of America.   Will 
try and pay close attention to new calls for a "new homestead act" which  
surfaced for a moment under Clinton and Bush. 
 
Likening the Obama administration to the Roosevelt administration - as New  
Dealers, who began decentralizing America, seems to be an aspect of our history 
 that may need to be given new attention. The general historical context is  
America as a nation of immigrants. The demographic shift is in high swing, but 
 much of its meaning is still clouded by anti-immigration (anti-Mexican)  
hysterics and concepts of the break up of the US state as a state system. 
 
The scope of this issue is very complex. 
 
The Republican Party, as an institution  cannot recover on the old  basis 
because their ideology block them. That is anti-government,  anti-development of 
infrastructure, which in turn blocks them from creating the  infrastructure 
basis for population shift. The industrial center or industrial  form of 
urbanization is historically and practically obsolete. Industrial  configuration of 
urbanization will not be destroyed but sublated - morphed, by a  new urban 
configuration. The fight for the new urbanization is two decades deep. 
 
A society configuration that loosely conform to this stage of the  
technological revolution and capital - speculative capital, image of itself and  its 
striving to recreate the world in its image. The end of the industrial epoch  
does not mean a concept of no industrial machines, no one works, no production  
takes place, but rather a transition from one configuration of society and its  
infrastructure to another. 
 
If it was possible to profitably develop the new infrastructure, that  
corresponds to this stage of the technological revolution + speculative capital  as 
dominating form, capital would have undertaken this task years ago, and  
produced the mother of all bubbles lasting for decades. The government has to be  
called in, as is the case in every great expansion of the productive forces. 
 
The political significance of demographic shift has profound meaning for  the 
basis upon which the Democratic and Republican Party were formed as  
political institutions. In our country political power is organized and held on  the 
basis of large cities. The Democratic Party has no choice but to try and  hold 
onto its "costal" base in the population and push to reconfigure the  country 
from the standpoint of the base of its political power in the big  cities. 
Yet, room for the greatest amount of expansions reside outside the  costal areas. 
An American with 500 - 700 million people would not be crowded. 
 
The population density of America is only 76 per square mile as compared  
with 134 in Europe and 203 in Asia. But in the Northeast of our country the  
population density is 767 per square mile and in California where its population  
is projected to be a rough 50 million, tomorrow, the density will shoot up to  
1,050 per square mile. 
 
There is no place to go but the interior. How this fight is fought out is  
going to be interesting with changing sides. Perhaps a section of the  
environmentalist movement will oppose such expansion, rather than fight for  their 
vision of a new society configuration. Who knows? 
 
Yet, the Southern fascist block this move through their historic  ideological 
chains. Hence, the Republicans will become more Democrats to  complete the 
historical process, that began with the settling of our country as  a Southern 
nation. 
 
Seems to me, that here is the last great bubble to surpass all bubbles. 
 
Here is the final frontier. 
 
Interestingly the homeless movement and the growth of tent city America  
might be used as the vehicle of "conquering" the last frontier. 
 
April fools? 
 
Lets see what happens. 
 

WL. 
 
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 14:18:12 2009
From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:18:12 -0700
Subject: [Marxism]
 =?iso-8859-1?q?Trot-diaper_baby_biography=3A_Sa=EFd_Say?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?rafiezadeh=2C?=
Message-ID: <49D3CC04.4030601@gmail.com>

Greg wrote:
'What can you expect from someone who works for Martha Stewart!'

Butter cookies. Her recipe for them is really quite good. So, the answer 
is: butter cookies.

david


From elishastephens at hotmail.com  Wed Apr  1 14:28:15 2009
From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:28:15 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
Message-ID: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>


I'm still waiting for any of those who touted the alleged "Obama movement" to offer us a report card on how that's working out.



Eli Stephens
 Left I on the News
 http://lefti.blogspot.com


_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail?: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Mobile1_042009

From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 14:34:41 2009
From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:34:41 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Military defeat/military victory
Message-ID: <49D3CFE1.8070704@gmail.com>

I'd also like to beg the Moderators indulgence and ask that *today* be 
the last day to discuss this and let everyone get a few more licks in on 
the dead horse of "dual defeatism", etc.

I have no real differences with 99% of the people on this list who have 
taken an anti-imperialist position vis-a-vis the Malvinas War.

It is a multi-faceted discussion even within the anti-British/US 
imperialism camp.

It should be obvious that *everyone* in Latin America defended Argentina 
against British attempts to retake the Malvinas. The FSLN supporters in 
Nicaragua *intrinsically* knew the correct side in this battle. That 
should of been the end of Mr. Cloke's attempts to defend his countries 
dominance over the South Atlantic.

1. Within Argentina, there would always be a question of *why* the Junta 
launched the war. Prior to the retake attempt by the Junta, was there 
much clamor FOR them to do this? I doubt it. So there is this strategic 
issue that had to be settled by the Argentine masses in hindsight (going 
forward, there was little dissent over the issue of supporting their 
country against the Brits).

2. The bigger issue (perhaps) over revolutionary defeatism. I think this 
is, though, secondary, still to the point above. Win or lose, the Junta 
was going to be toast. I dissent from the usual "victory of a right-wing 
dictatorship in a battle against Imperialism means a victory for the 
revolution...". I've never actually seen this to be true and in almost 
*every* case the lost by such a regime usually means it's demise, 
imperialist or neo-colonial. Argentina is an example. So is Greece after 
the defeat of Greek forces against Turkey in Cyprus.

Oh, I had the fortunate experience of working at NASCO in San Diego, one 
of the biggest shipyards in the US, during the Malvinas war. This 
shipyard was hot bed of communist activity having just ended a communist 
lead strike to victory a year before I got there. Many of my fellow 
pipefitters were from Ireland. They were all quite nationalist and many 
had SF ties although it wasn't a point for discussion specifically until 
they got to know me better. The foremen, however, were, it seemed, all 
from the big northern Ireland shipyard that had expelled it's 
nationalist minority from the workforce in the 1920s or so. The foreman 
were all Loyalists. It got to be a battle of the buttons in the ship 
yard with the Irish and left all wearing the blue and white 
"Argentina/Ireland victorious" buttons a local pub printed up vs the 
Union Jack buttons of the bosses. And yes, there was a big dust-up after 
work between us and them which helped let off steam for everyone.

My only thoughts on all this.


David


From milongonsinga at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  1 14:38:14 2009
From: milongonsinga at yahoo.com (milongonsinga)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


At this point, much better than the Bush movement.
?
?
?A student asked Soen Nakagawa during a meditation retreat, "I am very discouraged. What should I do?" Soen replied, "Encourage others."



----- Original Message ----
From: Eli Stephens <elishastephens at hotmail.com>
To: milongonsinga at yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 1:28:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)


I'm still waiting for any of those who touted the alleged "Obama movement" to offer us a report card on how that's working out.



Eli Stephens
Left I on the News
http://lefti.blogspot.com


_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail?: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Mobile1_042009
________________________________________________
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/milongonsinga%40yahoo.com



From Waistline2 at aol.com  Wed Apr  1 14:39:05 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:39:05 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] GM and Chrysler: Goodbye Yellow Brick Road.
Message-ID: <bbb.497336b4.37052ae9@aol.com>

I am personally experiencing some anxiety and fear I have never known  
before. This is not pleasant. 
 
As a retired Chrysler worker - October 2001, the idea of the company not  
existing in 30 days is scary. The government only protects a small fraction of  
ones pension. And my check did not arrive today. At age 57, I just might have 
to  get that ski mask out, kept in the trunk of the car. 
 
When the financial spokesperson of Ford announced, back in 2001/2 that we  
had entered an era of "profitless prosperity" - increasingly valueless  
production, he might have known what he was talking about. His speech was  reported on 
Pen-L back when it was presented. The equity boyz run the show in  auto and 
government. The industrial capitalist is dead . . . . long dead, and so  am I. 
 
Chrysler had been reduced below 20,000 workers. 
 
When I hired in back in 1971, we stood at roughly 125,000 UAW members. The  
technology that is going to be embedded in the new generation of factories,  
producing a new generation of vehicles, will probably enable 30,000 to do what  
125,000 once did, and this includes parts. 
 
Should have followed my dad to Ford. Didn't want to work under my father,  so 
my older brother and I, with infinite wisdom, went to Chrysler. Plus,  the 
great proletarian revolution was brewing in the Chrysler division and who  did 
not want to earn their stripes alongside thick beefy arm proletarians? Well,  
my arms never got beefy, the revolution was given pink slips and the workforce  
as I had known it went into irreversible decline. 
 
Brother retired last May, with 40 years seniority and a union pension.  A 
total pension of $7K a month is twice what I get. Probably should have done  the 
union thing different. No union pension for me. Might have to move in with  
him. 
 
Should have stayed on the farm and listened to my old man. 
Goodbye yellow brick road.:-(
 
Pardon, while I wash off the old ski mask. 
 

WL. 
 

_http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/03/obama-pushing-quick-surgical-big-auto.
html_ 
(http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/03/obama-pushing-quick-surgical-big-auto.html)   --------------------------------------------snip What is Team 
Obama smoking? It  isn't to their advantage to have an unrealistic view of the 
process, yet the  pronouncements strongly suggest they haven't done sufficient 
due diligence on  what this entails. 
 
And consider this comment from a reader: The "Chapter 11" reorganization  
idea is an assumption. There is little contemporary evidence that a Chapter 11  
reorganization of GM can succeed under the current system. A Chapter 7  
bankruptcy liquidation is more likely. And there is no evidence Chrysler will do  
anything other than liquidate. 
 
It would be better if we were wrong, but this looks like Lehman redux. The  
powers that be are getting bailout pushback, and aren't willing to take any  
financial perps out, so by default it's Big Auto. And if they miscalculated, the 
 consequences will be catastrophic. It won't simply be GM and Chrysler, but 
the  parts makers, and the transplants will take hits due to the loss of 
suppliers.  GM and Chrysler are not isolated players, but major components in a 
large  ecosystem. There are no good answeres here, but the Administration does not 
 appear to have thought this out (how many balls does Geithner have in the 
air,  including the G20?). A miscalculation here would have major repercussions. 
But  Andrew Mellon would be pleased. 
 
 
 

-raghu. 
 
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From elishastephens at hotmail.com  Wed Apr  1 15:00:43 2009
From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:00:43 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] (no subject)
Message-ID: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl>


> A student asked Soen Nakagawa during a meditation retreat, "I am very
discouraged. What should I do?" Soen replied, "Encourage others."

Quite good advice. The question, of course, is "encourage them to do what?" Encourage them to work for revolutionary change? Absolutely. Encourage them to work for another centrist Democrat masquerading as a liberal? Better you should encourage them to hit their head against the wall. It will only hurt for a short time.



Eli Stephens
 Left I on the News
 http://lefti.blogspot.com


_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009

From ellard.yow at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 15:08:11 2009
From: ellard.yow at gmail.com (Ellard Yow)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:08:11 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] World economy
Message-ID: <c8a26a720904011408q4978bc42l745cccec8f6603eb@mail.gmail.com>

"World Bank Sees Global Contraction in 2009" by Annys Shin, Washington Post,
April 1, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/ar2009033100621.html?hpid=sec=business

From milongonsinga at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  1 15:08:20 2009
From: milongonsinga at yahoo.com (milongonsinga)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


A centrist Democrat is still (marginally I agree) better than a rabid neocon.?It's not a matter of "working for". It's a tactical matter. Whatever flaws Obama has (they're many)?his election?has opened political space for the left. It is our task to exploit that opening but we're so weak and divided?we can't manage even that.
?
?
?A student asked Soen Nakagawa during a meditation retreat, "I am very discouraged. What should I do?" Soen replied, "Encourage others."



----- Original Message ----
From: Eli Stephens <elishastephens at hotmail.com>
To: milongonsinga at yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:00:43 PM
Subject: [Marxism] (no subject)


> A student asked Soen Nakagawa during a meditation retreat, "I am very
discouraged. What should I do?" Soen replied, "Encourage others."

Quite good advice. The question, of course, is "encourage them to do what?" Encourage them to work for revolutionary change? Absolutely. Encourage them to work for another centrist Democrat masquerading as a liberal? Better you should encourage them to hit their head against the wall. It will only hurt for a short time.



Eli Stephens
Left I on the News
http://lefti.blogspot.com


_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009
________________________________________________
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/milongonsinga%40yahoo.com



From mjs at smithbowen.net  Wed Apr  1 15:16:34 2009
From: mjs at smithbowen.net (Michael Smith)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:16:34 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
milongonsinga <milongonsinga at yahoo.com> wrote:

> At this point, [the Obama 'movement' is] much better than the Bush movement.

"Much" better? Really? How? 

One might say it's the diastole to the Bush 
systole. But frankly even that seems exaggerated. 
Re-branding, more like it. With a new logo 
and a few rough edges sanded down. 

-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org


From milongonsinga at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  1 15:25:30 2009
From: milongonsinga at yahoo.com (milongonsinga)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
Message-ID: <239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


Let's suppose we get national health insurance. Would that constitute a difference? It would to all the people without health insurance. That would be much better than what we have now. Is that the socialist revolution? Of course, not. But that was never?my expectation. The author of the article?was disappointed because he was disillusioned. I am not. Obama will do what we make him do. Otherwise, he'll do what his Wall?Street donors tell him to do.?
?
?
?A student asked Soen Nakagawa during a meditation retreat, "I am very discouraged. What should I do?" Soen replied, "Encourage others."



----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net>
To: milongonsinga at yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:16:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
milongonsinga <milongonsinga at yahoo.com> wrote:

> At this point, [the Obama 'movement' is] much better than the Bush movement.

"Much" better? Really? How? 

One might say it's the diastole to the Bush 
systole. But frankly even that seems exaggerated. 
Re-branding, more like it. With a new logo 
and a few rough edges sanded down. 

-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org

________________________________________________
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/milongonsinga%40yahoo.com



From sartesian at earthlink.net  Wed Apr  1 15:32:55 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:32:55 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] (no subject)
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl>
	<747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad>

Really?  Obama has opened up that space?  Or has that space been opened by 
the overall economic conditions, and Obama is attempting to occupy that 
space and recuperate it before all hell, read class struggle, breaks out?

And how is Obama filling that space-- by "honoring" the contracts of and to 
AIG, including bonuses as inviolable but dismissing out of hand, and at the 
same time, the contracts that the automakers have with  workers?

By expanding the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan, while promising to change the 
combat status of US brigades in Irag in 16 months?

What exactly is anything other than the most centrist of centrist openings 
that Obama is seeking to open?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "milongonsinga" <milongonsinga at yahoo.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] (no subject)




From mjs at smithbowen.net  Wed Apr  1 15:34:07 2009
From: mjs at smithbowen.net (Michael Smith)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:34:07 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
	<239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
milongonsinga <milongonsinga at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Let's suppose we get national health insurance. Would that constitute a difference? 

Sure it would. But I'll believe it when I see it. Do you think that's 
going to happen? 
 
-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org


From johnedmundson at paradise.net.nz  Wed Apr  1 15:36:40 2009
From: johnedmundson at paradise.net.nz (John)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:36:40 +1300
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
Message-ID: <1238621800.5886.18.camel@john-desktop>

On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 17:16 -0400, Michael Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
> milongonsinga <milongonsinga at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > At this point, [the Obama 'movement' is] much better than the Bush movement.

I wonder if milongsinga read the post yesterday where the right wing
blogger was celebrating Obama's Afghanistan/Pakistan policy.

I think it's true. Obama is much better than Bush - much better at
getting things done, much better at conducting war without raising too
much opposition, much better at softening the blow when people lose
their jobs.

In New Zealand we've just (last November) had the traditionally
conservative National Party elected after a decade of Labour Party rule.
In the 80s Labour leapfrogged over National to enact the neo-liberalism
that the long serving Nats couldn't bring themselves to do. They were
much better at it for a lot of reasons, not least of which was the fact
that the union movement rolled over. They didn't want to do anything to
upset "our" government. By the time the Nats were reelected, the unions
had been gutted by the neoliberal reforms and couldn't effectively fight
the next round of attacks when National were reelected. And the same
thing happened when Helen Clark's Labour government got in - no more
neo-liberal attacks - they'd already been completed. It's the same old
same old as they say.

Sure, the 1984 Labour government did some good things - decriminalised
homosexuality for example. But they also massively weakened the left. In
the long run, we'd have been better off without the Labour Party and
with a stronger left.

I don't believe the election of Obama will open a significant window of
opportunity for the left in the US. I hope I'm wrong.
Cheers,
John



From sartesian at earthlink.net  Wed Apr  1 15:42:26 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:42:26 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
Message-ID: <1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>

I don't know why anyone would think that Marxists are obligated to support, 
not reform of the bourgeoisie's system, but the bourgeoisie's own reforms. 
There is a difference-- a big difference.

If the workers strike and struggle for health insurance, or universal health 
care-- of course we support that.  But when the bourgeoisie offer up 
Medicare and Medicaid to debilitate any independent class-based movement, 
and to place the burden directly back upon the regressive tax systems of the 
various states, and to funnel tax dollars into bigger and greater corporate 
practices while overall access to essential health services does not improve 
for the poor and working class-- we do not, should not, support that.

When workers agitate, demand an occupational safety administration, we 
should support that and "enhance" that demand by proposing such 
administration be responsible to the workers organizations themselves, and 
not to executive branch for mis-administration.  But when Nixon proposes his 
OSHA, we are under no obligation to support that.

We should not support Obama's  health plan.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Smith" <mjs at smithbowen.net>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)


> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
> milongonsinga <milongonsinga at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's suppose we get national health insurance. Would that constitute a 
>> difference?
>
> Sure it would. But I'll believe it when I see it. Do you think that's
> going to happen?
>
> -- 
>
> Michael Smith
> mjs at smithbowen.net
> http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net 



From milongonsinga at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  1 15:47:05 2009
From: milongonsinga at yahoo.com (milongonsinga)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl>
	<747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


As I recall, national health insurance wasn't on the table before his election. Withdrawal from Iraq (however flawed) wasn't on the table. The end to these ICE raids weren't on the table. I could go on. Those are substantive differences. Failure to acknowledge this is failure to?understand how even slight reforms under capitalism matter to the working class.?The problem with the left in this country is it's unwillingness to take the concerns of the people seriously. The Black Panther Party railed against police brutality and established breakfast programs because this is what mattered to the people. In the process, thousands became radicalized. Where is the left today??Our task is to continue to push this agenda. Obama's election has made that possible in a way that McCain's election would not. 
?
?
?A student asked Soen Nakagawa during a meditation retreat, "I am very discouraged. What should I do?" Soen replied, "Encourage others."



----- Original Message ----
From: S. Artesian <sartesian at earthlink.net>
To: milongonsinga at yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:32:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] (no subject)

Really?? Obama has opened up that space?? Or has that space been opened by 
the overall economic conditions, and Obama is attempting to occupy that 
space and recuperate it before all hell, read class struggle, breaks out?

And how is Obama filling that space-- by "honoring" the contracts of and to 
AIG, including bonuses as inviolable but dismissing out of hand, and at the 
same time, the contracts that the automakers have with? workers?

By expanding the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan, while promising to change the 
combat status of US brigades in Irag in 16 months?

What exactly is anything other than the most centrist of centrist openings 
that Obama is seeking to open?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "milongonsinga" <milongonsinga at yahoo.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] (no subject)



________________________________________________
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/milongonsinga%40yahoo.com



From milongonsinga at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  1 15:47:59 2009
From: milongonsinga at yahoo.com (milongonsinga)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
	<239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
Message-ID: <491074.10055.qm@web110410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


I'm not naive about it. It's going to take great effort on our part.
?
?
?A student asked Soen Nakagawa during a meditation retreat, "I am very discouraged. What should I do?" Soen replied, "Encourage others."



----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net>
To: milongonsinga at yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:34:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
milongonsinga <milongonsinga at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Let's suppose we get national health insurance. Would that constitute a difference? 

Sure it would. But I'll believe it when I see it. Do you think that's 
going to happen? 

-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org

________________________________________________
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/milongonsinga%40yahoo.com



From milongonsinga at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  1 15:51:54 2009
From: milongonsinga at yahoo.com (milongonsinga)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <1238621800.5886.18.camel@john-desktop>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
	<1238621800.5886.18.camel@john-desktop>
Message-ID: <631743.75071.qm@web110404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


You may be wrong that Obama's election won't open a significant window for the left. But that would be our fault. Either way, decriminalizing homosexuality is no small thing, in the same way the Civil Rights movement here was no small thing. Each way is a blow against the repressive capacity of the state. 
?
?
?A student asked Soen Nakagawa during a meditation retreat, "I am very discouraged. What should I do?" Soen replied, "Encourage others."



----- Original Message ----
From: John <johnedmundson at paradise.net.nz>
To: milongonsinga at yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:36:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)

On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 17:16 -0400, Michael Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
> milongonsinga <milongonsinga at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > At this point, [the Obama 'movement' is] much better than the Bush movement.

I wonder if milongsinga read the post yesterday where the right wing
blogger was celebrating Obama's Afghanistan/Pakistan policy.

I think it's true. Obama is much better than Bush - much better at
getting things done, much better at conducting war without raising too
much opposition, much better at softening the blow when people lose
their jobs.

In New Zealand we've just (last November) had the traditionally
conservative National Party elected after a decade of Labour Party rule.
In the 80s Labour leapfrogged over National to enact the neo-liberalism
that the long serving Nats couldn't bring themselves to do. They were
much better at it for a lot of reasons, not least of which was the fact
that the union movement rolled over. They didn't want to do anything to
upset "our" government. By the time the Nats were reelected, the unions
had been gutted by the neoliberal reforms and couldn't effectively fight
the next round of attacks when National were reelected. And the same
thing happened when Helen Clark's Labour government got in - no more
neo-liberal attacks - they'd already been completed. It's the same old
same old as they say.

Sure, the 1984 Labour government did some good things - decriminalised
homosexuality for example. But they also massively weakened the left. In
the long run, we'd have been better off without the Labour Party and
with a stronger left.

I don't believe the election of Obama will open a significant window of
opportunity for the left in the US. I hope I'm wrong.
Cheers,
John


________________________________________________
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/milongonsinga%40yahoo.com



From milongonsinga at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  1 15:55:15 2009
From: milongonsinga at yahoo.com (milongonsinga)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
	<1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <72374.56214.qm@web110415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


We should?not support Obama's health insurance plan. We should push?to have our health insurance plan adopted. The fact we (the country) are?having this conversation makes it more possible to push a socialist plan.
?
?
?A student asked Soen Nakagawa during a meditation retreat, "I am very discouraged. What should I do?" Soen replied, "Encourage others."



----- Original Message ----
From: S. Artesian <sartesian at earthlink.net>
To: milongonsinga at yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 2:42:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)

I don't know why anyone would think that Marxists are obligated to support, 
not reform of the bourgeoisie's system, but the bourgeoisie's own reforms. 
There is a difference-- a big difference.

If the workers strike and struggle for health insurance, or universal health 
care-- of course we support that.? But when the bourgeoisie offer up 
Medicare and Medicaid to debilitate any independent class-based movement, 
and to place the burden directly back upon the regressive tax systems of the 
various states, and to funnel tax dollars into bigger and greater corporate 
practices while overall access to essential health services does not improve 
for the poor and working class-- we do not, should not, support that.

When workers agitate, demand an occupational safety administration, we 
should support that and "enhance" that demand by proposing such 
administration be responsible to the workers organizations themselves, and 
not to executive branch for mis-administration.? But when Nixon proposes his 
OSHA, we are under no obligation to support that.

We should not support Obama's? health plan.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Smith" <mjs at smithbowen.net>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)


> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
> milongonsinga <milongonsinga at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's suppose we get national health insurance. Would that constitute a 
>> difference?
>
> Sure it would. But I'll believe it when I see it. Do you think that's
> going to happen?
>
> -- 
>
> Michael Smith
> mjs at smithbowen.net
> http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net 


________________________________________________
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/milongonsinga%40yahoo.com



From mjs at smithbowen.net  Wed Apr  1 16:02:25 2009
From: mjs at smithbowen.net (Michael Smith)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 18:02:25 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl>
	<747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad>
	<894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart>

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
milongonsinga <milongonsinga at yahoo.com> wrote:

 
> As I recall, national health insurance wasn't on the table before his election.

Romneycare -- that is, forcing people to buy health insurance -- 
certainly was, and that's what the current proposals amount to, as far as 
I can see. Corrections welcome. 

> Withdrawal from Iraq (however flawed) wasn't on the table. 

Nor is it now. 

> The end to these ICE raids weren't on the table. 

"End"? Please. 

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2009/03/ice-raids-is-there-a-policy-change.html: 

"ICE Raids: Is there a policy change?

 Spencer S. Hsu writes for the Washington Post:
 
 Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has delayed a series of
 proposed immigration raids and other enforcement actions at U.S.
 workplaces in recent weeks, asking agents in her department to apply
 more scrutiny to the selection and investigation of targets as well
 as the timing of raids, federal officials said."


>  The
> Black Panther Party railed against police brutality and established
> breakfast programs because this is what mattered to the people. In
> the process, thousands became radicalized.  

And radicals could still do that, if they wanted -- Obama or no 
Obama. 

-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org


From milongonsinga at yahoo.com  Wed Apr  1 16:12:07 2009
From: milongonsinga at yahoo.com (milongonsinga)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl>
	<747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad>
	<894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart>
Message-ID: <320862.66454.qm@web110405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


Regarding Obama's healthcare proposal, as I understand it, so far, an expansion of Medicare is a possibility. 
?
As far as ICE is concerned:
?
Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post also highlighted the possible new focus reports:
Napolitano has sought to chart a middle course by ordering a review of which immigrants are targeted for arrest. While a policy is still under development, Napolitano has said she intends to focus more on prosecuting criminal cases of wrongdoing by companies. Analysts say they also think ICE may conduct fewer raids, focusing routine enforcement on civil infractions of worker eligibility verification rules.
?
?
?

?
?
?A student asked Soen Nakagawa during a meditation retreat, "I am very discouraged. What should I do?" Soen replied, "Encourage others."



----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net>
To: milongonsinga at yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 3:02:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] (no subject)

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
milongonsinga <milongonsinga at yahoo.com> wrote:


> As I recall, national health insurance wasn't on the table before his election.

Romneycare -- that is, forcing people to buy health insurance -- 
certainly was, and that's what the current proposals amount to, as far as 
I can see. Corrections welcome. 

> Withdrawal from Iraq (however flawed) wasn't on the table. 

Nor is it now. 

> The end to these ICE raids weren't on the table. 

"End"? Please. 

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2009/03/ice-raids-is-there-a-policy-change.html: 

"ICE Raids: Is there a policy change?

Spencer S. Hsu writes for the Washington Post:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has delayed a series of
proposed immigration raids and other enforcement actions at U.S.
workplaces in recent weeks, asking agents in her department to apply
more scrutiny to the selection and investigation of targets as well
as the timing of raids, federal officials said."


>? The
> Black Panther Party railed against police brutality and established
> breakfast programs because this is what mattered to the people. In
> the process, thousands became radicalized.? 

And radicals could still do that, if they wanted -- Obama or no 
Obama. 

-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org

________________________________________________
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/milongonsinga%40yahoo.com



From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com  Wed Apr  1 16:14:41 2009
From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:14:41 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] NASCO shipyard and communists.
Message-ID: <20090401221441.83B2220049@smtp.hushmail.com>


Nada wrote:
>I had the fortunate experience of working at NASCO in San 
>Diego, one of the biggest shipyards in the US, during 
>the Malvinas war. This shipyard was hot bed of communist 
>activity having just ended a  communist lead strike to victory
> a year before I got there.

Was that the same time the Communist Workers Party militants
were set up by an undercover cop? I know several of them
were prosecuted on some type of charge but I do not
know what their fate was. Had they been a part of theat
communist leadership or was it another group?
Somehow I don't think you are talking about the CPUSA.

>Many of my fellow pipefitters were from Ireland. They were all 
>quite nationalist and many had SF ties although it wasn't a point
 >for discussion specifically until they got to know me better. 

One wonders what they think of the shinners now. Was
NORAID active in San Diego? I believe they have now 
withered away to become the "Freinds of Sinn Fein."



From jim.ferguson1917 at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 16:29:14 2009
From: jim.ferguson1917 at gmail.com (Jim Ferguson)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 18:29:14 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Pro-War Liberals not about to disappear writes Richard
	Seymour
Message-ID: <181b16100904011529u75ff41cckc128869db10a193a@mail.gmail.com>

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17513

Debate and Comment
Humbling the hawks

The liberals that supported Bush's wars have been forced to recant,
but their ideology is not about to disappear, writes Richard Seymour
...

The pro-imperialist liberals, once vociferous and united in defence of
US wars, are in a mess. The invasion of Iraq, on which so many of them
waged their moral and intellectual credibility, has led to horrifying
bloodletting.

Numerous defections to the anti-war camp have left interventionists
out in the cold. In their isolation they have degenerated into
spiteful Islamophobic rhetoric. In truth, this pathetic faction has
never looked less politically viable.

Many of these people backed George Bush in 2004 rather than tolerate
John Kerry's mild criticisms of the Iraq war. But by 2008 almost all
of them were supporting Barack Obama, a candidate who had opposed the
"liberation" of Iraq.

Christopher Hitchens, who never looked better than when being
waterboarded on assignment for the magazine Vanity Fair, spent more
than five years hounding opponents of the Iraq war as fascist
sympathisers and "capitulationists". It must have felt like a betrayal
for this newly minted American patriot to actually have to vote for
one.

Or think of Michael Ignatieff who, in his bid to become leader of the
Canadian Liberals, was forced to recant his support for the Iraq war
and his justifications for torture. This is a man who once celebrated
the rise of a "humanitarian empire" and warned against the "dampening"
of "imperial ardour". His own ardour is now tragically spent.

As for the British liberals who organised themselves under the now
defunct Euston Manifesto, the alliance seems ever more tenuous. Its
co-founder, Observer columnist Nick Cohen, has veered toward the
lunatic right.

He can now be found reproducing racist claims about African immigrants
spreading HIV, and indulging in bar room rants against
multiculturalism. Like his guru Hitchens, he increasingly resembles
the blimpish socialist turned Thatcherite Paul Johnson.

As sensible as it is to mock such people, however, it would be prudent
not to write off the ideas that they have articulated. Liberal
arguments for empire are not about to disappear, because they are as
old as liberalism itself.

Liberalism emerged as part of the same historical moment as
capitalism, colonialism, Atlantic slavery, and "race" theory. As such,
liberals developed a distinctive set of justifications for empire.

Their basic moral sanction for empire was that the conquered people
were in a backward state of development and that the colonies would
bring civilisation.

Thus, while the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill favoured
extending the franchise to the British working class, he maintained
that "despotism" was appropriate for "barbarians", "provided the end
be their improvement".

Such ideas were even articulated by some in the socialist and labour
movements when they began to develop in the 19th century.

British Fabians, who decisively shaped the Labour Party's colonial
policy, strongly supported empire. They argued against self-government
for "natives" on the grounds that parliamentary institutions were "as
useless to them as a dynamo to a Caribbean". Even Labour's radical
1919 election manifesto contained a clause exalting Britain's duty to
"the non-adult races".

In fact pro-colonial opinion was common throughout the Second
International alliance of socialist organisations at that time. Eduard
Bernstein, the German social democrat, asserted that the colonised
were "without exception better off" under colonial rule.

Arguments such as these fell into disrepute for a number of reasons.
First, the carnage of the First World War resulted in a massive
realignment of the left. The anti-imperialist position of the Russian
revolutionary Lenin and the Zimmerwald Left became the socialist
mainstream, while the 1917 Russian Revolution boosted the
anti-colonial movements.

Second, the US emerged as the dominant world power just as
decolonisation was underway. US statesmen wanted to forestall what
they called "premature independence", but could not openly say so.

But the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 saw the revival of
earlier liberal arguments under the rubric of "humanitarian
intervention". The "war on terror" has given many commentators the
chance to openly call for empire.

There is a simple political reason why liberal arguments for
imperialism will tend to come to the fore ? most people reject the
militaristic nationalism of the hard right. It is much easier to win
people to war if you can persuade them that humane and democratic
values are stake.

This means that however ridiculous and exhausted the current
generation of pro-war liberal sycophants appears to be, others will
arise to take their place.

And this is why the liberal hawks have found that they need Obama. The
paradox is that although he was elected on an anti-war vote, he
nevertheless represents the best chance for reconciling liberal
opinion with imperialism.
...

Richard Seymour is the author of The Liberal Defence Of Murder,
published by Verso and available from Bookmarks, the socialist
bookshop, for ?16.99. Phone 020 7637 1848 or go to ?
www.bookmarksbookshop.co.uk to order. Richard also runs Lenin's Tomb ?
go to ? leninology.blogspot.com


From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 16:37:25 2009
From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:37:25 -0700
Subject: [Marxism]  NASCO shipyard and communists.
Message-ID: <49D3ECA5.9040709@gmail.com>

Yes, the CWP. But not all of the CWPers took the bait of the FBI setup, 
however. The ones that remained, who were not set up or sent to jail, 
continued to lead or influence both of the two largest unions there: the 
Iron Workers and the IAM (I was in the latter). I think by this time the 
remnents were no longer in the CWP, I simply don't remember it's been 
too long now.

I actually continued to work closely with the CWP in union organizing in 
Los Angeles area shipyards until they went *poof* during their entry 
into the  Rainbow Coalition 1983/84. I never once saw a member of CPUSA 
in any labor involvement in San Diego during my time there. There were 
*other* Maoist or ex-Maoist/anti-Revisionist/pro-Moscow groups working 
at NASCO, including the the Workers Congress and Communist Labor Party. 
But no one could compete with the ex-or then current CWPers. Miguel 
Salas, the fired and purged Iron Workers president continued *everyday* 
to hold shift change mass-meetings in front of the gate at NASCO. It was 
quite amazing. His wife, Maria, ran unsuccessfully for union president 
of the IAM, my union, but she received about 45% of the vote. I 
supported and campaigned for her (even though I was on probation).

If NORAID existed I wouldn't know. My relationship with the Irish there 
was at the level of the shop floor...or as we called it in the shipyard 
"on the keel"; at the local pro-Provo pub in San Diego or at their 
homes. That was the extent of it.


David


From johnedmundson at paradise.net.nz  Wed Apr  1 16:38:09 2009
From: johnedmundson at paradise.net.nz (John)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:38:09 +1300
Subject: [Marxism] YADL
In-Reply-To: <320862.66454.qm@web110405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl>
	<747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad>
	<894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart>
	<320862.66454.qm@web110405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1238625489.5886.35.camel@john-desktop>

On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 14:51 -0700, milongonsinga wrote:
> You may be wrong that Obama's election won't open a significant window
> for the left. But that would be our fault.

I think S. Artesian put it best saying the window has been opened anyway
by actual material conditions - economic downturn etc. The election of
Obama is in part a response to that. Obama is attempting to mitigate
that and get the system back "normal". I'm not sure how that is an
opportunity that wouldn't have existed anyway, or anything to celebrate.

> Either way, decriminalizing homosexuality is no small thing, in the
> same way the Civil Rights movement here was no small thing. Each way
> is a blow against the repressive capacity of the state.

Of course decriminalisation was a good thing. That's why I described it
as such. The question is, was the election of a Labour government (NZ's
approximate equivalent of the Dems) a good thing. Or more importantly,
did it open up a window of opportunity for the left? On that question,
the answer is unequivocal. The left withered during the period of Labour
government, *even though* it was unleashing free market deregulation and
neo-liberalism on an unprecedented scale.

>  As far as ICE is concerned:
>  Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post also highlighted the possible new
>  focus reports: Napolitano has sought to chart a middle course by
>  ordering a review of which immigrants are targeted for arrest. While a
>  policy is still under development, Napolitano has said she intends to
>  focus more on prosecuting criminal cases of wrongdoing by companies.
>  Analysts say they also think ICE may conduct fewer raids, focusing
>  routine enforcement on civil infractions of worker eligibility
>  verification rules.

So fewer (but still some) "in your face" ICE raids, but more "routine
enforcement". As I say, Obama will be better than Bush. Deportations
will be below the radar instead of in such public view as it was before.
I don't expect that life for the illegals will be substantially better.

His Iraq withdrawal policy mirrors Bush's. Meanwhile the guy's
escalating the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan in a way Bush didn't dare
to -  and he telegraphed that very clearly before the election. Those
who wanted to believe just blocked their ears and closed their eyes.

And don't start me on his Middle East policy . . .
Cheers,
John



From sartesian at earthlink.net  Wed Apr  1 16:47:38 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 18:47:38 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Latest Decoupler
Message-ID: <B8641DCF1B6148A5988C5B54F1CA3C2C@dmsthinkpad>

Watch out-- yuan about to replace the euro as the currency most likely to 
replace the dollar:

"China passes the EU in High-tech exports
The value of high-tech exports worldwide
increased by an average of 5% a year between
2001 and 2006. This increase was mostly due to
the rise of Chinese exports in world trade.
Although in 2005 the EU was the leader in hightech
exports, China took over the lead in 2006
followed by the United States, the EU-27 and
Japan."

full at: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-09-025/EN/KS-SF-09-025-EN.PDF 



From jayroth6 at cox.net  Wed Apr  1 17:47:42 2009
From: jayroth6 at cox.net (J Rothermel)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:47:42 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Sharp example of rightwing populism: John Rich's
	"Shuttin' Down Detroit"
Message-ID: <49D3FD1E.4000205@cox.net>

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/


    Video: John Rich?s ?Shuttin? Detroit Down?
    <http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/video-john-richs-%e2%80%9cshuttin%e2%80%99-detroit-down%e2%80%9d/>

Posted by Mike E <http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1129785784> on 
April 1, 2009

Check out this sharp example of ?rightwing populism.? John Rich wrote 
anthems for John McCain during the election (?Raising McCain 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmKgITJejfg>?) and pro-military anthems 
(?The Good Lord and the Man 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBtU_P0bfJk&feature=related>?).

Now he is doing this populist protest song on the ?Wall Street Bankers? 
and the economic crisis.

Merle Haggard compared it to ?Okie from Muskogee? (at least according to 
John Rich?s self-promotion). Rich already compares Treasury Secretary 
Geitner to Dracula 
<http://americandictatorobama.com/2009/03/27/john-rich-tim-geithner-is-dracula/>, 
includes themes contrasting New York City and ?the real world.?

I don?t think it will be long before the themes take an even more 
explicit ?anti-socialist takeover? edge. And yet, who can doubt that 
this is aimed at where many people live (and where many people are 
suffering)?

For background:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/arts/music/31rich.html?_r=1&ref=music

Protest From the Right Side of Country 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/arts/music/31rich.html?ref=music>

By JON CARAMANICA
There?s no screaming on the first great song of the bailout era. No 
audible rage. No tears. Instead, on ?Shuttin? Detroit Down,? the country 
star John Rich, singing evenly, sounds perfectly levelheaded, as if he?d 
thought through his position thoroughly and acquired the peace of the 
righteous:

I see all these big shots whining on my evening news

About how they?re losing billions and it?s up to me and you

To come running to

The rescue

?The song is not depressing,? Mr. Rich said last week, in an interview 
in the rooftop bar of a hotel in Gramercy Park. ?The song is defiant.?

And for contemporary Nashville, shockingly topical. Mr. Rich, 35, 
conceived and wrote ?Shuttin? Detroit Down? in late January, in a fit of 
pique after watching news accounts of the $1.2 million office remodeling 
by John Thain, the Merrill Lynch chief executive. Within two weeks it 
had been recorded, mastered and released to country radio stations, as 
well as added to his new album ?Son of a Preacher Man? (Warner Brothers 
Nashville), which had already been submitted to the label.

It reflects not only Mr. Rich?s songwriting gifts ? he collaborated on 
the verses with the longtime country singer John Anderson ? but also his 
acumen in gauging and channeling the mood of the country, aggressively 
striking a note of conservative populism rarely seen in any genre of pop 
since country music?s response to Sept. 11. (The video, which features 
Mickey Rourke and Kris Kristofferson, will be released shortly.)

But even though Mr. Rich?s subject matter is au courant, his tropes are 
familiar country tugs of war: urban versus rural, modern versus 
traditional, white collar versus blue. The most bracing moment on 
?Shuttin? Detroit Down? comes not when Mr. Rich points a finger at those 
?living it up on Wall Street in that New York City town,? but when he 
reflects on the little guy: ?Well that old man?s been working in that 
plant most all his life/ Now his pension plan?s been cut in half and he 
can?t afford to die,? his voice dropping a half-step on the last word to 
indicate where the real locus of tragedy resides.

Mr. Rich sees the song as being in the us-versus-them tradition of ?Okie 

From stuartmunckton at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 18:05:38 2009
From: stuartmunckton at gmail.com (Stuart Munckton)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:05:38 +1100
Subject: [Marxism] France: Four Caterpillar bosses held hostage
Message-ID: <2c6145850904011705la58b2d2i72d836f0e6526634@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.smh.com.au/world/caterpillar-bosses-held-hostage-20090401-9js0.html

-- 
"The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind of
dummy?" ? Jarvis Cocker

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" ? Oscar Wilde

From jbustelo at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 18:09:38 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:09:38 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] On the census: What have they been smoking!?
In-Reply-To: <01E57A16-92A7-4092-8B9A-6A093B5B7BC7@gmail.com>
References: <49D2C4CB.1040803@gmail.com><92E21B955FC74B95815E40B717B9BE4D@Nautilus><49D2D4A0.4010904@ix.netcom.com><6E4E0873-4368-4AAC-B2E4-20388537DF70@gmail.com><20b1e36e0903312031w29292726xfaed0e8b07568aa3@mail.gmail.com><87vdpp9fms.fsf@piracy.kokonino.net>
	<01E57A16-92A7-4092-8B9A-6A093B5B7BC7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D90530A54C2B4396B6EABDDB0C466350@albanta>

 

From jbustelo at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 18:21:42 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:21:42 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
	<1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>

S Artesian writes: "If the workers strike and struggle for health insurance,
or universal health care-- of course we support that.  But when the
bourgeoisie offer up Medicare and Medicaid to debilitate any independent
class-based movement, and to place the burden directly back upon the
regressive tax systems of the various states, and to funnel tax dollars into
bigger and greater corporate practices while overall access to essential
health services does not improve for the poor and working class-- we do not,
should not, support that.

"When workers agitate, demand an occupational safety administration, we
should support that and "enhance" that demand by proposing such
administration be responsible to the workers organizations themselves, and
not to executive branch for mis-administration.  But when Nixon proposes his
OSHA, we are under no obligation to support that."

I think S Artesian has hit the nail on the head here -- unwittingly -- by
placing the focus on the struggles by workers for concessions and reforms
from the bourgeoisie.

There are no such struggles/movements in the United States, not on a scale
involving at least a sliver of the masses. So the question isn't really why
support a narrow, limited, bourgeois reform INSTEAD of a class movement
fighting for much more. Those sorts of movements are PRECISELY what we don't
have. 

Joaquin



From jonathan.flanders at verizon.net  Wed Apr  1 18:32:46 2009
From: jonathan.flanders at verizon.net (Jon Flanders)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:32:46 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Laid Off Workers in N. Ireland Occupy their Factory
Message-ID: <1238632366.5467.24.camel@localhost>

I think we can safely say now that there is an international trend for
factory occupations.

Jon Flanders


news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7974454.stm

 Sacked workers occupy car factory

Employees are continuing their protest at a factory in west Belfast.
More than 100 workers have staged a sit-in, the Unite trade union has
said.

Earlier, it was announced that 565 staff would go at Visteon car
components plants across the UK.

Most of the jobs have been lost with immediate effect. Two hundred jobs
will go at the Belfast factory.

KPMG said it had no alternative but to close the factory and two others
in Basildon and Enfield in England.

Administrators have been called in to the factory which is the former
Ford plant.

Visteon has a total workforce of 600 in the United Kingdom.

Unite convenor John Maguire said the workers at the plant had "been
treated disgracefully".

"We have been left with no choice but to occupy the factory to save our
jobs and to defend jobs for the people of Belfast," he said.
? Ford have a moral responsibility to these people and they are avoiding
any responsibility ?
Davy McMurray Unite trade union

The company in the UK had been waiting to hear if Visteon in America
would continue to prop up its three plants.

West Belfast MP Gerry Adams expressed his "deep disappointment".

"Sinn F?in has been liaising closely with the management of Visteon and
with the local workforce.

"Ford are directly implicated in the future of the Belfast plant, as its
sole customer and former owner. If the local workforce is to be told
that the plant no longer has a future, Sinn F?in will insist that the
management of Ford explain this fate," he said.

Davy McMurray, regional organiser for Unite, said he understood that a
handful of workers would be kept on to run the plant down before they
too lose their jobs.

Mr McMurray said the way the job cuts were announced was "brutal."

"The administrators just came in, told them they were in administration
and their employment was terminated. These people are going to be put
out on the street tonight."

He called on Ford, as the "sole recipient" of Visteon parts, to show
generosity.

'Body blow'

"Ford have a moral responsibility to these people and they are avoiding
any responsibility," he said.

He added that they should receive Ford redundancy packages."

SDLP MLA for west Belfast Alex Attwood said it is a "body blow to the
area".

"The loss of 210 jobs, part of our much needed manufacturing base, is
not the news we want to hear," he said.

Visteon took over the Ford plant in west Belfast in 2000.

It said the remaining employees would assist the administrators in "the
orderly wind down of the business".

It added that the UK business had not been profitable "since its
incorporation in 2000" and Visteon UK's reported losses totalled ?669m.

John Hansen, joint administrator, said: "The entire automotive supply
chain has been under pressure for a number of years."






From jbustelo at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 18:43:05 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:43:05 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl><747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad><894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart>
Message-ID: <478F7FB1CC284420BC528D4F324EF204@albanta>

Michael Smith quotes: 

>  The
> Black Panther Party railed against police brutality and established 
> breakfast programs because this is what mattered to the people. In the 
> process, thousands became radicalized.

and then comments: "And radicals could still do that, if they wanted --
Obama or no Obama."

This is what most troubles me about the left -- all of it. The Black
Panthers were a party with a mass base and audience that grew out of a
decade-long upsurge of struggles in Black communities across the country. 

"Radicals" can't "still do that," first, because the overwhelming majority
are not Black, but even more, because the upsurge in the Black community
does not exist, nor has the community gone through a decade of mass
struggles like those that preceded the emergence of the Panthers and
prepared the ground for an organization like that to quickly establish a
mass base.

A lot of the discussions here suffer from this idealist Guevaraism -- in
traditional Guevaraism, it was we just need to apply Cuban tactics to win.
The problem was that without Cuban conditions, and most especially the
implantation and roots of the July 26 Movement, its prestige and following,
Cuban tactics couldn't work. 

Now we say, let's replicate the tactics of the Panthers, or the anti-Vietnam
War Movement, or the trade union organizing of the 1930s, but unfortunately
history has not provided us with the sorts of circumstances which made those
past efforts significant or successful.

Joaquin



From mjs at smithbowen.net  Wed Apr  1 19:46:43 2009
From: mjs at smithbowen.net (Michael Smith)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 21:46:43 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <478F7FB1CC284420BC528D4F324EF204@albanta>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl>
	<747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad>
	<894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart>
	<478F7FB1CC284420BC528D4F324EF204@albanta>
Message-ID: <20090401214643.5f4f9098@crashcart>

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:43:05 -0400
"Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Michael Smith quotes: 
> 
> >  The
> > Black Panther Party railed against police brutality and established 
> > breakfast programs...
> 
> and then comments: "And radicals could still do that, if they wanted --
> Obama or no Obama."
 
> "Radicals" can't "still do that," first, because the overwhelming majority
> are not Black, but even more, because the upsurge in the Black community
> does not exist 

Indeed, the conditions aren't so propitious. But does that really mean 
that all we're left with is Waiting For Gobama? God, I hope not. 

-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Wed Apr  1 19:54:06 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 21:54:06 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
	<54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
Message-ID: <D7114A765A7C434B8FFEC629DA100BE2@dmsthinkpad>

Not so unwittingly.  Yes, such a movement is yet to be articulated except--  
except in 2006 on May 1, hundreds of thousands, millions of immigrant 
laborers took to the streets and in fact pushed their own reform program, 
and.... and unfortunately, the bourgeoisie knew what was at stake and came 
down as hard as possible, which was pretty hard, again because there was not 
that "deepening" and transformation of the struggle from one of formal 
"democracy," i.e. "rights,"  and into class power....

I think the entire keep the collapse of  accumulation from becoming 
unrelieved barbarism is in just that animation and reanimation of the 
struggle of immigrant labor as just that, immigrant and labor, that has been 
so essential to capitalist reproduction since 1992.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)




From markalause at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 19:57:52 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 21:57:52 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
	<239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
	<1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
	<54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com>

Joaquin Bustelo <jbustelo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think S Artesian has hit the nail on the head here -- unwittingly -- by
> placing the focus on the struggles by workers for concessions and reforms
> from the bourgeoisie.
>
> There are no such struggles/movements in the United States, not on a scale
> involving at least a sliver of the masses. So the question isn't really why
> support a narrow, limited, bourgeois reform INSTEAD of a class movement
> fighting for much more. Those sorts of movements are PRECISELY what we don't
> have.
>

This argument makes me wince, largely because there's more truth to
Joaquin's argument than I want to admit.  I don't think "class" is
outmoded or that race is any more effective in cultivating a movement
consciousness.  I'm astounded that, with all the jolts, the people
remain pretty complacent.

Faith that Washington can do something effective seems to be sustaining them.

The Obama administration has, indeed, tried nothing that's reached
beyond the realm of Bush or Clinton.  And the solutions that didn't
work for them won't work any better for him.  For this reason--more
than the nonexistent demonstrations of millions of angry workers--he
will likely have to reach beyond to sustain what he can of that faith
that keeps the masses relatively quiet.

ML


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Wed Apr  1 21:46:07 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 23:46:07 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad><54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
	<b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad>

Wait, I thought there was supposed to be some sort of movement around Obama, 
not that I ever argued that.  I thought there were masses absolutely 
reanimated,  enthused about the prospects for taking action, not that I ever 
argued that.  I thought there was supposed to be a way, "we" could link with 
those enthusiastic moving masses as long as we weren't too "critical" too 
belligerent in our  Marxism, in our opposition to the soft and fuzzy era of 
good feelings, not that I ever argued that...

But there were those that did... and so it's not out of line to ask them to 
account for the sudden pain they are now betraying...  What happened?  Why 
so glum, chum?  Why so sad, lad?  Why  so blue, Lou?   Why the frown, clown?

It has been less than 3 months since Mr. Goodbar-ack has occupied the oval 
office... so what happened to that movement?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Lause" <markalause at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)



>
> This argument makes me wince, largely because there's more truth to
> Joaquin's argument than I want to admit.  I don't think "class" is
> outmoded or that race is any more effective in cultivating a movement
> consciousness.  I'm astounded that, with all the jolts, the people
> remain pretty complacent.
>
> Faith that Washington can do something effective seems to be sustaining 
> them.
>
> The Obama administration has, indeed, tried nothing that's reached
> beyond the realm of Bush or Clinton.  And the solutions that didn't
> work for them won't work any better for him.  For this reason--more
> than the nonexistent demonstrations of millions of angry workers--he
> will likely have to reach beyond to sustain what he can of that faith
> that keeps the masses relatively quiet.
>
> ML



From markalause at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 22:01:03 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 00:01:03 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
	<239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
	<1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
	<54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
	<b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com>

S. Artesian <sartesian at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Wait, I thought there was supposed to be some sort of movement around Obama,
> not that I ever argued that. ?I thought there were masses absolutely
> reanimated, ?enthused about the prospects for taking action, not that I ever
> argued that. ?I thought there was supposed to be a way, "we" could link with
> those enthusiastic moving masses as long as we weren't too "critical" too
> belligerent in our ?Marxism, in our opposition to the soft and fuzzy era of
> good feelings, not that I ever argued that...
>

Setting aside the straw-stuffed "absolutely," the enthusiasm of Obama
supporters was real enough, but I don't think that enthusiasm for a
capitalist politician constitutes a "movement."  At the same time, I
don't think it's so simple as to see that as precluding a movement or
preventing a movement.  The dissipation of those aspirations and
enthusiasms are capable of fueling a movement that will reach far
beyond our experience, but we'll have to see....

However, we're not the only ones that understand this process.  Obama
and his people have to produce results to maintain the approval of
that base.  As I've said repeatedly, what they're doing now just isn't
going to cut it, but I suspect they won't move in the direction of any
real innovations until they absolutely have to start doing so...

ML


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Wed Apr  1 22:21:16 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 00:21:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad><54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta><b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com><6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad>
	<b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FC9DE31888F149A9B572DDB2A69A1AA8@dmsthinkpad>

Certainly agree that enthusiasm for a capitalist politician does not and did 
not constitute a movement; nor did it constitute an opening, a space, an 
opportunity.... etc. etc.  It did constitute one trick bag in the bag of 
tricks called recuperation.

Oh yeah, the Obamaists have to produce results all right.  Just like the 
election produced its result.  Guess what-- they have produced the necessary 
results. They have done what they were bankrolled to do-- which was to roll 
the bankroll back to the banks.

What they are doing is in fact cutting it; tailoring the cloth just as the 
bourgeoisie selected them to tailor.  Real innovation?  Ah yes, Obama is 
going to have his FDR moment any day now, and I'm sure hundreds of leftists 
will be lining up to get a shot at the parallel Schlesinger moment.

Never happen.  There is no innovation the representatives of this ruling 
class can, will, or even care to attempt, that will have a material impact 
on the predicament of capital.

The belief that "if forced, they'll do something..." is, at best, cognitive 
dissonance.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Lause" <markalause at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)




From epoliticus at gmail.com  Wed Apr  1 22:33:19 2009
From: epoliticus at gmail.com (Politicus E.)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 00:33:19 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Man killed at London G20 demonstrations
Message-ID: <dd55f6dc0904012133m30fc4374xed6409934ecdd98b@mail.gmail.com>

Does anyone have much useful information about the circumstances of
his death?  My usual sources are dry on this issue.  Of course, the
cops probably killed him, but I mean something beyond this.
epoliticus


From mjs at smithbowen.net  Wed Apr  1 22:50:26 2009
From: mjs at smithbowen.net (Michael Smith)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 00:50:26 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<26159.69100.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
	<239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
	<1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
	<54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
	<b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad>
	<b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart>

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 00:01:03 -0400
Mark Lause <markalause at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Obama
> and his people have to produce results to maintain the approval of
> that base.   

No they don't. Four years from now Obie's "base" will be snidely 
asking us, "I suppose you think McCain would have done better?"

As for the hapless voters -- Obie doesn't have to have their 
approval; he just has to appear slightly less awful than whatever
scaly stertorous gill-man the Republicans come up with. 

It's like the old joke -- "I don't have to outrun the bear. 
I just have to outrun *you*.   

-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org


From srobin21 at comcast.net  Thu Apr  2 00:16:28 2009
From: srobin21 at comcast.net (Steven L. Robinson)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 22:16:28 -0800
Subject: [Marxism] The US Supreme Court closes the court house door to union
	members
Message-ID: <016e01c9b35a$8fb80480$54f2fea9@noir>


(If you belong to a union and your employer discriminates against you based
upon age, sex, race, religion or disability, you no longer have the right to
sue the employer in court, so says the US Supreme Court in 14 Penn Plaza v.
Pyett, 07-581, 08 C.D.O.S. 4103.  If the union collective bargaining
agreement has an anti-discrimination clause, as nearly all do, your sole
remedy may be through the collective bargaining agreement's grievance
system - and you can't file a lawsuit.  That means you can file a grievance
but only the union itself has a right to take your complaint to arbitration.
If the union decides not to go to arbitration, there is no recourse. Even if
the union does the right thing and arbitrates your case, you will probably
not be able to recover what you could in a civil lawsuit - emotional
distress and punitive damages.

(The 14 Penn Plaza case pertains to the Federal anti-Age Discrimination law,
but its reasoning may apply to other Federal discrimination statutes as well
as various state law remedies. Literally, the court house door has been
closed to union members. SR)

Union Contracts Can Limit Bias Suits, High Court Says

By Greg Stohr
Bloomberg
April 1, 2009

April 1 -- Workers can't sue for age discrimination when the union
representing them has agreed that any bias claims should go to arbitration
rather than court, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

The justices, voting 5-4, ruled in favor of Temco Services Industries Inc.
on a discrimination lawsuit by three men who were demoted from positions as
night watchmen at a New York City office building. The suit invokes the U.S.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

"Congress has chosen to allow arbitration of ADEA claims," Justice Clarence
Thomas wrote for the majority. "The judiciary must respect that choice."

The court's reasoning may also let unions and companies direct other types
of discrimination suits into arbitration. One of the dissenting justices,
John Paul Stevens, said the provisions in the ADEA are "not meaningfully
distinguishable" from those in Title VII, the main federal statute targeting
race and gender discrimination.

Thomas left open the possibility that an employee might be able to sue when
a union refuses to press an arbitration grievance on the worker's behalf --
something the three workers say occurred in the Temco case. Thomas said that
a "substantive waiver of federally protected civil rights will not be
enforced."

That reasoning might limit the practical impact of the case, according to
another dissenter, Justice David Souter. He said that in most cases "the
union controls access to and presentation of employees' claims in
arbitration."

Divided Court

The case nonetheless left the court ideologically divided, with the four
dissenters accusing the majority justices of substituting their policy
preferences for those of Congress.

Justices Stevens, Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the
majority effectively overruled parts of a 1974 Supreme Court decision that
said unionized employees can press discrimination suits in court even after
putting them before an arbitrator.

"It is for Congress, rather than this court, to reassess the policy
arguments favoring arbitration and revise the relevant provisions to reflect
its views," Stevens wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and
Samuel Alito joined Thomas's opinion.

A federal appeals court had ruled that workers aren't bound by collective
bargaining agreements that prevent employees from suing under federal
discrimination laws.

Temco Workers

The three workers, all Temco employees, lost their positions as watchmen in
2003 when the building's owner started using licensed security guards
provided by another company. The men were reassigned to positions as night
porters and light-duty cleaners in the building.

The men sued Temco and the property owner, 14 Penn Plaza LLC. New York-based
Temco is a building services and cleaning contractor.

The workers were covered under a collective bargaining agreement struck by
the Service Employees International Union and the group that bargains on
behalf of the New York real estate industry.

The workers' Supreme Court lawyer, David Frederick, said the biggest impact
of the decision might come in negotiations over collective bargaining
agreements.

"It raises the stakes for what statutory claims are subject to arbitration,"
he said in an e-mail. The ruling "may end up having more of an effect in the
negotiations over a CBA than in litigation over claims arising under the
agreement."

Temco's lawyer, Paul Salvatore, said the ruling "firmly enshrines in the law
the important principle that collective bargaining arbitration agreements
are every bit as valid and enforceable as those covering employment
discrimination claims in the non-unionized workplace."

The case is 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, 07-581.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a5YUQNTQA_AM&refer=us

For a summary of the decision itself see:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202429590150

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm



From markalause at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 00:13:32 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 02:13:32 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
	<239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
	<1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
	<54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
	<b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad>
	<b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com>

We'll see.  I think a historical materialist should see society as a
dynamic process, and avoid these faith-based generalizations about
what will always be the case and what will never happen....  Political
coalitions are never simple and homogeneous even if they usually
manage to pretend to be, and the facade becomes more difficult when
they're facing rough times.  Nor can I share the cynicism that the
voters who elected Obama are going to throw the same arguments at us
in four years if they don't have something to show for it....
Finally, there are immense upheavals in the works outside of the US
that are going to provide living models of movements that will weigh
more heavily than what is still pretty much talk here....

Nothing done now is going to resolve the economic collapse and that
means that much will have to be kept in play.

However, until we have some more concrete developments that might give
us a better indication of how dynamic or fluid the situation is or may
become.  Without that, having another go-around over these issues will
be about as useful as playing with a Ouija board.

ML


From shmage at pipeline.com  Thu Apr  2 06:36:00 2009
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 08:36:00 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] On the census: What have they been smoking!?
In-Reply-To: <D90530A54C2B4396B6EABDDB0C466350@albanta>
References: <49D2C4CB.1040803@gmail.com><92E21B955FC74B95815E40B717B9BE4D@Nautilus><49D2D4A0.4010904@ix.netcom.com><6E4E0873-4368-4AAC-B2E4-20388537DF70@gmail.com><20b1e36e0903312031w29292726xfaed0e8b07568aa3@mail.gmail.com><87vdpp9fms.fsf@piracy.kokonino.net>
	<01E57A16-92A7-4092-8B9A-6A093B5B7BC7@gmail.com>
	<D90530A54C2B4396B6EABDDB0C466350@albanta>
Message-ID: <8C1DCE6F-AB88-44D4-A3A1-DD42C8AC4927@pipeline.com>


On Apr 1, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Joaquin Bustelo wrote:
>
> And Latino organizations and individuals who take government/ 
> corporate money
> to pimp for and promote the census in our communities should  
> remember that
> the last guy to do this got 30 pieces of silver, and think about  
> Judas's
> fate.


Why end with the oldest and vilest of antisemitic tropes?

Shane Mage

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


From anthony.boynton at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 06:58:31 2009
From: anthony.boynton at gmail.com (Anthony Boynton)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:58:31 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?China_Vies_to_Be_World=92s_Leader_in_E?=
	=?windows-1252?q?lectric_Cars?=
Message-ID: <7b8a676d0904020558r17ee9597t7c58dbfbc7a9504a@mail.gmail.com>

*China** Vies to Be World?s Leader in Electric Cars*

NYT By KEITH BRADSHER April 1, 2009



TIANJIN, China ? Chinese leaders have adopted a plan aimed at turning the
country into one of the leading producers of hybrid and all-electric
vehicles within three years, and making it the world leader in electric cars
and buses after that.



Chinese leaders have adopted a plan aimed at turning the country into one of
the leading producers of hybrid and all-electric vehicles within three
years.



The goal, which radiates from the very top of the Chinese government,
suggests that Detroit?s Big Three, already struggling to stay alive, will
face even stiffer foreign competition on the next field of automotive
technology than they do today.



?China is well positioned to lead in this,? said David Tulauskas, director
of China government policy at General Motors.



To some extent, China is making a virtue of a liability. It is behind the
United States, Japan and other countries when it comes to making gas-powered
vehicles, but by skipping the current technology, China hopes to get a jump
on the next.



Japan is the market leader in hybrids today, which run on both electricity
and gasoline, with cars like the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight. The United
States has been a laggard in alternative vehicles. G.M.?s plug-in hybrid
Chevrolet Volt is scheduled to go on sale next year, and will be assembled
in Michigan using rechargeable batteries imported from LG in South Korea.



China?s intention, in addition to creating a world-leading industry that
will produce jobs and exports, is to reduce urban pollution and decrease its
dependence on oil, which comes from the Mideast and travels over sea routes
controlled by the United States Navy.



But electric vehicles may do little to clear the country?s smog-darkened sky
or curb its rapidly rising emissions of global warming gases. China gets
three-fourths of its electricity from coal, which produces more soot and
more greenhouse gases than other fuels.



A report by McKinsey & Company last autumn estimated that replacing a
gasoline-powered car with a similar-size electric car in China would reduce
greenhouse emissions by only 19 percent. It would reduce urban pollution,
however, by shifting the source of smog from car exhaust pipes to power
plants, which are often located outside cities.



Beyond manufacturing, subsidies of up to $8,800 are being offered to taxi
fleets and local government agencies in 13 Chinese cities for each hybrid or
all-electric vehicle they purchase. The state electricity grid has been
ordered to set up electric car charging stations in Beijing, Shanghai and
Tianjin.



Government research subsidies for electric car designs are increasing
rapidly. And an interagency panel is planning tax credits for consumers who
buy alternative energy vehicles.



China wants to raise its annual production capacity to 500,000 hybrid or
all-electric cars and buses by the end of 2011, from 2,100 last year,
government officials and Chinese auto executives said. By comparison, CSM
Worldwide, a consulting firm that does forecasts for automakers, predicts
that Japan and South Korea together will be producing 1.1 million hybrid or
all-electric light vehicles by then and North America will be making
267,000.



The United States Department of Energy has its own $25 billion program to
develop electric-powered cars and improve battery technology, and will
receive another $2 billion for battery development as part of the economic
stimulus program enacted by Congress.



Premier Wen Jiabao highlighted the importance of electric cars two years ago
with his unlikely choice to become minister of science and technology: Wan
Gang, a Shanghai-born former Audi auto engineer in Germany who later became
the chief scientist for the Chinese government?s research panel on electric
vehicles.



Mr. Wan is the first minister in at least three decades who is not a member
of the Communist Party.



And Premier Wen has his own connection to the electric car industry. He was
born and grew up here in Tianjin, the longtime capital of China?s battery
industry, 70 miles southeast of Beijing.



Tianjin has thrived in the six years since Mr. Wen became premier. It now
has China?s first bullet train service (to Beijing), a new Airbus factory
and an immaculate new airport. Tianjin has also received a surge of research
subsidies for enterprises like the Tianjin-Qingyuan Electric Vehicle
Company.



Electric cars have several practical advantages in China. Intercity driving
is rare. Commutes are fairly short and frequently at low speeds because of
traffic jams. So the limitations of all-electric cars ? the latest models in
China have a top speed of 60 miles an hour and a range of 120 miles between
charges ? are less of a problem.



First-time car buyers also make up four-fifths of the Chinese market, and
these buyers have not yet grown accustomed to the greater power and range of
gasoline-powered cars.



But the electric car industry faces several obstacles here too. Most urban
Chinese live in apartments, and cannot install recharging devices in
driveways, so more public charging centers need to be set up.



Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries also have a poor reputation in China.
Counterfeit lithium-ion batteries in cellphones occasionally explode,
causing injuries. And Sony had to recall genuine lithium-ion batteries in
laptops in 2006 and 2008 after some overheated and caught fire or exploded.



These safety problems have been associated with lithium-ion cobalt
batteries, however, not the more chemically stable lithium-ion phosphate
batteries now being adapted to automotive use.



The tougher challenge is that all lithium-ion batteries are expensive,
whether made with cobalt or phosphate. That will be a hurdle for thrifty
Chinese consumers, especially if gas prices stay relatively low compared to
their highs last summer.



China is tackling the challenges with the same tools that helped it speed
industrialization and put on the Olympics: immense amounts of energy, money
and people.



BYD has 5,000 auto engineers and an equal number of battery engineers, most
of them living at its headquarters in Shenzhen in a cluster of 15 yellow
apartment buildings, each 18 stories high. Young engineers earn less than
$600 a month, including benefits.



When Tianjin-Qingyuan puts its entirely battery-powered Saibao midsize sedan
on sale this autumn, the body will come from a sedan that normally sells for
$14,600 when equipped with a gasoline engine. But the engine and gas tank
will be replaced with a $14,000 battery pack and electric motor, said Wu
Zhixin, the company?s general manager.



That means the retail price will nearly double, to almost $30,000. Even if
the government awards the maximum subsidy of $8,800 to buyers, that is a
hefty premium.



Large-scale production could drive down the cost of the battery pack and
electric motor by 30 or 40 percent, still leaving electric cars more
expensive than gasoline-powered ones, Mr. Wu said.



But Mr. Wu has plenty of money to pursue improvements. He interrupted an
interview at his company?s headquarters on Thursday to take a call on his
cellphone, politely declined an offer from the caller, and hung up.



The general manager of a state-controlled bank had called to ask if he
needed a loan, he explained.

From marvgandall at videotron.ca  Thu Apr  2 06:58:06 2009
From: marvgandall at videotron.ca (Marv Gandall)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:58:06 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
	<239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
	<1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
	<54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
	<b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad>
	<b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart>
	<b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV>

Mark writes:

> We'll see.  I think a historical materialist should see society as a
> dynamic process, and avoid these faith-based generalizations about
> what will always be the case and what will never happen....  Political
> coalitions are never simple and homogeneous even if they usually
> manage to pretend to be, and the facade becomes more difficult when
> they're facing rough times.  Nor can I share the cynicism that the
> voters who elected Obama are going to throw the same arguments at us
> in four years if they don't have something to show for it....
> Finally, there are immense upheavals in the works outside of the US
> that are going to provide living models of movements that will weigh
> more heavily than what is still pretty much talk here....
====================================
Let's recall also that there was an absence of mass action in the early
years of the Great Depression. The working class was overwhelmed by the
abrupt deterioration of the economy and the soaring rate of job losses, wage
cuts, and home evictions. It was natural that workers in these circumstances
would scramble as individuals to save themselves and their families. They
had little choice. Contracting economies = labour surpluses, lack of working
class confidence, declining unions.

Given their inability to act collectively in the workplace, it was natural
also that working people would invest all of their hopes and energies in
electoral action and a new Democratic administration promising change and
recovery. It was only when the economy began recovering that the possibility
for a higher level of organized mass action, particularly in the industrial
arena, presented itself. Recovering economies = labour shortages, increased
working class confidence, expanding unions and greater militancy.

The general level of political consciousness of the American working class
was no higher and possibly lower at the onset of the 30's depression than it
is today. What differed immensely, of course, was that there was a vigorous
and growing international socialist movement embedded in the unions and
other working class organizations, whose influence extended even into the
US. CP and other socialist activists in the unions and other mass
organizations became the catalysts and organizers of the subsequent upsurge.
There is no longer an international working class left, though it can't be
ruled out that today's tiny sects could grow rapidly in the context of
increased working class confidence resulting from renewed hiring and an
angry determination to fundamentally change a system which produced the
chaos.

As Mark says, we'll see, it's a process, and one in which it's best to avoid
either triumphalist or despairing faith-based generalizations.




From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 07:19:11 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:19:11 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] George Soros: "I'm having a very good crisis"--Hungary
	less so
Message-ID: <49D4BB4F.2000501@panix.com>

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1164771/Im-having-good-crisis-says-hedge-fund-manager-1billion-world-plunged-recession.html
'I'm having a very good crisis,' says Soros as hedge fund managers make 
billions off recession

By Mail Foreign Service

George Soros said the current economic crisis has been the culmination 
of his life's work

A hedge fund manager who predicted the global credit crunch has said the 
financial crisis has been 'stimulating' and the culmination of his 
life's work.

George Soros, who predicted the global financial crisis twice before, 
was one of the few people to anticipate and prepare for the current 
economic collapse.

Mr Soros said his prediction meant he was better able to brace his 
Quantum investment fund against the gloabal storm.

But other investors failed to take notice of his prediction and his 
decision to come out of retirement in 2007 to manage the fund made him 
$US2.9 billion.

And while the financial crisis continued to deepen across the globe, the 
78-year-old still managed to make $1.1 billion last year.

'It is, in a way, the culminating point of my life?s work,' he told 
national newspaper The Australian.

Soros is one of 25, top hedge fund managers from across Wall Street who 
have defied the credit crunch crisis to reap a total of $11.6billion 
(?7.9bn) last year.

---

The Guardian (London)
January 21, 1994

INSIDE STORY: THE SPECULATOR;
Three years ago he was just another Wall Street drone. He amassed 
fortune but little fame. Then George Soros began to invest in Eastern 
Europe, gambling on people instead of money. Today, the man whose 
currency dealing forced Britain out of the EMS, holds uncanny sway over 
22 countries. Michael Lewis joined him on a whirlwiind trip round the 
Soros Empire

By MICHAEL LEWIS

(clip)

Soros had boyhood friends in Hungary put him in touch with Hungary's 
leading dissidents: Istvan Rev, Miklos Haraszti, the coincidentally 
named Janos Kis. Separately, Soros befriended a woman named Annette 
Laborey, who since 1974 had been running from Paris an underground 
network of nonconformists from Eastern Europe. "In those days," recalled 
Laborey, seated beside me on Soros's jet, "the only capital was the 
network of confidence and trust. George came to me and said, 'How much 
do you need?' I said, '$ 10,000 would be really helpful.' He looked at 
me and he said, 'Annette, you must think larger.' " And for the next few 
years she did, funnelling Soros's (anonymous) money into her network.

IN 1984 Soros opened his first office, in Budapest, and began all manner 
of subversive activities for which he is temperamentally very 
well-equipped. "I started by trying to create small cracks in the 
monolithic structure which goes under the name of communism, in the 
belief that in a rigid structure even a small crack can have a 
devastating effect," he wrote in Opening The Soviet System. "As the 
cracks grew, so did my efforts until they came to take up most of my time."

Says Liz Lorant, who worked with Soros from the start: "It was the 
excitement of what we got away with [that is irreplaceable]. We got away 
with murder. [For example] at that time Xerox machines were under lock 
and key. That was the way it was. In Romania you had to register a 
typewriter with the police. Well, we just flooded the whole damn country 
with Xerox machines so that the rules became meaningless." In short, by 
the time the dust settled over the Berlin Wall - boom! bust! - Soros had 
accumulated a highly-charged portfolio of gratitude. The Great White 
Gods of Eastern Europe - Havel, Michnik, Kis, Haraszti - were all in his 
debt. So were all sorts of lesser-known, highly motivated people wending 
their way to high political office.

---

http://news.id.msn.com/business/article.aspx?cp-documentid=2954977
Record fine for Soros Fund over Hungarian transactions

Hungary's financial supervisory watchdog announced Friday it had slapped 
a 1.6-million-euro fine on an investment fund founded by US billionaire 
George Soros, for manipulating the market.

The PSzAF said it had fined Soros Fund Management LLC for transactions 
on the Budapest stock exchange on October 9 that led to a "significant 
loss in value" of Hungarian OTP bank stocks, which fell in days from 
4,000 forint (13.2 euros, 17.86 dollars) to 2,500 forint.

The PSzAF "is imposing a 489-million-forint fine on Soros Fund 
Management LLC... for violating the rules regarding the illegal 
manipulation of financial markets," the supervisory authority said in a 
statement on its Internet site.

The Soros Fund has 30 days to pay this record fine.

The PSzAF said the fund started putting OTP shares up for sale at 4:27 
pm on October 9, just minutes before closing.

"The timing, the number and the effects of these transactions on the 
market point without any doubt to a an illegal market manipulation," it 
added.

OTP, Hungary's biggest bank, was already hit hard by the financial 
crisis, like many other banks, but then saw its share value crumble in a 
few days after October 9.

In a statement Friday, Hungarian-born Soros responded he had been 
informed of the fine but insisted that he was not involved in the 
transactions.

"I no longer control the Soros Fund Management's operations, I retired 
last year and now only oversee the transactions to do with my private 
account," he said in the statement, published by Hungarian news agency MTI.

"Soros Fund Management is cooperating with the Hungarian authorities and 
has also launched an internal investigation" into the illegal 
transactions, he noted.

He added he was "deeply sorry the Soros Fund Management had carried out 
such a transaction."

---

NY Times, April 2, 2009
Politics Add to Economic Turmoil in Hungary
By LANDON THOMAS Jr.

BUDAPEST ? The streets of London seethed with protests as the Group of 
20 nations met, but this capital was arguably more unsettled.

Days before the leaders of the Group of 20 gathered to make decisions ? 
or avoid them ? that would directly affect Hungary, Sandor Csanyi, 
chairman of OTP, the country?s largest bank, could not conceal the 
stress, despite putting on a brave face.

Mr. Csanyi?s puffy red eyes showed the toll of the last seven months: 
the near default of Hungary on its foreign debt, the 90 percent plunge 
in his bank?s stock price as short sellers took aim at OTP, and, most 
recently, the surprise resignation of Hungary?s prime minister, which 
has raised questions about the government?s ability to carry out crucial 
economic reforms.

?Hungary is not Iceland,? he said, drinking a glass of red wine as the 
Danube rolled by a riverside restaurant here. ?And OTP is not Citibank 
or RBS.?

But OTP may be more similar to its western peers than Mr. Csanyi cares 
to admit. Short-sellers have laid siege to the bank, calculating that it 
has more sour loans on its books than it is willing to admit and that 
its cash cushion may prove insufficient.

Like Hungary itself, which thought it could borrow its way to prosperity 
in a post-cold war economy that seemed boundless, OTP relied on cheaply 
obtained foreign capital to finance its growth ? a practice followed by 
many of its peers in Eastern Europe.

But when the nation?s currency, the forint, collapsed last year, the 
foreign-denominated loans soared in value, making it extremely hard for 
domestic borrowers to repay their loans as the economy shrank.

This week, the bank received a $1.8 billion government loan backed by 
the International Monetary Fund in return for a commitment to increase 
domestic lending.

As for Hungary, the $25 billion agreement it signed with the monetary 
fund last year has put it in an awful policy vise. Mandated to squeeze 
its budget deficit below 3 percent of gross domestic product, the 
government is in no position to stimulate an economy estimated to sink 
by as much as 6 percent this year.

There is no painless path to recovery.

?Hungary has an uphill struggle, but we know that,? Gordon Bajnai, the 
economy minister, said in an interview in late March. ?We need a 
reform-minded government.?

On Monday, Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany, the former Communist who has 
led the country since 2004, appointed Mr. Bajnai, a 41-year-old former 
businessman, to lead that effort as his successor.

But furious opposition from Hungary?s right wing ? which has called for 
elections ? may limit the scope of his ambitions.

Lajos Bokros, a former finance minister, says that the alternative to 
not meeting the monetary fund?s conditions is bankruptcy. He worries 
that the forint will fall even further amid the political uncertainty ? 
a concern underscored by downgrades of Hungary?s credit rating by 
Standard & Poor?s and Moody?s this week.

?Hungary is falling behind Europe,? he said. ?This does not create much 
room for optimism.?

It is popular here to explain the acrimonious state of Hungarian 
politics as a consequence of an immature democracy still torn by a long 
dispute between former Communists and their bitter enemies on the right.

But Peter Muller, a well-known playwright, said the problem was societal 
in post-Communist Hungary. ?We had daydreams of capitalism during 
communism,? he said. ?But then becoming rich became a religion.?

Mr. Csanyi, 58, is certainly rich but he wears his wealth in a 
rough-hewn manner and is happiest when hunting wild boar in the 
countryside. Born poor in a small village southeast of Budapest, he 
spent years working in Hungary?s finance ministry before taking over OTP 
in 1992 when the bank was privatized.

Since then, he has overseen an ambitious expansion in central Europe, 
buying banks in Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia and Ukraine.

When foreigners withdrew their capital in a rush last year, OTP?s stock 
collapsed, as short-sellers saw it as a proxy for central Europe?s 
financial maelstrom.

Among the most persistent was George Soros, the Hungarian-born 
financier. His fund was fined $2 million by Hungarian regulators last 
week for having manipulated OTP?s stock price.

Mr. Csanyi?s response has been unconventional to say the least: OTP has 
spent $350 million buying back its stock in a bid to raise confidence in 
the bank. ?I think now they are afraid,? he said, referring to 
short-sellers.

Mr. Soros ? who once tried to buy OTP ? has apologized, but it is by no 
means clear that others who have shorted OTP in the past will turn tail 
now that the bank has become a buyer. Instead, with the bank?s loan book 
under pressure, Mr. Csanyi?s decision to deploy precious capital in such 
a way has raised as many questions as it has answered.

Two days after Mr. Gyurcsany?s resignation, Mr. Csanyi stood behind his 
desk in his office, his eyes fixed on a computer screen. OTP?s stock had 
had a strong opening for a change, despite the political news.

With a grunt of satisfaction, he said, ?1,800 forints ? that is O.K.? 
But it was still a far cry from its high of 10,900.

?Our loan portfolio is good,? he added. ?There is no reason the stock 
price is so low.?

All the same, many investors have doubts. Morgan Stanley, in a recent 
research note, forecast that OTP?s nonperforming loans would reach 15 
percent in the next two years and put a big dent in profits. OTP 
executives accept that nonperforming loans are on the rise, but they 
insist that the bank?s 15 percent capital cushion and an International 
Monetary Fund reserve fund provide a sufficient safety net.

OTP is also negotiating a subordinated loan from the European Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development, a multilateral institution with a 
mandate to aid eastern Europe. That process has been delayed by concerns 
that the deepening recession in Hungary would increase OTP?s burden of 
nonperforming loans.

But the cash is likely to come through. As the country?s largest bank 
and one of the most active in central Europe, OTP ? like Citigroup and 
Royal Bank of Scotland, and indeed Hungary itself ? is just too big to fail.

Unfortunately, there may be no such reprieve for its customers.

In a small walk-up apartment on the outskirts of Budapest, George 
Ivanyi, a founder of the Association of Bank Loan Victims, does his best 
to cope with an unceasing flow of Hungarians who have come to seek 
advice because they can no longer pay their mortgages after the forint?s 
collapse. Volunteer law students sip Red Bull while they counsel 
couples, and amid the buzz of activity a perpetually ringing phone goes 
unanswered.

?I feel the desperation of the people,? Mr. Ivanyi said. ?The banks are 
responsible ? but so is the government. They should not have approved 
these loans.?

One woman, he recounts, was so overwhelmed when the monthly mortgage 
bill on her Japanese yen-denominated loan from OTP suddenly soared 50 
percent that she ingested a dose of rat poison and narrowly escaped death.

OTP executives say they are doing all they can to help customers repay 
their debts, and the association says OTP has been cooperative in 
working to devise solutions.

With volunteers too busy to answer the phone, many of those looking for 
help come in person ? like Istvan Rakitovszky, 46, a construction worker 
who was laid off last fall and can no longer pay his Swiss 
franc-denominated loan from Raiffeisen Bank, a large Austrian-based bank.

He and his wife bought a small apartment two years ago, but they can no 
longer keep up the payments. Last week they received a letter from a 
collection agency saying their house would be repossessed. ?I am 
afraid,? said Mr. Rakitovszky, his face gaunt, his clothes shabby, his 
eyes far away. ?We have two kids. Where will we live??


From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Thu Apr  2 07:19:28 2009
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:19:28 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Seven Jewish Children - a Play for Gaza
Message-ID: <cbb.374db124.37061560@aol.com>





Caryl Churchill, a renowned British playwright and feminist, wrote a short  
play called:  Seven Jewish Children--A Play for Gaza.  It premiered in  London 
in February and in New York on March 16th, in an event marking the  
anniversary of Rachel Corrie's death. It was produced at the New York Theatre  Workshop, 
which was the center of a controversy three years ago when it backed  off 
from its decision to produce the play "My Name is Rachel Corrie."

The  entire text of the play has been printed by the Guardian newspaper , and 
has  been reproduced below.  Churchill is giving away free rights to produce 
the  show as long as a collection is made for medical relief in Gaza.

For more  context and analysis of the play, Tony Kushner and Alissa Solomon, 
who also  presided over one of the readings and subsequent discussions in New 
York, have a  piece well worth the read in the Nation here: 
 
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090413/kushner_solomon/3

But if you  only have a few minutes, just read the play itself.


_http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/feb/26/caryl-churchill-seven-jewish-chil
dren-play-gaza_ 
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/feb/26/caryl-churchill-seven-jewish-children-play-gaza) 



Seven Jewish Children - a Play for Gaza

Caryl Churchill

No  children appear in the play. The speakers are adults, the parents and if 
you  like other relations of the children. The lines can be shared out in any 
way you  like among those characters. The characters are different in each 
small scene as  the time and child are different.

1

Tell her it's a  game

Tell her it's serious

But don't frighten  her

Don't tell her they'll kill her

Tell her it's important  to be quiet

Tell her she'll have cake if she's good

Tell her to  curl up as if she's in bed

But not to sing.

Tell her not to come  out

Tell her not to come out even if she hears  shouting

Don't frighten her

Tell her not to come out even if  she hears nothing for a long time

Tell her we'll come and find  her

Tell her we'll be here all the time.

Tell her something about  the men

Tell her they're bad in the game

Tell her it's a  story

Tell her they'll go away

Tell her she can make them go away  if she keeps still

By magic

But not to  sing.


2


Tell her this is a photograph of her grandmother,  her uncles and me

Tell her her uncles died

Don't tell her  they were killed

Tell her they were killed

Don't frighten  her.

Tell her her grandmother was clever

Don't tell her what  they did

Tell her she was brave

Tell her she taught me how to make  cakes

Don't tell her what they did

Tell her  something

Tell her more when she's older.

Tell her there were  people who hated jews

Don't tell her

Tell her it's over  now

Tell her there are still people who hate jews

Tell her there  are people who love jews

Don't tell her to think jews or not  jews

Tell her more when she's older

Tell her how many when she's  older

Tell her it was before she was born and she's not in  danger

Don't tell her there's any question of danger.

Tell  her we love her

Tell her dead or alive her family all love  her

Tell her her grandmother would be proud of  her.


3


Don't tell her we're going forever

Tell  her she can write to her friends, tell her her friends can maybe come 
and  visit

Tell her it's sunny there

Tell her we're going  home

Tell her it's the land God gave us

Don't tell her  religion

Tell her her great great great great lots of greats grandad  lived there

Don't tell her he was driven out

Tell her, of  course tell her, tell her everyone was driven out and the 
country is  waiting
for us to come home

Don't tell her she doesn't belong  here

Tell her of course she likes it here but she'll like it there even  more.

Tell her it's an adventure

Tell her no one will tease  her

Tell her she'll have new friends

Tell her she can take her  toys

Don't tell her she can take all her toys

Tell her she's  a special girl

Tell her about  Jerusalem.

4


Don't tell her who they are

Tell her  something

Tell her they're bedouin, they travel about

Tell her  about camels in the desert and dates

Tell her they live in  tents

Tell her this wasn't their home

Don't tell her home,  not home, tell her they're going away

Don't tell her they  don't like her

Tell her to be careful.

Don't tell her  who used to live in this house

No but don't tell her her great great  grandfather used to live in this house

No but don't tell her Arabs  used to sleep in her bedroom.

Tell her not to be rude to them

Tell  her not to be frightened

Don't tell her she cant play with the  children

Don't tell her she can have them in the house.

Tell  her they have plenty of friends and family

Tell her for miles and miles  all round they have lands of their own

Tell her again this is our  promised land.

Don't tell her they said it was a land without  people

Don't tell her I wouldn't have come if I'd known.

Tell  her maybe we can share.

Don't tell her  that.


5


Tell her we won

Tell her her brother's a  hero

Tell her how big their armies are

Tell her we turned them  back

Tell her we're fighters

Tell her we've got new  land.


6


Don't tell her

Don't tell her the  trouble about the swimming pool

Tell her it's our water, we have the  right

Tell her it's not the water for their fields

Don't tell  her anything about water.

Don't tell her about the  bulldozer

Don't tell her not to look at the  bulldozer

Don't tell her it was knocking the house down

Tell  her it's a building site

Don't tell her anything about  bulldozers.

Don't tell her about the queues at the  checkpoint

Tell her we'll be there in no time

Don't tell her  anything she doesn't ask

Don't tell her the boy was  shot

Don't tell her anything.

Tell her we're making new farms  in the desert

Don't tell her about the olive trees

Tell her  we're building new towns in the wilderness.

Don't tell her they  throw stones

Tell her they're not much good against  tanks

Don't tell her that.

Don't tell her they set off  bombs in cafes

Tell her, tell her they set off bombs in cafes

Tell  her to be careful

Don't frighten her.

Tell her we need the  wall to keep us safe

Tell her they want to drive us into the  sea

Tell her they don't 

Tell her they want to drive us into the  sea.

Tell her we kill far more of them

Don't tell her  that

Tell her that

Tell her we're stronger

Tell her we're  entitled

Tell her they don't understand anything except  violence

Tell her we want peace

Tell her we're going  swimming.


7


Tell her she cant watch the news

Tell  her she can watch cartoons

Tell her she can stay up late and watch  Friends.

Tell her they're attacking with  rockets

Don't frighten her

Tell her only a few of us have  been killed

Tell her the army has come to our  defence

Don't tell her her cousin refused to serve in the  army.

Don't tell her how many of them have been killed

Tell  her the Hamas fighters have been killed

Tell her they're  terrorists

Tell her they're filth

Don't 

Don't tell  her about the family of dead girls

Tell her you cant believe what you see  on television

Tell her we killed the babies by  mistake

Don't tell her anything about the army

Tell her, tell  her about the army, tell her to be proud of the army. Tell 
her about the family  of dead girls, tell her their names why not, tell her the 
whole world knows why  shouldn't she know? tell her there's dead babies, did 
she see babies? tell her  she's got nothing to be ashamed of. Tell her they did 
it to themselves. Tell her  they want their children killed to make people 
sorry for them, tell her I'm not  sorry for them, tell her not to be sorry for 
them, tell her we're the ones to be  sorry for, tell her they cant talk 
suffering to us. Tell her we're the iron fist  now, tell her it's the fog of war, 
tell her we wont stop killing them till we're  safe, tell her I laughed when I 
saw the dead policemen, tell her they're animals  living in rubble now, tell her 
I wouldn't care if we wiped them out, the world  would hate us is the only 
thing, tell her I don't care if the world hates  us, tell her we're better 
haters, tell her we're chosen people, tell her I look  at one of their children
covered in blood and what do I feel? tell her all I  feel is happy it's not 
her.

Don't tell her that.

Tell her we  love her.

Don't frighten her.

? Caryl Churchill Ltd,  2009

Please feel free to download the play. This play can be read or  performed 
anywhere by any number of people. Should you wish to apply for rights,  please 
contact ruth at casarotto.co.uk, who will license the performances free of  charge 
provided that no admission fee is charged and that a collection is taken  at 
each performance for Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), 33a Islington Park  
Street, London N1 1 QB. Tel: 020-7226 4114. Website: map-uk.org. Email:  
info at map-uk.org

Hard copies can be obtained from Nick Hern Books, 14  Larden Road, London W3 
7ST. Email: info at nickhernbooks.demon.co.uk

The  text must be performed as written. No changes of any kind can be made to 
the  title or text of the play.




**************New Low Prices on Dell Laptops ? Starting at $399 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220433304x1201394525/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubl
eclick.net%2Fclk%3B213540718%3B35046385%3Be)

From christopher.hutch at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 07:21:20 2009
From: christopher.hutch at gmail.com (Christopher Hutchinson)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:21:20 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] General Strike Comics: Live Wire
Message-ID: <c81bf1a60904020621la853907ld28531b8175efe11@mail.gmail.com>

Special to GSC, C.J. LaPointe, gives a short review of the comic strip *Live
Wire.*

www.GeneralStrikeComics.com <http://www.generalstrikecomics.com/>

keep well,

christopher

From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 07:33:57 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:33:57 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] On wiping countries off the face of the map
Message-ID: <49D4BEC5.3070708@panix.com>

http://www.juancole.com/
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Lieberman and Wiping Countries off the face of the Map

Avigdor Lieberman, the Moldovan night club bouncer, is now foreign 
minister of Israel. The world has had a lot of fun laughing at the 
pronouncements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who stands 
falsely accused of threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map. 
But Ahmadinejad has protested that it would be wrong to kill large 
numbers of civilians.

In contrast, Lieberman has threatened to wipe at least two countries, 
Egypt and Palestine, off the map. Monstrously, he suggested bombing the 
Aswan Dam, which would have the effect of murdering all 80 million 
Egyptians and sweeping them into the Mediterranean in a vast continental 
African tsunami.

Lieberman promptly announced on assuming office that the Mideast peace 
process is dead. Well, at least we have an outbreak of frankness.

Whereas Ahmadinejad was humiliated by Columbia University president Lee 
Bollinger on his visit to that university, which provoked public 
protests, Lieberman's acceptance into the Israeli government has been 
greeted mildly and he was allowed to come to the Brookings Institution 
and meet with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Lieberman is a Central/Eastern 
European ultra-nationalist in the mold of Slobodan Milosevic and Jorg 
Haider, and it is shameful that he was allowed into the government and 
more shameful that this travesty has passed without a peep in the 
civilized world.

The The Electronic Intifada lists "Some of Avigdor Lieberman's infamous 
statements":

     ' # In 1998, Lieberman called for the flooding of Egypt by bombing 
the Aswan Dam in retaliation for Egyptian support for Yasser Arafat.

     # In 2001, as Minister of National Infrastructure, Lieberman 
proposed that the West Bank be divided into four cantons, with no 
central Palestinian government and no possibility for Palestinians to 
travel between the cantons.

     # In 2002, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman in a 
Cabinet meeting saying that the Palestinians should be given an 
ultimatum that "At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centers ... at noon 
we'll bomb their gas stations ... at two we'll bomb their banks ..."

     # In 2003, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that Lieberman called 
for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in 
the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there.

     # In May 2004, Lieberman proposed a plan that called for the 
transfer of Israeli territory with Palestinian populations to the 
Palestinian Authority. Likewise, Israel would annex the major Jewish 
settlement blocs on the Palestinian West Bank. If applied, his plan 
would strip roughly one-third of Israel's Palestinian citizens of their 
citizenship. A "loyalty test" would be applied to those who desired to 
remain in Israel. This plan to trade territory with the Palestinian 
Authority is a revision of Lieberman's earlier calls for the forcible 
transfer of Palestinian citizens of Israel from their land. Lieberman 
stated in April 2002 that there was "nothing undemocratic about transfer."

     # Also in May 2004, he said that 90 percent of Israel's 1.2 million 
Palestinian citizens would "have to find a new Arab entity" in which to 
live beyond Israel's borders. "They have no place here. They can take 
their bundles and get lost," he said.

     # In May 2006, Lieberman called for the killing of Arab members of 
Knesset who meet with members of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.'



Nice.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 07:48:16 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:48:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Harvard Derivatives Whiz Fired For Emailing Larry Summers
 About "Frightening" Trades?
Message-ID: <49D4C220.5000000@panix.com>

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/larry_summers_ignored_frightening_trading_practice.php#more


From skeyesvogt at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 07:50:42 2009
From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:50:42 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Police Brutality & Prison State Articles
Message-ID: <de3b89110904020650r5cba71f5tfddc56a99fd30425@mail.gmail.com>

Pasadena police seek outside review of fatal officer-involved shooting
http://www.malcolm-che.com/2009/04/02/pasadena-police-seek-outside-review-of-fatal-officer-involved-shooting/

Kin To Sue Over Fatal South Side Pittsburgh Shooting By Trooper
http://www.malcolm-che.com/2009/04/02/kin-to-sue-over-fatal-south-side-pittsburghshooting-by-trooper/

California seeks prison expansion to reduce crowding
http://www.malcolm-che.com/2009/04/02/california-seeks-prison-expansion-to-reduce-crowding/

Reckless Miami Police Shoot Into Car With Children
http://www.malcolm-che.com/2009/04/02/reckless-miami-police-shoot-into-car-with-children/

Judge certifies class action in Nevada prison suit
http://www.malcolm-che.com/2009/04/01/judge-certifies-class-action-in-nv-prison-suit/

CT: Investigation finds police shooting justified
http://www.malcolm-che.com/2009/04/01/ct-investigation-finds-police-shooting-justified/

The myth of the Rockefeller-drug-laws repeal
http://www.malcolm-che.com/2009/03/30/the-myth-of-the-rockefeller-drug-laws-repeal/


From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 07:52:36 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:52:36 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Obama's Blackwater
Message-ID: <49D4C324.9010207@panix.com>

Obama's Blackwater? Chicago Mercenary Firm Gets Millions for Private 
"Security" in Israel and Iraq
By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet
Posted on April 2, 2009, Printed on April 2, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/134594/

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama's advisers said he "can't rule out 
[and] won't rule out" using mercenary forces, like Blackwater. Now, it 
appears that the Obama administration has decided on its hired guns of 
choice: Triple Canopy, a Chicago company now based in Virginia. It may 
not have Blackwater's thuggish reputation, but Triple Canopy has its own 
bloody history in Iraq and a record of hiring mercenaries from countries 
with atrocious human rights records. What's more, Obama is not just 
using the company in Iraq, but also as a U.S.-government funded private 
security force in Israel/Palestine, operating out of Jerusalem.

Beginning May 7th, Triple Canopy will officially take over 
Xe/Blackwater's mega-contract with the U.S. State Department for 
guarding occupation officials in Iraq. It's sure to be a lucrative deal: 
Obama's Iraq plan will inevitably rely on an increased use of private 
contractors, including an army of mercenaries to protect his surge of 
diplomats operating out of the monstrous U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

The Iraq contract may come as no surprise. But according to federal 
contract records obtained by AlterNet, the Obama administration has also 
paid Triple Canopy millions of dollars to provide "security services" in 
Israel. In February and March, the Obama administration awarded a 
"delivery order" to Triple Canopy worth $5.5 million under State 
Department contract SAQMPD05F5528, which is labeled "PROTECTIVE 
SERVICES--ISRAEL." According to one government document, the contract is 
scheduled to run until September 2012. (Another document says September 
2009.) The contract is classified as "SECURITY GUARDS AND PATROL 
SERVICES" in Israel. The total value of the contract was listed at 
$41,556,969.72. According to a January 2009 State Department document 
obtained by AlterNet labeled "Sensitive But Unclassified," the Triple 
Canopy contract is based out of Jerusalem.

According to federal records, the original arrangement with Triple 
Canopy in Israel appears to date back to at least September 2005 and has 
been renewed every year since. The company is operating under the State 
Department's Worldwide Personal Protection Program (WPPS), which 
provides for private security/military companies to operate on the U.S. 
government payroll in countries such as Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, and 
Israel. Triple Canopy, according to an internal State Department report, 
also worked under the program in Haiti, though that task order is now 
listed as "closed." In State Department documents the WPPS program is 
described as a government initiative to protect U.S. officials as well 
as "certain foreign government high level officials whenever the need 
arises." The State Department spent some $2 billion on the WPPS program 
from 2005-2008.

Triple Canopy's Growing Footprint in Iraq

Triple Canopy is hardly new to the Iraq occupation. Founded in Chicago 
in 2003 by "U.S. Army Special Forces veterans," the company won its 
first Iraq contract in 2004. In 2005, with its business expanding, 
Triple Canopy relocated its corporate headquarters from Obama's home 
state to Herndon, Virginia, placing it much closer to the center of U.S. 
war contracting. (On several U.S. government contracts, however, 
including the Israel security contracts, its Lincolnshire, Illinois 
address is still used.)

Along with Blackwater and DynCorp, Triple Canopy has had armed 
operatives deployed in Iraq on a major U.S. government contract since 
the early stages of the occupation. At one point during this 
arrangement, Blackwater was responsible for Baghdad (the largest share 
of the work), DynCorp covered northern Iraq and Triple Canopy southern 
Iraq. Triple Canopy also worked for KBR and other corporations. As of 
2007, Triple Canopy had about 2,000 operatives in Iraq, but only 257 on 
the State Department contract. However, its new contract, which takes 
effect May 7, will greatly expand Triple Canopy's government presence in 
Iraq. (Meanwhile, Blackwater is scheduled to continue to work in Iraq 
under Obama through its aviation division and in Afghanistan, where it 
has security and counter-narcotics contracts. It also holds millions of 
dollars in other U.S. government contracts around the world and in the 
U.S. In February alone, the Obama administration paid Blackwater nearly 
$70 million in security contracts.) The Obama administration may have 
traded Blackwater for Triple Canopy in Iraq, but it is likely that some 
of Blackwater's operatives, too, will simply jump over to Triple Canopy 
to keep working as armed security guards for occupation officials.

Like Blackwater, Triple Canopy has had its share of bloody incidents, 
among them  allegations that operatives have gone on missions where they 
shot at civilian vehicles, including one after a briefing where a team 
leader cocked his M-4 and said to his men, "I want to kill somebody 
today. ... Because I'm going on vacation tomorrow." (The man in question 
denied any wrongdoing). While Triple Canopy fired some employees for not 
reporting shooting incidents in Iraq, none have been criminally 
prosecuted in Iraq or the U.S. (For a full report on this and other 
incidents involving Triple Canopy, check out the great work of 
Washington Post foreign correspondent Steve Fainaru, author of Big Boy 
Rules.)

Also like Blackwater, Triple Canopy has hired mercenaries from countries 
with atrocious human rights records and histories of violent 
counter-insurgencies. Among them: Peru, Chile, Colombia and El Salvador. 
In fact, in Iraq, Triple Canopy hired far more "Third Country Nationals" 
than Blackwater and DynCorp and has used more TCNs than US citizens or 
Iraqis. As I reported in my book, Triple Canopy used the same Chilean 
recruiter (who served in Augusto Pinochet's military) Blackwater used 
when it hired Chilean forces, including some "seasoned veterans" of the 
Pinochet era. In El Salvador, the company reportedly used "a 
U.S.-trained former paratrooper and officer of the Salvadoran special 
forces during the country's civil war" where the U.S. backed a brutal 
right wing dictatorship in a war that took the lives of some 75,000 
Salvadorans. A Triple Canopy spokesperson reportedly said of the 
Salvadorans, "They've got the right background for the type of work we 
are doing." A Triple Canopy subsidiary in Latin America has also 
reportedly used a former CIA base in Lepaterique, Honduras as a training 
center. In the 1980s, the facility was used by the CIA and Argentinian 
military intelligence in training Contra death squads to attack 
Nicaragua. The base also served as the headquarters for the notorious 
Battalion 316, a CIA-trained Honduran military unit responsible for 
torture and disappearances.

There is also cause for concern about Triple Canopy's attitude towards 
accountability for its forces in Iraq, particularly in light of new 
rules which, on paper, give Iraqi courts jurisdiction over contractor 
crimes. Blackwater has, at times, conspired with the U.S. State 
Department to whisk its forces out of Iraq when they are facing 
potential prosecution for alleged crimes committed in the country, as in 
the case of a drunken Blackwater operative who was alleged to have shot 
and killed a bodyguard to Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdel-Mahdi on 
Christmas Eve 2006.

According to one Triple Canopy operative, "We were always told, from the 
very beginning, if for some reason something happened and the Iraqis 
were trying to prosecute us, they would put you in the back of a car and 
sneak you out of the country in the middle of the night." Another Triple 
Canopy operative said U.S. contractors had their own motto: "What 
happens here today, stays here today."
The use of mercenaries by Hillary Clinton's State Department stands in 
stark contrast to her co-sponsorship as a Senator of a bill last year 
that sought to ban the use of such companies in U.S. war zones, 
specifically Iraq. Last February Clinton said, "The time to show these 
contractors the door is long past due." Now, Clinton will be relying on 
these hired guns for protecting her and her staff in various countries.

It's hardly a surprise that Obama is continuing the use of mercenaries 
in Iraq and beyond (Triple Canopy itself maintains offices in Abu Dhabi, 
Nigeria, Peru, Jordan and Uganda); nevertheless, members of Congress -- 
whose actions when Bush deployed these private armies were too little, 
too late -- have a responsibility to investigate his use of companies 
whose profits are intimately linked to a continuation of war. Moreover, 
Obama's choice of this particular company should be investigated, both 
by the House and Senate, before May 7th when Obama's mercenaries become 
the official paramilitary force in Iraq. As for Triple Canopy's role in 
Israel, Obama's administration should explain exactly what these forces 
are doing on the U.S. government payroll.

Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the 
national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time 
reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing 
Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The 
Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

? 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Thu Apr  2 07:55:23 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:55:23 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad><54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta><b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com><6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad><b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com><20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart><b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com>
	<DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV>
Message-ID: <58E03BF6BE34442D8148C9A2D338A098@dmsthinkpad>

That's the second use of  the phrase "faith-based generalizations" as a 
rejoinder and non-response to a question  about what happened to all that 
enthusiasm surrounding the election of Obama, when in fact it is/was just 
such enthusiasm that was faith-based and has now created its opposite 
identity-- despair.  And those questions, what happened and why so glum 
chum, were put to those who expressed, in varying degrees, that enthusiasm.

So to the critical critics who talk about faith based generalizations, I 
must respond-- Critics, criticize yourself.

I wasn't the one expressing despair, or "wincing" over the current state of 
class struggle, over the workers' class consciousness.  That despair and 
wincing was, is being done by those who had previously demonstrated their 
faith not in the class opposition to the faux glee following the election of 
Obama, but just the reverse-- in the "possibilities" created, catalyzed, by 
that election.

And indeed, Mr. Lause still has faith, only faith now couched in the 
cautious,  hedged vocabulary of "We'll see"  and "Never say never."     And 
that is supposed to represent historical, material analyis of the "dynamic" 
processes of society.   Rot.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marv Gandall" <marvgandall at videotron.ca>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)




From markalause at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 08:12:26 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:12:26 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <58E03BF6BE34442D8148C9A2D338A098@dmsthinkpad>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
	<54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
	<b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad>
	<b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart>
	<b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com>
	<DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV>
	<58E03BF6BE34442D8148C9A2D338A098@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904020712le1314s7f39c73c4cea9794@mail.gmail.com>

I forgot how this works.  I say I don't know and we have to wait and
see without being dogmatic.  Then S. Artesian says that it isn't him
being dogmatic but its me.  The "yo' momma" school of socialist
theory. (Yawn.)

I decided weeks ago not to attempt to engage S. Artesian in an honest
discussion on this subject, on the grounds that he not only prefers to
abuse strawmen of his own making but almost never actually engages
with a single point you actually make.   I don't know if it's just him
or just him on this particular point, but it's predictable and utterly
boring.

I apologize to the list for taking its time with a demonstration of
what it didn't need demonstrating.

I suspect that we'll have more to discuss over the next year or so.  I
don't think the Democrats are not going to want to enter into an
off-year election having failed to make what didn't work for Bush not
work for them.  Those of us who rely on material reality may want to
watch these developments.

Those who will remain free to continue denouncing reality for its
failure to produce the requisite Socialist Industrial Unionism....

ML


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Thu Apr  2 08:23:02 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:23:02 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad><54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta><b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com><6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad><b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com><20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart><b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com><DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV><58E03BF6BE34442D8148C9A2D338A098@dmsthinkpad>
	<b16d8daf0904020712le1314s7f39c73c4cea9794@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <22C409AB245642499B85987DF66D92C0@dmsthinkpad>

I didn't forget how this works.  You say something.  Then say that's not 
what you meant.  Then accuse those pointing out that that is exactly what 
you said of dishonesty.  Then when confronted with your own words  you go--  
"Oh I forgot how this works..  That other guy is so dogmatic, I cannot 
engage with him.--  Except of course when I think I can get away with it."

I never said anything about dogmatism-- You said "faith-based 
generalizations" based on your previously stated belief about the potential 
for the Obamaites to actually deliver something "innovative."  If that isn't 
faith based, I don't know what is-- unless of course you consider wider, and 
more numerous wars, unemployment, declines in personal incomes, wages, etc. 
etc.  "innovative."



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Lause" <markalause at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)




From epoliticus at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 08:26:34 2009
From: epoliticus at gmail.com (Politicus E.)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:26:34 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Economic & Political Weekly Articles on the Global
	Economic Crisis
Message-ID: <dd55f6dc0904020726t612078fbo5bd93ba7739e05c9@mail.gmail.com>

The contents of the current issue are available online at
http://epw.in/epw/user/fullContent.jsp.

Contributions include:

Steering Out of the Crisis
 Robert Wade

The Economic Crisis and Contemporary Capitalism
 Prabhat Patnaik

REFORMING BANKING AND FINANCE
The World Crisis: Reforms to Prevent a Recurrence
 Arvind Subramanian , John Williamson

Causes, Cures and Myths
 Avinash D Persaud

Must Banks Be Publicly Owned?
 C P Chandrasekhar

The First Network Crisis of the 21st Century: A Regulatory Post-Mortem
 Andrew Sheng

Those Who Forget the Regulatory Successes of the Past Are Condemned to Failure
 William K Black

Regulating the US Financial System to Avoid Another Meltdown
 James Crotty , Gerald Epstein

THE CRISIS AND INDIA
India amidst the Global Crisis
 Mihir Rakshit

The Impact of the Crisis on the Indian Economy
 T T Ram Mohan

The Fate of India Unincorporated
 Dilip M Nachane

STRUCTURAL CAUSES
Understanding the Financial Crisis
 Amit Bhaduri

Profound Structural Flaws in the US Financial System That Helped Cause
the Financial Crisis
 James Crotty

Banking, Complex Securities, and the Credit Crisis
 Willi Semmler , Lucas Bernard

The Recent Crisis in Global Capitalism: Towards a Marxian Understanding
 Vamsi Vakulabharanam

Tackling the Current Global Economic and Financial Crisis: Beyond
Demand Management
 Arun Kumar

LEARNING FROM THE PAST
Anatomy of the Financial Crisis: Between Keynes and Schumpeter
 Pulin B Nayak

When the Facts Change: How Can the Financial Crisis Change Minds?
 Arjun jayadev , Anush Kapadia

IMPACT ON LABOUR
A Crisis of Distribution
 Ozlem Onaran

The World Crisis, Capital and Labour: The 1930s and Today
 Dan La Botz

DOLLAR HEGEMONY AND THE CRISIS
What Is Driving Global Deflation and How Best to Fight It
 Korkut Erturk

The Global Meltdown: Financialisation, Dollar Hegemony and the
Sub-prime Market Collapse
 Ramaa Vasudevan


From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 09:08:10 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:08:10 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Restless Conscience
Message-ID: <49D4D4DA.2030103@panix.com>

Despite my interest in films (Sophie Scholl, The White Rose, The Black 
Book) that illustrate German resistance to Hitler, I lacked the 
motivation to see ?Valkyrie?, a movie that NYFCO colleague Armond White 
regarded as ?intellectually insulting?. Fortunately, there is an 
alternative. You can now rent ?The Restless Conscience: Resistance to 
Hitler in Nazi Germany? from Netflix, a documentary that features 
survivors of the plot to kill Hitler as well as the wives of some of the 
martyrs to the cause. Since the movie was made in 1992, this is the only 
record we have of their testimony since most of the interviewees are 
likely now deceased.

full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/restless-conscience/


From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 09:42:42 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:42:42 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Ward Churchill case goes to jury
Message-ID: <49D4DCF2.7080607@panix.com>

The Chronicle of Higher Education 
http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/04/15011n.htm

Amid Talk of High Ideals, Arguments Close in Ward Churchill's Lawsuit

By PETER SCHMIDT

The trial in Ward Churchill's wrongful-dismissal lawsuit against the 
University of Colorado drew to a close on Wednesday with the embattled 
professor?s lawyer telling jurors that nothing less than the fate of the 
Constitution rested in their hands.

?The United States of America wants to know what you are going to do 
with the freedom we have in this country,? the lawyer, David Lane, said 
in his closing argument in a packed Denver courtroom. Placing a pitcher 
on a stack of books written by Mr. Churchill, he said the university had 
punished the ethnic-studies professor for a controversial essay on the 
September 11, 2001, attacks by reducing his 30 years of scholarship to a 
"pitcher of warm spit."

But the university?s lawyer, Patrick O?Rourke, had a different view?that 
the university, its faculty members, and its students were under assault 
by the wanton recklessness of academic fraud perpetrated by Mr. Churchill.

?When people don?t have academic integrity, it undermines everything the 
university stands for,? Mr. O?Rourke said. The president of the Colorado 
system at the time of the dismissal, Hank Brown, "did not recommend the 
regents fire Professor Churchill for a false reason."

Mr. O'Rourke said he agreed with Mr. Lane's assessment that the jury was 
there to protect the Constitution. But the best way to do so, he said, 
is "by saying, You can?t take the First Amendment and use it to justify 
fraud.?

When the lawyers had finished speaking, Judge Larry J. Naves turned the 
case over to the jury. He said if they found in favor of Mr. Churchill, 
they would be responsible for determining the amount of economic and 
noneconomic damages awarded to him. The jurors began their deliberations 
on Wednesday but did not reach a verdict. Deliberations will resume this 
morning.

The lawyers' final arguments followed by one day a major setback dealt 
to Mr. Churchill by the court: On Tuesday Judge Naves dismissed one of 
the professor's two claims against the university?that its investigation 
of Mr. Churchill for scholarly misconduct was an act of retaliation. In 
holding that the court could not act on such a claim, Judge Naves noted 
that Mr. Churchill kept his job throughout the investigation, and 
declared that an investigation's potential chilling effect on speech was 
not sufficient to justify the retaliation claim. As a result of the 
judge?s decision, the jury will consider only the second claim: whether 
the final outcome of the investigation, Mr. Churchill?s termination, was 
a retaliatory act.

Through more than three weeks of testimony by dozens of witnesses, Mr. 
Churchill's legal team made a strong case that he never would have been 
investigated for academic misconduct were it not for the controversy 
surrounding his essay comparing many office workers killed in the World 
Trade Center on September 11, 2001, to a notorious Nazi bureaucrat. That 
essay suggested that the office workers were not truly innocent victims, 
given the role they played in U.S. oppression of people in other lands.

Mr. Churchill's lawyers also presented a substantial amount of testimony 
backing their assertions that the university had been under intense 
pressure to fire him and that at least some key players in the 
disciplinary proceedings lacked any desire to keep him around, according 
to detailed accounts of the trial proceedings published in the Colorado 
Daily and The Denver Post.

Mr. Churchill?s lawyers appeared less successful, however, in their 
efforts to argue that the academic-misconduct charges leveled against 
their client involved small, commonplace scholarly errors that did not 
justify his removal. While some of his alleged infractions did come off 
as minor when discussed in court, others?such as his ghostwriting for 
other scholars of papers that he then cited to back his own 
research?were repeatedly denounced by witnesses as serious academic 
dishonesty.

Mixed Motives

In his closing argument, Mr. Lane insisted to the jury that there was no 
way to separate the investigation of Mr. Churchill?s academic conduct 
from the political backlash surrounding his essay, which the university 
itself acknowledged to be constitutionally protected speech. He said he 
didn?t even have to prove that the writing of the September 11 essay was 
the only reason Mr. Churchill was fired. Mr. Lane argued it only had to 
be part of the reason why the professor lost his job.

?For the sake of argument, let?s say Mr. O?Rourke has proven every one 
of those bogus reasons they trumped up are true. Let?s say he 
plagiarized, he ghostwrote, he lied, he fabricated, he falsified?he did 
everything they said he did?that?s not the end of the case from your 
perspective,? Mr. Lane said. ?Because if they used his protected speech 
on top of all that to fire him, then you are obligated to find in favor 
of Ward Churchill."

Mr. Lane gravely told the jury that the First Amendment protects 
dissenting and unpopular views. He said that his client had spent 30 
years questioning "the master narrative" of history and ?telling the 
other side of the story? in his essays and books, and that the 
university fired him precisely because people there did not like what he 
said and wrote.

Mr. O?Rourke countered by arguing that the university had gone out of 
its way to afford due process to Mr. Churchill, and that it had no 
choice but to fire him when he failed to refute the academic-misconduct 
charges brought against him. He said that ?Ward Churchill?s world is a 
place where there are no standards and no accountability.?

Claims of Bias

During the trial, both sides examined the university?s investigations of 
Mr. Churchill, which took two and a half years. A committee established 
to examine his essay about September 11 concluded that his words were 
protected by the First Amendment, but also learned of accusations of 
academic misconduct that it set aside as outside its scope.

The misconduct allegations were later examined by an another panel set 
up by the Boulder campus?s Standing Committee on Research Misconduct, 
and subsequently forwarded to the full committee and a hearing panel of 
the Faculty Senate. Each of the panels that investigated the charges 
concluded that Mr. Churchill had committed academic misconduct, but some 
of their members did not think he deserved to be fired for such infractions.

Mr. Churchill?s legal team sought to discredit the various panels by 
trying to show bias in their ranks. Mr. Lane focused especially on the 
investigative committee that first looked at the research-misconduct 
allegations, mainly by trying to show bias on the part of its leader, 
Marianne (Mimi) Wesson, a law professor at Boulder. He produced an 
e-mail message that Ms. Wesson wrote in February 2005, before being 
named to lead the panel, in which she called Mr. Churchill ?a thoroughly 
unpleasant individual? and complained that the people rallying behind 
him reminded her of the supporters of other ?charismatic male celebrity 
wrongdoers,? such as O.J. Simpson and Bill Clinton.

On the witness stand, Ms. Wesson said her e-mail message was not a 
commentary on Mr. Churchill?s character but on the tendency of people to 
jump on the bandwagon to defend such figures. She never would have 
written the message had there been the ?slightest intimation? she would 
become the investigative committee?s head, she said. Other members of 
that panel testified that they regarded her as fair.

Under state law, the jurors were allowed to formulate questions for the 
witnesses themselves, and pass them to the judge to review and pose on 
their behalf. They had Judge Naves ask Joseph G. Rosse, a professor of 
management at the business school who led the Standing Committee on 
Research Misconduct, if he ever considered asking someone else to chair 
the investigative committee after Mr. Churchill shared concerns about 
Ms. Wesson?s impartiality. Mr. Rosse said no.

The university countered the attack on the process leading to Mr. 
Churchill?s dismissal by producing a long list of witnesses who defended 
it. Among them, Donald D. Morley, a professor of communications at the 
Colorado Springs campus who served on the Faculty Senate panel, said Mr. 
Churchill failed to convince that group that ?the university was out to 
get him for his exercise of free speech.?

Hank Brown, president of the university during the investigation, called 
the idea that there was a conspiracy to railroad Mr. Churchill ?absurd.?

Mr. Churchill himself testified that he did not believe there was a 
conspiracy to get rid of him, but instead that the political pressure 
being put on the university nearly ensured such an outcome.

Mistakes Defended as Minor

Asked by Mr. Lane what he hoped to gain from the proceedings, Mr. 
Churchill said, ?I want my job, and I want restitution and 
acknowledgment that the entire process to remove me from the university 
was fraudulent.? He testified that he has been out of work since losing 
his university job, which paid $94,000 a year.

During much of his time on the witness stand, Mr. Churchill was defiant, 
at one point calling several of the university administrators and 
faculty members who faulted his scholarship ?pathetic.? He acknowledged 
some flaws in his scholarship but strenuously denied that any merited 
firing him.

Responding to the university?s charge that he engaged in fabrication in 
writing that a commander at a U.S. Army fort had deliberately ordered 
the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets to American Indians in 
the 1830s, Mr. Churchill said his account was backed by oral history 
transmitted by the tribe in question, the Mandan. He also defended his 
assertion that circumstantial evidence suggests that Capt. John Smith 
deliberately infected the Wampanoag tribe with smallpox in the 1600s, 
saying that he had not specifically accused Captain Smith of such an act 
but instead said the infecting was probably carried out on his orders.

Under cross-examination from Mr. O?Rourke, Mr. Churchill admitted that 
he may have been imprecise in identifying the American Indian tribe 
infected in the 1830s, that he should not have said contaminated 
blankets were used to spread the infection when the sources he footnoted 
had not specifically referred to blankets, and that he committed an 
oversight in failing to catch how his wife had included an essay that 
was not his in a list of his accomplishments she helped him assemble. 
Mr. Lane argued, however, that such mistakes were minor.

Asked about a charge that an essay in one of his books involved 
plagiarism, Mr. Churchill said he only copy-edited the essay, and 
therefore should not be held responsible for its originality.

Several scholars of American Indians took the stand to defend Mr. 
Churchill?s work. Among them, Russell Means, an American Indian 
activist, called the standing committee?s report accusing Mr. Churchill 
of misconduct a ?scholarly massacre.? Michael Yellow Bird, an associate 
professor of global indigenous-nations studies at the University of 
Kansas, argued that many sources backed Mr. Churchill?s assertion that 
the Army had distributed smallpox-infected blankets, but that even a 
?fabricated, made-up account promoted truth.?

Seeing Ghosts

The cross-examination of Mr. Churchill focused heavily on his 
ghostwriting for other scholars of essays that he then cited to support 
his own theories. Mr. Churchill argued that such ghostwriting and 
undisclosed self-citation is common and does not violate academic 
standards. Mr. O?Rourke responded by saying that all of the faculty 
members who investigated his ghostwriting viewed the practice as wrong, 
and that Mr. Churchill had failed to produce a single witness who 
admitted to the practice or called it standard.

Both Mr. Brown, the former president, and Mr. Rosse, the management 
professor, suggested that Mr. Churchill had sealed his own fate by 
refusing to take responsibility for his mistakes or to offer assurances 
that he would not repeat them.

David Montero reported from Denver.
Copyright ? 2009 by The Chronicle of Higher Education



From billyoc at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 10:03:57 2009
From: billyoc at gmail.com (Bill O'Connor)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:03:57 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Agent Orange International Solidarity Campaign
In-Reply-To: <875018.31877.qm@web45308.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> (David Walsh's
	message of "Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:49:22 -0700 (PDT)")
References: <875018.31877.qm@web45308.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <87wsa36o0i.fsf@t22.Belkin>

David Walsh <davidrail68 at yahoo.com> writes:

> from Green Left Weekly published in Australia by the Democratic
> Socialist Perspective -- Dave
>
> www.vn-agentorange.org
>
> Agent Orange International Solidarity Campaign Vietnam calls for
> justice
>
> Even though the Vietnam War ended 30 years ago, the US.s saturation
> chemical bombing is still wreaking havoc on millions, including the
> newly born . making them third-generation victims. Nobody knows when
> the congenital deformities, one of many horrific health consequences
> of the toxic chemicals, will end.

Very topical, considering the plans that are being discussed for the
defoliation of the Mexican side of the Rio Grande.

http://borderexplorer.blogspot.com/2009/03/borders-agent-orange-controversy.html



From tcod at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  2 10:08:11 2009
From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:08:11 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] "Communist" led strike in 1980s in biggest US shipyard?
In-Reply-To: <49D3CFE1.8070704@gmail.com>
References: <49D3CFE1.8070704@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W21C60E3C6B0E5C2DED1E10D3880@phx.gbl>


say what, a "communist led strike" in "one of the biggest shipyards in the US" in the 1980s?  
How is it that I missed that?  What have you been smoking?                                                             

"Oh, I had the fortunate experience of working at NASCO in San Diego, one 
of the biggest shipyards in the US, during the Malvinas war. This 
shipyard was hot bed of communist activity having just ended a communist 
lead strike to victory a year before I got there."
_________________________________________________________________
Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. 
http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A

From tcod at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  2 10:12:33 2009
From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:12:33 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] NASCO shipyard and communists.
In-Reply-To: <49D3ECA5.9040709@gmail.com>
References: <49D3ECA5.9040709@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W42AC4C962CEE2AD677999BD3880@phx.gbl>


OK, they were the same group whose members were gunned down  in Greensboro, NC in 1979.
I remember attending a conference down there in solidarity with them in 1980 after the Klan was acquitted.
Its unfortunate more of the Left didn't show solidarity with them notwithstanding whatever mistakes they
made.  But they led that strike? or were just loyal builders, supporters and cheerleaders of it?



_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail?: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. 
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Updates1_042009

From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 10:16:14 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:16:14 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] More on Ward Churchill case
Message-ID: <49D4E4CE.6050309@panix.com>

http://openanthropology.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/ward-churchills-case-is-now-in-the-hands-of-the-jury-closing-arguments-concluded/


From tcod at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  2 10:18:02 2009
From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:18:02 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] NASCO shipyard and communists.
In-Reply-To: <49D3ECA5.9040709@gmail.com>
References: <49D3ECA5.9040709@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W227417BED877FE6984263DD3880@phx.gbl>


seems, if what you're saying is true, that the CWP had a better, more effective notion of how to manage a "turn" to industry than a certain group we were members of.  Were any of those guys involved in that at all?



_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail?: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. 
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage1_042009

From jjonas at nic.fi  Thu Apr  2 11:12:05 2009
From: jjonas at nic.fi (Joonas Laine)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:12:05 +0300
Subject: [Marxism] Question on the Russian Nashi youth movement
Message-ID: <49D4F1E5.80305@nic.fi>

I was wondering if the Russian or Russia-based comrades on the list 
could shed some light on the practice and politics of the pro-government 
Nashi youth movement. Some time ago there was a big media uproar in 
Finland when about three Nashi representatives came to Finland to 
demonstrate against a history seminar organized by the Estonian embassy 
in Finland, which included a "documentary" called 'The Soviet Story'.

The uproar itself was a typical example of how exaggerated the Finnish 
media's hatred and fear of Russia really is, but as to the Nashi, it's 
rather difficult to know what they are about as I myself don't read any 
Russian. My hunch says they're just more or less nationalistic, and the 
anti-fascist rhetoric is not as progressive as one might think offhand.

On the other hand, I'm not sure if they're quite as bad as to deserve to 
be called "Putin Jugend", maybe that's just some more of the typical 
Finnish anti-Russian hatred.

But I might be wrong. Anyone have any information on this..?


From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 11:25:12 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:25:12 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Financial crisis impacts adjunct professors
Message-ID: <49D4F4F8.9000901@panix.com>

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090413/arana?rel=hp_currently
Higher Education Takes a Hit
By Gabriel Arana

When Jeremy Nienow started a Ph.D. program in anthropology at the 
University of Minnesota in 2003, he thought being a professor would 
offer him more time with his family than his travel-heavy job as an 
archaeologist. But academia turned out to be not as Nienow had imagined. 
Now graduated, Nienow teaches six courses as a part-time instructor at 
three different institutions. He spends much of his time on weekends 
grading papers instead of with his daughter. He jumps from one campus to 
another, has no office and does not receive either health or retirement 
benefits.

"I take work wherever I can get it, in any form I can get it," he said.

Nienow is among 391,000 part-time or "adjunct" faculty at community 
colleges and public universities, positions that have increasingly 
replaced full-time, tenure-track jobs. Despite being the source of most 
of the teaching at colleges, these short-term appointments pay only 
about a fourth as much, per course, as tenure-track positions, seldom 
come with benefits and offer little job security or possibility of 
advancement. Like Nienow, many adjuncts and part-timers are obliged to 
travel between campuses to scrape together a living, unable to pursue 
the types of research questions that first attracted them to academia.

"I have absolutely no time for research," Nienow said.

The percentage of "contingent faculty"--a term that includes part-timers 
and full-time, non-tenure-track lecturers--on university payrolls has 
risen from around 43 percent thirty years ago to 70 percent in 2005. The 
rate of these hires at many colleges has only accelerated amid the 
economic downturn. To cash-strapped educational institutions 
increasingly run like corporations, adjuncts and part-timers are cheap 
labor--stopgaps in university budgets.

"We're the flex faculty," said Niame Adele, a sociologist and part-time 
instructor at the University of New Mexico.

Call them flexible or fungible, it is precisely this vulnerability that 
makes part-timers and adjuncts an expedient solution to budget shortfalls.

"The big picture is that all institutions are employing more and more 
'casual' employees," said Marc Bousquet, author of How the University 
Works: Higher Education and the Low-Wage Nation. "The crisis legitimates 
the option of bringing on more nontenured faculty."

Hard numbers are not yet available, but experts say the recent trend 
cuts across public universities and community colleges. Two-year 
institutions across the country--long at the forefront of the 
"perma-temp" trend in higher education--are replacing full-time faculty 
with part-timers or adjuncts to meet budget goals. The University of 
Connecticut, facing a 10 percent cut in state funding and a 22 percent 
drop in its endowment, is looking at hiring adjunct faculty to shore up 
course offerings and keep student-faculty ratios low. In Tennessee, 
Charles Manning, chancellor of the Tennessee Board of Regents, proposed 
what he called an expansive "new business model" for state colleges: in 
addition to hiring more adjunct professors and putting full-time staff 
in "advisory roles," he suggested that students get tuition breaks for 
taking courses online and that advanced students take on some of the 
teaching load.

"Higher education has become a corrupt institution facing financial 
crisis," said Cary Nelson, president of the National Council of the 
American Association of University Professors. Nelson explains that amid 
steep cuts, schools have the choice of hiring adjuncts, eliminating 
faculty positions altogether or--a less likely outcome--"look[ing] in 
the mirror" at larger structural problems with how they are run.

Over the past twenty years, colleges have become "multi-tiered 
workplaces" in which a select cadre of older, tenured academics enjoy 
job security and benefits while undercompensated adjuncts, teaching 
assistants and-- increasingly--undergraduates do the majority of 
instructional work.

But this change has not come about because of the increased cost of 
educating students: over the past 15 years, tuition at public 
institutions has risen 2 to 3 percent above inflation, per year; yet the 
amount of money spent on educational services has remained stagnant. 
This is due in part to a decline in state support, but also to a shift 
in priorities. The money, Bousquet says--and the savings reaped by 
hiring adjunct faculty--has gone toward ballooning administrative costs, 
positions and salaries; venture partnerships with corporations; and the 
construction of costly, extravagant facilities that critics say have 
more show value than instructional utility.

"There is a race to market campuses to yuppies with expensive building 
projects, to increase the leisure value of [a] campus," Nelson said.

Buoyed by endowment growth and income from tuition hikes, before the 
recession, private universities across the country undertook massive 
expansion plans, adding state-of-the-art stadiums, chemical labs and 
community spaces. Now that these sources of income are strained, 
administrators say they must trim back elsewhere to proceed with 
scheduled construction. Many colleges, however, are stopping short of 
reducing salaries for top-paid administrators, which have risen 35.6 
percent in the last five years. Ohio, which announced it would cut 
overall spending on public higher education by $25 million, is sparing 
any cuts in salaries of its 154 top administrators, among them the 
highest-paid university president in the nation, Ohio State's Gordon 
Gee, who makes $775,008 per year (before bonus). The median salary for 
public university presidents in Ohio is $355,000. On top of rising 
administrator salaries, the number of administrators at many colleges 
has risen as well, according to the Associated Press.

Faced with unfair employment practices and deprived of any 
representation on administrative boards, part-time and adjunct faculty 
at institutions across the country have begun to unionize. Adjuncts at 
Mongomery College in Maryland, who teach 42 percent of the instructional 
hours, unionized this past year under the aegis of the SEIU. The NYU 
adjunct union, under the umbrella of the United Auto Workers, won health 
coverage--and some of the highest salaries for adjuncts--after 
unionizing in 2002. Similar unionization efforts have been successful at 
Pace University, Suffolk University, George Washington University, Rhode 
Island College, and many others. Despite these organizing successes, 
some adjuncts say that under the sponsorship of some national 
organizations, like the National Education Association and the American 
Federation of Teachers, which also represent full-time faculty, they 
often get short shrift.

That may soon change, if fourteen adjunct activists from across the 
country succeed in forming the New Faculty Majority: The National 
Coalition for Adjunct and Contingent Equity. The group, whose organizers 
first connected on a list-serv, is still in the planning stages. But 
co-chairs of the organizing committee Deborah Louis and Maria Maisto 
said they have already received membership requests.

Previous efforts to sustain a national advocacy organization--namely, 
the National Adjunct Faculty Guild, which existed between 1994 and 2002 
--have fizzled; but Louis and Maisto said a number of factors led them 
to believe that this latest effort will have more success.

"Now, with all the Internet potential, it becomes a whole different 
ballgame," Louis said.

The economic climate, Maisto added, has also made adjunct faculty "more 
vulnerable than usual," making participation more likely.

"In this economy, who are the first on the line?" Maisto said. "It's the 
adjuncts, because we don't have a lot of protections."

The New Faculty Majority, which is slated to launch by the start of the 
next academic year, will not be a national union, though organizers said 
it will support local adjunct unionization efforts. Organizers said that 
adjunct faculty on some campuses are disinclined to consider unionizing 
and that national advocacy thus requires flexibility in their approach.

"We've got to take really different approaches [in different areas]," 
Louis said.

In addition to pushing public policy that benefits adjuncts, part of the 
organization's goal is simply to shed light on the plight of contingent 
faculty.

"It's about an academic class system that exists, that the general 
public doesn't know about," Maisto said.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 11:36:09 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:36:09 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] New from U. of Minnesota press
Message-ID: <49D4F789.3080001@panix.com>

State, Space, World
Selected Essays
Henri Lefebvre
Translated by Gerald Moore, Neil Brenner, and Stuart Elden
Edited by Neil Brenner and Stuart Elden

University of Minnesota Press | 344 pages | 2009
ISBN 978-0-8166-5317-1 | paper | $28.50
ISBN 978-0-8166-5316-4 | cloth | $85.50

Leading intellectual Henri Lefebvre on political and state theory
One of the most influential Marxist theorists of the twentieth century, 
Henri Lefebvre pioneered the study of the modern state in an age of 
accelerating global economic integration and fragmentation. Shortly 
after the 1974 publication of his landmark book The Production of Space, 
Lefebvre embarked on one of the most ambitious projects of his career: a 
consideration of the history and geographies of the modern state through 
a monumental study that linked several disciplines, including political 
science, sociology, geography, and history.

State, Space, World collects a series of Lefebvre?s key writings on the 
state from this period. Making available in English for the first time 
the as-yet-unexplored political aspect of Lefebvre?s work, it contains 
essays on philosophy, political theory, state formation, spatial 
planning, and globalization, as well as provocative reflections on the 
possibilities and limits of grassroots democracy under advanced capitalism.

Further information, including the table of contents:
http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/L/lefebvre_state.html


Dialectical Materialism
Henri Lefebvre
Translated by John Sturrock
Foreword by Stefan Kipfer

University of Minnesota Press | 192 pages | 2009
ISBN 978-0-8166-5618-9 | paper | $18.50

The first U.S. edition of an important French Marxist text
Dialectical Materialism is an implicit response to Joseph Stalin?s 
Dialectical and Historical Materialism and an attempt to show that the 
Stalinist understanding of the concept was dogmatic and oversimplified. 
This edition contains a new introduction by Stefan Kipfer, explaining 
the book?s contemporary ramifications in the ever-expanding reach of the 
urban in the twentieth-century Western world.

Further information, including the table of contents:
http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/L/lefebvre_dialectical.html


From skeyesvogt at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 11:38:21 2009
From: skeyesvogt at gmail.com (Sky Keyes)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:38:21 -0400
Subject: [Marxism]  NASCO shipyard and communists.
Message-ID: <de3b89110904021038u142dd8abv12ce3df3effc2daa@mail.gmail.com>

The Maoist CWP wasn't without their own errors (just like any organization),
one of which, in my view, was the ultraleft posturing they did that
preceeded the Greensboro massacre and the lack of proper protection after
the aformentioned ultraleft posturing (when the battle was imminent).  From
what I have heard from activists they were quite a sectarian organization
that even had a chant that inlcuded a line about every Trot needing an
icepick or something.
That being said, one of the survivors of that massacre is now doing
excellent work in Greensboro and helped to arrange the street organization
peace treaty which was mentioned here:

http://www.malcolm-che.com/2008/08/12/shooting-wont-stop-his-efforts-for-peace/

tom clod said:
seems, if what you're saying is true, that the CWP had a better, more
effective notion of how to manage a "turn" to industry than a certain group
we were members of.  Were any of those guys involved in that at all?

From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 11:43:40 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:43:40 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Cowardice Pays: Reflections on Academic Abdication and a
 Paul Krugman Lecture in Iowa City
Message-ID: <49D4F94C.9000307@panix.com>

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21058


From absynthe at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 11:43:41 2009
From: absynthe at gmail.com (chegitz guevara)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:43:41 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] NASCO shipyard and communists.
In-Reply-To: <de3b89110904021038u142dd8abv12ce3df3effc2daa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <de3b89110904021038u142dd8abv12ce3df3effc2daa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e1d1857b0904021043w7b2475bfy8f421c49bedadfbe@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Sky Keyes <skeyesvogt at gmail.com> wrote:

> that even had a chant that inlcuded a line about every Trot needing an
> icepick or something.

A chicken in every pot, an icepick in every Trot.


From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 11:44:53 2009
From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:44:53 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] NASCO shipyard and communists.
Message-ID: <49D4F995.5000806@gmail.com>

Tod, there was a problem with the CWP. But first where I agree...yes, 
the managed an 'turn to industry' often better than other groups. Most 
groups managed it better, for that matter. Even the Spartacist League 
did better, IMO, than the group-whose-name-shall-remain-unspoken-here.

No one has written much on this in terms of left work in the unions. You 
have to gleam it from either first hand knowledge or what people have 
told you. The IS did excellent work in the Teamsters. The CP did some 
good work in steel. You can go around and around. What stood out with 
the CWP's work, *post-Greensboro* was their effective union organizing 
in shipyards. And even here it was relatively easy for the FBI to set 
them up with conspiracy to blow up a ship.

The problem is that prior to Greensboro, the CWP were raving 
ultra-lefts. Even with good union work they were f'ing crazy at times, 
the Greensboro affair being he apogee of this. It's also not true that 
the "left" didn't show solidarity with the CWP. After the CWP calmed 
down, we were able to build a mass march in solidarity with them after 
the incident, or don't you remember that? I was there, as were about 
10,000 others or more. The problem was that the CWP actually wanted to 
bring guns to the rally as if they hadn't already demonstrated their 
incompetence with fire arms already, it would only be a huge 
provocation. The CWP, finally, was talked out of it and I think them for 
this.

Greensboro had an interesting effect on the CWP, especially as the other 
sectors of the left, including *TROTSKYITES!!!* came to their defense. 
They became somewhat less sectarian.

David


From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 11:51:56 2009
From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:51:56 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] "Communist" led strike in 1980s in biggest US shipyard?
Message-ID: <49D4FB3C.90905@gmail.com>

Yes, you missed it then. NASSCO (two 'S', not one, my mistake) was the 
seen of walkouts, wildcat strikes, etc. I don't actually know if the 
Iron Workers or IAM actually hit the bricks officially, but it was close 
to it. Wild shit really.

NASSCO was one of about 4 shipyards in the US that employed over 10,000 
workers each. The other three were Avondale in NOLO, Todd in San Pedro, 
PA, and Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Company in VA which was the 
largest in the US. There may of been others close to it, I don't know. 
The Baath Iron Workers also had a big work force but I don't think it 
was that big. This doesn't include the Federal Navy Shipyards most of 
which have now closed.

David


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Thu Apr  2 12:03:10 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:03:10 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
Message-ID: <bf0.4a6de88a.370657de@aol.com>

As the working class discovers its political legs, communists must also  
master the art of walking on both legs and not just our theoretical leg. Our  
tendency to lean more on our theoretical leg is unavoidable. That is always the  
contradiction of being communist. 
 
The only reason sharp discussions about Obama, the Obama campaign and the  
Obama administration continue is due to the mass agitation of new layers of the  
working class and our youth. And because of sharp policy struggles within the 
 ruling class, as they attempt to maintain the unity between the productive  
forces and the social relations of production, which are further polarizing. 
The  Obama campaign became the lightening rod and gravitational center 
attracting a  new spontaneous movement of millions of Americans. Million of people 
have been  set in motion due to the 20 year decay of the economy and moral 
outrage over  years of wars of aggression. 
 
When the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations failed  to 
deliver the goods, we did not get demoralized. We got pissed off and upped  
the ante, fighting harder.  As individuals, we  . . . US, in unison  with 
sections of the masses in motion, were driven by a deep and profound moral  
imperative rather than encroaching economic ruin. There is plenty of moral  outrage 
today but this moral outrage is evolving in an environment of creeping,  
galloping economic ruination. 
 
We only can do what is in front of us. Those involved in health care work  or 
the social pressure for national health care, have to fight for such, to the  
best of their ability and to the degree the people they are working with are  
prepared to go. Rather than orientating oneself towards the Obama  
administration, or any administration for that matter, our orientation is to  push to 
accomplish the work we are involved in. 
 
Reform movements and reform currents are always the stuff of communist  
activity and insurgency, even when the work is not going how we think it should  
go. This does not mean we stop being communists or stop seeking out larger  
fields of activity that allow us to raise and discuss issues from a communist  
standpoint. Hell, today everyone is taking about capitalism and the capitalist  
system and American style capitalism in particular. American capital is nuclear 
 gangsterism. 
 
Yet, it is mandatory that communists be involved in the fight for  
concessions and reforms really fighting for them in real time. In real time one  might 
want to suspend judgment, but not critical insights into the various  fields of 
struggle. Whom - for instance, within the various fields of work, is  open to 
communist literature, is something that the individual involved in the  work 
and close comrades should talk about and consider for recruitment. Not  
everyone is open to communist literature, although the political space has been  
significantly broadened in the past 6 months. Communists should not have a  
hidden agenda. Communist should fight for leadership in the reform movement  based 
on our skill as organizers and our energy for the work. Our work in the  
various reform movements is honest and our efforts are to fight for the  
realization of these reforms. We do of course insist upon our moral, political  and 
legal right to maintain ourselves as a separate organization, or political  
entity, which is why we became communists in the first and last instance. 
 
The issue of Obama the person and the Obama administration are not complex  
at all. That he is the chief CEO for capital worldwide should always be pointed 
 out by communists. He is just another bourgeois politician. Obama also  
represents the historic further crossing of the color line in America; a very  big 
and very important thing that cannot be diminished by ideological  
proclamation. The voting section of the working class, nationwide, proved  something to 
itself and the world. It is also a standard communist?s axiom that  bourgeois 
elections serve as a gage of the social consciousness and  
class-consciousness, or lack of both, of the working class. 
 
At the end of the day, comrades can only do what is in front of them and  can 
only lead people where they are already going. 
 
However, what is Obama called forth to do? At this stage of capital and  
crisis?  Why has health care surfaced as an important issue in this  election? Our 
working class is in the process of finding its political legs.  Never in my 
lifetime has a national agenda existed in America where socialism is  talked 
about in every corner of the country, by the people themselves. World  wide 
socialism is being simultaneously discussed in real time thanks to the  Internet 
and modern communications of all kinds. 
 
If all the people on this list for instance, constituted themselves as a  
virtual organization, which is increasingly the case, the virtual doors are open  
to any and everyone involved in various aspects of the social struggle and  
thinking. The only demand is to conform to the general rules. Based on our  
combined experience, we push to win folks over to the Marxist outlook and the  
cause of communism. However, Marxism and communism are not mandatory rules for  
list membership or access to the archives. We try to write in a popular manner 
 covering all kinds of interesting issues from a Marxists point of view. 
 
We try to describe the specific alignment of class forces that places  health 
care on the national agenda at this time. The workers have needed health  
care for 50 years, if not longer. What places the issue on the national agenda  
is the cost of health care to sections of capital, which seek to shift the  
burden of this cost on the government rather than individual employers. Crisis  
and the fight of employers to return to profitability create a spontaneous  
intersection of class interest, and we should use this "political space" to  
assist the working class in finding its political legs. And help support those  
who push the agenda of national health care. 
 
The same logic applies to the budget fight and those involved in this work.  
Now, I am not volunteering for such work because I have had enough of it, and  
this area of work tends to be boring and petty for me. However, I do discuss 
the  issue with neighbors and plainly state, "I guess this is a start, but the 
Budget  plan is inadequate." 
 
In this virtual organization, some folks in their discussion would try to  
place the budget struggle in the context of the political environment and ask  
the same question: what is the Obama administration called forth to do at this  
stage of capital and the current crisis?  What are the comrades faced with  
in the budget struggle? How can we help them while staying outside their field  
of organizing and general activity? How can we help comrades maintain their  
communist orientation and sensibility? The same applies to trade union work. 
How  can we assist comrades in this work? What kind of analysis can we provide? 
What  should be the character of our literature? Is it time for popular 
pamphlets on  the meaning of class and why such concepts are important in the daily 
life of  the workers? Who is to be charged with monitoring communist 
propaganda and the  gentle push - not beating, of comrade momentarily fall into 
patriotic chauvinism  and calls to "bring back our jobs from overseas?" 
 
I do not volunteer for this self assignment because I tend to be heavy  
handed and want to kick someone dead in their ass for stupidity about "my  fucking 
job" being shipped overseas. "Gimme my job back boss," always made me  want to 
puke. And I am not chaining myself to a fucking machine begging for boss  to 
open back up the plant. Sure, my ass is scared to. Forget international  
proletarianism for a moment. I am saying enough of pathetic begging and  groveling. 
Cast your bourgeois pride to the side my brothers and sisters and do  what 
good proletarians do: get on the government dime.:-)  
 
What we need in America is a "Lets move into the White House damn Movement  
and listen to Stevie Wonder." 
 
The same approach applies to the recent Supreme Court ruling against  medical 
marijuana. Although I do not smoke marijuana and never have been a user  of 
it, million of people are involved in this issue. Can one smoke marijuana in  a 
communist America and not go to jail? De-criminalize dope . . . dope! 50 
years  of sending a mutherfu**r to jail for a joint or three seed in their ash 
tray is  enough.  One does not have to desire the overthrow of the power of 
capital  to want health care or not to go to jail for a seed. 
 
The comrades involved in various issues can only do the best they can to  
keep the issue alive and upfront. If nothing else, those who have been around  
and in the communist movement for decades should know that "the wheel turns,  
some fall on and some fall off." Yet, we must keep the truth contained in the  
Marxist approach to society alive and upfront. That is the contradiction that 
we  can never escape. Theoretical and practical truth and conclusions derived 
from  the Marxist approach and our experience must be stated over and over all 
the  time. 
 
If one is working amongst the current to register voters, an arena that  
allows one to meet many folks and distributes all kinds of literature, it is  best 
to register people and ensure that such work stays on its natural path. If  
one is working amongst the retirees, then one must work to project and fight 
for  the issues dear to the retired community. If one is working amongst the 
teachers  or in the teachers union, then one must keep the teachers union on 
track in  fighting for the demands of its members and issues dear to the heart of  
teachers. This means supporting and fighting for those areas of the National  
Budget that expand funding for public education. 
 
The reason we say the same thing over and over is because we have to. The  
problem is that we tend to talk to ourselves and that is also a historical thing 
 being overcome in real time.
 
Thanks to the bourgeoisie. 
 
Last point. The reason I liked ML public article on socialism is because it  
talked to the American people on the basis of our own history and told them 
that  if you can go through two damn revolutions, why not another on your own 
behalf? 
 
I'm still scared. 
 
WL. 
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From jg001k at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  2 12:08:03 2009
From: jg001k at hotmail.com (Jason)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:08:03 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] Question on the Russian Nashi youth movement
In-Reply-To: <49D4F1E5.80305@nic.fi>
References: <49D4F1E5.80305@nic.fi>
Message-ID: <COL111-W73F42F06D639506709B89098880@phx.gbl>


I was just looking at their website the other day. I have not been to Russia since Nashi began, so I can't give any direct testimony on their activities. They bill themselves as a "Young People's / Youth Democratic Anti-Fascist Movement."  In my experience living for brief periods in Ukraine and Russia, the term "fascist" is used against anyone who opposes state power or is perceived as anti-Russian (kind of like the term "anti-American" in the USA). The anti-fascist rhetoric is not progressive in any way.  It is quite ironic from a western perspective since many of these groups display obvious fascist symbols and phrases. 

Nashi also seems to be a way for the Putin-controlled Russian government to build a new generation of technocrats and intellectuals who support the government policies and who are willing to stamp out opposition.  Nashi is marketed as a sort of youth-empowerment group to young people. For instance on the Nashi online membership application you'll find stuff like "You have a chance to change your life, to influence world politics, become the new intellectual elite" and asking questions like "Do you want to find your place in life?" and "Do you want to change the world around you?"

My guess is that  a lot of it is nostalgia for Soviet times when people had coordinated camps, activities, gyms and stuff like that for young people that also served as a path to becoming part of the Communist Party elite.  It has just had to take on a nationalist bent in post-Soviet capitalist Russia. 

Nashi is also an obvious response to the youth "democratic" groups the west had been funding and controlling prior to the revolutions in places like Georgia, Ukraine and Serbia in the earlier part of the decade. 

- Jason



_________________________________________________________________
Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. 
http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A

From Waistline2 at aol.com  Thu Apr  2 12:10:33 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:10:33 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] NASCO shipyard and communists.
Message-ID: <d5c.37be6534.37065999@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/2/2009 1:44:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
absynthe at gmail.com writes:

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Sky Keyes <skeyesvogt at gmail.com>  wrote:

> that even had a chant that inlcuded a line about every Trot  needing an
> icepick or something.

A chicken in every pot, an  icepick in every Trot.

Reply
 
 
This is ugly.
 
Further, the material and political basis for the divergence between  
political Trotskyism and its orientation, against and opposed to all shades  of the 
Stalin/Lenin polarity has been eroded by history. The polarities that  evolved 
in response to and relationship to Soviet Power, exhausted themselves  with 
the overthrow of Soviet Power.  Continuing polarity is based in  ideology 
exclusively and no clear political or material reality. 
 
Unless one can outline something material - not ideological, that today  
sustains this old polarity. The issue can never be reduced to "what I think and  
believe." 
 
WL. 
**************New Low Prices on Dell Laptops ? Starting at $399 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220433304x1201394525/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubl
eclick.net%2Fclk%3B213540718%3B35046385%3Be)


From absynthe at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 12:16:13 2009
From: absynthe at gmail.com (chegitz guevara)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:16:13 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] NASCO shipyard and communists.
In-Reply-To: <d5c.37be6534.37065999@aol.com>
References: <d5c.37be6534.37065999@aol.com>
Message-ID: <e1d1857b0904021116t694fee44n80d174427ac95f69@mail.gmail.com>

I learned that little phrase while I was in The Spark, a Trotskyist group.

Otherwise, I agree with everything you wrote. There is absolutely no
good reason for the continued separation of communists. Especially
now, with capitalism on its knees.

Marxism has been laying the ground work for over a decade. The time
for talking about building a real united front is past. It's time to
do it.

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:10 PM,  <Waistline2 at aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 4/2/2009 1:44:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> absynthe at gmail.com writes:
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Sky Keyes <skeyesvogt at gmail.com> ?wrote:
>
>> that even had a chant that inlcuded a line about every Trot ?needing an
>> icepick or something.
>
> A chicken in every pot, an ?icepick in every Trot.
>
> Reply
>
>
> This is ugly.
>
> Further, the material and political basis for the divergence between
> political Trotskyism and its orientation, against and opposed to all shades ?of the
> Stalin/Lenin polarity has been eroded by history. The polarities that ?evolved
> in response to and relationship to Soviet Power, exhausted themselves ?with
> the overthrow of Soviet Power. ?Continuing polarity is based in ?ideology
> exclusively and no clear political or material reality.
>
> Unless one can outline something material - not ideological, that today
> sustains this old polarity. The issue can never be reduced to "what I think and
> believe."
>
> WL.


From jeremy at infowells.com  Thu Apr  2 13:35:36 2009
From: jeremy at infowells.com (Jerry Wells)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:35:36 -0800
Subject: [Marxism] WSWS:  The Nation (magazine) and "socialism"
Message-ID: <1238700936.4376.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>

FYI:

The Nation and ?socialism?
2 April 2009
David Walsh

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/pers-a02.shtml

"For examples of intellectual and political bankruptcy, one could hardly
do better than peruse the pages of the Nation, the American liberal
publication. An excellent starting-point would be the magazine's ongoing
series, "Reimagining Socialism."

The collection of short essays by a variety of liberal and "left"
commentators in the US, is a response to the breakdown of world
capitalism and the discrediting of free market ideology, a phenomenon
that even the mass media acknowledges. Popular hatred for the corporate-
financial aristocracy is increasingly a fact of American daily life.

The Nation's response is a pre-emptive effort to convince its readers
that socialist revolution is impossible and the best of all possible
worlds would be the emergence of mass reformist pressure on the Obama
administration and the Democratic Party.

..."






From Waistline2 at aol.com  Thu Apr  2 12:48:02 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:48:02 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] NASCO shipyard and communists.
Message-ID: <cdb.4fa60363.37066262@aol.com>

>> No one has written much on this in terms of left work in the  unions. You 
have to gleam it from either first hand knowledge or what people  have told 
you. The IS did excellent work in the Teamsters. The CP did some good  work in 
steel. You can go around and around. What stood out with the CWP's work,  
*post-Greensboro* was their effective union organizing in shipyards. And even  here 
it was relatively easy for the FBI to set them up with conspiracy to blow  up 
a ship.<<
 
 
Comment
 
I also developed a deep respect for many IS members doing work in auto.  Went 
to their home gatherings and party's and actually dated one of their  members 
for a moment. Earlier in my teens dated a Black Panther, although I  thought 
they were more than less crazy and had early pegged Elridge Cleaver as a  cop. 
Fucking rapists. 
 
Life is strange and trying to fit people into ideological boxes and fixed  
categories means one is going to miss out on a lot of life. 
 
The Greensboro Incident - murder of communist by the KKK, provoked a breach  
in our group. Some comrades locally - in Detroit, said "they were Trotskyite, 
to  hell with them." Most did not feel this way. At the time I was still 
involved in  the propaganda apparatus and in violation of protocol, went to the 
printing  facility and wrote and produced about 5,000 leaflets condemning the 
murders and  then lined up comrades for distribution. The title of the leaflet 
read something  to the affect; KKK Murders: The Blade, Boot and the Bullet. 
 
Shit hit the organizational fan. I was written up on charges for violating  
protocol and for misspelling a couple of words and set for suspension. The  
leading comrades from the National Center came to Detroit and asked some of the  
local comrade if "they had lost their minds." To make a long story short the  
charges were dropped. Communists should always be loyal to communism and not  
based outlook and decisions on what one thinks about the political ideology 
and  orientation of a particular competing group.  
 
There is nothing wrong with critiquing a political proposition, but at the  
end of the day the fight is against the class enemy. 
 
Greensboro is one of my more painful memories. Not because comrades had a  
different opinion but because they did not look at the big picture and could not 
 see themselves in a similar context. See, virtually all of my early adult 
life  was involvement in propaganda and distribution, sales of literature and up 
close  work in demonstrations; union meetings and union elections of all 
kinds. And  some street fights with the local fascists. This meant running risks 
and being  open to attacks. Any knucklehead could have put a bullet in my ass. 
In the back  of my mind I could hear some "comrade" saying "he was a petty 
bourgeois element  anyway and an anarcho syndicalist anyway." 

Which of course I was:  anarcho syndicalist. 
 
Organizational crappola is crap and the field for police agents. The  
Greensboro comrades were set up. We faced some of this but rigid organization  
dampened the impact of agents. If you did not recruit or establish contacts,  
distribute literature, raise funds and pay dues, all the experienced comrades  
politely avoided you. A new generation is going to have to lean this. 
 
Then of course I was earlier labeled the "petty bourgeoisie" because  
generally I work with anyone - unconditionally, in a given sphere of work. 
 
Unite or Perish. 
 
WL. 
 
 
 
 (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm)  
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 12:54:52 2009
From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:54:52 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] WSWS: The Nation (magazine) and "socialism"
In-Reply-To: <1238700936.4376.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1238700936.4376.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <bee7ff780904021154r4c6eb3bandb56873bc907ed83@mail.gmail.com>

I'm going to cut and paste this article, put my name on it and post it as
satire.

Thanks.

From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 12:58:54 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:58:54 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] WSWS: The Nation (magazine) and "socialism"
In-Reply-To: <bee7ff780904021154r4c6eb3bandb56873bc907ed83@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1238700936.4376.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<bee7ff780904021154r4c6eb3bandb56873bc907ed83@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49D50AEE.8060100@panix.com>

Bhaskar Sunkara wrote:
> I'm going to cut and paste this article, put my name on it and post it as
> satire.
> 

Actually, the article made some very good points about the Rebecca 
Solnit article and others that were on shaky ground. The attacks on 
people like Tariq Ali was sectarian, of course. I am not sure that it 
has been crossposted here, but there was one in this series on the 
Nation Magazine website by Dan La Botz that was very good:

Reimagining Socialism: A Nation Forum
By Dan La Botz

Socialism's all the rage. "We Are All Socialists Now," Newsweek 
declares. As the right wing tells it, we're already living in the USSA. 
But what do self-identified socialists (and their progressive friends) 
have to say about the global economic crisis? In the March 23 issue, we 
published Barbara Ehrenreich and Bill Fletcher Jr.'s "Rising to the 
Occasion" as the opening essay in a forum on "Reimagining Socialism." 
TheNation.com will feature new replies to their essay over the coming 
weeks, fostering what we hope will be a spirited dialogue.

Jack London wrote more than 100 years ago: "We are all tied to the same 
machine--only some of us are tied to the top." And that, of course, 
makes all the difference.

The crisis of capitalism that we are experiencing unfolds as two 
parallel crises. One crisis for them, the corporate elite, the CEOs and 
CFOs and the Boards, their lobbyists and politicians, and all those who 
make up the upper echelons of American economic, social and political 
life. And another crisis for us, often called "the middle class," but 
better described as our country's working people and, of course, the poor.

The crisis has quickly led to a struggle between the two groups, first 
over the question of who will pay for the crisis; second over how the 
economy will be reorganized through the crisis; and third over the new 
state of affairs that will prevail when the crisis ends. They want us to 
pay for the crisis, of course. Meanwhile, they want to consolidate 
economic power through the crisis, while we lose our homes. And finally, 
they want a new state of affairs tomorrow that will return them to 
profitability--and leave us broke.

The auto bailout, for example, is conditioned on union givebacks. 
Similar things are happening across the country, where state governments 
plan to make public employees pay the price for the crisis. Government 
and industry don't intend to let this crisis go to waste, not when it 
can be used to strengthen capital at the expense of labor.

So a struggle has begun--but it is an unequal contest. The corporate 
elite that has run this country for a hundred years controls all the 
governmental machinery, dominates the two major political parties, the 
lobbyists, and business and commercial associations. We have...well, in 
truth, we don't' have much except our numbers and our disparate 
locations in the workplace, communities and society of working class 
America.

How do we use what little we have in this unequal fight over the future 
of our country? How in the face of their vast economic and political 
power do we build the people's power to confront them? We believe the 
answer is for socialists to work to build and to support militant 
minorities. Think of the Abolitionists. Think of the sit-down strikers. 
Think of Martin Luther King, Ella Baker and Cesar Chavez.

Or take the workers at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago and their 
union, the United Electrical Workers (UE) as an example. Those workers 
refused to accept the closing of their plant. But they didn't just file 
a grievance, or bring a lawsuit. Three hundred workers in one factory 
organized democratically, from below, and built a grassroots movement 
that took action. They trespassed, seized private property, occupied a 
factory, called for solidarity, and got it. And in the end they kept 
their jobs, and for a brief moment inspired working people throughout 
the country and the world. They should be our model.

The task of socialists today is to build and support such militant 
minorities so that tomorrow we can set larger groups into motion. We 
know from experience that when large numbers go into motion, they 
develop new tactics and strategies, as well as the new political 
alternatives without which we cannot succeed in changing this society. 
Most important, when millions go into motion, they actually have the 
power to change society.


From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 13:00:37 2009
From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:00:37 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] WSWS: The Nation (magazine) and "socialism"
In-Reply-To: <bee7ff780904021154r4c6eb3bandb56873bc907ed83@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1238700936.4376.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<bee7ff780904021154r4c6eb3bandb56873bc907ed83@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bee7ff780904021200u4af83bdfmef6f609e0f2680df@mail.gmail.com>

Instead of being characteristically glib, let me engage a bit with this
material:

RE:

"The Nation's response is a pre-emptive effort to convince its readers
that socialist revolution is impossible and the best of all possible
worlds would be the emergence of mass reformist pressure on the Obama
administration and the Democratic Party."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090406/moody

"Socialism, in the Marxist view, is the rule of the working class, whether
its members work along an assembly line or in front of a computer screen,
and not the rule of the party or state. As Marx argued, this class makes
itself "fit to rule" through its struggles and organizations."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090413/landy

"The left needs to help build grassroots movements and a political party
that will confront the rule of corporations and Wall Street--something the
Democratic Party cannot do no matter how much we push Obama to the left,
given the place of finance and the corporations in the party. We need such
movements, and an independent party that represents them, not only to wrest
concessions and victories today but also so that people can learn how to
truly govern themselves tomorrow."

I could go on.

From bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 13:04:10 2009
From: bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com (Bhaskar Sunkara)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:04:10 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] WSWS: The Nation (magazine) and "socialism"
In-Reply-To: <49D50AEE.8060100@panix.com>
References: <1238700936.4376.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<bee7ff780904021154r4c6eb3bandb56873bc907ed83@mail.gmail.com>
	<49D50AEE.8060100@panix.com>
Message-ID: <bee7ff780904021204u64446a85xd01bc5f416fcdf4b@mail.gmail.com>

The article on the Solidarity site and the article in Socialist Worker dealt
with the forum much better in my opinion:
http://socialistworker.org/2009/03/31/socialism-in-a-new-era

The fact that socialism is back in discourse among the left is an important
step.  Some of the articles in the forum were utter trash, I agree, but to
see a sect attacking an attempt by the broader left to engage in the idea of
socialism is really disheartening, but not entirely suprising.

From ellard.yow at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 13:38:52 2009
From: ellard.yow at gmail.com (Ellard Yow)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:38:52 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Labor action
Message-ID: <c8a26a720904021238t27caf0b8xfd7fe5c628b227f8@mail.gmail.com>

"Greeks Stage Walkout Tied to Summit" by Anthee Carassava, The New York
Times, April 2, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/world/europe/03greece.html?_=1&ref=global-home

From giobon at comcast.net  Thu Apr  2 13:52:48 2009
From: giobon at comcast.net (Bonnie Weinstein)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:52:48 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] One Oath Leads to Another
In-Reply-To: <1238700936.4376.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1238700936.4376.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <CFCE0626-9D35-41AC-8A7A-E3561B52FD2A@comcast.net>

One Oath Leads to Another
By KIRK SEMPLE
April 2, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/nyregion/02recruits.html?ref=nyregion

Stephen Chi was born in Norway to Chinese immigrant parents, grew up  
in Sweden, received undergraduate and graduate degrees at Saginaw  
Valley State University in Michigan, mastered five languages and now  
works as an information technology consultant in New York City.

But for all the experiences his peripatetic life has given him, it  
has also left him with a profound sense of rootlessness. So he  
recently applied to enlist in the United States Army.

?I don?t feel like I belong anywhere,? Mr. Chi, 30, said on  
Wednesday. ?I wanted to become part of something bigger.?

Until last month, Mr. Chi?s application would have been rejected  
outright because only American citizens and permanent residents ?  
immigrants who carry green cards ? were permitted to enlist in the  
American military. But under a new program that began Feb. 23 and is  
intended to increase the number of highly skilled soldiers, the  
American military is now allowing some temporary immigrants to enlist.

In a public ceremony in Times Square on Wednesday, Gen. George W.  
Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, swore in 16 of those new  
recruits, including Mr. Chi. The others hailed from Pakistan,  
Bangladesh, India, Korea and Sweden.

They gathered outside the recruiting station on the traffic island  
where Broadway and Seventh Avenue converge, pulled drab olive Army T- 
shirts over their civilian tops and, shivering against the cold,  
followed General Casey in a vow of allegiance to the military and to  
the United States.

?Our diversity only strengthens us,? General Casey said in an  
interview with reporters after the ceremony.

The new program, known as Military Accessions Vital to the National  
Interest, is intended to address shortages among soldiers with  
medical expertise and foreign language skills. It will be limited to  
1,000 enlistees in the first year, most of whom will enter the Army,  
though the American military command plans to expand it to include  
other branches and thousands more recruits every year.

It is open to foreigners who have lived legally in the United States  
for at least two years on temporary visas, including high-skilled  
employment visas and student visas. Illegal immigrants will continue  
to be barred from enlisting.

As an enticement, the government is offering an expedited path to  
citizenship and will waive naturalization fees.

Of 4,833 applicants so far, 52 people have enlisted, including  
Wednesday?s group, while 445 have been disqualified, military  
officials said.

Of the 52 new enlistees, 11 have master?s degrees, 31 have bachelor?s  
degrees and 4 have associate?s degrees or the equivalent, officials  
said. The remaining six are high school graduates.

At least 24 of the soldiers speak Korean, 11 speak Hindi, 9 speak a  
Chinese dialect, 3 speak Russian, 3 speak Arabic and one speaks Urdu.

The naturalization process for most foreigners on temporary visas can  
often take more than a decade. But people in the new program will be  
able to become citizens within six months, officials said. To  
maintain their citizenship, the enlistees must honorably complete  
their service, which ranges from two to four years of active duty,  
plus reserve duty, depending on their specialty.

Many of the new recruits, however, said after the ceremony that while  
the streamlined citizenship process was very attractive, it had not  
been the leading factor in their decision.

Indeed, several said they had applied to enlist without even knowing  
about the new program.

Toniya Mishra, an Indian citizen who holds a master?s degree in  
industrial engineering from the Rochester Institute of Technology,  
said she applied a day before the introduction of the program. She  
had been laid off from her job at a New Jersey company that makes  
pharmaceutical software; the firm was cutting staff because of the  
economic downturn.

Ms. Mishra, 24, said she applied after seeing a job posting on the  
Internet seeking engineers for the Army, but said she did not expect  
to receive a call because of her nationality.

Umesh Sharma, 37, who holds a master?s degree in international  
education policy from Harvard, first tried to enlist in 2006 but was  
rejected because of his Indian citizenship. He reapplied last month  
when he read about the new program.

Mr. Sharma, who has been working for a private tutoring firm in  
Virginia, said he was motivated to enlist as a way of helping  
developing countries in areas like education reform. He enlisted as  
an infantryman because he wanted ?to be on the front lines and  
associate with the society, face to face.

?If I?m in the Army, I want to be really involved,? he added.

Mr. Chi has an additional hurdle to clear: He still has not told his  
parents that he has joined the Army. ?I guess I have to tell them  
sometime,? he said, chuckling uncomfortably at the thought. But he  
said he did not plan to break the news to them until after he  
returned from basic training, by which time, he said, he would be on  
his way in his new career ? ?and it?s too late.? 

From jbustelo at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 14:07:45 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:07:45 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Waiting for Gobama
In-Reply-To: <20090401214643.5f4f9098@crashcart>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl><747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad><894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart><478F7FB1CC284420BC528D4F324EF204@albanta>
	<20090401214643.5f4f9098@crashcart>
Message-ID: <B4280B1598694CE4AA9476C15F468CA6@albanta>

Michael Smith replied to my post pointing out that the conditions that gave
rise to the Black Panther Party no longer exist by saying, "Indeed, the
conditions aren't so propitious. But does that really mean that all we're
left with is Waiting For Gobama? God, I hope not."

What's involved as I see it are not more or less favorable or easy or
whatever circumstances or conditions. Not a matter of degree, not a question
of a continuum, but rather a qualitative thing: there is no working class
movement worthy of the name in the United States, no class-for-itself
movement, no social movement of workers as such. Nor has there been one for
many decades, since the immediate post-WWII years at least. And my
impression is that the same *tendency* seems to be at work in the other
major imperialist countries. 

Such a long standing phenomenon that contradicts a core expectation of
Marxism, and, in a sense, the very basis of Marxism, cries out for a mature,
Marxist materialist explanation. 

The explanation most often given by organized socialist groups, and
ESPECIALLY self-styled Leninists and MOST OF ALL Trotskyists, is that at the
heart of the problem is the issue of working class leadership. 

That MAY have been true at the end of the 1930s --although the
intractability of the problem showed, I believe, that MORE was involved even
then. But for today's world, the explanation is absurd. There is no crisis
of leadership of the working class in the U.S. simply BECAUSE there is no
working class to be led. 

In all the possible ways you could use the term "working class" to designate
an existing social reality that has any use AT ALL for a leadership, NONE of
those manifest in the United States. The working class in the United States
exists as an *objective* reality but it has, in recent decades, failed to
cohere into what Marx called a "class for itself," worse, there hasn't even
been the beginnings of a class-for-itself movement among even a SLIVER of
the masses seen in this part of the universe since BEFORE I was born -- and
I was born a long, long time ago.

This problem is, I think, quite deep. The radicalization of the 1960's
caused such a breakdown in bourgeois political-ideological domination that
it smashed Jim, Crow, caused the US army in Vietnam to fall apart, and led
to the emergence of social and protest movements even among those previously
condemned as "queers" and those condescendingly dismissed as "disabled."

And that's led to a debate about "identity politics" and so on. But notice,
the ONE group never accused of identity politics are the workers. That's
because, even in the midst of that powerful and profound radicalization that
swept the entire world four decades ago, and despite it, the working class
*as a class* never cohered, never developed a group identity or social
movement. That DESPITE there being already pre-existing organizations with
tens of millions of members ideally suited to serve as a vehicle for that
new social movement AND despite there having been MANY examples of this kind
of movement in the past, including in the United States only 25-30 years
earlier. 

I think the keys to understanding this situation are in the writings of Marx
and Engels, and admirably summed up in Lenin's 1916 article, "Imperialism
and the split in socialism," and further developed in the supplementary
theses on that national and colonial question adopted by the Second Congress
of the Comintern.

Basically the explanation is the tremendously privileged position of the
U.S. working class and population generally in relation to that of working
people in the Third World. 

If effective work is to be done, it needs to be illuminated by an
understanding of real conditions.

Joaquin




From tcod at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  2 14:14:33 2009
From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:14:33 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] NASCO shipyard and communists.
In-Reply-To: <49D4F995.5000806@gmail.com>
References: <49D4F995.5000806@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W46C275E7ABCE380F693116D3880@phx.gbl>


Yeah, I meant to say too bad more of the Left didn't show solidarity, I know many folks did.



_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail?: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. 
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage1_042009

From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 14:15:16 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:15:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Waiting for Gobama
In-Reply-To: <B4280B1598694CE4AA9476C15F468CA6@albanta>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl><747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad><894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart><478F7FB1CC284420BC528D4F324EF204@albanta>	<20090401214643.5f4f9098@crashcart>
	<B4280B1598694CE4AA9476C15F468CA6@albanta>
Message-ID: <49D51CD4.2090205@panix.com>

Joaquin Bustelo wrote:
> Basically the explanation is the tremendously privileged position of the
> U.S. working class and population generally in relation to that of working
> people in the Third World. 

It is not that simple. I don't think that American workers are that much 
more privileged than French workers but they are raising all kinds of 
hell and are backing the new anti-capitalist party massively.

I think that Joaquin is on the right track by looking at privilege, but 
there is not an unmediated relationship between wages and consciousness. 
In the 1970s 1980s, two of the most militant oppositions to neoliberal 
changes in the economy came from independent truck drivers and airline 
controllers, who were mostly white. The truck drivers recruited antiwar 
students from UCLA to form picket lines on their behalf while going out 
to snipe at scab trucks on the Interstate. Meanwhile, it was a common 
occurrence for the airline controllers to speak at Militant Labor 
Forums. I think that if a sane left existed in this period, we could 
have built something like the French anticapitalist party. But we were 
insane at the time. This time around, let's fight for sanity in the 
revolutionary movement.




From jbustelo at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 14:17:29 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:17:29 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Man killed at London G20 demonstrations
In-Reply-To: <dd55f6dc0904012133m30fc4374xed6409934ecdd98b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dd55f6dc0904012133m30fc4374xed6409934ecdd98b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C0D0CC506F4D468084CEFCCBD46919E8@albanta>

Polirticus: Does anyone have much useful information about the circumstances
of his death?  My usual sources are dry on this issue.  Of course, the cops
probably killed him, but I mean something beyond this?

Eyewitness accounts say the man simply collapsed. There were no police in
the immediate vicinity nor was this near a physical confrontation. News
footage --from ITN, if I remember right-- shows other
demonstrators/passers-by surrounding the man and trying to help before the
police arrive a couple of seconds later.

Joaquin



From tcod at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  2 14:19:43 2009
From: tcod at hotmail.com (Tom Cod)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:19:43 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] "Communist" led strike in 1980s in biggest US
 shipyard?
In-Reply-To: <49D4FB3C.90905@gmail.com>
References: <49D4FB3C.90905@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY123-W1479BF0E33DB38465AC604D3880@phx.gbl>


I guess I missed that, but then again I was living at the opposite end of the Coast in Seattle.  The ILWU cannery workers union I belonged to in that period had a leadership that had certain Marxist views (two of their leaders were murdered by the ousted organized crime clique in 1981), being at one time loosely affiliated with Irwin Silber's Line of March, but they didn't wear that on their sleeve.



_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail?: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Mobile1_042009

From Waistline2 at aol.com  Thu Apr  2 14:27:59 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:27:59 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] NASCO shipyard and communists.
Message-ID: <bdf.4b88b08f.370679cf@aol.com>

The new evolving polarity is expressed in the Nation magazine series of  
re-imaging socialism and the communist movement in all its shades and facets. I  
am not sure but have some deep gut instincts and observations over the years. I 
 guess in the historical sense of the last period - post WWII, the Nation has 
 swung from being anti-anti-communism to socialists. Or democratic socialists 
 which means bourgeois democrats whose program is to seek a greater share of 
the  social product, while permanently keeping the property relations intact.  
Democratic is the term to avoid the unpleasant subject of private property, 
as  in the Marxist meaning of property relations and their corresponding 
expression  as relations of production. 
 
I believe it to be an unpardonable - but forgivable, mistake for any  
communist to advance a concept of democratic socialism rather than an American  
vision of expropriation of bourgeois property. Specifically, society has to take  
out of the value relation - the free market system, socially necessary means of 
 life. How one articulates this vision will vary. 
 
The working class in the here and now can agree that providing water as an  
institution should not be based in the bourgeois profit motive. The working  
class in the here and now can be solidly swung behind any and all demands to  
keep the public school system and give our children books; keep public libraries 
 open and places of recreating for our youth. 
 
I believe that unless we retool our Marxism - and fast, we are going to be  
outmaneuvered in the next decade. And we better develop and evolve a vision of  
what communist society means and look like for America. 
 
Lastly, the idea that the Soviet Union and Stalin era has soured the  
American public to socialism is absurd in a country that collectively does not  
remember or know anything beyond a 10 year history span. The historical  
anti-communism cannot be maintained under deepening crisis of capital.  Anti-communism 
as the system ideology can only be maintained in a period of  expansion of the 
system itself. Anti-communism is stabilized on the basis of  rising income and 
standard of living of the masses in America. 
 
If we allow ideological baggage to allow us to speak only in negative terms  
about the Soviet Union and not extract all its monumental achievements, we are 
 on our way to condemning the Paris Commune and the tailors of Lyon. Other 
the  other hand it is not necessary to avoid any aspect of Soviet history, but 
the  democratic socialist aim and intention is to avoid private property as an 
issue  and with it the rule of capital. 
 
The Soviet union proved forever an industrial society could be created as a  
self reproducing system without a stock market. 
 
Unite or Perish 
 

WL. 
 

In a message dated 4/2/2009 2:17:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_absynthe at gmail.com_ (mailto:absynthe at gmail.com)  writes: 
 
There is absolutely no good reason for the continued separation of  
communists. Especially now, with capitalism on its knees. 
 
Marxism has been laying the ground work for over a decade. The time for  
talking about building a real united front is past. It's time to do it.
 
 (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm)  
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From mikedjyates at msn.com  Thu Apr  2 14:30:55 2009
From: mikedjyates at msn.com (MICHAEL YATES)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:30:55 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] blog post: the blighted groves of academe
Message-ID: <COL107-W1598D07CC847211651E506BB880@phx.gbl>


Full at http://blog.cheapmotelsandahotplate.org

 

The more I read about the state of our colleges and universities, the more thankful I am that I quit my job at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown (UPJ) in 2001, after thirty-two years of teaching. I wrote the following essay a dozen years ago, and since then, matters have gotten progressively worse, not just where I worked but at nearly every school in the country. At least I did not have to face the nasty right-wing students who spy on their professors and do the bidding of the professional witch hunters who spew hatred on radio talk shows, and television programs like those hosted by Bill O?Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. Nor did I have to witness the craven capitulation of college administrators to the thought police that we have seen recently. One of the most outrageous cases was the firing of Professor Ward Churchill by the University of Colorado. I was living in Colorado a couple of years ago when he was dismissed. The talk radio shows attacked Churchill every day for at least a year. The alleged reason for the professor?s discharge was academic dishonesty. He was found guilty, for example, of claiming that there was documentation for some things he said in his books when there was not, most notably his charge of intentional genocide perpetrated by the colonists and the U.S. government on American Indians. The administration?s handpicked committees searched through his published works, including the footnotes, to uncover what to me seemed like, at best, academic misdemeanors, such as could be found in nearly every academician?s works. The real reason for going after Churchill was in retaliation for remarks he made after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in which he referred to some of the financial workers in the Twin Towers as "little Eichmanns." Remarkably, these comments went virtually unnoticed for several years, until a few little-known academics and well-known witch hunters went on a rampage of public assaults on Churchill?s 9/11 essay and on his academic integrity. Once this orchestrated war got underway, all hell broke loose. The governor of Colorado even phoned the university?s chancellor and demanded that Churchill be fired. After this, a chain of events took place that made a mockery of due process. Right now, Churchill?s civil suit is winding down in a Denver courtroom. There is a good chance he will win, and I hope he does. But imagine the chilling impact of this case on the willingness of professors, especially those without tenure, to speak truth to power.
 

One thing I did witness before I retired was the unwillingness of tenured faculty to put up much resistence to what was happening in their workplaces. To maintain their often considerable privileges, (so considerable that many of them have continued to "teach" into their dotage, cheating their students and denying young scholars employment), they kept silent while their administrations hired horrendously exploited adjuncts and graduate students to teach most of the classes. They refused to join hands with the part-timers when the latter tried to unionize. They agreed to every effort by their superiors to operate universities as if they were capitalist business enterprises, which, unfortunately, in practice, they often were. They agreed, as well, to allow the most demeaning kind of student and administrative oversight of what they did, and they ran roughshod over their untenured colleagues, always under the guise that they were maintaining "standards." Tenured faculty have left those who will follow a university system in which tenure has been gutted, faculty speech sharply curtailed, and business interests firmly in command.


 

From bobhpsn at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  2 14:43:06 2009
From: bobhpsn at yahoo.com (Bob Hopson)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Charles Freeman worried about dollar hegemony
Message-ID: <830437.92133.qm@web63108.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


An interview with Charles Freeman, who's appointment to the National Intelligence Council was scuttled by the Israel lobby. I thought this was kind of interesting because of what this ruling-class figure has to say about dollar hegemony:

http://original.antiwar.com/lobe/2009/04/01/an-interview-with-charles-freeman/

IPS: What about longer-term strategic issues that may not be getting enough attention?

CF: One is very apposite today, and that is the future of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency. At Bretton Woods, the dollar became the global reserve currency, backed by gold. A quarter century later, Nixon eliminated the gold backing for our currency.

Dollar hegemony has been central to our ability to basically go off the tracks fiscally and financially here. It has enabled us to avoid addressing all sorts of problems with which we?re now afflicted, and it has enabled us to avoid having financial discipline being imposed on us of the sort we have insisted be imposed on every other country under IMF (International Monetary Fund) guidelines.


      


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 14:50:43 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:50:43 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad><54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta><b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com><6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad><b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com><20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart><b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com>
	<DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV>
Message-ID: <C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta>

Marc Gandall writes: "Let's recall also that there was an absence of mass
action in the early years of the Great Depression. The working class was
overwhelmed by the abrupt deterioration of the economy and the soaring rate
of job losses, wage cuts, and home evictions. It was natural that workers in
these circumstances would scramble as individuals to save themselves and
their families. They had little choice. Contracting economies = labour
surpluses, lack of working class confidence, declining unions."

This reminds me of the closing scene in "The Sun also Rises" (Fiesta, for
those of you outside the United States) where Lady Brett Ashley and Jake
Barnes are riding in a horse-drawn  cab in Madrid together, and she says
something like

 "Oh Jake, we could have been so happy together."

To which he replies "Yes, isn't it pretty to think so."

*  *  *

The DIFFERENCE between the first years of the great depression and today is
that back then, there WAS a real working class movement. Hundreds of
thousands of workers had been to school with the Socialist Party or the
Wobblies; the Communist Party had thousands of members. Workers back then
did not overwhelmingly view unions as a sort of business that you pay to
represent you the way you might pay an agent if your were a Hollywood Star.
There was a very real living tradition of working class movement, a whole
series of cultural expressions associated with it, etc.

Arguably, much or most of the industrial proletariat back then did not
represent nearly as privileged a layer as is the case of working people in
the United States today, and a very large percentage were immigrants and
discriminated against on that basis. 

*  *  *

Marv writes further: "The general level of political consciousness of the
American working class was no higher and possibly lower at the onset of the
30's depression than it is today."

This is simply not true. Look at the membership statistics for the SP, CP
and the Wobs. 

"What differed immensely, of course, was that there was a vigorous and
growing international socialist movement embedded in the unions and other
working class organizations, whose influence extended even into the US."

I think viewing the U.S. class movement as an expression or outgrowth of the
international movement is fundamentally mistaken. The class movement that
existed in the United States (with ups and downs) from the late 1800's to
the mid-1900's was the result of the internal class contradictions of
American society, not foreign influences. Arguably, "foreign" influence is
much greater in today's internet-connected globalized society than it was
then. What is different is that the position of U.S. imperialism on a world
scale has allowed it to bribe "its own" workers.

Joaquin



From avvakum at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 14:53:15 2009
From: avvakum at gmail.com (Thomas Campbell)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 00:53:15 +0400
Subject: [Marxism] Question on the Russian Nashi youth movement
Message-ID: <dd50d8d40904021353h51785babvef971a5e609574b@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Joonas,

My opinion as someone who has been on the ground here in Russia for
the past fifteen years is that Nashi fully deserves the moniker "Putin
Jugend." They call themselves a "democratic antifascist youth
movement," but that designation reveals the genius of chief Kremlin
ideologue Vladislav Surkov for calling black white -- for example,
when he dubbed an oligarchic capitalist police state a "sovereign
democracy," and so forth.

Nashi was created because Surkov and the other masterminds of United
Russia perceived that they might lose the youth politics game if they
didn't come up with their own (fake) aggressive counterweight. Genuine
political youth groups -- from Youth Yabloko and Oborona, on the
liberal right, to the new Komsomol, anarchists, the real antifa, the
Avant-Garde of Red Youth, and the (post-Dugin) National Bolsheviks, on
the confused Russian left -- were getting more active in grassroots
protest movements, beginning with the massive protests against
"monetization" of pensioners' benefits in 2005, while United Russia
had no visible, public support amongst young people. So they quickly
came up with Nashi, the Young Guards of United Russia (Molodaya
gvardiia Edinoi Rossii), Young Russia (Rumol), etc.

All these pro-Kremlin movements would disappear in a second without
Kremlin funding and if Surkov and Co. suddenly decided they were no
longer needed. They all are as "more or less nationalistic" as the
powers that be need them to be at any given moment. In recent months,
for example, the Young Guards have been doing a swell job of fomenting
hatred against migrant workers from Central Asia. Meanwhile, in
Petersburg and other cities, several opposition youth groups recently
discovered that Nashi had infiltrated paid spies into their
organizations.

As for Nashi's "progressive anti-fascist" rhetoric, their actual
practice on this front amounts merely to 1) whipping up hatred of
"fascist" Estonia; 2) a campaign of painting over fascist graffiti in
provincial towns (a campaign that, for all I know, may exist only on
their website). They do absolutely nothing to combat the enormous
problem of racist and neo-Nazi violence in Russia, and in fact they do
a great deal to aggravate the atmosphere of paranoia, xenophobia, and
repression that reign right now in this country.

I know no leftist or liberal here who would say anything good about
Nashi, and many of them would say a lot worse than what I've said
here. If Johan Backman wants to caper around Helsinki with those
characters and raise a stink, I think we can be sure that Backman not
only has some dubious ideas, but probably some dubious (KGB/FSB)
connections as well.

This is not to deny that Estonia and Finland have some issues in their
recent past that bear examination (especially Estonia), but the hay
that Nashi makes of them is meant solely for the consumption of the
domestic (Russian) audience -- i.e., it's meant to stir up hatred of
"the west" and the bum deal that "resurgent" Russia supposedly gets
from it and its media.

I'm glad that you're concerned about unreasonable anti-Russian
sentiment in Finnish society and the Finnish media, but the
unreasonableness is a good deal more potent and lethal here in Russia
at the moment. Take the beating (just the other day) of famous human
rights activist Lev Ponomarev and the murder of the layout designer
(yes, the layout guy) of the only remaining opposition newspaper in
the suburban Moscow town of Khimki -- just the latest acts in a wave
of terror against social and political activists that began this past
fall and whose most well-known (murder) victim has been leftist lawyer
Stanislav Markelov.

Or if that fails to move you, take the fact that persons unknown blew
a giant hole in the Lenin monument outside the Finland Station the
other morning.

Nashi is just one production site in this terror apparatus. To be as
generous as possible to them, they're protofascists. Don't be fooled
by their rhetoric, their self-description or their antics in Helsinki.

As for reading material, the Wikipedia article is semi-okay (although
someone -- probably someone from Nashi -- says it's biased):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashi_(youth_movement)

Also, the American blogger Sean Guillory has an unhealthy fascination
with Nashi (which I think is somehow connected to his dissertation
research). He has written often and extensively about them:

http://seansrussiablog.org/

Terveisin,

Thomas Campbell
Saint Petersburg

PS If you have any connection with the recent student/teacher
"uprising" in Finland, I'd be interested in chatting with you
off-list. I'm writing about it for a leftist student newspaper here.



>  From: Joonas Laine <jjonas at nic.fi>
>  Subject: [Marxism] Question on the Russian Nashi youth movement

>  I was wondering if the Russian or Russia-based comrades on the list
>  could shed some light on the practice and politics of the pro-government
>  Nashi youth movement. Some time ago there was a big media uproar in
>  Finland when about three Nashi representatives came to Finland to
>  demonstrate against a history seminar organized by the Estonian embassy
>  in Finland, which included a "documentary" called 'The Soviet Story'.
>
>  The uproar itself was a typical example of how exaggerated the Finnish
>  media's hatred and fear of Russia really is, but as to the Nashi, it's
>  rather difficult to know what they are about as I myself don't read any
>  Russian. My hunch says they're just more or less nationalistic, and the
>  anti-fascist rhetoric is not as progressive as one might think offhand.
>
>  On the other hand, I'm not sure if they're quite as bad as to deserve to
>  be called "Putin Jugend", maybe that's just some more of the typical
>  Finnish anti-Russian hatred.
>
>  But I might be wrong. Anyone have any information on this..?


From epoliticus at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 15:03:51 2009
From: epoliticus at gmail.com (Politicus E.)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 17:03:51 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Cowardice Pays: Reflections on Academic Abdication and a
	Paul Krugman Lecture in Iowa City
Message-ID: <dd55f6dc0904021403m3c817768i2ca359aa35af5c2f@mail.gmail.com>

The entire clique of US-based "progressive" or "left-liberal"
economists is an abomination.  Examples are in abundance, e.g., Paul
Krugman, Brad Delong, Dani Rodrik, Simon Johnson, Joe Stiglitz, etc.

A common error of this clique is the neo-Keynesian fallacy that state
policy falls out of the sky, more or less.  Krugman regularly commits
this error on his blog.  Delong does also, in a different guise:

"... In addition, governments need to run extra-large deficits.
Spending - whether by the United States government during World War
II, following the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, by Silicon Valley during
the late 1990's, or by home buyers in America's south and on its
coasts in the 2000's - boosts employment and reduces unemployment. And
government spending is as good as anybody else's..."

What is Delong's political analysis?  Why, the entire burden of
explanation is placed on the shoulders of an individual senator,
"Voinovich, who is the 60th vote in the Senate - the vote needed to
close off debate and enact a bill."  We are not informed of the
relation between state policy and class power.  There is no discussion
of the role of the coercive institutions of the capitalist state.  I
seem to remember that when certain politicians become bothersome, for
whatever reason, then they are readily removed by the production of
some legal justification:  Ted Stevens, Marion Barry, James,
Blagojevich, etc., etc.

The other members of this clique are not much better.  Krugman,
Stiglitz, and DeLong simply lack all manner of political acumen.  But
both Rodrik and Johnson are somewhat more attentive to matters of
class power, in their bourgeois fashion, and so at least have the
merit of being more sincere;  and their sincerity means that they are
perhaps more dangerous.

epoliticus


From mjs at smithbowen.net  Thu Apr  2 15:17:22 2009
From: mjs at smithbowen.net (Michael Smith)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 17:17:22 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Waiting for Gobama
In-Reply-To: <B4280B1598694CE4AA9476C15F468CA6@albanta>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl>
	<747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad>
	<894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart>
	<478F7FB1CC284420BC528D4F324EF204@albanta>
	<20090401214643.5f4f9098@crashcart>
	<B4280B1598694CE4AA9476C15F468CA6@albanta>
Message-ID: <20090402171722.76f3a594@crashcart>

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:07:45 -0400
"Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Michael Smith replied to my post pointing out that the conditions that gave
> rise to the Black Panther Party no longer exist by saying, "Indeed, the
> conditions aren't so propitious. But does that really mean that all we're
> left with is Waiting For Gobama? God, I hope not."
[....] 
> I think the keys to understanding this situation are in the writings of Marx
> and Engels, and admirably summed up in Lenin's 1916 article, "Imperialism
> and the split in socialism," and further developed in the supplementary
> theses on that national and colonial question adopted by the Second Congress
> of the Comintern.
> 
> Basically the explanation is the tremendously privileged position of the
> U.S. working class and population generally in relation to that of working
> people in the Third World.  

I join Joaquin in his admiration for Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Smart 
fellas, all of 'em. The Top Country hypothesis has a lot to recommend 
it, and I don't have a better one. 

I'm still not quite sure where Obama comes into this picture, though. 
Is the reasoning that since real action by the working class on its 
own behalf isn't on the cards, the only thing we can hope for is 
some crumbs from Obie? 

-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org


From milongonsinga at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  2 15:23:04 2009
From: milongonsinga at yahoo.com (milongonsinga)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] David Harvey
Message-ID: <233189.63630.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/2/marxist_geographer_david_harvey_on_the
?
?
?A student asked Soen Nakagawa during a meditation retreat, "I am very discouraged. What should I do?" Soen replied, "Encourage others."


From mikedjyates at msn.com  Thu Apr  2 15:51:41 2009
From: mikedjyates at msn.com (MICHAEL YATES)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:51:41 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Cowardice Pays: Reflections on Academic Abdication and a
 Paul Krugman Lecture in Iowa City
Message-ID: <COL107-W42E511381423EEE6A96842BB880@phx.gbl>


Year ago, one of my mentors, Harry Magdoff, wrote an article in Monthly

Review titled, "A Prizefighter for Capitalism."  It was about Paul Krugman!

Since then, Krugman has moved some to the left.  But the disdain for 

popular resistance is still there.  His view of the common people is, like that of Keynes,
paternalistic.  They will be OK if the powerful listen to him.  Better than economists like Hayek and

von Mises, who feared the workers and would have no doubt preferred to see them in 

prisons than agitating in the streets.  However, still a far cry from Marx, who embraced the 

workers and theorized the social world through their eyes.

 

Michael Yates


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 16:26:48 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:26:48 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Waiting for Gobama
In-Reply-To: <49D51CD4.2090205@panix.com>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl><747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad><894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart><478F7FB1CC284420BC528D4F324EF204@albanta>	<20090401214643.5f4f9098@crashcart><B4280B1598694CE4AA9476C15F468CA6@albanta>
	<49D51CD4.2090205@panix.com>
Message-ID: <14AFC8AE29504C66B9843533DF82C00F@albanta>

Louis writes: "I think that Joaquin is on the right track by looking at
privilege, but there is not an unmediated relationship between wages and
consciousness."

I agree with Louis on this. I think it is complicated, and not as
simplistically determined as comrades might think from my posts. 

The reason for that is that I feel that before getting into all the
sophisticated stuff about dew points, relative humidity, permeability of the
soil, rates of absorption and evaporation and so on, I think it is necessary
for people to understand that the basic reason why the ground is wet is that
it rained cats and dogs all night.

While so many comrades are caught up in voluntaristic/idealist fantasies
INSTEAD of having at least a first APPROXIMATION of the ACTUAL state of
play, we're unlikely to get a critical mass around an effort like the greens
or the French anticapitalists.

But the material conditions ALSO have a certain amount to do with the
political/ideological weaknesses/mistakes/missed opportunities that Louis
points to. Basically, the absence of a class movement among even a sliver of
the masses, and in the more recent decades, the absence of social movements
at least on the scale of the 60's, means in a certain sense that Marxist
politics --especially as formulated and inherited from the pre-WWII period,
but even to some degree from the 60's-- are sectarian politics, in the sense
of being radically divorced from the actual experience of any sector of the
masses (even if only a small one) and not even making proposals that make
sense, and thus CUT OFF from the necessary corrective feedback from the
actual movement.

"Wait a minute," I hear you say, "isn't the problem that the 'actual
movement' hasn't really cohered and found expression -- especially on the
higher level of a political movement, or a social movement with a political
expression?" Yes. I think there ARE feedback loops in society. We don't get
very good feedback BECAUSE our politics (collectively, of the radical left
taken as a whole) aren't very good, and a factor that influences the poverty
of our politics is lack of adequate feedback.

Take, for example, the "Labor Party based on the Unions"  -- yes, please,
take it, and as far away as possible. How can THAT possibly communicate
working class independence and militancy with THESE unions?

But never mind that question, how could ANYTHING communicate "class"
independence and "class" militancy when there's been so little of it in THIS
country in living memory?

It's the bad feedback loop again: we raise an abstract, inaccessible slogan
with no relation to actual day-to-day US reality to try to communicate class
militancy and independence, but we don't realize that our slogan is an
abstract cipher PRECISELY BECAUSE "class militancy and independence" is ALSO
completely abstract, as it applies to the US today, even to us radicals. 

What we really need to be focusing on are what are the most advanced
expressions of the immediate struggles of working people in defense of their
standard of living (or a projection thereof immediately accessible with no
further elaboration to at least a significant minority of working people). 

To bring this down from a high level of abstraction, let me do a for
instance. RIGHT NOW (that I am aware of) there is no movement/group with a
broad audience demanding a moratorium on foreclosures. But if you say, "what
we need right now is what was done in the 1930's to put a moratorium on
foreclosures of occupied homes while this economic crisis lasts," lots of
people will understand that and find it immediately accessible in a way that
"we demand nationalization of the banks, but not under the control of
Gaithner and Bernanke but the bank workers themselves" is NOT accessible.

I believe one of the reasons for the (relative) power and prominence of
social movements in the past half century has been the decline in the
largely wages-and-hours focused labor movement in the advanced capitalist
countries. Many *social* questions that would be at the heart of social
revolutions, with the working class movement closed off to it, found
expression through social and protest movements.

It may have been PREFERABLE to have those issues posed as straight-up class
questions, or channeled through the class movement, I'm not going to debate
that. Reality is that they found other avenues for expression since the
straight-up class movement was closed off to them. 

But what does that mean about the social-political-movement aspect of the
labor party proposal, a big part of its CONTENT? If this were to really
happen, "a labor party based on the unions" is not likely to be a better
option than a third party base on social movements. 

Louis posits that something like the French anticapitalist party COULD have
been built in this country. But we should also be conscious that, had a big
enough sector of the left been clear enough to attempt it, it is possible,
even likely that the eventual outcome would have resembled more the German
Greens than the French anticapitalists. 

Joaquin



From stuartmunckton at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 16:28:07 2009
From: stuartmunckton at gmail.com (Stuart Munckton)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:28:07 +1100
Subject: [Marxism] George Mombiot on G20: Riot cops or rioting cops?
Message-ID: <2c6145850904021528n7a7ac7c3jcad7a865ae45ada0@mail.gmail.com>

 G20 protests: Riot police, or rioting police?

At the G20 protests in London only one group appears to be looking for
violent confrontation ? and it's not the protesters

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/apr/01/g20-policing-climate-protest-riot

-- 
"The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind of
dummy?" ? Jarvis Cocker

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" ? Oscar Wilde

From avvakum at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 16:29:38 2009
From: avvakum at gmail.com (Thomas Campbell)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 02:29:38 +0400
Subject: [Marxism] Bomb attack on Lenin monument near the Finland Station
	(Saint Petersburg)
Message-ID: <dd50d8d40904021529n3d200c54hfd9ef27765870af1@mail.gmail.com>

Since I mentioned this incident in my passing in my posting about the
Nashi movement, I thought I would provide a few more details about it.

The explosion took place around 4 am on April 1. The only witness was
a man sitting in a car parked nearby. He is reported as saying the
blast shook his car. The explosion put an 80 x 100 cm hole in the
backside of the monument.

There are some photos here:

http://www.fontanka.ru/2009/04/01/093/

A group calling itself the Zalesye Emergency Military Brigade claimed
responsibility for the blast. In their statement (posted on a
ultra-rightist blog) they said that:

"Lenin and subsequent leaders of the USSR, proponents of the
anti-Russian Bolshevist ideology, are guilty in the genocide of the
Russian people that has been under way since 1917."

The Black Hundreds-style elements in Russian society are already
having a field day with the incident. Sergei (Rybko), father superior
of the Descent of the Holy Spirit Church at the Lazarevskoe Cemetery
in Petersburg, gave an interview (http://www.regions.ru/news/2206117/)
to the odious news website Regions.Ru. He is quoted as saying:

"Tolerance has its limits. It's time to throw Lenin away. I give my
blessing to the people who did this and, I repeat, I hope that more
people will be found who can do something similar somewhere else in
Russia. In any city, even in the smallest town, we always find a Lenin
Street, and this idol stands everywhere. As a Russian, I find it
unpleasant to see this. I myself am itching to knock off [some piece]
of it or at least splash it with paint."

At the end of this interview, he says that it would be good for the
government to issue an order for the demolition of all Lenin monuments
"especially now, when, in connection with the economic crisis, people
have already begun again to read Karl Marx's Capital and other
rubbish."

The city authorities have already announced the monument will be taken
down and restored.

Interestingly, the local branch of the Communist Party was planning to
hold an anti-crisis demonstration on the square where the monument
stands (Lenin Square) this coming Saturday. Their representatives, as
quoted in media reports, blame the explosion on radical right-wingers,
although one of them (unaccountably) says that foreign spies shouldn't
be crossed off the suspect list, either.

Lenin Square is one of the few places left in the city where the
authorities (sometimes) give permits for more or less large opposition
demos. That is because, although the square is next to a busy train
station and metro station, it is relatively isolated and easily
policed.

Like the other big Lenin monument site in town (on Moskovskii
Prospekt), the city turned the square into a kind of "family fun"
zone, surrounding it with fountains and lights. (This was done in
preparation for the 2006 G8 summit, which was also a giant exercise in
police repression.) In the view of the new capitalist authorities, the
"simple folk" love nothing better than fountains (lots of them!) and
light shows. As I remarked back then, they decided to turn Lenin into
a "water god."

Anyone interested in what the "simple folk" (who turn out to be not so
simple) think about this should check out NYC-based Colombian artist
Carlos Motta's Leningrad Trilogy project, which includes a decent
documentary film where he interviewed various people he found relaxing
at both monuments (in 2006).

http://www.carlosmotta.com/trilogy.html


From stuartmunckton at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 16:41:43 2009
From: stuartmunckton at gmail.com (Stuart Munckton)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:41:43 +1100
Subject: [Marxism] Red Pepper eyewitness to G20 protests: the cops lied
Message-ID: <2c6145850904021541h510a530fw11c8c0db7980fdeb@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Death-in-the-City
-- 
"The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind of
dummy?" ? Jarvis Cocker

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" ? Oscar Wilde

From mikedjyates at msn.com  Thu Apr  2 16:43:36 2009
From: mikedjyates at msn.com (MICHAEL YATES)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:43:36 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!
Message-ID: <COL107-W49F3A65644CFA18649F889BB880@phx.gbl>


The jury just came in and found for Ward Churchill.  What a vindication for him, and what a blow

to the integrity of the University of Colorado.

 

Michael Yates


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 16:52:09 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:52:09 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Waiting for Gobama
In-Reply-To: <20090402171722.76f3a594@crashcart>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl><747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad><894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart><478F7FB1CC284420BC528D4F324EF204@albanta><20090401214643.5f4f9098@crashcart><B4280B1598694CE4AA9476C15F468CA6@albanta>
	<20090402171722.76f3a594@crashcart>
Message-ID: <222042599A8A4D46AC8234E63A02C387@albanta>

Michael Smith writes:

"I'm still not quite sure where Obama comes into this picture, though. 

"Is the reasoning that since real action by the working class on its own
behalf isn't on the cards, the only thing we can hope for is some crumbs
from Obie?"

I don't know what Obama has to do with anything. It is true, I didn't have a
big problem with people who called for voting for Obama in the last election
as a way of expressing their opposition to racism or their hatred of Bush.
Which doesn't mean I considered voting for Obama the road forward or some
such nonsense -- in fact, I'm not entirely convinced that voting in
bourgeois-democratic electoral farces are at the heart of a revolutionary
proletarian strategy AT ALL, or even of just ending the wars or stopping
foreclosures.

The assumption seems to be in Michael's post, as in so many others, that the
future of the human race revolves around Obama and placing him at the center
of your political universe. He is a VERY clever and skilled politician,
moreover with a very personable companion, nice kids and a cute puppy. And a
style the pundits claim is charming, refreshing and disarming. He also has
VERY short hair, recently quit smoking like I did (though I more recently
than he) and is a basketball nut.

OK, I will confess -- if he can resurrect Kyle XY and make Disney/ABC bring
it back for a fourth season, then I might change my mind. But pending that,
I'm just not convinced that the ENTIRE Universe revolves around him.

Joaquin



From srobin21 at comcast.net  Thu Apr  2 16:52:22 2009
From: srobin21 at comcast.net (Steven L. Robinson)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:52:22 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!
In-Reply-To: <COL107-W49F3A65644CFA18649F889BB880@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1858869051.2680801238712742422.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>

Wow. The jury wasn't out very long. How much did the jury award him? SR

----- Original Message -----

From: MICHAEL YATES 


Subject: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!





The jury just came in and found for Ward Churchill.  What a vindication for him, and what a blow to the integrity of the University of Colorado.











From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 16:56:35 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:56:35 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!
In-Reply-To: <1858869051.2680801238712742422.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <1858869051.2680801238712742422.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <49D542A3.4090407@panix.com>

Steven L. Robinson wrote:
> Wow. The jury wasn't out very long. How much did the jury award him? SR
> 

http://www.examiner.com/x-6256-Denver-Legal-News-Examiner~y2009m4d2-Ward-Churchill-verdict-Former-CU-professor-vindicated-sort-of-with-a-jury-award-of-1

Ward Churchill verdict: Former CU professor vindicated (sort of) with a 
jury award of $1

The jury in the Ward Churchill trial, in deliberations since Wednesday, 
has reached a verdict in the civil suit against University of Colorado 
for wrongful termination. The university did indeed wrongfully terminate 
Churchill, the jury decided, but the damages they awarded were a mere 
$1. The issue of Churchill's reinstatement will be decided at a separate 
hearing by Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves.

Earlier today Churchill, appearing unconcerned about the verdict, nodded 
off in the courtroom while waiting for the jury?s decision. At 
mid-afternoon, the jury asked the judge a question about damages, 
implying that their decision was in favor of Churchill but they had 
difficulty deciding what, if anything, to award him.

The resolution of this case will hardly be an end to controversy for 
Churchill, a man who has reignited debate about scholarly independence 
versus academic principles.


From stuartmunckton at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 17:05:23 2009
From: stuartmunckton at gmail.com (Stuart Munckton)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:05:23 +1100
Subject: [Marxism] Viserton Belfast occupation spreads,
	two plants in England taken over
Message-ID: <2c6145850904021605q2161e256p8dbf7836b621ac4f@mail.gmail.com>

Visteon workers occupy!  [image:
Print]<http://www.socialist.net/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3907&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=30>
 [image:
E-mail]<http://www.socialist.net/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=3907&itemid=30>
  By Socialist Appeal
  Wednesday, 01 April 2009
http://www.socialist.net/visteon-workers-occupy.htm
  Visteon workers in  and Basildon have joined with Belfast workers in
occupying their plants.

Management have put the firm into administration. Belfast workers have been
defending their occupation by staying in overnight. The workers are taking
action because they have to. They were just brutally kicked off the premises
without any notice. If management get away with this, 600 workers at the
three plants will be sacked and left on the minimum statutory redundancy
pay. Statutory redundancy pay is paltry. Even workers with 30 years? service
are only entitled to ?9,000 and most will get far less.

In Belfast John McGowan, shift leader at Visteon, said: ?I?m just
dumbstruck. I feel it?s totally unjust the way we?re being treated by the
company. They have had redundancy packages in the past due to the downturn
in sales.

?Last year they were offering redundancy packages of ?30,000 minimum. Now
they?re telling me for my 30 years loyalty to this company I?m getting a
redundancy package which is capped at just over ?9,000. That?s totally
unjust and unfair.?

The background to the dispute is that Visteon was spun off from Ford as a
scam to attack workers? pay and conditions. Before incorporation in 2000 the
plants were part of the Ford combine, making parts for the cars. The workers
were on the normal Ford wages and conditions. The bosses? idea was to
uncouple workers? pay at the component suppliers from those in the main
plant. Visteon workers have consistently fought attempts to downgrade their
labour since 2000, but now management says the firm is losing money.

Going into administration will also put the workers? pensions in peril. The
money will end up in the Pension Protection Fund, where it will in effect
become a zombie fund, with no top-ups and guarantees to the workers and
pensioners not honoured, as they would have to do if Raytheon were a going
concern.

No flies on Raytheon management. They have setup a separate outfit called
Visteon Engineering Services, which is in effect a life raft to carry their
own pensions to safety away from the wreckage of Raytheon that they have
created.

Over and over again Ford management swore blind that the creation of
Raytheon was not just a device to enable them to dodge out of their
obligations to the components? workforce. Redundant Ford workers have always
walked away with a decent package in the past. In 2000 Ford gave workers
cast iron guarantees, which they have shamelessly broken.

The occupying workers are appealing to Ford workers for solidarity in the
form of blacking alternative sources of supply for the components Raytheon
have always delivered. Putting Raytheon into administration is a squalid
manoeuvre to load the crisis in the motor industry onto the workers. But the
workers are fighting back! We see the unity in action of Protestant and
Catholic workers in Belfast, and of British and Irish workers across these
islands.

-- 
"The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind of
dummy?" ? Jarvis Cocker

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" ? Oscar Wilde

From mjs at smithbowen.net  Thu Apr  2 17:21:02 2009
From: mjs at smithbowen.net (Michael Smith)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:21:02 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Waiting for Gobama
In-Reply-To: <222042599A8A4D46AC8234E63A02C387@albanta>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl>
	<747805.98592.qm@web110412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad>
	<894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart>
	<478F7FB1CC284420BC528D4F324EF204@albanta>
	<20090401214643.5f4f9098@crashcart>
	<B4280B1598694CE4AA9476C15F468CA6@albanta>
	<20090402171722.76f3a594@crashcart>
	<222042599A8A4D46AC8234E63A02C387@albanta>
Message-ID: <20090402192102.6cee49f0@crashcart>

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:52:09 -0400
"Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com> wrote:
 
> I don't know what Obama has to do with anything. 
[....]
> The assumption seems to be in Michael's post, as in so many others, that the
> future of the human race revolves around Obama and placing him at the center
> of your political universe.  

Joaquin and I have apparently been talking past each other. I'm 
glad to hear that he has no more use for Obie than I have -- an 
earlier contribution of his left me with a mistaken impression. 

Obie is certainly *not* at the center of my own political universe, 
though I admit that bombarding the Democrats is rather a personal 
hobby of mine. 

-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org


From mjs at smithbowen.net  Thu Apr  2 17:24:40 2009
From: mjs at smithbowen.net (Michael Smith)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:24:40 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!
In-Reply-To: <49D542A3.4090407@panix.com>
References: <1858869051.2680801238712742422.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<49D542A3.4090407@panix.com>
Message-ID: <20090402192440.7f02e751@crashcart>

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:56:35 -0400
Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:

>   The issue of Churchill's reinstatement will be decided at a separate 
> hearing by Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves.

The jury doesn't decide this? What's that about? 
 
-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org


From srobin21 at comcast.net  Thu Apr  2 17:28:41 2009
From: srobin21 at comcast.net (Steven L. Robinson)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:28:41 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!
In-Reply-To: <20090402192440.7f02e751@crashcart>
Message-ID: <1680134377.2695431238714921476.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>


Reinstatement is an "equitable" remedy, decided by a court and not a jury, which only decides "legal"  issues.  Equitable r

"Legal" and "equity"

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Smith 





>   The issue of Churchill's reinstatement will be decided at a separate 

> hearing by Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves.



The jury doesn't decide this? What's that about? 



-- 



Michael Smith

mjs at smithbowen.net

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org



________________________________________________

YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.

Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu

Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/srobin21%40comcast.net



From srobin21 at comcast.net  Thu Apr  2 17:32:30 2009
From: srobin21 at comcast.net (Steven L. Robinson)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:32:30 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!
In-Reply-To: <20090402192440.7f02e751@crashcart>
Message-ID: <1332937957.2696731238715150943.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>


Sorry,  comcast webmail error sent out message before I was finished.

Under traditional legal concepts inherited from England, reinstatement is an equitable remedy only decided by a judge.

Interestingly, although I have not seen the pleadings.  I understand that Churchill is also seeking reasonable attorney fees as part of his lawsuit. If so, the judge will decide that and they could prove to be significant - six figures or more. The importance of the issue - academic freedom - might enable him to get a multiplier, depending on Colorado law. SR

From pt_costello at yahoo.com  Thu Apr  2 17:52:58 2009
From: pt_costello at yahoo.com (Pat Costello)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] NY Times on Ward Churchill
Message-ID: <842387.12601.qm@web63101.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/us/03churchill.html?hp


      


From markalause at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 18:10:27 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:10:27 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Waiting for Gobama
In-Reply-To: <20090402192102.6cee49f0@crashcart>
References: <COL112-W74238575B255363FC73B66D78B0@phx.gbl>
	<9EB8BF90D6964A878F6266AB5D2CE1CB@dmsthinkpad>
	<894746.15080.qm@web110416.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401180225.7352ee19@crashcart>
	<478F7FB1CC284420BC528D4F324EF204@albanta>
	<20090401214643.5f4f9098@crashcart>
	<B4280B1598694CE4AA9476C15F468CA6@albanta>
	<20090402171722.76f3a594@crashcart>
	<222042599A8A4D46AC8234E63A02C387@albanta>
	<20090402192102.6cee49f0@crashcart>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904021710o7feb1b2j4f7c7caf8f096eed@mail.gmail.com>

The basic problem is that the subject line is absurd but telling....

Nobody's waiting for Obama or anyone in office.  We simply haven't
been able to mobilize much.  For that reason, the usual fighters for
proletarian clarity amidst the factional frenzy--or, well, the talkers
for proletarian clarity amidst the factional frenzy--are looking for
someone to blame.  Being "Marxists," their first assumption is that
other "Marxists" are fucking everything up by waiting for
something....

It's rubbish, but predictable rubbish.

ML


From markalause at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 18:11:41 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:11:41 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] NASCO shipyard and communists.
In-Reply-To: <bdf.4b88b08f.370679cf@aol.com>
References: <bdf.4b88b08f.370679cf@aol.com>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904021711j55102e16y3c5e8104d1bdc68b@mail.gmail.com>

We should take a page from the French book.

Aim at a mass anticapitalist party.

ML


From rfidler_8 at sympatico.ca  Thu Apr  2 19:00:41 2009
From: rfidler_8 at sympatico.ca (Richard Fidler)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:00:41 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!
In-Reply-To: <1680134377.2695431238714921476.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
References: <20090402192440.7f02e751@crashcart>
	<1680134377.2695431238714921476.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP4C52A7C902539F70C3F42B4890@phx.gbl>

Actually, the jury decides factual issues (given the law, what does the
evidence show?). The judge decides the legal issues, advises the jury on
them, and rules on the equitable remedies (such as specific performance, or
in this case reinstatement).

-----Original Message-----
From: marxism-bounces+rfidler_8=sympatico.ca at lists.econ.utah.edu
[mailto:marxism-bounces+rfidler_8=sympatico.ca at lists.econ.utah.edu] On
Behalf Of Steven L. Robinson
Sent: April 2, 2009 7:29 PM
To: rfidler_8 at sympatico.ca
Subject: Re: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!


Reinstatement is an "equitable" remedy, decided by a court and not a jury,
which only decides "legal"  issues.  [snip]



From mikedjyates at msn.com  Thu Apr  2 19:23:26 2009
From: mikedjyates at msn.com (MICHAEL YATES)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:23:26 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!
Message-ID: <COL107-W1F4F4E1543DF5050C9ABBBB890@phx.gbl>


I don't see how the judge cannot award Churchill backpay and reinstatement.  Isn't 

a principle of remedy in civil cases "make whole"--to put the agrieved party back to where they

would have been but for the actions of the other party?  And if it is true that

"A court of equity is a court of conscience, and whatever, therefore, is unconscionable is odious in its sight," 
then surely the judge has to do the right thing.

 

Michael Yates



From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com  Thu Apr  2 19:37:58 2009
From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:37:58 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Communists and strikes
Message-ID: <20090403013758.4275428056@smtp.hushmail.com>

tcod wrote:
>say what, a "communist led strike" in "one of the biggest 
>shipyards in the US" in the 1980s?  
>How is it that I missed that?  What have you been smoking?         

That is a really stupid, uniformed comment. Has there ever 
beeen a time in the US labor movement when radicals were 
not leading something,in some union, somewhere, no 
matter what the odds or level of political repression in 
the general society? 

--
Earn a degree in Criminal Justice and work as a Police officer.  Click here for more info.
 http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/BLSrjkqaIWdtUzmwvose9e1QGiCIcMQXUkJpr98q7lSSXiLvfoRkEMp8u6M/



From markalause at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 19:50:22 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:50:22 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!
In-Reply-To: <COL107-W1F4F4E1543DF5050C9ABBBB890@phx.gbl>
References: <COL107-W1F4F4E1543DF5050C9ABBBB890@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904021850q45466e60j196033a340879938@mail.gmail.com>

What I've seen more often than not is that they will offer a whopping
big cash award, compensation for lost salary and salary not earned
over x-period of time.  The thinking people have when they accept such
settlements is that academic working conditions are such that they can
make any restored position pretty awful.

Then, again, my experience is surely limited to what's been in my vision.

ML


From suklasenp at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Apr  2 20:25:00 2009
From: suklasenp at yahoo.co.uk (Sukla Sen)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 02:25:00 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [Marxism] G20 Communique: A Review
Message-ID: <137996.31721.qm@web23002.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

"For
more than 30 years in economic journalism I have written about many
summits. Their job has been to rubber stump the Washington consensus,
and offer an illusory picture of collective action and grip ? when the
truth has been "market states" running up the white flag before the
ever advancing battalions of global finance. This summit is decisively
different ? the most substantive of its type since 1944. It offers a
break with the Washington consensus, free market ideology and financial
turbo capitalism ? and is assembling the world around a new order and
set of ideas. It is half done and menaced by the scale of the crisis
along with powerful instincts at times like this for protectionist "
sauve qui peut". But it comes at a time when there are the first signs
if not of green shoots at least of some economic stabilisation ? as the
stock market recovery is tribute. It is an achievement. It would be
graceless not to acknowledge it ? and it might even signal a turning
point."


That's a pretty strong and definitive claim. Needs be carefully looked into.
Sukla

http://www.guardian .co.uk/commentis free/2009/ apr/02/g20- financial- crisis2


 	    



        






                


    
        	    



                




        



	    




  	   	        
   	   	   	   	
      	       
  	   	        
   	   	   		
	
		
        
            

 	
     	
 	 	
 	
		
			 		
	 				G20: Best summit since 1944
					
	  				The verdict: This extraordinary series of commitments could be the turning point for the world economy
	  	
        	  	
  	
  	
  				        

			 								                	        	        	            Will Hutton
				        
			guardian.co. uk,			
				            Thursday 2 April 2009 17.52 BST





	
			This is an extraordinary series of commitments from G20
leaders. I have no doubt in the weeks ahead the ambiguities,
papered-over cracks and over-selling will start to come to the surface.
I also worry that given the catastrophe that has overwhelmed the
western financial system, provoking plunging trade volumes and
vertiginous falls in output, too little has been done to address the $2
trillion of toxic assets in bank balance sheets, mobilise global demand
and resist protection. We will know in 6 months time whether today was
enough, as the G20 accepts when it says it will return to these themes
if the crisis deepens. But that should not stop acknowledgement
of what has been achieved. There is a new regulatory framework for the
so-called "shadow financial system". The demi-monde of tax havens,
hedge funds, derivative trading and off balance sheet lending ?
together with grotesque pay and bonuses - that has grown up over the
last 20 years and which fuelled the extraordinary credit boom, and the
stunning losses that have bankrupted so many banks, building societies
and insurance companies, is to be internationally regulated for the
first time. Similar principles are to be adopted by the world's top 20
countries. Colleges of regulators are going to hold each other to
account. A blacklist of tax havens is to be published.This not
only makes a repeat much less likely ? in any case hardly a risk at the
moment. More importantly it sends an important message about what kind
of capitalism G20 leaders like. Get rich quick capitalism based on
financial engineering and evading moral responsibilities ? the type
celebrated by the prime minister as chancellor in so many speeches
lauding City of London innovation and genius ? is now out. What is in
is business building capitalism that creates wealth, jobs and pays its
taxes. Amen to that.As importantly, the IMF is to get another
$500 billion, along with extra funds for the World Bank. Both
institutions had dwindled in size to become marginal actors. Now they
are central pivots of the world system with serious financial
firepower. Moreover poorer emergent economies will qualify for $250
trillion of SDR's, IMF paper money, resources from IMF gold sales and
access to $250 billion trade credit fund. There will be powers to name
and shame countries whose behaviour endangers the world economic order.
This the best deal for the less developed countries for some decades ?
better even than debt relief.For more than 30 years in economic
journalism I have written about many summits. Their job has been to
rubber stump the Washington consensus, and offer an illusory picture of
collective action and grip ? when the truth has been "market states"
running up the white flag before the ever advancing battalions of
global finance. This summit is decisively different ? the most
substantive of its type since 1944. It offers a break with the
Washington consensus, free market ideology and financial turbo
capitalism ? and is assembling the world around a new order and set of
ideas. It is half done and menaced by the scale of the crisis along
with powerful instincts at times like this for protectionist " sauve
qui peut". But it comes at a time when there are the first signs if not
of green shoots at least of some economic stabilisation ? as the stock
market recovery is tribute. It is an achievement. It would be graceless
not to acknowledge it ? and it might even signal a turning point.
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

From lnp3 at panix.com  Thu Apr  2 20:36:58 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:36:58 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] G20 Communique: A Review
In-Reply-To: <137996.31721.qm@web23002.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
References: <137996.31721.qm@web23002.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <49D5764A.30407@panix.com>

Sukla Sen wrote:
> "For
> more than 30 years in economic journalism I have written about many
> summits. Their job has been to rubber stump the Washington consensus,
> and offer an illusory picture of collective action and grip ? when the
> truth has been "market states" running up the white flag before the
> ever advancing battalions of global finance. This summit is decisively
> different ? the most substantive of its type since 1944. It offers a
> break with the Washington consensus, free market ideology and financial
> turbo capitalism ? and is assembling the world around a new order and
> set of ideas. It is half done and menaced by the scale of the crisis
> along with powerful instincts at times like this for protectionist "
> sauve qui peut". But it comes at a time when there are the first signs
> if not of green shoots at least of some economic stabilisation ? as the
> stock market recovery is tribute. It is an achievement. It would be
> graceless not to acknowledge it ? and it might even signal a turning
> point."
> 
> 
> That's a pretty strong and definitive claim. Needs be carefully looked into.
> Sukla
> 
> http://www.guardian .co.uk/commentis free/2009/ apr/02/g20- financial- crisis2

Another perspective:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/02/g20-global-economy
Asking the G20 leaders to rebuild international finance is ridiculous ? 
they are the ones responsible for its collapse

Ann Pettifor

We need not take this communique too seriously. Why? Because asking the 
G20 to fix the international financial architecture is 
counter-intuitive. Like asking a bunch of cowboy builders to re-build 
the gutted kitchen, illegal loft conversion and rumbling extension of a 
collapsed McMansion home.

They just can't do it. The McMansion that is haute finance was built on 
shaky foundations by G20 leaders (with the exception of Barack Obama) 
and their central bankers. It has collapsed and left behind piles of 
rubble, financial angst and heartache ? because of the way it was 
designed, project-managed and constructed ? by none other than these 
same political leaders.

They cannot be trusted to remedy the calamity of its collapse ? and to 
rebuild. They lack the vision, the economic theory and tools, the 
correct advisers and the experience. All they want, and know how to do, 
is to cover up the botched building works, and rebuild the existing, 
dodgy, financial McMansion ? while doling hand-outs to their mates in 
the financial sector.

(clip)


From laracrete at verizon.net  Thu Apr  2 20:30:20 2009
From: laracrete at verizon.net (lara crete)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:30:20 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] About the Russian "Nashi"
Message-ID: <cd65fd23e6735103f6cd050832155cb3@verizon.net>

Spending  time in Moscow, due to my recording there,  having seen the 
total devaluation  and  the degradation of all I have cherished ( and 
still do)  as  the Soviet  Union phenomenon, I was stunned by the 
cynical bitterness, expressed  even by the best  people I have known 
there: " You know", I was told, " Marx was not lucky , for he fell into 
Russian hands".  It was hard to believe that  this the bitter joke 
could come from the nation of   a  proud worker, whom  I've met many  
years ago  in the city of  Sverdlovsk ( now Ekaterinburg) , who invited 
myself to visit "HIS plant" ,  where  he has retired from.
  The betrayal of Soviet Union  has ruined the spirit of  the great 
nation. And it looks that the effect of it will stay there  for a long 
time.
Russians plunged on their knees in  front  of Crosses,  provided for 
them  immediately and in the abandance.   This poisonous  mixture , 
made of the  Capitalism For The Beginners and  the well- set and 
swiftly organized  the  Christian Orthodox  priesthood , crippled the 
whole organism of the not-too-long vibrant society.

"Nashi" - what means "Ours" - is the nationalistic  attempt to bring to 
Russia the restoration of its lost glory  by the appeal to "only 
Russians". There is  even  a quite openly expressed hatred   and  a... 
shame (!)   for  the "bad times of Leninism".
The  fact that  such the Party  like  "Nashi"   attracts  the Russian 
Youth, only confirms  that the process of the awakening will take a 
long-long time.
  The world, according to "Nashi" , is divided for "Nashi" ( Russians 
only) and  "Vashi" ( yours, i.e. the rest of the world).
And it is aggressively regressive  entity.
Yet, the memories of the "Paradise Lost" , of course, is there. But 
"Nashi"  publicly and in every possible  occasion   curse it as   " our 
  ugly  past".
Many of them embrace the dream of the "Lost  Monarchy".

Only a few in today's Russia  have the courage  to  come after  
analyzing  all the tragic mistakes  the  Socialist hypothesis (  by the 
definition of   Alain Badiou)   was forced to go though,   and ask for 
the forgiveness.
One of them was the writer  Alexader Zinoviev.  In his last book "The 
Confession Of The Post -Soviet Man"  there is everything  what would  
Russian people need for the restoration of their glory.








  
  



From nmgoro at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 20:44:19 2009
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:44:19 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?=5BSpanish=5D_My_last_in_Spanish_for_a?=
 =?windows-1252?q?_while=3A_Jorge_Enea_Spilimbergo_on_Ra=FAl_Alfons=EDn?=
Message-ID: <49D57803.80004@gmail.com>

[Most comrades somewhat interested in Argentina may have noticed that 
Ra?l Alfons?n died the day before yesterday. Too busy to give my own 
appraisal of this man, I resend something that those who can read 
Spanish may find interesting. Warning: it may be too idyosincratically 
Argentinean. Sorry.]


ALFONSIN, EL PENSAMIENTO COLONIZADO Y
LA CRISIS SEMICOLONIAL ARGENTINA

Por Jorge Enea Spilimbergo (junio 1986)

A principios de noviembre de 1972, el doctor Ra?l Alfons?n fue
interrogado por un periodista de Canal 13, quien le lanz? esta vulgar
pregunta: ??Cu?les son los hombres pol?ticos a los cuales usted m?s
admira??
La respuesta no fue en cambio vulgar, sino asombrosa y reveladora:
?El doctor Balb?n, los doctores Thedy y Am?rico Ghioldi.
Alfons?n reun?a entonces, parad?jicamente, la doble condici?n de delf?n
y opositor interno del jefe de la UCR. Era l?gico, pues, que don Ricardo
figurase a la cabeza de sus pr?ceres.
Acaudillaba nuestro actual presidente, a la juventud dorada del
radicalismo bajo el estandarte de la ?renovaci?n? y el ?cambio?. Cada
?poca acu?a su l?xico particular, su especial amaneramiento. El ?cambio
social? era entonces la forma medida, cautelosa y acad?mica de aludir a
la revoluci?n popular de que la Argentina estaba pre?ada tras las
jornadas ardientes del Cordobazo.
Alfons?n aparec?a all? como una dosificada versi?n ?de izquierda? del
tel?rico Balb?n. Un Balb?n ?moderno?, sin la cautelosa guitarra del
pr?cer, inteligible ?digamos? para el progresismo europeo y aquellos
estudiantes a?n con cuello y corbata.
Sin embargo, este perfil universalmente aceptado del l?der en ciernes,
resultaba altamente sospechoso. El drama del radicalismo fue su
satelizaci?n al sistema olig?rquico tras la ca?da y muerte de Hip?lito
Yrigoyen. Forja no pudo revertir la decadencia y hubo de disolverse en
la gran marea del 45. Esta ruptura hist?rica convirti? a la UCR en el
antiperonismo posible. En el ?ltimo tramo de su vida, sin embargo,
Ricardo Balb?n tuvo un gesto de grandeza y avizor? una ?reconciliaci?n?
con el?viejo adversario?.
Este golpe de tim?n merece varias interpretaciones, no necesariamente
contradictorias, que no podemos abordar aqu?.
Una de ellas es que la convergencia entre la clase trabajadora y la
peque?a burques?a democr?tica que fue madurando a partir de 1966 y
estall? clamorosamente tres a?os despu?s, encontraba un reflejo sin duda
moderado pero real en la aproximaci?n de Balb?n y Per?n. Por diversas
v?as, la crisis profunda de la Argentina semicolonial parec?a empujar a
las grandes fuerzas sociales hacia un reencuentro en torno a banderas de
democracia y liberaci?n nacional.
En este proceso, correspondi? a Alfons?n el papel de opositor al
acercamiento con argumentos de ?izquierda?. Su obsesi?n era la
burocracia sindical, categor?a informe y deforme que le sirvi? siempre
para marcar su extra?amiento agropecuario del gran movimiento social,
hijo de la industrializaci?n, inciiado en 1945.
Este es el secreto que encierran las dos figuras que completaban la
trilog?a de maestros escogidos por Alfons?n para definir su propia
estirpe intelectual.
?Renovaci?n y Cambio? era una vertiente de la ?intransigencia? que a
fines de la d?cada del 40 reuniera en un haz a Balb?n, Frondizi y Alende
contra el viejo ?unionismo? de r?iz alvearista. Pretend?a ser un retorno
a la tradici?n de Yrigoyen. Pero Alfons?n ignoraba que su segundo y
tercer maestros eran versiones degradadas de los dos enemigos mortales
que tuvo Hip?lito Yrigoyen en el campo popular: Lisandro de la Torre y
Juan B. Justo.
Ambos lo hab?an combatido desde las plataformas europeizadas de las
principales ciudades-puerto: Buneos Aires y Rosario. Su ?progresismo?
era antinacional pues no se ligaba estrat?gicamente a un proyecto de
liberaci?n, aunque Lisandro de la Torre hiciera de alg?n modo su camino
de Damasco bajo la crisis de los a?os 30. Confluyeron,contra Yrigoyen,
en lo que ?ste lapid? como ?contubernio?, digitado por las fuerzas
conservadoras. Pero as? y todo eran gigantes comparados por sus
descendiente: ?Horacio Thedy y Am?rico Ghioldi!
A esta altura de la historia ?a?o 1972? ninguno de estos respetables
caballeros conservaban otra impronta que la de la mediocridad
perseverante y un antiperonismo que les pudr?a la sangre, aquel de ?se
acab? la leche de la clemencia? de los fusilamientos del 56. Su
horizonte mental era un punto ciego en el espacio, sus ?opera magna?
cab?an en una cabeza de alfiler.
Se requiere en verdad un esfuerzo de imaginaci?n gigantesco para
vislumbrar qu? modelo de ?renovaci?n y cambio? ten?a en mente el doctor
Ra?l Alfons?n cuando escog?a a estas dos ramas resecas del liberalismo.
Un esfuerzo que excede nuestras modestas aunque voluntarias posibilidades.

NOSTALGIA DEL 90

Trece a?os despu?s, ya presidente constitucional, el doctor Alfons?n
tuvo varias oportunidades de explicar las coordenadas de su concepci?n
fundamental. Podr?a objetarse que no cumple aqu? evaluarlo como fil?sofo
sino como pol?tico o estadista. Sabemos, sin embargo, que la
colonizaci?n ideol?gica es el nervio, la mediaci?n necesaria de la
dependencia, especialmente en un pa?s de relativo desarrollo capitalista
como la Argentina.
De ello son conscientes los grandes portavoces de la oligarqu?a (aunque
no hayan le?do a Gramsci o a Jauretche), mucho m?s que cierta izquierda
enfeudada tambi?n ella a un liberalismo inconfeso pero medular. El
lanzamiento del Plan Austral fue precedido y acompa?ado por definiciones
?principistas? del doctor Alfons?n, que merecieron el justo aplauso de
aquellos voceros.
As?, en su Mensaje a la Asamblea Legislativa del 1? de Mayo de 1985,
dijo el primer magistrado:
?No se trata, como algunos pretenden, de que el gobierno elabore un
programa para seis meses o cuatro a?os. Se trata de que la Naci?n elija
un estilo de vida, porque todos queremos vivir de otra manera y entrar
en el siglo veintiuno con la misma gallard?a con que traspusimos el
humbral del siglo XX".
En tono levemente ir?nico, el diario ?La Naci?n? se apresur? a comentar
que Alfons?n hab?a virado 180 grados en la interpretaci?n
hist?rico-pol?tico del pa?s. No era del todo cierto, trat?ndose de quien
se proclamara (o confesara) disc?pulo de Am?rico Ghioldi y Horacio
Thedy, pero s? lo es (y es lo que importa) si atendemos a la doctrina
tradicional de la UCR, al margen de las transgresiones
post-yrigoyenistas de su pr?ctica pol?tica.
Lo que el presidente olvidaba era que contra las clases dirigentes bajo
cuyo imperio nuestro pa?s hab?a traspuesto ?con gallard?a el hombral del
siglo XX?, dos veces se levant? en armas Hip?lito Yrigoyen ?en 1893 y en
1905? y las llam? ?R?gimen falaz y descre?do?, cimentando en esa lucha
la tradici?n democr?tica de la Argentina moderna.
Pocas semanas despu?s, ala lanzar el Plan Austral el 14 de junio,
Alfons?n reiteraba sus convicciones de fondo:
?A los esc?pticos les digo que a finales del siglo pasado un pa?s
lejano, des?rtico y pobre se levant? sobre sus propias dificultades para
convertirse en el quinto pa?s del mundo por la riqueza de sus habitantes".
"?Qui?nes hicieron hicieron ese pa?s? ?Los esc?pticos, los fatalistas,
los tristes de la Argentina? A ese pa?s lo construyeron con menos
cultura y m?s difultades, argentinos que fueron nuestros padres y
nuestros abuelos. ?Y hoy les vamos a decir a ellos, a nuestros padres y
a nuestros hijos que no podemos??
Si la Argentina fue el ?quinto pa?s del mundo por la riqueza de sus
habitantes? es por lo mismo que Kuwait o los Emiratos Arabes son hoy el
?el primer pa?s del mundo por la riqueza de sus habitantes? delante de
Suecia, Estados Unidos, Jap?n o la Uni?n Sovi?tica. Obviamente, hasta
que los pozos se sequen o el petr?leo se desprecie o los mercados se
cierren. No por el desenvolvimiento de sus fuerzas productivas, no por
su integraci?n org?nica como pa?s moderno, no por haber emprendido su
revoluci?n industrial, sino en funci?n coyuntural, necesariamente
pasajera, de una dependencia privilegiada.
Nuestros abuelos lucharon con m?s o menos suerte por hacerse una lugar
bajo el sol en el pa?s de Mart?n Fierro, y en eso rendimos todo nuestro
homenaje a la piedad filial del doctor Alfons?n. Pero la oligarqu?a
dilapid? la coyuntura agro-exportadora como si fuera eterna, y otras
fuerzas tuvieron que pugnar con despareja suerte para repechar la crisis
abierta por la quiebra del mercado mundial a partir de 1930.
La visi?n de Alfons?n es nost?lgica de un ya imposible bucolismo
sat?lite, y nos sorprende que el presidente sea reiterativo en
interpretar la historia argentina posterior a 1930 como una cont?nua
decadencia, olvidando, por ejemplo, los esfuerzos de la d?cada 1945-1955
por crear una estructura industrial independiente en el marco de una
justicia social participatoria. No de otro modo fabulaban los
doctrinarios del ?proceso? cuando nos remit?an a aquellas d?cadas
privilegiadas en que figur?bamos ?a la cabeza del mundo?.

EL APLAUSO OLIG?RQUICO

Las sabias reflexiones presidenciales movieron enseguida el elogio del
se?or Manuel Tagle. empernido columnista de ?La Prensa?, cuyo paneg?rico
?por razones de espacio? resumimos: ?Hay en el radicalismo ?manifiesta
Tagle? dos tradiciones contradictorias. La primigenia, de ra?z
?liberal?, la de la originaria Uni?n C?vica, se simboliza en Mitre,
Alem, Bernardo de Irigoyen, Arist?bulo del Valle. Esta tradici?n da al
actual partido de gobierno, ?el ?nico estilo capaz de resolver el drama
de de su lamentable retroceso?.
Desgraciadamente, en 1916, ?proyectando un manto de sombra sobre el
brillo de aquellos prohombres finiseculares, Hip?lito Yrigoyen inaugura
la segunda tradici?n partidaria, la de la democracia a ?secas?, (ese
?personalismo? desbordante que hizo decir a a su correligionario
Tamborini esta frase en el Congreso de 1924: ?Se equivocan los que creen
que el t?tulo de radicales se obtiene castrando voluntades o cayendo
genuflexos ante la un caudillo todopoderoso?.
Para Tagle, derrotado el propio Tamborini en 1946, el radicalismo se
contamina del programa de Per?n absorbiendo un sistema de pensamiento
?que el propio presidente ha fustigado cuando en su discurso del 14 de
junio traz? una l?nea de separaci?n entre el periodo construcctivo de
?nuestros padres y abuelos? que elev? a la Argentina al quinto puesto
entre las naciones m?s adelantadas del orbe, y el que ?en los ?ltimos 40
a?os? sell? nuestra decadencia?.
?En buena hora ?prosigue Tagle? si el Partido Radical... retorna a ser
lo que quisieron sus egregios fundadores?.
?A esto se llama luchar ejemplarmente por la hegemon?a ideol?gica como
resorte inexcusable de la hegemon?a pol?tico-social! ?Alfons?n bajo la
sombra de Mitre y su versi?n popular porte?a, Alem! Los huesos de
Yrigoyen se revuelven en su tumba. Meditemos sobre la relaci?n profunda
entre estas coordenadas de la filosof?a presidencial y el PLan Austral
del se?or Sourrouille.
Los planteos presidenciales arrancan arpegios de elocuencia en la
garganta de la pitonisa olig?rquica. ?Ojal? ?dice? que el atavismo de
Mitre y Bernardo de Irigoyen ilumine la voluntad de cambio del
presidente, induci?ndolo a derribar de su pedestal a los demagogos e
?dolos de barro que a partir de 1916 apartaron al partido (radical) de
sus m?s nobles tradiciones?
Toda la trayectoria del radicalismo hist?rico se cifra en la lucha
denodada contra esas ?nobles tradiciones?, de las cuales procede en
cambio el rec?ndito y ahora expl?cito pensamiento del doctor Alfons?n,
como Eva de la costilla de Adan.

Jorge Enea Spilimbergo (Junio 1986)





From elishastephens at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  2 20:44:37 2009
From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:44:37 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Cuba's Energy Revolution
Message-ID: <COL112-W634A2AE462EDF722459E3AD7890@phx.gbl>


Links and formatting (and "Table 1") in the original:
 http://lefti.blogspot.com/2009/04/cubas-energy-revolution.html

Two years ago I wrote about an important film entitled "How Cuba Survived Peak Oil." It tells the story of how a planned, organized economy was able to respond to an economic catastrophe (the loss of the Soviet bloc as a trading partner) by making massive changes in the way it "did business." The film focuses on the huge change in agriculture, in which Cuba shifted a remarkable 80% of its production to organic farming, reducing its pesticide usage from 21,000 tons in the 80's to less than 1,000 tons. Furthermore 50% of Havana's vegetable needs, and 80-100% of smaller cities, were able to be fulfilled with urban agriculture, thus reducing transportation costs (and fuel usage). "How Cuba Survived Peak Oil" also deals with Cuban efforts in other areas (e.g., solar power), but agriculture is its focus.

In the last few years, Cuba has extended its efforts in energy conservation to other areas - widespread distribution of CFLs, replacement of old appliances with energy efficient ones, etc. As a result of these changes, Cuba is the only country in the world which is ranked by the U.N. "sustainable" in its ecological footprint while simultaneously being ranked "high" on the "human development index." Obviously it's easy to have a "sustainable" - in the ecological sense - economy if people are living in more primitive conditions; doing so while providing education, health care, jobs, housing, electricity, and so on to the population isn't nearly as easy, as evidenced by the fact that only Cuba, with its planned, socialist economy, has been able to accomplish it.

This accomplishment is the subject of an extremely valuable, fact-filled article in, of all places, "Renewable Energy World." Here are some "bottom line" facts from the article:

    [Cuba] is currently consuming 34% of the kerosene, 40% of the LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) and 80% of the gasoline it used to consume before the implementation of the Energy Revolution a mere two years earlier. Cuba?s per capita energy consumption is now at a level one-eighth of that in the US, while access to health services, education levels, and life expectancy are still some of the top ranking in the world, as Table 1, below shows.

One of the motivators, as you might expect, was Fidel Castro:

    As President Fidel Castro explained in a May 2006 address to the Cuban Electric Utility company (UNE): "We are not waiting for fuel to fall from the sky, because we have discovered, fortunately, something much more important ? energy conservation, which is like finding a great oil deposit."

Of course there are a lot of people in other countries who have said precisely the same thing. The difference is that they don't hold state power, or, if they do, they still wield that power on behalf of corporate profits rather than people's needs. Because if they did the latter, they could do this:

    Their programme to allow people to switch their incandescent bulbs to more efficient compact fluorescents, free of charge, was met with complete success. In six months over nine million incandescent light bulbs, close to 100% of the bulbs used in the whole country, were changed to compact fluorescents ? making Cuba the first country in the world to completely eliminate inefficient tungsten filament lighting.

What else can you do with state power? Here are some examples:

    In order to get the word out to even more of the population, the mass media was employed. For instance, you never see advertising for commercial products on Cuban highways, instead scattered across the country are dozens of billboards promoting energy conservation. There is also a weekly television show dedicated to energy issues, and articles appear weekly in national newspapers espousing renewable energy, efficiency, and conservation. In 2007 alone there were over 8000 articles and TV spots dedicated to energy efficiency issues.

There's so much more in this article, information about improvements in distributed energy generation, energy transmission, wind energy, and on and on, I can only say please read it. I'll close with the article's close, however:

    The rest of the world should follow Cuba?s lead, for only a true global energy revolution will allow us to seriously confront the dire environmental problems that the world now faces.

A government of the bought and paid for, by the lobbyists, and for the corporations, will unfortunately not be able to accomplish that revolution. Only a government of the people, by the people, and for the people will be able to do so. Which is why Cuba is the only country in the world that has been able to do what it has done.



Eli Stephens
 Left I on the News
 http://lefti.blogspot.com


_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail?: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. 
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage1_042009

From sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com  Thu Apr  2 20:55:35 2009
From: sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com (sobuadhaigh at hushmail.com)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:55:35 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Guns, Greensboro, and the CWP
Message-ID: <20090403025535.C0EF928056@smtp.hushmail.com>

Nada wrote:

> After the CWP calmed down, we were able to build
>a mass march in solidarity with them after
>the incident, or don't you remember that? I was there,
>as were about 10,000 others or more. The problem was
> that the CWP actually wanted to bring guns to the rally
>as if they hadn't already demonstrated their incompetence
>with fire arms already, it would only be a huge
>provocation. The CWP, finally, was talked out of it
>and I think them for this.

Our memories differ comrade, and I take exception
to the way you portray the militants of the CWP.
I was never a member but I had very close friends who
were and when I heard the news of the Klan ambush
I had a few sick hours wondering if I had lost some
 of them. It was an ambush that was criminally 
facilitated by the Greensboro PD and there is really 
nothing they could have done about it once the Klan 
opened up on them. You crack about "incompetence 
with firearms" is distasteful and totally uncalled for.
 Some of the very best that group had to offer died 
that day. Whatever mistakes of rhetoric or ultra left 
posturing they made did not kill them. They
died for the crime of being communists who had
 joined their lives with the most oppressed sectors
of  the working class in the most Klan infested state 
in the union.

After the murders the funeral march was armed, 
complete with an honor guard carrying shotguns.
 It really didn't make any difference that the shotguns
 were unloaded (via their negotiations with the state police)
 because a large percentage of the marchers that made 
it past the road blocks were carrying and I do not blame 
them one bit. I did not get to the funeral march but 
if I would have I would have been carrying a weapon
 too.

I was also at the large solidarity march and I
can tell you exactly what the CWP position on the
weapons was and how it was expressed to their
members. I know because I traveled with a van load
of CWP members from Texas. Just before we left
a communiqu? was read to everyone stating that
the CWP had been expelled form the organizing
committee because of the CWP position on arms.
They did not call for their members to bring weapons
nor for anyone else to either. What they refused to
do is prohibit their members from arming themselves
and they held the position that it was wrong to
publicly announce that they would be disarmed.
At that point the organizer said that they were
going to march anyway and offered anybody who
didn't want to go a chance to back out given
the chance that CWP contingents might then
be targeted by the police.

At the rally before hand Rev. Joseph Lowry spoke
and just before it was time to march he asked
those in the crowd to turn in any weapons to a
parade marshal where they would be secured
and given back at the end of the event. It was the
weirdest thing I have ever heard at a rally.

During the march the CWP split up their
contingents into small groups and had
them scattered throughout the length
of the march. There were no incidents
I saw although there were plenty of cops
in riot gear marching around and trying
to look intimidating. That night I stayed in
a public housing project with a black family
that shared their home with communists that
had driven half way across the country to
be there. On the wall were newspaper 
articles of the massacre next to a faded old
newspaper photo of JFK and Martin Luther King.

As fractured and undeniably incompetent
as much of the left is in this country, let us
remember the sacrifice of gallant comrades
for what it is  and give them the respect they 
deserve. In case you've forgotten their names, 
I have not.

Cesar Cauce
Bill Sampson 
Sandi Smith 
Dr. James Waller  
Dr. Michael Nathan

--
Can't afford college?  Click here for information on receiving financial aid.
 http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/BLSrjkqkGxEqc5xJUZO01kH13RRbm6CvfVa2VJWFVntxIwDfnpb3iw1UuKs/



From marvgandall at videotron.ca  Thu Apr  2 21:09:19 2009
From: marvgandall at videotron.ca (Marv Gandall)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:09:19 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
	<239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
	<1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
	<54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
	<b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad>
	<b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart>
	<b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com>
	<DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV>
	<C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta>
Message-ID: <7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV>

Joaquin mistakenly believes we have a disagreement about the political
context in the 30s and today. He writes:

> The DIFFERENCE between the first years of the great depression and today
> is
> that back then, there WAS a real working class movement. Hundreds of
> thousands of workers had been to school with the Socialist Party or the
> Wobblies; the Communist Party had thousands of members.

I had written:

"What differed immensely, of course, was that there was a vigorous and
growing international socialist movement embedded in the unions and other
working class organizations, whose influence extended even into the US. CP
and other socialist activists in the unions and other mass organizations
became the catalysts and organizers of the subsequent upsurge."

We do disagree, however, about the extent to which US radicals were
influenced by foreign developments. Joaquin says "viewing the U.S. class
movement as an expression or outgrowth of the international movement is
fundamentally mistaken. The class movement that existed in the United States
(with ups and downs) from the late 1800's to the mid-1900's was the result
of the internal class contradictions of American society, not foreign
influences."

Well, it was both. Joaquin, to my surprise, ignores the ideological and
organizational ties which bound successive generations of American social
democrats and Marxists, many of them politically educated abroad, to each of
the three Internationals. The history of the US Socialist Party can't be
written without reference to the British Labour Party, which it drew upon as
a model, any less than the history of the CPUSA can be viewed apart from
it's relationship to the Soviet Union. There was widespread admiration even
among the mass of US workers who remained staunch New Deal Democrats for the
full employment economy of the USSR and it's support of working class
struggles against fascism in Spain and elsewhere.

I'd also like to see Joaquin expand on his view that the relative political
passivity of the current generation of US workers is mainly the result of
it's continuing to "bribed" by imperialism. The condition of the US working
class has, in fact, worsened over the past three decades when it should,
according to this logic, have improved during a period when US imperialism
rose to unchallenged supremacy precipitated by the collapse of the USSR, the
transformation of China, the decline of the trade unions and left-wing
parties in the advanced capitalist countries, and the failure of left-led
resistance movements in the oppressed ones. It seems particularly amiss to
allude to bribery in the context of the even more abrupt deterioration of US
living standards which has accompanied the current crisis.


.



From jeremy at infowells.com  Thu Apr  2 22:40:08 2009
From: jeremy at infowells.com (Jerry Wells)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:40:08 -0800
Subject: [Marxism] World Depression: Regional Wars and the Decline of the US
 Empire -	by James Petras
Message-ID: <1238733609.5665.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>

FYI- 

World Depression: Regional Wars and the Decline of the US Empire
Part I
Global Research, March 30, 2009

by Prof. James Petras


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12955


Introduction

            All the idols of capitalism over the past three decades
crashed.  The assumptions and presumptions, paradigm and prognosis of
indefinite progress under liberal free market capitalism have been
tested and have failed.  We are living the end of an entire epoch:
Experts everywhere witness the collapse of the US and world financial
system, the absence of credit for trade and the lack of financing for
investment.  A world depression, in which upward of a quarter of the
world?s labor force will be unemployed, is looming.  The biggest decline
in trade in recent world history ? down 40% year to year ? defines the
future.  The immanent bankruptcies of the biggest manufacturing
companies in the capitalist world haunt Western political leaders.  The
?market? as a mechanism for allocating resources and the government of
the US as the ?leader? of the global economy have been discredited.
(Financial Times, March 9, 2009)  All the assumptions about ?self-
stabilizing markets? are demonstrably false and outmoded.  The rejection
of public intervention in the market and the advocacy of supply-side
economics have been discredited even in the eyes of their practitioners.
Even official circles recognize that ?inequality of income? contributed
to the onset of the economic crash and should be corrected.  Planning,
public ownership, nationalization are on the agenda while socialist
alternatives have become almost respectable.  





From sabocat59 at mac.com  Thu Apr  2 21:52:06 2009
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (sabocat59 at mac.com)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 03:52:06 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] YADL
Message-ID: <174406169-1238730845-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-422933540-@bxe1227.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Marvin Gandall wrote:

 There was widespread admiration even among the mass of US workers who remained staunch New Deal Democrats for the full employment economy of the USSR and it's support of working class struggles against fascism in Spain and elsewhere.
---------------------------------

You must be joking.  If you had written "perceived" before "support of" the sentence would be more acceptable. The only class the Stalinists supported in Spain was the bourgeoisie. But they seemed more interested in looting Spain's Treasury than anything else.  That and killing anarchists and Trotskyists. 

Greg McDonald
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


From srobin21 at comcast.net  Thu Apr  2 23:20:53 2009
From: srobin21 at comcast.net (Steven L. Robinson)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:20:53 -0800
Subject: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!
References: <20090402192440.7f02e751@crashcart><1680134377.2695431238714921476.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<BLU0-SMTP4C52A7C902539F70C3F42B4890@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <000b01c9b41b$f67e7890$54f2fea9@noir>

Well, in this particular instance, the Judge is likely going  to decide some
factual issues in order to determine whether or not to reinstate Churchill.
It is not unusual for a judge to hear and decide equitable defenses in a
wrongful termination case.  For instance, if the University were claiming -
as employers often do - that it had uncovered evidence of misconduct after
firing Churchill, that defense (known as "after acquired evidence") would in
most jurisdictions be heard and decided by the judge after the jury rendered
its verdict. SR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Fidler" <rfidler_8 at sympatico.ca>
To: <srobin21 at comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!


> Actually, the jury decides factual issues (given the law, what does the
> evidence show?). The judge decides the legal issues, advises the jury on
> them, and rules on the equitable remedies (such as specific performance,
or
> in this case reinstatement).
>
> -----Original Message-----

>
> Reinstatement is an "equitable" remedy, decided by a court and not a jury,
> which only decides "legal"  issues.  [snip]



From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 22:53:56 2009
From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:53:56 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Cuba's Energy Revolution
Message-ID: <49D59664.2000902@gmail.com>

While Cuba's reaction to the cut off of Russian oil was an amazing 
example of self-reliance, it was also a human disaster for all Cubans. 
Power was cut off even more than it had been prior to the post-Soviet 
Special Period resulting in increases in disease brought on by lack of 
refrigeration, lighting, and other energy starved resources. That Cuba's 
excellent health care infrastructure helped mitigate this tremendously, 
again a socialist example of self-reliance and pro-human planning, the 
same system received a big hit from this.

Energy didn't only effect agriculture, it effects *everything*. And the 
lack of it, forced on any people, should not be glorified, it should be 
avoided, if possible.

I thought Fidel's quote in the article...

"As President Fidel Castro explained in a May 2006 address to the Cuban 
Electric Utility company (UNE): "We are not waiting for fuel to fall 
from the sky, because we have discovered, fortunately, something much 
more important ? energy conservation, which is like finding a great oil 
deposit."

...is notably ironic. Because in *fact*, Cuba has found a huge "great 
oil deposit" (in conjunction with a Norwegian oil exploration company) 
off it's north western coast and is soon to be put Cuba in the big 
leagues in terms of oil reserves. It might even become an oil exporting 
country.

The problem with Cuba's energy infrastructure is it's almost total 
reliance on oil to generate electricity. It has no choice in this matter 
as it has no large natural gas reserves big enough to run a power plant 
(yet). The majority of the oil imported to Cuba from Venezuela goes to 
power plants, not transport. Energy efficiency projects can bottom out 
when all forms of efficiency in an already energy starved economy are 
implemented. But reliance on oil, in old, inefficient power plants, is 
probably Cuba's biggest problem to tackle.

Cuba is exploring all means of energy production. They produce 
electricity from bio-mass, such as sugar refinery left-overs, some major 
solar PV investment and wind. It has started to implement 
"run-of-the-river" hydro and micro-hydro. But over 90% of it's power 
still comes from oil.

D. Walters


From markalause at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 23:00:22 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 01:00:22 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] ward churchill wins!!
In-Reply-To: <000b01c9b41b$f67e7890$54f2fea9@noir>
References: <20090402192440.7f02e751@crashcart>
	<1680134377.2695431238714921476.JavaMail.root@sz0140a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
	<BLU0-SMTP4C52A7C902539F70C3F42B4890@phx.gbl>
	<000b01c9b41b$f67e7890$54f2fea9@noir>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904022200i51dedbf4sde6a58dae5f459d9@mail.gmail.com>

What has usually happened in those cases like this that have been
close enough for me know about, they reach a cash settlement.  Back
pay, future pay you'd be getting, damages, etc.  In the end, if the
employers really don't want someone, retaking the position leaves you
open to having all sorts of problems that make the job less than
desirable.

But maybe it's been different in other areas.

ML


From holmoff10 at hotmail.com  Thu Apr  2 23:11:18 2009
From: holmoff10 at hotmail.com (Leonardo Kosloff)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 05:11:18 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] Waiting for Gobama
In-Reply-To: <mailman.100.1238726446.2555.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
References: <mailman.100.1238726446.2555.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <BLU136-W186A1885E8912027D7E2ABA7890@phx.gbl>


Louis Proyect wrote:

 

"Joaquin Bustelo wrote:
> Basically the explanation is the tremendously privileged position of the
> U.S. working class and population generally in relation to that of working
> people in the Third World. 

It is not that simple. I don't think that American workers are that much 
more privileged than French workers but they are raising all kinds of 
hell and are backing the new anti-capitalist party massively.

I think that Joaquin is on the right track by looking at privilege, but 
there is not an unmediated relationship between wages and consciousness. 
In the 1970s 1980s, two of the most militant oppositions to neoliberal 
changes in the economy came from independent truck drivers and airline 
controllers, who were mostly white. The truck drivers recruited antiwar 
students from UCLA to form picket lines on their behalf while going out 
to snipe at scab trucks on the Interstate. Meanwhile, it was a common 
occurrence for the airline controllers to speak at Militant Labor 
Forums. I think that if a sane left existed in this period, we could 
have built something like the French anticapitalist party. But we were 
insane at the time. This time around, let's fight for sanity in the 
revolutionary movement."

 

Here's a relevant piece, one which apparently Joaqu?n contributed to himself, http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/128


 

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009

From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 23:32:17 2009
From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:32:17 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Guns, Greensboro, and the CWP
Message-ID: <49D59F61.500@gmail.com>

Nothing you actually wrote contradicts what I said. I was in NY when the 
negotiations with the WVO/CWP were taking place. Like everyone, we were 
shocked at what happened in Greensboro. Thus the move to build a 
solidarity demo in Greensboro that would be a public expression of our 
outrage at the murders and, placing the blame on system for breeding 
such racism there.

The WVO/CWPs *initial* position was to bring weapons. No one, absolutely 
no one, sobuadhaigh, supported this. I was not involved in these 
negotiations, I only had it reported to me as they were occurring. The 
WVO/CWP eventually *agreed* to no weapons.I never said anything about a 
"public announcement". I said they agreed to this as a precondition for 
our, and other groups involvement. I never heard of them getting tossed 
out of the coalition, although it doesn't surprise me. If it was going 
to be bigger than the immediate periphery of the CWP, it had to be this 
way. We also had to assume that an formal "position" TO bring weapons 
would be immediately known to the cops in any event.

I was also at the march. The biggest contingent came from NYC involving 
all left groups and, many Black and Puerto Rican liberation/civil rights 
organizations. The town was deserted, the cops got all the businesses to 
close and they shutdown, locked down, the entire march-route. I'm sure 
you remember this. Quite strange.

That the CWP had "groups scattered" about suggesting that armed groups 
were inside what turned out to be a very peaceful demonstration of 
solidarity just shows me how irresponsible and stupid the CWP were. They 
had not yet grown out of this infantile leftism that caused the CWP so 
many problems in the first place. (Obviously if such groups were 
actually armed,  essentially carrying concealed weapons, they were 
bringing, what in essence are, knives to a gun fight). But I'm sure it 
made them feel good.

David


From christopher.hutch at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 04:55:05 2009
From: christopher.hutch at gmail.com (Christopher Hutchinson)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 06:55:05 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] General Strike Comics: Zapata Speaks
Message-ID: <c81bf1a60904030355v57006214v80f36f0b1c183849@mail.gmail.com>

Recently a rare old film strip was unearthed by General Strike Comics
starring E. Zapata and his insights on the reality of "Guest Worker"
programs.  How he knew so much about 2009 is beyond the folks at General
Strike but see for yourself...

www.GeneralStrikeComics.com <http://www.generalstrikecomics.com/>

keep well,

christopher

From bbauerly at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 06:35:50 2009
From: bbauerly at gmail.com (brad bauerly)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:35:50 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] G-20 Pledges to radically do more of the same.
Message-ID: <55868ddf0904030535i642cb1edrb39b7f479b3cf6b@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk/resources/en/PDF/final-communique


Who was that who said the US was not hegemonic anymore? What about China's
SDR alt currency plan and its challenge to the dollar?  I like the part
where they say "we recognize the human impact of the crisis", well what are
we worried about then.

Brad

-- 
Brad A. Bauerly
PhD Candidate
Political Science
York University
Toronto, Canada
647-345-2072
bauerly at yorku.ca

From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Apr  3 07:28:29 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:28:29 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Education trade journals on Ward Churchill case
Message-ID: <49D60EFD.5080305@panix.com>

http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/04/15190n.htm
Today's News

Friday, April 3, 2009

Churchill Wins Lawsuit, but Only $1 in Damages

By PETER SCHMIDT

A jury ruled on Thursday that the University of Colorado had illegally 
fired Ward Churchill in response to statements protected by the First 
Amendment. But it awarded the controversial ethnic-studies scholar only 
a token $1 in damages, leaving experts on academic freedom confused as 
to exactly what message other colleges should draw from the verdict.

Judge Larry J. Naves, who presided over the four-week trial in a state 
court in Denver, gave both sides 30 days to file motions related to the 
next phase of the proceedings, a hearing in which the judge will 
determine Mr. Churchill?s status at the university. Judge Naves could 
demand that Mr. Churchill be reinstated at the University of Colorado at 
Boulder, or he could order the university to pay Mr. Churchill a lump 
sum for money he could have earned if he had kept his university job, 
which paid $94,000 a year.

Mr. Churchill?s lawyers said they hoped to have him back teaching in 
university classrooms by the fall. That outcome, however, is likely to 
be strongly resisted by the university, which continues to stand by its 
conclusions that Mr. Churchill committed academic misconduct that 
merited his dismissal in 2007.

In awarding Mr. Churchill only $1 in damages, the jury rejected a call 
by his chief lawyer, David A. Lane, to award an amount that would send a 
message ?in a big way? to faculty members and students at colleges 
around the nation.

After the verdict was read, however, Mr. Churchill jokingly held up a $1 
bill and waved it. Speaking to reporters in a courthouse hallway, he 
said, ?What was asked for and what was delivered was justice.? He added 
that his lawsuit had exposed ?the fraud of the university?s campaign and 
collaboration with private right-wing interests.?

Mr. Lane called the jury?s decision ?a great victory for the First 
Amendment and academic freedom,? and said he expects to recoup hundreds 
of thousands of dollars in legal fees from the university.

The University of Colorado system?s president, Bruce D. Benson, issued a 
written statement that said, "While we respect the jury?s decision, we 
strongly disagree.? The verdict, he said, ?doesn?t change the fact that 
21 of Ward Churchill?s faculty peers on three separate panels 
unanimously found he engaged in deliberate and repeated plagiarism, 
falsification, and fabrication that fell below the minimum standards of 
professional conduct.?

Mr. Bensen called the jury?s $1 award for punitive damages ?an 
indication of what they thought of the value of Ward Churchill?s claim.? 
He said the university was weighing what to do next.

'Speech Was the Flashpoint'

The trial in Mr. Churchill?s lawsuit lasted nearly four weeks, during 
which 45 witnesses took the stand. Among those who testified were 
Colorado?s former governor, Bill Owens; a long list of administrators 
and faculty members involved in the university?s investigation of 
charges that Mr. Churchill had committed academic misconduct; and 
several scholars in Mr. Churchill?s field of expertise, American Indian 
studies.

The university?s lawyers focused on trying to show that the university 
had treated Mr. Churchill fairly and had given him due process in the 
proceedings that led to his firing for scholarly misconduct. Mr. 
Churchill?s lawyers sought to convince the jury that his dismissal was 
in response to the uproar over an essay in which he compared many of the 
office workers killed in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the 
World Trade Center to a Nazi bureaucrat, and said they were not truly 
innocent victims.

The six-member jury?consisting of four women and two men, all of whom 
appeared to be in their 20s or early 30s?deliberated for 10 hours before 
reaching its verdict late Thursday afternoon. Earlier in the day, it had 
tipped its hand by returning to the courtroom to ask Judge Naves if it 
needed to be unanimous in its decision on how much to award Mr. 
Churchill, and whether it had the option of awarding him no money at 
all. Judge Naves said yes, its decision had to be unanimous, and that $1 
was the least it could award Mr. Churchill if it decided in his favor.

Mr. Churchill?s legal team appeared to suffer a major setback on 
Tuesday, when Judge Naves dismissed one of the professor's two claims 
against the university?that its investigation of Mr. Churchill was, in 
itself, an act of retaliation. But the jurors' responses to the various 
questions Judge Naves had posed to them to shape their deliberations 
showed that its members had clearly agreed with the lawsuit?s other key 
claim, that Mr. Churchill?s termination was a retaliatory act.

The jury concluded that the controversy over Mr. Churchill?s essay, 
which was protected under the First Amendment, was ?a substantial or 
motivating factor? in the college?s decision to discharge him. It also 
said that the university had failed to show that he would have been 
fired even if he had never made his controversial remarks.

Ken McConnellogue, a university spokesman, said he disagreed with the 
verdict but could see how the jury came to its decision. "The speech was 
the flashpoint that got all of this going,? he said. ?But we maintain we 
ruled early and said often it wasn?t about the speech, it was about his 
academic misconduct. Those two things were in such close proximity that 
you can see where the jury would make that connection.?

Cause for Caution

Robert M. O?Neil, a prominent First Amendment scholar who heads the 
Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, in 
Charlottesville, Va., said the jury?s verdict was so ?superficially 
inconsistent? that he found it hard to guess what implications it might 
have for colleges elsewhere.

?It just seems to be there is a curious paradox,? he said, between the 
jury?s finding that university officials violated Mr. Churchill?s rights 
and its decision to give him a nominal damage award suggesting he had 
not been harmed in any way. ?I find it very hard to reconcile those 
conclusions.?

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University 
Professors, expressed concern before the verdict that a jury of people 
without extensive backgrounds in academe would fail to grasp the nuances 
of controversy among scholars. He said a decision in the university?s 
favor would have had ?a chilling effect? on academic freedom, sending ?a 
message that, justly or unjustly, your recourse to the courts is limited 
if you feel that you have been basically sacrificed for political reasons.?

Stephen H. Balch, chairman of the National Association of Scholars, 
issued a written statement calling the jury?s verdict a ?sorry result? 
that ?will only further attenuate an already fraying relationship 
between the protections of academic freedom and their corollary 
obligations,? such as commitment to honesty.

?The outcome of the Churchill trial is unfortunate, but it was a trial 
that in a better academic world would never have occurred,? Mr. Balch 
said. ?The best point at which to protect professionalism is not career 
exit, but career entrance and stage-by-stage thereafter.?

Ada Meloy, general counsel for the American Council on Education, said, 
?I think colleges recognized, from the fact that this went as far as it 
went, that they have to be very careful about respecting faculty 
members? First Amendment rights" and also carefully follow their 
procedures in disciplining faculty.?

David Montero reported from Denver.

---

(Go to article for embedded links)

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/03/churchill
A ($1) Win for Ward Churchill
April 3, 2009

More than four years after his comments on 9/11 set off a furor, and 
four weeks into a trial, a Colorado jury on Thursday afternoon found 
that the University of Colorado did not fire Ward Churchill for 
legitimate reasons, but for his political views. A judge will later 
determine whether Churchill can return to his tenured job as an ethnic 
studies professor at the university's Boulder campus. The jury was 
responsible for awarding damages, and gave Churchill only $1.

To find in Churchill's favor, the jury had to determine that his 
political views were a substantial or motivating factor in his 
dismissal, and that he would not have been fired but for the controversy 
over his opinions.

Churchill appeared outside the court shortly after the verdict was 
announced and declared that he had been vindicated. The University of 
Colorado "has been exposed for what it is," he said. The university "not 
only violated my rights, but my students' rights and the community's 
rights." Churchill said he hopes to soon win reinstatement and that he 
was not bothered by the small sum awarded by the jury. "I did not ask 
for money. I asked for justice," he said.

Bruce Benson, president of the University of Colorado, issued this 
statement after the verdict: "While we respect the jury?s decision, we 
strongly disagree. It doesn?t change the fact that more than 20 of Ward 
Churchill?s faculty peers on three separate panels unanimously found he 
engaged in deliberate and repeated plagiarism, falsification and 
fabrication that fell below the minimum standards of professional 
conduct. The jury?s award is an indication of what they thought of the 
value of Ward Churchill?s claim. We will examine our legal options."

The four-week trial in the case repeated much of the debate over 
Churchill over the last few years -- and both sides had key weaknesses. 
The University of Colorado maintained that it fired Churchill for 
scholarly misconduct, but Churchill was able to point to considerable 
evidence that the university faced intense political pressure to get rid 
of him. Churchill meanwhile tried to portray himself as the victim of a 
conservative witch hunt. But the university presented evidence that his 
scholarship had been repeatedly found lacking, and that some scholars 
who found his conduct unprofessional shared many of his political views.

Given the coming hearings over reinstatement and the potential for 
appeals, it seems likely that Thursday's verdict -- while significant -- 
is hardly the end of the battles over Ward Churchill.

An Invitation and Multiple Investigations

Ward Churchill started teaching at Boulder in 1978 and won tenure in 
1991. The author of numerous books and essays about Native American 
history, Churchill uses fiery rhetoric to describe the wrongs committed 
by the United States. Over the years prior to 2005, Churchill gained 
both fans and critics in Native American studies and became a popular 
figure on the campus lecture circuit -- although he tended to attract 
attention from those who shared his views, and he was not widely known 
outside academe.

That all changed when he accepted an invitation to speak at Hamilton 
College, a liberal arts college in upstate New York, in early 2005. Some 
professors there, who did not feel Churchill was an ideal speaker, 
circulated some of his writings, including an essay with the the now 
notorious remark comparing World Trade Center victims on 9/11 to "little 
Eichmanns." Within days, the controversy spread, with talk radio hosts, 
politicians, and the survivors of 9/11 victims expressing shock that a 
man with such views would be given a platform on a college campus. 
Hamilton stood by its invitation, on academic freedom grounds, but in 
the end called off the appearance, citing threats of violence.

At that point, the discussion shifted to Colorado, where numerous 
politicians -- from the governor on down -- were demanding that 
Churchill be fired. After several weeks of reviews, the university 
announced that the 9/11 essay could not be grounds for dismissal, given 
Churchill's rights to free expression and academic freedom and the lack 
of any evidence that his political views interfered with his teaching. 
But at the same time, Colorado announced that Churchill could be 
investigated and possibly fired for scholarly misconduct. That was 
because -- once the controversy broke -- scholars, journalists and 
others checked out Churchill's scholarship and quickly heard from 
researchers who said that Churchill had plagiarized or distorted their work.

Colorado then started a series of investigations in which various 
faculty panels examined the charges and considered potential 
punishments. While the panels were far from united in urging Churchill 
to be fired, there was consensus that he was guilty of repeated, 
intentional academic misconduct -- plagiarism, fabrication, 
falsification and more. That was May of 2006. After still more reviews, 
the University of Colorado Board of Regents fired him in July of 2007. 
Churchill vowed to sue to get his job back, and that led to this year's 
trial. There were not many bombshells in the trial itself, in part 
because both Churchill and the University of Colorado have spent so much 
time issuing statements and reports and counter-reports over the last 
few years. (A University of Denver law class has blogged the entire trial.)

What the Verdict Means

Ever since the Churchill controversy broke, academics and culture 
warriors have debated the broader significance of his case. (Some of the 
pieces published by Inside Higher Ed by authors defending his dismissal 
may be found here and here. And some of the pieces questioning the way 
Colorado handled the case may be viewed here and here.)

 From a technical standpoint, Churchill was the winner Thursday -- and 
he waved a dollar bill outside the court to mark his triumph. But it 
remains unclear whether he will win back his job, which he has said 
repeatedly is his goal in the litigation.

In the immediate aftermath of the verdict Thursday, some academic 
observers were criticizing the verdict and others the small award. 
Stephen H. Balch, chairman of the National Association of Scholars, 
issued a statement in which he said that "the decision for Churchill 
will only further attenuate an already fraying relationship between the 
protections of academic freedom and their corollary obligations. 
Churchill is the poster boy for academic irresponsibility in both 
substance and style. That he wins today in court, helped somehow by his 
very notoriety, can only fortify the sense that anything goes."

He added that "if there is a lesson here it is that universities must be 
proactive in the enforcement of standards. Waiting for a public scandal 
with all its attendant complications is hardly the policy of choice. 
Universities must build a culture of responsibility that affects every 
aspect of institutional operation, but especially scholarship and teaching."

Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 
said in an interview Thursday that she was frustrated by the verdict. 
"This sends the harmful message to students that plagiarism and 
fabrication are acceptable if you cry First Amendment loud enough in 
your defense," she said.

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University 
Professors, said that a key factor over the long term will be whether 
Churchill wins his job back. If he does not win his job back, the 
victory is not much of a victory, Nelson said, as the $1 in damages 
suggests that "the jury considers the loss of an academic job as 
completely trivial."

As AAUP president, he declined to discuss his views on the case itself. 
But as an individual, he said that there was much that was troublesome 
about the way Colorado reacted to the Churchill controversy. "I did not 
feel that the charges made against him should have been adjudicated in a 
disciplinary proceeding," he said. "They should have been left to the 
ordinary process of academic debate and discussion."

And if a review of Churchill's work was truly needed, Nelson said, it 
should have been "a comprehensive review" of his career, not just an 
examination of the complaints filed against Churchill. Further, he said 
that the committee needed more expertise in Native American studies and 
people who might be familiar with -- and not hostile to -- Churchill's 
approach to scholarship.

Nelson also questioned the idea that Colorado treated Churchill fairly. 
The university that turned on Churchill when he became controversial had 
hired and promoted him, even though he never hid his views or writings. 
"Colorado knew what it was getting when it hired him," Nelson said.
? Scott Jaschik


From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Fri Apr  3 07:31:29 2009
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:31:29 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_soldiers=E2=80=99_T-shirts_reveal_the?=
 =?utf-8?q?_country=E2=80=99s_ruthless_state_of_mind?=
Message-ID: <bf2.4d168cce.370769b1@aol.com>




 
PAJU (Palestinian and Jewish Unity) # 425, April 3,  2009 
?Dead babies, bombed mosques?  
Israeli soldiers? T-shirts reveal the country?s ruthless state  of mind 

The Israeli newspaper Ha?aretz created a storm of controversy recently when  
it revealed that Israeli soldiers were designing, buying and wearing T-shirts  
such as the following : 
    *   A sharpshooter's T-shirt shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a  
bull's-eye superimposed on her belly, with the slogan, "1 shot, 2 kills."  
    *   A T-shirt for infantry snipers bears the inscription "Better use 
Durex,"  next to a picture of a dead Palestinian baby, with his weeping mother and 
a  teddy bear beside him.  
    *   The Lavi battalion produced a shirt featuring a drawing of a soldier 
next  to a young woman with bruises, and the slogan, "Bet you got raped!"  
    *   The Haruv battalion printed T-shirts declaring, "We won't chill 'til 
we  confirm the kill". "Confirming the kill" means shooting a bullet into an  
enemy victim's head from  close range ? a practice the army claims doesn't 
exist.  A shirt has an image of a child with the slogan "Smaller - harder!", a  
reference to the difficulty of hitting smaller targets from a distance.  A 
shirt for soldiers of the Lavi battalion, who spent three years in the  West 
Bank, reads: "We came, we saw, we destroyed!" - alongside images of  weapons, an 
angry soldier and a Palestinian village with a ruined mosque in  the center.  
Some sniper T-shirts have featured  a drawing of a Palestinian boy - not a 
terrorist - with  the slogan 'Don't bother running because you'll die tired'.  
There is a Golani infantry brigade T-shirt of a soldier raping a girl, and  
underneath it says, 'No virgins, no terror attacks.' 
Why are such pictures and slogans so popular? Israeli sociologist Dr. Orna 
Sasson-Levy said  that this revolting phenomenon is "part of a radicalization 
process the entire  country is undergoing? There is a perception that the 
Palestinian is not a  person, a human being entitled to basic rights, and therefore 
anything may be  done to him."  
Adapted from "Dead Palestinian babies and bombed mosques - IDF  fashion 
2009", by Israeli journalist Uri Blau, printed in Israel?s leading  newspaper Ha?
aretz on March 20, 2009. Full text at : 
_http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072466.html_ (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072466.html) 
Distributed  by PAJU (Palestinian and Jewish Unity)  
_WWW.PAJUMONTREAL.ORG_ (http://www.pajumontreal.org/)  
**************Eat Great & Lose Weight FASTER! Start the South Beach Diet 
Online FREE! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221394870x1201432948/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B213623126%3B35100424%3Bk)

From elishastephens at hotmail.com  Fri Apr  3 07:38:18 2009
From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 06:38:18 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Cuba's Energy Revolution
Message-ID: <COL112-W5E6D375E229C8DF3305CED7890@phx.gbl>


DWalters wrote:

"While Cuba's reaction to the cut off of Russian oil was an amazing example of self-reliance, it was also a human disaster for all Cubans."

I do hope that was a poorly written sentence. "Cuba's reaction to the cut off" was what kept Cubans alive, it was the cut off which was the "human disaster," not Cuba's reaction.

'Energy didn't only effect agriculture, it effects *everything*. And the lack of it, forced on any people, should not be glorified."

I don't think anyone, neither myself nor the Cubans nor the author of the article in question, is "glorifying" the forced lack of energy. What IS worthy of "glorification" is the *saving* of energy, and what is to be "deglorified" is the unnecessary wasting of energy.

"I thought Fidel's quote in the article [about energy conservation] is notably ironic."

Hardly. His statement about conserving energy is an insightful and praiseworthy comment, regardless of whether Cuba finds oil or not. Because whether it does or not, it will still be a finite resource, and one to be used wisely, and no matter how much oil Cuba has, every dollar they save by energy conservation is one more dollar they have to spend on food, medicine, computers, or whatever else they need.

"reliance on oil, in old, inefficient power plants, is probably Cuba's biggest problem to tackle."

One of the things noted in the article is this: "In 2006, Cuba installed 1854 diesel and fuel oil micro-electrical
plants across the country, representing over 3000 MW of decentralized
power in 110 municipalities."


Eli Stephens
 Left I on the News
 http://lefti.blogspot.com


_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail?: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. 
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage1_042009

From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Apr  3 07:41:23 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:41:23 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Stiglitz: "It's going to be bad, very bad"
Message-ID: <49D61203.5090904@panix.com>

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/04/03/stiglitz/print.html

Joseph Stiglitz: "It's going to be bad, very bad"
In an interview, the Nobel Prize-winner and former chief economist at 
the World Bank talks about the Great Depression, Obama's stimulus 
package and today's financial crisis.

By Spiegel staff

Editor's note: This article originally appeared in Der Spiegel.

Apr. 03, 2009

Many people are comparing the financial crisis to the Great Depression. 
Will it really be that bad?

It's going to be bad, very bad. We're experiencing the worst downturn 
since the Great Depression, and we haven't reached the bottom yet. I'm 
very pessimistic. Governments are indeed reacting better today than 
during the global economic crisis. They're lowering interest rates and 
boosting the economy with economic stimulus plans. This is the right 
direction, but it's not enough.

The American government has committed over a trillion dollars to save 
the banks and $789 billion to boost the economy. Do you think this is 
too little?

I do. More than $700 billion sounds like a lot, but it's not. On the one 
hand, a large part of the money will first be given out next year, which 
is too late. On the other, a third of it is drained away by tax cuts. 
They don't really stimulate consumption, because people will save the 
majority of that money. I fear that the effect of the American economic 
stimulus plan won't be even half as big as expected.

At least governments worldwide are bracing themselves against the 
recession, as opposed to the global economic crisis where they 
accelerated the recession through their savings policy.

That's right. That's why I'm confident we'll get off lighter than during 
the Great Depression. On the other hand, there's a series of 
developments that make me very anxious. The state of our financial 
system, for example, is worse than it was 80 years ago.

Hundreds of banks collapsed in the U.S. at that time. Today most of them 
are being saved by the government. What's so bad about that?

The banks that survived 80 years ago continued to lend money. Today many 
banks aren't lending money anymore, above all the large investment 
banks. This will deepen the crisis.

The U.S. government's emergency plan is supposed to prevent this, 
though. The banks receive money from the state so they can continue to 
give loans.

That's the idea, but it doesn't work. We're just throwing money at them 
and they pay billions of it out in bonuses and dividends. We taxpayers 
are being robbed for all intents and purposes in order to reduce the 
losses that some wealthy people bear. This has to be changed.

What do you suggest?

We have to reorganize our bailout system for the financial sector. For 
one thing, any bank that actually lends should get money from the 
government; more money to small and medium-size banks in smaller towns 
and less to Wall Street institutions. The government must also accept 
the consequences when banks become insolvent ...

? and let them go bankrupt?

No, they have to be saved, because the consequences to the monetary 
system would be incalculable. But as a countermeasure, these 
institutions have to be nationalized, which even Alan Greenspan is now 
demanding. Then the government can close those business segments that 
have nothing to do with lending and make sure that the banks no longer 
organize esoteric stock deals that they themselves do not understand.

Today the world is much more intertwined than in the 1920s or 1930s. 
Does this make the fight against the economic crisis easier?

On the contrary, it's going to be more difficult. When a country 
introduces an economic stimulus plan, a large part of the stimulus goes 
abroad. For instance, a U.S. company receiving a road construction order 
from the state buys equipment from Germany, concrete from Mexico and 
engineering services from Great Britain. The incentive to profit from 
the economic situation of one's neighbor is correspondingly great, while 
doing as little as you yourself can do. There is only one solution for 
this: Economic stabilization policy has to be coordinated 
internationally in order to diminish the already dangerous global 
imbalances.

What do you mean by that?

For years the U.S. was the economic powerhouse of the world. It imported 
more goods from abroad than it exported, to the joy of manufacturers in 
Asia or Europe. But this model no longer works. The Americans are 
completely over-indebted. They can't increase their consumption, instead 
they have to save. This is why other global growth has to be increased.

Washington sees it that way, too. In particular, it wants countries with 
strong exports to offer further economic stimulus packages. Do you think 
that's justified?

Absolutely. Export surpluses are counterproductive in times of economic 
crisis. They have to be reduced through economic stimulus programs, for 
example. Economist John Maynard Keynes was even of the opinion that 
surplus countries should be taxed during times of economic crisis.

Which might not go over so well.

That's why we wouldn't go that far. I propose that countries with a 
positive trade balance should stream part of their surplus to the 
International Monetary Fund. This can then stimulate the economy in 
developing countries or prevent the economy from collapsing in Eastern 
Europe.

The global economic crisis following 1929 only really began when 
governments sealed off their respective countries from international 
trade. Is there still a danger of this?

I think it's unlikely that countries will again enter into open 
protectionism. What I do fear is indirect insulation measures like 
financial aid or subsidies. The consequences wouldn't be less serious. 
There is the threat of secret commercial obstacles that could similarly 
greatly restrain global exchange, like tariff increases.

The leaders of the 20 largest industrial nations are meeting in London 
this week to discuss the regulation of financial markets. Will the 
meeting be successful?

I'm skeptical. The American government does talk a lot about stricter 
regulation of financial markets. I doubt that it's serious, though. The 
Americans have always been masters at changing a supposed regulation 
measure into further deregulation.

Do you expect this of the new Obama administration as well?

Obama himself has made clear in many speeches that he wants to prevent 
prospecting in the American financial industry. But Obama is under 
pressure from Wall Street. Even within his own administration, there are 
a lot of officials who are only for cosmetic corrections.

The U.S. is against too much regulation in the financial markets, and 
Germany and Japan would prefer no further economic stimulus packages. 
Can much come out of the G20 summit?

The governments will find the words to put a positive spin on the 
conference. If they can do anything, they can do that. Everyone will say 
that more regulation is necessary and that balance is needed between 
national sovereignty and common action in a globalized world. But how 
much substance will lie behind their words? I'm skeptical.

The economic crisis has severely damaged the economic model of 
finance-driven turbo-capitalism. Will this lead to a renaissance in the 
state economy?

I don't think so. The fall of the Berlin Wall really was a strong 
message that communism does not work as an economic system. The collapse 
of Lehman Brothers on Sept. 15 again showed that unbridled capitalism 
doesn't work either.

Could authoritarian systems like China's be the future?

Besides the two extremes of communism and capitalism, there are 
alternatives, such as Scandinavia or Germany. The Chinese model has 
succeeded very well for their people, but at the price of democratic 
rights. The German social model, however, has worked very well. It could 
also be a model for the U.S. administration.

The crisis began in America, spread to other industrialized nations and 
now threatens the emerging and developing countries. Is the target of 
the community of states to halve global poverty by 2015 still achievable?

Because we don't know how long this crisis will last, it will become 
more difficult to keep to this promise. I'm also pessimistic, for 
example, now that the USA is discussing whether we can still afford 
development aid during the crisis. But there are countries like Japan 
and Germany that have raised their contributions to the IMF and World 
Bank to help the Third World.

Will Africa be the big loser in the crisis?

I'm fearful of that, because even the high growth of 6 percent in Africa 
in the last few years hasn't been enough to permanently fight poverty. A 
lot of the countries on the continent which inherited a low standard of 
education, and no infrastructure from colonialism, have solely focused 
on increasing commodity prices. That was a risky strategy. The IMF's 
structural development policies also contributed to deindustrialization. 
We haven't managed to create a stable foundation for the African economies.

World Bank president Robert Zoellick has said that the industrialized 
nations should direct 0.7 percent of their stimulus packages to the 
developing countries.

That's too little. Take the U.S. example. Each country would receive 
around $5.5 billion per year from $789 billion. It's a lot more than 
nothing, but only a drop when compared to what the countries require, 
namely up to $700 billion in this year alone.

Mr. Stiglitz, thank you for this interview.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Apr  3 07:46:02 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:46:02 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] DP "progressives" cavorting with notorious warhawk
Message-ID: <49D6131A.9020806@panix.com>

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://rebelreports.com//134811/

Why is the Center For American Progress Cavorting With Neocons?
By Jeremy Scahill, Rebel Reports
Posted on April 2, 2009, Printed on April 3, 2009

The Center for American Progress, which was founded by former Clinton 
chief of staff John Podesta in 2003, masqueraded as a ?progressive,? 
semi-anti-war organization through the dark years of the Bush 
administration when it required little political courage to oppose the 
White House and wars that were portrayed as Bush?s or the Republicans?. 
While feigning opposition to the Iraq war, CAP refused to confront 
Democrats over their continued funding of that war. After Obama?s 
election, Podesta, of course, headed the transition team, which swiftly 
appointed hawkish Democrats from the Clinton era, kept on Robert Gates 
and other Republicans, sidelined progressives and in doing so won praise 
from neocons and other Republicans. Now that ?their? guys -- big ?D? 
Democrats -- are back in power, CAP has assumed its rightful place as a 
partisan front group for the Democratic Party?s power structure and for 
selling Obama?s wars to ?progressives.?

As John Stauber, head of the Center for Media and Democracy, has pointed 
out, CAP ?strongly supports Barack Obama?s escalation of the U.S. wars 
in Afghanistan and Pakistan.? This week, CAP is officially unveiling its 
manifesto in support of Obama's aggression against Afghanistan -- a 
report called ?Sustainable Security in Afghanistan: Crafting an 
Effective and Responsible Strategy for the Forgotten Front.? CAP uses 
the language of Empire -- U.S. interests, U.S. national power -- in 
describing its report, saying it is ?the product of the Center?s review 
of U.S interests, goals, and strategy in Afghanistan and the region. 
Bearing in mind the vital U.S interests in the country and South Asia, 
the report concludes that the United States must attempt to build a 
national representative government that is able to govern, defend, and 
sustain itself. The report argues that reaching the ultimate objective 
of a resilient Afghan state will require a comprehensive and long-term 
approach that uses all elements of U.S national power.?

On April 3, CAP is hosting a little release party for the report in the 
form of a public discussion arrogantly titled, ?A New Way Forward in 
Afghanistan,? which includes a leading neoconservative activist, 
Frederick Kagan, one of the lead proponents of the ?surge? in Iraq. In 
addition to being a ?Resident Scholar? at the American Enterprise 
Institute, which was basically Dick Cheney?s bunker away from the bunker 
in the 1990s, Kagan was also a major figure in advocating the agenda of 
the neocon-Project for a New American Century, which molded the Bush 
administration?s conquistador foreign policy. Kagan?s brother Robert 
along with his loony-bin necon buddy William Kristol started a new 
version of PNAC a few weeks ago, called the Foreign Policy Initiative. 
Another key figure in the group is Dan Senor (who is married to CNN?s 
Campbell Brown), formerly L. Paul Bremer?s righthand in Iraq and a 
generally repulsive character. FPI?s primary objective thus far seems to 
be supporting Obama?s Afghanistan policy and encouraging it to get even 
more violent and bloody and open ended. Great bunch of fellas, really. 
See here and here for more on FPI.

So, rather than finding itself allied with anti-war groups and actually 
advocating a progressive agenda, CAP is turning to these vile neocons to 
declare ?A New Way Forward in Afghanistan.?

Jeremy Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most 
Powerful Mercenary Army.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Apr  3 07:54:46 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:54:46 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] New School activism
Message-ID: <49D61526.8070209@panix.com>

(This is great stuff about the New School, where I got my masters 
degree. I should add that I have been contacted by the Radical Student 
Union at Bard College to help them prepare the same kind of material. 
Furthermore, this is the kind of groundbreaking research that was done 
throughout the 60s radicalization and I am very happy to see it being 
revived. I got a big kick out the revelation that fucking Lehman 
Brothers had 2 members on the New School board of trustees. Bard has 
finance capital representatives on their board as well. Someone should 
do a study of the way in which finance capital has gained such a 
preponderant influence on the boards of major universities since the 
1970s. My guess is that banking deregulation and the corporatization of 
the university go hand in hand.)


http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21066
New School Activism and April 4th

April 03, 2009 By Dave Shukla

What Bob Kerrey and Jim Murtha and their administration have done to the 
New School is no joke. What remains after the Fools Day is a University 
with a profound crisis of vision, governance, and worst of all, identity.

Consider what the New School is now connected with. On September 15th, 
2008 Lehman Brothers Financial Holdings declared bankruptcy, and the 
world knew a serious crisis was on hand. Lehman Brothers was making over 
$1 Billion a month in after tax income from investing around the world 
in cheap labor, environmental degradation, torture and war. One of their 
subsidiaries, L-3 Communications, is one of the largest war-profiteers 
in the United States. They are currently facing multiple federal 
lawsuits by Iraqis who were tortured at Abu Ghraib. Two of Lehman 
Brother's executives are on the New School's Board of Trustees. The 
former executive director of L-3 communications, Robert Millard, is the 
Treasurer on the Board of Trustees. In June 2008 the New School 
endowment was over $230 Million. As of March 2009, it is at $169 Million.

Consider what Kerrey himself has brought to the New School. As a member 
of the US Senate in 1999, he voted to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, the 
primary regulation of risk in finance. At the time he said "the concerns 
that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown." 
Kerrey was also one of the authors of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and 
was a founding member of the Committee to Liberate Iraq. He worked 
closely with the neoconservatives on the Project for a New American 
Century as a chief architect and advocate for invading Iraq, arguing in 
2002 that democracy could be created through the barrel of a gun, but 
not on the cheap. This consummate neoliberal is the man who was 
installed as President of the New School in 2001 to do two things: grow 
the endowment and raise the profile of the University.

But the problem with Kerrey is that it's not about Kerrey. It is never 
about any one person. Over the past eight years, there has been a 
near-complete corporate makeover of the New School. It is an entire 
administration that has exploited the task of combining the eight 
divisions of the University to enrich and empower themselves alone 
through a corporate business model. We all know and suffer the effects 
daily - from the lack of financial aid or a functioning library, to the 
substantial cuts to academic departments and materials, to the complete 
lack of study space, to the frustratingly labyrinthine bureaucracy, to 
the months-long backlog of important work in the Provost's office. Power 
and control over all functions of the University had been centralized 
under Chief Operating Officer James Murtha and the Office of the 
Executive Vice-President and prior to the recent establishment of the 
Minimum Requirements of the Provost's office.

At its inception, the New School was a model for shared governance and 
democratic decision-making, and since the founding of the University in 
Exile the New School has enjoyed an international reputation of academic 
freedom, critical inquiry, and above all, a strong institutional 
commitment to social justice. How is it then that the entire New School 
community is prevented from having the basic information it needs to 
make informed democratic decisions? From administrator job descriptions 
and roles to university finances to building plans to how decisions are 
made, why does the administration operate without any transparency or 
accountability?

Installing a new President or Executive Vice-President or other 
administrators will not be enough to move forward. It will not be enough 
to rewrite their job descriptions, or create open search committees with 
decision-making power that include faculty, staff, and students. What 
the New School needs is a fundamental transformation of our institution 
and the values that it embodies. We need to create a more democratic 
university where everyone equitably manages their own affairs. We need 
to take seriously how our university is part of its community. The 
entire nation is moving beyond the horror of the past eight years. 
Providing substance to our mission and legacy today will be more 
powerful than any marketing campaign or rebranding of our school, and 
certainly any pawning off the history of the New School or the 
University in Exile.

Our country is in need of a new financial system, one that is 
accountable to the communities that fund it. The New School could be a 
pathbreaker and leading light in building that system, by using a 
portion of its endowment to invest in Community Development Credit 
Unions. These institutions have been the most stable financial 
institutions during the crisis, and have suffered the fewest losses, 
precisely because they are tightly regulated and are accountable to 
those from the community that deposit their earnings and savings there. 
Many in New York City have above-market rates of return, despite the 
crisis. Such institutions also provide the financial backing to more 
democratic and participatory projects elsewhere in the society. For 
example, the proposal put forth by the Right to the City Alliance for 
New York City-wide legislation to renovate city-owned vacant properties 
for low-income and homeless people - the very same people who have lost 
their homes due to the predatory lending of Lehman Brothers subsidiary 
Aurora. The workforces required to do these renovations could be trained 
by such local democratic workplaces as Sustainable South Bronx or Green 
Worker Cooperatives. The university itself could save tremendously on 
building and operating costs for new dorms by creating cooperative 
housing, and students would directly benefit through the vastly reduced 
costs and the shared experience of living cooperatively.

These are but a handful of examples that highlight the kind of recovery 
plan this country needs, and specify particular ways in which we can 
play a part. There is so much the New School can do to embody its 
mission and its historical inheritance. There is so much, quantitatively 
and qualitatively, that we can do to improve our own lives as students, 
faculty, staff, deans, and trustees, if we work together and be the 
change we wish to see at this crucial turning point for the New School 
and for the nation. What will be the deciding factor is whether those 
interested in change have the courage, and discipline, necessary for 
their convictions to become the political reality.

We in the Radical Student Union believe in a more democratic and 
participatory economy and society, and we work to support those 
movements and organizations with similar ends and means. A thoroughly 
American radicalism that has roots going back further than Port Huron or 
the Wobblies, past Dewey or Veblen or other New School founders, past 
Frederick Douglas or the Quakers, all the way back to Thomas Paine and 
the Iroquois. We are an open group that welcomes any member of the New 
School community in agreement with our points of unity. We sign our 
names to what we do. Making change for us, from the smallest reform up 
through "revolution" is not a passing college-age fancy or vogue, but an 
imperative that justifies itself each and every time we help make 
peoples lives better in the here and now. We believe there are more 
effective ways to fundamentally transform our society and economy than 
mere confrontation for its own sake. We believe in organizing to build 
power on our campuses and in our communities. In truly American fashion, 
what we care about is results.

April 4th is the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous 
Riverside Speech, where he spoke out against the Vietnam War and 
presented a broader vision of a world with poverty, war, and racism. He 
was assassinated exactly one year later to day, April 4th 1968. We are a 
member group of United for Peace and Justice, the nation's largest 
anti-war coalition, and on April 4th, this Saturday, we will be holding 
events at the New School as part of their national mobilization on Wall 
St. April 4th will also mark the beginning of the national campaign, 
Beyond War: A New Economy is Possible, for the reduction in military 
spending of 25% by 2010, and the redirection of those monies to 
community needs, such as housing and education. Amy Goodman of Democracy 
Now! will be giving a talk in Tishman Auditorium at 10am that morning, 
and we will be hosting a teach-in from 3-5pm in 65 Fifth Avenue, with 
talks by New School Economics Professor Duncan Foley, Stockholm 
University Economics Professor Jonathan Feldman, and the NYC-based 3R's 
education coalition. We invite everyone serious about making real change 
on our campus and in our communities to attend.


Dave Shukla is an active member of the RSU and is a graduate student in 
economics at the New School for Social Research.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Apr  3 07:56:15 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:56:15 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Higher education: engine of inequality
Message-ID: <49D6157F.6020503@panix.com>

Shut Out
How the Cost of Higher Education Is Dividing Our Country
By Andy Kroll

A few months ago, Bobby Stapleton, a 21-year-old student at the 
University of Michigan, received a phone call from his younger brother. 
The good news came first: a senior in high school, he, too, had been 
accepted by the university, the fourth sibling in his family to have the 
opportunity to make the move to Ann Arbor from rural Hemlock, Michigan.

Then came the bad news: his brother had no intention of telling their 
parents, because as Bobby put it, "he knew the money just wasn't there 
anymore, and that it wasn't realistic." The financial crisis had plunged 
the Stapleton family into severe debt. At this point, paying Michigan's 
modest (by college standards) $11,000 tuition for another child appeared 
unlikely. As his younger brother told their younger sister, Bobby 
recalled, "Things were just going to have to be different for the two of 
them."

Since that moment, Bobby and his older sisters have tirelessly searched 
for a way to change that fate. He has sought advice from older relatives 
who attended the university, met with members of its financial aid 
office, and explained his brother's situation to officials at the 
Michigan Education Trust, a statewide tuition payment program; all this 
in addition to a full class schedule and a dormitory dining-hall job 
that often keeps him at work until one or two in the morning. Still, 
Bobby wasn't about to give up. "I can truly say that being part of this 
university is one of the best things that's ever happened to me." He 
was, he swore, going to do everything he could to make sure that his 
brother and sister had that same opportunity.

Engines of Inequality

Welcome to the other crisis spreading quietly across the country: the 
crisis of college affordability. Talk to enough students and families on 
a college campus like the University of Michigan, where I'm a student, 
and you'll hear plenty of stories like Bobby Stapleton's -- of families 
scraping by in increasingly tough times as tuition bills rise, of 
students working second and third jobs, of newly minted graduates 
staggering into an ever more jobless world under the weight of tens of 
thousands of dollars in student-loan debt.

This crisis has been a long time coming, but bad times have brought it 
into clearer focus. In the past several decades, the cost of higher 
education has climbed at an astounding pace -- faster than the Consumer 
Price Index, faster even than the cost of medical care. Over the past 30 
years, the average cost of college tuition, fees, and room and board has 
increased nearly 100%, from $7,857 in 1977-1978 to $15,665 in 2007-2008 
(in constant 2006-2007 dollars). Median household income, on the other 
hand, has risen a mere 18% over that same period, from about $42,500 to 
just over $50,000. College costs, in other words, have gone up at more 
than five times the rate of incomes.

full: 
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175054/andy_kroll_the_crisis_of_college_affordability


From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Apr  3 08:23:18 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:23:18 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Madonna's child-hunting expedition aborted
Message-ID: <49D61BD6.900@panix.com>


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30010609/

Malawi rejects Madonna adoption request
Rule that prospective parent lives in country for at least 18 months upheld

LILONGWE, Malawi - In a surprise move, a judge on Friday rejected 
Madonna?s request to adopt a second child from Malawi even though the 
country?s child welfare minister had supported Madonna?s application to 
raise the 3-year-old girl.

Madonna?s lawyer, Alan Chinula, refused to discuss the ruling further, 
saying only that he had passed it on to the pop star, who was in the 
southern African nation but did not attend Friday?s court hearing. 
Madonna can appeal the decision to Malawi?s Supreme Court.

A judge who did not make the ruling but saw it and another lawyer 
present when the ruling was made said Madonna was rejected because of 
residency rules. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because they were 
not authorized to discuss the case.

Malawi adoption regulations require that prospective parents live in the 
southern African nation for at least 18 months.

The residency rule was waived in 2006, when Madonna was allowed to take 
her adopted son, David, to London before his adoption was finalized in 
2008. It was not clear why Judge Esme Chombo ruled differently Friday. 
Another judge had handled Madonna?s previous adoption case.

When Madonna adopted David, she was still married to British film 
director Guy Ritchie. Their divorce became final earlier this year, and 
she was attempting to adopt 3-year-old Chifundo ?Mercy? James as a 
single mother.

There was no immediate comment on the situation from Madonna?s 
spokeswoman in New York.

Madonna?s efforts to adopt had drawn criticism from some activists who 
said the little girl would be best off with relatives, and praise from 
other residents, who credited her with giving the girl opportunities not 
widely available in the impoverished nation.

In court papers made public Friday, Madonna said Chifundo?s grandmother 
was unable to care for her. She promised to make Mercy a permanent part 
of her family and spare her the ?hardship and emotional trauma? of life 
as an orphan.

System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance 
of an object. at 
Msnbc.Workbench.Rendering.FrontComponents.MobileVideo.GetVideo(HttpContext 
context, MobileVideoData mobileVideoData, Boolean isMappedId) in 
d:\tfsbuild\techno\integration\Sources\WB\Site\Rendering\Bin-Sources\Msnbc.Workbench.Rendering.FrontComponents\MobileVideo.cs:line 
242 at 
Msnbc.Workbench.Rendering.FrontComponents.MobileVideo.Process(HttpContext 
context, Object componentData, WorkAreas workArea, String device, Site 
site, PageParameters pageParams) in 
d:\tfsbuild\techno\integration\Sources\WB\Site\Rendering\Bin-Sources\Msnbc.Workbench.Rendering.FrontComponents\MobileVideo.cs:line 
155
The girl?s mother, according to the affidavit, died at age 14 not long 
after her baby was born Jan. 22, 2006. There was no mention of the 
father in the affidavit. The mother?s brother is listed as having 
consented to the adoption.

?I am able and willing to securely provide for Chifundo James and make 
her a permanent and established member of my family,? Madonna said. ?To 
deny Chifundo James the opportunity to be adopted by me could expose her 
to hardship and emotional trauma which is otherwise avoidable.?

Malawi?s child welfare minister had endorsed Madonna?s adoption application.

?We have close to 2 million orphans in Malawi who need help,? Women and 
Child Welfare Development Minister Anna Kachikho told The Associated 
Press. ?We can?t look after all of them as a country. If people like 
Madonna adopt even one such orphan, it?s one mouth less we have to feed.?

Orphans usually are taken in by their extended families in Africa, but 
AIDS and other diseases have taken a toll on those who might have 
traditionally provided support. In villages across the continent, frail 
elderly grandmothers do their best to care for children, but many end up 
in orphanages or on the streets.

Malawi, with a population of 12 million, is among the poorest countries 
in the world, with rampant disease and hunger, aggravated by periodic 
droughts and crop failure.

The U.N. says 1 million Malawian children have lost one or both parents, 
about half of them to AIDS, and estimates 18 million African children 
will have lost a parent to AIDS by 2010.

Critics accused Madonna of using her fame and money to fast-track the 
adoption process, but the singer said she had followed standard 
procedures. She faced similar allegations in 2006 when she brought home 
David, who is now 3.

A coalition of non-governmental organizations called the Human Rights 
Consultative Committee had criticized Madonna?s adoption attempts, 
saying that adoption should be the last resort and that children need to 
be taken care of by their own family.

?Mercy James is a child who has her extended close family members alive 
and we urge Madonna to assist the child from right here,? the coalition 
said earlier this week.

Yet others from Malawi had applauded Madonna, saying the adoption would 
give Mercy enormous opportunities.

Madonna first traveled to Malawi in 2006 while filming a documentary on 
the devastating poverty and AIDS crisis. On this trip, she has been 
accompanied by her three children: 3-year-old David, 12-year-old 
daughter Lourdes and 8-year-old son Rocco.

The four have visited an orphanage where David once lived and David also 
saw his biological father for the first time since he left Malawi in 2006.

Madonna and Lourdes also visited a village in Malawi this week and 
looked over plans to build a new school there. The singer has several 
charity projects in Malawi.

? 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not 
be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Apr  3 08:30:55 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:30:55 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] When Is An Anti-Semite Not An Anti-Semite?
Message-ID: <49D61D9F.5040200@panix.com>

http://newmatilda.com/2009/03/30/when-antisemite-not-antisemite

When Is An Anti-Semite Not An Anti-Semite?
Desperate to promote Israeli Government policy, the Australian Jewish 
establishment has resorted to calling all kinds of people anti-Semites ? 
even Jews

Once again, the so-called pro-Israel lobby has shown how it feels about 
debate on Israel.

The latest major episode is the Jeff Halper affair. The Australian 
Jewish News (AJN) refused to publicise the times and venues of Halper?s 
talks, and urged the Temple Emanuel to cancel its invitation of him. 
This was because Halper not only opposes house demolitions, but is "a 
hardline detractor of Israel", who believes that the state "courts 
?apartheid?".

In a sense, this is a useful demonstration of the sorts of views 
"supporters of Israel" think the Jewish community should be protected 
from. Yet, most of these major organisations do not identify as 
pro-Israel, but as simply Jewish. The Executive Council for Australian 
Jewry (ECAJ), with all of its underlying Jewish bodies, the AJN, the 
Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) are all presented as Jewish 
organisations, but they are all committed to strongly partisan positions 
on Israel.

This is problematic for a variety of reasons. Firstly, they claim to 
speak on behalf of the Jewish community, even though political opinions 
by a community organisation are unlikely to ever be entirely 
representative. Consequently, these organisations often say things that 
members of the Jewish community ? such as myself ? strongly disagree with.

Two years ago, a group of prominent Australian Jews, and over 100 fellow 
travellers (so to speak), released a mild statement on the matter. They 
thought that their concerns about "uncritical allegiance to Israeli 
Government policy ? should be met by reasoned argument rather than 
vilification". The signatories were concerned that "the Jewish 
establishment does not represent the full range of Jewish opinion".

In a sense, this was long overdue. Outside the Jewish community, critics 
of Israeli policy have long complained that they have not been allowed a 
fair hearing. One of their specific complaints is that leading Jewish 
organisations have unfairly accused them of anti-Semitism.

This accusation, by slandering the critic and shifting the debate, 
prevents honest discussion of the issues, and creates a chilling effect. 
Those who are willing to criticise Israeli policies run a serious risk 
of being treated this way, argued these critics. And further, if the 
leading Jewish organisations would not permit a fair hearing of 
grievances against Israel within the Jewish community either, then the 
issues could go entirely undiscussed.

In an immediate response to that mild statement, the Jewish 
organisations swung into action. As one, they denounced the petition and 
its signatories. They also arranged a counter-petition, in which they 
solemnly declared that Australian Jewish "communal roof bodies include a 
wide range of opinions".

Of course, the "wide range of opinions" plainly does not include someone 
who compares Israel?s occupation to apartheid. So, what are the 
uttermost fringes of permissible discussion of Israel within the Jewish 
community?

Consider the case of Philip Mendes. According to the Jewish News, Mendes 
was one of the co-writers of the counter-petition. Mendes is a useful 
example, because he represents the left-most fringe of what is 
considered acceptable in the leading Jewish organisations. For example, 
when Antony Loewenstein criticised the AJN on Crikey, its editor 
suggested Crikey should have asked Mendes to write on the topic instead. 
Mendes is for the Jewish establishment the "good leftist", who they can 
point to with pride, as the diversity they are happy to have in their 
discussions of Israel.

As the fringe left of the Jewish establishment, he is the perfect 
illustration of the primary concern expressed in the IAJV?s petition, 
"that Jewish organisations do not represent the full range of Jewish 
opinion". Indeed, what is striking is that not so many years ago, he 
felt able to write that "the ECAJ, state boards and community councils 
can reasonably claim to represent the entire spectrum of Jewish 
political and religious positions".

And exactly what are these views of Mendes?s ? this furthest "extreme" 
that the establishment will tolerate or acknowledge within the Jewish 
community? On Tuesday, Mendes gave a presentation to a Labor Party forum 
on when anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitism. He says ? as he has said in 
the past ? that there are basically three left wing perspectives on 
Israel. The first "supports moderates" and condemns extremists on all 
sides. In his presentation, Mendes gave an example: Julia Gillard 
defending Israel?s right to defend itself in Gaza. This is the only 
perspective on the left Mendes doesn?t criticise ? presumably it?s his 
view. Israel killing some 1400 Palestinians, and suffering all of 13 
casualties in its onslaught is apparently "self defence" in Mendes? 
world. The Palestinian right to self-defence, of course, went unmentioned.

The second perspective is also one Mendes thinks someone can 
legitimately hold. This is one that holds Israel, and its occupation of 
the West Bank and Gaza, primarily responsible for continued violence. 
Mendes graciously permits this camp to raise concerns about aspects of 
the occupation, discrimination against Palestinians within Israel and 
the issue of the refugees. While Mendes thinks such people cannot simply 
be dismissed as anti-Semites, he believes that at least some of them 
"may reasonably be characterised as unbalanced and na?ve at best". Their 
concerns fall within what Mendes calls "legitimate non anti-Semitic 
political debate".

However, in the Mendes structure there is a third perspective, which is 
when anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitism. These anti-Zionists portray 
Israelis and their Jewish supporters as "inherently evil oppressors". 
Manifestations of this anti-Semitism include the view that in the Hanan 
Ashrawi affair, members of the Jewish community exerted "undue financial 
and political influence". Believing in the wealth and influence of 
Jewish organisations (which Mendes calls "alleged") is a sign of this 
anti-Semitism. These third-perspective anti-Semites often favour a 
boycott, which he sees as being based on ethnic stereotyping of all 
Israelis.

Indeed, comparisons and references to Nazis are also a typical 
manifestation of anti-Semitism according to Mendes. While he hedges this 
part of his definition, Mendes thinks he?s able to identify someone as 
anti-Semitic if they make comparisons between Israel?s conduct and the 
Nazis.

For example, John Pilger is supposedly anti-Semitic, because he is said 
to have made eight comparisons between Israel and the Nazi Holocaust in 
an article about the Gaza massacre. While Pilger may sometimes use 
overly dramatic language, in making these comparisons and assertions of 
genocide, he was mostly citing other people. The UN Special Rapporteur 
on Palestine Richard Falk, for example, compared Israel?s siege on Gaza 
to a Nazi "collective atrocity". Isn?t this a fairly significant 
comment, worth reporting? By the Mendes standard, it is, a priori, 
anti-Semitic, and doesn?t warrant consideration.

Socialist Alliance uses "Stop the Holocaust in Gaza" placards. Mendes 
assumes that they are anti-Semites too. John Docker and Ned Curthoys 
advocate an academic boycott of Israel, so they?re anti-Semites too. 
That?s right, even Jews can be anti-Semites if they go outside what 
Mendes considers the correct margins for debate.

That is the striking part of the Mendes margins. He?s willing to 
consider the "extent to which the creation of the state of Israel 
contributed to the historical injustice that has befallen the indigenous 
Palestinians". However, if someone concludes that this means the 
endeavour to create a Jewish state was illegitimate, such a person is an 
"anti-Zionist fundamentalist", and so presumably falls outside Mendes? 
room for debate. Mendes allows people to reflect on a resolution of the 
"refugee tragedy". However, those who advocate a right of return would 
plainly bring about the end of Israel as a Jewish state, and so we can 
assume Mendes considers them anti-Semites too.

Consider now what is left of Mendes? idea of legitimate debate. 
Everything is open for discussion, until someone disagrees with Mendes?s 
conclusions, at which point they are anti-Semitic.

Empirically, what Mendes asserts is broadly under-informed. For example, 
Israeli political discourse has long been accustomed to rash comparisons 
to Nazis, including comparisons made by and about Israel?s own founding 
fathers. One may find this language insensitive, but that doesn?t mean 
it?s anti-Semitic. And what are we to say of Israelis who openly mimic 
Nazis, painting slogans like "Arabs to the Gas Chambers"?

Another argument these third-perspective anti-Zionists use which in 
Mendes?s book qualifies them as anti-Semites is mentioning that Zionist 
Jews collaborated with the Nazis. Yet historian Benny Morris is among 
those who have noted the attempt by the Zionist LEHI organisation to 
"establish an anti-British alliance with Germany" during World War II 
(see his book Righteous Victims, 2001, p 174). Is Benny Morris an 
anti-Semite too?

If Mendes disagrees with someone, he should not respond by calling them 
anti-Semitic. He should seek to prove that they are mistaken. He holds, 
for example, that Socialist Alliance shouldn?t have made placards saying 
"Stop the Holocaust in Gaza". I agree. I also disapprove of Socialist 
Alliance?s ongoing devotion to Lenin and Trotsky. The appropriate 
response to these disagreements is seeking to prove one?s case, using 
things like evidence and argument.

Mendes thinks Israel should not be considered a racist state founded 
upon settler colonialism. If he wants others to hold this view, he 
should seek to prove it, rather than smearing those he disagrees with as 
anti-Semites. It is about time all aspects of Zionism can be debated in 
good faith, without resorting to outrageous slurs to obscure the issues.



From elishastephens at hotmail.com  Fri Apr  3 08:52:55 2009
From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 07:52:55 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] When Is An Anti-Semite Not An Anti-Semite?
Message-ID: <COL112-W62A7C09A68E31828D830B7D7890@phx.gbl>


"Desperate to promote Israeli Government policy, the Australian Jewish establishment has resorted to calling all kinds of people anti-Semites ? even Jews"

Actually, that statement could go further, and say, "even Jewish Israelis," since Jeff Halper, although the article doesn't mention it, is not only Jewish but also Israeli (born in the U.S., but an Israeli as much as millions of others).



Eli Stephens
 Left I on the News
 http://lefti.blogspot.com


_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009

From jjonas at nic.fi  Fri Apr  3 09:37:50 2009
From: jjonas at nic.fi (Joonas Laine)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:37:50 +0300
Subject: [Marxism] Question on the Russian Nashi youth movement
In-Reply-To: <dd50d8d40904021353h51785babvef971a5e609574b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dd50d8d40904021353h51785babvef971a5e609574b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49D62D4E.4080201@nic.fi>

Thomas, thanks for your reply. Below some further comments and questions.

Thomas Campbell wrote:
> As for Nashi's "progressive anti-fascist" rhetoric, their actual
> practice on this front amounts merely to 1) whipping up hatred of
> "fascist" Estonia; 2) a campaign of painting over fascist graffiti in
> provincial towns (a campaign that, for all I know, may exist only on
> their website). They do absolutely nothing to combat the enormous
> problem of racist and neo-Nazi violence in Russia, and in fact they do
> a great deal to aggravate the atmosphere of paranoia, xenophobia, and
> repression that reign right now in this country.

You referred to the wikipedia article on Nashi, which though you mention 
is biased. Actually, I had a look at it before i posted my query:

"Walking Together leader Vasily Yakemenko said in 2005 that the goal of 
the new "anti-fascist" movement is to put an end to the "anti-Fatherland 
union of oligarchs, anti-Semites, Nazis, and liberals." Several 
Moscow-based newspapers suggested the goal of the group is actually a 
bit more specific: to eventually replace the party of power, United 
Russia.[15] Not all of its goals are politically motivated however. 
Nashi organizes voluntary work in orphanages and old people's homes, and 
helps restore churches and war memorials. It also pickets shops accused 
of selling alcohol and cigarettes to minors, and campaigns against 
racial intolerance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashi_(youth_movement)

As someone who is unable to check some original Russian sources, it was 
difficult to tell what in the entry is the kind of liberalism typical of 
many political entries in Wikipedia, and what is an adequate description 
of the organisation. For a know-nothing like me, the paragraph quoted 
above seemed like the organisation *could* have a progressive slant as well.

So I was left confused, because my hunch was more to the other 
direction. Hence my question.

> I know no leftist or liberal here who would say anything good about
> Nashi, and many of them would say a lot worse than what I've said
> here. If Johan Backman wants to caper around Helsinki with those
> characters and raise a stink, I think we can be sure that Backman not
> only has some dubious ideas, but probably some dubious (KGB/FSB)
> connections as well.

Johan B?ckman (a lecturer on criminology and socialogy of justice in 
several Finnish universities) came out a few years ago with his pamphlet 
on the Finnish reaction to the murder of the journalist Anna 
Politkovskaja. His motive for writing the pamphlet was to question why a 
murder of a journalist in Russia, of all countries, stirred such a 
massive demonstration at a days notice in front of the Russian embassy 
in Helsinki as it did. I agree with him that more than anything it was 
an expression of the "Finnish jihad", of a lingering fear and hatred of 
Russians, which often has a racist flavour.

The question of Russia is very much woven into everyday Finnish 
discourse, the fiercest topic being whether or not Finland should join 
NATO, and all kinds of cards get played.. the media publicity of Russia 
is pretty much the same as what China gets in English speaking media, 
I'd say.. ominous, untrustworthy, troublemaking, unpredictable, despotic 
etc. And of course the fight over the past, "finlandization" etc. is on 
all the time, with the pro-NATO "westernizers" on the offensive since 
the 90s.

Hence my initial sympathy for B?ckman's cause, as he is a fierce 
opponent of Finnish nationalism. Lately I've grown to doubt his 
political insights and consideration though. Many of his claims are 
politically just stupid in my opinion, like the "myth of occupation", 
i.e. that Estonia was not occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940 and 1944. 
It seems that the core claim is merely that the two Estonian dictators, 
Konstantin P?ts and Johan Laidoner, let the Soviets in by agreement 
(which I believe was the case), and so there was no "occupation" in the 
sense of crushing the Estonian army in battle etc. The hair-splitting is 
whether the USSR "annexed" or "occupied" Estonia, which is more like a 
red herring than anything else.

On the positive side (without wanting to associate myself with him), 
B?ckman and a few of his co-thinkers (like the journalist Leena 
Hietanen) may have a point that the "myth of occupation" involves a 
Baltic self-declared martyrdom where the Estonians et al. are eternal 
helpless victims, which is then used to justify the rabid (mostly 
anti-Russian, it seems) nationalism in Estonia at present.

Last year B?ckman published another book, 'The Bronze Soldier', again an 
"experimental pamphlet" on the question of Estonia, the Russian speaking 
population there, and the murder of Estonian jews by German and Estonian 
nazis during the II world war. I think the book was ok (and certainly 
entertaining and humoristic), though I would have preferred a more 
scholarly account. As it is, it's hardly anything to refer to as a 
source, and it's difficult to tell which parts are "experimental" 
exaggeration and which parts are documentable facts.

> This is not to deny that Estonia and Finland have some issues in their
> recent past that bear examination (especially Estonia), but the hay
> that Nashi makes of them is meant solely for the consumption of the
> domestic (Russian) audience -- i.e., it's meant to stir up hatred of
> "the west" and the bum deal that "resurgent" Russia supposedly gets
> from it and its media.

That's more or less what I thought too when the Nashi surrounded the 
Estonian embassy in Moscow during the Bronze Soldier riots.

> I'm glad that you're concerned about unreasonable anti-Russian
> sentiment in Finnish society and the Finnish media, but the
> unreasonableness is a good deal more potent and lethal here in Russia
> at the moment. Take the beating (just the other day) of famous human
> rights activist Lev Ponomarev and the murder of the layout designer
> (yes, the layout guy) of the only remaining opposition newspaper in
> the suburban Moscow town of Khimki -- just the latest acts in a wave
> of terror against social and political activists that began this past
> fall and whose most well-known (murder) victim has been leftist lawyer
> Stanislav Markelov.

In your opinion, is it fair to say that the Novaya Gazeta is the "only 
remaining independent newspaper in Russia"? This is something that gets 
repeated in Finnish left-liberal media; it might be true, but it might 
be something else too. What's your opinion (anyone else can chime is as 
well)?

One of B?ckman's claim (which I don't buy) is that media freedom in 
Russia is better than in Finland. Again, to you it may sound ridiculous 
that anyone might even consider this to be true, but I hope you can 
understand that without mastering the Russian language, it is difficult 
to tell what is the truth.. it is difficult to trust mainstream media 
accounts because of an almost certain built-in Finnish nationalist bias 
in them, but then again some scattered stuff in English I've read (like 
Boris Kagarlitsky) seems to implicate the same. I've read Kagarlitsky's 
'Russia under Yeltsin and Putin', what's your take on Kagarlitsky..?

> Nashi is just one production site in this terror apparatus. To be as
> generous as possible to them, they're protofascists. Don't be fooled
> by their rhetoric, their self-description or their antics in Helsinki.

The demonstration in Helsinki totalled some 15 people in the end, so it 
wasn't worth all the media hysteria preceding it.. which, again, had 
more to do with the anti-Russia sentiment in Finland, as if a Nashi demo 
in Helsinki would have been equal to Russian mobilisation near the border.


From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 09:49:36 2009
From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:49:36 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Cuba's Energy Revolution,
Message-ID: <49D63010.9090400@gmail.com>

Yes, poorly written sentence on my part, Eli.

There is a tendency on the left to glorify Cuba's response to a 
situation that it found itself in and not to address the problem itself, 
which is energy starvation. To the point that this becomes the 'answer' 
for other countries. I've seen this sort of thing on blogs and other 
arenas for left discussion. I praise Cuba as well for it's response. But 
the 'response' itself is not the answer, or final answer, to it's energy 
crisis. It's a lot more complex than that.

I knew that much of Cuba's oil fired generation was switching over to 
diesel, hadn't realized it was in the form of diesel generators. Again, 
Cuba is doing what it has to do in order to survive. Eli writes this, 
however, as if the 1854 diesel and fuel oil micro-electrical plants is 
somehow a 'good thing'. I think not, at least not necessarily. The 
pollution caused by diesel generators will now be spread about island 
instead of emanating from from the larger 2 dozen or so older oil fired 
boilers that traditionally powered Cuba's grid. And...in fact...still 
do.  The efficiency, *mechanically*, of the small diesel generators is 
not as good as larger, modern units burning the same fuel. So the Cubans 
in once sense are going to take a hit on overall efficiency as measured 
against the amount of fuel used to produce a given amount of 
electricity. Also, the issue of growth and the natural increase of per 
capita energy use as standards of living rise is not going away. 
But...these smaller generators can be scaled up in use and installation 
a LOT easier than bigger units so this gives the Cubans flexibility.

The Cubans decided, correctly as I see it, that it's cheaper to build 
the diesel-electric generators than to string up more transmission lines 
from these old central power stations. Diesel is more expensive than oil 
(essentially oil in the older units are simply unrefined, but filtered, 
crude oil) but burns cleaner and more efficiently than the fuel oil. 
Diesel of course has it's own issues, including a different kind of 
deadly particulate and, of course, because it's a distillate, costs 
more. They import most of it but the PDVSA of Venezuela is going to 
upgrade some of Cuba's oil refineries to produce it and, will build a 
brand new oil refinery that can actually produce both diesel and 
gasoline from Venezuela's tar-sand/heavy crude.

There are large rural areas where the national electric grid doesn't 
reach. Grids are very, very expensive. So, Cuba has a rural 
electrification program and the "micro-generators" fits in well. 
Eventually, in the future, it can all be tied together in a hybrid form 
of both small and large grids, integrated with large and small 
generators, giving Cuba a grid not unlike that of Israel, which has a 
powerful, yet decentralized, energy grid based on small-generator usage.

Cuba DOES have a lot of domestic oil now and it will start using it's 
off shore oil for part of it's domestic consumption. I expect over the 
next 5 to 10 years importing oil from Venezuela will no longer be 
necessary. If their refineries are tuned for Venezuelan heavy crude, and 
Cuba's offshore oil is light-sweet crude (which it is) then I can see 
Cuba's national oil company working with PDVSA to export Cuba's own oil 
while continuing use Venezuela's.

In 2001 Cuba issued a "final" notice on it's attempt to build the 
Juragua Nuclear Power Plant in Cienfuegos that it would be canceled. To 
my knowledge there has been no attempt to again revive the project. The 
US objected from the get-go to the construction of the plant for safety 
reasons (and some of them seemed to be legitimate concerns). The plant 
was not the Chernobyl type reactor but still had many issues. Bulgaria 
was forced to close two of the same type of these Russian reactors as a 
criteria for joining the European Union.

There is some 'chatter' about approaching South African and/or China for 
use of their pebble bed modular reactors but nothing serious.

David


From Jscotlive at aol.com  Fri Apr  3 11:00:13 2009
From: Jscotlive at aol.com (Jscotlive at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:00:13 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Analysis of the G20 Summit
Message-ID: <cf7.516f66b1.37079a9d@aol.com>

_http://counterpunch.org/wight04032009.html_ 
(http://counterpunch.org/wight04032009.html) 

From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Apr  3 11:22:36 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:22:36 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] The contradictions of Bat Ayin
Message-ID: <49D645DC.4040606@panix.com>

Yesterday a Palestinian youth penetrated the Bat Ayin settlement in the 
West Bank and killed a 13 year old boy and wounded another 7 year old 
boy with an axe. Ofer Gamliel, the father of the wounded 7-year-old, is 
serving a 15-year prison term for planting a bomb outside a Palestinian 
girls? school in Jerusalem in 2002 to go off at the busiest time of the 
morning. But, according to the N.Y. Times, there was no evidence that 
the attack on the boy was retaliatory.

Bat Ayin figured heavily in a PBS documentary on ultra-Zionists that can 
be watched online. Go to the PBS website and view the segment titled ?A 
Plot that Shocked All Israel? for the facts on Ofer Gamliel?s terrorist 
plot that involved other members of what might be reasonably called a 
fascist Jewish sect.

One thing that the PBS documentary does not get into is the ?new age? 
character of Bat Ayin, something the N.Y. Times alluded to in its May 
19, 2002 report on the bombing plot:

"Most of the six detained so far come from Bat Ayin, a cluster of 13 
trailer homes near Hebron that has attracted people known here as the 
'New Age' religious, a mix of newly observant Jews, Lubavitchers, and 
Bratslav Hasidim, followers of a rabbi who preached joy in Ukraine 200 
years ago. Strict rules require men to grow beards, women to wear modest 
dress; in contrast to many settlements where menial labor is done by 
Arabs, there are no non-Jewish workers."

full: 
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/the-contradictions-of-bat-ayin/


From barmy_basket at yahoo.es  Fri Apr  3 11:40:14 2009
From: barmy_basket at yahoo.es (peripatetic)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:40:14 +0200
Subject: [Marxism] Analysis of the G20 Summit
In-Reply-To: <cf7.516f66b1.37079a9d@aol.com>
References: <cf7.516f66b1.37079a9d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <49D649FE.9050207@yahoo.es>

This is much better IMHO (from a newsletter for investors):

G20: US$ Funeral, US Failed Debtor
from the latest Hat Trick Letter by Jim Willie 
<http://www.goldenjackass.com/>. Extract:

"... Why is the G20 Meeting a turning point? First of all because the 
US$-based global financial structure is broken. In plain words, the 
USDollar is totally broken as the global reserve currency, fully 
discredited, and the anchor dragging down the national banking systems 
in scores of countries. Also, because the Elite G7 or G8 Meetings, where 
the banking power has been greedily and maliciously and jealously 
guarded, is replete with bank leaders whose countries are crippled by 
insolvent banks and outsized national debts. Who owns the largest 
portion of the G8 national debts? The G20 countries, the developing 
nations, the upstarts who up to now have owned zero voice in global 
banking, PERIOD! Imagine a bankruptcy hearing where the creditor (guy 
who owns the debt) does not have a seat at the bankruptcy court, has no 
attorney to argue on its behalf, and must listen to rigged outcomes from 
a rigged game. The global forces toward deep change have never been 
greater. Thus a turning point. Creditors have the option of simply 
refusing to purchase any more USTreasury Bond debt. To a great extent, 
that is what is occurring right now. The US responded last week, as its 
Federal Reserve announced $1050 billion in monetized USTreasury Bond and 
USAgency Mortgage Bond purchases. At least $1 trillion will be printed 
for monetized bond purpose each and every quarter from here onward, as 
is my forecast. *The USGovt will destroy the credibility of the 
USDollar, but at least offer lifeblood to the crippled USEconomy, at the 
cost of upcoming price inflation.* The United Kingdom has no such 
privilege. They suffered an important Gilt Bond failed auction last 
week, one which brought great embarrassment upon them.

Last week, China was highlighted at turning the global USDollar tables. 
They have begun to displace the US$ within their domestic banking 
system, in favor of the Chinese yuan. Actually, they will soon be 
issuing Chinese Govt debt securities denominated in yuan currency. Doing 
so involves wave after wave of conversion of USTBond securities into 
cash, then conversion further in to Yuan Debt securities, which still 
need a new name. How about Dragon Bonds for a name??? The Chinese will 
then wear and presumably use the great currency boot, since all 
economies that wish to purchase Chinese products must purchase Chinese 
Govt bonds!!!

The Chinese are also leading a movement to create an Emergency Fund for 
the Assn of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), one which will assist in 
defense of any hotmoney attacks against a smaller Asian nation. In 1997, 
the Asian Meltdown was triggered by hotmoney attacks waged against 
Thailand and South Korea. *My personal belief is that the Emergency Fund 
will blossom into a pan-Asian Regional Bond Fund for economic 
development.* The Asian-only fund will essentially serve as a gigantic 
regional savings account, free from Western control and pressures, 
independent from Western currency risk, and operate as a regional 
economic development fund.

The latest big currency news is between the central banks of China and 
Argentina. They reached an agreement for a three-year, $10 billion 
currency swap, disclosed by the Chinese Central Bank Governor Zhou 
Xiaochuan. One can rest assured that their USTreasury Bonds will supply 
the funds. The move follows swap accords between China and Indonesia, 
South Korea, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Belarus. The agreement broadens 
Argentina's access to foreign currency reserves in order to achieve 
stability. Argentina was excluded last autumn 2008 from the USDollar 
Swap Facility program created by the USFed for emerging markets, which 
were designed to aid Brazil and Mexico. Watch Venezuela and Iran be next 
for Chinese swap stations. *One can conclude that China is expanding its 
stations globally for creating the Chinese yuan as a global reserve 
currency in competition with the USDollar.* See the Bloomberg story 
(CLICK HERE 
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amo3z_441h7g&refer=home>).

Strange but meaningful additional challenges have come, these centered 
upon the Intl Monetary Fund. For years, the IMF has granted loans 
denominated not in USDollars but in Special Drawing Rights, which often 
function within various currency denominations, if not a basket of such 
currencies. The SDR formally is an international reserve asset already 
in usage. The SDR has been put in focus, if not under the microscope 
lately. *Russia has formally suggested that the IMF be used to establish 
a new global currency system, to replace the defunct and broken USDollar 
system, and to use the SDRights as a new formal basket for global 
banking and commercial settlements.* My belief is that Russia has used 
the concept as a straw man, just to place emphasis away from the 
USDollar. Once accepted, the concept can morph to another new currency 
suddenly. China has endorsed the SDR concept raised by Russia as well, 
to gain credibility.

My view has been consistent for months. Unless and until the foreign 
creditor nations distance themselves from a US$-based banking and 
commercial system, they run enormous risks. Their banking system, their 
financial markets, their economies, their standard of living, even their 
political stability, will all remain at chronic heightened risk. 
Alternatives are extraordinarily difficult, challenging, and daunting to 
design, construct, and implement. A system built after World War II was 
perverted in profound manner when in 1971 Nixon abrogated the Bretton 
Woods Accord in a single betrayal stroke. That maneuver was one of the 
most important violations of a treaty in modern history. It declared the 
United States as global financial dictator, enforced by a powerful 
USMilitary, aided by a large strong economy. It perversely invited all 
major economic nations of the world to join in managing free money off a 
printing press, of course with inherent risk.

* CREDITORS DEMAND BANK POWER *

For many years recently, the G20 Meeting has served as a forum for 
paying mere lipservice to the raft of foreign creditor nations. They 
have been enlisted by the G7 and G8 countries to continue to purchase 
USTreasury Bonds, UK Gilts, even German Bunds. They have been invited to 
invest in US, British, and European companies, and to become partners in 
major international commodity supply corporations, including energy 
firms. HOWEVER, THESE EMERGING NATIONS, THESE CREDITOR NATIONS, THESE 
SMALLER LESS POWERFUL NATIONS, WHICH COINCIDENTALLY DO NOT HAVE MILITARY 
FORCES OF THEIR OWN, HAVE NO GLOBAL BANKING POWER, HAVE NEVER HAD ANY 
GLOBAL BANKING POWER, BUT NOW ARE DEMANDING GLOBAL BANKING POWER. Such 
is the revolution triggered in London this week.

For the last decade, China has been given an insult at G7 and G8 
Meetings of finance ministers. They have been guests, who essentially 
sit in the hallway quietly until invited to enter for briefing sessions. 
The largest creditor nation in the world must sit in the hall while 
debtor bankers make decisions, issue orders, change structural 
procedures, and pretend to be in charge. Never in financial history have 
debtors remained in power, and this is no exception.

* Creditor nations demand a more solid reliable global reserve currency, 
or currencies. * They demand some hard asset component to the new 
reserve currency to be installed, like one backed by a basket that 
includes at least gold and crude oil. This would be sufficient to lift 
the gold price substantially, far above its current range, and far 
higher than a mere $1000 per ounce. The Chinese are the clear spearhead, 
uninhibited by US threats. The crowning blow against the USDollar 
supremacy will come when Persian Gulf nations install a new hard asset 
currency. At that time, one quarter of the world will pay for crude oil 
in a hard asset currency with a gold component. That is a spike in the 
heart for the USDollar founded in a unipolar world. The G20 Meeting 
intends to make the statement that the unipolar world is dead on the 
financial stage. That is their agenda. The US agenda is to preserve the 
system through reform.

* US MUST ACCEPT ROLE AS DEBTOR *

The clear challenge facing the G20 Meeting is to bring awareness to the 
United States that the system is broken, that the US is no longer 
dictating policy, and that the US must integrate many more countries 
into important global banking bodies. However, much bigger tasks come. 
The United States must accept that the USDollar can no longer function 
as before, cannot serve as the primary and only global reserve currency, 
and must share reserve currency status with other regionally crucial 
currencies. *The new multi-polar currency world must be hatched and 
launched. Defiance and stubbornness by the USGovt can no longer be 
tolerated. The United States admits to operating a Shadow Banking System 
that is abhorrent to any credible or justifiable system.* THE JIG IS 
UP!!! If the USGovt does not cooperate with alternative global reserve 
currency usage, then it will be bypassed, with associated cost. That 
cost will be lost respect, lost creditor cooperation, and certain 
economic consequences within the USEconomy. If not careful and 
cooperative, the US will find itself increasingly isolated, which is 
precisely my forecast. This direction is consistent with a shove down 
the staircase into the Third World, where credit shortages and supply 
shortages and poverty persist.

* The quintessential problem, plainly stated, is the United States Govt 
leaders and officials insist on sitting apart from the debtor nations. * 
They must join the debtors, and be treated in similar fashion. They must 
accept terms dictated to them. They must accept and endure a much lower 
standard of living. They must institute policies to rebuild the 
industrial base of the USEconomy. *They must write off trillion$ in bad 
debt, including some USTreasury debt.* They must liquidate failed banks 
and corporations that are not in the least functional or competitive. 
They must redirect priorities away from military and defense, and toward 
capital formation, industrial production, and job creation, even if 
initially at prison facilities. The entire economic structure and 
financial structure has suffered a death experience, one not properly 
acknowledged. In my view, the US banking system died in September 2008, 
never to be revived from its terminal insolvent state. In my view, the 
USEconomy suffered a death experience, but with a lagged time period. We 
are witnessing the death now. Its downward spiral is unmistakable. Each 
month shows worse data than the previous. The degree of doctoring data 
has escalated to unseen levels, like with seasonality adjustment that 
amplify raw data many-fold, not just many percent.

* My analysis has frequently described over the last two to three years 
the deep risk of internal dynamics called vicious cycles with nasty 
feedback loops. * We are witnessing them now in full force. The bank 
losses have not ended, not even close. Prime mortgages are defaulting. 
Commercial mortgages have finally begun to default. Job cuts, home 
foreclosures, and retail shutdowns result in feedback loops. The 
underlying millstone remains US housing prices, down a record 19% in 
January. The jobless rate is 17% if one counts those without jobs. An 
expected 125k retail shops are expected to shut down in 2009. Aid to 
mortgage holders on Main Street stands at a trickle. The bankers must 
prevent revelations of trillion$ in mortgage bond fraud and counterfeit, 
so the mortgage assistance is mostly talk. And Geithner wants the power 
to kill whichever financial firms he sees fit. Things are careening 
downhill. The USDollar deserves no respect. Gold deserves it instead. 
Foreign creditors harbor growing gold accounts and greatly dislike what 
the US does to suppress its price as it continues to hold it in 
contempt...." Source <http://www.goldenjackass.com/>

webabuser.blogspot.com


Jscotlive at aol.com wrote:
> _http://counterpunch.org/wight04032009.html_ 
> (http://counterpunch.org/wight04032009.html) 
> ________________________________________________
>   



From gmlakho.advocate at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 11:35:39 2009
From: gmlakho.advocate at gmail.com (Ghulam Mustafa Lakho)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:35:39 +0500
Subject: [Marxism] Swat valley flogging video reveals harsh taliban justice
Message-ID: <c9a222f30904031035l6daccdc1x6077105202f4f82e@mail.gmail.com>

Swat valley flogging video reveals harsh taliban
justice<http://www.new.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=67765874474&h=SwoJD&u=xGlIT&ref=mf>

Source: www.youtube.com

Swat Valley flogging video reveals harsh Taliban justiceA video showing a
teenage girl being flogged by Taliban fighters has emerged from the Swat
Valley in Pakistan WARNING SOME PEOPLE MAY FIND THIS VIDEO UPSETTING


NOTE:

The video has been removed by Youtube, but this is the link to the Guardian,
which is running it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/apr/02/swat-valley-flogging

From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Apr  3 11:54:52 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:54:52 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Spartacus - a real representative of the proletariat of
	ancient times
Message-ID: <49D64D6C.7060000@panix.com>

http://www.marxist.com/spartacus-representative-of-proletariat.htm


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 12:00:41 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:00:41 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
In-Reply-To: <7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad><54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta><b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com><6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad><b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com><20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart><b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com><DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV><C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta>
	<7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV>
Message-ID: <C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta>

Marv Gandall writes: "I'd also like to see Joaquin expand on his view that
the relative political passivity of the current generation of US workers is
mainly the result of it's continuing to "bribed" by imperialism. The
condition of the US working class has, in fact, worsened over the past three
decades when it should, according to this logic, have improved during a
period when US imperialism rose to unchallenged supremacy precipitated by
the collapse of the USSR, the transformation of China, the decline of the
trade unions and left-wing parties in the advanced capitalist countries, and
the failure of left-led resistance movements in the oppressed ones. It seems
particularly amiss to allude to bribery in the context of the even more
abrupt deterioration of US living standards which has accompanied the
current crisis."

I've written about this here before, and I hesitate to do so again,
especially because this may now be an exclusively historical dispute, but I
do not believe the period from roughly 1970 to today or at least recently
has been marked by a declining standard of living for working people in the
United States. In part this is due to the "age effect" as US wage structures
are highly stratified by age. So even if it is true that a 25 year old today
makes less than a 25 year old did 25 years ago, the 50-year-old on average
makes much more today that s/he did back then as a 25 year old.

But in addition, I don't believe the median real standard of living has
deteriorated, or at least had deteriorated until the year 2000 or so.
Certainly, by every objective, material statistic I've been able to find,
households at the beginning of this century were better off than those 30
years previously. This is documented in all sorts of ways, from the number,
size and quality of electronic entertainment devices to the square footage
of houses to the number and age of cars per 1000 households. And it is
reflected in what is considered the minimal or "entry level" qualities of a
given item, from televisions to computers to housing units. Today, for
example, housing without central air and heating, laundry facilities and a
dishwasher is not considered low end or entry-level housing in the Atlanta
area but sub-standard, below the minimum level for the retail market, and
saleable only as a "fixer upper" or "investment opportunity." That was not
true when I moved here 20 years ago.

I believe two factors are involved: one is that bourgeois statistics
overstate inflation by being unable go accurately take into account the
quality of goods. The other is that although nominal household income
adjusted for inflation hasn't changed much, the SIZE of households certainly
has, declining from three persons circa 1970 to 2.5 today, which
automatically means a big rise in household income *per person.*

I think this is a central reason why especially the left's economic
discourse finds little echo among working people. It fundamentally does not
correspond to their own lived experience. It certainly does not correspond
to my lived experience or those of people I know.

This may all be changing now, I'm not speaking particularly about the
current conjuncture but rather the broad sweep from 1970-2000 or 2005.

Joaquin




From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Apr  3 12:15:29 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:15:29 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] No end in sight
Message-ID: <49D65241.5020801@panix.com>

(It is of some interest that the Times makes the comments of Dean Baker, 
a fairly principled left-liberal economist, prominent.)

NY Times, April 4, 2009
No End in Sight to Job Losses; 663,000 More Cut in March
By PETER S. GOODMAN and JACK HEALY

The American economy surrendered 663,000 more jobs in March as the 
unemployment rate surged to 8.5 percent, its highest level since 1983, 
the government reported Friday.

The latest snapshot of accelerating decline in the national job market 
lifted to 5.1 million the number of jobs lost since the recession began 
in December 2007. More than two million jobs have disappeared over the 
first three months alone.

The severity and breadth of the job losses ? which afflicted nearly 
every industry outside of education and health care ? prompted 
economists to conclude that an agonizing plunge in employment prospects 
was still unfolding, with no clear turnaround in sight.

?It?s really just about as bad as can be imagined,? said Dean Baker, a 
director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. 
?There?s just no way we?re anywhere near a bottom. We?ll be really lucky 
if we stop losing jobs by the end of the year.?

The pace of retrenchment has prompted calls among some economists for 
another wave of government stimulus spending to buttress the $787 
billion already in the pipeline.

In January, as the Obama administration drafted plans for the current 
round of stimulus spending, it assumed the unemployment rate would reach 
8.9 percent by the last three months of the year.

?We?re clearly looking at a worse downturn than they had been 
anticipating when they planned the stimulus,? Mr. Baker said. ?We?re 
going to need some more.?

But others ? not least, decision-makers inside the Obama administration 
? deem such talk premature. The jobs report, while dreadful, landed amid 
tentative signs of improvement in some areas of the economy, with recent 
snippets of data lifting stock markets and sowing cautious hopes that 
the beginnings of a recovery might be taking shape.

The pace of decline in auto sales, while still falling, has slowed. 
Houses have been selling in much greater numbers in important markets 
like California and Florida, albeit at substantially reduced prices. 
Consumer spending, while far from vigorous, appears to have leveled off 
after plummeting over the last three months of 2008.

Meanwhile, a surge of government spending is just beginning to work its 
way through the federal and state bureaucracies, aimed at spurring 
demand for American goods and services. This spending is expected to 
support jobs in construction and related industries later this year. The 
administration is distributing more than $3 billion in aid to states to 
train laid-off workers for new careers in so-called green industries, 
like manufacturing solar- and wind-power equipment, and in health care.

?We?re attacking this in a very aggressive way,? the labor secretary, 
Hilda L. Solis, said Friday in an interview, arguing that it was too 
early to consider another round of stimulus spending. ?We will revisit 
that once we expend all the money that we have accrued.?

Much of the recent indications of potential economic improvement reflect 
temporary seasonal factors rather than a sustainable trend, some 
economists argue. Housing construction, for example, has looked more 
robust in large part because January?s construction activity was slowed 
by bad weather.

The crucial factors assailing the economy remain in force, with tattered 
banks reluctant to lend, and even healthy households and businesses 
averse to borrowing and spending in a time of grave uncertainty and fear.

The very perception that millions more will lose jobs and housing prices 
will fall have turned such outlooks into reality: As businesses scramble 
to cut costs in the face of gloomy sales prospects, many are shrinking 
work forces, removing more paychecks from the economy and further 
eroding spending power.

?There?s a lot of survival job-cutting going on throughout American 
business,? said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial 
Group in Pittsburgh. ?There won?t be any job growth at all this year. 
The economy is far, far from being out of the woods.?

Still, Mr. Hoffman is among those inclined to wait for a few more months 
and hope for improvement before unleashing a new wave of stimulus spending.

The Treasury has recently outlined plans for an expanded bank rescue 
aimed at lowering borrowing costs for businesses and households, this 
generating fresh economic activity and jobs.

In London, leaders of the world?s major economies left a summit meeting 
this week with a promise to bolster the finances of the International 
Monetary Fund by $500 billion, lending support to troubled economies 
from Eastern Europe to Southeast Asia, perhaps increasing now plunging 
global trade and thus demand for American-made goods.

?It?s a little soon to conclude politically, and I?d argue economically, 
that we need some more stimulus,? Mr. Hoffman said. ?You don?t just 
double the dose if the patient doesn?t immediately improve.?

Friday?s report catalogued the myriad ways in way American working 
people remain under assault. The number of unemployed people increased 
by 694,000 in March, reaching 13.2 million. Those on unemployment for 
longer than six months reached 3.2 million.

?Almost everyone?s being touched in some way,? said Mark Zandi, chief 
economist at Moody?s Economy.com. ?It seems like every business in every 
industry in every corner of the country has a hiring freeze. They?re 
just not in the mood or position to hire. They?re not taking r?sum?s. 
They?re not looking for people.?

Manufacturing again led the way down, shedding 161,000 jobs in March. 
Employment in construction declined by 126,000, and has fallen by 1.3 
million since it peaked in January 2007. Professional and business 
services employment fell by 133,000, with more than half the losses in 
temporary help services ? a sign that companies that have already 
shifted from relying on full-time workers to temporary people are 
feeling compelled to cut further.

In the suburbs of Atlanta, Meg Fisher, 46, has been looking for work 
since she lost her job as a legal secretary in the middle of February. 
Her husband?s hours at his pharmacy job were scaled back. All told, 
their previous annual income of about $79,000 has been sliced to $20,000.

Ms. Fisher is planning to apply for food stamps, while seeking out 
freelance work as a seamstress and knitting instructor.

?It?s not going to replace my salary,? she said. ?It?s not even going to 
come close, but it?s better than sitting around.?

The report reinforced the reality that the pains of the downturn have 
spread far beyond the jobless. The number of those working part time 
because their hours have been cut or they are unable to find a full-time 
job climbed by 423,000 in March to reach 9 million.

In New Jersey, Henry Perez, 34, and his family are now living in the 
basement of his sister?s house and struggling to find work.

A refugee of sorts from the real estate collapse in Las Vegas, where Mr. 
Perez once lived and bet big, he has more recently worked in online 
commerce and as a marketer at an office furniture company. But after 
being laid off at the end of last year, he has found nothing, even as he 
has sharply dropped his expectations, applying for jobs at restaurant 
chains like Panera Bread and Quizno?s.

?We?re just sitting here all day long looking for jobs on the computer, 
frustrated and scared as hell,? Mr. Perez said. ?I?m looking for anything.?


From elishastephens at hotmail.com  Fri Apr  3 12:42:32 2009
From: elishastephens at hotmail.com (Eli Stephens)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:42:32 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] T.S. Eliot said no to 'Animal Farm'
Message-ID: <COL112-W28A712CFCBA0FF25767025D7890@phx.gbl>



From bogus@does.not.exist.com  Thu Apr  2 09:08:15 2009
From: bogus@does.not.exist.com ()
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:08:15 -0000
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <mailman.4.1238784159.2552.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>

0212

A newly-released letter shows that US-born poet T.S. Eliot refused to publi=
sh George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' for its Trotskyite politics.



The 1944 letter=2C revealed by Eliot's widow Valerie=2C shows that
Eliot dismissed the novel while he was director of British publishers
Faber and Faber.



Although Eliot praised the book's "good writing" and "fundamental
integrity"=2C he said that Orwell's view "which I take to be generally
Trotskyite=2C is not convincing."



"We have no conviction that this is the right point of view from
which to criticize the political situation at the current time=2C" said
the Noble-Prize winning poet.



Animal Farm which turned out to be a classic of modern English literature w=
as published by Secker & Warburg the following year in 1945.



The novel is known as an allegory of how the Russian revolution in
1917 was followed by a new form of brutal rule under the Soviet Union.



Eric Arthur Blair known as George Orwell was an English author=2C
whose works reflected social injustice=2C anti- totalitarianism=2C and a
passion for clarity in language.=20


The 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four and 1934 Burmese Days are amo=
ng his best-known works.


_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail=AE: Get e-mail storage that grows with you.=20
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=3DTXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_=
Storage1_042009=

From bbauerly at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 12:44:37 2009
From: bbauerly at gmail.com (brad bauerly)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:44:37 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Analysis of the G20 Summit
Message-ID: <55868ddf0904031144s4d3fd8ddoe804978b8565740b@mail.gmail.com>

>>>This is much better IMHO (from a newsletter for investors):

G20: US$ Funeral, US Failed Debtor
from the latest Hat Trick Letter by Jim Willie
<http://www.goldenjackass.com/>. Extract:
"... Why is the G20 Meeting a turning point? First of all because the
US$-based global financial structure is broken. In plain words, the
USDollar is totally broken as the global reserve currency, fully
discredited, and the anchor dragging down the national banking systems
in scores of countries.">>>

The only thing that has changed is that China is now in the club and the US
will reconstitute its hegemony (I hate that word) by bringing this group
together to rebuild global capitalism.  There is no challenge to the US
dollar and there will not be for sometime.  Why must the left read
everything as the end of capitalism, or US empire, or neoliberalism...
Without a working class to force the change, we will get more of the same,
if not a heightened neoliberalism.

Read the report from the G-20 summit I sighted and tell me what exactly has
changed?  Anyone? Anything?

Brad



-- 
Brad A. Bauerly
PhD Candidate
Political Science
York University
Toronto, Canada
647-345-2072
bauerly at yorku.ca

From jbustelo at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 12:45:34 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:45:34 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Waiting for Gobama
In-Reply-To: <BLU136-W186A1885E8912027D7E2ABA7890@phx.gbl>
References: <mailman.100.1238726446.2555.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
	<BLU136-W186A1885E8912027D7E2ABA7890@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C87E568D92F448BC8BDDC73855EDE315@albanta>

Leonardo Kosloff writes: "Here's a relevant piece, one which apparently
Joaqu?n contributed to himself, http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/128"

I consider Charlie Post a comrade and friend, but I disagree completely with
him on these questions. Though I think it should be said that one of the
most sophisticated and intelligent versions of what I might call the
"subjectivist" explanation for the decline of the US working class movement
is that put forward by Charlie and others associated with the Solidarity
"rank and file" strategy in the unions. That because it does not rely on a
deus-ex-machina "vanguard party" nor the magical ritual incantations of a
"correct program" for effect. And when a reconstitution of a working class
movement in this country takes place, I think it is likely to develop to a
significant degree through the way these comrades anticipate -- the
emergence and coming together of a more conscious/advanced layer of union
militants. However, I find the explanation of WHY this hasn't happened
offered by these comrades unsatisfactory.

Joaquin




From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Apr  3 12:58:53 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:58:53 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Waiting for Gobama
In-Reply-To: <C87E568D92F448BC8BDDC73855EDE315@albanta>
References: <mailman.100.1238726446.2555.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>	<BLU136-W186A1885E8912027D7E2ABA7890@phx.gbl>
	<C87E568D92F448BC8BDDC73855EDE315@albanta>
Message-ID: <49D65C6D.7040601@panix.com>

Joaquin Bustelo wrote:
> I consider Charlie Post a comrade and friend, but I disagree completely with
> him on these questions. Though I think it should be said that one of the
> most sophisticated and intelligent versions of what I might call the
> "subjectivist" explanation for the decline of the US working class movement
> is that put forward by Charlie and others associated with the Solidarity
> "rank and file" strategy in the unions. That because it does not rely on a
> deus-ex-machina "vanguard party" nor the magical ritual incantations of a
> "correct program" for effect. And when a reconstitution of a working class
> movement in this country takes place, I think it is likely to develop to a
> significant degree through the way these comrades anticipate -- the
> emergence and coming together of a more conscious/advanced layer of union
> militants. However, I find the explanation of WHY this hasn't happened
> offered by these comrades unsatisfactory.

Not that it has a direct bearing on the matters at hand, but I am 
currently reading David Roediger's "How Race Survived U.S. History" for 
a future review.

Roediger has a very interesting analysis of why capitalist production 
did not break down racism even though the theorists of "free labor" 
assumed that it would. As Roediger puts it:

"Marxist-influenced organizers who wanted to change the law [against 
white and black workers meeting together in Louisiana] succeeded in 
arguing that capitalism itself undermined race-thinking. 'Trees,' a 
Brotherhood of Timber Workers supporter assured readers, 'don't care who 
fells them. They make as good a lumber when felled by the hand of a 
negro [or] a Hindoo...as when coming from the hand of a white American 
citizen. The interests of all who work in the woods...are the same.'"

As might be clear to some, the idea that "capitalism itself undermined 
race-thinking" is consistent with the application of the Brenner thesis 
to slavery and Jim Crow that Charlie Post theorized. It creates this 
crude dichotomy between precapitalist and capitalist modes of production 
that largely fails to explain how they co-existed happily in the New 
World. For example, John Locke, who Ellen Meiksins Wood regards at the 
political philosopher par excellence of the bourgeois revolution, wrote 
the constitution of the state of South Carolina that defended slavery in 
terms of property rights.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Apr  3 13:03:42 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:03:42 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?Obama_to_bankers=3A_=93My_administrati?=
 =?windows-1252?q?on_is_the_only_thing_between_you_and_the_pitchforks=2E?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=94?=
Message-ID: <49D65D8E.1000906@panix.com>

(Hat tip to SA on Doug Henwood's list who posted this.)

Inside Obama's bank CEOs meeting
By: Eamon Javers
April 3, 2009 01:00 PM EST

The bankers struggled to make themselves clear to the president of the 
United States.

Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining 
room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in 
the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their 
employees ? and, by extension, to themselves.

?These are complicated companies,? one CEO said. Offered another: ?We?re 
competing for talent on an international market.?

But President Barack Obama wasn?t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped 
the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public?s reaction 
to such explanations. ?Be careful how you make those statements, 
gentlemen. The public isn?t buying that.?

?My administration,? the president added, ?is the only thing between you 
and the pitchforks.?

The fresh details of the meeting ? some never before revealed ? come 
from an account provided to POLITICO by one of the participants. A 
second source inside the meeting confirmed the details, and two other 
sources familiar with the meeting offered additional information.

The accounts demonstrate that despite the public comments on both sides 
that the meeting was cordial, the tone in the room was in fact one of 
mutual wariness. The titans of finance ? men used to being the most 
powerful man in almost any room ? sized up a new president who made 
clear in ways big and small that he expected them to change their ways.

There were signs from the outset that this was a business event, not a 
social gathering. At each place around the table sat a single glass of 
water. No ice. For those who finished their glass, no refills were 
offered. There was no group photograph taken of the CEOs with the 
president, which typically happens at ceremonial White House gatherings 
but not at serious strategy sessions.

?The only way they could have sent a more Spartan message is if they had 
served bread along with the water,? says a person who attended the 
meeting. ?The signal from Obama?s body language and demeanor was, ?I?m 
the president, and you?re not.??

According to the accounts of sources inside the room, President Obama 
told the CEOs exactly what he expects from them, and pushed back 
forcefully when they attempted to defend Wall Street?s legendarily 
high-paying ways.

Watch the bank CEOs' news conference after last week's meeting:





 From the White House, there were five principal attendees: chief of 
staff Rahm Emanuel, who arrived a few minutes late, Treasury Secretary 
Timothy Geithner, Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman Christina 
Romer, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and director of the National 
Economic Council Larry Summers. Uncharacteristically, Summers said 
almost nothing, and it appeared to one participant as if he had been 
told to remain silent.

To break the ice, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon offered Geithner a fake 
check for $25 billion, the amount of Troubled Asset Relief Program money 
that the company has accepted. Although many of those in the room 
laughed, Geithner didn?t keep the check.

The president entered the room a few minutes later and made a lap of the 
table, shaking hands and saying hello to the CEOs, several of whom he 
called by name.

Taking his seat at the table, the president said, ?So let?s get to it.? 
He spoke for several minutes without notes, giving an overview of the 
economic situation as he saw it. But the first comment that made an 
impression on several attendees was on Wall Street salaries and bonuses.

The president spoke of public outrage over the high-flying executive 
lifestyle. ?The anger gentlemen, is real,? Obama said. He urged pay 
reform and said rewards must be proportional, balanced, and tied to the 
health and success of the company.

The president described the financial system as still ?fragile? and 
asked for cooperation from the CEOs. But he also told them he wouldn?t 
shy away from regulatory reform. Obama wrapped up his remarks and threw 
the conversation open to the table, saying, ?So, who?d like to talk??

JPMorgan?s Dimon spoke first. He began by complimenting the president on 
the economic team he?d assembled. And he said his industry needs to 
explain more directly to the American people that the economic recovery 
plans are already working. Dimon also insisted that he?d like to give 
the government?s TARP money back as soon as practical, and asked the 
president to ?streamline? that process.

But Obama didn?t like that idea ? arguing that the system still needs 
government capital.

The president offered an analogy: ?This is like a patient who?s on 
antibiotics,? he said. ?Maybe the patient starts feeling better after a 
couple of days, but you don?t stop taking the medicine until you?ve 
finished the bottle.? Returning the money too early, the president 
argued could send a bad signal.

Several CEOs disagreed, arguing instead that returning TARP money was 
their patriotic duty, that they didn?t need it anymore, and that 
publicity surrounding the return would send a positive signal of 
confidence to the markets.

Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis cracked a joke at the expense of his peers 
who?d lavished praise on the administration: ?Mr. President,? he said, 
?I?m not going to suck up to Geithner and Summers like the other CEOs 
here have.? Lewis also urged the president not to paint all the banks 
with the same broad brush.

The president argued that?s not what the White House was doing. Indeed, 
earlier the same week, Obama said at a nationally televised news 
conference, ?The rest of us can?t afford to demonize every investor or 
entrepreneur who seeks to make a profit.?

As the meeting wound down after nearly an hour and a half, the CEOs 
hustled out to live television positions on the White House grounds, 
where many gave interviews to CNBC.

It had been a landmark day in the history of American capitalism. 
Unbeknownst to the financial executives, General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner 
was also on Pennsylvania Avenue that day, meeting with Obama?s auto 
bailout task force. Although the finance CEOs got a meeting with the 
president, Wagoner saw only Obama?s senior advisor Steven Rattner at the 
Treasury Department. During the meeting, Rattner demanded Wagoner?s 
resignation.

It had been a tough day for CEOs in the nation?s capital.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Fri Apr  3 13:13:58 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:13:58 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Mass murder at immigrant rights center
Message-ID: <49D65FF6.70202@panix.com>

NY Times, April 4, 2009
At Least 12 Slain in Binghamton, N.Y.
By MITCHELL L. BLUMENTHAL and LIZ ROBBINS

Twelve or 13 people were killed when a gunman opened fire in an 
immigration services center in Binghamton, N.Y., Gov. David A. Paterson 
said Friday.

"While the situation is still developing and details are being gathered, 
we do know that a gunman entered the American Civic Association in 
Binghamton this morning and that there are fatalities,? Governor 
Paterson said in a statement Friday afternoon. ?We are monitoring the 
situation, and I have directed the State Police to assist the Binghamton 
Police Department in any way they can.?

The gunman, described as a man in his 20s, had a high-powered rifle, 
Mayor Matthew Ryan of Binghamton told The Binghamton Press & Sun 
Bulletin. NBC News quoted law enforcement sources saying that several 
weapons were recovered from the scene.

According to several news reports, the police said the gunman shot and 
killed himself and may be among the count of 12 or 13 dead.

The Associated Press quoted a local official as saying that the gunman 
barricaded the rear door of the association building with his car before 
entering through the front door, firing his weapon.

The newspaper?s web site quoted the police there as saying that about 40 
hostages were initially in the building. Shortly after noon, about 10 
people were released from the building, the reports said, and about 40 
minutes later another 10 were released.

The Binghamton Police Department declined to provide details of the 
shootings, as officers and members of local SWAT teams surrounded the 
building, situated on a mixed commercial and residential strip on the 
west bank of the Chenango River near the center of the city.

Binghamton High School, around the corner from the scene of the 
shootings, was locked down, and nearby apartment buildings were being 
evacuated, according to the newspaper. It quoted the mayor of 
Binghamton, Matthew Ryan, as saying the gunman had a high-powered rifle.

The mayor scheduled a news conference at 4 p.m. Eastern time to brief 
reporters about the situation.

The association describes itself on its Web site an organization that 
aids immigrants and refugees.

Maryam Weisser, a vice president of the civic association, said in a 
telephone interview that she was not sure how many people were killed, 
though she knew that the group?s secretary and a case worker were in the 
building and that classes in English as a second language were going on 
at the time of the shooting.

?This is the friendliest, nicest place to be,? Ms. Weisser, a volunteer 
from Vestal, N.Y., said. ?This is a community where we help with any 
immigrant issue, with citizenship and translation.?


From barmy_basket at yahoo.es  Fri Apr  3 14:10:43 2009
From: barmy_basket at yahoo.es (peripatetic)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:10:43 +0200
Subject: [Marxism] Analysis of the G20 Summit
In-Reply-To: <55868ddf0904031144s4d3fd8ddoe804978b8565740b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55868ddf0904031144s4d3fd8ddoe804978b8565740b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49D66D43.70008@yahoo.es>

I respectfully disagree (US$ is doomed beyond any hope, and then all the 
fireworks in the bag will get off; mass action will be just a 
consequence), and I paste below two clips from the latest commentaries 
by Bill Bonner on The Daily Reckoning (an e-zine between the FT and the 
Onion, which I find quite brilliant - 
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/author/bbonner/  ):

" ...It's all very well for the capitalists to make money, he will 
discover, but when they begin to lose it, well government has to step in 
and bail them out. The "creative" part of capitalism is fine...but spare 
us the destruction, okay.

....Yesterday, the heads of state of the world's 20 leading countries 
decided to put more muscle into their efforts to stop capitalism's 
downswing. Notably, they decided to treble the budget of the IMF. In 
all, today's International Herald Tribune tells us it's a "One Trillion 
Dollar Deal."

Gordon Brown pronounced it a "New World Order," which sounds a lot like 
what George Bush I was aiming for 15 years ago. One world government. 
One multi-national police force. Harmonized tax collection. (No more tax 
havens...nowhere to run...nowhere to hide...) Keep the masses happy with 
bread and circuses...and "wars" against imaginary and unnecessary 
enemies. (The War on Terror and now - the War on Depression.)

Hey, maybe we'll all have to speak Esperanto, too...

But at least now the IMF will be about to bailout more bankrupt 
governments before it goes broke itself.

Most of the money is coming from a country that doesn't have any: the U.S.A.

Look up. What do you see? Why, it's our Dollar Crash Flag. The dollar's 
days are numbered. What's the number? We don't know. But whatever it was 
a week ago, it is a smaller number now.

Yesterday, the dollar gave up a little ground. The euro rose to $1.24. 
Oil went up to $52. Gold, however, fell hard - down to $904. Gold 
stocks, on the other hand, did rather well.

Hugo Chavez was in the Mideast this week at a meeting of oil producers. 
He called for a new petro-currency...which, we suppose, is a currency 
backed by oil. The Associated Press:

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sought Arab support Tuesday for a 
proposed oil-backed currency to challenge the U.S. dollar in his latest 
swipe at Washington's dominance in global financial affairs."

He probably won't get very far with that. But he's not the only one 
looking for a solution to a crisis that hasn't happened yet.

The dollar's been king of the monetary mountain for a long time. But it 
had better be careful...watch it's back ...give a little of the food to 
a dog before eating it itself. Rivals are plotting against it. Much of 
the world wants to dethrone "King Dollar," says the French financial 
journal, La Tribune. China has already called for a new reserve currency 
based on IMF Special Drawing Rights. What's more, it's worked out 
bilateral agreements with many of its neighbors to swap goods, rather 
than use the dollar as a common unit of exchange. This week, it went 
further afield, making a deal with Argentina. This is the first deal of 
its kind in the Latin American world. But it's probably not the last. 
People see trouble coming with the greenback. They don't want it to hurt 
their sales of raw materials to China.

The Russians, too, have called for a new reserve currency. They, like 
the Arabs and Chavez, are sellers of raw materials. They don't want to 
get stuck with dollars that are losing their value.

That's the real New World Order...the United States will find it harder 
to stay in the driver's seat of this bus...and the U.S. currency will no 
longer give Americans an automatic ticket to the first class section..."


"...Who can save capitalism? The communists!

"Market forces, if left unchecked, will lead to asset bubbles and 
ultimately a disastrous market clearing in the form of a financial 
crisis like the current one," says a report from the Chinese central bank.

Everyone wants to be Chinese. Because the Chinese have money. And 
because they don't have free markets. It is widely believed that the 
Middle Kingdom can more effectively fight a downturn without democratic, 
consensus-driven institutions staying its hand.

But here is where we gasp for air. What theory holds that central 
planning - whether by Chinese communists or American Democrats - can do 
a better job of allocating capital than the people who own it?

There is none. That is why the world's leaders - and most of its 
economists too - permit themselves a luscious fib; they say they don't 
need theory at all. "Pragmatism" was the word on every pair of lips in 
London this week. Free from chains to dead economists, they say they 
will try "whatever works." Oh, the loveable lunkheads! Na??ve enough to 
believe anything; receptive as a trashcan. "Pragmatism" in economics is 
as phony as the men who preach it. Every one of them has a dog-eared 
copy of Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in his 
briefcase and an ace up his sleeve. And every supposedly new, pragmatic 
idea they come up with is merely a version of the same quack cures that 
kept the economy in the hospital last time.

Perhaps you can paint a bridge pragmatically. If you don't like the 
color, you can change it quickly. But if you're building a bridge, an 
airplane or an economic system, you can't make it up as you go along. 
You have to have an idea of how it works before you start. Besides, 
results from fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies don't happen 
overnight. The feedback loop takes years. It took the Bolsheviks seven 
decades before they realized they'd been had. Friedman's critique of 
America's Great Depression policies didn't appear until 30 years after 
the event. In Japan, they still don't know what they did wrong. And by 
the time the feds catch on this time, they will have turned an ordinary 
depression into a great one.

Enjoy your weekend,..."

webabuser.blogspot.com

brad bauerly wrote:
>>>> This is much better IMHO (from a newsletter for investors):
>>>>         
>
> G20: US$ Funeral, US Failed Debtor
> from the latest Hat Trick Letter by Jim Willie
> <http://www.goldenjackass.com/>. Extract:
> "... Why is the G20 Meeting a turning point? First of all because the
> US$-based global financial structure is broken. In plain words, the
> USDollar is totally broken as the global reserve currency, fully
> discredited, and the anchor dragging down the national banking systems
> in scores of countries.">>>
>
> The only thing that has changed is that China is now in the club and the US
> will reconstitute its hegemony (I hate that word) by bringing this group
> together to rebuild global capitalism.  There is no challenge to the US
> dollar and there will not be for sometime.  Why must the left read
> everything as the end of capitalism, or US empire, or neoliberalism...
> Without a working class to force the change, we will get more of the same,
> if not a heightened neoliberalism.
>
> Read the report from the G-20 summit I sighted and tell me what exactly has
> changed?  Anyone? Anything?
>
> Brad
>
>
>   



From jbustelo at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 14:26:17 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:26:17 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Mass murder at immigrant rights center
In-Reply-To: <49D65FF6.70202@panix.com>
References: <49D65FF6.70202@panix.com>
Message-ID: <2F74D8F2A1D84AE8861D668F050587A4@albanta>

The news conference has been moved to 5 eastern according to CNN. --Joaquin 



From sartesian at earthlink.net  Fri Apr  3 14:28:57 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:28:57 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Analysis of the G20 Summit
References: <55868ddf0904031144s4d3fd8ddoe804978b8565740b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F2E25616AE184E6891D363F8B13FB7F4@dmsthinkpad>

I agree with Brad.  So far, purchases of US Treasury issues has not 
declined, and the trouble such offerings have experienced has been less than 
the recent issues of UK gilts, and German sovereign debt, where, I believe 
the last to offerings were not fully subscribed.

Such purchases of US Treasury instruments may, and will in fact decline, but 
not because the yuan is replacing the dollar or China is replacing the US, 
but simply as a result of ECONOMICS as less revenues, less exports, less 
foreign trade, less PROFITS yields less surplus to be invested in "safe 
havens."

The dollar broken as a global reserve currency?-- not hardly, not by a mile, 
a millenium, not without a revolution.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "brad bauerly" <bbauerly at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 2:44 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Analysis of the G20 Summit




From jbustelo at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 15:06:23 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:06:23 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Analysis of the G20 Summit
In-Reply-To: <F2E25616AE184E6891D363F8B13FB7F4@dmsthinkpad>
References: <55868ddf0904031144s4d3fd8ddoe804978b8565740b@mail.gmail.com>
	<F2E25616AE184E6891D363F8B13FB7F4@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <C2FEE4250AD84D7FA01CA67593689075@albanta>

S Artesian writes: "The dollar broken as a global reserve currency?-- not
hardly, not by a mile, a millennium, not without a revolution."

I'm not certain that, IN THE LONG RUN, destroying dollar hegemony is beyond
the stupidity of the American ruling class. But for now, in the short term,
ANY crisis --even one centered in the United States-- is likely to drive a
flight to the dollar, strengthening it. 

And that may prove true even in the medium term. If the crisis goes deep
enough, it will undermine the Euro's pretensions, even destroy it altogether
UNLESS the Euro-Zone can consolidate into a real state, because what stands
behind a fiat currency is the power of the state that issues it. 

Joaqu?n



From mikedf at amnh.org  Fri Apr  3 15:19:08 2009
From: mikedf at amnh.org (Michael Friedman)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:19:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism]  Analysis of the G20 Summit
Message-ID: <49737.216.73.250.133.1238793548.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org>



.... and part of another comment by David Harvey, also interviewed on
Democracy Now this morning, on the G20:

------
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think is the?what is being proposed by the G20
leaders? And what needs to be done in this country?

DAVID HARVEY: I think Tony Benn was exactly right in the earlier segment,
and it?s a great pleasure to be here after him. I was always an admirer of
his.

What they?re trying to do is to reinvent the same system. And I think this
is a collective concern, and there?s a lot of squabbling on the details,
as it were. But the fundamental argument they are making is, how can we
actually reconstitute the same sort of capitalism we had and have had over
the last thirty years in a slightly more regulated, benevolent form, but
don?t challenge the fundamentals? And I think it?s time we challenge the
fundamentals.

AMY GOODMAN: What are those fundamentals?

DAVID HARVEY: The fundamentals have to do with the incredible increase in
consolidation, if you like, of class power. I mean, since the 1970s, we?ve
seen a tremendous increase in inequality, not just simply in this country,
but worldwide. And in effect, the assets of the world have been
accumulated more and more and more in few hands. And I think when you look
at the nature of the bailout programs, the stimulus programs and all the
rest of it, what it really does is to, in effect, try to keep those assets
intact while making the rest of us pay. And so, I think it?s time we
stopped that and kind of said, well, actually, we should actually be
getting more of the assets and, you know, much greater equality.

AMY GOODMAN: And how would we get more of the assets? How would there be
greater equality?

DAVID HARVEY: I think, for example, the nature of the bailout of the banks
and the sort of restructuring that is going on is, in effect, about saving
the banks and saving the bankers, while actually sticking it to the
people. I mean, we?re the ones who are going to have to pay for this in
the long run. So what I?m kind of arguing for is a political awareness
that that is happening.

In fact, it has been happening over the last thirty years, sort of step by
step. It?s been disguised in this kind of rhetoric about individual
liberty and freedom of markets and all those kinds of things. But if you
look backwards, you will see that this is not the first financial crisis
we?ve had. We?ve had many of them over the last thirty years, and they all
have the same character. We had our own savings and loan crisis back in
the 1980s. There was a Mexican debt crisis back in 1982, when, in effect,
Mexico was going to go bankrupt. And if they had gone bankrupt, then the
New York investment banks would have gone under. So what did they do? They
bailed out Mexico, therefore bailing out the New York investment bankers,
and then they made the Mexican people pay.

AMY GOODMAN: Why would the banks in New York have gone under?

DAVID HARVEY: Because they had lent the money to Mexico in the first
place. And if Mexico had just defaulted on its debt, what would the?you
know, what would the bankers have done? They would have lost a tremendous
amount.

AMY GOODMAN: If you were Timothy Geithner, if you were the Treasury
Secretary?

DAVID HARVEY: Yes, if I was Treasury Secretary.

AMY GOODMAN: ?what exactly would you be doing?

DAVID HARVEY: Oh, I would take a lot of that money, and I would put it
into some kind of a national reconstruction corporation. And I would say,
?Look, your first duty is to take care of the foreclosure crisis and the
people who have been foreclosed upon. So go into cities like Cleveland and
so on that have been devastated, and go into sort of areas in California
and so on and take care of the foreclosure crisis.?

AMY GOODMAN: How would you do that?

DAVID HARVEY: Well, I think one of the ways you could do that is to start
to buy out all of those houses that are about to be foreclosed on and put
them into some kind of, I don?t know, municipal housing association or
some collective form of that kind, and then allow people to remain in
those houses, even though they?re no longer necessarily owners. So the
ownership rights would shift.

I mean, we have a myth in this country that homeownership is the gospel,
as it were. But for a lot of people, homeownership is not a good idea. And
I think, actually, it?s not a good idea in general.

AMY GOODMAN: Why?

DAVID HARVEY: For two reasons. One is, it makes you actually very
vulnerable if you?re a heavily debt-encumbered homeowner. And actually,
the initial legislation was kind of interesting, the debate around it back
in the 1930s, when it kind of said debt-encumbered homeowners don?t go on
strike, and because it?s?you know, you?ve got to pay your mortgage. And
so, this becomes, as it were, a millstone around your neck. And that then
makes you very vulnerable to fluctuations in the market like we?re seeing
right now, particularly if you have variable rate mortgages, things of
that kind, and you can really easily get caught out. So, in effect, what
we?ve seen in the housing market is a tremendous plundering of the assets
of some of the most vulnerable people in the country. I mean, this has
been the biggest loss of asset wealth to the African American population
that there?s ever been.


[...]





-- 
Michael Friedman
Ph.D. in Biology
City University of New York

Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics
American Museum of Natural History
79th Street and Central Park West
New York, NY 10024
Office: 212-313-8721
Cell: 718-812-4246
Alternative e-mail: lycophidion at gmail.com



From mikedf at amnh.org  Fri Apr  3 15:19:28 2009
From: mikedf at amnh.org (Michael Friedman)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:19:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Marxism]  Analysis of the G20 Summit
Message-ID: <49741.216.73.250.133.1238793568.squirrel@webmail.amnh.org>


>>>This is much better IMHO (from a newsletter for investors):

>G20: US$ Funeral, US Failed Debtor
>from the latest Hat Trick Letter by Jim Willie
><http://www.goldenjackass.com/>. Extract:
>"... Why is the G20 Meeting a turning point? First of all because the
US$-based global financial structure is broken. In plain words, the
USDollar is totally broken as the global reserve currency, fully
>discredited, and the anchor dragging down the national banking systems in
scores of countries."

>The only thing that has changed is that China is now in the club and the
US will reconstitute its hegemony (I hate that word) by bringing this
group together to rebuild global capitalism.  There is no challenge to
the US dollar and there will not be for sometime.  Why must the left read
everything as the end of capitalism, or US empire, or neoliberalism...
Without a working class to force the change, we will get more of the
same, if not a heightened neoliberalism.

>Read the report from the G-20 summit I sighted and tell me what exactly
has changed?  Anyone? Anything?

------
.... and here's Tony Benn, interviewed on Democracy Now this morning, on
the G20:

------
AMY GOODMAN: The G20 summit opened in London today amidst widespread
protests in the streets. British Prime Minister opened the talks declaring
there was a ?high degree of consensus? on a recovery plan for the ailing
global economy. World leaders are expected to impose new financial rules
and come up with more funds for the IMF.

Meanwhile, police in London are bracing for more protests a day after
thousands of demonstrators jammed the streets of London?s financial
district. Most of the demonstrators were peaceful, but some skirmishes
broke out as police tried to keep thousands in containment pens
surrounding the Bank of England. A number of protesters smashed their way
into the Royal Bank of Scotland and wrote ?thieves? on the side of the
walls of the bank. Demonstrators raised effigies of the Four Horsemen of
the Apocalypse, representing war, climate chaos, financial crimes and
homelessness. A small number of protesters played a giant game of
Monopoly, armed with huge crates of fake money.

One man involved with the protests died after collapsing in the street.
Police said he was found unconscious near the Bank of England and was
rushed to hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Up to eighty-eight people were arrested Wednesday with police mounting one
of Britain?s biggest security operations in years. Security is at the
ExCeL Centre, where the G20 talks are being held. It?s extremely tight,
with police turning away anyone within a half-mile radius who doesn?t have
accreditation.

We go right now to London to speak with the former British MP Tony Benn,
current president of the Stop the War Coalition. He spoke at a G20 protest
in Trafalgar Square on Wednesday.

Tony Benn, you were one of the longest reigning members of the British
Parliament. You served over half a century before you left and became
president of the Stop the War Coalition, yet yesterday you were outside in
the streets addressing the G20 protest. Why?

TONY BENN: Well, I?m an old man. I?ll be eighty-four tomorrow. And I have
never been busier. I?m doing seven or eight public meetings all over the
country every week.

And yesterday we had a huge demonstration in Trafalgar Square. We marched
from the American embassy, where I gave a letter to President Barack
Obama, welcoming him in London and pointing we had three big anxieties.
One was the continuation of the war in Afghanistan, and secondly, the
obvious crisis in relations between Israel and Palestine, because the
Israeli?new Israeli government says they are not in favor of a Palestinian
state, and also expressing our anxiety about nuclear weapons, where some
progressive moves have been made.

But it was an amazing day, the last two days in London. Because of the G20
summit, we had an audience worldwide for what we were saying. And I have
never in my long life known a time when public opinion was so divided from
government opinion. And I think that?s happening not only in London, but
all over the world.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain exactly what you mean by that.

TONY BENN: Well, I think what?s going on now is that the leaders of the
world are trying to recreate as best they can by subsidy, enormous
subsidies, the system that has let us down. And we are facing a very, very
serious crisis. And it?s not just an economic crisis; it is a political
crisis, a democratic crisis. I remember hearing from United States people
saying we want people to think about Main Street and not Wall Street, and
that?s a very vivid way of describing what people feel.

Mass unemployment; foreclosures of people on their homes, which is a
disgrace; money spent on war, which goes on and on?there?s a threat to
Iran now from the new Israeli government?and people say we are not
prepared to accept it. I don?t think these are protests, because a
protest, you say, ?I?ve lost the battle, and I don?t like it.? These are
demands. And all progress is really made when people make demands upon the
government. We will not accept war. We will not accept unemployment. And
so, that?s the situation we?re in now.

Gordon Brown talks about a global structure to deal with a global crisis.
Well, fine, but who will control the global crisis?the global structure?
Will it be democratic, or will it be run by the banks and the
multinational corporations? And so, we?ve got a huge new perspective
opening up, and I think it is a big democratic demand that is being made.


[...]





-- 
Michael Friedman
Ph.D. in Biology
City University of New York

Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics
American Museum of Natural History
79th Street and Central Park West
New York, NY 10024
Office: 212-313-8721
Cell: 718-812-4246
Alternative e-mail: lycophidion at gmail.com



From markalause at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 15:50:23 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:50:23 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] AAUP Chapter/Faculty Union at the San Francisco Art
	Institute needs your immediate help and publicity
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904031450i55bcd88ey93e5336fe1cc5a11@mail.gmail.com>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fusfai at aol.com [fusfai at aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:59 AM
Subject: tenured faculty laidoff-SFAI

Dear AAUP Activists:

The AAUP Chapter/Faculty Union at the San Francisco Art Institute
needs your immediate help and publicity.

Nine tenured faculty have been given lay off notices in willful
violation of their tenure.  There have been many egregious contract
violations by the SFAI administration under the cloak of financial
exigency.

Please read the background information here: http://sfaistudentaction.pbwki.com

and sign the petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/sfaivotes/

Please circulate this request among your colleagues at other colleges
and institutions.

Your comments and institutional  affiliations are especially helpful
on the petition.

help us save our hard-won tenure and academic freedom!

In solidarity,

FUSFAI Officers

Janis Crystal Lipzin
Secretary/Treasurer, CA-AAUP
Treasurer, Faculty Union  of the San Francisco Art Institute - AAUP Chapter

Associate Professor of Film
Schools of Studio Practice and Interdisciplinary Studies
San Francisco Art Institute
800 Chestnut Street
San Francisco, CA 94133
707-823-3946


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 16:27:07 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 18:27:07 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Hallucinogenics legalized in the US
In-Reply-To: <COL112-W5E6D375E229C8DF3305CED7890@phx.gbl>
References: <COL112-W5E6D375E229C8DF3305CED7890@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <23A750464CCC488F846EA0FC1EC61E76@albanta>

It looks like hallucinogenics have been legalized in the United States.
That's the only possible conclusion from a news story published today in my
home town. The Atlanta Business Chronicle reports: 

"Bernanke: Fed programs are working"

Yep. that's alliterative Ben Bernanke speaking on the *very day* when it was
officially announced that the unemployment rate has hit 8.5%, more than 5
million people have lost their jobs in little more than a year since the
recession started, the big majority of those since hope triumphed on Nov.
4th, two million since Jan 1, and the RATE of job loss continues to climb.
If that's Bernanke's idea of "working," I'd hate to see what he imagines
failure looks like.

But the reason I say hallucinogenics are involved --and of course, the
country's chief banker would NEVER do something illegal, that would be like
suggesting a respected investment manager like Harry Maddoff was really
running a ponzi scheme, so drugs must have been legalized-- is that to all
the world Bernanke looks like he imagines that with this sort of success, HE
will still be have a job when Christmas tress are next decorated in DC. 

Obama's political skills and what real estate sharks call "curb appeal" as
the first African American president may buy him an additional month or two
of patience from the American public, but I suspect by the fall, a public
that's ALREADY been taught there's no rule that can't be broken on the road
to recovery is going to start insisting that some of that recovery trickle
down to them. And Bernanke and his pal Geithner have, in effect, been set up
as the fall guys. 

That, of course, assuming they don't get blindsided by some ADDITIONAL
catastrophic bank failure or other financial crisis before then. Which, come
to think of it, is ENTIRELY likely.

Maybe Obama will be lucky, as he has been before. I actually heard someone
on TV today explain that stocks would rebound because, while worse than
EXPECTED, the unemployment figures weren't as bad as Wall Street FEARED,
which kind of makes you wonder what these guys know that we don't. But this
avalanche continues gaining momentum on the down side. In March for the
first time during this crisis, the public sector shed jobs. The rate of job
"churn" going by NEW unemployment claims is probably around 2-1/2 million a
month, and the NET jobs lost is almost certainly higher than the official
650K or so a month, when you take the undocumented and informal workers into
account.  

All I can say is I want some of what Ben Bernanke's been smoking.

Joaquin




From nmgoro at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 16:59:13 2009
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:59:13 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] =?utf-8?q?Really_the_last_one_in_Spanish=3A_Alfons?=
 =?utf-8?q?=C3=ADn_and_Malvinas?=
Message-ID: <49D694C1.8070701@gmail.com>

            ALFONSIN EN MALVINAS              (J.E. Spilimbergo, 1986)

        ?Qu? papel cumpli? Alfons?n entonces?

        Visit? al doctor Alfons?n en su estudio dos veces en 1981. No 
imaginaba estar entrevistando al futuro presidente constitucional. En mi 
segunda entrevista, hacia agosto de ese a?o, le entregu? varios 
ejemplares de la revista ?Tribuna Patri?tica?, un ?rgano de la Izquierda 
Nacional.

        Uno de esos ejemplares llevaba como t?tulo central: ?Paz en el 
Beagle, luchar por Malvinas. El enemigo est? en Malvinas?. Nuestra tesis 
era que el conflicto con Chile deb?a solucionarse r?pidamente por 
carecer de sustancia estrat?gica y que la real amenaza contra nuestras 
posiciones en el Atl?ntico Sur y la Ant?rtida proced?a de la presencia 
brit?nica en los archipi?lagos australes, contra la cual deb?a 
promoverse una acci?n com?n latinoamericana. El doctor Alfons?n se 
limit? a observarme: ?Siga con atenci?n el caso, porque las Fuerzas 
Armadas proyectan ocupar Malvinas?. Naturalmente no le cre?. Mi cara 
debi? denunciarme, porque el futuro presidente reiter? su afirmaci?n.

        As? que siete meses despu?s, a principios de abril, resolv? 
purgar mi incredulidad de entonces rindi?ndole una nueva visita, esta 
vez acompa?ado de mi compa?ero, el doctor Norberto Acerbi. Nuestra 
esperanza de que una grieta se abriera por donde se derramasen las 
fuerzas contenidas de la resistencia nacional, estaba alimentada por la 
resoluci?n 506 de las Naciones Unidas y las andanzas bradenistas del 
se?or Haig. Ambas indicaban que se hab?a emprendido un viaje sin 
retorno. El imperio no juega con estas cosas, y condena sin apelaci?n a 
los vasallos rebeldes. La guerra se le hab?a convertido en una cuesti?n 
de principios y el ser real de la inserci?n argentina en el mundo hab?a 
salido dram?ticamente a la luz. Pero chocamos con el talante sombr?o del 
doctor Alfons?n. La conversaci?n fue breve, como de rendici?n 
incondicional. La primera observaci?n que nos dirigi? tuvo un tono ?de 
izquierda?: Haig hab?a llegado a Buenos Aires, la capitulaci?n de 
Galtieri era un hecho consumado. Nuestra convicci?n era que el gobierno, 
sin darse cuenta, hab?a quemado las naves. Movido por un concepto 
alienado de las relaciones internacionales, hab?a imaginado una suerte 
de pelea de familia mediante una ocupaci?n que mejorase su posici?n 
negociadora, sin advertir que vulneraba el orden p?blico olig?rquico 
internacional. No cab?a negociar sino rendirse. Pero la Argentina ya era 
un incendio, la rendici?n un suicidio; bien o mal, hab?a que pelear. 


        Le pregunt? al doctor Alfons?n: ??Y qu? pasa si Galtieri hace la 
pata ancha??. Entonces se crear?a una situaci?n dif?cil para la 
civilidad, surgir?a el peligro de una salida nasserista, dijo. El doctor 
Alfons?n tem?a la victoria militar posible por consideraciones de 
pol?tica interna, por otra parte mal calibradas.

                         ILLIA Y BIGNONE

        Dos d?as despu?s de la ingloriosa rendici?n, un grupo de 
militares facciosos encabezados por el general Nicolaides derrib? a la 
Junta no por haber conducido mal la guerra, sino por haberla afrontado, 
por haber olvidado ?son palabras textuales que aparecieron en todos los 
diarios? que ?Yalta existe?, es decir, el reparto del mundo en zonas de 
influencia pactado entre las grandes potencias al t?rmino de la segunda 
guerra mundial.

        A trav?s de sus agentes internos civiles y militares, el Imperio 
se dispon?a a librar la batalla decisiva, que no se daba en los 
australes archipi?lagos, sino en la cabeza de los argentinos. Era 
preciso que reneg?ramos de la guerra, de su virtualidad libertadora, de 
su dram?tica docencia y, sobre todo, que borr?ramos de nuestra mente 
esta pregunta clave: ?Por qu? se perdi? una guerra que debi? haberse 
ganado??. En su lugar nos incrustan esta otra: ??A qui?n se le ocurre 
hacer la guerra a Gran Breta?a??. ?A qui?n se le ocurre pagar la deuda 
externa! o, como dijo con punter?a cipaya ?El Pa?s? de Montevideo a 
principios del ?84, cuando el entonces ministro Grispun esbozaba alg?n 
amague de payador perseguido: ??Hacia unas Malvinas econ?micas??.

        Sobrevino entonces, a partir del golpe de estado 
desmalvinizador, yaltero, del 15 de junio de 1982, una curiosa lucha por 
la ?sucesi?n? presidencial, cuyos antagonistas fueron Nicolaides y 
Alfons?n, imponiendo el primero a un general, Bignone, y postulando el 
segundo p?blicamente a un civil, el doctor Arturo Illia, como jefe de un 
?gobierno provisional?.

        Era una salida ?a la griega?, como se apresur? a comentar con 
dejo laudatorio el periodista  Oscar Ra?l Cardozo desde las columnas del 
diario ?Clar?n?, olvidando, ?ay!, que Estados Unidos, Francia, Gran 
Breta?a, la NATO ?nuestros colonizadores? no son Turqu?a. Naturalmente, 
Nicolaides se impuso por nocaut en la contienda, y su primera medida fue 
fulminar con el retiro al general Flouret, quien desde la guarnici?n de 
Corrientes, destacada al sur, hab?a formulado un punto de vista no 
alienado, latinoamericano, antiimperialista y democr?tico, que era la 
verdadera continuidad pol?tica de la experiencia vivida.

        Ahora Alfons?n ha nombrado a Flouret en el Consejo para la 
Consolidaci?n de la Democracia para que platique con Favaloro y otras 
eminencias... ?en lugar de darle mando de tropa!



From mikedjyates at msn.com  Fri Apr  3 17:12:07 2009
From: mikedjyates at msn.com (MICHAEL YATES)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:12:07 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Krugman on the Britsh Empire
Message-ID: <COL107-W179FD979DD085A5EA9E6A9BB890@phx.gbl>


In Paul Krugman's New York Times column today, he says, "China acquired its $2 trillion stash--
turning the People's Republic into the T-Bills Republic--the same way Britain acquired
its empire: in a fit of absence of mind."  I found the part I put in bold mind-boggling.

Maybe that is the way the nobility and the merchants took possession of peasant land

in Britan proper too.

 

Michael Yates

From marvgandall at videotron.ca  Fri Apr  3 17:56:08 2009
From: marvgandall at videotron.ca (Marv Gandall)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:56:08 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
	<239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
	<1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
	<54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
	<b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad>
	<b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart>
	<b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com>
	<DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV>
	<C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta>
	<7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV>
	<C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta>
Message-ID: <6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV>

Joaquin writes.
>
> I've written about this here before, and I hesitate to do so again,
> especially because this may now be an exclusively historical dispute, but
> I
> do not believe the period from roughly 1970 to today or at least recently
> has been marked by a declining standard of living for working people in
> the
> United States.

[...]

> ...I don't believe the median real standard of living has
> deteriorated, or at least had deteriorated until the year 2000 or so.
> Certainly, by every objective, material statistic I've been able to find,
> households at the beginning of this century were better off than those 30
> years previously. This is documented in all sorts of ways, from the
> number,
> size and quality of electronic entertainment devices to the square footage
> of houses to the number and age of cars per 1000 households.

[...]

> I think this is a central reason why especially the left's economic
> discourse finds little echo among working people. It fundamentally does
> not
> correspond to their own lived experience. It certainly does not correspond
> to my lived experience or those of people I know.
>
> This may all be changing now, I'm not speaking particularly about the
> current conjuncture but rather the broad sweep from 1970-2000 or 2005.
========================================
The subject is a controversial one because, as Joaquin says, the statistics
tend to be unreliable and/or subject to manipulation. It's also true, as he
notes, that median real incomes haven't in general declined but improved
over the past three decades. I should have been more precise and said that
they haven't matched the growth in real incomes from 1945-75 or kept pace
with the economic expansion since that time. This is confirmed by the
working class share of national income having reverted back to what it was
before the Great Depression, prior to the growth of trade unionism and the
advent of the welfare state. More to the point, I should have added that
income growth has not been uniform across the working class. Real incomes
have declined or stagnated for the majority of blue-collar and other workers
who lack a post-secondary education. The average has been boosted by the
gains secured (at least until very recently) by the fastest-growing stratum
of the workforce - professional and technical workers employed in the
health, education, government, high tech, finance, communications,
entertainment, and other service sectors.

These workers are for the most part not unionized, and hence there is no
compulsion for imperialism to bribe them any more than Al Capone had to
bribe the small proprietors of local speakeasies to extract his profits.
Their wages have been dictated rather than bargained. They've done better
than less skilled workers because employers have had to compete to recruit
and retain personnel in these expanding sectors of the economy.

That sector of the workforce which has been traditionally identified as the
"aristocracy of labour" - the unionized industrial proletariat - is no
longer the aristocracy Joaquin has been contending it is. Far from it.
Rather than benefiting from wage bribery over the past three decades,
workers in the contracting sectors of the economy have seen their living
standards and job security sharply cut. This is hardly news.

The primary reason why their conditions have deteriorated has been the
progressively reduced power of their unions to improve them. This is less
owing to the cupidity and stupidity of the "labour bureaucrats" (for whom I
hold no particular brief) than the appearance of vast new cheap labour pools
in China, Eastern Europe and elsewhere over the past three decades. The
multinationals have been able to exploit these as a result of revolutionary
advances in communications and transportation coupled with the demise of the
former autarchic anticapitalist states. The beginning of the "neoliberal"
assault on working class standards which has been associated with the Reagan
and Thatcher eras could not have occured without the great technological and
geopolitical changes which have produced labour surpluses where there once
were labour shortages in auto, steel, rubber, and all of the other bastions
of the old industrial unions.

Joaquin points to the access of workers to consumer goods such as homes,
cars, cell phones, flat screen TV's, air travel, and designer knock-offs of
all kinds as evidence that living standards have continously improved. But
this does not take into account the contemporary need for two income
households, vast amounts of unpaid overtime and family stress, and mountains
of mortgage and other debt which has been required to sustain the great
bubble in consumption - chickens which have now come home to roost.

But I agree with Joaquin that "this may now be an exclusively historical
dispute..."  If so, we can put to rest the notion that there currently
exists an objective material basis for the political backwardness of the US
working class. There is no doubt that the chauvinism and militarism
characteristic of all imperialist states has infected the US politcal
culture, as has racism, but the movement of younger American whites towards
Obama and the promise of change in US foreign and domestic policy which he
represents to them, rightly or wrongly, suggests this is not a permanent
condition - with all of the political conclusions which flow from it.



From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Fri Apr  3 18:07:23 2009
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:07:23 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] A tribute to Steffie Brooks, by Paul LeBlanc
Message-ID: <864E4D6A97E74E21ADE939A0E35DADE4@office1pc>

Paul's was one of many contributions by family, friends, and political
associates of Steffie Brooks to the memorial meeting of 110 held near the
home of Steffie's parents in Great Neck, Long Island.

Paul has kindly provided me with a copy. Sorry to be so late in getting out
the speech and the above very brief report on a very valuable gathering.
Fred Feldman


Steffie was swept up in a very distinctive moment in history.  She was part
of what has been called "the Generation of '68."  In the 1960s, spilling
over into the 1970s, in the United States as in many other countries, there
was an explosion of mass action and creative smaller-group efforts around a
variety of issues and ideas having to do with the hope and belief that, as
one song proclaimed, "a better world's in birth."

1968 saw the May-June worker-student protests in France, the shock of the
Tet offensive in Vietnam, the resistance to bureaucratic dictatorship and
Soviet invasion in Czechoslovakia, the worker-student upsurge throughout
Western and Southern Europe, the brutally repressed student demonstrations
in Mexico, and intensified battles for peace and justice in our own land.


Steffie's own trajectory within these turbulent times was rooted, in part,
in the traditions of humanist-radicalism associated with the Jewish
immigrant experience that Irving Howe discusses in The World of Our Fathers
(a fine book that Steffie's mom, Helen, gave me 30 years ago).  

As a teenager, Steffie was associated with the left-socialist-Zionist group
Hashomir Hatzair.  Not only did she participate in its discussions (for
example, of Albert Einstein's wonderful essay "Why Socialism?"), but she
went to an Israeli kibbutz in search of at least a taste of the better
future - one permeated by the socialist vision of community and freedom.  

This is not what she found, however, in the racist treatment of Palestinians
and other realities that conflicted with her ideals.  Sometimes her
rebellion against disappointing realities got her into trouble - as it did
this time, when she baked hashish-laced brownies for the kibbutzniks.  

Back in the United States, Steffie identified with the new left and was
involved in Liberation News Service, an important and influential left-wing
alternative news source.  She also became involved with people from a
current of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), that - in stark contrast
to the more famous and self-destructive faction called the Weather
Underground - sought to build a progressive coalition of the labor and civil
rights movements, with radicals and left-liberals from various backgrounds,
that would help elect such left-of-center Democratic Party politicians as
Bella Abzug and Ron Dellums.  

She was soon drawn to the Communist Party, which shared this general
orientation, becoming a member of its youth group, at that time called the
Young Workers Liberation League.  

Steffie moved to my native Pittsburgh around 1973, where she came into
contact with some of us who were in the Socialist Workers Party.  Unlike
Steffie, we were adherents of the revolutionary perspectives of Leon
Trotsky.  

As such, we opposed the authoritarianism associated with the USSR as it had
evolved under the Stalin dictatorship, and also the Communist Party's
reformism.  Examples included its support for the Democratic Party in this
country, and its preference for the moderate orientation of Salvador
Allende's left-coalition government in Chile, in contrast to the approach
symbolized by Latin American revolutionary Che Guevara.  

Steffie did not have a sectarian bone in her body, and was willing to work
with us around issues of common concern, even as she argued with us.  The
U.S.-engineered Chilean coup of Sept. 11th, 1973, combined with
authoritarian rigidities of the Communist Party, plus the relatively good
political work and compelling ideas of the SWP, resulted in Steffie deciding
to become part of our movement - a member both of the SWP and the Young
Socialist Alliance.  

Over the next several years, she - along with her comrades - was immersed in
resistance to war and militarism, in supporting labor struggles, and
especially in anti-racist and feminist campaigns.  Denouncing oppression,
exploitation, corruption, and pollution, we pointed out: "Capitalism fouls
things up."  

While attending the University of Pittsburgh, Steffie headed the socialist
ticket that ran for Student Government - energetically and eloquently
pushing for campus reform and also for the involvement of her fellow
students in struggles for peace and social justice. 

Steffie was critical-minded not only about the society around her, but also
about the SWP.  She was congenitally incapable of accepting arrogance,
dogmatic rigidities, and any whiff of hierarchical elitism in the
organization to which she had committed herself.  

More than once she sought to push back the limitations - for example, she
was part of an ill-fated dissident current in the SWP that argued for a more
active and forthright policy in support of gay and lesbian rights.  At the
same time, she was a dedicated and energetic party-builder.  

She contributed much effort to strengthening the Pittsburgh branch, and from
1976 to 1978, she and I worked together in Albany, New York to help build a
new branch of the SWP.  She held various leadership positions there, and at
one point functioned as a very capable branch organizer.  


When the Party made its "turn to industry," in order to connect more
completely with what it believed was a radicalizing working class, Steffie
embraced that and went into industry.  When the Party hailed the Nicaraguan
Revolution - and the general insurgency in Central America and the
Caribbean, Steffie embraced the new developments.  

But when the new leadership of the SWP, insecure with its own limitations,
went on to lead the organization into increasingly undemocratic and ingrown
directions, Steffie - like many others - concluded that this was not where
she belonged, even though she chose to remain true to the ideals and values
that had animated her all along. 

I was for a time hopelessly in love with this luminous, dark-eyed young
woman with such distinctive qualities: a wonderful sense of humor, an
amazing audacity, a generosity and warmth, uncompromising honesty, a keen
mind and critical (sometimes self-critical, sometimes overly self-critical)
intellect.  Aspects of our relationship seemed to come right out of one of
Woody Allen's hilarious and painful films of the 1970s.  I think we were
both glad that we could finally end up as good friends.  

Steffie had a deep desire to do what is right, combined with a deep
dissatisfaction with "what is" - which socially and politically took the
form of a vibrant activism, yet personally could result in the emotional
knots she was so often struggling with.  "We are trying to live\As if we
were an experiment\Conducted by the future," Marge Piercy wrote in an aptly
named poem, "Rough Times."  Steffie had her share of those.   

This dear comrade risked a great deal as she struggled to help bring about
the kind of world (and to be the kind of person) she believed in.  The
effort did not always bring her happiness.  Yet this wondrous and wonderful
friend delighted and inspired many of us in multiple ways as we worked
together for a better future.  

To the extent that things have become better (and some things certainly have
become better), it is to a significant degree because of things that people
like Steffie did and were trying to do.  Others will certainly take heart
from the person she was.  The struggle continues.  




From farmelantj at juno.com  Fri Apr  3 19:40:08 2009
From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:40:08 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] When Is An Anti-Semite Not An Anti-Semite?
Message-ID: <20090403.214008.4952.1.farmelantj@juno.com>


On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 07:52:55 -0700 Eli Stephens
<elishastephens at hotmail.com> writes:
> 
> "Desperate to promote Israeli Government policy, the Australian 
> Jewish establishment has resorted to calling all kinds of people 
> anti-Semites ? even Jews"

The favored catchword used to be "self-hating Jews."  For years,
indeed for decades, Zionist polemicists would always
call Noam Chomsky a "self-hating Jew."  I am sure
that Chomsky has his share of human frailties, but I
don't a lack of self-regard is among them.  Now a
days, I have been seeing the term "Jewish anti-semites"
in Zionist polemics.  Apparently, the fact it is often
Jews who have been taking the lead in such
things as Palestinian solidarity movements,
and that there are now mainstream Jewish
intellectuals like Tony Judt, who have been
openly arguing for a one-state solution,
drives these polemicists to distraction.
Then you have the case of Judea Pearl
(yes, the father of the murdered journalist
Daniel Pearl), who
argued in an op-ed in the LA Times
that anti-Zionism is worse than
antisemitism. (See:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-pearl15-2009m
ar15,0,2362924.story)

That notion was always implicit in Zionism going all the
way back to Theodor Herzl, who was a friend of
the French antisemitic agitator, Edouard Drumont.
(Drumont published a very favorable review of
Herzl's *The Jewish State* in his newspaper,
"La Libre Parole").

And over the years, Zionists have been more than
willing to play footsie with a wide variety of
antisemites, including the Nazis.  However,
up to now, it had been pretty rare for any
Zionist polemicist to openly state that
position.  But apparently, some Zionists,
or at least Mr. Pearl, have come to the
conclusion that it is now necessary to
baldly argue this position, which suggests
that while they clearly still wish to
smear their opponents as antisemites,
they are realizing that this tactic is
reaching a point of diminishing returns,
since among other things, if you start
labelling all manner of critics of Israel
as antisemites, including Jewish critics,
and even Israeli critics, you will inevitably
strip the term, antisemite, of its sting
as a pejorative.


        



> 
> Actually, that statement could go further, and say, "even Jewish 
> Israelis," since Jeff Halper, although the article doesn't mention 
> it, is not only Jewish but also Israeli (born in the U.S., but an 
> Israeli as much as millions of others).
> 
> 
> 
> Eli Stephens
>  Left I on the News
>  http://lefti.blogspot.com
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
Can't pay your bills?  Click here to learn about filing for bankruptcy.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLjha4fpGABL7bbmsp0FX3I4pH3PdCGiMnXj1Z0zJIONCbenqhV9u/

From nmgoro at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 19:51:49 2009
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?N=C3=A9stor_Gorojovsky?=)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:51:49 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] When Is An Anti-Semite Not An Anti-Semite?
In-Reply-To: <20090403.214008.4952.1.farmelantj@juno.com>
References: <20090403.214008.4952.1.farmelantj@juno.com>
Message-ID: <2fa158550904031851h2efcd4ffvf94ee82ffc5b950@mail.gmail.com>

2009/4/3 Jim Farmelant <farmelantj en juno.com>:
>
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 07:52:55 -0700 Eli Stephens
> <elishastephens en hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> "Desperate to promote Israeli Government policy, the Australian
>> Jewish establishment has resorted to calling all kinds of people
>> anti-Semites ? even Jews"
>

...

> Then you have the case of Judea Pearl
> (yes, the father of the murdered journalist
> Daniel Pearl), who
> argued in an op-ed in the LA Times
> that anti-Zionism is worse than
> antisemitism. (See:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-pearl15-2009m
> ar15,0,2362924.story)
>
> That notion was always implicit in Zionism going all the
> way back to Theodor Herzl, who was a friend of
> the French antisemitic agitator, Edouard Drumont.
> (Drumont published a very favorable review of
> Herzl's *The Jewish State* in his newspaper,
> "La Libre Parole").
>
> And over the years, Zionists have been more than
> willing to play footsie with a wide variety of
> antisemites, including the Nazis.

In fact, the position stems from the basic standing of Zionism that
the Jewish personality can be built around loyalty to Israel, only. A
couple of years ago I was much astonished at seeing this bluntly
expressed in the advertising postings in a Jewish school at Buenos
Aires where I had gone to do some red tape on behalf of my mother.
They read something like "Asegurar una formaci?n jud?a a partir de
Eretz Israel", that is "Ensuring a Jewish upbringing centered on Eretz
Israel". In fact, the wording was more blunt, but I don?t recall it
now.
-- 

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


From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Fri Apr  3 20:00:20 2009
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:00:20 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Reflections by Fidel: The Start of the Summit
Message-ID: <AA705214B6AC45C489A3EA25E979AC2A@office1pc>

Given the many criticisms that Fidel, Raul, and other Cuban leaders make of
Obama's stance and policies, Fidel's assessment of the significance of his
election is very calm and balanced and correctly positive, in my opinion.
Fred Feldman 


Reflections by Comrade Fidel
http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/reflexiones/2009/ing/f020409i.html

THE START OF THE SUMMIT

Today the G-20 Summit began. The experts in economic matters have made an
enormous effort. Some, with experience in important international positions;
others, as learned researchers. The subject is a complex one, the language
is new and demands that we be familiar with the terms, the economic facts,
the international agencies and the political leaders who have the greatest
weight on the international scene. Therefore, our desire to simplify and to
explain intelligibly what is happening in London, just as I see it.

Nobody was surprised that Obama was the star of the London summit. 
He represents the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world. 
He is favored by special circumstances. Bush, lying, cynical, war-mongering
and nasty, is not there. Neither is McCain, mediocre and ignorant, thanks
precisely to Obama?s amazing victory, a black man in the country of racial
discrimination, where a majority of white voters cast their ballots for
McCain, but not in enough numbers to compensate for the votes of more than
90% of black and mixed race Americans, citizens of Latino origin, the poor
and those affected by the crisis. He has just been elected when other G-20
leaders are at the point of concluding their mandates and Obama will be the
probable president of the United States for the next eight years. It isn?t
strange that news from London revolve around him.

What the world deems important is what comes out of it there, that is, if
anything comes out at all. Each one of the participants has their own
national and even personal objectives, as political leaders who shall be
judged by history.

Obama?s objective is, in the first place, to change the image of his
country, the principal responsible party for the tragedy from which the
world is suffering and the party being rightly blamed for the current
devastating economic crisis, in which he has absolutely no political
responsibility. As Joseph Stiglitz, the former economic head of the
International Monetary Fund and now MIT professor, points
out: ?He ought to come to say that he is guilty of nothing and that he is
trying to solve it as quickly as he can.?

His main European ally, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is the Summit
host, wildly hoping to alter the current anti-Labor Party tendency unleashed
by the nonsense of his predecessor Tony Blair.
Buckingham Palace honored Obama and his wife Michelle with a reception. The
president gave the elderly Queen a modern digital recorder, product of
sophisticated American technology, an Ipod with songs and images of the
Queen?s state visit to the U.S. in 2007 and a book with musical scores
signed by Richard Rogers. No words were to be exchanged with Her Highness
about the mundane G-20 meeting.

Brown, on the other hand, is pulling out all stops with the crisis.
He hopes to change the regulation of the banking system, promote economic
growth, increase cooperation and put an end to protectionism. He recognizes
that the negotiations will be difficult.

His motto: ?It is better to look ahead than to look back?. Clearly if the
voters were to look back, he would win very few votes.

The desire of both allies in the heart of the G-20 is to minimize the
differences between France and Germany.

Sarkozy doesn?t hide his displeasure with United States policy. He is
explosive. He recently threatened to walk out of the summit.
Yesterday, on Europe 1 Radio, he declared that for now there is no
satisfactory agreement about the Summit, but he did soften his threats to
leave the table if there is no move towards greater
regulation: ?I will not be associated with a Summit that doesn?t end with
greater regulations.? He assures that the negotiators have not reached any
agreement.

The draft of the Summit?s communiqu?, already making the rounds among
journalists, speaks of measures to reestablish global growth, keep markets
open and encourage global trade. ?We must get results, there is no choice,?
Sarkozy insisted yesterday.

A few days ago Obama announced that the United States proposes to introduce
changes in its system of regulation and supervision, in the hope that this
declaration would fulfill a part of the European demands, snatching away one
of those flags.

Sarkozy rejoined that his endeavor to put an end to tax havens is serious.

Very close to Sarkozy?s positions, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor,
demands that the agreement not include either the requirement of a tax
stimulus plan for the advanced countries, or that debate be opened up about
the announcement of a new international currency which is the emerging
countries? demand to the G-7.

?The world is at a crossroads,? Merkel said. ?We must do everything possible
so that the crisis is not repeated.?

?We have to go further than what was discussed in Washington,? and she added
that everything agreed to in London must come with a guarantee that it will
be applied. ?There must not be one single place, or one single product or
one single institution without supervision and transparency.?

Merkel revealed herself to be on the side of increasing International
Monetary Fund funding and stepping up aid to developing countries which are
essentially suffering from the impact of the crisis.

Increasing IMF resources already appears to be a reality. The president of
Mexico said when he arrived in London that he is negotiating a line of
credit with the IMF for 26 billion euros.
Yesterday in London John Lipsky, the number-two man in the International
Monetary Fund, informed that the IMF would provide Mexico with a line of
credit for 47 billion dollars in order to guarantee the availability of cash
flow in case the market situation worsens because of the crisis. The figure
is larger than that requested by Mexico.

As in the IMF, the United States has the majority of shares, without its
support such a credit would not be possible and so this underpins Obama?s
influence at the London Summit.

The news cables were announcing that Obama would be meeting with Dimitri
Medv?dev and Hu Jintao, the presidents of Russia and China, to talk about
the tricky problems facing both countries with the United States.

In the superpower?s bilateral encounters with the two great powers, economic
problems will surely be tackled, or perhaps agreements that have been
patiently discussed and approved through their diplomatic representatives
will be announced.

Today, April 2nd, I read a long and detailed dispatch from the Xinhua News
Agency, dated the 1st, reporting that ?President Hu Jintao of China and
President Barack Obama of the United States agreed today that their
respective countries will work together to build a positive, cooperative and
full relationship in the 21st century.?

?Furthermore, the presidents decided to establish the bilateral mechanism of
Strategic and Economic Dialogues.?

?The new commitment, assumed by both heads of state during their meeting in
London, will outline the direction and provide a major boost to sustained,
solid and stable development of relations between the two nations.?

?The relationship between China and the United States continues to be one of
the most important bilateral relationships in the world in the 21st century,
one in which humankind faces enormous opportunities and challenges. In the
new era, the two nations have important responsibilities in regards to world
peace, stability and development and they also share wide interests.?

?The two parties ought to maintain the rhythm of the times and always
conduct the bilateral ties from a strategic, long-range perspective.?

?They must respect and take into consideration the fundamental interests of
the other party and take advantage of opportunities, just as they must work
together to face up to the challenges of the century.?

?Establishing the China-USA Strategic and Economic Dialogues Mechanism is an
important step to promote the bilateral relationship to an even greater
extent. Thus, the earlier strategic dialogue between the two countries has
been raised to a new level.?

?At a time when the international financial crisis continues to spread, the
two nations must support one another and work together to weather the storm,
and this will favor the primary mutual interests of China and the United
States?.

?China and the United States should not only improve the exchanges and
cooperation in areas such as the economy, the fight against terrorism,
proliferation, transnational crime, climate change, energy and the
environment, but they must also strengthen communication and coordination in
regional and world issues.?

Such an agreement cannot be discussed in a 60-minute meeting. It was already
drawn up in all its details.

China, whose allies today on the Asian continent invaded and plundered it a
mere seven decades ago, is now moving forward to a top position in the world
economy.

It is the United States? prime creditor and calmly discusses with the
president of that powerful country the rules that will govern relations
between two nations in a world fraught with risks.

Perhaps the Xinhua dispatch transmits one of the most important news related
to the G-20 Summit.

Today it began and concluded as I was writing these lines! Amazing!

Fidel Castro Ruz

April 2, 2009

3:07 p.m.


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




From epoliticus at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 20:38:22 2009
From: epoliticus at gmail.com (Politicus E.)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:38:22 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Lily Allen
Message-ID: <dd55f6dc0904031938hd03b659nb2c9b4adcf80071a@mail.gmail.com>

Hi.  I would very much appreciate a marxian analysis of Lily Allen's
songs.  Probably many people on this list know of her, but her songs
came to my attention only today.  Her song "The Fear" apparently was
at the top of the charts in Britain very recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-wGMlSuX_c&feature=related

Can anyone point me in the right direction?  Or does someone have
their own analysis?

epoliticus
-- 
http://epoliticus9.blogspot.com/


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Fri Apr  3 20:41:32 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:41:32 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Reflections by Fidel: The Start of the Summit
References: <AA705214B6AC45C489A3EA25E979AC2A@office1pc>
Message-ID: <B4254D416793488698CECE3B7C734111@dmsthinkpad>

 Correct analysis?  Positive on Obama?  Crikey, there's more to this than 
just the election of a black man to front the door at the concentration 
camp/casino of capitalism.

Obama bears no political responsibility for the current economic crisis? 
Wasn't he elected to the US Senate in 2004?  Didn't he, our not-responsible, 
rising star vote for several iterations of war funding?   Or is somehow that 
war, and the super-inflation of oil prices 2003 to mid 2008 somehow distinct 
and separate for this current economic predicament?

And... didn't he select Geithner, Mr. Gut theirs, Bailout Ours, as Sec of 
Treasury? Didn't the Obama administration pressure the Senate to remove the 
restrictions on bonuses?  Didn't the Obama administration extend and 
re-extend on easier terms the bailout to AIG, or was that some other 
administration led by someone who just looks and talks like Obama, but isn't 
the real Obama?

No responsibility?  Why is that?  Because the Republicans held the executive 
branch in 2007?  Well, the Dems held the legislative after 2006, so what 
responsibility belongs there?

Oh yeah, and that part about increased financial regulation to make sure 
"this never happens again"?? that positive part of the G20?  Well you want 
to know what the first manifestation of this new era in rigorous regulation 
was?  The easing of accounting rules, so banks, who embraced "mark to 
market" reporting in the up market as if it were the alchemists magic 
formula, no longer have to mark to market in down markets-- thus 
"decoupling"  reported asset value from actual market value.

And those positive comments about the IMF helping developing countries--  
well, f--k,  all I can say, as respectfully as possible, is that clearly 
Fidel does not know what he is talking about.  [I can hear the sudden 
intakes of air from here.  Awaiting the explosive exhalations with calm 
resolution].

Or in the immortal words of  the 3rd officer and sole survivor of the mining 
ship Nostromo put it at the board of inquiry:

"Did IQs drop drastically while I was away?"

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Feldman" <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 10:00 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Reflections by Fidel: The Start of the Summit


Given the many criticisms that Fidel, Raul, and other Cuban leaders make of
Obama's stance and policies, Fidel's assessment of the significance of his
election is very calm and balanced and correctly positive, in my opinion.
Fred Feldman


Reflections by Comrade Fidel
http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/reflexiones/2009/ing/f020409i.html

THE START OF THE SUMMIT




From jayroth6 at cox.net  Fri Apr  3 21:16:19 2009
From: jayroth6 at cox.net (J Rothermel)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:16:19 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Capitalist consolidation of high tech
Message-ID: <49D6D103.4010107@cox.net>

List comrades may be interested in the email below I received today from 
a tech-savvy comrade.
 
Comradely,
Jay Rothermel


Nortel completes sale of Alteon for $18 million - InternetNews:The Blog 
- Sean Michael Kerner
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/04/nortel-completes-sale-of-alteo.html

This is an $8 billion asset that competitor Radware gets at a firesale 
price due to Nortel's collapse. A little digging will show documentation 
points for overproduction in networking infrastructure dating back as 
far as the dotcom collapse and growing progressively worse even though 
manufacturers, and their shills in the technical press, professional 
journals and mass media kept pointing to the piles of money on the floor 
just waiting to be picked up. Another such sign is in today's 
announcement that IBM has indeed acquired SUN microsystems under similar 
conditions. This brings roughly 2/3 of the Unix market under the 
controll of IBM as well as software patents that augment those that IBM 
is already pushing through the Open Source channels (read here-- an 
effort to CoOpt a movement to provide non-comercial alternatives to 
resources dominated by monopoly capitalism). This is all a bit obscure 
to those outside this industry. As I see it, IBM helps open source to 
the extent that such help shows some promise of weakening its capitalist 
competitors (e.g., Microsoft) while posing little threat to the 
interests of IBM. This might mean, e.g., releasing into public domain 
patented software, or expert technical advice, that would advance the 
efforts of those creating a free browser-- Microsoft is trying to sell 
IE8 while IBM is not selling a browser.








From pbond at mail.ngo.za  Fri Apr  3 21:23:15 2009
From: pbond at mail.ngo.za (Patrick Bond)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 05:23:15 +0200
Subject: [Marxism] Reflections by Fidel: The Start of the Summit
In-Reply-To: <B4254D416793488698CECE3B7C734111@dmsthinkpad>
References: <AA705214B6AC45C489A3EA25E979AC2A@office1pc>
	<B4254D416793488698CECE3B7C734111@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <49D6D2A3.5010504@mail.ngo.za>

Must be a hoax; this article is not by Fidel, who follows global econ 
enough not to make this sort of mistake: "Joseph Stiglitz, the former 
economic head of the International Monetary Fund and now MIT professor"

S. Artesian wrote:
> ... clearly 
> Fidel does not know what he is talking about.  [I can hear the sudden 
> intakes of air from here.  Awaiting the explosive exhalations with calm 
> resolution].
>
> Or in the immortal words of  the 3rd officer and sole survivor of the mining 
> ship Nostromo put it at the board of inquiry:
>
> "Did IQs drop drastically while I was away?"
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Fred Feldman" <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net>
> To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 10:00 PM
> Subject: [Marxism] Reflections by Fidel: The Start of the Summit
>
>
> Given the many criticisms that Fidel, Raul, and other Cuban leaders make of
> Obama's stance and policies, Fidel's assessment of the significance of his
> election is very calm and balanced and correctly positive, in my opinion.
> Fred Feldman
>
>
> Reflections by Comrade Fidel
> http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/reflexiones/2009/ing/f020409i.html
>
> THE START OF THE SUMMIT
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> 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/pbond%40mail.ngo.za
>
>   


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Fri Apr  3 21:32:08 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:32:08 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)
Message-ID: <cd2.4e6b8e92.37082eb8@aol.com>

I believe the questions of relative bribery of the workers, Lenin's  
conception of the labor aristocracy and most certainly the standard of living of  the 
workers since the 1970's is posed incorrectly. The polarity in question  is 
not contained in the "standard of living," a category of dubious value.  Rather, 
wealth and poverty as a polarity; the value content of commodities as  
compared to a previously existing magnitude and finally the exchange rate of  labor 
is the starting point. There is of course the 25 year growth of the  temporary 
workforce and the two worker family household that deserves attention. 
 
The "standard of living" of basically every layer of the working class and  
the working class as a whole have fallen for the past 30 years. Not at the same 
 rate for every layer.  
 
Passivity of the workers and the question of the roots of reformism are not  
identical. Reformism is rooted in the class structure of society itself. What  
ruptures this class structure, and causes antagonism to sublate class  
contradiction, and with it reformism is revolution in the productive forces. 
 
WL. 


In a message dated 4/3/2009 2:01:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight  Time, 
jbustelo at gmail.com writes:

I've written about this here before, and I hesitate to do so  again,
especially because this may now be an exclusively historical dispute,  but I
do not believe the period from roughly 1970 to today or at least  recently
has been marked by a declining standard of living for working people  in the
United States. In part this is due to the "age effect" as US wage  structures
are highly stratified by age. So even if it is true that a 25 year  old today
makes less than a 25 year old did 25 years ago, the 50-year-old on  average
makes much more today that s/he did back then as a 25 year  old.

But in addition, I don't believe the median real standard of living  has
deteriorated, or at least had deteriorated until the year 2000 or  so.
Certainly, by every objective, material statistic I've been able to  find,
households at the beginning of this century were better off than those  30
years previously. This is documented in all sorts of ways, from the  number,
size and quality of electronic entertainment devices to the square  footage
of houses to the number and age of cars per 1000 households. And it  is
reflected in what is considered the minimal or "entry level" qualities of  a
given item, from televisions to computers to housing units. Today,  for
example, housing without central air and heating, laundry facilities and  a
dishwasher is not considered low end or entry-level housing in the  Atlanta
area but sub-standard, below the minimum level for the retail market,  and
saleable only as a "fixer upper" or "investment opportunity." That was  not
true when I moved here 20 years ago.

I believe two factors are  involved: one is that bourgeois statistics
overstate inflation by being  unable go accurately take into account the
quality of goods. The other is  that although nominal household income
adjusted for inflation hasn't changed  much, the SIZE of households certainly
has, declining from three persons  circa 1970 to 2.5 today, which
automatically means a big rise in household  income *per person.*

I think this is a central reason why especially the  left's economic
discourse finds little echo among working people. It  fundamentally does not
correspond to their own lived experience. It certainly  does not correspond
to my lived experience or those of people I  know.

This may all be changing now, I'm not speaking particularly about  the
current conjuncture but rather the broad sweep from 1970-2000 or  2005.

Joaquin
 
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Fri Apr  3 21:45:40 2009
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:45:40 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] "Bernie Madoff was a piker" - Bill Moyers interviews a
	straight shooter
Message-ID: <d60.4788a296.370831e4@aol.com>



 
BILL MOYERS: So if your assumption is correct, your evidence is sound,  the 
bank, the lending company, created a fraud. And the ratings agency that is  
supposed to test the value of these assets knowingly entered into the fraud.  
Both parties are committing fraud by intention.  
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Right, and the investment banker that ? we call it  pooling 
? puts together these bad mortgages, these liars' loans, and creates the  
toxic waste of these derivatives. All of them do that. And then they sell it to  
the world and the world just thinks because it has a triple-A rating it must  
actually be safe. Well, instead, there are 60 and 80 percent losses on these  
things, because of course they, in reality, are toxic waste.  
BILL MOYERS: You're describing what Bernie Madoff did to a limited  number of 
people. But you're saying it's systemic, a systemic Ponzi scheme.  
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Oh, Bernie was a piker. He doesn't even get into the  front 
ranks of a Ponzi scheme...  
BILL MOYERS: But you're saying our system became a Ponzi scheme.  
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Our system...  
BILL MOYERS: Our financial system...  
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Became a Ponzi scheme. Everybody was buying a pig in  the 
poke. But they were buying a pig in the poke with a pretty pink ribbon, and  
the pink ribbon said, "Triple-A." 
 
 
full ---      <_http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/transcript1.html_ 
(http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/transcript1.html) >
**************Hurry! April 15th is almost here. File your Federal taxes FREE 
with TaxACT. 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220714320x1201367638/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.taxact.com%2F08tax.asp%3Fsc%3D084102950001%26p%3D82)

From markalause at gmail.com  Fri Apr  3 22:07:25 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 00:07:25 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Reflections by Fidel: The Start of the Summit
In-Reply-To: <49D6D2A3.5010504@mail.ngo.za>
References: <AA705214B6AC45C489A3EA25E979AC2A@office1pc>
	<B4254D416793488698CECE3B7C734111@dmsthinkpad>
	<49D6D2A3.5010504@mail.ngo.za>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904032107x76755db0o757c9b8e331808f5@mail.gmail.com>

It's on a Cuban government website.  How would it be a hoax?

ML


From vildan.iyigungor at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 02:11:51 2009
From: vildan.iyigungor at gmail.com (vildan iyigungor)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:11:51 +0300
Subject: [Marxism] (konu yok)
Message-ID: <ed10d9de0904040111h497c474ex220afb77f392aca6@mail.gmail.com>



From stuartmunckton at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 04:04:32 2009
From: stuartmunckton at gmail.com (Stuart Munckton)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 21:04:32 +1100
Subject: [Marxism] Lily Allen
In-Reply-To: <dd55f6dc0904031938hd03b659nb2c9b4adcf80071a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dd55f6dc0904031938hd03b659nb2c9b4adcf80071a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2c6145850904040304q53cdf341wc4ddc58fed248992@mail.gmail.com>

You have touched a pet theme of mine of late... and probably better to write
down what I think than keep ranting drunkenly to my friends in the pub. No
doubt they will thank you sincerely for provoking me the chance to get it
out of my system and into written words.

I think there are two aspects: what Lily Allen is and says, first. And
second, how she is treated by the media and establishment. The first is
interesting, but more revealing about the type of society we live in (well,
particularly Britain I guess, but it applies to other English -speaking
imperialist nations just as much) is the latter.

Lily Allen is rare among top charted acts in actually including social
commentary in her songs, whatever its limitations. More generally, she is
rare among top charting acts in actually employing any wit or intelligence ?
or in fact genuine character and charisma ? at all into her lyrics and
music.

She generally employs irony to make a point and that is the case in her
current top charting single "The Fear", which has a go at the empty
consumerism and greed she sees around here - greed for success as well as
wealth.

Sounding (and looking in the
clip<http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=the+fear&aq=f>)
sweetly innocent, she sings in the first verse "I want lots of clothes and a
fuckload of diamonds/I hear people die while they're trying to find them".

In the second verse, having described a society that worships youth,
celebrity and obscene wealth, she comments (with an audible smile) "but it
doesn't matter coz I'm packing plastic/and that's what makes my life so
fucking fantastic".

She often has a go at body image for young women and the pressure to lose
weight (something that she admits being affected by and which sparked a
caustic attack by her on the truly atrocious Katy Perry after the latter
described herself as a "fatter Amy Winehouse, but a thinner Lily Allen").
Among the songs last lines are "I'm not a saint, but I'm not a sinner/and
everything's cool as long as I'm getting thinner"

All of this is put to an upbeat, catchy elctropop tune not a million miles
from the sort used to move Britney Spears CDs from shelves. That fact alone
makes Lily Allen a bit different.

The analysis in the song is hardly a profound Marxist critique, but an
expression of frustration and disgust at the hyprocisy and emptiness of the
society around her, as well as confusion as the where she fits in to this
scheme and how she should relate to it.

Her quite amusing song "Fuck you<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shY4Y01_ogo>"
- a poppy singalong tune - is her musical shoe thrown at a departing George
Bush. She said she had orginally intended it as an attack on the BNP, but
ended up taking shots at Bush's right-wing politics. ("So you say it's not
okay to be gay/Well, I think you're just evil/You're just some racist who
can't tie my laces/ Your point of view is medieval".)

And it features a cheery chorus of "Fuck you, fuck you very very
mu-u-u-ch/coz we hate what you do and we hate you're whole crew, so please
don;t stay in touch".

Both musically and lyrically, it remains pretty lightweight, but has its
playful humour.

Musically, her stuff is interesting, but only to a point,. Lyrically she is
miles ahead of anyone else in her sphere, but that probablly says more about
everyone else.

Her politics are have their limitations ? a basic left-leaning liberal-type
critique ? but at least she has politics. And at least she attempts to
critique the society around her, and in a way that attempts to utilise wit
and irony. These days, that's almost revolutionary for an act at the top of
the charts. When I think

Another song, which is proving predictibly contraversial although it
actually doesn't say anything overwhelmingly profound,. is "Everyone's at
it" ? which states the bleeding obvious about incredible hypocrisy
surrounding drug use. As the title says everyone's at it, "from top
politicals to young adolescants/prescribing htemselves anti-depressants".

This blinding obvious fact of hypocrisy has predicably brought a hail of
outrage down around her. And outright lies, with a tabloid "mistranslation"
of an interview she did for a Dutch-language publication slanderously
reported her saying parents should encourage their kids take illicit drugs.

Allen actually said, and has repeatedly said, that while she has taken
illicit drugs (and her song makes a point of not drawing a distinction
between illicit and legal - "so you got a prescription and that makes it
legal/I find these excuses overwhelmingly feeble"), she doesn't enjoy them
or even like being around people on them ? much less encourages their use.

She has merely stated it is ridiculous and not useful to confront the
problem by only running hysterical bad news drug stories, as it has no
relation to the actual reality (which is, of course, "everyone's at it").

She is on a steep learning curve that exposing hyprocrisy is not
apprieciated in a top-charting act ? especially an outspoke female act. But
then, she did sing in the song "if you've got an opinion then you're well up
for slating", so I guess she had an inkling.

In another single from her recent album, the electro-country (true story) "Not
Fair <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYaosyR4bE>", she revives the feminist
principle that the personal is political, slating a former boyfriend for not
bothering to put the effort in to provide her pleasure in bed.

Apparantly, he took but never gave. And, as she sings, "that's not okay".

Without having listened to most songs on the new album* It's Not Me, it's
you* more than once or maybe twice, it seems less consistent overall than
her first album.

That may be because while this album has more social commentary, whereas the
first was more personal, she is weaker at social commentary  (for all that
she is a thousand miles ahead of most at the top of the charts).  It also
seems less intersting overall musically, with some high points ? and it
isn't as thought her first album was some kind of brilliant musical effort
(though it also had its moments).

In her first album, she put her charisma and biting wit to relationships and
other aspects of being a young woman in Britain. Whole there is some of
that, there is more attempts at social commentary. For istance, speculates
in "Him" about what God is up to and thinks of the world.

It has some amusing lines ? including the statement that His favourite band
is Credence Clearwater Revival (seemingly because it rhymes with a previous
line) and wondering whether he had ever tried smack or contemplated suicide
? but it also  has its share of pretty standard liberal observations that He
must be pretty sick of people killing each other is his name.

In other words, her forays into broader social criticism, while welcome,
runs the risk of ending up a bit more limp than the very biting, and often
very funny, lyrical shots she fires on her debut album: at former
boyfriends, uptight nightclub security personel, those making unwanted
attempts to pick her up in the pub while she is trying to enjpoy a drink and
the fucking bureacrats denying her a loan to buy flat.

And these are things that other young people confront, and appreciate when
their lives and concerns are relfected and translated well by an artist.

Her best on her debut album is the sort of "personal angst as social
criticism" that marked Morrissey at his best (without putting her in the
same league). The best is the almost desparing "Everthing's just
wonderful<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_ZW_pUQx2s>"


Personally, her line, over an upbeat dance beat, of "Oh jesus, christ
almighty, do I feel alight? no, not slightly" is one of the better lines in
a pop song for sone time. This follwed by her tale about being being unable
to get a flat "It's very funny coz I got your fucking money/but I know I
wont get it just coz of my bad credit".

It remind me of The Smiths song "Heavens KNows I'm Miserable Know", a
critique of Thatcherism and conditons of the working class  but presented
(and misundestrood as merely being) a song of individual suffering ?
containing as it does the witty line, "I was looking for a job, then I found
a job/and heaven knows I'm miserable now".

In "Everything's just wonderful", Allen sings that "we're on all
fours/crawling on our knees/someone help us please".

She sings: "Don't you want something else/Something new, than what we've got
here/ And don't you feel it's all the same/Some sick game and it's so
insincere".

She then expresses the general frustration and powerlessness that many feel
(and is actually, at least in Australia, one of the key things holding back
social struggles - no one goes around saying they love the way things are,
they alweays say there is nothing you can do about it, no point protesting
nothing changes etc). She sings: "I wish I could change the ways of the
world/Make it a nice place/Until that day/I guess we stay/Doing what we
do/Screwing who we screw".

This is reminiscent of that sharp song about class division by the most
class conscious of the Britpop wave of the 'i90s ? Pulp ? in "Common
People", where the disempowered "drink and dance and screw/because there's
nothing else to do".

Also, she raises in this song the pressure on young women to lose weight.
(In fact, when giving a short vidoe introduction to the song, this was the
only aspect she spoke about. )

She sings: "I wanna be able to eat spaghetti bolognaise/and not feel bad
about it for days and days and days/All the magazines they talk about weight
loss/If I buy those jeans I can look like Kate Moss"

Again there is the resignment: "I know it's not the life that I chose/But I
guess its just the way that things go".

But possibly the most striking thing about Lily Allen is not any of this at
all. It is her treatement at the ahds of the media.

It is absolutely disgraceful, they descend on her in the most foul way. One
writeer in the Guardian even commented not long ago that it appeared Allen
was finally taken her celbrity status seriously because photosd of her
appeared to show she had lost 20 pounds.

And that is the "liberal" media. The tabloids, and scum of the earth
"celebrity bloggers" like Perez
Hilton<http://perezhilton.com/category/lily-allen/>,
are much worse. Allen herself has commented that the campaign against her
was driven by sexism, saying it felt like it was still the 1950s.

This is the key, Ithink. Myuch more than her social commentary, the cause of
the hostily to Allen can be found be providing this basic description of her
character: She gets drunk in public, smokes, swears, shoots her mputh off
attacking other artists when they really ask for it and is completely free
about sex and her sexuality.

In other words, if she was a young male rock star, she would be a fucking
hero.

If she were male, she would be the Gallegher brothers (from the biggest
Britpop act, Oasis, whose swaggering, arrogant and drunken  public personas
helped create ? not their doing, their defence ? the "lad" culture phenomena
also tied to the rise of overtly sexist and mysigonyst magazines like Ralph
and FHM.

But Lily Allen is not a young male. She is a young female.

So, instead, she is a drunken loundmouth who doesn't know her place.

And, beyond her lyrics, it is the not knowing her place that is the most
radical thing about her.

From rfls12802 at blueyonder.co.uk  Sat Apr  4 04:50:54 2009
From: rfls12802 at blueyonder.co.uk (Paul Flewers)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:50:54 +0100
Subject: [Marxism] T.S. Eliot said no to 'Animal Farm'
In-Reply-To: <mailman.270.1238800334.2555.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
References: <mailman.270.1238800334.2555.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <000601c9b513$3ab58330$b0208990$@co.uk>


Eli S cited: 'A newly-released letter shows that US-born poet T.S. Eliot
refused to publish George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' for its Trotskyite
politics.'

If only Orwell's little book was written from a Trotskyist viewpoint. When I
read Animal Farm at school, along with Nineteen Eighty-Four, it was
explained to us that Orwell was trying to state that revolutions would only
throw up a new ?lite; and there wasn't much evidence in either book to show
that Orwell meant otherwise. And now after studying Orwell at some length, I
can see how both books have been purloined by Orwell's enemies.

Orwell later explained to Dwight Macdonald that the former book was written
to show that if workers stage a revolution, they must keep hold of it
themselves, or they will lose power to a new ?lite. He subsequently defended
his intention for Nineteen Eighty-Four against those who used it as an
anti-socialist device. But the books continued to be used as a weapon
against the left, and Orwell's actual standpoint has been ignored or
distorted. As I wrote a few years back:

'But some of the responsibility must rest with Orwell himself. Considering
that he felt obliged to defend Nineteen Eighty-Four against left-wing
criticisms that it played into the hands of the right only shortly after he
had been forced to do likewise with Animal Farm, one cannot help thinking,
to paraphrase Oscar Wilde's Lady Bracknell, that if coming a cropper once is
a misfortune, doing it twice looks decidedly like carelessness.'

Orwell was not a Trotskyist, and that is one reason why he was unable to
show how the Russian revolution ended up with Stalinism. And that inability
is why his last two works of fiction have been championed by practically
every anti-socialist commentator since their publication.

Paul F





From fred.fuentes at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 06:50:53 2009
From: fred.fuentes at gmail.com (Fred Fuentes)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:50:53 +1100
Subject: [Marxism] =?iso-8859-1?q?Atilio_Bor=F3n=3A_From_infinite_war_to_i?=
	=?iso-8859-1?q?nfinite_crisis?=
Message-ID: <b5a2a8180904040550l57762c84l9e9f7fd7ccd2bd19@mail.gmail.com>

Both Fidel Castro and Higo Chavez has quoted from this speech given by
Boron at the Globalisation conference in Havana. Castro went as far as
to say "If anyone were to take this summary and carry it in his or her
pocket, read it over once in a while or learn it by heart like a small
Bible, he or she will be better informed about what is happening in
the world than 99% of the population, where citizens live under siege
from commercials and saturated with thousands of hours of news, and
real or false soap operas or fiction films."
Enjoy

Atilio Bor?n: From infinite war to infinite crisis

March 25, 2009 -- Machetera/Tlaxcala -- Some thoughts on the current
capitalist crisis, its probable ?solutions? and the role that a
socialist option might play in the present juncture.

After September 11, 2001, US President George W. Bush declared
?infinite war? against terrorism, a war without end and one that would
not be constrained by geography or time limits of any kind. This
policy is not only wrong, but immoral, and failed: upon leaving the
White House, his legacy was a world more violent and insecure than
before.  His administration also left as an inheritance a true
economic and financial tsunami on a global scale: an ?infinite crisis?
whose reach defies our imagination. In the following pages, we would
like to share some ideas about the current capitalist crisis, its
probable ?solutions? and the role that a renewed socialist option
might play in the present juncture. Given time restrictions we?ll
avoid unnecessary technical jargon and will try to express things
plainly, yet without resorting to
oversimplifications.....http://links.org.au/node/983

-- 
REGISTER NOW AT www.worldatacrossroads.org/register

World at a Crossroads - Fighting for Socialism in the 21st Century

Easter 2009, April 10-13, Sydney Girls High, Sydney, Australia

A conference that brings together socialist and progressive activists
and thinkers from around Australia, Latin America, Asia-Pacific and
North America to discuss the urgent questions of our time.

For more info, email dsp at dsp.org.au or sydney.resistance at gmail.com, or
phone (02) 9690 1230.

Organised by the Democratic Socialist Perspective and Resistance.
Sponsored by Green Left Weekly.


From lnp3 at panix.com  Sat Apr  4 07:36:26 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:36:26 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Lawrence Summers earned millions from companies he is
 supposed to regulate
Message-ID: <49D7625A.2050600@panix.com>

NY Times, April 4, 2009
Financial Industry Paid Millions to Obama Aide

By JEFF ZELENY
WASHINGTON ? Lawrence H. Summers, the top economic adviser to President 
Obama, earned more than $5 million last year from the hedge fund D. E. 
Shaw and collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street 
companies that received government bailout money, the White House 
disclosed Friday in releasing financial information about top officials.

Mr. Summers, the director of the National Economic Council, wields 
important influence over Mr. Obama?s policy decisions for the troubled 
financial industry, including firms from which he recently received 
payments.

Last year, he reported making 40 paid appearances, including a $135,000 
speech to the investment firm Goldman Sachs, in addition to his earnings 
from the hedge fund, a sector the administration is trying to regulate.

The White House released hundreds of pages of financial disclosure 
forms, which are required of all West Wing officials. A White House 
spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said the compensation was not a conflict for Mr. 
Summers, adding it was not surprising because he was ?widely recognized 
as one of the country?s most distinguished economists.?

Mr. Summers?s role at the White House includes advising Mr. Obama on 
whether ? and how ? to tighten regulation of hedge funds, which engage 
in highly sophisticated financial trading that many analysts have said 
contributed to the economic collapse.

Mr. Summers, a former president of Harvard University, was Treasury 
secretary in the Clinton administration. He appeared before large Wall 
Street companies like Citigroup ($45,000), J. P. Morgan ($67,500) and 
the now defunct Lehman Brothers ($67,500), according to his disclosure 
report. He reported being paid $10,000 for a speaking date at Yale and 
$90,000 to address an organization of Mexican banks.

While Mr. Obama campaigned on a pledge to restrict lobbyists from 
working in the White House, a step intended to reduce any influence 
between the administration and corporations, the ban did not apply to 
former executives like Mr. Summers, who was not a registered lobbyist. 
In 2006, he became a managing director of D. E. Shaw, a firm that 
manages about $30 billion in assets, making it one of the biggest hedge 
funds in the world.

?Dr. Summers was not an adviser to or an employee of the firms that paid 
him to speak,? Mr. LaBolt said.

He added, ?Of course, since joining the White House, he has complied 
with the strictest ethics rules ever required of appointees and will not 
work on specific matters to which D. E. Shaw is a party for two years.?

A review of hundreds of pages of financial disclosure forms on Friday 
evening offered an extensive portrait of the wealth of top officials in 
the Obama administration. The forms detail the salaries, bonuses and 
investments of the president?s circle of advisers, many of whom took 
deep pay cuts from the private sector and sold their companies to work 
at the White House.

David Axelrod, who was the chief campaign strategist to Mr. Obama and 
now serves as a senior adviser to the president, reported a salary of $1 
million last year from his two consulting firms. Over the next five 
years, according to his disclosure form, he will get $3 million from the 
sale of the two firms, which provide media and strategic advice to 
political clients. He listed assets of about $7 million to $10 million, 
and reported a long list of Democratic clients and a few corporate 
concerns, including AT&T and the Exelon Corporation, a nuclear energy 
company.

The disclosure forms also shed further light on the compensation 
received by a top Obama aide who previously worked for Citigroup, one of 
the largest recipients of taxpayer bailout money. The aide, Michael 
Froman, deputy national security adviser for international economic 
affairs, received more than $7.4 million from the company from January 
2008 to when he joined the White House this year.

That money included a year-end bonus of $2.25 million for work in 2008, 
which Citigroup paid him in January. Such bonuses have prompted 
political controversy in recent months, including sharp criticism from 
Mr. Obama, who in January branded them as ?shameful.?

The White House had previously acknowledged that Mr. Froman received 
such a year-end bonus and said he had decided to give it to charity, but 
would not say what it was.

The administration said Friday that Mr. Froman was working on giving the 
$2.25 million to a combination of charities related to homelessness and 
cancer, which took the life of his son this year.

The remainder of Mr. Froman?s earnings from Citigroup included deferred 
compensation and bonuses for work performed in prior years, as well as a 
$2 million payment for waiving his carried-interest stake in several 
private equity funds.

The White House said Mr. Froman decided to take the buyouts to avoid 
having to recuse himself from foreign-policy issues related to the 
funds? investments, like India infrastructure, which means he would be 
taxed at ordinary income rates on the money.

Millionaires work in a variety of positions across the administration, 
and they include Desir?e Rogers, the White House social secretary. Ms. 
Rogers, a close Chicago friend of the Obama family, reported income of 
$2.3 million last year. She earned a salary of $1.8 million from 
People?s Gas & North Shore Gas, along with three other sources of income 
from serving on insurance company boards.

Thomas E. Donilon, the deputy national security adviser, reported 
earning $3.9 million as a partner at the Washington law firm O?Melveny & 
Myers. His disclosure form says major clients included Citigroup, 
Goldman Sachs and Apollo Management, a private equity firm in New York 
that specializes in distressed assets and corporate restructuring.

Mr. Donilon is also entitled to future pension payments from Fannie Mae, 
where he worked from 1999 to 2005.

Reporting was contributed by Peter Baker, David Johnston, David D. 
Kirkpatrick, Eric Lipton and Charlie Savage.



From esquincle at verizon.net  Sat Apr  4 07:44:06 2009
From: esquincle at verizon.net (A)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:44:06 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Lawrence Summers earned millions
In-Reply-To: <49D7625A.2050600@panix.com>
References: <49D7625A.2050600@panix.com>
Message-ID: <BE045AFA-3459-4BCE-967C-C16835B084CE@verizon.net>

Below is a list of the notable speeches given by Summers last year,  
the amount he was paid, and the date of the address.
    Skagen Funds, $60,300, (1/9/2008)
    Skagen Funds, $60,300, (1/10/2008)
    Skagen Funds, $59,400, (1/11/2008)
    JP Morgan, $67,500, (2/1/2008)
    Itinera Institute, $62,876 (1/8/2008)
    Citigroup, $45,000 (3/3/2008)
    Goldman Sachs Co., $135,000, (4/16/2008)
    Associon de Bancos de Mexico, $90,000, (4/3/2008)
    Lehman Brothers, $67,500, (4/17/2008)
    State Street Corporation, $45,000, (4/18/2008)
    Siguler Guff & Company, $67,500, (5/7/2008)
    Hudson Institute, $10,000, (05/28/2008)
    Citigroup, $54,000, (5/30/2008)
    Investec Bank, $157,500, (6/13/2008)
    Goldman Sachs, $67,500, (6/18/2008)
    Lehman Brothers, $67,500, (7/30/2008)
    Tata Consultance Services, $67,500, (9/21/2008)
    State Street Corporation, $112,500, (10/2/2008)
    McKinsey and Company, $135,000, (10/19/2008)
    Charles River Ventures LLC, $67,500, (11/112008)
    Pricewaterhouse Coopers, $67,500 (9/9/2008)
    American Chamber of Commerce In Argentina, $135,000 (10/7/2008)
    American Express, $67,500 (5/7/2008)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/03/summers-received-hundreds_n_183058.html



From farmelantj at juno.com  Sat Apr  4 07:48:29 2009
From: farmelantj at juno.com (Jim Farmelant)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 09:48:29 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Lawrence Summers earned millions from companies he is
	supposed to regulate
Message-ID: <20090404.094830.6132.0.farmelantj@juno.com>


Lest we forget, Larry Summers was a good friend of those
Harvard economics department members who were involved
(and convicted) in the Russian fraud scandal. See:
 
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1161877,00.html
 
That was probably the real reason that he was forced to
step down from the Harvard presidency.

Jim F.
 
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:36:26 -0400 Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> writes:
> NY Times, April 4, 2009
> Financial Industry Paid Millions to Obama Aide
> 
> By JEFF ZELENY
> WASHINGTON ? Lawrence H. Summers, the top economic adviser to 
> President 
> Obama, earned more than $5 million last year from the hedge fund D. 
> E. 
> Shaw and collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street 
> companies that received government bailout money, the White House 
> disclosed Friday in releasing financial information about top 
> officials.
> 
>
____________________________________________________________
Improve your driving ability with a stop at traffic school. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTMLIrv3fTeBPGw71loa9pnPG1QY2l0UifNBwsGdclRjkTpq4aQGcA/


From esquincle at verizon.net  Sat Apr  4 07:58:13 2009
From: esquincle at verizon.net (A)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:58:13 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Lawrence Summers earned millions from companies he is
 supposed to regulate
In-Reply-To: <20090404.094830.6132.0.farmelantj@juno.com>
References: <20090404.094830.6132.0.farmelantj@juno.com>
Message-ID: <29A77547-8DF8-4BEC-B6EF-31E6BE88A0B8@verizon.net>

Links on Lawrence Summers

Lawrence Summers has been the face of the Obama administration when it  
comes to the economy.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17442.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/politics/politicalhotsheet/main503544.php?category=Face_The_Nation&dir=politics/politicalhotsheet

Highlights from Summers' record of "distinguished service" --

1982-1983:  member of the Council of Economic Advisors for President  
Ronald Reagan
1988:  chief economic advisor to the Dukakis campaign
1990:  advisor to Lithuinia

Mark Ames in The Nation:
"In 1990, Lithuania, a restive Soviet republic seeking independence,  
hired Summers to advise on that country's economic transformation.  
Poor Lithuania had no idea what it got itself into. This was Summers's  
first opportunity to tackle a country in economic crisis and put his  
wunderkind theories into practice. The results were literally  
suicidal: in 1990, when Summers first arrived, Lithuania's suicide  
rate was 26.1 per 100,000 and falling. Just five years after Summers  
got his hands on Lithuania's economy, life became so unbearable under  
the economic transition that the suicide rate nearly doubled to 45.6  
per 100,000, worse than any other ex-Soviet republic in transition. In  
fact, it was the highest suicide rate in the world, suggesting  
something particularly harsh and brutal about the economic transition  
in that country as opposed to the others, where suffering and pain  
were common. Things got so bad that in 1992, after just two years of  
Summers-nomics, the traumatized Lithuanians voted the communist party  
back into power, the first East European nation to do so."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081124/ames

1991-1993:  Chief Economist for the World Bank.

While Chief Economist at the World Bank Summers wrote an infamous  
memo, published in The Economist under the title "Let Them Eat  
Pollution" --
"Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more  
migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed  
Countries] ? I can think of three reasons: (1) The measurement of the  
costs of health-impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings  
from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a  
given amount of health-impairing pollution should be done in the  
country with the lowest cost, which will be the country of the lowest  
wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste  
in the lowest-wage country is impeccable and we should face up to  
that... I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa  
are vastly underpolluted; their air quality is probably vastly  
inefficiently low [sic] compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. ..."
[full memo and comment by John Bellamy Foster available at
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n8_v44/ai_13370984/ 
print ]

1993:  Undersecretary for International Affairs under Bill Clinton
1995:  Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton (Robert  
Rubin was Treasury Secretary)
1999:  Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton

During the Clinton administration in the late 1990s, with Greenspan  
and Rubin, Summers was celebrated, a triumphalist advocate on behalf  
of finance capital.  His accomplishments amounted to enhancing the  
transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.  Two specific measures  
Summers helped shepherd have recently gained further notoriety for  
accelerating the present Wall Street meltdown:

-- Under Clinton, Summers championed the repeal of the Glass-Seagall  
Act.  At the time Travelers Insurance and Citibank wanted to merge  
(reportedly spending $200 million in lobbying and $150 million in  
campaign contributions).  Here Summers blocked with Republican Phil  
Gramm, who led the charge.  (The Glass-Steagall Act was passed in 1933  
to separate investment corporations from savings and loan and mortgage  
banks in order to slow or avoid another banking collapse like the one  
of 1929-1933.)
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/102008/10012008/412090

-- Under Clinton, Summers vigorously opposed regulation of financial  
derivatives, arguing loudly that financial institutions could best  
regulate themselves.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19990215,00.html
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=7&jumival=2852

2001-2006:  controversial President of Harvard University

-- In October 2001 Summers accused Harvard Professor Cornel West of  
neglecting his classes for three weeks, grade inflation, lack of  
scholarship and insinuated that a rap album by a professor was a  
disgrace to Harvard.  In fact, West had missed a single class to give  
a keynote address at a Harvard-sponsored AIDS conference, was popular  
among students, was author of 20 books at the time and had recently  
recorded a spoken words-over hip-hop tracks CD.  West left Harvard for  
Princeton.
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i19/19a00801.htm

-- When 130 faculty, including 5 professors affiliated with Harvard  
who lived in Israel, signed a petition urging Harvard and M.I.T. to  
divest from Israel in 2002, Summers said "serious and thoughtful  
people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in  
their effect if not their intent."
http://newvoices.org/features/just-like-south-africa.html

-- At the January 2005 conference "Diversifying the Science &  
Engineering Workforce:  Women, Underrepresented Minorities, and Their  
S&E Careers" Summers made a memorably ignominious luncheon talk in  
which he asserted that women were underrepresented in science and  
engineering because motherhood disqualified women from putting in 80- 
hour workweeks, also asserting that women who did put in 80-hour  
workweeks received rewards identical to men who did so.  Each  
assertion contradicted ample scholarship well-known to his renowned  
audience.  He further suggested that gender discrimination must be  
innate because his daughter had once referred to her toys as "Daddy  
truck" and "Baby truck."  He went on to assert that women lacked the  
"intrinsic aptitude" that men possess for certain scientific fields!   
His remarks precipitated votes of censure and "lack of confidence" by  
the Harvard faculty.
http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/news/LawrenceSummers_Response.pdf

-- Later in 2005, when Summers received a pay raise (he was making  
something like $500,000/year) the only African-American Harvard  
Corporation Board member publicly quit the board in protest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/education/02htext.html

-- Revelations of cronyism have been said to be the reason Summers  
resigned as President of Harvard.  Under scrutiny was Summers' support  
for his friend and colleague, the Jones professor of economics at  
Harvard, Andrei Shleifer.  The federal government brought a lawsuit  
against Harvard University, Professor Shleifer and others in September  
2000, over conflict-of-interest activity while advising Russia's  
economic privatization program.  In 2001, when he became Harvard  
President, Summers helped see that Shleifer was appointed to the  
endowed chair he still holds today.  The Harvard Crimson reported:   
"On June 28, 2004, a U.S. district court found Shleifer liable for  
conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, and concluded that Harvard  
had breached its contract with the government."   Shleifer paid $2  
million and Harvard $26.5 million in a total settlement of $31 million  
-- in which no one admitted any wrongdoing.  No disciplinary action  
occurred at Harvard.  Shleifer and his wife, hedge-fund manager Nancy  
Zimmerman, had been accused of investing in new capitalist enterprises  
in Russia, something they had pledged not to do as advisors working  
for the Harvard Institute for International Development and the State  
Department's Agency for International Development.   Because Shleifer  
and Zimmerman were known to be close friends and vacation partners  
with Summers there is speculation that Summers knew what they were  
doing in Russia.  Summers is quoted telling Zimmerman in 1996: ""There  
might be a scandal, and you could become embroiled. You should make  
sure you're clear with everybody. People might want to make Andrei a  
problem some day. The world's a shitty place.""
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=511201
http://jboy.chaosnet.org/misc/docs/articles/shleifer.pdf
http://www.dailyii.com/images/31/otherContent/Did_an_Expose.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlkQAZGcmPU

As Mark Ames concluded in The Nation last November:
"And now there's talk that President-elect Obama may hand the keys to  
national treasury to Summers--meaning that he'll be in charge of  
overseeing a trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of the entire financial  
industry, a process already rife with conflicts of interest, cronyism  
and corruption...  The bailout, as currently implemented, threatens to  
devastate America's economy much as Russia's and Lithuania's were  
devastated before. The idea that this is exactly the right time and  
place to put Larry Summers in charge of our economy's future is so  
frightening that it makes the Sarah Palin vice presidential choice  
seem almost quaint by comparison. Let's hope the rumors are wrong."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081124/ames

On the Sunday before Obama's inauguration, as incoming director of the  
National Economic Council, Summers dodged the question of repeal of  
the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy:
SUMMERS:  ... On net there is going to be a substantial tax cut for  
the American people. No one with an income of under $250,000 is going  
to see their taxes go up. Working families are all going to get  
$1,000. The Bush tax cuts, as you know, Bob, are scheduled to expire  
in two years, in any event, just by law. Just what the timing will be  
is something that is going to be worked out going forward.
SCHIEFFER: Well, are you...
(CROSSTALK)
SUMMERS: But the focus is really going to be on moving this economy  
forward by putting money in the hands of the people who need it the  
most, America?s middle class families.
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me get back to the question. Are you going to  
leave those tax cuts in place, or are you going to let (inaudible)  
expire?
SUMMERS: That?s going to be something that?ll get worked out in the  
legislative process. The focus right now for the president, I believe  
the focus for all Americans, should be on how we?re going to get this  
economy going. And that really goes to the question of what we?re  
going to do for middle class families.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1&docID=news-000003013029

In February, Forbes and other publications broke the story that the  
Harvard endowment had lost
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/20/harvard-endowment-summers-business_summers.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/20/harvard-endowment-failed-business_harvard.html

In March... "a contract is a contract,"  for the "rule of law" !
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=7085991&page=1

A former quantitative analyst at Harvard Management Company, the  
university's once-vaunted endowment manager, tells the Harvard Crimson  
she was fired for voicing concern to then-university president Larry  
Summers' chief of staff about the money manager's risky use of  
derivatives the traders didn't understand.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/larry_summers_ignored_frightening_trading_practice.php#more

From markalause at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 08:56:57 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:56:57 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Gerald Celeste interview on Fox
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904040756v448d5e8dsc47cfe5cc7e66e08@mail.gmail.com>

A curious sign of the times....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaSKJ75EMoc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Freqs.php&feature=player_embedded


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Sat Apr  4 08:59:28 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:59:28 -0400
Subject: [Marxism]
	=?windows-1252?q?Atilio_Bor=F3n=3A_From_infinite_war_to?=
	=?windows-1252?q?_infinite_crisis?=
References: <b5a2a8180904040550l57762c84l9e9f7fd7ccd2bd19@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F7C2CE20CC454B0D9B208CE433C86AD0@dmsthinkpad>

Not for nothing,  but isn't it a little remarkable that the author in this 
article begins by stating what the crisis is not and then in item 5, states 
what it is: "It's a simultaneous crisis of overproduction and 
under-consumption."  and then NEVER states another word, provides any 
investigation, a single example of either the overproduction or the 
under-consumption?

Instead we get the usual debt arguments-- after of course, the author has 
claimed this is not a financial or a banking crisis;  we get the 
speculation/financialization/deregulation arguments that the bourgeoisie 
themselves find so comfortable-- and don't forget to throw in the "deep 
crisis" in the use of fossil fuel.   Establishing a connection between 
overproduction and "under-consumption" and fossil fuel-- that is to say 
overproduction and underconsumption of fossil fuel as CAPITAL, is apparently 
beyond the scope of  the investigation.

In "opposing" capitalism and its ideology of political economy, this paper 
embraces that ideology, endorsing as a matter of fact political economy's 
own China syndrome-- hoping China will develop its internal market and 
sustain its commodity imports.  This is of course nothing other than the 
other side of the bourgeoisie's coin of China continuing to recycle hard 
currency transactions into US Treasury obligations, and/or purchases of 
capital equipment from  EU and US manufacturers.

Throw Russia and India into the mix-- what happened to Brazil? too much the 
commodity exporter?  already developed internal market? -- and there's what? 
hope?

IMO, it is exactly the author's inability to investigate, analyze, and 
comprehend overproduction-- which is nothing other than the overproduction 
of capital, an inability that makes itself explicit in his identification of 
overproduction with under-consumption, that makes the final part of his 
presentation-- the what is to be done? part-- so fuzzy, even ethereal, 
winding up with the appeal to regionalism, supranational integration, 
Petrosur, etc.

And this inability in turn is the product of, the limitation of 
"nationalism" that rejects class struggle as requiring the same implacable 
opposition to local, domestic, supranational regionally integrated 
capitalism as well as imperial capitalism-- as if the two ever have been, in 
their history, distinct and not intertwined.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Fuentes" <fred.fuentes at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 8:50 AM
Subject: [Marxism] Atilio Bor?n: From infinite war to infinite crisis


Both Fidel Castro and Higo Chavez has quoted from this speech given by
Boron at the Globalisation conference in Havana. Castro went as far as
to say "If anyone were to take this summary and carry it in his or her
pocket, read it over once in a while or learn it by heart like a small
Bible, he or she will be better informed about what is happening in
the world than 99% of the population, where citizens live under siege
from commercials and saturated with thousands of hours of news, and
real or false soap operas or fiction films."



From avvakum at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 10:29:49 2009
From: avvakum at gmail.com (Thomas Campbell)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 19:29:49 +0300
Subject: [Marxism] CPRF vs the Young Guards of United Russia (Saint
	Petersburg, April 4)
Message-ID: <dd50d8d40904040929q4d32094cv773ad484995146ad@mail.gmail.com>

By way of a sequel to the thread that Joonas launched about the Nashi
("Putin Jugend") movement in Russia, I thought that some of you might
find the following video interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VR2Pt1M8cc

Here you'll see an attempted provocation by a dozen or so members of
the Young Guards of United Russia at today's CPRF-led "anti-crisis"
demo, on Lenin Square in Saint Petersburg. One of the provocateurs
holds up a sign that reads "Communism is the Plague of Russia," and
that's when all hell breaks loose. A crowd of old ladies, elderly
gentlemen, and a few young people make short work of the Putinoids.
I'm not a huge fan of the CPRF (because of the nationalism and
anti-Semitism that plagues their ranks), but in this case all I can
say is "Molodtsy!" ("Way to go!").

This demo was one of several held in Russia today. The principal
demand is the immediate resignation of the government, led by Prime
Minister Putin.

Towards the end of the video you'll catch a glimpse of the famous
Lenin monument after the April 1st bomb blast. It's been turned into a
rather odd looking wooden pyramid.


From jayroth6 at cox.net  Sat Apr  4 10:35:38 2009
From: jayroth6 at cox.net (J Rothermel)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:35:38 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] =?windows-1252?q?Detroit_People=92s_Summit_for_jobs=2C_?=
 =?windows-1252?q?economic_justice?=
Message-ID: <49D78C5A.7080800@cox.net>


  Detroit People?s Summit for jobs, economic justice

By Kris Hamel
Detroit
Published Apr 4, 2009 9:57 AM

The Moratorium NOW! Coalition to Stop Foreclosures and Evictions has 
announced plans for a People?s Summit at Grand Circus Park from June 
14-17. The four-day demonstration will coincide with the June 15-17 
National Business Summit occurring two blocks away at Ford Field in 
downtown Detroit. Corporate heads, economists, academic leaders and 
politicians from around the U.S. will be meeting there to discuss 
business, energy, technology and the environment. President Barack Obama 
and cabinet members have been invited.

read the rest of the article:

http://www.workers.org/2009/us/detroit_0409/
-








From lnp3 at panix.com  Sat Apr  4 11:30:59 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:30:59 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Quitters
Message-ID: <49D79953.8060706@panix.com>

I first learned about Harvey Pekar in a New York Times Sunday Book 
Review dated May 11th, 1986. The reviewer, David Rosenthal, summed up 
Pekar?s debut work, ?American Splendor: the life and times of Harvey 
Pekar?, as follows:

"Mr. Pekar?s work has been compared by literary critics to Chekhov?s and 
Dostoyevsky?s, and it is easy to see why. His stories, as he puts it, 
are about 'the cosmic and the ordinary,' about the working stiff?s 
search for love and transcendence, the bleak reality of life in a hard 
town and the reflections of a volatile, passionate sensibility that 
vibrates with everything around it."

Unlike Chekhov and Dostoyevsky, Pekar?s medium was the comic book, which 
made it even more imperative for me to track down. Like many baby 
boomers (technically speaking, I am a pre-baby boomer since I was born 
before the end of the war), comic books were as central to my early 
childhood as the Internet and video games are to today?s kids. Each new 
issue of Mad Magazine was a major event. I would pick up the latest copy 
from Abe?s Candy Store in Woodridge, New York and rush home to devour 
it. Next I would call a fellow 11 year old, who was hip enough to get 
Mad Magazine?s subversive sense of humor, and discuss it as if it were 
the latest Woody Allen movie (in the 70s, to be sure.)

full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/quitters/


From davidrail68 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  4 11:52:11 2009
From: davidrail68 at yahoo.com (David Walsh)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] addition to Paul LeBlancs tribute
Message-ID: <952419.5565.qm@web45309.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Paul forgot to mention one other key struggle that helped to radicalize so many youth in his excellent tribute to Steffie Brooks. The Irish Civil Rights movement. It helped Irish-American kids, like me,?at that time to make some important connections to Black Liberation and then even broader issues. Northern Ireland is a European country which has witnessed violence over many decades mainly because of sectarian tensions between the Catholic and Protestant community.

 

Bloody Sunday (1972) memorial mural
The Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland can be traced to women in Dungannon who those are some to fight for better housing for the members of the Catholic community. This domestic issue would not have led to a fight for Civil Rights if the policies of Northern Ireland did not make being a registered householder the qualification for the local government franchise. Thus these women were not only challenging what they saw as unfair housing policies, they were also taking the first steps toward fighting for Civil Rights for their community. Using various means to defend and improve the conditions for their communities, these women were in fact preparing a large part of the Catholic population to move beyond local and domestic issue and to embrace the larger purpose of the Civil Rights battle. This substantial contribution made by women is often erased from the general history of Northern Ireland primarily because this country still has a Protestant
 majority and a conservative culture who often overlook the role of women in the political sphere. [1].
On a more broad based and organized front, in January 1964, the Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ) was launched officially in Belfast. This organization took over the woman's struggle over better housing and committed itself to end the discrimination in employment. The CSJ promised the Catholic community that their cries would be heard. They challenged the government, promising that they would take their case to the Commission for Human Rights in Strasbourg and to the United Nations[2].
Having started with basic domestic issues, the Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland escalated to a full scale movement who found its embodiment in the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. NICRA campaigned in the late sixties and early seventies, consciously modeled itself on the civil rights movement in the United States. Empowered by what African-Americans were doing, the movement took on marches and protest to demand better conditions for the minority of Catholics who lived in the Protestant state. Republican leader Gerry Adams explained that Catholics -courtesy of television- saw that it was possible for them to have their demands heard. He wrote that "we were able to see an example of the fact that you didn't just have to take it, you could fight back"[3].
NICRA originally had five main demands:

one man, one vote 
an end to discrimination in housing 
an end to discrimination in local government 
an end to the gerrymandering of district boundaries, which limited the effect of Catholic voting 
the disbandment of the B-Specials, an entirely Protestant Police reserve, perceived as sectarian. 
All of these specific demands were aimed at an ultimate goal that had been the one of women at the very beginning?:the end to discrimination towards the Catholics.
Civil rights activists all around Northern Ireland soon launched a campaign of civil disobedience. There was obviously widespread opposition from Protestant extremists (or Loyalists), who were aided by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), Northern Ireland's Police Force. At this point, the RUC was over 90% Protestant in its make-up. Violence escalated, resulting in the rise of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) from the Catholic community, a reminiscent group from the War of Independence and the Civil War that occurred in the 1920s - this group launched a campaign of violence to end British government presence in Northern Ireland. The British government responded with a policy of internment without trial of suspected IRA members. For more than three hundred people, the internment lasted several years. The huge majority of those interned by the British forces were Catholic. Protestant Loyalist paramilitaries had begun murdering dozens of
 Catholics, but were largely ignored by the British forces. In 1978, in a case brought by the government of the Republic of Ireland against the government of the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the interrogation techniques approved for use by the British army on internees in 1971 amounted to "inhuman and degrading" treatment.
Although it is common knowledge that for a time the aims of the Republicans - and their military division, the IRA - and those of NICRA converged, the two bodies never merged. The IRA told the Republicans to join in the Civil Rights movement but it never controlled NICRA has Unionists often portrayed. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association fought for the end of discrimination toward Catholics and it was happy to do so within the British state [4].
One of the most important event in the era of Civil Rights in Northern Ireland took place in Derry, it was an event that changed the peaceful movement who used civil disobedience into an armed conflict. The 


      

From davidrail68 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  4 11:52:13 2009
From: davidrail68 at yahoo.com (David Walsh)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] addition to Paul LeBlancs tribute
Message-ID: <324834.13746.qm@web45315.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Paul forgot to mention one other key struggle that helped to radicalize so many youth in his excellent tribute to Steffie Brooks. The Irish Civil Rights movement. It helped Irish-American kids, like me,?at that time to make some important connections to Black Liberation and then even broader issues.?? Northern Ireland is a European country which has witnessed violence over many decades mainly because of sectarian tensions between the Catholic and Protestant community.

 

Bloody Sunday (1972) memorial mural
The Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland can be traced to women in Dungannon who those are some to fight for better housing for the members of the Catholic community. This domestic issue would not have led to a fight for Civil Rights if the policies of Northern Ireland did not make being a registered householder the qualification for the local government franchise. Thus these women were not only challenging what they saw as unfair housing policies, they were also taking the first steps toward fighting for Civil Rights for their community. Using various means to defend and improve the conditions for their communities, these women were in fact preparing a large part of the Catholic population to move beyond local and domestic issue and to embrace the larger purpose of the Civil Rights battle. This substantial contribution made by women is often erased from the general history of Northern Ireland primarily because this country still has a Protestant
 majority and a conservative culture who often overlook the role of women in the political sphere. [1].
On a more broad based and organized front, in January 1964, the Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ) was launched officially in Belfast. This organization took over the woman's struggle over better housing and committed itself to end the discrimination in employment. The CSJ promised the Catholic community that their cries would be heard. They challenged the government, promising that they would take their case to the Commission for Human Rights in Strasbourg and to the United Nations[2].
Having started with basic domestic issues, the Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland escalated to a full scale movement who found its embodiment in the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. NICRA campaigned in the late sixties and early seventies, consciously modeled itself on the civil rights movement in the United States. Empowered by what African-Americans were doing, the movement took on marches and protest to demand better conditions for the minority of Catholics who lived in the Protestant state. Republican leader Gerry Adams explained that Catholics -courtesy of television- saw that it was possible for them to have their demands heard. He wrote that "we were able to see an example of the fact that you didn't just have to take it, you could fight back"[3].
NICRA originally had five main demands:

one man, one vote 
an end to discrimination in housing 
an end to discrimination in local government 
an end to the gerrymandering of district boundaries, which limited the effect of Catholic voting 
the disbandment of the B-Specials, an entirely Protestant Police reserve, perceived as sectarian. 
All of these specific demands were aimed at an ultimate goal that had been the one of women at the very beginning?:the end to discrimination towards the Catholics.
Civil rights activists all around Northern Ireland soon launched a campaign of civil disobedience. There was obviously widespread opposition from Protestant extremists (or Loyalists), who were aided by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), Northern Ireland's Police Force. At this point, the RUC was over 90% Protestant in its make-up. Violence escalated, resulting in the rise of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) from the Catholic community, a reminiscent group from the War of Independence and the Civil War that occurred in the 1920s - this group launched a campaign of violence to end British government presence in Northern Ireland. The British government responded with a policy of internment without trial of suspected IRA members. For more than three hundred people, the internment lasted several years. The huge majority of those interned by the British forces were Catholic. Protestant Loyalist paramilitaries had begun murdering dozens of
 Catholics, but were largely ignored by the British forces. In 1978, in a case brought by the government of the Republic of Ireland against the government of the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the interrogation techniques approved for use by the British army on internees in 1971 amounted to "inhuman and degrading" treatment.
Although it is common knowledge that for a time the aims of the Republicans - and their military division, the IRA - and those of NICRA converged, the two bodies never merged. The IRA told the Republicans to join in the Civil Rights movement but it never controlled NICRA has Unionists often portrayed. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association fought for the end of discrimination toward Catholics and it was happy to do so within the British state [4].
One of the most important event in the era of Civil Rights in Northern Ireland took place in Derry, it was an event that changed the peaceful movement who used civil disobedience into an armed conflict. The Battle of the Bogside started on 12 August when an Apprentice Boys parade - a Protestant order - passed through Waterloo Place, where a large crowd was gathered at the mouth of William Street, on the edge of the Bogside. Different account described the first outbreak of violence either as an attack by youths from the Bogside on the RUC or as an outbreak of fighting between Protestants ans Catholics. In either way, the violence escalated in the neighborhood called the Bogside, where barricades were erected. Proclaiming this distrinct to be the Free Derry, Bogsiders carry on fights with the RUC for days using stones and petrol bombs. The government finally withdraw the RUC and instead sent the army to disbend the crowds of Catholics who were barricated
 in the Bogside [5].
Bloody Sunday in Derry is seen as a turning point in the Civil Rights movement. On this day, the Catholics were trying a peaceful way of resolving the problem. But they were ignored and fights broke out.Fourteen Catholic Civil rights marchers protesting against internment were shot dead by the British army and many were left wounded on the streets.
The peace process has made significant gains in recent years. Through open dialogue from all parties, a lasting ceasefire from all paramilitary groups seems to be lasting. A relatively strong economy and more opportunities for all citizens has improved Northern Ireland's standard of living. Civil rights issues have become far less of a concern for many Catholics in Northern Ireland over the past twenty years as laws and policies protecting their rights and forms of affirmative action have been implemented for all government offices and many private businesses. Tensions still exist in some corners of the province, but the vast majority of citizens are no longer affected by the violence that once paralyzed the province.


?


      

From davidrail68 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  4 11:52:14 2009
From: davidrail68 at yahoo.com (David Walsh)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] addition to Paul LeBlancs tribute
Message-ID: <361011.49386.qm@web45303.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Paul forgot to mention one other key struggle that helped to radicalize so many youth in his excellent tribute to Steffie Brooks. The Irish Civil Rights movement. It helped Irish-American kids, like me,?at that time to make some important connections to Black Liberation and then even broader issues.?????????? Northern Ireland is a European country which has witnessed violence over many decades mainly because of sectarian tensions between the Catholic and Protestant community.

 

Bloody Sunday (1972) memorial mural
The Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland can be traced to women in Dungannon who those are some to fight for better housing for the members of the Catholic community. This domestic issue would not have led to a fight for Civil Rights if the policies of Northern Ireland did not make being a registered householder the qualification for the local government franchise. Thus these women were not only challenging what they saw as unfair housing policies, they were also taking the first steps toward fighting for Civil Rights for their community. Using various means to defend and improve the conditions for their communities, these women were in fact preparing a large part of the Catholic population to move beyond local and domestic issue and to embrace the larger purpose of the Civil Rights battle. This substantial contribution made by women is often erased from the general history of Northern Ireland primarily because this country still has a Protestant
 majority and a conservative culture who often overlook the role of women in the political sphere. [1].
On a more broad based and organized front, in January 1964, the Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ) was launched officially in Belfast. This organization took over the woman's struggle over better housing and committed itself to end the discrimination in employment. The CSJ promised the Catholic community that their cries would be heard. They challenged the government, promising that they would take their case to the Commission for Human Rights in Strasbourg and to the United Nations[2].
Having started with basic domestic issues, the Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland escalated to a full scale movement who found its embodiment in the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. NICRA campaigned in the late sixties and early seventies, consciously modeled itself on the civil rights movement in the United States. Empowered by what African-Americans were doing, the movement took on marches and protest to demand better conditions for the minority of Catholics who lived in the Protestant state. Republican leader Gerry Adams explained that Catholics -courtesy of television- saw that it was possible for them to have their demands heard. He wrote that "we were able to see an example of the fact that you didn't just have to take it, you could fight back"[3].
NICRA originally had five main demands:

one man, one vote 
an end to discrimination in housing 
an end to discrimination in local government 
an end to the gerrymandering of district boundaries, which limited the effect of Catholic voting 
the disbandment of the B-Specials, an entirely Protestant Police reserve, perceived as sectarian. 
All of these specific demands were aimed at an ultimate goal that had been the one of women at the very beginning?:the end to discrimination towards the Catholics.
Civil rights activists all around Northern Ireland soon launched a campaign of civil disobedience. There was obviously widespread opposition from Protestant extremists (or Loyalists), who were aided by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), Northern Ireland's Police Force. At this point, the RUC was over 90% Protestant in its make-up. Violence escalated, resulting in the rise of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) from the Catholic community, a reminiscent group from the War of Independence and the Civil War that occurred in the 1920s - this group launched a campaign of violence to end British government presence in Northern Ireland. The British government responded with a policy of internment without trial of suspected IRA members. For more than three hundred people, the internment lasted several years. The huge majority of those interned by the British forces were Catholic. Protestant Loyalist paramilitaries had begun murdering dozens of
 Catholics, but were largely ignored by the British forces. In 1978, in a case brought by the government of the Republic of Ireland against the government of the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the interrogation techniques approved for use by the British army on internees in 1971 amounted to "inhuman and degrading" treatment.
Although it is common knowledge that for a time the aims of the Republicans - and their military division, the IRA - and those of NICRA converged, the two bodies never merged. The IRA told the Republicans to join in the Civil Rights movement but it never controlled NICRA has Unionists often portrayed. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association fought for the end of discrimination toward Catholics and it was happy to do so within the British state [4].
One of the most important event in the era of Civil Rights in Northern Ireland took place in Derry, it was an event that changed the peaceful movement who used civil disobedience into an armed conflict. The Battle of the Bogside started on 12 August when an Apprentice Boys parade - a Protestant order - passed through Waterloo Place, where a large crowd was gathered at the mouth of William Street, on the edge of the Bogside. Different account described the first outbreak of violence either as an attack by youths from the Bogside on the RUC or as an outbreak of fighting between Protestants ans Catholics. In either way, the violence escalated in the neighborhood called the Bogside, where barricades were erected. Proclaiming this distrinct to be the Free Derry, Bogsiders carry on fights with the RUC for days using stones and petrol bombs. The government finally withdraw the RUC and instead sent the army to disbend the crowds of Catholics who were barricated
 in the Bogside [5].
Bloody Sunday in Derry is seen as a turning point in the Civil Rights movement. On this day, the Catholics were trying a peaceful way of resolving the problem. But they were ignored and fights broke out.Fourteen Catholic Civil rights marchers protesting against internment were shot dead by the British army and many were left wounded on the streets.
The peace process has made significant gains in recent years. Through open dialogue from all parties, a lasting ceasefire from all paramilitary groups seems to be lasting. A relatively strong economy and more opportunities for all citizens has improved Northern Ireland's standard of living. Civil rights issues have become far less of a concern for many Catholics in Northern Ireland over the past twenty years as laws and policies protecting their rights and forms of affirmative action have been implemented for all government offices and many private businesses. Tensions still exist in some corners of the province, but the vast majority of citizens are no longer affected by the violence that once paralyzed the province.


?


      

From davidrail68 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  4 11:52:13 2009
From: davidrail68 at yahoo.com (David Walsh)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] addition to Paul LeBlancs tribute
Message-ID: <115306.39397.qm@web45311.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Paul forgot to mention one other key struggle that helped to radicalize so many youth in his excellent tribute to Steffie Brooks. The Irish Civil Rights movement. It helped Irish-American kids, like me,?at that time to make some important connections to Black Liberation and then even broader issues.???? Northern Ireland is a European country which has witnessed violence over many decades mainly because of sectarian tensions between the Catholic and Protestant community.

 

Bloody Sunday (1972) memorial mural
The Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland can be traced to women in Dungannon who those are some to fight for better housing for the members of the Catholic community. This domestic issue would not have led to a fight for Civil Rights if the policies of Northern Ireland did not make being a registered householder the qualification for the local government franchise. Thus these women were not only challenging what they saw as unfair housing policies, they were also taking the first steps toward fighting for Civil Rights for their community. Using various means to defend and improve the conditions for their communities, these women were in fact preparing a large part of the Catholic population to move beyond local and domestic issue and to embrace the larger purpose of the Civil Rights battle. This substantial contribution made by women is often erased from the general history of Northern Ireland primarily because this country still has a Protestant
 majority and a conservative culture who often overlook the role of women in the political sphere. [1].
On a more broad based and organized front, in January 1964, the Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ) was launched officially in Belfast. This organization took over the woman's struggle over better housing and committed itself to end the discrimination in employment. The CSJ promised the Catholic community that their cries would be heard. They challenged the government, promising that they would take their case to the Commission for Human Rights in Strasbourg and to the United Nations[2].
Having started with basic domestic issues, the Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland escalated to a full scale movement who found its embodiment in the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. NICRA campaigned in the late sixties and early seventies, consciously modeled itself on the civil rights movement in the United States. Empowered by what African-Americans were doing, the movement took on marches and protest to demand better conditions for the minority of Catholics who lived in the Protestant state. Republican leader Gerry Adams explained that Catholics -courtesy of television- saw that it was possible for them to have their demands heard. He wrote that "we were able to see an example of the fact that you didn't just have to take it, you could fight back"[3].
NICRA originally had five main demands:

one man, one vote 
an end to discrimination in housing 
an end to discrimination in local government 
an end to the gerrymandering of district boundaries, which limited the effect of Catholic voting 
the disbandment of the B-Specials, an entirely Protestant Police reserve, perceived as sectarian. 
All of these specific demands were aimed at an ultimate goal that had been the one of women at the very beginning?:the end to discrimination towards the Catholics.
Civil rights activists all around Northern Ireland soon launched a campaign of civil disobedience. There was obviously widespread opposition from Protestant extremists (or Loyalists), who were aided by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), Northern Ireland's Police Force. At this point, the RUC was over 90% Protestant in its make-up. Violence escalated, resulting in the rise of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) from the Catholic community, a reminiscent group from the War of Independence and the Civil War that occurred in the 1920s - this group launched a campaign of violence to end British government presence in Northern Ireland. The British government responded with a policy of internment without trial of suspected IRA members. For more than three hundred people, the internment lasted several years. The huge majority of those interned by the British forces were Catholic. Protestant Loyalist paramilitaries had begun murdering dozens of
 Catholics, but were largely ignored by the British forces. In 1978, in a case brought by the government of the Republic of Ireland against the government of the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the interrogation techniques approved for use by the British army on internees in 1971 amounted to "inhuman and degrading" treatment.
Although it is common knowledge that for a time the aims of the Republicans - and their military division, the IRA - and those of NICRA converged, the two bodies never merged. The IRA told the Republicans to join in the Civil Rights movement but it never controlled NICRA has Unionists often portrayed. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association fought for the end of discrimination toward Catholics and it was happy to do so within the British state [4].
One of the most important event in the era of Civil Rights in Northern Ireland took place in Derry, it was an event that changed the peaceful movement who used civil disobedience into an armed conflict. The Battle of the Bogside started on 12 August when an Apprentice Boys parade - a Protestant order - passed through Waterloo Place, where a large crowd was gathered at the mouth of William Street, on the edge of the Bogside. Different account described the first outbreak of violence either as an attack by youths from the Bogside on the RUC or as an outbreak of fighting between Protestants ans Catholics. In either way, the violence escalated in the neighborhood called the Bogside, where barricades were erected. Proclaiming this distrinct to be the Free Derry, Bogsiders carry on fights with the RUC for days using stones and petrol bombs. The government finally withdraw the RUC and instead sent the army to disbend the crowds of Catholics who were barricated
 in the Bogside [5].
Bloody Sunday in Derry is seen as a turning point in the Civil Rights movement. On this day, the Catholics were trying a peaceful way of resolving the problem. But they were ignored and fights broke out.Fourteen Catholic Civil rights marchers protesting against internment were shot dead by the British army and many were left wounded on the streets.
The peace process has made significant gains in recent years. Through open dialogue from all parties, a lasting ceasefire from all paramilitary groups seems to be lasting. A relatively strong economy and more opportunities for all citizens has improved Northern Ireland's standard of living. Civil rights issues have become far less of a concern for many Catholics in Northern Ireland over the past twenty years as laws and policies protecting their rights and forms of affirmative action have been implemented for all government offices and many private businesses. Tensions still exist in some corners of the province, but the vast majority of citizens are no longer affected by the violence that once paralyzed the province.


?


      

From davidrail68 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  4 11:52:19 2009
From: davidrail68 at yahoo.com (David Walsh)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] addition to Paul LeBlancs tribute
Message-ID: <715987.72842.qm@web45304.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Paul forgot to mention one other key struggle that helped to radicalize so many youth in his excellent tribute to Steffie Brooks. The Irish Civil Rights movement. It helped Irish-American kids, like me,?at that time to make some important connections to Black Liberation and then even broader issues.????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Northern Ireland is a European country which has witnessed violence over many decades mainly because of sectarian tensions between the Catholic and Protestant community.

 

Bloody Sunday (1972) memorial mural
The Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland can be traced to women in Dungannon who those are some to fight for better housing for the members of the Catholic community. This domestic issue would not have led to a fight for Civil Rights if the policies of Northern Ireland did not make being a registered householder the qualification for the local government franchise. Thus these women were not only challenging what they saw as unfair housing policies, they were also taking the first steps toward fighting for Civil Rights for their community. Using various means to defend and improve the conditions for their communities, these women were in fact preparing a large part of the Catholic population to move beyond local and domestic issue and to embrace the larger purpose of the Civil Rights battle. This substantial contribution made by women is often erased from the general history of Northern Ireland primarily because this country still has a Protestant
 majority and a conservative culture who often overlook the role of women in the political sphere. [1].
On a more broad based and organized front, in January 1964, the Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ) was launched officially in Belfast. This organization took over the woman's struggle over better housing and committed itself to end the discrimination in employment. The CSJ promised the Catholic community that their cries would be heard. They challenged the government, promising that they would take their case to the Commission for Human Rights in Strasbourg and to the United Nations[2].
Having started with basic domestic issues, the Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland escalated to a full scale movement who found its embodiment in the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. NICRA campaigned in the late sixties and early seventies, consciously modeled itself on the 


      

From davidrail68 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  4 11:52:18 2009
From: davidrail68 at yahoo.com (David Walsh)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] addition to Paul LeBlancs tribute
Message-ID: <661976.58619.qm@web45316.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Paul forgot to mention one other key struggle that helped to radicalize so many youth in his excellent tribute to Steffie Brooks. The Irish Civil Rights movement. It helped Irish-American kids, like me,?at that time to make some important connections to Black Liberation and then even broader issues.?????????????????????????????????????????? Northern Ireland is a European country which has witnessed violence over many decades mainly because of sectarian tensions between the Catholic and Protestant community.

 

Bloody Sunday (1972) memorial mural
The Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland can be traced to women in Dungannon who those are some to fight for better housing for the members of the Catholic community. This domestic issue would not have led to a fight for Civil Rights if the policies of Northern Ireland did not make being a registered householder the qualification for the local government franchise. Thus these women were not only challenging what they saw as unfair housing policies, they were also taking the first steps toward fighting for Civil Rights for their community. Using various means to defend and improve the conditions for their communities, these women were in fact preparing a large part of the Catholic population to move beyond local and domestic issue and to embrace the larger purpose of the Civil Rights battle. This substantial contribution made by women is often erased from the general history of Northern Ireland primarily because this country still has a Protestant
 majority and a conservative culture who often overlook the role of women in the political sphere. [1].
On a more broad based and organized front, in January 1964, the Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ) was launched officially in Belfast. This organization took over the woman's struggle over better housing and committed itself to end the discrimination in employment. The CSJ promised the Catholic community that their cries would be heard. They challenged the government, promising that they would take their case to the Commission for Human Rights in Strasbourg and to the United Nations[2].
Having started with basic domestic issues, the Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland escalated to a full scale movement who found its embodiment in the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. NICRA campaigned in the late sixties and early seventies, consciously modeled itself on the civil rights movement in the United States. Empowered by what African-Americans were doing, the movement took on marches and protest to demand better conditions for the minority of Catholics who lived in the Protestant state. Republican leader Gerry Adams explained that Catholics -courtesy of television- saw that it was possible for them to have their demands heard. He wrote that "we were able to see an example of the fact that you didn't just have to take it, you could fight back"[3].
NICRA originally had five main demands:

one man, one vote 
an end to discrimination in housing 
an end to discrimination in local government 
an end to the gerrymandering of district boundaries, which limited the effect of Catholic voting 
the disbandment of the B-Specials, an entirely Protestant Police reserve, perceived as sectarian. 
All of these specific demands were aimed at an ultimate goal that had been the one of women at the very beginning?:the end to discrimination towards the Catholics.
Civil rights activists all around Northern Ireland soon launched a campaign of civil disobedience. There was obviously widespread opposition from Protestant extremists (or Loyalists), who were aided by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), Northern Ireland's Police Force. At this point, the RUC was over 90% Protestant in its make-up. Violence escalated, resulting in the rise of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) from the Catholic community, a reminiscent group from the War of Independence and the Civil War that occurred in the 1920s - this group launched a campaign of violence to end British government presence in Northern Ireland. The British government responded with a policy of internment without trial of suspected IRA members. For more than three hundred people, the internment lasted several years. The huge majority of those interned by the British forces were Catholic. Protestant Loyalist paramilitaries had begun murdering dozens of
 Catholics, but were largely ignored by the British forces. In 1978, in a case brought by the government of the Republic of Ireland against the government of the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the interrogation techniques approved for use by the British army on internees in 1971 amounted to "inhuman and degrading" treatment.
Although it is common knowledge that for a time the aims of the Republicans - and their military division, the IRA - and those of NICRA converged, the two bodies never merged. The IRA told the Republicans to join in the Civil Rights movement but it never controlled NICRA has Unionists often portrayed. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association fought for the end of discrimination toward Catholics and it was happy to do so within the British state [4].
One of the most important event in the era of Civil Rights in Northern Ireland took place in Derry, it was an event that changed the peaceful movement who used civil disobedience into an armed conflict. The Battle of the Bogside started on 12 August when an Apprentice Boys parade - a Protestant order - passed through Waterloo Place, where a large crowd was gathered at the mouth of William Street, on the edge of the Bogside. Different account described the first outbreak of violence either as an attack by youths from the Bogside on the RUC or as an outbreak of fighting between Protestants ans Catholics. In either way, the violence escalated in the neighborhood called the Bogside, where barricades were erected. Proclaiming this distrinct to be the Free Derry, Bogsiders carry on fights with the RUC for days using stones and petrol bombs. The government finally withdraw the RUC and instead sent the army to disbend the crowds of Catholics who were barricated
 in the Bogside [5].
Bloody Sunday in Derry is seen as a turning point in the Civil Rights movement. On this day, the Catholics were trying a peaceful way of resolving the problem. But they were ignored and fights broke out.Fourteen Catholic Civil rights marchers protesting against internment were shot dead by the British army and many were left wounded on the streets.
The peace process has made significant gains in recent years. Through open dialogue from all parties, a lasting ceasefire from all paramilitary groups seems to be lasting. A relatively strong economy and more opportunities for all citizens has improved Northern Ireland's standard of living. Civil rights issues have become far less of a concern for many Catholics in Northern Ireland over the past twenty years as laws and policies protecting their rights and forms of affirmative action have been implemented for all government offices and many private businesses. Tensions still exist in some corners of the province, but the vast majority of citizens are no longer affected by the violence that once paralyzed the province.


?


      

From davidrail68 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  4 11:52:16 2009
From: davidrail68 at yahoo.com (David Walsh)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] addition to Paul LeBlancs tribute
Message-ID: <161081.58501.qm@web45316.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Paul forgot to mention one other key struggle that helped to radicalize so many youth in his excellent tribute to Steffie Brooks. The Irish Civil Rights movement. It helped Irish-American kids, like me,?at that time to make some important connections to Black Liberation and then even broader issues.???????????????? Northern Ireland is a European country which has witnessed violence over many decades mainly because of sectarian tensions between the Catholic and Protestant community.

 

Bloody Sunday (1972) memorial mural
The Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland can be traced to women in Dungannon who those are some to fight for better housing for the members of the Catholic community. This domestic issue would not have led to a fight for Civil Rights if the policies of Northern Ireland did not make being a registered householder the qualification for the local government franchise. Thus these women were not only challenging what they saw as unfair housing policies, they were also taking the first steps toward fighting for Civil Rights for their community. Using various means to defend and improve the conditions for their communities, these women were in fact preparing a large part of the Catholic population to move beyond local and domestic issue and to embrace the larger purpose of the Civil Rights battle. This substantial contribution made by women is often erased from the general history of Northern Ireland primarily because this country still has a Protestant
 majority and a conservative culture who often overlook the role of women in the political sphere. [1].
On a more broad based and organized front, in January 1964, the Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ) was launched officially in Belfast. This organization took over the woman's struggle over better housing and committed itself to end the discrimination in employment. The CSJ promised the Catholic community that their cries would be heard. They challenged the government, promising that they would take their case to the Commission for Human Rights in Strasbourg and to the United Nations[2].
Having started with basic domestic issues, the Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland escalated to a full scale movement who found its embodiment in the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. NICRA campaigned in the late sixties and early seventies, consciously modeled itself on the civil rights movement in the United States. Empowered by what African-Americans were doing, the movement took on marches and protest to demand better conditions for the minority of Catholics who lived in the Protestant state. Republican leader Gerry Adams explained that Catholics -courtesy of television- saw that it was possible for them to have their demands heard. He wrote that "we were able to see an example of the fact that you didn't just have to take it, you could fight back"[3].
NICRA originally had five main demands:

one man, one vote 
an end to discrimination in housing 
an end to discrimination in local government 
an end to the gerrymandering of district boundaries, which limited the effect of Catholic voting 
the disbandment of the B-Specials, an entirely Protestant Police reserve, perceived as sectarian. 
All of these specific demands were aimed at an ultimate goal that had been the one of women at the very beginning?:the end to discrimination towards the Catholics.
Civil rights activists all around Northern Ireland soon launched a campaign of civil disobedience. There was obviously widespread opposition from Protestant extremists (or Loyalists), who were aided by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), Northern Ireland's Police Force. At this point, the RUC was over 90% Protestant in its make-up. Violence escalated, resulting in the rise of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) from the Catholic community, a reminiscent group from the War of Independence and the Civil War that occurred in the 1920s - this group launched a campaign of violence to end British government presence in Northern Ireland. The British government responded with a policy of internment without trial of suspected IRA members. For more than three hundred people, the internment lasted several years. The huge majority of those interned by the British forces were Catholic. Protestant Loyalist paramilitaries had begun murdering dozens of
 Catholics, but were largely ignored by the British forces. In 1978, in a case brought by the government of the Republic of Ireland against the government of the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the interrogation techniques approved for use by the British army on internees in 1971 amounted to "inhuman and degrading" treatment.
Although it is common knowledge that for a time the aims of the Republicans - and their military division, the IRA - and those of NICRA converged, the two bodies never merged. The IRA told the Republicans to join in the Civil Rights movement but it never controlled NICRA has Unionists often portrayed. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association fought for the end of discrimination toward Catholics and it was happy to do so within the British state [4].
One of the most important event in the era of Civil Rights in Northern Ireland took place in Derry, it was an event that changed the peaceful movement who used civil disobedience into an armed conflict. The Battle of the Bogside started on 12 August when an Apprentice Boys parade - a Protestant order - passed through Waterloo Place, where a large crowd was gathered at the mouth of William Street, on the edge of the Bogside. Different account described the first outbreak of violence either as an attack by youths from the Bogside on the RUC or as an outbreak of fighting between Protestants ans Catholics. In either way, the violence escalated in the neighborhood called the Bogside, where barricades were erected. Proclaiming this distrinct to be the Free Derry, Bogsiders carry on fights with the RUC for days using stones and petrol bombs. The government finally withdraw the RUC and instead sent the army to disbend the crowds of Catholics who were barricated
 in the Bogside [5].
Bloody Sunday in Derry is seen as a turning point in the Civil Rights movement. On this day, the Catholics were trying a peaceful way of resolving the problem. But they were ignored and fights broke out.Fourteen Catholic Civil rights marchers protesting against internment were shot dead by the British army and many were left wounded on the streets.
The peace process has made significant gains in recent years. Through open dialogue from all parties, a lasting ceasefire from all paramilitary groups seems to be lasting. A relatively strong economy and more opportunities for all citizens has improved Northern Ireland's standard of living. Civil rights issues have become far less of a concern for many Catholics in Northern Ireland over the past twenty years as laws and policies protecting their rights and forms of affirmative action have been implemented for all government offices and many private businesses. Tensions still exist in some corners of the province, but the vast majority of citizens are no longer affected by the violence that once paralyzed the province.


?


      

From davidrail68 at yahoo.com  Sat Apr  4 11:52:26 2009
From: davidrail68 at yahoo.com (David Walsh)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] addition to Paul LeBlancs tribute
Message-ID: <520209.4926.qm@web45309.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

Paul forgot to mention one other key struggle that helped to radicalize so many youth in his excellent tribute to Steffie Brooks. The Irish Civil Rights movement. It helped Irish-American kids, like me,?at that time to make some important connections to Black Liberation and then even broader issues.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Northern Ireland is a European country which has witnessed violence over many decades mainly because of sectarian tensions between the Catholic and Protestant community.

 

Bloody Sunday (1972) memorial mural
The Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland can be traced to women in Dungannon who those are some to fight for better housing for the members of the Catholic community. This domestic issue would not have led to a fight for Civil Rights if the policies of Northern Ireland did not make being a registered householder the qualification for the local government franchise. Thus these women were not only challenging what they saw as unfair housing policies, they were also taking the first steps toward fighting for Civil Rights for their community. Using various means to defend and improve the conditions for their communities, these women were in fact preparing a large part of the Catholic population to move beyond local and domestic issue and to embrace the larger purpose of the Civil Rights battle. This substantial contribution made by women is often erased from the general history of Northern Ireland primarily because this country still has a Protestant
 majority and a conservative culture who often overlook the role of women in the political sphere. [1].
On a more broad based and organized front, in January 1964, the Campaign for Social Justice (CSJ) was launched officially in Belfast. This organization took over the woman's struggle over better housing and committed itself to end the discrimination in employment. The CSJ promised the Catholic community that their cries would be heard. They challenged the government, promising that they would take their case to the Commission for Human Rights in Strasbourg and to the United Nations[2].
Having started with basic domestic issues, the Civil Rights struggle in Northern Ireland escalated to a full scale movement who found its embodiment in the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. NICRA campaigned in the late sixties and early seventies, consciously modeled itself on the civil rights movement in the United States. Empowered by what African-Americans were doing, the movement took on marches and protest to demand better conditions for the minority of Catholics who lived in the Protestant state. Republican leader Gerry Adams explained that Catholics -courtesy of television- saw that it was possible for them to have their demands heard. He wrote that "we were able to see an example of the fact that you didn't just have to take it, you could fight back"[3].
NICRA originally had five main demands:

one man, one vote 
an end to discrimination in housing 
an end to discrimination in local government 
an end to the gerrymandering of district boundaries, which limited the effect of Catholic voting 
the disbandment of the B-Specials, an entirely Protestant Police reserve, perceived as sectarian. 
All of these specific demands were aimed at an ultimate goal that had been the one of women at the very beginning?:the end to discrimination towards the Catholics.
Civil rights activists all around Northern Ireland soon launched a campaign of civil disobedience. There was obviously widespread opposition from Protestant extremists (or Loyalists), who were aided by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), Northern Ireland's Police Force. At this point, the RUC was over 90% Protestant in its make-up. Violence escalated, resulting in the rise of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) from the Catholic community, a reminiscent group from the War of Independence and the Civil War that occurred in the 1920s - this group launched a campaign of violence to end British government presence in Northern Ireland. The British government responded with a policy of internment without trial of suspected IRA members. For more than three hundred people, the internment lasted several years. The huge majority of those interned by the British forces were Catholic. Protestant Loyalist paramilitaries had begun murdering dozens of
 Catholics, but were largely ignored by the British forces. In 1978, in a case brought by the government of the Republic of Ireland against the government of the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the interrogation techniques approved for use by the British army on internees in 1971 amounted to "inhuman and degrading" treatment.
Although it is common knowledge that for a time the aims of the Republicans - and their military division, the IRA - and those of NICRA converged, the two bodies never merged. The IRA told the Republicans to join in the Civil Rights movement but it never controlled NICRA has Unionists often portrayed. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association fought for the end of discrimination toward Catholics and it was happy to do so within the British state [4].
One of the most important event in the era of Civil Rights in Northern Ireland took place in Derry, it was an event that changed the peaceful movement who used civil disobedience into an armed conflict. The Battle of the Bogside started on 12 August when an Apprentice Boys parade - a Protestant order - passed through Waterloo Place, where a large crowd was gathered at the mouth of William Street, on the edge of the Bogside. Different account described the first outbreak of violence either as an attack by youths from the Bogside on the RUC or as an outbreak of fighting between Protestants ans Catholics. In either way, the violence escalated in the neighborhood called the Bogside, where barricades were erected. Proclaiming this distrinct to be the Free Derry, Bogsiders carry on fights with the RUC for days using stones and petrol bombs. The government finally withdraw the RUC and instead sent the army to disbend the crowds of Catholics who were barricated
 in the Bogside [5].
Bloody Sunday in Derry is seen as a turning point in the Civil Rights movement. On this day, the Catholics were trying a peaceful way of resolving the problem. But they were ignored and fights broke out.Fourteen Catholic Civil rights marchers protesting against internment were shot dead by the British army and many were left wounded on the streets.
The peace process has made significant gains in recent years. Through open dialogue from all parties, a lasting ceasefire from all paramilitary groups seems to be lasting. A relatively strong economy and more opportunities for all citizens has improved Northern Ireland's standard of living. Civil rights issues have become far less of a concern for many Catholics in Northern Ireland over the past twenty years as laws and policies protecting their rights and forms of affirmative action have been implemented for all government offices and many private businesses. Tensions still exist in some corners of the province, but the vast majority of citizens are no longer affected by the violence that once paralyzed the province.


?


      

From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Apr  4 13:30:13 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 15:30:13 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)/Reformism
	material base
Message-ID: <bbe.475e03be.37090f45@aol.com>

The historical Logic of Reformism 
WL.
  
 
Lenin?s ideas of the bribery of the working class has to be placed in a  much 
larger and historical context. It is best to start at the beginning. 
 
Marx posed the historical question of class, property and configuration of  
productive forces in its theoretical totality but we have faced these issues  
partially. Marx speaks of social revolution: revolution in the mode of  
production, rather than simply political insurrection. . 
 
Social revolution - (the passing from one mode of production to another),  
comes about as the result of the development of the means of production. A  
revolution in the material power of productive forces is the ?absolute,? never  
changing precondition for social revolution. Marx sums this up: 
 
?At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of  
society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or ? what 
is  but a legal expression for the same thing ? with the property relations 
within  which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the  
productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. 
 
Then begins an epoch of social revolution.? 
 
The ?existing relations of production? is understood to mean classes and  
their location in a system of production and their property rights. Classes are  
one way or another connected - interactive, with deployment and configuration 
of  productive forces. Classes are formed by the introduction of new 
productive  equipment in society. That is by the reorganization of the production of 
the  means of life. When qualitatively new forms of productive equipment is  
introduced into a society the form of class begins to change and new classes  
arise. Not all at one time, but a change wave is introduced into society that  
must run its course. It is the emergence of new classes in a society that  
captures the meaning of society moves in class antagonism. 
 
No society have been overthrown by the social and economic classes  
constituting the system. What is society? Society is constituted on the basis of  the 
unity of the productive forces and the corresponding ?existing relations of  
production,? or as it is called by my generation, social relations of  
production.  No society has been overthrown by the social and economic  classes within 
it, making the system what it is. Again, social revolution really  comes about 
as the result of qualitative changes in the means of production.  These 
qualitative changes birth new classes, corresponding to the new developing  
technological regime and this begins the breakup of the old system. The new  
technological regime and classes developing as an expression of the new  technology, 
begin their growth and expand - quantitatively, in antagonism with  the old 
system of production. 
 
Society is always overthrown by something external to the existing economy.  
The two sides of an existing economy is the way things are produced and how  
production is distributed. The struggle between the basic classes constituting  
the economy of a society or the system - in the feudal period this was 
primarily  between serf and the nobility, drove a qualitative stage of history along 
 quantitatively. The qualitatively stage of society that is the feudal period 
is  the long history of manufacture existing in harmony with landed property  
relations. 
 
The serf and nobility did not and could not end that period of history or  
the society of the feudal period.  Nor did these classes begin this period  of 
history. Rather, both classes arose out of the society that proceeded the  
feudal period. The reformism of the serf was rooted in everything in society  that 
made him a serf. The reformism of the nobility was rooted in everything in  
the society that made him a nobleman. What made both classes what they were in  
their actual life existence was a certain stage in the development of the 
means  of production and their relationship to property in the process of 
production. 
 
Any one that look back on history must conclude that all the classes of  
feudal society could not and were not overthrown by the serf. The dialectic  
between the toilers and the owners of the means of production is by definition  the 
dialectic of reform or reformism. 
 
The feudal order, which sat upon the landed property relations and a  
configuration of productive forces everyone on earth calls the period of  
manufacture, were overthrown by classes existing outside of and in antagonism  with the 
feudal order. Marx called these new classes bourgeoisie and  proletariat. These 
classes were formed around the new means of production -  industrial  
machinery. 
 
History shows that a class or classes constituting and defining a given  mode 
of production - the social and economic structure of society, cannot  
overthrown the system of which they constitute. A development - revolution, in  the 
productive forces must take place that renders the old way of life obsolete.  
The only thing the two basic classes, constituting the social system can do, is 
 conduct bloody struggles over the division of the social product and for 
greater  political liberty. Neither class is ever free to overthrow the system of 
which  they constitute because they can?t. The motion of the toilers and 
owners at the  base of a system is that of collusion and colliding. One thousand 
years of serf  rebellions could not overthrow feudalism. Further, the serf as a 
class could not  convince of overthrowing feudalism or see any further than 
his own Lord. 
 
To overthrow a society - system, involves the dialectic of social  revolution 
in Marx meaning. The Marxists movement faces historical errors  because 
society changes and as it passes through all its successive boundaries  the 
totality of the society process reveals itself fully. That is to say, it is  
virtually impossible to quantify social progress or define a historically  specific 
quantitative boundary of development until one has passed the threshold  that 
separates boundaries of development. 
 
The organic root of reformism resides literally in the configuration of the  
productive forces and its personification in the flesh as the 
interconnectivity  of classes. On the curve of history, opportunism is an ideological and 
political  expression of the inability of the proletariat to leap outside the 
value  relation on the basis its own thinking or self logic. With the rise of  
financial-industrial imperialism a labor aristocracy consolidates as a more than  
less permanent  institution mediating the capital labor relation. 
 
Pardon the repetition, but the feudal political order and the agrarian  
system it stood upon were overthrown by classes, birthed outside but living  within 
the landed property relation. The bourgeoisie and proletariat, and in all  
there phases of development within the feudal order, are classes birthed in  
antagonism - not simply contradiction, with the feudal order. 
 
Society move in class antagonism. 
 
Marx fought for the creation of communists? revolutionaries - a Communist  
International, that could function as insurrectionary and train the proletariat  
to usurp the bourgeoisie in its contest to consolidate political power based 
on  overthrowing the feudal order. The revolutions of the 20th century have 
the  common content of being the social response to the transformation from  
agriculture to industry. 
 
Two generations of communists have called the October Revolution the  
transition from capitalism to socialism, rather the transition from feudal  Russia to 
industrial Russia under the leadership of communists. Circumstances in  
Russia allowed the Bolsheviks to seize power within the context of a gigantic  
revolution unfolding for decades; the social revolution away from and against  the 
feudal political, economic and social order. The seizure of power by the  
Lenin Group was not the social revolution. Seizing power has a word description  
- insurrection. Revolutions are crowned by the seizure of power, insurrection. 
 You cannot complete a revolution without the seizure of power, but the 
October  Revolution was not the ?revolution? but more properly the October 
Insurrection. 
 
The October insurrection fulfilled Lenin?s vision called the passing of the  
bourgeois revolution into the socialist revolution. When revolutionaries in  
America stripped the Russianization of Marxist concepts from the historical  
process in Russia, and place this logic in the context of how the American mind  
articulates, we are not dealing with two revolutions at all, but the passing  
over of the insurrection of the bourgeoisie to insurrection on behalf of the  
proletariat. Lenin?s old April Thesis is a doctrine of insurrection rather 
than  social revolution. 
 
In the Advanced industrial capitalist countries the October Insurrection  was 
understood as a workers revolution rather than the social revolution from  
landed property to industrial society, crowned by the insurrectionary  
proletariat. A "workers revolution" is impossible. The Proletarian Revolution is  not a 
workers revolution, but rather a social revolution where the proletariat  has 
to free all classes of society from the value relation in order to free  
itself. 
 
The insurrectionary force in Russia, consolidated and led by communists  
overshadowed the history process. Two generations later books would appear with  
titles like ?Three Who Made A Revolution.? Individuals do not make revolution, 
 only insurrection. Political grouping would rise and fall believing that 
Lenin,  Trotsky and/or Stalin made or led the revolution, while ignoring our own  
historical process. The historical process was further complicated by the  
unfolding material logic of capital expressed in the expansion of the industrial 
 system. 
 
Social revolution overturns and overthrows systems, not simply political  
institutions of the superstructure. The power of capital cannot be overthrown  
and abolished from history without the overthrow of the industrial system. In  
1917, no one knew this was the case and earlier Marx advanced a transition  
program based on the proletariat capturing the commanding heights of power.  
Chained within a quantitative boundary of the industrial system - not just  
capital, the vision was one of world revolution, as being sufficient to shatter  the 
chains of the value relations. 
 
Failure of world revolution was blamed on individuals and political groups.  
Reformism was understood as wrong policy originating in the minds of men, 
rather  than a structural and institutional relations expressed as boundary of  
development, but immanent to the capital-labor relation. 
 
How can one blame a failure of social revolution on wealth and/or bribery,  
when social revolution is the result of revolution in the productive forces?  
This has to be repeated. The industrial revolution was the result of a new  
technology, not political ideology or "doing the right thing," or the relative  
poverty of the serf. 
 
In America ?the revolution? - the real meaning of social revolution, took  
place as the transition from manufacture to industry. This entire phase of our  
history constitutes all of the events leading to the Civil War, which was a  
struggle between capital in landed and human property and industrial 
capitalism.  Nevertheless, the revolution was from manufacture to industry proper and 
the  political aspects - the insurrectionary force, appeared as Lincoln, his 
army and  political institutions of the North. 
 
Once industrial capital emerged as victor - with the financier on his back,  
society was firmly and permanently locked into its universal industrial  
development and the industrial form of classes were further institutionalized.  
Once industrial society achieves hegemony over society and the national agenda  
the dialectic of reform confronts the revolutionary as the contradiction -  
struggle, between the two basic class of society. However, this struggle is at  
all times over a greater share of the social product and for expanded political 
 liberties; reform or reformism. 
 
A political ideology evolved - (actually syndicalism), that the workers in  
the advanced capitalist countries could overthrow the industrial capitalist  
system, ?if they wanted to,? or it a gigantic strike wave could be organized, 
or  if somehow we could apply Lenin?s ?What Is To Be Done,? and compel the 
workers  to ?leap outside? their narrow industrial framework; or if we could 
somehow  break with reformism or embed the workers with sufficient 
class-consciousness. 
 
When revolution failed to materialize communists tended to blame each other  
and competing factions or the trade union bureaucracy or the bribery of the  
workers or the lack of fight of my mothers, brother uncle for failure of  
socialist revolution. Since social revolution failed to materialize in any  
advanced capitalist countries, we looked for the reason in the imperial  relation, 
rather than the material configuration of production. To the fighting  
insurgents in the colonial and former colonial world "the problem with the  American 
workers" appeared to be our relative wealth. A section of American  communism 
adopted this ideological outlook as explanation of the seemingly  unexplainable. 
 
The issue became even more complicated. 
 
Each crisis of capital was view as the emergence of the revolutionary  
dislocation and transition in the mode of production, rather than a transition  from 
one quantitative boundary of the industrial system to the next. The  
emergence of the industrial form of unionism was quietly acknowledged as a  transition 
from craft unionism and skilled labor as the leading form of union  
organization to mass assembly line industrial laboring and the unionization of  
unskilled labor; and then the implications were forgotten. In this theater of  
industrial unionism, someone screamed, ?fire!? - ?Revolution!?, then  
anarcho-syndicalism and right wing populist communism triumphed as the official  ideology 
of the communist movement. 
 
The industrial proletariat was declared and crowned the vanguard of the  
Communist Revolution, which was rearticulated as the ?socialist revolution? to  
acknowledge that economic communism was impossible and requires a new mode of  
production by definition. 
 
The industrial proletariat cannot overthrow the industrial system for the  
same reason - history dynamic, that prevented the serf from overthrowing the  
system of landed property and its infrastructure in manufacture. The industrial  
proletariat fights for a greater share of the social product and for greater  
political liberty. Period. It is the duty of communists to lead this battle 
as  it passes through all of its boundaries. Capital as the last stage of the 
value  relation cannot be overthrown apart from the overthrowing the industrial 
system,  which is impossible to overthrow until a revolution in the 
productive forces  takes places and begins the decay of the industrial configuration of 
productive  forces. 
 
The tendency to blame each other; or the mistakes and/or weaknesses of the  
October Revolution; Lenin or Trotsky or Stalin errors or shortness of vision; 
or  the Third International, or the trade union bureaucracy or bribery of the  
working class for the real reformism of the American workers, can no longer  
serve as a definitive theoretical premise and exhaustive exposition of the  
material basis for reformism. Nor is this reformism exclusive to America. This  
reformism was present in every advanced country on earth and this included the  
Soviet Union during all of its history. The reason the bureaucracy and 
reformism  could not be defeated under Soviet socialism is because such a defeat is  
impossible, before society begins its leap to another mode of production.  
Sovietism - industrial socialism, did not have to be overthrown, nor was its  
overthrow by capital historically ordained. This is of course an entirely  
different question. 
 
Reformism is not identical to the meaning of political passivity. Political  
passivity has a highly subjective - ideological, component. 
 
Reformism, - as a real institution, is an expression of a system passing  
from one quantitative boundary to another. The word reform or reformism means to  
reform the system without changing the property relations. The need to reform 
 the system arises with each stage of the quantitative development of the  
productive forces.  Quantitative development of the productive is the  
historically specific logic and law of development. An example of systematic  reform, 
constituting a boundary in the development of capital/industrial system,  is 
the mechanization of agriculture. The entire system had to be reformed and  his 
process unleashed the Civil Rights Movement and the insurgency of the Negro  
People. When this process is viewed in its abstraction, the motion logic is not 
 very different from the industrial trade union movement and its impact on  
government and social relations throughout the country. 
 
Reformism is not based - rooted, in the emergence of a labor aristocracy,  
which in turn is rooted in the imperial-colonial relation. Rather, the labor  ari
stocracy and the industrial trade unions express and are the inescapable  
materialization of the institutional relations between labor and capital during  
the industrial epoch. No one could transform the industrial union movement 
into  a Red Trade Union movement because it was not possible. Even if a group of  
workers in a particular union elected all Red leaders, the Red leaders could  
only fight within the boundary of the system itself. 
 
Lenin?s ideas of the bribery of the working class has to be placed in a  much 
larger and historical context. 
 
 
WL. 
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Apr  4 14:26:03 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:26:03 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)/all class
	unity is wrong
Message-ID: <d4a.4ef9dd3f.37091c5b@aol.com>

Ideology accounts for much of the passivity of the American workers. 
 
The ideologies of all-class unity have been ingrained in the public psyche  
for generations. My own thoughts is that this ideology is not peculiar to  
America but an important component of the ideological landscape of all the  
leading capitalist countries. These ideologies have roots in the capital labor  
relation itself, as systematic production and is reinforced as the self moving  
logic of reproduction. Labor at all times live and reproduces itself at  the 
mercy of capital. 
 
Perhaps chief among them is the philosophical assertion that lies at the  
heart of the case made for American exceptionalism, i.e. that we are essentially  
a classless society because American society is founded upon the primacy of 
the  individual. Hence the role of government is simply to provide the 
"opportunity"  for each individual to become all they can be. So the workers find 
themselves  pitted against one another in the market place competing for fewer and 
fewer  low-wage jobs. It is every man and woman for themselves, and if they 
don't  succeed, then it must be because they made bad choices. This ideology 
mask the  capital-labor relation, which appears as a law of nature to each 
successive  generation. Beneath the ideology is the proposition that capital lives 
and  thrives on wage labor and wage labor rest exclusively on the basis of  
competition between wage laborers. Being pitted against each other in the battle 
 for survival is not a natural condition of human existence; most certainly 
not  in a society of plenty. 
 
Competition between laborers for wages means a lot of people must lose in  
order for some to win. 
 
The ideology of individual and personal responsibility means that you don't  
begrudge the success of the rich and you are opposed to anything resembling a  
handout from the government. Entitlements - (sovereign birth rights),  mean  
"something for nothing," and in a time when jobs are disappearing, the ethic 
of  hard work is upheld (as the ideological pivot of the bourgeois order). So 
the  individual is to be unfettered by downsized government and reduced taxes 
on the  rich. Well, human being have sovereign birth rights, spoken and 
unspoken and a  government not responsive to and protecting these rights has no moral 
right to  existence and should be overturned and replaced with a civic 
authority  responsible to the people. Revolution is a sovereign birth right 
legalized in  our Constitution as perhaps the most sacred right in the  whole document 
 and most certainly the single idea that needs to be preserved  forever. 
 
It is right to rebel.  
 
In these uncertain times people see the decline of their culture and find  
their families in peril. They experience the erosion of "traditional" values;  
they look out of their windows and it looks like the end of the world; they 
look  to their faith for moral absolutes, for guidance and personal salvation. 
"The  system has always recovered and today is no different. I need patients," 
is the  thinking of millions. 
 
Well, patients are important . . . . But mostly to nurses. Weight broke the  
camels back and while waiting one must consider their civic and moral  
responsibility to opposed and overturn an unjust social order. 
 
Appeals to patriotism and national unity are another expression of  all-class 
unity. Each generation gives its pound of flesh in wars of aggression,  that 
in the last instance only feed the war machine. In time of war and global  
instability, pride of country gets translated as a justification for empire, and  
even immigrants are scapegoated as a threat to the American way of life.  
Reinforced with the steady drumbeat of fear, all are called upon to unite in  
defense of the "homeland." Yesterday in fact, some frustrated man in New York  
killed 13 people - immigrants, learning English in order to make their  
transition into our society easy. Patriotic chauvinism fuels crimes against new  
immigrants. 
 
Month after month at least 500,000 (half a million) people are being laid  
off and thousands each month become homeless. The March 2009 figure is 660,000  
addition workers have lost their jobs. Who is to blame? More importantly, 
"what  is wrong?" 
 
As the deteriorating economic conditions undercut the foundation of all  
class unity ideologies, there are signs that the entire complex of ruling class  
ideologies is beginning to lose its grip. Not all at one time, but a process of 
 loosening is taking place. Within the evangelical communities of faith, for  
example, there is an emerging concern about the plight of the poor, the  
environment and human rights. Individual workers, no matter how hard they toil,  
see their lives and their families destroyed due to no fault of their own as  
they are swept up in the race to the bottom. Government does not answer their  
needs. Persuaded to put their faith in corporate solutions, they find these 
too  fail to deliver. 
 
None of the solutions offered within the electoral arena offer any real  
answers to the millions of Americans who are engaged in a search for solutions  to 
their plight. At the start of this months, the indigent of Michigan began  
receiving $40 addition on their bridge cards (food stamps) due to the actions of 
 the Obama administration. $40 a month helps, but millions are left out of 
the  social safety net. The people want change, but the only options they are 
offered  are one or another version of all-class unity. Indeed, when the content 
of our  time is polarization, antagonism, and social destruction, the 
ideological  complex of all-class unity can ultimately only be a call for a fascist 
solution  to the crisis. 
 
The objective polarity today is between absolute wealth and absolute  
poverty. The ideological polarity is between the ideologies of capital and  
capitalism versus the ideology of the new proletariat increasingly finding  itself 
outside the civic society of the bourgeoisie and entire layers of workers  being 
pushed lower and lower.
 
WL. 
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From lnp3 at panix.com  Sat Apr  4 15:16:05 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:16:05 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] From the latest anti-Empire report by William Blum
Message-ID: <49D7CE15.6080907@panix.com>

The ideology of Barack Obama

In the past two months:

--US Vice President Joe Biden was asked by reporters at a summit in 
Chile if Washington plans to put an end to the near-50-year-old economic 
embargo against Cuba. He replied "No."10

--Israeli authorities broke up a series of Palestinian cultural events 
in Jerusalem, disrupting a children's march and bursting balloons at a 
schoolyard celebration.11 There has not been, nor will there be, any 
embargo of any kind by the United States against Israel. Nor will 
President Obama make any comment about what he really feels about 
invading a children's party and bursting their balloons.

--The White House and the Pentagon appear to be having a competition 
over who can announce the most troops being sent to Afghanistan. Is 
anyone keeping a body count?

--US drones continue to drop bombs on people's homes and wedding parties 
in Pakistan. No one in Washington publicly admits to this or comments in 
any way about the legality or morality of it all.

--Bolivia and Ecuador have expelled American diplomats for what their 
hosts saw as conspiring to undermine the government.

Any number of other examples can be given of how alike the foreign 
policies of the Bush and Obama administrations are, how little, if any, 
change has occurred; certainly nothing of any significance. Yet, my 
saying such a thing is precisely what most often bothers Obama 
supporters who read or hear my comments. They're in love with the man 
with the toothpaste-advertisement smile, who's "smart" (whatever that 
means), who plays basketball, and is not George W. Bush, and his wife 
who puts her arm around the queen of England.

Obama's popularity around the world is enhanced, to an important extent, 
by the fact that he has endeavored to conceal or obscure his real 
ideology. As an example, in early March, in an interview with the New 
York Times, he was asked: "Is there a one word name for your philosophy? 
If you're not a socialist, are you a liberal? Are you progressive? One 
word?"

"No, I'm not going to engage in that," replied the president.12

The next day he called the Times reporter, telling him: "It was hard for 
me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist 
question". Obama then gave the reporter several examples of why his 
policies show that he isn't a socialist.13

He didn't have to convince me. Obama's centrist bent is clear to anyone 
who bothers to look. But after the Times incident ? which apparently 
bothered him ? he may have felt the need to be more clear about his 
ideological leanings to avoid any further silly "socialist" episodes. 
The next day, meeting at the White House with members of the New 
Democrat Coalition, a group of centrist Democratic members of the House, 
Obama said at one point: "I am a New Democrat."14

Most conservatives will probably continue to see him as a dangerous 
leftist. They should be happy that Obama is the president and not any 
kind of real progressive or socialist or even a genuine liberal, but the 
right wing is greedy.

full: http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer68.html


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Apr  4 16:46:20 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 18:46:20 EDT
Subject: [Marxism]
	=?windows-1252?q?Atilio_Bor=F3n=3A_From_infinite_war_to?=
	=?windows-1252?q?_=3D=3Fwin=2E=2E=2E?=
Message-ID: <bce.42ec9759.37093d3c@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/4/2009 11:00:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_sartesian at earthlink.net_ (mailto:sartesian at earthlink.net)  writes: 
 
>> Not for nothing, but isn't it a little remarkable that the author  in this 
article begins by stating what the crisis is not and then in item 5,  states 
what it is: "It's a simultaneous crisis of overproduction and  
under-consumption." and then NEVER states another word, provides any  investigation, a single 
example of either the overproduction or the  under-consumption? 
 
IMO, it is exactly the author's inability to investigate, analyze, and  
comprehend overproduction-- which is nothing other than the overproduction of  
capital, an inability that makes itself explicit in his identification of  
overproduction with under-consumption, that makes the final part of his  
presentation-- the what is to be done? part-- so fuzzy, even ethereal, winding  up with 
the appeal to regionalism, supranational integration, Petrosur, etc.  << 
 
Comment 
 
I agree with your sentiment and insight. Atilio Bor?n: "From infinite war  to 
infinite crisis," is a full decade or more behind the general theoretical  
curve. 

Characterizing this crisis as an acute stage of the general crisis of  
capital - the overproduction and underconsumption conundrum,  . . . only  today 
(!!!) without the existence of the USSR, is thin and WRONG, as a Marxist  
proposition. In this lengthy article - 7758 words including footnotes, the  author 
writes: 
 
>> "5. Its structural causes are well known: it?s a simultaneous  crisis of 
overproduction and under-consumption, the periodic capital  "purification" 
mechanism typical of capitalism."<< 
 
I do not object to describing the face of the crisis as it leaps from the  
new non-banking financial architecture to the "industrial and agricultural  
sector" of the economy, because in the past this was often the case. This is not  
to say that every financial crisis lead to a crisis in production. 
 
Overproduction and under consumption as the cause of capital crisis, as a  
thesis, is wrong ! . . . and today denies overcapacity as an expression of the  
development of the productive forces, as the revolution in the productive  
equipment of society accelerates the reproduction of overproduction of  capital. 
This excess capital is "over" what is socially necessary as a  requirement for 
a modest return on capital, in any branch of industry. And this  rate of 
return, system wide, is caught in the gravitational pull of the law  of the FROP. 
Incremental improvements in the productive forces and most  certainly 
revolutionizing production and the emergence of a new technological  regime drives and 
accelerates the law expressed as the FROP. 
 
The new non-banking financial institutions - (specially the emergence of a  
new technological regime post 1980), are not the result of a good idea or a  
preferred policy of capital, but a necessary outgrown of the continuous  
revolutionizing of the productive forces, and capital?s response to the FROP.  These 
new institutions create wealth detached from the production of surplus  value. 
This is not speculation on probable commodity production, circulation and  
realizable value expansion. Valueless wealth production is a permanent and  
dominating feature of this era of capital. 
 
Overproduction of a mass of commodities can and does take place during  every 
boundary of expansion of the industrial system, as it metabolizes labor on  
the basis of capital reproduction. Since Marx this overproduction has been tied 
 to the anarchy of production or the signature of private capital in 
operation. 
 
Capital recovers on the basis of expanding the market and the conversion of  
the non-producing consumer into a producer - proletariat. This process has 
gone  through all its stages. The stages are defined on the basis of displacing  
feudalism and the construction of a real world market. This process is not and 
 cannot be simultaneously even in every area of the earth, but expresses the  
combined and uneven development of production.  As real world events this  
meant the destruction of the closed colonial system - direct colonial and the  
opening of the world to financial capital. At each boundary of this process  
capital hit?s the wall of consumption or experienced a crisis of "anarchy of  
production" - overproduction. At each stage, recovery was based on the  
destruction of commodities, productive forces, bringing another mass of humanity  into 
the value relation as proletarians, and then a renewed incremental  
development of the productive forces. This set the stage for the next outbreak  of 
crisis. 
 
Then something else entered the picture.  
 
Revolution in the technological regime that ushers in the phenomena of  
overcapacity, as a new permanent feature of bourgeois production. Along side of  
this is the step by step lowering of the price of labor power. Intertwined with  
and existing along side over capacity, is spiraling overproduction of 
capital.  Or capital that cannot be profitably invested into the production of  
commodities, in the absolute meaning - FROP, or in the relative meaning -  seeking 
maximum rates of return. 
 
If I am unable to describe in detail, sufficient to convince the most  
discriminating reader, of the actual step by step process of the destruction of  
value, I believe both of us share this general view in common. This is not a  
general crisis of capital we are facing. What is taking place is the stage by  
stage destruction of value production. There is no recovery of capital in this  
era. In previous eras, capital itself recovery and expanded throughout the  
world, on the basis of reforming all its political and social institutions . . . 
 and of course the defeat of the proletarian masses, which serves as the  
political basis for expansion. 
 
We entered the era of the so-called "jobless recovery" in the last decade  of 
the 20th century. Jobless recovery. Everyone speaks of jobless recovery  
without pondering the profound implication this implies. Jobless  recovery is 
bourgeois lingo for "return to profitability without expanding  the market." The 
only way to expand the market is to convert flesh and blood  people into 
working proletarians. 
 
Unable to invest in production, capital invests in itself, abstracted from  
production, which is impossible. Bursting bubbles . . . Lead to more bubbles  
that burst and an era of valueless production of wealth emerges as the last  
boundary of capital. Because of the impossibility of valueless wealth as a  
production process of capital, the light at the end of the bourgeois tunnel is  
government transfer of wealth. Which is of course what the Obama administration  
is called forth to institutionalize.  
 
China 
 
China is caught on the horns of a dilemma and is left holding roughly 2  
trillion (1.9) in US certificates: currency, notes and promises of a better  
tomorrow. China cannot invest US currency into its economy. China is blocked by  
the political lobby from investing in US industry. Perhaps a year or so ago the  
Chinese Premier threatened to convert its US debt and currency into another  
currency and Bush W. literally laughed. Even stupid ass Bush W. intuitively  
understood the stupidity of such a threat. A section of American communists  
spoke as if this posed a threat to the American economy. It does not. Nor will  
the creation of a new regional or world currency pose an economic threat 
because  national currency is exchangeable in the international market and also, 
because  national currency only serve as a sovereign debt instrument, containing 
no  intrinsic value, and allowing national control of ones economy. At least 
for the  imperialist. Sovereign debt instruments means an instrument to make 
you pay  taxes. This is not to say that the formation of regional blocks and 
regional  currency will not pose a political threat to American imperial 
hegemony. 
 
Question. 
 
Is it accurate to state that American currency cannot be invested in the  
economy of Chinese? 
 
Here is my thinking: to invest American currency in the Chinese economy,  the 
government of China is required to convert this currency into "Chinese  
currency." Such an act immediately reveals the valueless nature of currency.  
Further, why would the government of China even desire to convert American  
currency into its own debt instruments for investments, when all they have to do  is 
print money? Stated another way, converting American currency into Chinese  
currency, when done by "the Bank of China," means it is left holding the  exact 
same currency it had in the first damn place. No one plays three card  monty 
with themselves. 
 
It is not as if these currencies are convertible into a species. Even if  
China were allowed to invest directly in American industry, at the end of the  
day it is still left with US currency, which still cannot be invested in the  
Chinese economy. The only economic rationale for investing into production in  
the US is for physical commodities and technological transfer which is  blocked 
by US policy. Chinese holdings of US Currency can purchase US goods and  the 
same problems appears: buttressing US capitalism. 
 
Further, workers paid in US currency and any foreign currency in China,  
cannot invest this currency in the legal economy, only the secondary "illegal"  
economy.  The Chinese workers foreign  currency - checks, are  converted into 
Chinese debt instruments, and thus China is left holding the bag  again. 
 
In other words China productive capacity is used to send real goods to the  
US as exports and in return China receives currency that cannot be invested in  
the American economy or its own. Thus, China has been on a shopping spree in  
other countries, seeking to realize tangible imports. This in turn does not  
broaden its consumer market, which can only be expanded - not deepened, by  
expansion of the workforce. A consumer market can be expanded by increasing  
inequality or paying executives more or sections of those working higher wages. 
 
Or have I totally missed the entire logic? Or rather illogic of the  imperial 
relation. 
 
WL.
 
 (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm)  
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Apr  4 17:00:09 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 19:00:09 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Atilio_Bor=F3n=3A_From_infinite_war_to?= =?win...
Message-ID: <bfb.54353269.37094079@aol.com>

A consumer market can be expanded by increasing  
inequality or  paying executives more or sections of those working higher 
wages. 


Correction 
 
A consumer market can be DEEPENED by increasing  
inequality  or paying executives more or sections of those working higher 
wages.  

**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From epoliticus at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 17:16:32 2009
From: epoliticus at gmail.com (Politicus E.)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 19:16:32 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Lily Allen
Message-ID: <dd55f6dc0904041616l61f07569p3c9f8d5d2e675ba6@mail.gmail.com>

She did strike me as a troublemaker, hence her appeal.  I love people that
don't know their place.  Also, her style reminded me of a very famous scene
in the Indian film Mughal-e-azam in which a dancer in the Mughal king's
court basically tells him off.


> So, instead, she is a drunken loudmouth who doesn't know her place.
>
> And, beyond her lyrics, it is the not knowing her place that is the most
> radical thing about her.
>

-- 
"In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time
immemorial ... the present year of course always excepted."
-- A German refugee, circa 1867 --

http://epoliticus9.blogspot.com/

From jbustelo at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 17:34:13 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 19:34:13 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Krugman on the Britsh Empire
In-Reply-To: <COL107-W179FD979DD085A5EA9E6A9BB890@phx.gbl>
References: <COL107-W179FD979DD085A5EA9E6A9BB890@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <52514AF7F1904E048F22AA6ABB822EAC@albanta>

Michael Yates writes:  "I found the part I put in bold mind-boggling." 

Although I keep expecting Louis to drop the (IMHO) now outdated text-only
rule, no formatting at all comes through to list subscribers. So we don't
know what you put in bold.

Joaquin



From charles1848 at sbcglobal.net  Sat Apr  4 17:38:14 2009
From: charles1848 at sbcglobal.net (Charlie)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:38:14 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Despite domestic stimulus talk,
 Chinese government restricts education spending
Message-ID: <49D7EF66.1070303@sbcglobal.net>

Our educational dream

China Daily (4/3/09)
 
The Ministry of Education is busy playing down public expectations that 
the country will soon extend compulsory education from nine to 12 years.
....
China's Education Law requires spending on education be no less than 4 
percent of gross domestic product.

Though the Chinese government has considerably boosted expenditure in 
recent years, it still spends far less than required on education.
....
Full item at 
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-04/03/content_7645082.htm




From johnaimani at earthlink.net  Sat Apr  4 17:44:59 2009
From: johnaimani at earthlink.net (johnaimani)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:44:59 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] WSJ:  Fictitious Capital
Message-ID: <7E61F68EC2BC438BAD80432E971A87EB@D4PKYZ41>

"What about big financial houses, though? Why can't they go through bankruptcy the way Macy's and Delta Air Lines did? One reason is that a retailer or airline can shed debts and then operate stores and airplanes. Financial institutions have nothing so tangible: They basically have their names, their people and their ability to borrow a lot of money short term. All of that can vanish instantly while a judge ponders the matter."
"Bankruptcy Is Vital to Capitalism."   By DAVID WESSEL.  APRIL 2, 2009
Full at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123860761117578957.html

From jbustelo at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 18:37:11 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 20:37:11 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad><54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta><b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com><6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad><b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com><20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart><b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com><DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV><C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta><7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV><C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta>
	<6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV>
Message-ID: <C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta>

Marv has another message replying to mine where he concedes standards of
living of working people in the U.S. have in general not declined, "But this
does not take into account the contemporary need for two income households,
vast amounts of unpaid overtime and family stress, and mountains of mortgage
and other debt which has been required to sustain the great bubble in
consumption - chickens which have now come home to roost."

What Marv says about two-income households should be complimented with some
thinking about the one-child or no children households a growing phenomenon
among anglos in the United States and among the dominant nationalities (and
perhaps others) in the other major imperialist powers. The number of
children being born to these sectors of the population are well, well below
the replacement rate, i.e., the creation of future generations is being
sacrificed to current consumption. 

That tells us something about the compulsive consumerism of advanced
capitalist societies. As Marv may realize if he remembers some of the things
I've written over the years, it would be wrong to say that I believe the
U.S. population, and especially anglos, enjoy a high standard of living.
Quite the contrary, I think they suffer it. 

Marv seems quite obsessed with my use of the word "bribe" to describe the
relationship between imperialism and its domestic labor force. He insists
there is no such thing as a labor aristocracy and so on. In using the word
"bribe" I was just echoing Lenin, but clearly what is involved isn't the
conscious acceptance of a pay-off. What is involved is this.

The imperialist countries grow rich as the expense of the colonial and
semicolonial countries. The overwhelming majority of the population of
imperialist countries share in this imperialist privilege -- and most of
them are quite aware of it: people know they have a much higher standard of
living, and in the case of Western Europe and Japan a fairly broad if
somewhat frayed social safety net, than in the third world. This relative
privilege is  the material basis for the backwardness of the U.S. working
class. These are NOT workers who have nothing to lose but their chains. They
also have their privileges to lose. 

As for declining living standards and wages in some sectors, it is necessary
to analyze things concretely. For example much is made that wages have
dropped in half in meatpacking in two decades, or some such figure. But
these are not the same workers as worked there 20 years ago. A lot of the
former workers, or their children, are now occupying the better-paying
"service" jobs Marv describes. The ones working there now are mostly
immigrants who are decidedly better off materially in these plants than they
were before in Mexico or Central America. 

If the situation of relative privilege of U.S. workers is not one of the
major underpinnings of their impotence as a class, then another explanation
needs to be offered. And it needs to be an explanation grounded in
*materialism,* at least that's what I think. 

Finally, this is a side issue, and not really an issue with Marv, but I
often see the assertion that U.S. consumer or household debt increased
demand in the economy. But it seems to me that UNLESS total indebtedness
grew at a rate higher than the average rate of interest of all consumer
debt, which I don't believe happened, then the net effect of consumer
indebtedness was to depress demand, not increase it. This may not show up in
bourgeois statistics because loan sharking and usury are probably classified
as useful and valuable "services" that consumers "buy," and so the amounts
paid in interest are ADDED to total consumption rather than subtracted from
it. 

And, in the few individual cases I'm familiar with, consumer debt, apart
from housing, has always represented a drag on household consumption, a
mechanism through which a "bank tax" is added to many purchases. Another
illustration, I think, that people in the US do not ENJOY a high standard of
living, they suffer it due to having been brainwashed into compulsive
consumption.

Joaquin



From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Apr  4 19:11:28 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 21:11:28 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
Message-ID: <d57.20ecc7f9.37095f40@aol.com>

The median income is $43,318 per household ($26,000 per household  member)[1] 
with 42% of households having two income earners.[12] Meanwhile, the  median 
income of the average American age 25+ was roughly $32,000[2] ($39,000 if  
only counting those employed full-time between the ages of 25 to 64) in 2005.[3]  
According to the CIA the gini index which measures income inequality (the 
higher  the less equal the income distribution) was clocked at 45.0 in 2005,[13]  
compared to 32.0 in the European Union[14] and 28.3 in Germany.[15]
 
|The US has... a per capita GDP [PPP] of $42,000... The [recent] onrush of  
technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor  
market"... Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone  to 
the top 20% of households... The rise in GDP in 2004 and 2005 was undergirded  
by substantial gains in labor productivity... Long-term problems include  
inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and  
pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and  
stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. -CIA factbook on the  
US economy, 2005.[13]
 
The United States has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income  
nation today, and that gap continues to grow.[16] In recent times, some  
prominent economists including Alan Greenspan have warned that the widening  
rich-poor gap in the U.S. population is a problem that could undermine and  
destabilize the country's economy and standard of living stating that "The  income gap 
between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so  wide, and is 
growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of  
democratic capitalism itself".[17]

Median Wages have been on the decline in the United States since 1974.  In 
2004, the median income for a man in his 30s was $35,010. Adjusted for  
inflation, that's 12 percent less than what men the same age were making in  1974. [18]
 
full: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States) 
 
 
Median Wages have been on the decline in the United States since 1974. In  
2004, the median income for a man in his 30s was $35,010. Adjusted for  
inflation, that's 12 percent less than what men the same age were making in  1974. [18]

**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From lnp3 at panix.com  Sat Apr  4 19:30:39 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:30:39 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Cuba tours
Message-ID: <49D809BF.8000900@panix.com>

________________________________________________________

To modify your Cuba Education Tours newsletter services see below.
________________________________________________________

We have two extraordinary delegations heading down to Cuba from August 1 
to 8, 2009. Both are official programs designed by Cubans to familiarize 
friends from abroad with island advances that hold vital lessons for 
social well being and environmental sustainability.

These journeys are for people like you keen on learning about the 
island's renowned education system and its hallmarked eco-alternatives 
and organic farming achievements.

We warmly invite you to join us and serve as a people's ambassador to 
the island this summer.

Our TEACHERS INTRODUCTION TO CUBA TOUR is for educators seeking to 
discover the reasons why Cuban youth rank highest academically in the 
Americas, and how come island teachers are held in such high esteem. 
You'll get a firsthand take on Cuba's free education to through 
university, and the resulting social benefits.

Members of this envoy will meet, dialogue and network with distinguished 
pedagogical authorities from K-12 institutions, universities, and unions 
and ministries of education. Tour delegates will also experience 
unparalleled cultural activities including Cuban music and dance lessons 
and ample nightlife. You can plan on an engagement with a world-famed 
urban planner, meet-and-greets with contemporary artists, and an 
exclusive glimpse into Afrocuban life.

You'll see many facets of the stunning cosmopolitan capital of Havana, 
and rustic farm villages in western Pinar del Rio province, and the 
awe-inspiring tropical geography of Vinales Valley -- all from the 
comfort of your five-star Hotel Habana Libre in the heart of the city's 
leisure hub.

This tour is a professional development opportunity to witness stellar 
progress that all caring teachers aspire to, while making new friends in 
Cuba and amongst your tour colleagues. It's a primer on education in 
Cuba without equal. See an elaborated itinerary and costs at:

	http://CubaEduTours.com

Our GREEN EXPLORERS CUBA TOUR is arranged by Cuban specialists to 
acquaint visitors with island accomplishments in the fields of forestry, 
organic agriculture, climate change, nature conservation and 
restoration, renewable energy, and sustainable urban development. Six 
very special rendezvouses take place with Cuban experts in these arenas.

The tour unveils the secrets of green-living Cuban-style. Its for 
explorers who want to learn about Cuba's incredible ideas and practices 
enabling its people to live within natural resource limits, at the same 
time achieving one of the highest levels of human developments anywhere.

You'll visit museums, architectural and historical sites, United Nations 
biosphere reserves, and enjoy swimming, horseback riding, birdwatching, 
hiking and cave reconnoitering. Get ready to relish the island's best 
food and entertainment in the five-star comfort of the Hotel Habana 
Libre, and the rural mountaintop Resort Los Jazmines. Plus you'll go to 
many fab venues in western Cuba for hot Latin jazz, music, dance, and more.

This tour is for concerned global citizens striving for a livable planet 
for our children and beyond. A day-by-day itinerary and costs are 
detailed at:

	http://RealCubaTours.org

All are welcomed. Both tours are licensable for American travelers. 
Programs always fill to capacity and enrollment is limited. If you like 
these programs join us, and please consider sharing this newsletter with 
your friends.

Read what other travelers say about our programs at:

	http://MyCubaTour.ca

We're here for you to assist with all aspects of visiting our beautiful 
island. Don't hesitate to contact us.

My best regards,
Marcel Hatch, Education Director
Cuba Education Tours
2278 East 24th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5N 2V2 Canada

info at cubafriends.ca   Email

1-877-687-3817   US and Canada without toll
+ 604-874-9048   International

B.C. Travelers Assurance Fund Registration No. 34338
_________________________________________________________


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 20:38:33 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 22:38:33 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)/all
	classunity is wrong
In-Reply-To: <d4a.4ef9dd3f.37091c5b@aol.com>
References: <d4a.4ef9dd3f.37091c5b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <675EB1E720594C1B9CD7A9C04D058F98@albanta>

Waistline2 writes: "Ideology accounts for much of the passivity of the
American workers."

This is, of course, an idealist explanation. Not that the poster believes
it. What he actually believes seems to be that the working class is a
capitalist class, in the sense of a class inherently tied to capitalism and
the capitalists just as the serfs were to the landowners and feudalism. The
ideology of cross-class unity prevails because capitalism itself is like
that. The revolutionary class is constituted by those who have been cast out
of capitalist relations, just as the revolutionary classes that put an end
to feudalism were those outside feudal relations (the bourgeoisie but not
just them, also the free laborers and (depending on the place) land-owning
small farmers/peasants).

An interesting theoretical construct, but I just don't believe it. 

Joaquin




From sabocat59 at mac.com  Sat Apr  4 21:02:01 2009
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (sabocat59 at mac.com)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 03:02:01 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] Krugman on the British Empire
Message-ID: <818325200-1238900643-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1244176815-@bxe1227.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Paul Krugman wrote:

Yet the day after his new-reserve-currency speech, Mr. Zhou gave another speech in which he seemed to assert that China's extremely high savings rate is immutable, a result of Confucianism, which values "anti-extravagance." Meanwhile, "it is not the right time" for the United States to save more. In other words, let's go on as we were.That's also not going to happen

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

As an aside, Zhou and perhaps the party leadership seems to have fallen for a neo-weberian explanation of the chinese savings rate, the only difference being they have confucious to thank rather than calvin. Seems  the only difference between them and Weber is the content of the particular national culture of frugality. 

Interesting. 


Greg
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Sat Apr  4 21:27:56 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:27:56 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad><54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta><b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com><6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad><b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com><20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart><b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com><DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV><C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta><7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV><C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta><6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV>
	<C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta>
Message-ID: <171650F28BB94FE49F692A6E59B0E495@dmsthinkpad>

Real wages for real workers dropped throughout the late 1970s and throughout 
the 1980s.  Workers who lost unionized jobs, industrial jobs like the 
meatpackers whom Joaquin thinks stepped into better paying service jobs, 
when able to find new jobs, generally experienced wage declines of some 30% 
in the new job.  This has been well studied, documented etc.

Rail workers who lost their jobs due to the bankruptcies and mergers in the 
late 70s/80s [and into 90s], workers better protected and compensated than 
most, who "flowed" to the increasing number of short-line railroads spun off 
by the majors,  lost considerable percentages of compensation, benefits, and 
work rule protections-- as was/is also the case with airline pilots etc.

The historical conservativism of the white sector of the working class has 
certainly resisted the decline in its power, wages, and protections-- but 
those declines have been real nonetheless.

As for this notion of imperialist privilege-- a little data would help here. 
Joaquin says the "imperialist countries grow rich as [at] the expense of the 
colonial and semi-colonial countries.  The overwhelming majority of the 
population of imperialist countries share in this imperialist privilege." 
Really?  How rich?  What portion of the wealth involves a transfer of wealth 
from the colonial and semi-colonial countries.  It would be helpful to get a 
grip on the amounts involved in these supposed transfers.  Lenin never 
provided any data on this in Imperialism.

And then how does that transfer get "trickled down"?  And I do mean the 
quotation marks here-- because at the end, at the bottom line, all this 
stuff about imperialist privilege and everyone in the imperialist countries 
sharing in the spoils is nothing but the good old Reagan "trickle down" 
theory dressed up in radical clothers.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)




From sartesian at earthlink.net  Sat Apr  4 21:30:59 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:30:59 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Krugman on the British Empire
References: <818325200-1238900643-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1244176815-@bxe1227.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <1413EEC6BE9E49B0887CBCA12F29E4DE@dmsthinkpad>

The basis of the increased saving rate is the restricted nature of the 
domestic market-- the fact that half the population is tied to the rural 
economy, earning little, but some money, but not spending it as 1) there is 
no place to spend it  2) with the deconstruction of social welfare 
programs-- i.e. medical care, savings are critical protection against 
catastrophic illness and injury.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <sabocat59 at mac.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Krugman on the British Empire




From sartesian at earthlink.net  Sat Apr  4 21:35:52 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:35:52 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] WSJ:  Fictitious Capital
References: <7E61F68EC2BC438BAD80432E971A87EB@D4PKYZ41>
Message-ID: <25960CA4E2AC446D96DE6566BA4A482C@dmsthinkpad>

Hey John,

Hope everything is OK.  I'm getting pretty sick of these economic 
illiterates on Marxmail, particularly Bustelo-- who wouldn't understand 
Capital if you fed it to him with his mother's milk.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "johnaimani" <johnaimani at earthlink.net>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 7:44 PM
Subject: [Marxism] WSJ: Fictitious Capital


> "What about big financial houses, though? Why can't they go through 
> bankruptcy the way Macy's and Delta Air Lines did? One reason is that a 
> retailer or airline can shed debts and then operate stores and airplanes. 
> Financial institutions have nothing so tangible: They basically have their 
> names, their people and their ability to borrow a lot of money short term. 
> All of that can vanish instantly while a judge ponders the matter."
> "Bankruptcy Is Vital to Capitalism."   By DAVID WESSEL.  APRIL 2, 2009
> Full at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123860761117578957.html
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net 



From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sat Apr  4 21:50:28 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:50:28 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)/all
	classunity is wrong
Message-ID: <c26.56c3dcc2.37098484@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/4/2009 10:38:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_jbustelo at gmail.com_ (mailto:jbustelo at gmail.com)  writes: 
 
Waistline2 writes: "Ideology accounts for much of the passivity of the  
American workers." 
 
This is, of course, an idealist explanation. Not that the poster believes  
it. What he actually believes seems to be that the working class is a capitalist 
 class, in the sense of a class inherently tied to capitalism and the 
capitalists  just as the serfs were to the landowners and feudalism. The ideology of  
cross-class unity prevails because capitalism itself is like that. The  
revolutionary class is constituted by those who have been cast out of capitalist  
relations, just as the revolutionary classes that put an end to feudalism were  
those outside feudal relations (the bourgeoisie but not just them, also the 
free  laborers and (depending on the place) land-owning small 
farmers/peasants). 
 
An interesting theoretical construct, but I just don't believe it. 
 
Joaquin 
 

Reply 
 
I do agree that, that that sector of the proletariat, cast out of the civic  
society of the bourgeoisie, existing at this stage of the revolution in the 
mode  of production is - personifies, the antagonistic element in society. There 
is  always a segment of the population cast out of the civic society of the  
bourgeoisie, as it passes through all its quantitative boundaries. For  
antagonism to crystallized something else must take place. 
 
The modern proletariat of which Marx speaks is birthed as part of capital,  
inasmuch as capital is a historically evolved social relations of production.  
The modern proletariat, and most certainly the industrial proletariat, is  
inherently tied to - bonded, to capital, in my opinion. As a class the modern  
proletariat cannot walk out of this relationship as one walks out of a divorce,  
nor can it desire such or conceive of such, precisely because it is bonded to 
 capital as wage labor. It is also bonded to the industrial shape -  
configuration, of productive forces which give it the industrial form of  proletariat. 
 
As I understand matters the working class is called a working class because  
it work- labor, in the productive machinery of society. The capitalist class 
is  called the capitalist class because it owns capital. The working class is 
not  the capitalist class because it is propertyless. 
 
Pardon my unclearly, but the issue posed was not the role the various  
classes play in the entire scope of the revolutionary process. For instance the  
peasant/serf/semi-slave-serf, played a role in the overthrow of feudalism and  
czarism. The point was that the serf as one of the basic class component of the  
system of landed property, during the agricultural era, with its 
manufacturing  infrastructure, could not and did not overthrow the system of which it help 
 constitute. A revolution in the mode of production had to begin. 
 
I respect your disbelief.  

WL. 
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Sat Apr  4 21:56:45 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:56:45 -0400
Subject: [Marxism]
	=?utf-8?q?Atilio_Bor=C3=B3n=3A_From_infinite_war_to_=3D?=
	=?utf-8?b?P3dpbi4uLg==?=
References: <bce.42ec9759.37093d3c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <A14081C82FC34541A07332CAADA5391B@dmsthinkpad>

Couple of things:

I think we are mostly in agreement on the critical points-- although I think 
overproduction is still in fact what goes on, but we have to know what 
production, and overproduction is-- the production and overproduction of the 
means of production able to exploit wage-labor at a sufficient intensity.

But yes-- what is going on here is the system devaluation of accumulated 
capital-- or as you put it, the destruction of value production.

As for China's direct investment in the US-- China does have such direct 
investments, concentrated almost exclusively in the financial sector through 
use of its sovereign wealth funds.  Of course, those funds have been burned, 
and to the crisp, by the implosion in that sector, but hey separating fools 
from their money is what capitalism is all about.

The "shopping spree" of China in other countries-- 2 recent "grand tours" of 
the UK and Europe, didn't really produce such big purchases--  couple 
billion here, couple billion there, real money, I know,  but nothing 
anywhere near the M&A action the bourgeoisie pulled on each other during the 
2003-2007 run up.

No, China is not producing real goods in exchange for worthless paper that 
then sit and become a drag on the expansion of the market.  China is a 
contract player, producing real goods, for the purpose of accumulating 
capital, just like any other capitalist country. Just like a big fat 
maquilladora.  The "imbalance" or accumulation of  the US denominated 
reserves, based on trade surpluses is once again the result, and an index, 
to China's own lack of development, the tethering of its population to the 
rural economy, and the inability to reorganize that rural production, that 
rural property without detonating all the conflicts of uneven and combined 
development, without detonating class struggle in both city and countryside.

One critical point you make, and that needs to be reemphasized is that this 
predicament of capital will not, cannot be resolved simply by "expanding 
markets."  First-- because there is no simple "expanding of markets." 
Creating the market, expanding it means creating the class relations where 
the means of production exist as a private property and confront, and 
exchange, labor as wage-labor.  But if capital has so overproduced as to not 
be able to exploit that wage-labor with sufficient intensity so as to offset 
a decline in the rate of return-- then capitalists can only destroy the 
means of production, and drive the exploitation of labor below reproduction 
levels-- and that is exactly what they intend to do.

Count on it.  And that is historically, not faith, based.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Waistline2 at aol.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism]Atilio Bor?n: From infinite war to =?win... 



From sartesian at earthlink.net  Sat Apr  4 21:58:24 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:58:24 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] WSJ:  Fictitious Capital
References: <7E61F68EC2BC438BAD80432E971A87EB@D4PKYZ41>
	<25960CA4E2AC446D96DE6566BA4A482C@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <902FA257BEF64F5BA0D8EEAD6408A345@dmsthinkpad>

My apologies to the list.  That obviously was supposed to a private offlist 
message.

Sorry. 



From jayroth6 at cox.net  Sat Apr  4 22:52:53 2009
From: jayroth6 at cox.net (J Rothermel)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:52:53 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Bankruptcy Is Vital to Capitalism
Message-ID: <49D83925.5000508@cox.net>

Not so very long ago WESSEL quoted from Robert Reich's blog a short rant 
captioned "The People Are Rising " that read, in part:

    ....over the last few years Congressional Republicans gave away the
    store to big corporations and the rich, and robbed average working
    people. At the behest of the credit-card industry, they made
    personal bankruptcy almost impossible, while allowing big companies
    to declare bankruptcy and rid themselves of pension and health
    obligations to their workers. At the behest of the oil and gas
    industry, they gave away billions in subsidies, while oil companies
    got record profits and most people paid through their noses for gas
    and home heating oil. At the behest of the drug companies, they
    created a Medicare drug benefit that prevented Medicare from using
    its huge bargaining leverage to get lower drug prices for the
    elderly. At the behest of chain stores and the fast-food industry,
    they blocked the minimum wage from catching up with inflation. At
    the behest of corporate America, they got rid of overtime pay for
    millions of hard-working Americans. At the behest of the richest,
    they created tax cuts that made the rich even richer, while cutting
    housing assistance and health care for poor kids.

The fantasy that the Democrats were not complicit in this aside-- it is 
a useful summary.







From stuartmunckton at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 22:53:05 2009
From: stuartmunckton at gmail.com (Stuart Munckton)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:53:05 +1000
Subject: [Marxism] European workers rebel as G20 meets
Message-ID: <2c6145850904042153p2cb09e41w33e9ec91363cbd9b@mail.gmail.com>

European Workers Rebel as G-20 Looms

At companies, including Caterpillar in France and Visteon in Northern
Ireland, workers have occupied offices and detained bosses.
By Jason Walsh
The Christian Science Monitor
April 1, 2009
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0401/p06s10-woeu.html

Belfast, Northern Ireland - As world leaders meet at the Group of 20 summit
in London, Europeans are taking militant actions to protect their jobs,
pointing to a growing anger - and willingness to act on it - among workers
in the European Union.

In the latest such move, staff at US automotive-parts manufacturer Visteon
in Northern Ireland occupied a factory.

The timing couldn't be worse for world leaders. With the G-20 summit
bringing together heads of government, including President Barack Obama,
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, a
rise in militancy could undermine already shaky negotiations over how best
to address the global financial crisis.

British unions took to the streets of London over the weekend as part of a
demonstration calling for G-20 leaders to protect workers. More protests
erupted Wednesday as G-20 leaders arrived.

President Obama cautioned the same day that the international community must
address "the most severe economic crisis since World War II" together. But
European workers appear unconvinced leaders will protect them as job losses
increase:

The British arm of Visteon, which is a major supplier to Ford, announced
Tuesday that it was cutting almost 600 jobs across the United Kingdom,
including 210 in Northern Ireland. It filed for bankruptcy the same day.

Workers immediately occupied Visteon's manufacturing facility in Belfast,
seeking an enhanced layoff package, which they say should be financed by the
factory's former owner, Ford Motor Co.

In Ireland, fired workers at Waterford Crystal occupied the world-renowned
glassmaking factory after it was shut down. The occupation, which started in
late January, ended after almost two months with the announcement that 176
jobs had been saved for at least six months.

In Dundee, Scotland, staff at Prisme, a box manufacturer, are in the fifth
week of an occupation and are reportedly planning to restart the business as
a workers' cooperative.

In France, workers at Caterpillar took the dramatic step Tuesday of
kidnapping four managers, who were held for 24 hours at the company's plant
in the southeastern city of Grenoble before being released Wednesday.
Workers were angry that 700 of the 2,500 employees face layoff due to a drop
in demand for Caterpillar bulldozers.

The action at Caterpillar was the fourth "bossnapping"
in France in the last month. Last week, workers at 3M
held executive Luc Rosselet overnight until management
agreed to discuss job cuts with staff. The chief
executive and director of human relations of Sony's
French arm were also held for a day by workers, and two
managers were locked up at a Kleber-Michelin machine-
parts factory in Toul.

Holding management overnight is an extreme, though not
entirely uncommon, tactic in French industrial disputes
and first rose to prominence during the 1968 revolt by
students and workers.

Traditionally, workers have entered into discussion
with employers over job losses and other hot-button
issues like pay and benefits. If discussion failed
there, was always the nuclear option: a strike. With
workers being laid off, strikes are not possible - thus
the more extreme measures.

The protests are symbolic in nature, intended to draw
attention to workers' plight, says Zander Wedderburn, a
labor union expert and professor emeritus at Heriot-
Watt University in Edinburgh.

"In a way they're fighting against a global recession -
they're not going to shoot the guys, they're looking
for a headline to get support from the public and
attention from politicians.

"There is a structural problem in the economy and
occupations won't change that," said Professor
Wedderburn.

The 100 former workers who spent the night at the Visteon plant in Belfast
are already gaining support from both ends of the local political spectrum.

Gerry Adams, president of the Irish republican political party Sinn F??in
and member of parliament for West Belfast, home to many of the protesters,
spoke at the site on Wednesday, saying Ford had a "moral responsibility" to
the workers. Northern Ireland's
enterprise minister, Arlene Foster from the pro-British Democratic Unionist
party, said politicians must help the manufacturing sector.

Workers in Visteon's two plants in Britain also attempted occupations
Wednesday. Fifty people are protesting inside a plant at Basildon, Essex,
while others are protesting outside a plant in Enfield, London.

Jane Gunn, founder of the mediation firm Corporate Peacemakers, says that
the actions are driven by a sense of desperation.

"The psychology of it is that people in conflict lack a feeling of power
over their circumstances," she says. "It isn't outcome-driven, it's a way of
regaining power and influence in a psychological sense.

"There are two fundamental things people are asking for in any relationship:
'Do I matter?' and 'Am I heard?' The underlying feeling is one of lack of
respect."

Roger Maddison, automotive sector spokesperson for the union Unite, said
that workers are not sufficiently protected by British law.

"We are bitterly disappointed with today's news," he commented Tuesday.
"Within minutes, these workers' working world collapsed around them. Once
again we see how cheap and easy it is to sack UK workers. One minute, they
were working, but six minutes later they were jobless, pensionless, and
looking at the state basic in redundancy pay as their company was placed
into administration. This is no way to treat a loyal workforce."

Unite, the largest union in Britain, is the British arm of Workers Uniting,
the largest private sector union in the USA and Canada.






-- 
"The free market is perfectly natural... do you think I am some kind of
dummy?" ? Jarvis Cocker

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" ? Oscar Wilde

From lnp3 at panix.com  Sun Apr  5 07:27:38 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 09:27:38 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Why are American workers so passive?
Message-ID: <49D8B1CA.5000708@panix.com>

NY Times, April 5, 2009
In America, Labor Has an Unusually Long Fuse

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
The workers and other protesters who gathered en masse at the Group of 
20 summit meeting last week in London were continuing a time-honored 
European tradition of taking their grievances into the streets.

Two weeks earlier, more than a million workers in France demonstrated 
against layoffs and the government?s handling of the economic crisis, 
and in the last month alone, French workers took their bosses hostage 
four times in various labor disputes. When General Motors recently 
announced huge job cuts worldwide, 15,000 workers demonstrated at the 
company?s German headquarters.

But in the United States, where G.M. plans its biggest layoffs, union 
members have seemed passive in comparison. They may yell at the 
television news, but that?s about all. Unlike their European 
counterparts, American workers have largely stayed off the streets, even 
as unemployment soars and companies cut wages and benefits.

The country of Mother Jones, John L. Lewis and Walter Reuther certainly 
has had a rich and sometimes militant history of labor protest ? from 
the Homestead Steel Works strike against Andrew Carnegie in 1892 to the 
auto workers? sit-down strikes of the 1930s and the 67-day walkout by 
400,000 G.M. workers in 1970.

But in recent decades, American workers have increasingly steered clear 
of such militancy, for reasons that range from fear of having their jobs 
shipped overseas to their self-image as full-fledged members of the 
middle class, with all its trappings and aspirations.

David Kennedy, a Stanford historian and author of ?Freedom From Fear: 
The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945,? says that 
America?s individualist streak is a major reason for this reluctance to 
take to the streets. Citing a 1940 study by the social psychologist 
Mirra Komarovsky, he said her interviews of the Depression-era 
unemployed found ?the psychological reaction was to feel guilty and 
ashamed, that they had failed personally.?

Taken together, guilt, shame and individualism undercut any impulse to 
collective action, then as now, Professor Kennedy said. Noting that 
Americans felt stunned and desperately insecure during the Depression?s 
early years, he wrote: ?What struck most observers, and mystified them, 
was the eerie docility of the American people, their stoic passivity as 
the Depression grindstone rolled over them.?

By the mid-1930s, though, worker protests increased in number and 
militancy. They were fueled by the then-powerful Communist and Socialist 
Parties and frustrations over continuing deprivation. Workers also felt 
that they had President Roosevelt?s blessing for collective action 
because he signed the Wagner Act in 1935, giving workers the right to 
unionize.

?Remember, at that time, you had Hoovervilles and 25 percent 
unemployment,? said Daniel Bell, a professor emeritus of sociology at 
Harvard. ?Many people felt that capitalism was finished.?

General strikes paralyzed San Francisco and Minneapolis, and a six-week 
sit-down strike at a G.M. plant in Flint, Mich., pressured the company 
into recognizing the United Automobile Workers. In the decade?s ugliest 
showdown, a 1937 strike against Republic Steel in Chicago, 10 protesters 
were shot to death. That militancy helped build a powerful labor 
movement, which represented 35 percent of the nation?s workers by the 
1950s and helped create the world?s largest and richest middle class.

Today, American workers, even those earning $20,000 a year, tend to view 
themselves as part of an upwardly mobile middle class. In contrast, 
European workers often still see themselves as proletarians in an 
enduring class struggle.

And American labor leaders, once up-from-the-street rabble-rousers, now 
often work hand-in-hand with C.E.O.?s to improve corporate 
competitiveness to protect jobs and pensions, and try to sideline 
activists who support a hard line.

?You have a general diminution of union leadership that was focused on 
defending workers by any means necessary,? said Jerry Tucker, a longtime 
U.A.W. militant. ?The message from the union leadership nowadays often 
is, ?We don?t have any choice, we have to go down this concessionary 
road to see if we can do damage control,? ? he said.

In the case of the Detroit automakers, a strike might not only hasten 
their demise but infuriate many Americans who already view auto workers 
as overpaid. It might also make Washington less receptive to a bailout.

Labor?s aggressiveness has also been sapped by its declining numbers. 
Unions represent just 7.4 percent of private-sector workers today.

Unions have also grown more cautious as management has become more 
aggressive. A watershed came in 1981 when the nation?s air traffic 
controllers engaged in an illegal strike. President Reagan quickly fired 
the 11,500 striking traffic controllers, hired replacements and soon got 
the airports running. After that confrontation, labor?s willingness to 
strike shrank markedly.

American workers still occasionally vent their anger in protests and 
strikes. There were demonstrations against the A.I.G. bonuses, for 
instance, and workers staged a sit-down strike in December when their 
factory in Chicago was closed. But the numbers tell the story: Last 
year, American unions engaged in 159 work stoppages, down from 1,352 in 
1981, according to the Bureau of National Affairs, a publisher of legal 
and regulatory news.

Michael Kazin, a historian at Georgetown University, said that while 
demonstrations remain a vital outlet for the European left, for 
Americans ?the Internet now somehow serves as the main outlet? with 
angry blogs and mass e-mailing.

Left-leaning workers and unions that might be most prone to stage 
protests during today?s economic crisis are often the ones most 
enthusiastic about President Obama and his efforts to revive the 
economy, help unions and enact universal health coverage. Instead of 
taking to the streets last fall to protest the gathering economic crisis 
under President Bush, many workers and unions campaigned for Mr. Obama.

Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, said there were 
smarter things to do than demonstrating against layoffs ? for instance, 
pushing Congress and the states to make sure the stimulus plan creates 
the maximum number of jobs in the United States.

?I actually believe that Americans believe in their political system 
more than workers do in other parts of the world,? Mr. Gerard said. He 
said large labor demonstrations are often warranted in Canada and 
European countries to pressure parliamentary leaders. Demonstrations are 
less needed in the United States, he said, because often all that is 
needed is some expert lobbying in Washington to line up the support of a 
half-dozen senators.

Professor Kennedy saw another reason that today?s young workers and 
young people were protesting less than in decades past. ?This 
generation,? he said, has ? found more effective ways to change the 
world. It?s signed up for political campaigns, and it?s not waiting for 
things to get so desperate that they feel forced to take to the streets.?


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  5 07:35:46 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:35:46 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Why are American workers so passive?
References: <49D8B1CA.5000708@panix.com>
Message-ID: <2EADB0247E6E4EA9A90A0101FBA057F7@dmsthinkpad>

Greenhouse is the author of  The Big Squeeze
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3 at panix.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 9:27 AM
Subject: [Marxism] Why are American workers so passive?




From marvgandall at videotron.ca  Sun Apr  5 07:40:55 2009
From: marvgandall at videotron.ca (Marv Gandall)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 09:40:55 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
	<239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
	<1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
	<54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
	<b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad>
	<b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart>
	<b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com>
	<DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV>
	<C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta>
	<7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV>
	<C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta>
	<6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV>
	<C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta>
Message-ID: <E7BD271C6D40425AB10DE688148C8A5C@MARV>

Joaquin writes:

> Marv has another message replying to mine where he concedes standards of
> living of working people in the U.S. have in general not declined...
======================================
I wouldn't make too much of this, however. As I indicated, it depends which
"working people" you are talking about. Over the past three decades, living
standards have declined for the majority of workers lacking a post-
secondary education; they rose for professional and technical employees in
the expanding sectors of the economy, as you noted in your own case. The
obscene share of wealth redirected to the big bourgeoisie over this period
has been an embarrassment to a section of the big bourgeoisie itself, which
has seen it as a drag on economic performance and a contributing cause of
the current crisis.

I second Artesian's motion that you supply us with some hard information,
particularly trend data, demonstrating the transfer of wealth from the
colonial and semi-colonial world to the advanced capitalist countries and
then on to their working classes. In the absence of such data, the
discussion is necessarily impressionistic. My own reading of the sharply
widening disparities in income since 1979 suggests that most Americans have
not benefited from the the great expansion of the US-led world capitalist
economy - the reason why so many now bitterly misdirect their anger at
overseas and immigrant workers - as against your own impression that the
"overwhelming majority ...share in this imperialist privilege -- and most of
them are quite aware of it."

*    *    *

Between 1979 and 2005 the pre-tax income for the poorest households grew by
1.3 per cent a year, middle incomes before tax grew by less than 1 per cent
a year, while those of households in the top 1 per cent grew by 200 per cent
pre-tax and, more strikingly, 228 per cent post-tax.

The result of this lopsided distribution of income growth was that by 2005
the average after-tax income for the bottom fifth of households was $15,300,
for the middle fifth $50,200 and for the top 1 per cent just over $1m.

Looked at from another perspective, in 1979 the post-tax income of the top 1
per cent was 8 times higher than that of middle income families and 23 times
higher than the lowest fifth. By 2005 those ratios grew respectively to 21
and 70. The process reached its extreme point with US President George W.
Bush?s tax cuts. Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley
estimates that in the economic expansion of 2002-06 the plutocratic top 1
per cent captured almost three-quarters of income growth.

Figures for wealth, derived from the Federal Reserve Board?s Survey of
Consumer Finances, are less up-to-date but the picture is similar. The share
of US wealth owned by the top 1 per cent of households rose steadily from 20
per cent in 1976 to 38 per cent in 1998. The concentration is more extreme
than in any other country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development for which figures are available.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d33af42a-04c7-11dd-a2f0-000077b07658.html





From larrydamms at yahoo.com  Sun Apr  5 09:17:24 2009
From: larrydamms at yahoo.com (Larry Damms)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 08:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Why are American workers so passive?
Message-ID: <737401.34628.qm@web58508.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

>Michael Kazin, a historian at Georgetown University, said that while 
>demonstrations remain a vital outlet for the European left, for 
>Americans ?the Internet now somehow serves as the main outlet? with 
>angry blogs and mass e-mailing.
?
On the one hand, there's something to this... the society of the privatized spectacle and 
all that. On the other hand, is Kazin actually suggesting that tactically and strategically
speaking, posting to a blog is the same thing as withholding labor?
?
>Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, said there were 
>smarter things to do than demonstrating against layoffs ? for instance, 
>pushing Congress and the states to make sure the stimulus plan creates 
>the maximum number of jobs in the United States.

>?I actually believe that Americans believe in their political system 
>more than workers do in other parts of the world,? Mr. Gerard said. He 
>said large labor demonstrations are often warranted in Canada and 
>European countries to pressure parliamentary leaders. Demonstrations are 
>less needed in the United States, he said, because often all that is 
>needed is some expert lobbying in Washington to line up the support of a 
>half-dozen senators.
?
Wow. The unions are so utterly irrelevant today I've forgotten just what a?bunch of
chauvinist blockheads?their leaders are. This is beyond?parody... this is plain shitbaggery.
?
>Professor Kennedy saw another reason that today?s young workers and 
>young people were protesting less than in decades past. ?This 
>generation,? he said, has ? found more effective ways to change the 
>world. It?s signed up for political campaigns..."
?
Not a touch of irony in this mortar brain's words.
?
Why does this asinine article equate symbolic protests with actual strikes? It reflects the
very stupid political culture it purports to call into question...?


      

From sartesian at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  5 09:32:19 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:32:19 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Why are American workers so passive?
References: <737401.34628.qm@web58508.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <62C0AAE260EC4F7BB84A93339CBE7E58@dmsthinkpad>

How about this?  How about US workers are protesting less than their 
European comrades, less than in the past because the US bourgeoisie has been 
knocking the snot out of labor ever since 1973?

How about the industrial organizations have been pretty much devastated by 
the increase in fixed capital component/decrease in industrial worker 
component? When the UAW went on strike against GM in when 1970?, there were 
400,000 workers walking out.  The recent strike?  70,000.

How about that the increase in numbers of workers, in the work force, has 
been centered in lower-paying service sector with labor power provided by 
the historically, and currently, more vulnerable sections of the working 
class-- namely WOMEN, immigrants, people of color-- all three, and three in 
one; people perhaps with less to lose than the traditional industrial 
workers but with less resources to even risk the possibility of loss-- the 
fact that these workers have been more active, more forthright is a 
testament to their great and developing class consciousness?

How about it is one thing-- and that one thing is not "imperialist 
privilege"--  RACISM that has so inhibited, and immobilized development of 
class struggle, class consciousness in the US?

What these professors, union bureaucrats are all about from beginning to end 
is the denial of the actual [recent] history of capitalism.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Larry Damms" <larrydamms at yahoo.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Cc: <larrydamms at yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 11:17 AM
Subject: [Marxism] Why are American workers so passive? 



From markalause at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 10:08:36 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:08:36 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <E7BD271C6D40425AB10DE688148C8A5C@MARV>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart>
	<b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com>
	<DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV>
	<C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta>
	<7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV>
	<C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta>
	<6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV>
	<C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta>
	<E7BD271C6D40425AB10DE688148C8A5C@MARV>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904050908r9c799c5n64f4745e0090710@mail.gmail.com>

There's a tendency in all these statistics to disappear the
inconvenient.  The great myth in America is that education fuels
mobility and to treat the conditions of professional and technical
employees as a reflection of that education. I don't even know that we
have accurate statistics on these sorts of things.  Everyone employed
at anything for any time during the week are listed as being employed
at such-and-such, and the incomes are always exaggerated.

This happens in every industry I've ever worked, and certainly so in
the education biz, where we are priests of the Great American
Faith...that education is the fuel for mobility and success.  I think
standards of living have been going down--and seriously so--for
decades.  We have generally had a level of prosperity that allows us
margins of choice that socially disguise how poorly we're doing...even
from ourselves.

ML


From markalause at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 10:21:07 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:21:07 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Why are American workers so passive?
In-Reply-To: <62C0AAE260EC4F7BB84A93339CBE7E58@dmsthinkpad>
References: <737401.34628.qm@web58508.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<62C0AAE260EC4F7BB84A93339CBE7E58@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904050921l496f18d2n389d2d11e12b2d2d@mail.gmail.com>

Well, who do you think they're going to interview in such a
publication?  Ward Churchill?  Howard Zinn?

To a large extent, you are dealing with what Zinn rightly described as
the gatekeepers and guards...the shapers of public opinion in the
media, academe, etc.  The social function is to minimize any
independence among the people, to disparage its value, to keep
everything flowing through its proper channels.

When it asks interesting questions, it's going to formulate it so as
to provide socially safe answers.  That is, they will slip the
conclusion they want into the premise.

Institutions defend themselves and large institutions are mutually
interdependent.  People responsible for making them work engage
largely in bullshitting themselves about how they actually work. This
is the nature of what has been cast as "professionalism."  Being
"unprofessional" is the sin of all sins in academe or journalism.  It
usually means telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they
may.  The "professional" thing is to rally 'round the institution for
which you have been responsible and cover up its shortcomings, deny
the truth, or disparage the importance of the truth.

That's just the game.

ML


From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Sun Apr  5 11:32:21 2009
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:32:21 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Glenn Greenwald - Wall Street's Ownership of the Federal
	Government
Message-ID: <c8d.40f7524d.370a4525@aol.com>




 
clip  ---
 
Just think  about how this works.  People like Rubin, Summers and Gensler 
shuffle back  and forth from the public to the private sector and back again, 
repeatedly  switching places with their GOP counterparts in this endless 
public/private  sector looting.  When in government, they ensure that the laws and  
regulations are written to redound directly to the benefit of a handful of Wall  
St. firms, literally abolishing all safeguards and allowing them to pillage 
and  steal.  Then, when out of government, they return to those very firms  and 
collect millions upon millions of dollars, profits made possible by the laws  
and regulations they implemented when in government.  Then, when their  party 
returns to power, they return back to government, where they continue to  use 
their influence to ensure that the oligarchical circle that rewards them so  
massively is protected and advanced.  This corruption is so tawdry and  
transparent -- and it has fueled and continues to fuel a fraud so enormous and  
destructive as to be unprecedented in both size and audacity -- that it is  
mystifying that it is not provoking more mass public rage.
 
full article  --
 
 
<http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/04/summers/index.html>
 
 

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572833x1201387477/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww
.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62)

From jonflanders at jflan.net  Sun Apr  5 11:33:15 2009
From: jonflanders at jflan.net (Jon Flanders)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:33:15 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <b16d8daf0904050908r9c799c5n64f4745e0090710@mail.gmail.com>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart>
	<b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com>
	<DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV>
	<C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta>
	<7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV>
	<C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta>
	<6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV>
	<C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta>
	<E7BD271C6D40425AB10DE688148C8A5C@MARV>
	<b16d8daf0904050908r9c799c5n64f4745e0090710@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1238952795.5247.7.camel@localhost>


One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the role of the "War on Terror"
in damping down worker protest. I certainly think that the war without
end propaganda has had some effectiveness in convincing workers that
to strike and demonstrate will only encourage the "enemy."

And now we have the union leaders Democratic Party in power, making the
war even more of an elephant in the room.

Witness the absence of Democratic "progressives" in the DC anti-war
action recently.

It will take a while to work through these obstacles before we see any
mass worker protests in the US.

Jon Flanders





From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Sun Apr  5 11:41:50 2009
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:41:50 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] US and Israel may fall out over Iran
Message-ID: <bdd.49d08f4e.370a475e@aol.com>



Jonathan Cook - 

US and Israel may fall out over Iran

The new administrations in  the United States and Israel could collide
over how to deal with Iran?s  nuclear ambitions, threatening to strain
their close, long-standing  relationship...

To read more, click on the link  below:
http://www.jkcook.net/Latest.htm
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572833x1201387477/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62)

From lnp3 at panix.com  Sun Apr  5 12:34:02 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:34:02 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Marty Hart-Landsberg on Korea situation (from pen-l)
Message-ID: <49D8F99A.2080501@panix.com>

The Obama administration seems uninterested in actually finding ways to 
ease tensions on the Korean peninsula---another example of the new 
administration's determination to embrace many of the previous 
administrations foreign policy objectives.

North Korea launched a rocket/satellite launch vehicle early Sunday 
morning.  President Obama responded with claims that this launch 
violated international rules and has called on the Security Council to 
take action.  This cannot end well.

I am on the steering committee of a group called Alliance of Scholars 
Concerned about Korea.  Here is the statement that we issued (and are 
gathering signatures for) on the North Korean missile launch---I am not 
looking for signatures here---just wanted to share information.

---

Scholars around the World Express Concerns about Current Crisis in 
Northeast Asia

Despite some hopeful signs in the last two years, the Korean peninsula 
is again teetering toward crisis. The Six Party Talks are stymied. 
Progress toward normalizing relations between the United States and 
North Korea has stalled. Relations between the two Koreas have deteriorated.

In this context, North Korea's rocket launch this week and the 
overreaction to it threaten to trigger another round of escalation.

We urge all the governments in the region to remain calm and turn to 
dialogue and diplomacy to stop the peninsula from degenerating into a 
conflict. We believe that this crisis is a reminder of the absolute 
imperative of achieving permanent peace in the region.

Frustrated by the lack of progress in the Six Party Talks and genuinely 
interested in advancing its space program, Pyongyang is making its 
second attempt to put a satellite into orbit. This time, North Korea has 
signed the appropriate international protocols governing satellites and 
given the proper notification. The UN resolution sanctioning North Korea 
after its 2006 nuclear test does not explicitly forbid satellite 
launches. That North Korea is attempting to abide by this resolution 
suggests that Pyongyang still wants to engage with the international 
community.

We are concerned about the growing militarism in Northeast Asia, 
including increased military spending, destabilizing U.S. military 
exercises around the peninsula, and the bellicose rhetoric from North 
Korea. Japan has taken the current crisis as an opportunity to 
accelerate its missile defense programs; South Korea is solidifying its 
uncompromising position. We believe that an overreaction to North 
Korea's rocket launch would only fuel North Korea's suspicions and make 
further negotiations difficult. Talk of sanctions would only help end 
dialogue in the region.

We call on the region's governments to reaffirm the principles declared 
in the September 19 Joint Statement of the Six Party talks as well as 
the roadmap identified in the February 13 agreement. The six countries 
should abide by their commitments and move forward not only on 
denuclearization but also with the larger engagement package, which 
includes a peace treaty to replace the Korean War armistice, concrete 
steps toward normalization, and a roadmap that Pyongyang can follow to 
become integrated in the global economy and a peace structure. A narrow 
focus on non-proliferation is a recipe for prolonged, fitful, and 
probably fruitless negotiations. Only by expanding the number of options 
on the table can the Six Party Talks make headway.

All avenues of communication and exchange, including bilateral ones, 
must be pursued. A bold move to open dialogue must begin now.

ASCK Steering Committee (institutional affiliation for the purpose of 
identification):

Alexis Dudden (University of Connecticut)
Henry Em (New York University)
John Feffer (Foreign Policy in Focus)
Marty Hart-Landsberg (Lewis and Clark College)
Suzy Kim (Boston College)
Jae-Jung Suh (Johns Hopkins University)
Seung Hye Suh (Scripps College)
Jun Yoo (University of Hawai'i)


A more detailed discussion of events can be found at: 
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6014


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  5 12:39:34 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:39:34 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Forwarded
Message-ID: <C9EC248306FB401897B562F9AEC26857@dmsthinkpad>

Received this, and this request from Abu Hartal:

Hi can you forward this to marxmail as I can't get my formatting right. Please comment on this short post if you find it interesting. Pretty interesting piece, and Greenhouse's book is excellent if you want to know about the unraveling of the Treaty of Detroit, withheld wages, unpaid overtime, misclassification of workers to prevent unionization, sexual harassment, the robbery of pensions, etc.. But the conclusion to this piece is that the internet and faith in the political system work against direct political action. On the the problem of faith, we are finding that the state is in fact held hostage by finance capital and must thus summon sacrifices on its behalf; that the state must allow bankruptcies, industry centralization and the resultant unemployment for the surviving capitals to reduce costs to restore profitability and therewith restore accumulation; and that the state is stumbling onto inflation as the means by which to reduce the real wage, raise anticipated profitability, and encourage investment. The illusions in the state will be shattered, but the problem of the internet will remain, no? 

From lycophidion at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 12:57:39 2009
From: lycophidion at gmail.com (Michael Friedman)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:57:39 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)/all
Message-ID: <709f342d0904051157m590829a6ocb749e669bceed2@mail.gmail.com>

Waistline's point is very important. I think the ideological -- and by this,
I mean more than just ideas, but institutions and way of life --
underpinnings of the society are a basic cause of the lack of what Joaquin
calls a "class for itself" movement. And I think this is where Gramsci's
concepts of hegemony and hegemonic blocs are important. It would be useful
for someone with a thorough grasp of these concepts (not me!) to assess the
current juncture.


I agree with much of Marvin's writing on this issue in an earlier post. For
most "blue-collar" labor in the preceding period, the ensemble of living
conditions have deteriorated, not improved. Even the possession of a greater
number of (more cheaply made, purchased on credit) electronic gadgets
doesn't of necessity imply improved living conditions. And Marx spoke of the
socially necessary component of variable capital, new products becoming
incorporated into the wage package.


However, where these gadgets do play a role is as part of the
ideological/institutional matrix that we operate within, generating
expectations of what constitutes "normality" and "security" and "everyday
life." I know I've made use of that latter phrase before: "everyday-ness".
It (cotidianidad) was coined by Chilean media critics Armand Mattelart and
Ariel Dorfmann in the context of the CIA's destabilization campaign against
Salvador Allende, to describe precisely that matrix, that world-view, which
in the Chilean case, the counter-revolution actively sought to rupture.
Ditto in Nicaragua. Now, in the current juncture, the rulers are doing a
pretty-damned good job of rupturing "everyday-ness" and their hegemony by
themselves. How far will this go, and who will be there to pick up the
pieces?



One point of Marvin's that I don't agree with is his view that the union
bureaucrats are blameless for the decline of unions. While, I agree that the
primary current "cause" (argghh!) for the phenomena lies with decades-long
changes in the world economy (i.e., neoliberalism), I would point out that
the decline began prior to the consolidation of the neo-liberal model, at
about the time that Douglas Frasier began moaning about the "one-sided class
war". I would argue that these bureaucrats "canalized" (to use a genetic
term) the union movement into a position that was poorly equipped to
confront capital, much less do so within the context of an all-out
globalized class war. I mean, as a teacher, my union was good for a)
sweetheart contracts with the City of New York, b) stifling dissent, c)
attacking (a la Albert Shanker) belligerent labor movements elsewhere in the
world and d) offering its members credit cards.



> Message: 2

> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:26:03 EDT

> From: Waistline2 at aol.com

> Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)/all

>             class            unity is wrong

> To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu

> Message-ID: <d4a.4ef9dd3f.37091c5b at aol.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

>

> Ideology accounts for much of the passivity of the American workers.

>

> The ideologies of all-class unity have been ingrained in the public psyche

> for generations. My own thoughts is that this ideology is not peculiar to

> America but an important component of the ideological landscape of all the

> leading capitalist countries. These ideologies have roots in the capital

> labor

> relation itself, as systematic production and is reinforced as the self

> moving

> logic of reproduction. Labor at all times live and reproduces itself at

> the

> mercy of capital.

>

> Perhaps chief among them is the philosophical assertion that lies at the

> heart of the case made for American exceptionalism, i.e. that we are

> essentially

> a classless society because American society is founded upon the primacy

> of

> the  individual. Hence the role of government is simply to provide the

> "opportunity"  for each individual to become all they can be. So the

> workers find

> themselves  pitted against one another in the market place competing for

> fewer and

> fewer  low-wage jobs. It is every man and woman for themselves, and if

> they

> don't  succeed, then it must be because they made bad choices. This

> ideology

> mask the  capital-labor relation, which appears as a law of nature to each

> successive  generation. Beneath the ideology is the proposition that

> capital lives

> and  thrives on wage labor and wage labor rest exclusively on the basis of

> competition between wage laborers. Being pitted against each other in the

> battle

>  for survival is not a natural condition of human existence; most

> certainly

> not  in a society of plenty.

>

From sartesian at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  5 13:07:58 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:07:58 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)/all
References: <709f342d0904051157m590829a6ocb749e669bceed2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A19D47A19567437281976E5C6C48B225@dmsthinkpad>

In the case of Douglas A. Fraser, he did more than just canalize-- while his 
official biography refers to him as the leader of a 9 day strike against 
Chryler in 1973 that won significant control of overtime, production rates, 
etc., his real step-up involved personally leading official, and armed, 
strike-breakers against wildcat sit-down strikers at Chrysler plants in the 
Detroit area.

After that, the two concessionary contracts he negotiated with Chrysler 
while head of the UAW, and the 'consolidation' of the neo-liberal model were 
foregone conclusions.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Friedman" <lycophidion at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)/all




From J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk  Sun Apr  5 15:02:19 2009
From: J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk (J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:02:19 +0100
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <171650F28BB94FE49F692A6E59B0E495@dmsthinkpad>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
	<239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
	<1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
	<54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
	<b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad>
	<b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart>
	<b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com>
	<DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV>
	<C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta>
	<7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV>
	<C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta>
	<6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV>
	<C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta>
	<171650F28BB94FE49F692A6E59B0E495@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <web-4860287@twum.lboro.ac.uk>

Much as I truly hate to agree with Sartesian, he (she? 
It?) is quite right. The average relative wage in the UK 
and the USA across a range of manufacturing and industrial 
sectors declined steadily from the mid-1970s onwards and 
the gini coefficient increased correspondingly. What the 
Thatcher governments in the UK and all of the subsequent 
ones achieved was a dramatic change in the shape of wealth 
distribution; from being (roughly) a pyramid-shaped wealth 
distribution in the late 1970s in the UK the distribution 
of wealth assumed a roughly hour-glassed shape, with 
(critically) those in the middle-classes able to take 
advantage of the increasing privatization and 
liberalization initiatives effectively bribed by 
successive governments to abandon what used to be referred 
to as 'the post-war consensus', better-known as one-nation 
toryism.

When new Labour acceded to power they arrested the growing 
gap between the richest and the poorest for a while, not 
by addressing the poverty trap in which the lowest deciles 
of the population live, but by re-adjusting the tax burden 
and the benefits system so that the bottom deciles, whilst 
not improving their lot, at least didn't get very much 
worse off. That too has been reversed in the last few 
years of the neo-liberal experiment so ably conducted by 
Mr Blair and the gini coefficient in the UK continues to 
get worse. What this inequality of wealth distribution 
also means (as the UK Guardian recently showed with a 
stunning set of graphics) is that all of those social 
well-being factors concerned with wealth distribution, 
which is really everything from health, education, mental 
health through to crime, worsen as inequality gets worse. 
The UK and the US are amongst the very worst globally 
across a range of factors (imprisonment rates, alcoholism, 
mental health, teenage pregnancy) as a direct result of 
the inequality encouraged by the socio-economic regimes 
through which the neoliberal ideology is expressed in 
those countries - small wonder that belief-based politics, 
economics and science are becoming so popular, where 
real-life politics, economics and science are such a 
cluster fuck.

The undoubted wealth of rich countries of the global North 
conforms more to a kind of internal dependency theory (a 
la Frank), in which cities, regions and ethnicities are 
marginalized as part of an essential dynamic within 
globalizing capitalism, which is to say that (as many 
commentators have written) the nation-state has not become 
meaningless, just far less relevant as a way of describing 
and picturing the superstructure through which the dynamic 
flows of oppression and exploitation are channeled through 
cities, economic activities client to financial 
hyperglobalism and elite groupings. ? ?


Jon Cloke
  



From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sun Apr  5 15:04:35 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 17:04:35 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
Message-ID: <bde.41088ce6.370a76e3@aol.com>

In a message dated 4/5/2009 4:51:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Waistline2  
writes: I second Artesian's motion that you supply us with some hard  
information, particularly trend data, demonstrating the transfer of wealth from  the 
colonial and semi-colonial world to the advanced capitalist countries and  then 
on to their working classes. << 
 
Comment 
 
Actually, Artesian and I engaged this question the better part of a decade  
ago on Marxmail.  
 
It got real bloody, he beat me up pretty bad. 
 
"Damnit stop quoting Engels and say what you means." 
 
The issue was presented a little more sharply and I could not extrapolate  
the history of the national wage rates peculiar to America against  a  
"magnitude of surplus" extracted from the colonies that enter into the wages of  
American labor. This dispute caused an epiphany for me: 
 
"Why not simply describe something - anything, as accurately as possible,  
rather than proceeding from a conclusion or ideological formulation?" 
 
For instance, the historical privileges men have had over women do not  
require an elaborate theory and ideology first, but demands description,  
articulation and then a study of the history. The same applies to blacks in  
relationship to whites. Although, I would not admit it at the time, what I was  
essentially trying to describe was the relative differences in wages and living  
circumstances between whites and blacks, which gets real confusing when dealing  
with heavy industry where many blacks were once concentrated. 
 
Then of course blacks were tied to the land and one cannot compare  
agricultural labor to industry labor and call the difference in wage rates  bribery. 
One cannot compare wage rates in auto with those in the retail sector  and 
called the difference privilege or bribery. From confusion, one enters the  path of 
ideological madness when the wage rates of all whites in the core South  are 
compared to the blacks of the North. Industry versus agricultural rates and  
union versus non union labor enter the picture and one can never be wrong if 
the  approach is to first accurately describe what we are looking at, and then 
fight  to inch closer to truth. 
 

From bogus@does.not.exist.com  Thu Apr  2 09:08:15 2009
From: bogus@does.not.exist.com ()
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:08:15 -0000
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <mailman.10.1238965489.2552.marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu>

question all formulations I inherited from the period of Lenin. I  was 
already on that path along with everyone else. 
 
Daniel De Leon coined the term, "labor lieutenants" of the capitalist  class. 
 Family members and I were "labor lieutenants of the capitalist  class."  
This term is purely American and one cannot be historically or  currently "wrong" 
to deploy it.  However, what is being isolated is the  upper strata of labor 
in its organizational expression. 
 
This is not to say that the workers in America are not in a "privileged"  
position in the world system of bourgeois production. Privileged is in quotes to  
denote being at the front of the curve of industrial development and capital  
investment. This issue really becomes complex when magnitude of capital 
deployed  in a sector is compared with wages and surplus value yield. No one denies 
the  historically horrible genocidal treatment of the colonial or former 
colonials at  the hands of imperialism; the role of the ideology of white  
superiority/chauvinism etc. 
 
Simply because Lenin deployed certain terms and concepts that were accurate  
in the era he lived, does not mean these terms and concept retain the same  
validity 90 years later. 
 
"Labor lieutenants" of the capitalist class. I like that term and concept,  
which is not to say I am prepared to open a discussion on De Leon and 
Lassalle's  Iron Law of Wages. 
 
WL. 
 
 
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From lnp3 at panix.com  Sun Apr  5 15:13:50 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:13:50 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Swans Release: April 6, 2009
Message-ID: <49D91F0E.8030600@panix.com>

Swans Commentary http://www.swans.com/ April 6, 2009

The world's economy is tanking. Your wallet is getting thinner and you 
are  anxious about your future. So are we. Still, please visit our 
donation page  at http://www.swans.com/about/donate.html -- We need your 
financial help in  order to keep you thoughtfully informed. What's free 
to you is not to us.

                                          # # # # #

Note from the Editors:  Let's begin with something totally different, 
something like a French Corner ("un coin fran?ais") that is all in 
French,  but for the introduction written by Gilles d'Aymery, 
courteously translated  by Marie Rennard. It's a new feature and 
experiment that will include the  sagacity of Simone Ali?-Daram among 
others, and it will feature a few famous  texts. It might make little 
sense, but nowadays what makes sense, really? So  we start with Marie's 
pol?sie, Andr? Malraux's sober words, and the humor of  Simone and that 
of socialist critical-utopian Charles Fourier. "Le coin  fran?ais" will 
appear on a monthly basis. Vive la France! Vive la diff?rence!

Back to the Anglo-Saxon world, Michael Barker, using the non-existing, 
fast- dying notion of a Palestinian state as a prime example, offers a 
long but  fascinating article about the ongoing co-option of progressive 
human rights  groups. Aymery, having looked into the "real" numbers that 
no one wants to  acknowledge, follows up with a different kind of dying, 
the ongoing financial  meltdown that keeps benefiting those who created 
the mayhem. This piece ought  to be read by all, including our dear 
"leaders," as well as the commentariat  and gatekeepers. He then adds in 
his unheralded "Blips" a few more realities  about our oligarchs that 
are coming to the fore in the shape of a Catch-22.  Whether your 
optimism is up to par should be verified with his own take. Far  away, 
and yet next door, our "man in Africa," Femi Akomolafe, adds to the 
chorus. Who are the real pilferers? he asks before providing the answer. 
  Martin Murie, as always, calls upon our better selves. Shall we heed 
his  words?

We move on to the cultural epicenter of Swans with Peter Byrne's keen 
study  of the radical chic interpretations of Che Guevara that have 
reduced the  revolutionary's reality into commercial mythology. Charles 
Marowitz, in his  movie review, digs into yesteryears when Frost and 
Nixon had a go at power  and sycophancy. Guido Monte, at long last, 
invites us into his classroom for  a first-hand look at the process by 
which he creates his exceptional  multilingual work. Raju Peddada 
rummages through one of America's favorite  pastimes, baseball, and our 
undying love for the underdog. We conclude with a  poem by Scott Porter 
and your letters.

                                            # # # # #

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/ga267.html Introduction To The French 
Corner - Gilles d'Aymery  (traduction par Marie Rennard)

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/marier28.html V?rification - Marie 
Rennard (FR)

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/salie01.html Le March? - Simone 
Ali?-Daram (FR)

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/xxx128.html Du fond de la nuit - 
Andr? Malraux (FR)

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/xxx129.html Tableau analytique du 
cocuage - Charles Fourier (FR)

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker17.html Who Wants A One World 
Government? - Michael Barker

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/ga268.html The Dirty Little Financial 
Secret: The Reality no one Wants to Address - Gilles d'Aymery

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/desk084.html Blips #84 - From the 
Martian Desk - Gilles d'Aymery

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/femia08.html Feeling Sorry For 
Nigerian Scammers - Femi Akomolafe

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/murie67.html Power To The Planet's 
Peoples! - Martin Murie

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/pbyrne96.html I Am Che Guevara - 
Peter Byrne

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/cmarow134.html Frost/Nixon - Charles 
Marowitz

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/gmonte65.html Linguistic Blending And 
Multilingual Education: Innovative Ways - Guido Monte

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/rajup11.html Take It With A Grin Of 
Salt - Raju Peddada

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/porter17.html The Fighter - Poem by 
R. Scott Porter

http://www.swans.com/library/art15/letter162.html Letters to the Editor

                                              # # # # #

Please, consider supporting our co-operative work financially. See 
http://www.swans.com/about/donate.html

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 J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk  Sun Apr  5 15:40:22 2009
From: J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk (J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:40:22 +0100
Subject: [Marxism] When Is An Anti-Semite Not An Anti-Semite?
In-Reply-To: <2fa158550904031851h2efcd4ffvf94ee82ffc5b950@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20090403.214008.4952.1.farmelantj@juno.com>
	<2fa158550904031851h2efcd4ffvf94ee82ffc5b950@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <web-4860306@twum.lboro.ac.uk>

Well, there's a well-documented historical basis to the 
idea of "Ensuring a Jewish upbringing entered on Eretz 
Israel", isn't there:

* * *  <!--  /* Font Definitions */  @font-face 
	{font-family:"Cambria Math"; 	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 
4; 	mso-font-charset:0; 	mso-generic-font-family:roman; 
	mso-font-pitch:variable; 	mso-font-signature:-1610611985 
1107304683 0 0 159 0;}  /* Style Definitions */ 
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal 
	{mso-style-unhide:no; 	mso-style-qformat:yes; 
	mso-style-parent:""; 	margin:0cm; 	margin-bottom:.0001pt; 
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan; 	font-size:12.0pt; 
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; 
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; 
	mso-ansi-language:EN-US; 	mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} 
.MsoChpDefault 	{mso-style-type:export-only; 
	mso-default-props:yes; 	font-size:10.0pt; 
	mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; 	mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;} 
@page Section1 	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt; 	margin:72.0pt 
90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; 	mso-header-margin:35.4pt; 
	mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; 	mso-paper-source:0;} 
div.Section1 	{page:Section1;} -->

Memorandum to the Nazi Party by the ZVfD (Zionistische 
Vereinigung fur Deutschland (Zionist Federation of 
Germany)) on 21 June 1933:

?

?To attain its practical objectives, Zionism hopes it will 
be able to collaborate with a government that is 
fundamentally hostile to the Jews....The realization of 
Zionism is impeded only by the resentment of Jews from 
without against the present Germanorientation. The 
propaganda in favor of Zionism currently aimed against 
Germany isessentially non-Zionist... should the Germans 
accept the cooperation of the Zionists, these would try to 
dissuade Jews abroad from supporting the anti-German 
boycott."

?

Source : Lucy Dawidowicz, "A Holocaust reader", New York: 
Behrman House, 1976 p. 155, Lucy Dawidowicz, "The war 
against Jews (1933-1945)" Penguin books.1977. p.231-232.

?

"Hitler will be forgotten in a few years, but we will have 
a beautiful monument in Palestine. You know, the coming of 
the Nazis was rather a welcome thing...Thousands who 
seemed to be completely lost to Judaism were brought back 
to the fold by Hitler, and for that I am personally very 
grateful to him."

?

(Emil Ludwig quoted in Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the age 
of the dictators (1983), available from American Education 
Trust (1998) p.59)

?

?

Reinhardt Heydrich, Das Schwarze Korps, the official organ 
of the S.S. (1935) "The invisible enemy":

?

"We must separate the Jews into two categories, the 
Zionists and the partisans of assimilation. The Zionists 
profess a strictly racial concept and, through emigration 
to Palestine, they help to build their own Jewish 
State...our good wishes and our official goodwill go with 
them."

?

Source : Hohne, H. (2000) "Order of the Death's Head", 
London: Penguin, p.333.

?

?

?

Doucment: "Basic principles of the military 
organization(NMO) in Palestine (Irgun Zevai Leumi) 
concerning the solution of the Jewish question in Europe 
and the active participation of the NMO in the war on the 
side of Germany."

?

The following are extracts :

?

It emerges from the speeches of the leaders of the German 
National Socialist State that a radical solution to the 
Jewish question implies an evacuation of the Jewish masses 
from Europe. (Judenreines Europa).

?

This evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is the 
primary condition of the solution of the Jewish problem, 
but it is only made possible by the installation of these 
masses in Palestine, in a Jewish state with its historical 
frontiers.

?

To resolve the Jewish problem definitively and to liberate 
the Jewish people is the goal of the political activity 
and the long years of struggle of the "Movement for the 
Freedom of Israel" (Lehi) and its national military 
organization in Palestine (Irgun Zevai Leumi).

?

The NMO, knowing the benevolent position of the Reich 
government towards the Zionist activity within Germany, 
and the Zionist emigration projects, considers that:

?

1) There could exist common interests between the 
foundation of a new order in Europe, according to the 
German concept, and the genuine aspirations of the Jewish 
people as they are incarnated by the Lehi.

?

2) Cooperation would be possible between the new Germany 
and a renewed Hebrew nation (Volkish Nationalen 
Hebraertum).

?

3) The establishment of the historical Jewish State on a 
national and totalitarian base, linked by a treaty to a 
German Reich, could contribute to the reinforcement in the 
future of Germany's position in the Middle East.

?

On condition that the German government recognizes the 
national aspirations of the 'Movement for the Freedom of 
Israel' (Lehi), the National Military Organization (NMO) 
proposes to participate in the war on the side of Germany.

?

The cooperation of the Israel liberation movement would go 
in the direction of the recent speeches of the Reich 
chancellor, in which Mr. Hitler stressed that all 
negotiations and any alliance should serve to isolate 
England and to defeat it.

?

Because of its structure and concept of the world, the NMO 
is narrowly linked to the European totalitarian movements.

?

Source : The original text, in German, is in appendix 
number 11 of the book by David Yisraeli : "Le probleme 
palestinien dans la politique allemande, de 1889 - 1945", 
Bar Ilan University Ramat Gan. Israel, 1974,p. 315-317.

?

?

Jon Cloke



From J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk  Sun Apr  5 16:03:45 2009
From: J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk (J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:03:45 +0100
Subject: [Marxism] Fwd: Formatting
Message-ID: <web-4860364@twum.lboro.ac.uk>

Well there's a well-documented historical basis for 
'founding Jewish education on Eretz Israel', isn't there:


Memorandum to the Nazi Party by the ZVfD (Zionistische 
Vereinigung fur Deutschland (Zionist Federation of 
Germany)) on 21 June 1933:

?To attain its practical objectives, Zionism hopes it will 
be able to collaborate with a government that is 
fundamentally hostile to the Jews....The realization of 
Zionism is impeded only by the resentment of Jews from 
without against the present German orientation The 
propaganda in favor of Zionism currently aimed against 
Germany is essentially non-Zionist... should the Germans 
accept the cooperation of the
Zionists, these would try to dissuade Jews abroad from 
supporting the anti-German boycott."

Source : Lucy Dawidowicz, "A Holocaust reader", New York: 
Behrman House, 1976 p. 155, Lucy Dawidowicz, "The war 
against Jews (1933-1945)" Penguin books.1977. p.231-232.

"Hitler will be forgotten in a few years, but we will have 
a beautiful monument in Palestine. You know, the coming of 
the Nazis was rather a welcome thing...Thousands who 
seemed to be completely lost to Judaism were brought back 
to the fold by Hitler, and for that I am personally very 
grateful to him."

(Emil Ludwig quoted in Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the age 
of the dictators (1983), available from American Education 
Trust (1998) p.59)


Reinhardt Heydrich, Das Schwarze Korps, the official organ 
of the S.S. (1935) "The invisible enemy":

"We must separate the Jews into two categories, the 
Zionists and the partisans of assimilation. The Zionists 
profess a strictly racial concept and, through emigration 
to Palestine, they help to build their own Jewish 
State...our good wishes and our official goodwill go with 
them."

Source : Hohne, H. (2000) "Order of the Death's Head", 
London: Penguin, p.333.



Doucment: "Basic principles of the military 
organization(NMO) in Palestine (Irgun Zevai Leumi) 
concerning the solution of the Jewish question in Europe 
and the active participation of the NMO in the war on the 
side of Germany."

The following are extracts :

It emerges from the speeches of the leaders of the German 
National Socialist State that a radical solution to the 
Jewish question implies an evacuation of the Jewish masses 
from Europe. (Judenreines Europa).

This evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is the 
primary condition of the solution of the Jewish problem, 
but it is only made possible by the installation of these 
masses in Palestine, in a Jewish state with its historical 
frontiers.

To resolve the Jewish problem definitively and to liberate 
the Jewish people is the goal of the political activity 
and the long years of struggle of the "Movement for the 
Freedom of Israel" (Lehi) and its national military 
organization in Palestine (Irgun Zevai Leumi).

The NMO, knowing the benevolent position of the Reich 
government towards the Zionist activity within Germany, 
and the Zionist emigration projects, considers that:

1) There could exist common interests between the 
foundation of a new order in Europe, according to the 
German concept, and the genuine aspirations of the Jewish 
people as they are incarnated by the Lehi.

2) Cooperation would be possible between the new Germany 
and a renewed Hebrew nation (Volkish Nationalen 
Hebraertum).

3) The establishment of the historical Jewish State on a 
national and totalitarian base, linked by a treaty to a 
German Reich, could contribute to the reinforcement in the 
future of Germany's position in the Middle East.

On condition that the German government recognizes the 
national aspirations of the 'Movement for the Freedom of 
Israel' (Lehi), the National Military Organization (NMO) 
proposes to participate in the war on the side of Germany.

The cooperation of the Israel liberation movement would go 
in the direction of the recent speeches of the Reich 
chancellor, in which Mr. Hitler stressed that all 
negotiations and any alliance should serve to isolate 
England and to defeat it.

Because of its structure and concept of the world, the NMO 
is narrowly linked to the European totalitarian movements.

Source : The original text, in German, is in appendix 
number 11 of the book by David Yisraeli : "Le probleme 
palestinien dans la politique allemande, de 1889 - 1945", 
Bar Ilan University Ramat Gan. Israel, 1974,p. 315-317.





-- 
Dr Jon Cloke
Project Officer EnergyCentral and Research Associate
Global and World Cities Group
Geography Department
Loughborough University
Loughborough LE11 3TU

E-mail: j.m.p.cloke at lboro.ac.uk
Tel: 00 44 07984 813681






?--- the forwarded message follows ---

From sartesian at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  5 16:22:25 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 18:22:25 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
References: <bde.41088ce6.370a76e3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BCFE2D00B60A4CB6B5463090FDD4EDAA@dmsthinkpad>

My argument is not that "privilege" does NOT exist in sectors of the working 
class, but rather that privilege is not based on the transfer of wealth from 
poorer to less poor, from more exploited to less exploited BY the 
bourgeoisie as either an intentional or unintentional product of the 
expansion of capital beyond, or within, national boundaries.

There are different historical developments-- wages in the US were 
historically higher than wages for equivalent work in Europe.  White workers 
have had a different historical development, and enjoyed a definite 
privilege in comparison to the development of black workers.

But it makes no sense, and in fact, is simply not the case that such 
privilege has been economically bestowed or purchased through the relegation 
of black workers to lower wage jobs.  I would recommend we look at the 
history of the class struggles of black workers, and for industrial unions 
in Memphis during [and before and after] the Boss Crump era.  White workers 
wages were higher than blacks, but in the industrial enterprise there was no 
"transfer of wealth,"  or division of the wage packet with higher payments 
going to whites based on reduced black wages. There could be none, precisely 
because black were so restricted, and excluded from industrial production.

 Now one might argue that the underpayment, and "underemployment"--  
restriction of blacks from industrial employment-- was instrumental in 
establishing the total social surplus that could be allotted, or utilized, 
in establishing a general wage, with whites getting more at the expense of 
blacks-- but the history of what happens next-- with the actual industrial 
struggles in Memphis puts the truth, or the lie to that.

The entry of industrial unionism into Memphis and the struggle for increased 
wages for white workers required just that break down of exclusion, 
restriction, and relegation of black labor, and just that increase in black 
labor wages.  Certainly equality was not achieved, but the increase in white 
wages required the inclusion of black labor and an increase in the black 
wage.

Look, wage differentials, and privilege, exist between and among sectors 
without race distinctions-- the two-tier structure, the step/seniority 
system-- hell, on railroads conductors make more money than track workers--  
and for years blacks were restricted from becoming conductors, but there was 
no transfer of wealth from track workers to conductors; conductors have no 
interest in restricting the wages of track workers.

Conductors certainly resisted allowing track workers to enter their ranks, 
based mostly on fear of losing "control" of the work, based partly on 
racism, prejudice, etc.-- BUT the historical evolution of capitalism was 
not, is not about transferring wealth or wages from one sector to the other.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Waistline2 at aol.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)


> 



From nchamah at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 17:05:18 2009
From: nchamah at gmail.com (nchamah miller)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:05:18 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Re-electionist referendum: The turning point for Colombia
Message-ID: <a8cb7b970904051605h5a17d90cr72e9e3df3e687ce7@mail.gmail.com>

Re-electionist referendum: The turning point for Colombia

Sebastian Castaneda
Friday 3 April 2009

It is widely conceived that Uribe has split Colombia's history in two.
His supporters, on the one hand, mention the weakening of the FARC,
the demobilization of the right-wing paramilitaries and the
revitalized foreign investment confidence. Uribe's detractors, on the
other hand, point out at the human rights violations in combating the
FARC, the leniency on the paramilitaries and the failure of his
trickle-down economics to benefit the poorest in society. However, the
real reason Uribe has split Colombia's history in two is due to the
damage done to democracy that would be be further aggravated if a
second re-election is successful.

Uribe accomplished the first re-election in congress thanks to a
congresswoman acceptance to change her vote in return for some
lucrative public office seats and a congressman who was allegedly paid
off to miss the voting. In the end the Constitutional Court ruled that
one immediate re-election would not undermine the crucial check and
balances characteristic of strong democracies.

Currently, a new re-election attempt is being promoted through a
referendum, which would circumvent the Constitutional Court's
provision after approving the first re-election. Once again there are
various allegations of fraud in the collection of signatures for the
legislation of the referendum. First, the financing surpassed the
ceiling permitted by law. Second, dirty money may have financed it.
Third, there are allegations that the National Registry leaked
information to the collectors of signatures. More than the popular
support this new re-election attempt illustrates the powerful and
shadowy economic interests at work.

Different sectors in civil society openly oppose a second re-election,
including the church - somewhat paradoxical when the church's system
is based on a similar authoritative structure. Some congressmen are
reluctant to openly oppose the referendum due to repercussions in
their constituencies. Some others have denounced the fraud, however,
their denouncements before the Prosecutor General and the Inspector
General offices may be futile. The PG has delayed and changed the
prosecutor in charge of investigating the fraud allegations and the IG
has demonstrated his bias tracked record towards the government.

These new developments may not impede the approval of a national
referendum in congress. Even if congress changes the wording so Uribe
can run in 2010, instead of 2014 as the wording that people signed
stipulated, the Constitutional Court, which now has a pro-Uribe stance
after he appointed three new judges, may deem the referendum
constitutional. Nonetheless, all these allegations do have some
repercussion in the population and the seven million signatures needed
for the approval of the constitutional amendment may not be reached.
It can be expected the president, with his well oiled machinery, to
govern around raising public support for the referendum with populist
policies such as the 'personal dose' criminalization. The main
strategy, however, would be to intensify militarily operations against
the FARC as has just been announced. This, after all, is the reason
for his popularity. However, the FARC's deliberate-timed calls for a
humanitarian exchange, without demanding a demilitarized zone, may try
to undermine public support for Uribe's war policies. As was to be
expected, Uribe rejected the offer until the FARC cease their
terrorist attacks. Even if the attacks are stopped the government
would continue hastily blaming the FARC for any incident as the Meta
water supply bombs exemplified.

If the legislation for the re-electionist referendum is approved in
congress it would signify the Constitutional Court assumptions of one
re-election not disrupting the check and balances of Colombian
democracy to be utterly mistaken. Another re-election would only
result in a escalation on the sabotage to democracy and probably the
rule of law unless citizens understand what is at stake.

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

http://prensarural.orgs/pip/ip.php?mot95


From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au  Sun Apr  5 17:42:02 2009
From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:42:02 +1000
Subject: [Marxism] Jazz and the FBI: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Message-ID: <49D941CA.4090504@greenleft.org.au>

http://jazztimes.com/articles/24396-jazz-and-the-fbi-guilty-until-proven-innocent 






From marvgandall at videotron.ca  Sun Apr  5 17:54:06 2009
From: marvgandall at videotron.ca (Marv Gandall)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:54:06 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)/all
References: <709f342d0904051157m590829a6ocb749e669bceed2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <96074C875D2F4FC6B0551E233CBFB3EF@MARV>

Michael Friedman write:
>
> One point of Marvin's that I don't agree with is his view that the union
> bureaucrats are blameless for the decline of unions. While, I agree that
> the
> primary current "cause" (argghh!) for the phenomena lies with decades-long
> changes in the world economy (i.e., neoliberalism), I would point out that
> the decline began prior to the consolidation of the neo-liberal model, at
> about the time that Douglas Frasier began moaning about the "one-sided
> class
> war". I would argue that these bureaucrats "canalized" (to use a genetic
> term) the union movement into a position that was poorly equipped to
> confront capital, much less do so within the context of an all-out
> globalized class war. I mean, as a teacher, my union was good for a)
> sweetheart contracts with the City of New York, b) stifling dissent, c)
> attacking (a la Albert Shanker) belligerent labor movements elsewhere in
> the
> world and d) offering its members credit cards.
=============================================
I've been around enough union bureaucrats in my lifetime, having been one
myself, to know that the best of them lack imagination and the worst of them
are corrupt. So of course they can't be absolved of all responsibility for
the decline, and it would not be my intention to do so. But I would stress
that they largely reflect the consciousness of their members, and are a
PRODUCT rather than a CAUSE of the weak state of the unions, whose condition
owes to deeper historical factors which I tried to describe in my earlier
post.

Most, in fact, rose through the ranks as militant oppositionists only to
discover that the power of the employers, backed by the state, and the
reluctance of the membership to challenge that power beyond certain limits,
was greater than they had anticipated in opposition. An unfavourable balance
of power has a profoundly conservatizing effect on leaders in any
organization. In the US labour movement, this bureaucratic conditioning was
compounded by the virulent anti-communist chauvinism which saturated all
social institutions and by the expansion of the economy and improved living
standards in the postwar period. Shanker, who did jail time for leading
illegal strikes, and Frasier, a sit-down striker who was twice fired for his
union activity before being elected president of his wartime UAW local, are
both cases in point. You would hardly know this from their subsequent
evolution, but they were not unique.

The theory of the "crisis of leadership", to which most list members
subscribe, rests on an entirely different premise - that the consciousness
and combativity of the base of the trade unions and the union-supported
political parties is somehow in advance of its leadership. The founding
principle of both the Third and Fourth Internationals was that the objective
situation was such that the workers were ready to break with their reformist
union and party leaders in favour of the revolutionary factions in the mass
workers' organizations.

History has shown otherwise - to date, at any rate. After nearly a century,
innumerable Marxist caucuses operating on this premise in all of the
advanced capitalist countries have everywhere failed to dislodge the
reformists. Bureaucratic maneuvers to stifle dissent notwithstanding, many
of us have had the opportunity to challenge these leaders in open forums,
including attempts to overturn sweetheart deals of the type mentioned above
by Mike. Successes have been rare and due primarily to our efforts as good
trade union and party militants rather than the more politically advanced
ideas we circulated informally or as part of a larger program.

It seems to me we can't have it both ways. We can't blame the passivity of
the working class on the fact that it has not moved beyond reformism because
it has been bought off by imperialism, and simultaneously see it as
incipiently insurgent, it's militant impulse to move beyond reformism
thwarted by the fetters placed on it by a reformist leadership whose
political outlook is in contradiction to - rather than complementary - to
its own.





From markalause at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 18:51:30 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:51:30 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Fwd:  Forwarded
In-Reply-To: <C9EC248306FB401897B562F9AEC26857@dmsthinkpad>
References: <C9EC248306FB401897B562F9AEC26857@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904051751n3fb4ca60ie9d95d2ac52bf1aa@mail.gmail.com>

will do...

ML

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: S. Artesian <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Forwarded
To: Mark Lause <markalause at gmail.com>


Received this, and this request from Abu Hartal:

Hi can you forward this to marxmail as I can't get my formatting
right. Please comment on this short post if you find it interesting.
Pretty interesting piece, and Greenhouse's book is excellent if you
want to know about the unraveling of the Treaty of Detroit, withheld
wages, unpaid overtime, misclassification of workers to prevent
unionization, sexual harassment, the robbery of pensions, etc.. But
the conclusion to this piece is that the internet and faith in the
political system work against direct political action. On the the
problem of faith, we are finding that the state is in fact held
hostage by finance capital and must thus summon sacrifices on its
behalf; that the state must allow bankruptcies, industry
centralization and the resultant unemployment for the surviving
capitals to reduce costs to restore profitability and therewith
restore accumulation; and that the state is stumbling onto inflation
as the means by which to reduce the real wage, raise anticipated
profitability, and encourage investment. The illusions in the state
will be shattered, but the problem of the internet will remain, no?
________________________________________________
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/markalause%40gmail.com


From markalause at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 18:52:14 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:52:14 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Fwd:  Forwarded
In-Reply-To: <C9EC248306FB401897B562F9AEC26857@dmsthinkpad>
References: <C9EC248306FB401897B562F9AEC26857@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904051752s46776ra87d1a54f22bb9cc@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: S. Artesian <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Forwarded
To: Mark Lause <markalause at gmail.com>


Received this, and this request from Abu Hartal:

Hi can you forward this to marxmail as I can't get my formatting
right. Please comment on this short post if you find it interesting.
Pretty interesting piece, and Greenhouse's book is excellent if you
want to know about the unraveling of the Treaty of Detroit, withheld
wages, unpaid overtime, misclassification of workers to prevent
unionization, sexual harassment, the robbery of pensions, etc.. But
the conclusion to this piece is that the internet and faith in the
political system work against direct political action. On the the
problem of faith, we are finding that the state is in fact held
hostage by finance capital and must thus summon sacrifices on its
behalf; that the state must allow bankruptcies, industry
centralization and the resultant unemployment for the surviving
capitals to reduce costs to restore profitability and therewith
restore accumulation; and that the state is stumbling onto inflation
as the means by which to reduce the real wage, raise anticipated
profitability, and encourage investment. The illusions in the state
will be shattered, but the problem of the internet will remain, no?


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 19:20:49 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:20:49 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <171650F28BB94FE49F692A6E59B0E495@dmsthinkpad>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad><54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta><b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com><6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad><b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com><20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart><b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com><DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV><C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta><7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV><C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta><6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV><C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta>
	<171650F28BB94FE49F692A6E59B0E495@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <048279C8A83A499792D4784242B261BF@albanta>

S Artesian  questions my statement ""imperialist countries grow rich as [at]
the expense of the colonial and semi-colonial countries.  The overwhelming
majority of the population of imperialist countries share in this
imperialist privilege." 

He asks for data and so on. Apart from reading Marx on primitive
accumulation, and perhaps an article or two on who profited from the slave
trade, I would suggest he chart the price of sugar against price of
industrial products for the last 100 years. Also he price of coffee and the
price of crude oil. And in the case of coffee, he can even just chart the
bean price paid to, say, a Costa Rican grower versus the ground coffee price
paid in an imperialist supermarket. 

Then he wants to know the exact mechanism through which the wealth "trickles
down" to the workers of imperialist countries. The exact mechanism is this:
they LIVE in the imperialist countries. Is this desirable from the point of
view of workers? Does it actually make a difference?

I do not have the data to hand, but let me suggest the following
investigation to the comrade: compare the number of unauthorized immigrant
workers TO the United States FROM colonial and semicolonial countries who
come here to become part of the U.S. working class, to the number of
unauthorized immigrants FROM the United States who enter illegally countries
like Mexico to become a part of its working class.

That will tell us, strictly from the point of view of OUR class, whether its
desirable that your president be Black in North America or your Primer
Minister Brown in Europe, as opposed to Latino. 

Sorry is I sound a little contemptuous. But when people start writing stuff
like "this notion of imperialist privilege" --you can hear the harrumph in
their voice-- it drives me up the wall. 

It drives me up the fucking wall because NONE OF US who are part of the
working population in the imperialist countries would FOR ONE SECOND even
CONSIDER trading places with anyone in our chosen field/occupation, or at
any rate the one we wound up in, in Africa or Latin America or India or
China. Whereas if you were to offer that deal in the opposite direction
generally to people in the Third World, a few billion hands would shoot up.

And anyone who claims this doesn't affect the consciousness of working
people is just whistling past the graveyard -- the one where the corpse of
the movement of the U.S. workers AS A CLASS rests. SOME DAY it will rise
again in what will be for the capitalists a Transylvanian nightmare much
more terrifying than all the vampire stories and Dracula movies. And while
we do not know the timing or exact combination of circumstances that will
lead to a reawakening of the workers movement, we do know the circumstances
under which it fell into its death-like slumber.

Joaquin



From absynthe at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 19:50:50 2009
From: absynthe at gmail.com (chegitz guevara)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:50:50 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <web-4860287@twum.lboro.ac.uk>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com>
	<DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV>
	<C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta>
	<7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV>
	<C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta>
	<6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV>
	<C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta>
	<171650F28BB94FE49F692A6E59B0E495@dmsthinkpad>
	<web-4860287@twum.lboro.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <e1d1857b0904051850s66f49bb7seaaad65b6fa7b12d@mail.gmail.com>

There are several things to keep in mind with regards to the fall in
real wages. First, while real wages have fallen by 10% in the U.S.,
family incomes have risen by about 40%, because most families now have
two incomes. Second, part of the reason why wages have not kept pace
with increases in production is because of the rise in health care
costs in this country. In a previous job, if I totaled the cost of my
benefits, it came out to add about another 15% to my monetary
compensation.

Now, Juaquin raises the issue of modern "stuff" being better than
"stuff" from forty years ago, and this is undeniably true. Doesn't
matter though, as poverty is both relative and real. Some poor people
today live better than rich people did 3,000 years ago. Doesn't mean
we shouldn't consider them poor. Better, cheaper tvs doesn't mean that
people are richer. It means that what were once luxury items (like
salt and pepper) are now things that anyone can have.

Juaquin also raised the point that living in an imperialist country is
better than living in a developing nation (ceteris paribus). Leaving
out certain Indian reservations, the rural poor in America, and some
poor in certain American cities (Gary, Camden, etc), it's mostly true.
But if we extend that argument to its logical conclusion, then MIM (or
it's successor splinters) are correct, and for all intents and
purposes, the entire population of the imperialist world benefits from
imperialism.

Of course, it ignores how much of America's wealth is self-generated.
True, most of the areas the U.S. colonized have been incorporated into
the U.S. (the whole country!), nonetheless, it remains the case that
most of America's wealth comes from the exploitation of American
workers. Because American workers are so productive, and because the
United States was the sole industrial power left at the end of WWII,
American workers were able to beg a few more crumbs from their
masters.

In truth, it's not a simple question, because despite the fact that
most trade in the U.S. is inter-imperialist trade, there is the
question of value added from products extracted from the Third World.
But Marxism 101 tells us that the products coming from the Third World
are valued by the socially necessary labor embodied in them, and while
monopolies certainly distort that value . . .

It's too complex a problem to be figured out in email threads. It's a
PhD project, analyzing all the threads of capital and figuring out
exactly how much imperialism contributes to living standards in the
imperialist world.

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 5:02 PM,  <J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk> wrote:
> Much as I truly hate to agree with Sartesian, he (she?
> It?) is quite right. The average relative wage in the UK
> and the USA across a range of manufacturing and industrial
> sectors declined steadily from the mid-1970s onwards and
> the gini coefficient increased correspondingly. What the
> Thatcher governments in the UK and all of the subsequent
> ones achieved was a dramatic change in the shape of wealth
> distribution; from being (roughly) a pyramid-shaped wealth
> distribution in the late 1970s in the UK the distribution
> of wealth assumed a roughly hour-glassed shape, with
> (critically) those in the middle-classes able to take
> advantage of the increasing privatization and
> liberalization initiatives effectively bribed by
> successive governments to abandon what used to be referred
> to as 'the post-war consensus', better-known as one-nation
> toryism.


From nmgoro at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 20:01:15 2009
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:01:15 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <048279C8A83A499792D4784242B261BF@albanta>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad><54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta><b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com><6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad><b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com><20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart><b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com><DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV><C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta><7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV><C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta><6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV><C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta>	<171650F28BB94FE49F692A6E59B0E495@dmsthinkpad>
	<048279C8A83A499792D4784242B261BF@albanta>
Message-ID: <49D9626B.9000700@gmail.com>


Joaquin Bustelo escribi?:

"NONE OF US who are part of the working population in the imperialist 
countries would FOR ONE SECOND even CONSIDER trading places with anyone 
in our chosen field/occupation, or at any rate the one we wound up in, 
in Africa or Latin America or India or China. Whereas if you were to 
offer that deal in the opposite direction generally to people in the 
Third World, a few billion hands would shoot up."

Ah, whew. I thought I was the only one, after reading S. Artesian?s 
proposition.


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  5 20:20:39 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 22:20:39 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad><54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta><b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com><6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad><b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com><20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart><b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com><DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV><C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta><7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV><C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta><6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV><C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta><171650F28BB94FE49F692A6E59B0E495@dmsthinkpad>
	<048279C8A83A499792D4784242B261BF@albanta>
Message-ID: <3F934A8BA2574D738241457CAB7DB836@dmsthinkpad>

And when people cite the price of coffee or sugar vs the price of industrial 
goods, as if that discrepancy in price is the mechanism by which 
super-profits are extracted and realized-- as if the "unequal exchange"--  
quotes intended because it is a notion that is so poorly supported as JB's 
own post evidences-- of industrial for resource or agricultural goods 
constitutes a significant portion of capital accumulation--  well, it 
doesn't drive me up a whole-- it just proves that they cannot find, cannot 
evaluation, cannot produce, anything to support their contentions about 
wealth transfer.

If anyone is harumphing around here, it's JB, who folds his arms across his 
chest, quivering with indignation and wonders, aloud, how anyone could dare 
ask for proof, data, information about what must be, always has been, 
surely was, and will be the TRUTH with big block capital letters about the 
IMPERIALIST ROOTS of capitalism-- which you see must have existed forever 
because Marx referred to them in his discussion of primitive accumulation.

Well, JB ought to go back and read more  Marx and reread Marx on primitive 
accumulation a little bit more closely, because what Marx describes as 
primitive accumulation is not the transfer of wealth from poor, from slaves, 
from the indigenous to workers in the European countries-- but in fact a 
process where land, and the means of production, are transformed into 
capital by their expropriation into private property, and the dispossessed 
populations are left with nothing but their labor power, which has no use to 
them, save its use in exchange with those means of production in order to 
gain means, again, to the means of subsistence.

So certainly the rivers of blood and sweat and black skins and red skins 
sacrificed in the slave empires, initiated, maintained under the 
semi-feudal/merchant capital extensions of Europe into the Americas, Africa, 
Asia were converted to gold-- but 1) such gold in and of itself did not 
create modern capitalism  2) merchant capital itself did not transform into 
industrial capital-- slave traders did not become industrial capitalists 
[Eric F. Williams to the contrary nothwithstanding-- and his book Capitalism 
and Slavery is truly one of the great, but mistaken, books on the origins of 
capitalism]-- the Liverpool, and Bordeaux merchants did not reinvent 
themselves as the industrialists of Manchester and Lyon, nor where they the 
great financiers of industrial production  3) the workers in those 
"metropolitan" countries hardly reaped a windfall wage from that miserable, 
vicious slave system  4) the slave system itself was incapable of becoming, 
morphing into a modern capitalist system, creating neither industrial 
capitalists nor proletarians in either expansion or decay.  And that's just 
for starters

Right, no workers in the advanced countries would want to trade places with 
workers in the poorer countries-- but that is not the issue.  The issue as 
JB put it is that the workers in the advanced countries have a material, 
classwide, economic interest in maintaining the "superexploitation" of, not 
the workers, but the poorer countries qua countries in order to preserve 
their share of the loot.

So where is the evidence-- where are the super rates of profit that the 
capitalists are supposed to obtain from their imperial exploitation which 
they can then divvy up with their greedy,  pig-eyed, workers?

Does capitalism today still support, engender, encourage, and take advantage 
of   near slave-like conditions in poorer countries?  Absolutely, 
positively.  The great power of  exchange value, of value composed from 
labor time, is its plasticity-- its ability to lend its own identity to all 
other commodities in the market, to render them "AS IF" they were produced 
under the terms and conditions of capitalist exchange even when those 
commodities are products of forced, compelled, labor.  But that process is 
not the lifeblood of capitalist reproduction as a whole.

And if Nestor wants to get involved here, well, whew, maybe he wants to 
provide the actual data that somehow JB can't be bothered to produce...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)




From jbustelo at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 20:31:40 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 22:31:40 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Why are the writers of NY Times thumbsuckers so blind?
In-Reply-To: <49D8B1CA.5000708@panix.com>
References: <49D8B1CA.5000708@panix.com>
Message-ID: <B49CE16480E84E1D9BE3528ADF6ACF47@albanta>

Louis has sent to the list what we old-time journalists --the ones who
shamelessly call ourselves hacks-- classify as a "thumbsucker," a "news
analysis" on why the U.S. Labor movement is so passive from the New York
Times. 

As the most notorious denigrator and poo-pooer of the U.S. working class on
this list, what strikes me upon reading these pieces is how blind and narrow
minded the authors are.

Only three years ago, the United States went through what I believe was the
most sustained and massive series of protest marches ever seen, certainly in
this country, and quite possibly anywhere in the world. Cities like Chicago
and Los Angeles were effectively shut down, not once, but two or three
times, simply by the size of the protests. Though no one (save a few
feverish leftists) called it a general strike, that is what is amounted to
*in practice* in those cities.

And in places where the Latino population is not as large and the community
not as well established, like Atlanta, where I live, the protest was the
largest ever held in the city -- BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE -- despite being
on a weekday. 

Okay, I'm a spic, I was involved and can hardly be "objective."

But perhaps the peaceful and well-mannered way in which these mobilizations
were carried out was a first, or at least unusual, leading my fellow
scribbler from the New York Times to overlook it. But the United States has
ALSO provided the stage for the most explosive, transformative and --yes--
violent social and protest movements of the post-WWII era in any imperialist
country.

I remember 41 years ago today, and how in 100 cities the Black community
rose up in semi-insurrectionary rebellions and elemental rage after the
assassination of Martin Luther King. 

And how to prevent that today, such massive, random repression is carried
out against Black male youth, that although only a small percentage of the
population, their incarceration rate makes Amerikkka BY FAR the paragon of
prison camps on a world scale. The repression of the Black and Latino
communities in the United States is so generalized that if the United States
were a country the American imperialists didn't happen to like, next year
there would be no nominees for the Oscars, because the repression is SO
outrageous no one in Hollywood would have had the time to make any movies,
they'd all be too busy protesting and kow towing to Black and Latino
skypilots.

And that's not to mention that the largely student based anti Vietnam war
movement, serving to a significant degree as a vehicle for the impact of the
heroic resistance of the Vietnamese people to be transmitted into the
imperialist heartland itself, and coupled with the undermining of bourgeois
political-ideological hegemony caused by the Black movement, provoked such a
collapse in the morale of the imperialist army in Vietnam that it not only
lost its effectiveness as a fighting force but ALSO represented such a
danger of mass mutiny that the rabidly paranoid and anticommunist Richard
Nixon and Henry Kissinger felt they had NO CHOICE but to withdraw that army
from the fight, leading directly, and quite predictably, to the victory of
the Vietnamese nation against the imperialist puppet regime in Saigon.

That's not to mention that the United States --I believe this is true-- gave
birth to the modern feminist movement as well as the gay movement and
environmental movement, among others.

I believe I know major, important reasons for the passivity of the U.S.
working class acting as such, under that banner, in US society. But we
should remember that DESPITE *this* passivity, socio-economic tensions and
mass struggles in the United States have been the most deep-going and
dramatic of any imperialist country in recent decades with the sole possible
and extremely temporary exception of the French May -- never to be forgotten
but, alas, never to be repeated.

To write *narrowly* about a wages-and-hours, working conditions,
union-movement-type approach and its absence, and FAIL to see that for MORE
than half a century, the discontent of the most oppressed layers of the
working people in the United States has found OTHER ways of expressing
itself, if anything even MORE dramatic and disruptive than the usual tactics
of the labor movement of 70 or 80 years ago, when it WAS a real movement, is
to demonstrate such an utter blindness to social realities and tensions that
it can only be classified as truly "American."

Joaquin



From mjs at smithbowen.net  Sun Apr  5 20:39:14 2009
From: mjs at smithbowen.net (Michael Smith)
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 22:39:14 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Why are the writers of NY Times thumbsuckers so blind?
In-Reply-To: <B49CE16480E84E1D9BE3528ADF6ACF47@albanta>
References: <49D8B1CA.5000708@panix.com>
	<B49CE16480E84E1D9BE3528ADF6ACF47@albanta>
Message-ID: <20090405223914.0a26212d@crashcart>

On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 22:31:40 -0400
"Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com> wrote:
  
> Only three years ago, the United States went through what I believe was the
> most sustained and massive series of protest marches ever seen, certainly in
> this country, and quite possibly anywhere in the world. 

Joaquin has a hell of a good point here. 
 
-- 

Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org


From nmgoro at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 21:04:49 2009
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 00:04:49 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] Actual data
Message-ID: <49D97151.2010806@gmail.com>

S. Artesian:

And if Nestor wants to get involved here, well, whew, maybe he wants to
provide the actual data that somehow JB can't be bothered to produce...

The actual datum, not data (and remember that in surveying, "datum" is 
the recognition of an error), is that _you_, dear friend, would have 
never considered yourself to exchange posts with anyone who fulfilled 
your same role in, say, Buenos Aires. And Buenos Aires, to be honest, 
for a long long time was a heavenly place as compared to other cities in 
the world.

No more data are needed.

That is actual data.


From craig at red-bean.com  Sun Apr  5 21:57:55 2009
From: craig at red-bean.com (Craig Brozefsky)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:57:55 -0500
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class
In-Reply-To: <048279C8A83A499792D4784242B261BF@albanta> (Joaquin Bustelo's
	message of "Sun\, 5 Apr 2009 21\:20\:49 -0400")
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl>
	<20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart>
	<239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart>
	<1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad>
	<54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta>
	<b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad>
	<b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart>
	<b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com>
	<DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV>
	<C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta>
	<7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV>
	<C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta>
	<6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV>
	<C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta>
	<171650F28BB94FE49F692A6E59B0E495@dmsthinkpad>
	<048279C8A83A499792D4784242B261BF@albanta>
Message-ID: <87zleuqvr0.fsf@piracy.kokonino.net>

"Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com> writes:
> It drives me up the fucking wall because NONE OF US who are part of the
> working population in the imperialist countries would FOR ONE SECOND even
> CONSIDER trading places with anyone in our chosen field/occupation, or at
> any rate the one we wound up in, in Africa or Latin America or India or
> China. Whereas if you were to offer that deal in the opposite direction
> generally to people in the Third World, a few billion hands would shoot up.

As a software developer, I would.  I would like my family to move
there too.  I think Argentina or Bolivia, or maybe Brazil, or Cuba, or
Venezuela.  My family are craftsment/women (flooring installers,
carpenters, seamstresses) and I would like them to have a safety net.
I don't want them to have to literally cry in fear when they have to
see a doctor, because they imagine the worse and it destroying our
entire families finances, or simply being told they have to wait and
die.

You talk your mother thru a medical scare like that and you get
socialist real fucking quick.  You help your girlfriend who works at a
free clinic processing referrals to one of the few public hospitals
left in Chicago, and see people who probably have colon cancer being
told to wait 6 months for a test.  That's a death sentence right in
your fucking hand, and all you can do is file it and try not to tear
up too much.

I know where you are coming from Joaquin, but all I can say now is
"What the fuck do you know about this shit" and try not to cry a mix
of anger and fear.  Maybe I'm sitting at the end of this period of
imperialist privelege, born a bit too late.  My family lost our house
in the late 80s and was homeless, we seldom had health coverage, my
sister is the only one who went to college and she paid for it
herself, I had my braces taken out cause we couldn't pay for them -- a
bunch of broke-ass working class white mutts.  It's not even like we
had to wait for the current financial crisis to get shaken awake.

And despite this whining, I'm not blind to the white priveledge I
have.  I saw what they did to my black and hispanic peers once we
reached our teens.  I recognize the blessings I got along the way.
Yah, it's all anecdotal, but that's what I got to work with, and
that's what drove me here, and that's what keeps me fighting.

So with all respect to someone I read closely, why don't you shut the
fuck up when you pretend your speaking for us imperialist workers with
such strident language as "NONE OF US", comrade.

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


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Sun Apr  5 22:08:36 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 00:08:36 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Actual data
References: <49D97151.2010806@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B5E7582A8B4E4DBEA82C3CF4C486CEBE@dmsthinkpad>

Just show's how ignorant you truly are, Nestor, as I was willing and even
looked to exchange  my post [by which I think you mean living/working
position] with opposite numbers in  developing countries, and even tried to 
get the
Cubans to extend their kindness to me and allow me to stay on for a few
months after the little projects I worked on with them were completed.

Would have done it in  Mozambique, except the timing of the offer was that 
period when it was being "exposed"  "uncovered" how privatization of rail 
assets in Argentina and Brazil was little other than asset stripping and 
liquidation and I had the feeling that that was the plan for Mozambique too.

Was offered it in Russia and turned it down though-- you know why?  Cold. 
Too cold.  Hired out on the railroad in Chicago and had all the cold I could 
handle back then.   Working in Russia-- trouble shooting along the new 
trans-Russian/Siberian line for 2 years [that meant 2 complete winters] was 
not for me.

And it's DATA that's wanted-- the plural, the collective, the multiple-- as
we are talking about historical, social developments, not a personal path.
That you and JB provide none, not a single datum,  doesn't surprise me one 
bit.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nestor Gorojovsky" <nmgoro at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 11:04 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Actual data




From Waistline2 at aol.com  Sun Apr  5 23:16:26 2009
From: Waistline2 at aol.com (Waistline2 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 01:16:26 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class
Message-ID: <bdb.41121221.370aea2a@aol.com>

"Joaquin Bustelo" <_jbustelo at gmail.com_ (mailto:jbustelo at gmail.com) > writes:

> It drives me up the fucking wall because NONE OF US who are part  of the
> working population in the imperialist countries would FOR ONE  SECOND even
> CONSIDER trading places with anyone in our chosen  field/occupation, or at
> any rate the one we wound up in, in Africa or  Latin America or India or
> China. Whereas if you were to offer that deal  in the opposite direction
> generally to people in the Third World, a few  billion hands would shoot up.
 
 
Comment
 
I cannot speak for others, but I would not trade places with my colonial or  
formerly colonial counterparts in Africa or Latin America, unless my pension 
is  taken, which is a distinct possibility. Chrysler has less than 20 days to 
face  government or bankruptcy and the formerly colonial world might be relief. 
A  section of Mexican immigration, as a coherent trend, shifted to Canada  
three years ago . . .OK. 
 
However the issue evolved  . . . . (was torn from the bribery thesis)  and 
shifted to "how are we to understand the relative privilege of those at the  
front of the curve of industrial/capitalist development?" Why? Because all of us  
want to make more sense of our history and the daily reality we confront. 
 
If this relative privilege - which is real and material, is to be called  
"bribery of the working class" fine, but this does not bring us one molecule  
closer to understanding the peculiar development of the working class at the  
front of the curve and is alleged and apparent passivity.  
 
I am all screwed up and have to admit being historically incapable of  
defining and judging quantitative boundaries and the reaction of various layers  of 
the working class within each boundary. That is to say, I cannot base  
analysis on "what I want" and "my expectation" of "how I think the working class  
should behave." What if history reveals we moved rather fast in America? 
 
See. this Obama thing caught me by surprise. I did not predict his  election. 
I thought it impossible until he defeated Senator Clinton in the  primary. I 
cannot trust my own freaking instincts. 
 
Bribery. 
 
The objection is not to a word - bribery, or denial of the material impact  
of imperial exploitation and oppression. The issue was how to account for the  
relative passivity of the workers in the imperial centers. The thesis of 
bribery  of the working class, based on and rooted in the imperial relation, as  
explanation for relative passivity, is not satisfactory for some . . . me. 
 
I have come to believe it is necessary to look at the entire process of  
transition from manufacture and then look at those at the front of the curve. We  
all grew up in the period of colonial revolutions and this color our vision 
and  ideology. 
 
I personally know of the experience of inequality. My tenure in the union  
and revolutionary organizations made it possible to travel America. On my own,  
as a black man - with a red hue, I would have encountered insurmountable  
barriers. No one denies privilege in any of the contributions to this thread.  
Privilege is not based in the colonial relationship. 
 
There I said it. 
 
I feel better already.
 
Privilege is based - has its roots, in being at the front of the capital  
curve of history and colonialism is the inevitable result of the spreading of a  
new mode of production world wide. 
 
Did I hit this on the head this time? 
 
It only took 30 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
 
I feel better. I am not sure why. 
 
It goes without saying that the countries and people at the front curve of  
transition from manufacture, specially heavy manufacture to industry would  
benefit the most due to their location at the front of the curve. This entire  
transition was the period called primitive accumulation of capital and most  
certainly was rooted in New World slavery and El Dorado or the quest for gold. 
 
This privilege ("benefiting the most") appears before the advent of modern  
imperialism of which Lenin speaks in this celebrated book, "Imperialism the 
Last  Stage of Capitalism." Lenin's "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism" 
should be  treated as a historical document to be studied and understood. 
 
This issue became personal when individuals were questioned and challenged  
to live in Africa or some other dependent of imperialism. 
 
OK. 
 
I earnestly have no interest in denying reality of imperial chauvinism,  
including the most distasteful history of white chauvinism. The question was  
posed in the context of the relative passivity of the working class in America.  
Bribery of the workers in America is not a sufficient answer, in as much as no  
working class at the front curve of industrial capitalist development has  
overthrown their imperialists. Some see this as reinforcing the belief that the  
issue reduces itself to relative privilege or bribery. I think something more 
 profound is involved. 
 
I believe the answer (passivity of the workers in America and all the  
imperial centers) resided in the entire history of the capital labor relations  
itself and the mutual collusion and colliding of the two basic classes  underlying 
capitalist reproduction. Further, I reject the concept that wealth or  the 
lack of it is the basis, foundation and motive for social revolution.  Political 
repression and the perception of it, is also powerful motivation for  
rebellion and revolt.  
 
The issue does not reduce itself to either you believe in Lenin thesis or  
you don't or the obviousness of the difference in living circumstances of an  
Ethiopia and America. The issue was the behavior of the working class in America 
 and indirectly all the imperial centers. Privilege or bribery of the workers 
 does not explain this so-called passivity. 

Such is how I understand the  issue. 
 
Let's turn the issue inside out. 
 
Now, how do we account for the relative privilege of wage labor in the  areas 
of greatest concentration of capital   investment?   
 
There is more here than meets the eye. 
 
The issue of the labor aristocracy - labor lieutenants of the capitalist  
class,  (boy I love De Leon concept and term) is not identical to the  question 
of relative privilege of the workers at the front of the curve of  
capitalist/industrial development, which happens to be the areas of the historic  and 
greatest areas of capital investment. Capital is birth in blood and  brimstone but 
it is birthed. Why is it that those at the point of its birth have  benefited 
the most? 
 
Colonialism? 
 
No one ignores privilege for a moment, which means the right and ability to  
convert ones labor power into wages in the first and last instance. 
 
Difficult issue. 
 
 
WL. 
 
 
 


**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)


From dwaltersMIA at gmail.com  Sun Apr  5 23:44:32 2009
From: dwaltersMIA at gmail.com (nada)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:44:32 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
Message-ID: <49D996C0.1020100@gmail.com>

So...my first comments on this. I generally have felt, in trying to look 
at actual trends based on profits, and costs, in particular industries, 
if in fact my own standard of living based on wages paid in the US, or, 
for that matter, any sector of unionized private industry, is based on 
super exploitation of the working classes of the neo-colonies and 
developing world.

Let me say it's not an easy task.

Years and years ago, like the 1980s or something, you know, those 
pre-Internet days, I tried to do this. It's very difficult to find data 
that would support the classic Leninist contention of the aristocracy of 
labor's adherence to Imperialism based on it's participation of the 
rape/exploitation of those countries. Capital invested --> Profits taken 
out --> Some of those profits paid as wages too workers directly/other 
forms of payment *indirectly* in the Metropolis.

A few things to consider.

#Back in the 1970s, only 5% (!!!!) of the US GDP/GNP was even tied, 
remotely, to foreign trade and/or investment by finance and 
manufacturing capital in other countries. I thought that was 
interesting. I found that Sweden  over 60% of the same GDP/GNP was 
related to foreign trade and/or investment by finance and manufacturing 
capital in other countries (mostly other European countries). This stuck 
in my mind and is why I remember "Sweden". Also Sweden was, I think, 
outside the European Union at that time so it had a similar relationship 
to rest of Europe as the US did at that time.


#The shift...that is the almost total de-localization of manufacturing 
capital to developing countries in many industries shows that there is a 
huge trend to realize that profits are better garnered from having no 
working class than any working class in the production of surplus value 
in the US. It would be impossible to show that incredibly shrinking 
number of US steel workers, unionized and un-unionized, or US 
auto-workers, unionized and un-unionized, wages stem from profits 
garnered overseas by *return on investment* in other countries by the 
manufacturing bourgeois of the US putting up a steel mill in China or an 
assembly plant in Mexico. I'd be open to see something that proves this 
(that is not 25 years old, I hope).

#Higher and higher amounts of profits are *kept* overseas, either in 
terms of direct re-investment or transferred into currency accounts with 
non-US financial institutions. Plus, finance capital has tended to 
merge, and merge again internationally. What does this portend for how 
we view Imperialism?

Thus, I remain skeptical that "America's workers" identify with Yankee 
imperialism based on it getting some 'cut' from the takings, directly.

David


From glparramatta at greenleft.org.au  Mon Apr  6 02:38:09 2009
From: glparramatta at greenleft.org.au (glparramatta)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:38:09 +1000
Subject: [Marxism] What's new at Links: economic crisis; G20; Nepal;
 World at a Crossroads; Sudan & ICC; apartheid Israel; El Salvador;
 photo essay; EU election
Message-ID: <49D9BF71.3020401@greenleft.org.au>

What's new at Links: economic crisis; G20; Nepal; World at a Crossroads; 
Sudan & ICC; apartheid Israel; El Salvador; photo essay; EU election

* * *
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/.

* * *


    Atilio Bor?n: From infinite war to infinite crisis
    <http://links.org.au/node/983>

By *Atilio Bor?n*[*], translated by */Machetera/, Scott Campbell, 
Christine Lewis Carroll* and *Manuel Talens*

March 25, 2009 -- Some thoughts on the current capitalist crisis, its 
probable "solutions" and the role that a socialist option might play in 
the present juncture.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/983>


    Eric Toussaint on G20: `Putting a fresh coat of paint on a world
    that is collapsing'; police attack protesters
    <http://links.org.au/node/982>

By *Eric Toussaint* and *Damien Millet, *translated by Christine 
Pagnoulle in collaboration with Elisabeth Anne
April 1, 2009 -- The G20 summit meeting in London from April 1 onward 
was loudly announced and publicised. Those 20 industrialised and 
emergent countries (G20) are meeting to find solutions to the economic 
crisis. But long before the end of the summit, it is clear that they 
will not rise to the challenge.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/982>


    Sydney, April 10-12, 2009: `World at a Crossroads' 21st century
    socialism conference day-by-day agenda <http://links.org.au/node/974>

*World at a Crossroads: Fighting for socialism in the 21st Century
Easter 2009, April 10-12, Sydney*
*Venue: Sydney Girls High* *School*

World At A Crossroads is a conference that brings together hundreds of 
socialists, progressive activists and Marxist thinkers from around 
Australia, Latin America, Asia-Pacific and North America in dozens of 
panel presentations and workshops dealing with the urgent questions that 
confront us all: war, imperialism, food security, racism, workers' 
rights, sexism, the media and culture.

    * Get day-by-day agenda and more info here
      <http://links.org.au/node/974>


    Nepal: `We call on progressive and leftist forces of the world to
    support us' <http://links.org.au/node/986>

/ /Kathmandu -- On April 2, 2009, *Ben Peterson* -- a socialist activist 
visiting from Australia -- had the opportunity to interview *Suresh 
Kumar Ale Magar*, who is an elected member of Nepal's Constituent 
Assembly and a militant of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).
* * *

    `/`We see the policies and the struggle of the people in Venezuela,
    Bolivia and the Latin American countries against imperialism,
    particularly against US imperialism... I strongly believe that in
    the future that there could be an international anti-imperialist
    organisation, of which those countries would be a major part.''/

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/986>


    Review: John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff's `The Great Financial
    Crisis' <http://links.org.au/node/985>

*/The Great Financial Crisis/
*By *John Bellamy Foster *and *Fred Magdoff
*New York, Monthly Review Press, 2009
ISBN: 978-1-58367-184-9 paper
Review by *Patrick Bond*

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/985>


    Sudan: ICC indictment of Omar al-Bashir -- justice or a poisoned
    chalice? <http://links.org.au/node/984>

By *Steven Fake* and *Kevin Funk*
March 21, 2009 -- After an hour and a half of walking under the intense 
Sudanese sun, armed with crude maps printed from the internet, we paused 
before a field of rubble in an industrial area of North Khartoum. Two 
teenagers sat on the porch in front of the still-partially standing 
building, conversing and watching the world go by in this gritty, dusty 
area of the Sudanese capital.
"Al-Shifa?", we mustered as a question, the name of the massive 
pharmaceutical plant that stood on this site until just over a decade 
ago. They nodded. "Bill Clinton", we responded, pointing to the ruins of 
the facility that his administration bombed in 1998. The two boys 
chuckled. Just over a decade after the US bombing of al-Shifa, on March 
4 of this year, a different leader --- Sudanese head of state Omar 
al-Bashir --- was indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for 
war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/984>


    Nepal's Blue Diamond Society: Hopes high for LGBTI rights
    <http://links.org.au/node/980>

March 17, 2009 -- Kathmandu -- *Ben Peterson* interviewed *Subash 
Pokharel*, coordinator of Nepal's Blue Diamond Society. The Blue Diamond 
Society is the largest LGBTI (lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender 
and intergender people) rights organisation in Nepal.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/980>


    Salim Vally: The campaign to isolate apartheid Israel -- lessons
    from South Africa <http://links.org.au/node/979>

By *Salim Vally*
[Salim Vally, a leading member of the Palestine Solidarity Committee in 
South Africa and a veteran anti-apartheid activist, will be a featured 
guest at the /World at a Crossroads/ conference, to be held in Sydney, 
Australia, on April 10-12, 2009, organised by the Democratic Socialist 
Perspective, Resistance and /Green Left Weekly/. Visit 
http://www.worldATACrossroads.org <http://www.worldatacrossroads.org/> 
for full agenda and to book your tickets.]

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/979>


    David Harvey: Their crisis, our challenge <http://links.org.au/node/978>

In a far reaching interview with /Red Pepper/, *David Harvey* argues 
that the current financial crisis and bank bail-outs could lead to a 
massive consolidation of the banking system and a return to capitalist 
``business as usual'' --- unless there is sustained revolt and pressure 
for a dramatic redistribution and socialisation of wealth. David Harvey 
was interviewed by *Marco Berlinguer* and *Hilary Wainwright*.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/978>


    El Salvador's FMLN: The road to victory and beyond
    <http://links.org.au/node/977>

By the *Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador*
March 24, 2009 -- Starting at 7am on Sunday, March 15, Salvadorans 
headed en masse to the polls to cast their ballots for the future 
president; by 9:30pm Mauricio Funes, presidential candidate of the 
Farabundo Mart? National Liberation Front (FMLN), pronounced himself 
president-elect of El Salvador---the very first leftist head of state in 
the country's history.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/977>


    Photo essay: Fighting back against home foreclosure
    <http://links.org.au/node/976>

Photos by *David Bacon*
Oakland, California, March 12, 2009 -- On the steps of the Alameda 
County courthouse, community activists in the Association of Community 
Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) protest against the auction of the 
foreclosed home of Armando Ramos and Fernanda Cardenas. Their home 
mortgage, held by the mortgage company OCWEN, had an adjustable 
rate. When it went up, Ramos and Cardenas could no longer make the 
payments. OCWEN then decided to auction off the home on the courthouse 
steps.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/976>


    Britain: New left alliance for EU elections
    <http://links.org.au/node/975>

/ /

March 24, 2009 -- Last week saw the launch of the ``No2EU -- Yes to 
Democracy'' electoral front, which is critical of the European Union and 
opposed to the Lisbon Treaty. The alliance is an initiative of *Bob 
Crow*, head of Britian's biggest transport union, the RMT. Below, Crow 
explains why activists have taken the decision to challenge British 
Labour Party complaceny on this viciously anti-working class treaty.

    * Read more <http://links.org.au/node/975>

* * *

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 ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Mon Apr  6 04:26:45 2009
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 06:26:45 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Dahr Jamail: The Growing Storm in Iraq
Message-ID: <B8F090B0DEB24BE09B76A4EA69255413@office1pc>

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21086
The Growing Storm in Iraq
April 05, 2009
By Dahr Jamail 
Source: T r u t h o u t 

Last weekend, the Iraqi government arrested an Awakening Group leader of a
Baghdad neighborhood, then moved into the area. With the help of US
occupation forces, they disarmed the militiamen under his control, but only
after fighting broke out between US-backed Iraqi government security forces
and the US-formed Sunni Awakening Group militia. This disturbing event is
the realization of what most Iraqis have long feared - that the relative
calm in Iraq today would eventually be broken when fighting erupts between
these two entities.

The US policy that has led to this recent violence has been long in the
making, as it has only been a matter of time before the tenuous truce
between the groups came unglued. For it has been a truce built on a deeply
corrupt US policy of backing the predominantly Shia Iraqi government forces
while paying the Sunni resistance not to fight both government and
occupation forces.

Most of us remember all too well the praise from the Bush administration
lavished on the Awakening Groups, a Sunni militia comprised of former
resistance fighters and al-Qaeda members (according to the US military),
each member paid $300 per month of US taxpayer money. They grew in strength
to 100,000 men.

US aid to the Councils was cut off last October on the understanding that
the members would be absorbed into Iraqi government forces. To date, less
than a third have been given government jobs.
Two months ago I visited the al-Dora area of Baghdad, a sprawling area
controlled by Awakening forces. One of their commanders told me he was
concerned about the fact that most of his men were not being given
government jobs. "They are lacking pay, and most of them are becoming more
angry by the day, since they have had more broken promises than they can
handle," he explained as we drank tea, "Many of my men have not been paid
since October. This cannot continue."

Meanwhile, the US-backed Iraqi government led by US-appointed Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki continues to target the leadership of the Awakening Groups.
Maliki perceives the Awakening groups as both a political and military
threat, and since October has been targeting their leadership in parts of
Baghdad, as well as in Iraq's volatile Diyala Province.

In the wake of the spasm of violence in Baghdad last weekend, The Washington
Post reported "As Apache helicopter gunships cruised above Baghdad's Fadhil
neighborhood, former Sunni insurgents fought from rooftops and street
corners against American and Iraqi forces, according to witnesses, the Iraqi
military and police. At least 15 people were wounded in the gunfights, which
lasted several hours. By nightfall, the street fighters had taken five Iraqi
soldiers hostage. The battles, the most ferocious in nearly a year in
Baghdad, erupted minutes after the arrest of Adil Mashadani, the leader of
the Fadhil Awakening Council, which is composed mostly of former Sunni
insurgents who allied themselves with the US military in exchange for
monthly salaries that are now paid by Iraq's government."

Of course, the reason given to justify government's detention of the
Awakening leader of the area, the incident that triggered the bloodshed,
were "terrorist acts" by the group, according to Iraq's chief military
spokesman, Gen. Qassim Atta. Predictably, the Awakening group spokesman for
the area, Abu Mirna, told the Post, "We will fight them till the end if they
don't release him."

It was convenient policy to have set up the Awakening groups to temporarily
quell overall violence in Iraq. Resistance fighters rushed to join the ranks
for the paycheck, as well as US military protection from Shia militias,
which now largely comprise the government security apparatus. Now, however,
clearly the US has lost some of their interest in continuing to support the
Awakening groups, and the Maliki government is ratcheting up its efforts to
dismantle them. Predictably, members of the Awakening are fighting back -
for without a paycheck, and with yet another broken promise by the
occupation forces to spur them on, why should they sit back and allow
themselves to be detained, killed or further betrayed?

However, let us not martyr the Awakening Groups. Most of the leadership of
the Awakening Groups are thugs, as are many of the members. Within weeks of
the formation of the groups back in 2006, Iraqis living in areas that began
to come under the control of Awakening groups began complaining of the
brutality of the fighters in their area. Extortion and bribery became
rampant, and many Iraqis view Awakening forces as collaborators with the
occupiers of their country.

For example, I recently had the opportunity to spend some time with the
president of the Fallujah Awakening Council, Sheikh Aifan Sadun, who, like
other Awakening leaders, has hundreds of security personnel under his
control. It was just before the January 30 elections in Iraq, and he was
vying for political power against a rival Sunni group in the city - the
Iraqi Islamic Party. Sheikh Aifan, who spoke with me while driving his
$420,000 custom-built heavily armored BMW through the city that was
destroyed by two US sieges in 2004, was accusing his rivals of rigging the
upcoming elections.

He told me he would use "any means necessary" to fight them if they stole
the elections. It was and is all about power for these Awakening leaders. 

And money. Shiekh Aifan, like most of the Awakening leaders, quickly got
into the "construction business" when the US military stopped direct
payments to them last October. Now those payments come in the form of
"construction contracts." Sheikh Aifan himself has been awarded "contracts"
worth $250 million - keep that in mind during this tax season, because it is
your money that is paying for things like his own private militia, his BMW
and his mansion on the outskirts of Fallujah.

In nearby Ramadi, the capital city of Al-Anbar, Sheikh Ahmad Abo Risha is
president of the Awakening Council for the entire province. Just before the
election, he, like Sheikh Aifan, was making moves to ensure he maintained
his grip on power. His rival in the elections was Sheikh Hamid Al-Hayis,
also an Awakening Council leader in the city, and from the same tribe. Abo
Risha did not have kind words for Al-Hayis. "Al-Hayis has relations with
government people and oil contracts, and he gets money from this by using
his position which we helped him acquire," Abo Risha told me at the
Awakening Council of Ramadi headquarters. "I'm from a long line of sheikhs,
but Al-Hayis has only been a sheikh since 2006 when we started the
Awakening," Abo Risha said. If Al-Hayis were to win the elections, "there
will be a revolution."

When I asked Abo Risha about the Islamic Party, which Sheikh Aifan was
accusing of trying to steal the elections, he told me if the Islamic Party
took the elections by fraud, "It will be like Darfur."

None of these threats came to pass, as both men were victorious over their
rivals. But their bellicose rhetoric is indicative of the kind of people
they are, and the lengths they are willing to go to in order to maintain
and/or seize power.

Despite the corruption and inherent infighting with the Awakening Group
leaders, most of them, and the tens of thousands of men under their control,
will certainly fight when attacked or provoked, as evidenced by this past
weekend in Baghdad.

Broadening the frame of reference, keep in mind that government detentions,
killings and threats towards Awakening Group leaders and members are ongoing
in neighborhoods of Baghdad, as well as across Diyala province. We should
expect violence in the areas of Baghdad they control as the Iraqi government
continues to make moves towards taking them out in advance of the national
elections scheduled for later this year. Thus, keep your eyes on the
following areas of Baghdad in the coming weeks and months: Adhamiyah,
Amiriyah, Gazaliyah and al-Dora, to name just a few. More broadly, also
watch Baquba and surrounding areas where Awakening Groups are largely in
control.

And keep Al-Anbar in mind. The province, which is one-third the geographic
area of Iraq, is largely controlled by Awakening groups. This is the area
where the fiercest resistance to the occupation has occurred, and if US
occupation forces or the US-backed Iraqi government begins to move on men
like Sheikh Aifan or Abo Risha, it will bring predictable results.
As Awakening Group member Abu Ayad, 58, told the Post, "We will all become
suicide bombers" if his le




From sabocat59 at mac.com  Mon Apr  6 04:29:06 2009
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (sabocat59 at mac.com)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:29:06 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
Message-ID: <1532740150-1239013869-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-882531986-@bxe1227.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

I agree with David on this.  I certainly have not mixed much with heavily industrialized or unionized sectors of the US working class.  But I have been part of a highly paid service sector, where many of us have advanced degrees and extensive professional training. 

And I must say that inasmuch as being a knowing member of the labor aristocracy requires knowledge of one's privileged position in the world, if that is indeed part of the process of being aristocratic, then I have to say the white american working class fails miserably. 

Like most Americans, the working class in the USA has an island mentality. We don't really understand the privileged economic and political position of the USA versus other countries, simply because we know very little about what happens beyond our shores, and we really don't care to know.  

You can call that being an American firster if you like. I call it ignorance. 

In terms of primitive accumulation and europe and colonialism, its quite clear that the plunder of gold and silver here, and the slave plantations of the americas, were both part of a global process of wealth transfer which has been ongoing for 500 years. 

Moreover, writers like Sidney Mintz have demonstrated that industrial capitalism as a way to organize and discipline the work force  actually evolved from the sugar plantations. Same industrial work discipline but no pay. And that was in the seventeenth century. When did the first factories appear in england? 

And if you want data about transfer of wealth from slave workers to the newly forming industrial proletariat, then how about this:

In terms of one commodity, sugar:

"He wryly observes (p. 148) that the plantations, in addition to providing a place for capital to work and serving as a market for ?machinery, cloth, instruments of torture, and other industrial commodities?, may have had one more use: as a source of ?low-cost food substitutes, such as tobacco, tea, and sugar, for the metropolitan laboring classes?. When he calculates (p.191) that an acre of land would yield about eight million calories just from sugar (not counting energy from using the byproducts of extraction), and points out that for comparable energy potato would need four acres, wheat 9-12 and beef over 135, we sense a master at the height of his craft."

Here is a direct transfer of caloric energy directly from the third world for the benefit of the english working class. Cheap energy gathered from slave labor.  The same can be said of coffee and other commodities designed to supply the working class with cheap energy so they could produce more cheaply. 

As far as I can tell this process continues to this day. 

So we have a working class ignorant both of its privileged position in the world and even ignorant of the fact that it constitutes itself as a laboring class.  On that note I think Michael Friedman has a very good point in terms of Gramsci and hegemony. The hegemons have done an excellent brainwash job. And the workers are more than willing subjects to that end.  

Greg McD

Greg McD
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

From christopher.hutch at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 04:51:07 2009
From: christopher.hutch at gmail.com (Christopher Hutchinson)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 06:51:07 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] General Strike Comics: Red Flag Trading Cards Peng Shuzi
Message-ID: <c81bf1a60904060351m4e676a0ar64c7848c8d4f6aac@mail.gmail.com>

Collect 'em All!

www.GeneralStrikeComics.com <http://www.generalstrikecomics.com/>


keep well,

christopher

From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Mon Apr  6 04:57:01 2009
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 06:57:01 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] "The anti-Hamas united front is beginning to crack"
Message-ID: <1F5871EC1A8E466E8D69D5A737E91CE5@office1pc>

WHAT IT MEANS TO TALK WITH HAMAS
By Ben White

** Engaging it is fundamentally about accepting (perhaps uncomfortable)
facts. **

Christian Science Monitor
March 30, 2009

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0330/p09s01-coop.html


S?O PAULO, BRAZIL -- March 2009 may come to be seen as a critical month in
the ending of the international community's isolation of Hamas.  Finally
engaging Hamas would spell the end of hypocritical Western policy and bring
the peace process in line with the realities of the Middle East.

First, a group of high-level U.S. foreign policy officials, past and
present, went public with their recommendation that the Obama administration
talk to Hamas.  Coincidentally, European politicians who visited Hamas
officials in Syria about the same time echoed that view.

Typically, meetings between European lawmakers and Hamas leaders are
conducted discreetly, if not entirely in secret.  Now, the trips have begun
to be publicized:  In March there were trips by a cross-party group of
British and Irish members of parliaments, as well as their counterparts from
Greece and Italy.

There was also an open letter to President Obama, published on March 10, and
signed by more than 120 experts and academics.  The letter urged a change of
U.S. policy in the Middle East.  Significantly, the signatories advocated an
end to the U.S. "fear of Islamist parties coming to power,"
and also urged prioritizing human rights over supporting the region's
autocrats.

Originally, the rationale behind isolating Hamas (a social and political
movement condemned by many in the West as a terrorist group) was to weaken
the organization and force a change in policy vis-?-vis the armed struggle
and Israel, while simultaneously supporting the Ramallah-based leadership of
Mahmoud Abbas.  The international boycott emerged in parallel with the
Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip that began post-Palestinian parliamentary
elections in early 2006.  The aim:  Punish the civilian population into
rethinking their choice, and make a Hamas government untenable.

But the attempt to sideline Hamas has not worked.  Hamas is no weaker for
the cold-shoulder from diplomats, and, in fact, has been able to use the
siege to deflect criticism of its policies in the Gaza Strip.  The West Bank
"moderates" dominated by Fatah have little to show for their negotiations
with Israel; rather, the colonization of the occupied territories continues.

Consequently, the anti-Hamas united front is starting to crack.  European
politicians have been independently visiting Hamas leaders in Syria, and
urging a rethink in the position of the so-called Quartet of the U.S., the
U.N., the E.U., and Russia.  The appeals to Obama represent this shift in
approach, reflective of both how the current policy has failed, and how
engaging Hamas will be beneficial.

Ending the isolation of Hamas would strike a blow to hypocritical foreign
policy -- a small but important step toward changing the way the U.S. and
international community relate to Middle East politics.  After Benjamin
Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman's success at the polls, Quartet envoy Tony
Blair said that "We've got to work with whoever the Israeli people elect"
-- a courtesy not yet offered to the Palestinians.

Israel's propagandists have tried to use Hamas's increased power in recent
years to their benefit by placing the movement at the center of the debate,
presenting the group as an extremist, Iran-sponsored existential threat to
the Jewish state.  Yet Hamas has only been around for 20 years; Israel
conquered the occupied territories in 1967, while Palestinians were
originally expelled from their homes more than 60 years ago.

Thus to engage Hamas is to acknowledge that the movement is not integral to
the conflict, but neither is it peripheral nor ignorable.  It has grown into
a powerful social and political force, with a tendency toward prioritizing
the pragmatism of political power.  The oft-cited Charter -- rightly
condemned as anti-Semitic, but penned in 1988 by one person -- has become
increasingly insignificant; the discourse of ceasefires, truces, and
national liberation typically trumps inflexible religious doctrine.

But engaging Hamas is fundamentally about accepting (perhaps
uncomfortable) facts.  Hamas was democratically elected and continues to
enjoy considerable support from Gazans.  It's important to ask not just why
it got such substantial backing in 2006, but why it continues to despite the
ongoing Israeli siege and the devastation wreaked in the December war, as
well as the cases of human rights abuses by Hamas personnel.

The lesson is that the Palestinian people saw through the flaws of the
international community's approach to the conflict long before a few voices
in foreign capitals started raising questions about the wisdom of isolating
Hamas.  In the Middle East, the international community's self-defined
moderate/extremist division is but a transparent charade.

The peace process game, the vacuous endorsements of a two-state solution as
Israel absorbs the occupied territories, the lack of will to hold Israel to
account -- this is the fuel for Hamas support, and no amount of "isolation"
can change the profound unpopularity of current U.S. and Quartet policies
among Palestinians.

Ending the boycott would not be an endorsement of Hamas, but an end to the
obtuse -- and damaging -- refusal to recognize reality.

--Ben White is a freelance writer, specializing in the Middle East.  His
articles appear in a wide variety of publications and his forthcoming book,
*Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide* will be published later this year.





From markalause at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 05:06:01 2009
From: markalause at gmail.com (Mark Lause)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:06:01 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <1532740150-1239013869-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-882531986-@bxe1227.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <1532740150-1239013869-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-882531986-@bxe1227.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <b16d8daf0904060406k78244067m2ed03f87123e31ee@mail.gmail.com>

American workers are ignorant of the details and of the present
realities, but they--and I don't just mean those who are "white" or of
the "labor aristrocracy"--do see themselves as better off than the
rest of the world.  All my life, I've heard "Americans have the
highest standard of living in the world."

In part, workers do buy into the capitalist explanation of Third World
poverty as the result of "backwardness," and the imperialist ideology
that Americans are there to "help" correct this.  I think you find
these beliefs afflicting all parts of the work force.

American workers also see themselves as better off than the European
workers.  Depending on their level of ignorance, they see European
workers as either the underclass from which so many opted to come to
America, or as victims of economies still nobbled by two world wars,
or as victims of their own predisposition to go on strike all the
time, or as the ultimate victims of Communist mismanagement in the
East, etc..

Ignorance is a frightfully expensive commodity and Americans believe
in conspicuous consumption and wearing this luxury item as a badge of
pride.

The bill's come due, though....

ML


From donaloc at hotmail.com  Mon Apr  6 05:14:01 2009
From: donaloc at hotmail.com (D OC)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:14:01 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
Message-ID: <BLU138-W50799AE1F62881BA9741E8AB840@phx.gbl>


I think that this issue is hugely significant.
 
However, there is not a simple, direct relationship, any more than there is a simply direct relationship in any other concrete socio-historical process or reality. That is the nature of the dialectic. But despite this limitation, some seem to remain in denial about the nature of this exploitative relationship.
 
Advanced capitalist societies are now broadly characterised as post-industrial. That is not without good reason. They simply do not produce the volume or breadth of commodities that they consume. There would appear, therefore, on a simple but materialist basis to be an ?a priori? case for concepts whereby the broad base of the imperialist core nations ?live on? (like parasites) the producer nations.
This has been increasingly the case since the onset of globalisation and the large scale haemorrhaging of industrial working class jobs to the third world. 
 
These trends are simply beyond denial, however, in order to discern how these factors impact on the concrete cultural superstructure of imperialist nations it is necessary to resort back to a class-based analysis which I can only skirt on in this post.
 
The division of the working class into productive and unproductive workers is important from a political economy perspective but culture is not defined simply by one?s position relative to productive economy rather it is influenced by a wide variety of factors. Only in the ?final instance? as Engels says, does the base define the superstructure but that does not mean that it defines it entirely at all points in time. To adopt such a simplistic approach is to advance a conception of history based on idealism not materialism.
 
Net Economic surplus is acquired by imperialist nations through a variety of sources, not just the standard, if superexploitative, profits derived from production overseas owned by imperialist finance capital. In addition to this, the fundamental imbalance between the imperialist core and the third world results in exchange relations that replicate the system of exploitation ? the theory of economic dependency. In particular, third world countries are often forced to buy goods at inflated prices and are forced to sell labour intensive goods at discounted prices. This is only one such example of exploitation but many simply do not find expression in the (money-based) standards of accounting yielding GDP figures. Furthermore, the exploitation of overseas colonies (or neo-colonies) may be replicated inside countries through internal colonies or centres of lower cost labour. 
 
Overall, the immense increase in the productive power associated with modern capitalism has allowed much more (displaced consumption) to be done with much less (imperialist exploitation). At its root this is easily discernible by the very difference in the cost of living (in value terms ? how much one average day?s labour will buy) in the west compared to the global south. 
 
Such a system of widespread privilege can only be sustained by large scale transfers to the broad masses of imperialist countries provided under ?social democratic? type measures or else in concessions to the working class to keep them tranquillised. These are financed in taxes collected (at root) from the surplus value obtained by native imperialists and circulated (reified) by the financial services sector. The sheer volume of these profits (in inflated western denominated currencies) is reflected by the preponderance of the financial services over the productive industrial sectors of the imperialist economies. Although it should be noted that much of these values are fictitious and do not necessarily correspond to any underlying value.
 
All the same and despite the obvious bribery element, this does not necessarily mean that the imperialist working class are a ?write-off?. For a start, as WL correctly notes, there are non-exploited but nationally oppressed sectors of the western working class who despite of the relative privilege over those living in the third world, are relatively disadvantaged (either culturally, politically or socially) to those from other local substrata within the imperialist core. In terms of the impact of these factors on the consciousness of these groups, it is clear that local relative disadvantage will have a greater immediate impact than global relative advantage. Indeed, this just highlights the difficulty in drawing simplistic conclusions from underlying economic factors ? or of simplistic base-superstructure theory.
 
Notwithstanding the impact of relative privilege, which is undeniable, there are other key factors which I believe have been instrumental in defining the success or otherwise of the socialist revolution in Western countries. Not least of these are the cultural factors identified by Gramsci and the hegemony of the bourgeoisie in imperialist centres. However, these factors have, at root, a materialist foundation and that is principally the relative privilege of imperialist working classes. No other factor can explain why it is that there has not been a successful socialist revolution in any leading imperialist country following 1917 (and that is best explained by Lenin?s weakest link theory where Russia was at one and the same time both imperial and colonial). No other factor can explain that virtually every colonial country has had something close to a successful socialist revolution at some stage. In those few imperialist centres where there have been upturns, it can quickly be discerned that they occurred at the juncture between loss of empire and reconstitution of post-colonial exploitative relations.
 
There are outliers in the imperialist core countries, like Germany, which for one reason or another, e.g. being denuded of their external empire, have been forced to develop an inherent productive capacity which can enable a social-democratic type society. Primarily, these countries base their wealth on productive competitive advantage through massive levels of capital accumulation. While these countries benefit from trade in the other imperialist centres ? themselves net beneficiaries of imperialist profits ? they also benefit fundamentally from exploitation mediated by trade to the third world on an unequal basis. Such countries would enjoy a smoother transition to a form of socialism than those without an adequate productive base e.g. the UK.
 
Having said all that, however, I think it is far too simplistic to conclude negatively on the possibility of socialist revolution in imperialist centres on that basis (although perhaps it is taking other factors into account). For a start, the success of capitalism for the last one hundred years has been grounded in the huge productive powers accumulated capital has been able to unleash. This has created the situation which others have analysed where only a fraction of the working class actually need to work all the time to meet all of societies needs. Even without imperialist superprofits, production is now so concentrated that society can afford many to work unproductively.  There is nothing, therefore, inherently imperialist as opposed to advanced capitalist about that. However, whilst this may be true, the problem of consumption becomes an even more pressing issue in such a situation. So too, does the falling rate of profit.
 
It is against this backdrop that imperialist businesses have sought to take advantage of, or is it that they have been forced into taking advantage of, lower living standards in the global south. This globalisation of capital has not been counteracted by a globalisation of labour. This has resulted in the growth of an imbalance financed through debt in the relatively unproductive ?Anglo-Saxon? economies. 
The implosion of this system of expansion will result in a generalised lowering of living standards in imperialist centres. Whether this results in an awakening of socialist consciousness or a rise in populist or xenophobic fascism is dependent on contingent and historically-defined factors. It is likely that there will be a broad division of these trends across relatively advantaged or disadvantaged groups in society.
 
This has implications for revolutionary strategy in imperialist centres (and in associated semi-detached fellow travellers of imperialism such as Ireland, Ukraine, etc which have come as recent converts to modern, bourgeois ideology and full integration into the imperialist system of exploitation).  This analysis would stand against the inanities of many trends of Trotskyism which views the workers in imperialist centres as innately revolutionary, blames ?stalinism? for all failures and fails to comprehend the importance of imperialism or the role of social democracy in the context of super-exploitation.  But at the same time, it would also stand against the idealised conceptions of maoist-third-worldism (theories which Mao never stated) which raise the issue of relative privilege above that of class analysis, idealised the base-superstructure interrelationship and which ends up justifying a course of inaction and passivity in the imperialist core. Both approaches are characterised by acute voluntarism and a disconnection from organic struggle.
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Twice the fun?Share photos while you chat with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/messenger.aspx

From sabocat59 at mac.com  Mon Apr  6 06:02:59 2009
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (sabocat59 at mac.com)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:02:59 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
Message-ID: <1590294051-1239019502-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1551614527-@bxe1227.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

D OC wrote:

The implosion of this system of expansion will result in a generalised lowering of living standards in imperialist centres. Whether this results in an awakening of socialist consciousness or a rise in populist or xenophobic fascism is dependent on contingent and historically-defined factors. It is likely that there will be a broad division of these trends across relatively advantaged or disadvantaged groups in society.  
------------------------------------
Although the last sentence is necessarily vague, you do have a point. How bout some meat on those arid theoretical bones?

From where I sit xenophobic fascism wins hands down. And here is where you see the color line emerge in clear detail. 

On st pattys day I was having breakfast in a local diner here in rural western massachusetts.  A group of white working stiffs painted green were jawing on about how the jews were benefitting from the economic crisis and how the state of massachusetts was going communist what with all the immigrant workers taking our jobs and the unemployed taking our $$.   

They blame everyone but the white post-protestant members of the ruling class. This is your typical run of the mill working class discourse. 

Only the chattering classes seem upset at the bankers. The wc stiffs couldn't care less.  They're too busy blaming everyone else.  

I will leave it to more subtle minds to explain this in terms of materialist theory. Personally I think the Cubans and in particular Armando Hart are correct.  Consciousness is key.  But over here in white bread world these folks don't mix too much with "foreigners". So they're not exposed to different points of view.  I might as well be living in appalachia as far as that goes. The appalachian state of mind runs through the rural eastern seaboard from georgia all the way to canada.  

I'm not saying this proto-fascist mindset prevails in the urban centers, but I'm not saying it doesn't either. To find out we would need several dozen listeners experienced in the art of ethnographic participant observation. Or we could just wait for the right wing backlash to spring into action and dictate the obvious truth from blood-soaked headlines.  

Greg McD
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

From sartesian at earthlink.net  Mon Apr  6 06:16:17 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:16:17 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
References: <BLU138-W50799AE1F62881BA9741E8AB840@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CF5CBD18130648399F56DE55EF8DE195@dmsthinkpad>

Again, where is the data to support these assertions?

Where is the data that proves the US is post-industrial, when the US in 
2007, or 2008, on its "home territory"-- not its multinational extensions 
accounted for about 25% of the global industrial output?

Where is the data the proves even the UK is post-industrial when its 
industrial output as a percentage of its GDP is roughly the same as 
France's?

Where is the data that makes Germany post-industrial and parasitic when it 
is, and has been, the #1 exporter, and particularly in "capital" machinery 
and equipment?

And besides all that, it is not the volume or breadth of commodities that 
inform these determinations about capital-- but VALUE of commodities that is 
critical as value, not volume, is the quality that makes these exchanges, 
and these "rankings," possible?

What trends are beyond denial?  That labor productivity is greater in less 
developed countries of China, Brazil, India, etc?  That is no trend and not 
the fact.

Where are the facts as to the net economic surplus, "derived from a variety 
of sources,"  about this unequal exchange where less developed countries are 
forced to by goods at inflated prices, and sell at discounted prices?   This 
price mechanism is operative in all spheres of capitalism and is not 
exclusive to the relations between developed and underdeveloped countries 
but rather is one of the ways a general rate of profit is established for 
capitalism as a whole.

You assume that there is a widespread system of privilege and then state 
that it can only be sustained by large scale transfers to the broad masses 
of imperialist countries under social-democratic type measures.  You assume 
what has to be shown, and provide a "proof" without evidence-- where are the 
large scale transfers from the less developed countries to the broad masses 
of the developed countries.  Where are the large scale surpluses that are 
supposedly extracted from the developing countries?  What portion of the 
total expropriated surplus do these transfers constitute?

Every colonial country has something close to a successful socialist 
revolution at some stage?  Really?  Is that you would call Iran, Iraq, 
Syria, Egypt, Libya, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Thailand, Brazil, Trinidad and 
Tobago, Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, 
etc. etc. "near successful socialist revolutions"?   That sort of 
characterization is so broad as to be worse than useless, it's downright 
damaging.  And what of the reversal of the  near successful revolutions in 
China, Vietnam?

And there have been near successful revolutionary struggles in the advanced 
countries-- Germany, Spain, Portugal, France, Hungary, Greece, -- it took a 
bloodbath of incredible proportions to drown out that struggle, 
temporarily-- those defeats and the following world war have infinitely more 
to do with condition and political aggressiveness of the workers in advanced 
countries than the supposed dispersal of surplus transfers.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "D OC" <donaloc at hotmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)




From jbustelo at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 06:49:11 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:49:11 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Why are American workers so passive?
In-Reply-To: <62C0AAE260EC4F7BB84A93339CBE7E58@dmsthinkpad>
References: <737401.34628.qm@web58508.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<62C0AAE260EC4F7BB84A93339CBE7E58@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <B10E00E8F6074CFFA33155A25DF6BEB5@albanta>

S Artesian writes: How about it is one thing-- and that one thing is not
"imperialist
privilege"--  RACISM that has so inhibited, and immobilized development of
class struggle, class consciousness in the US?

*  *  *

This is a fine example of the ideological evasion of the reality of
privilege. "Racism" is not the real issue. The real issue is *white
supremacy.* It is the REALITY of white supremacy, of PRIVILEGE, that breeds
white supremacist attitudes and ideology, i.e., racism. 

As for the rest of S Artesian's laments, the decline of the U.S. labor
movement began NOT in 1970 but more than two decades earlier. 

As for the argument that the change in the organic composition of capital
has "devastated" the industrial organizations, this is a real crock. Whether
the GM workforce is 700,000, 70,000 or 7,000 their power when they act
collectively is just the same as long as the company has no realistic way to
replace them and must come to terms with them.

What the auto workers and other unions are paying for is their historic
betrayal after WWII. They made a deal with the ruling class -- privileges
for the union members rather than social advances for the class as a whole.
And in THIS country, such deals ALWAYS have the issue of race at their core.
So they got private health insurance instead of a national health service.
Private pension funds instead of an expanded social security system. And
most of all acquiescence to Taft Hartley, right to work, and the exclusion
of farm workers and domestics from labor law protection.

Joaquin



From shmage at pipeline.com  Mon Apr  6 06:50:51 2009
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:50:51 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <1532740150-1239013869-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-882531986-@bxe1227.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
References: <1532740150-1239013869-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-882531986-@bxe1227.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Message-ID: <889DA9BB-600D-499D-A92C-CA943158F10D@pipeline.com>


On Apr 6, 2009, at 6:29 AM, sabocat59 at mac.com wrote:
>
> And if you want data about transfer of wealth from slave workers to  
> the newly forming industrial proletariat, then how about this:
>
> In terms of one commodity, sugar:
>
> "He wryly observes (p. 148) that the plantations, in addition to  
> providing a place for capital to work and serving as a market for  
> ?machinery, cloth, instruments of torture, and other industrial  
> commodities?, may have had one more use: as a source of ?low-cost  
> food substitutes, such as tobacco, tea, and sugar, for the  
> metropolitan laboring classes?. When he calculates (p.191) that an  
> acre of land would yield about eight million calories just from  
> sugar (not counting energy from using the byproducts of extraction),  
> and points out that for comparable energy potato would need four  
> acres, wheat 9-12 and beef over 135, we sense a master at the height  
> of his craft."
>
> Here is a direct transfer of caloric energy directly from the third  
> world for the benefit of the english working class. Cheap energy  
> gathered from slave labor.  The same can be said of coffee and other  
> commodities designed to supply the working class with cheap energy  
> so they could produce more cheaply.


Read this again.  "low-cost food substitutes."  The reality--the  
explicit reality--was a direct assault on the most vital interest of  
the English workingclass, its health.  The "benefits" of tea and sugar  
to the workers included rotted teeth.  And there were lots of English,  
as well as African, slaves "transported" to the colonies as   
punishment for "crime."

And this is the reality of imperialism.  Statistics always show no net  
benefit to the metropolitan economy or even a net loss (because the  
costs of empire--cf., the US military budget--equal or exceed the  
profits to be repatriated). They in fact show that imperialism is a  
cost, not a benefit, to the proletariat.  Because it is the  
"privileged imperialist working class" who pays the cost of empire in  
money and blood while the profits go directly into the pockets of  
their exploiters

Shane Mage

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


From sabocat59 at mac.com  Mon Apr  6 07:09:12 2009
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (sabocat59 at mac.com)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:09:12 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
Message-ID: <798152826-1239023475-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-49155184-@bxe1227.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

I have sugar in my coffee and jam on my toast practically every morning, just like our english predecessors, and my teeth are fine.  

But I do acknowledge your point.  The capitalists stood to gain from the food substitutes in terms of profits, and porridge and beer (non-commoditized) was much healthier than sugar and rum or gin. It also involved a penetration of capitalist consumption into foodways which previously had stood outside the marketplace.  

But from the capitalist perspective it did involve a transfer of cheap energy from the colonies which was used to power the industrial revolution.   

Simple carbs are easier to process and provide more fuel for shorter bursts of energy, thus the need for a coffee break.  Whereas porridge as a work fuel was suited to the more slowly paced agricultural workday. 

Greg

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


From sartesian at earthlink.net  Mon Apr  6 07:41:03 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:41:03 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Why are American workers so passive?
References: <737401.34628.qm@web58508.mail.re3.yahoo.com><62C0AAE260EC4F7BB84A93339CBE7E58@dmsthinkpad>
	<B10E00E8F6074CFFA33155A25DF6BEB5@albanta>
Message-ID: <56CAA521FFA2477AA9CBBFF4931CE5A1@dmsthinkpad>

If there's anything that's entertaining around here it is Bustelo's 
impersonation of the great gymnast Nadia Comaneci.  With the flexibility of 
double-jointed mime, Bustelo makes an accusation of idealism after refusing, 
or perhaps being incapalbe of, providing a bit, an iota of material 
information to back up his vulgarization of dependency theory.

I was not lamenting the decline of the working class. I was referring to the 
offensive that the bourgeoisie launched in the 1970s after the rate of 
profit peaked, and they knew that there would be hell to pay, and they 
weren't paying it.  Bustelo, with his characteristic bombast and ignorance, 
dismisses the actual attacks on the working class that were initiated then, 
and sustained since then.  I am not talking about the working class 
"betraying" its historic mission-- I am identifying the response of the 
bourgeoisie to the upsurge in class struggle which most certainly did occur 
in the US no matter how much Bustelo folds his arms across his chest and 
claims it never happened.

There were real attacks, and for all those who beat the drums about the 
supposed transfer of wealth from less developed to more developed and then 
dispersal of that transfer to ALL in the more developed, to not see the real 
transfer of wealth from poorer to richer, from workers to bourgeoisie that 
took place after 1973 is-- well, many things-- perfect, blindness, perfect 
blindness, ignorance, prejudice-- but why go on?

What has to be a new peak in idealistic baloney, even for Bustelo however is 
this:  "Whether  the GM workforce is 700,000, 70,000 or 7,000 their power 
when they act  collectively is just the same as long as the company has no 
realistic way to  replace them and must come to terms with them."

That is worse than idealistic-- that is flat out stupid, as the 
precariousness of employment, the continuous reduction of workers and their 
replacement by machinery; the continuous out-sourcing and sub-contracting of 
work is exactly why  and how the COMPANY finds realistic ways to replace 
them, the workers, reduce the terms of settlements, extract concessions, 
etc. etc.   One almost has to ask,-- what fucking planet has Bustelo been 
living on for the last 35 years?  Apparently not planet earth.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Why are American workers so passive?


>S Artesian writes: How about it is one thing-- and that one thing is not
> "imperialist
> privilege"--  RACISM that has so inhibited, and immobilized development of
> class struggle, class consciousness in the US?
> 



From Dbachmozart at aol.com  Mon Apr  6 07:56:29 2009
From: Dbachmozart at aol.com (Dbachmozart at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:56:29 EDT
Subject: [Marxism] can Syria be de-coupled from Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas?
Message-ID: <cb0.3d7b2c9b.370b640d@aol.com>





Syria Calling
The Obama Administration's chance to engage in a  Middle
East peace.
by Seymour M. Hersh
The New Yorker
April 6,  2009

clip --
 

When the Israelis' controversial twenty-two-day military
campaign in  Gaza ended, on January 18th, it also seemed
to end the promising peace talks  between Israel and
Syria. The two countries had been engaged for almost  a
year in negotiations through intermediaries in Istanbul.
Many  complicated technical matters had been resolved,
and there were agreements in  principle on the
normalization of diplomatic relations. The consensus,  as
an ambassador now serving in Tel Aviv put it, was that
the two sides  had been "a lot closer than you might
think."

At an Arab summit in  Qatar in mid-January, however,
Bashar Assad, the President of Syria, angrily  declared
that Israel's bombing of Gaza and the resulting civilian
deaths  showed that the Israelis spoke only "the language
of blood." He called on the  Arab world to boycott
Israel, close any Israeli embassies in the region,  and
sever all "direct or indirect ties with Israel." Syria,
Assad said,  had ended its talks over the Golan Heights.

Nonetheless, a few days after  the Israeli ceasefire in
Gaza, Assad said in an e-mail to me that although  Israel
was "doing everything possible to undermine the
prospects for  peace," he was still very interested in
closing the deal. "We have to wait a  little while to see
how things will evolve and how the situation  will
change," Assad said. "We still believe that we need to
conclude a  serious dialogue to lead us to peace."
 
full ---         
_http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/04/06/090406fa_fact_hersh_ (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/04/06/090406fa_fact_hersh) 
 
 
 
 
 
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621488x1201450096/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62)

From jbustelo at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 08:29:54 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:29:54 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <BCFE2D00B60A4CB6B5463090FDD4EDAA@dmsthinkpad>
References: <bde.41088ce6.370a76e3@aol.com>
	<BCFE2D00B60A4CB6B5463090FDD4EDAA@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <09237262860E4236AE885E0527D8D1B2@albanta>

S Artesian: "My argument is not that "privilege" does NOT exist in sectors
of the working class, but rather that privilege is not based on the transfer
of wealth from poorer to less poor, from more exploited to less exploited BY
the bourgeoisie as either an intentional or unintentional product of the
expansion of capital beyond, or within, national boundaries."

This is something that is really striking to me about this discussion. A lot
of the argument is that white workers don't exploit or benefit from the
exploitation of Black workers, or U.S. workers don't benefit from that of
the third world. It is almost a moralistic thing.

For the record, and so there is no ambiguity, I believe the US working
class, and most of all its white component, are fools for failing to
understand that they would be much better off acting as part of their class.
Like duh...

The question that needs to be answered is WHY they don't do that. All this
stuff about ideological hegemony is nice but it needs a MATERIAL BASIS for
it to work. For example, "racism" --white supremacist ideas and ideology--
is not based on propaganda so clever that it convinces people of the LIE
that white people are superior to Blacks. It is based on the TRUTH that in
this society whites historically have been and continue to be in a socially,
politically and economically superior position in relation to Blacks.

The marked increase in hate crimes against Latinos is a reflection of the
increasing racism against Latinos based on the increasing social and
political degradation of a substantial part of the community, the
undocumented immigrants. 

As for all the folderol about different historical developments and all the
rest of it accounting for different wage levels between whites and Blacks
and between imperialist countries and the third world, give me an effing
break. 

The wealth of the imperialist countries is based historically, has its
origins in, the looting of the Third World and slavery. It's not that
complicated really. 

Capitalist exploitation is NOT about class and class only. 

Marx says as much in writing about primitive accumulation, but his forward
looking projection in the Manifesto and elsewhere that it was becoming about
class and class only, that conditions in different countries were becoming
roughly equalized as they got drawn into capitalist production, that the
family --cornerstone of women's oppression-- was disappearing and so on
proved to be completely and totally WRONG.

In fact, in relation to the national question, PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of
what Marx anticipated actually happened: not an amelioration of
contradictions between nations, but their exacerbation to the utmost as
developing (mainly) European and European colonial-settler capitalist powers
preyed on the Third World, then turned on each other, and then finally
organized themselves into a cartel for the joint exploitation of the Third
World (as well as some other purposes), in which the U.S. imperialists bear
the major part of the responsibility for military and political domination
and thus undoubtedly also get a very disproportionate share of the loot.

How much does the U.S. benefit from its domination of the world as the top
dog imperialist power? Consider this: The U.S. is spending three quarters of
a trillion dollars a year on its military establishment, which is
EXCLUSIVELY dedicated to projecting force to dominate other countries, since
the U.S. "homeland" is in absolutely no military danger from anybody. "In
2007, US military spending was above 1/4 of combined industrial and
agricultural production in the USA," says Wikipedia.

To this already substantial figure we need to add the budgets for debt
service, currently running at more that $400 billion, as well as various
other government expenses, for example the department of "energy" is really
about making and maintaining nuclear bombs, the veterans, the hidden CIA,
NSA and similar budgets, a lot of the "trade promotion" and all of the
"foreign aid" because these really seek to re-enforce domination.

This gives us the figure of certainly not less than $1.3 trillion dollars as
a first approximation of a lower bound of the yearly economic input to the
U.S. attributable to its world position. To this we would have to add a
"profit," a net benefit over and above all the costs of the world empire,
because the U.S. is not engaged in the business of world domination at a
loss. 

To get a handle on this magnitude, that is the equivalent of 10% of the US
GDP, and is roughly comparable to the magnitude of total corporate profits
-- in a good year. 

I realize this is in no way reflected in any government or private
accounting, IMF statistics nor anything else like that. 

But it MUST BE the case that the US realizes this benefit, otherwise the
drain on its economic resources would have led the United States to become
decapitalized and bankrupt decades ago. 

Joaquin



From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Mon Apr  6 08:40:43 2009
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:40:43 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Tangled web of imperialism's Afghan-Pakistan war
Message-ID: <AA7FD1FE376943D4AF3680FB4288F024@office1pc>

LRB Vol. 31 No. 7  .  9 April 2009 
 
Taliban v. Taliban
Graham Usher 
Pakistan and India have been at war since 1948. There have been occasional
flare-ups, pitched battles between the two armies, but mostly the war has
taken the form of a guerrilla battle between the Indian army and Pakistani
surrogates in Kashmir. In 2004 the two countries began a cautious peace
process, but rather than ending, the war has since migrated to Afghanistan
and the Pakistani tribal areas on the Afghan border. 'Safe havens' for a
reinvigorated Afghan Taliban and al-Qaida, the tribal areas are seen by the
West as the 'greatest threat' to its security, as well as being the main
cause of Western frustration with Pakistan. The reason is simple: the
Pakistan army's counterinsurgency strategy is not principally directed at
the Taliban or even al-Qaida: the main enemy is India.

In the Bajaur tribal area, for example, the army is fighting an insurgency
led by Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of one of Pakistan's three Taliban
factions, but it's not because he is a friend of al-Qaida. What makes him a
threat, in the eyes of Pakistan's army, is that he is believed to be
responsible for scores of suicide attacks inside Pakistan (including the
assassination of Benazir Bhutto). He is also thought to have recruited
hundreds of Afghan fighters, among them 'agents' from the Afghan and Indian
intelligence services - 'Pakistan's enemies', in the words of a senior
officer.

An enemy in Bajaur, the Taliban is a friend of Pakistan in North and South
Waziristan. Like Mehsud, the guerrilla commander Jalaluddin Haqqani, who
directs the Afghan Taliban's 'central front' from bases in Pashtun villages
in Pakistan, has ties to al-Qaida. Unlike Mehsud, he's not attacking
Pakistan, and his fight against the US and Nato enjoys the support of the
army and of broad sections of the Pakistani public. The same courtesy has
been extended to Mullah Omar, whose headquarters are in Quetta, where he's
reportedly sheltered by the ISI. 'They are our people; they're not our
enemies,' one ISI officer says. So what does it mean to be 'anti-Pakistan'?
The short answer is pro-India, in practice if not intent. Insurgents in the
tribal areas are deemed anti-Pakistani if their actions advance the
perceived goals of India in Afghanistan. They are pro-Pakistani as long as
they don't attack the Pakistani state or army, even if they launch attacks
against Nato forces in Afghanistan, Islamabad's supposed allies in the 'war
on terror'. Indeed, the Afghan Taliban is considered an 'asset', a hedge
against the day when the US and Nato leave, but also a counter to India's
expanding influence in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has been worried by India's increasing interest in Afghanistan
since the Bonn conference in November 2001 at which Afghan factional leaders
and UN officials met to discuss the formation of a post-Taliban government.
At that conference it became clear that the pro-Pakistani Afghan Taliban
would be purged from the new Afghanistan under Karzai and replaced by forces
dominated by commanders from the Northern Alliance (NA), which had opposed
the Taliban regime before 9/11 and fought with US troops to overthrow it.
India, Iran and Russia were the NA's main supporters while Islamabad was
backing the Taliban. Neither Pakistan nor the Taliban was invited to Bonn -
this was 'the original sin', according to Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN
representative.

India is one of Karzai's few remaining champions. Delhi sees the new
Afghanistan as a part of its sphere of influence. It has four consulates in
Afghanistan and has given its government $1.2 billion in aid: a remarkable
sum for it to donate to a country that is 99 per cent Muslim and with which
it has no common border. Delhi has also put up the new parliament building
and chancery, and has helped to train the army. India's most ambitious -
and, for Pakistan, most alarming - Afghan project is a new highway that will
provide a route to the Iranian port of Chabahar. Not only will Afghanistan
no longer need to use Pakistani ports, the road's destination is a clear
indication of India's intention to consolidate an alliance with Iran in
western Afghanistan in order to counter Pakistan's influence in eastern
Afghanistan. The road network, as they see it, is a new way to fight an old
war. It's precisely in order to resist the India-Iran bloc - as well as the
emerging axis between Delhi and Washington - that the ISI has aligned itself
with the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani.

Washington has tilted towards Delhi since 2004, lured by the size of India's
markets and its potential as strategic counterweight to China, Pakistan's
closest regional ally. Last year the US signed an agreement that allows
India to buy civilian atomic technology, including nuclear fuel, from
American firms, even though it is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. Pakistan, by contrast, has been criticised for developing a nuclear
weapon, and of course for the activities of its former top nuclear
scientist, A.Q. Khan.

Since 9/11 Washington has tended to use Islamabad as a gun for hire: the
army was given around $1 billion a year on condition that it secured
supplies to US and Nato forces in Afghanistan and fought against the Taliban
and al-Qaida in the tribal areas. In agreeing this condition Pakistan had
expected that its interests would be taken into account following the
Anglo-American invasion. But unlike India or Iran, and despite its services
to Washington, Islamabad was given no say in the formation of the Afghan
government. This confirmed Pakistanis in their view that Musharraf and his
army were no better than mercenaries fighting 'America's war', and as a
result of this humiliation, the Pakistani army has interpreted its
commitments selectively, opposing 'safe havens' that might be used to launch
attacks against other countries, but supporting the Afghan Taliban
insurgency. Washington is exasperated by Pakistan's refusal to fight the
Taliban, but it's been given little incentive to do so.

Fear of India's influence was heightened by Bush's decree last July allowing
US Special Forces in Afghanistan to pursue al-Qaida and Taliban fugitives
into Pakistan's territory without the approval of its government. There has
been one US ground assault and more than 30 drone attacks since then,
overwhelmingly in North and South Waziristan. Washington claims to have a
tacit agreement about the drone strikes with the Pakistan government. The
government denies this. Army officers admit that the strikes may have killed
scores of al-Qaida fighters, and that the ISI may have supplied intelligence
for the operations, but the missiles have also killed civilians, including
pro-government tribal elders.

The Pakistan army believes India is responsible for the CIA's new
belligerence. Some even believe India wants to create such turmoil in the
tribal areas that Nato forces and the new Afghan army are compelled to
invade, destroy the 'terrorist havens', and wrest back Pashtun lands claimed
by Kabul. Others think that India wants to dismember Pakistan because of the
'danger' it poses as the world's only Muslim nuclear state. According to
another source in the army, 'the Americans have decided India will be the
regional power. And India thinks a fragmented Pakistan would reduce the
threat level.' It's true that Washington's nightmare is Pakistan's nuclear
materials falling into the hands of al-Qaida militants. Indeed war games
have been staged in the Pentagon to work out what kind of military
intervention would be needed to rescue them. The ISI's charge that there is
Indian involvement in the unrest in the tribal areas is unconvincing, and
the evidence scant, but it's safe to assume that India is keeping a close
eye on what's going on there.
[snip]




From sabocat59 at mac.com  Mon Apr  6 08:50:29 2009
From: sabocat59 at mac.com (sabocat59 at mac.com)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:50:29 +0000
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
Message-ID: <1649206115-1239029552-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1520002805-@bxe1227.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

But it MUST BE the case that the US realizes this benefit, otherwise the drain on its economic resources would have led the United States to become decapitalized and bankrupt decades ago.
-----------------------------------

You mean like it is now?

Greg


Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


From ffeldman at bellatlantic.net  Mon Apr  6 08:52:38 2009
From: ffeldman at bellatlantic.net (Fred Feldman)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:52:38 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Fidel: Walking on Solid Ground
Message-ID: <8348DE1D487F4C46AC4100E3571DCC13@office1pc>

I picked up this item from Cuba News. The introductory comment is by Walter 
Lippmann.
Fred

(A stunning commentary by Fidel Castro. It's necessary to read it
all the way through, noting it concludes with these two points:

("Those who are capable of serenely analyzing the events, as is the
case of the senator from Indiana, use an irrefutable argument: the
United States' measures against Cuba, over almost half a century, 
are a total failure.

("There is no need to emphasize what Cuba has always said: 
we do not fear dialogue with the United States. Nor do we need 
the confrontation to exist as some foolish people think: we exist
precisely because we believe in our ideas and we have never feared
dialogue with the adversary. It is the only way to secure friendship
and peace among peoples."

============================================================================
========
This is the article to which Fidel is referring in his reflection:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040103
777.html
============================================================================
========

Reflections by Comrade Fidel

http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/reflexiones/2009/ing/f050409i.html

Walking on Solid Ground 

On April 2nd, while the G-20 Summit Meeting was beginning and ending in
London, the well-known journalist of the influential Washington Post, Karen
De Young, wrote: "Senator Richard G.Lugar called on President Obama to
appoint a special envoy to initiate direct talks with the island's communist
government. 

"The nearly 50-year-old economic embargo against Cuba, Lugar (R-Ind.)
said.puts the United States at odds with the views of the rest of Latin
America, the European Union and the United Nations, and 'undermines our
broader security and political interests in the Western Hemisphere.'

"The April 17-19 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago would present
a 'unique opportunity for you to build a more hospitable climate to advance
U.S. interests in the region through a change in our posture regarding Cuba
policy.'

"Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
-says Karen De Young- is in the forefront of a broad movement advocating a
new policy that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business
groups, a number of state governments and human rights groups. A bipartisan
majority of Congress has repeatedly voted to ease restrictions on travel and
other contact with Cuba, although the measures died after threatened
presidential vetoes during the Bush administration."

"Lugar is a co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate this
week that would end all restrictions on travel to Cuba except in cases of
war or direct threats to health or safety".

"Lugar said the appointment of an envoy and initiation of direct talks on
subjects such as migration and drug interdiction would "serve vital U.S.
security interests . . . and could ultimately create the conditions for
meaningful discussion of more contentious subjects."

Karen's article expresses no doubt that the Indiana Senator is walking on
solid ground. His starting point is not a philanthropic position. As she
states, he is working with "the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business
groups, a number of state governments and human rights groups".

I am certain that Richard G. Lugar doesn't fear the silliness of being
described as soft or pro-socialist.

If President Barack Obama travels the world asserting, as he did in his very
own country, that it is necessary to invest the sums needed to pull out of
the financial crisis, to guarantee the homes where countless families live,
to guarantee jobs for the American workers who are becoming unemployed by
the millions, to install health services and quality education for all
citizens, how can he reconcile that with blockade measures to impose his
will over a country like Cuba?

Today drugs are one of the most serious problems in this hemisphere and in
Europe. In the war against drug trafficking and organized crime, encouraged
in the enormous U.S. market, the Latin American countries are now losing
almost ten thousand men each year, more than twice the number lost by the
United States in the Iraq war. The number grows and the problem is very far
from being resolved.

That phenomenon does not exist in Cuba, a neighboring country close to the
United States. On that thorny subject and in the war against illegal
migration, the U.S. and Cuban coast guard services have been cooperating for
many years. On the other hand, no American has ever died as the result of
terrorist actions coming from our country, because such activities would not
be tolerated.

The Cuban Revolution, which has not been destroyed either by the blockade or
the dirty war, is based on ethical and political principles; that is the
reason why it has been able to resist.

My aim is not to exhaust the subject. Far from it: in this reflection I am
leaving out the damage inflicted on our country by the United States'
arrogant attitude towards Cuba.

Those who are capable of serenely analyzing the events, as is the case of
the senator from Indiana, use an irrefutable argument: the United States'
measures against Cuba, over almost half a century, are a total failure.

There is no need to emphasize what Cuba has always said: we do not fear
dialogue with the United States. Nor do we need the confrontation to exist
as some foolish people think: we exist precisely because we believe in our
ideas and we have never feared dialogue with the adversary. It is the only
way to secure friendship and peace among peoples. 

Fidel Castro Ruz
April 5, 2009
1:04 p.m.




From sartesian at earthlink.net  Mon Apr  6 08:57:52 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:57:52 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
References: <bde.41088ce6.370a76e3@aol.com><BCFE2D00B60A4CB6B5463090FDD4EDAA@dmsthinkpad>
	<09237262860E4236AE885E0527D8D1B2@albanta>
Message-ID: <2B195C2A3AC047ADBB6143E997EF3F8C@dmsthinkpad>

Sorry, you get no breaks.  You have failed to provide one shred of evidence 
to back your primary assertion:

" The wealth of the imperialist countries is based historically, has its 
origins in, the looting of the Third World and slavery."

Your secondary assertion, that this wealth has then been distributed to the 
workers of those imperialist countries, giving them a stake in maintaining 
the imperial order, is also unsupported by anything other than your 
vulgarization of  Lenin's Imperialism, a work that is itself quite seriously 
flawed in both its empirial and theoretical foundations.

As for your musings about the US military expenditures and what must be the 
reason and the benefit of those-- give us all a fucking break; military 
spending and wars have been part of developing capitalism, developed 
capitalism, overdeveloped capitalism; such spending, and such war, has been 
the important to advanced, imperial capitalist countries, and less advanced 
colonized, semi-colonized, non-colonized capitalist countries.

Do you really think the US invaded Iraq to plunder its resources?

Nobody, at least not I, is arguing that the US doesn't benefit from its 
position as top dog, that the advanced countries do not benefit from their 
penetrations, exploitation of less advanced, that empire and colony did not 
make capitalism what it is today-- capitalism-- but those are not the 
issues-- those are the diversions you are attempting to raise to cover the 
fact that you cannot, will not answer the questions to your most critical 
assertions:

How much wealth is being transferred, robbed from the less developed 
countries to bolster the advanced?

How is such wealth being transferred to the detriment of  all classes of 
less developed countries -- an assertion that you make sometimes more, 
sometimes less, explicitly?

Hiw is such wealth dispersed to the working classes of the advanced 
countries that makes them partners, stakeholders in maintaining the imperial 
transfers?

Regarding whites gaining from the exclusion, segregation, impoverishment of 
blacks--If you look historically at "benefits"-- even social benefits like 
education, percentage of children graduating high school; medical benefits--  
and wages-- when do those numbers begin to improve for white workers, the 
white poor in the South?




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)




From shmage at pipeline.com  Mon Apr  6 09:02:28 2009
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:02:28 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <09237262860E4236AE885E0527D8D1B2@albanta>
References: <bde.41088ce6.370a76e3@aol.com>
	<BCFE2D00B60A4CB6B5463090FDD4EDAA@dmsthinkpad>
	<09237262860E4236AE885E0527D8D1B2@albanta>
Message-ID: <E785F619-2EAF-4171-8C14-F1BC871E4407@pipeline.com>


On Apr 6, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Joaquin Bustelo wrote:
>
> How much does the U.S. benefit from its domination of the world as  
> the top
> dog imperialist power? Consider this: The U.S. is spending three  
> quarters of
> a trillion dollars a year on its military establishment, which is
> EXCLUSIVELY dedicated to projecting force to dominate other  
> countries, since
> the U.S. "homeland" is in absolutely no military danger from  
> anybody. "In
> 2007, US military spending was above 1/4 of combined industrial and
> agricultural production in the USA," says Wikipedia.
>
> To this already substantial figure we need to add the budgets for debt
> service, currently running at more that $400 billion, as well as  
> various
> other government expenses, for example the department of "energy" is  
> really
> about making and maintaining nuclear bombs, the veterans, the hidden  
> CIA,
> NSA and similar budgets, a lot of the "trade promotion" and all of the
> "foreign aid" because these really seek to re-enforce domination.
>
> This gives us the figure of certainly not less than $1.3 trillion  
> dollars as
> a first approximation of a lower bound of the yearly economic input  
> to the
> U.S.

The muddle is complete.  Fantastic expenditures of real wealth--paid  
for by the exploited labor of and taxes on the working classes--are  
presented as "economic inputs" rather than the totally wasteful  
economic costs that they really are.  The muddle comes from thinking  
in terms of "countries" rather than of classes.  Imperialism is  
capital's looting enterprise, looting the working people in *both* the  
metropolitan and dependent areas.

Shane Mage

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


From milongonsinga at yahoo.com  Mon Apr  6 09:12:13 2009
From: milongonsinga at yahoo.com (milongonsinga)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <2B195C2A3AC047ADBB6143E997EF3F8C@dmsthinkpad>
References: <bde.41088ce6.370a76e3@aol.com><BCFE2D00B60A4CB6B5463090FDD4EDAA@dmsthinkpad>
	<09237262860E4236AE885E0527D8D1B2@albanta>
	<2B195C2A3AC047ADBB6143E997EF3F8C@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <171759.73409.qm@web110405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


The degree to which the advanced capitalist countries are the net beneficiaries of investment in the developing world is well documented. While the subordiante capitalist classes tend to benefit from foreign investment, the country as a whole becomes objectively poorer. In the meantime, the working class of the advanced capitalist countries is bought off by the crumbs from the exploitation of foreign workers. It's the reason workers in this country are so complacent, and see themselves as middle-class.?This isn't even controversial. If you really want to find the data that will support this argument it shouldn't be very difficult. 

?
?
?A student asked Soen Nakagawa during a meditation retreat, "I am very discouraged. What should I do?" Soen replied, "Encourage others."



----- Original Message ----
From: S. Artesian <sartesian at earthlink.net>
To: milongonsinga at yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2009 7:57:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)

Sorry, you get no breaks.? You have failed to provide one shred of evidence 
to back your primary assertion:

" The wealth of the imperialist countries is based historically, has its 
origins in, the looting of the Third World and slavery."

Your secondary assertion, that this wealth has then been distributed to the 
workers of those imperialist countries, giving them a stake in maintaining 
the imperial order, is also unsupported by anything other than your 
vulgarization of? Lenin's Imperialism, a work that is itself quite seriously 
flawed in both its empirial and theoretical foundations.

As for your musings about the US military expenditures and what must be the 
reason and the benefit of those-- give us all a fucking break; military 
spending and wars have been part of developing capitalism, developed 
capitalism, overdeveloped capitalism; such spending, and such war, has been 
the important to advanced, imperial capitalist countries, and less advanced 
colonized, semi-colonized, non-colonized capitalist countries.

Do you really think the US invaded Iraq to plunder its resources?

Nobody, at least not I, is arguing that the US doesn't benefit from its 
position as top dog, that the advanced countries do not benefit from their 
penetrations, exploitation of less advanced, that empire and colony did not 
make capitalism what it is today-- capitalism-- but those are not the 
issues-- those are the diversions you are attempting to raise to cover the 
fact that you cannot, will not answer the questions to your most critical 
assertions:

How much wealth is being transferred, robbed from the less developed 
countries to bolster the advanced?

How is such wealth being transferred to the detriment of? all classes of 
less developed countries -- an assertion that you make sometimes more, 
sometimes less, explicitly?

Hiw is such wealth dispersed to the working classes of the advanced 
countries that makes them partners, stakeholders in maintaining the imperial 
transfers?

Regarding whites gaining from the exclusion, segregation, impoverishment of 
blacks--If you look historically at "benefits"-- even social benefits like 
education, percentage of children graduating high school; medical benefits--? 
and wages-- when do those numbers begin to improve for white workers, the 
white poor in the South?




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo at gmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)



________________________________________________
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/milongonsinga%40yahoo.com



From sartesian at earthlink.net  Mon Apr  6 09:30:35 2009
From: sartesian at earthlink.net (S. Artesian)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:30:35 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
References: <bde.41088ce6.370a76e3@aol.com><BCFE2D00B60A4CB6B5463090FDD4EDAA@dmsthinkpad><09237262860E4236AE885E0527D8D1B2@albanta><2B195C2A3AC047ADBB6143E997EF3F8C@dmsthinkpad>
	<171759.73409.qm@web110405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6F1BA791A7A14D70B0FC644AB68EBA06@dmsthinkpad>

No it is not well documented-- that such investment occurs, that it is done 
for profit is not now, nor never has been disputed.. that such investment is 
the root and branch advanced capitalist development, that such investment 
has transformed the investors into parasites, that in fact the benefits of 
such parasitism is dispered throughout all the classes of the advanced 
countries is disputed. Those are the assertions that required investigation, 
evaluation, and a bit more than "it must be so because everybody says it's 
so."

Or-- if that degree is well documented as you assert-- what is that degree 
of benefit?

And to say "It's the reason workers in this country are so complacent" is 
really a circular, ahistorical, anti-materialist,  pseudo-explanation.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "milongonsinga" <milongonsinga at yahoo.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)





From shmage at pipeline.com  Mon Apr  6 09:31:16 2009
From: shmage at pipeline.com (Shane Mage)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:31:16 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <171759.73409.qm@web110405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <bde.41088ce6.370a76e3@aol.com><BCFE2D00B60A4CB6B5463090FDD4EDAA@dmsthinkpad>
	<09237262860E4236AE885E0527D8D1B2@albanta>
	<2B195C2A3AC047ADBB6143E997EF3F8C@dmsthinkpad>
	<171759.73409.qm@web110405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <36C90FFE-663E-4335-AFC9-FD24B9FB0BB4@pipeline.com>


On Apr 6, 2009, at 11:12 AM, milongonsinga wrote:

>
> The degree to which the advanced capitalist countries are the net  
> beneficiaries of investment in the developing world is well  
> documented.

As I have pointed out already several times, this is utterly false.   
The benefits go to the capitalists.  The costs are paid by the workers  
in money and blood. The net benefit (benefits minus costs) is negative.
Shane Mage

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


From kellyr818 at roadrunner.com  Mon Apr  6 09:43:04 2009
From: kellyr818 at roadrunner.com (bkelly)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:43:04 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] article
Message-ID: <000c01c9b6ce$606882f0$213988d0$@com>

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/135162/bageant%3A_we%27ve_let_corporati
ons_and_media_rob_our_souls_--_it%27s_time_to_do_something_meaningful/

 

By Joe Bageant (Deer Hunting with Jesus author).

 

 


From lnp3 at panix.com  Mon Apr  6 09:47:37 2009
From: lnp3 at panix.com (Louis Proyect)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:47:37 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] article
In-Reply-To: <000c01c9b6ce$606882f0$213988d0$@com>
References: <000c01c9b6ce$606882f0$213988d0$@com>
Message-ID: <49DA2419.4050804@panix.com>

bkelly wrote:
> http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/135162/bageant%3A_we%27ve_let_corporati
> ons_and_media_rob_our_souls_--_it%27s_time_to_do_something_meaningful/
> 

This URL was not clickable. To make a URL clickable, enclose it in "<" 
and "/>" (if it already ends in with "/" as in this instance, just add 
">"), like so:

 
<http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/135162/bageant%3A_we%27ve_let_corporations_and_media_rob_our_souls_--_it%27s_time_to_do_something_meaningful/>


From kellyr818 at roadrunner.com  Mon Apr  6 09:50:13 2009
From: kellyr818 at roadrunner.com (bkelly)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:50:13 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] urls
Message-ID: <001101c9b6cf$60158b80$2040a280$@com>

"This URL was not clickable. To make a URL clickable, enclose it in "<" 

and "/>" (if it already ends in with "/" as in this instance, just add ">"),
like so:"

 

Will do. New to list, so thanks for tip.

 

Bob

 

 

 


From nmgoro at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 10:37:15 2009
From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:37:15 -0300
Subject: [Marxism] Actual data
In-Reply-To: <B5E7582A8B4E4DBEA82C3CF4C486CEBE@dmsthinkpad>
References: <49D97151.2010806@gmail.com>
	<B5E7582A8B4E4DBEA82C3CF4C486CEBE@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <49DA2FBB.4050907@gmail.com>

Yes, of course, you S. Artesian could have answered no other way. But 
would you consider yourself an average member of the USAmerican working 
classes? Come on, dear friend, come on...

S. Artesian escribi?:
> Just show's how ignorant you truly are, Nestor, as I was willing and even
> looked to exchange  my post [by which I


From jbustelo at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 10:41:30 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:41:30 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <e1d1857b0904051850s66f49bb7seaaad65b6fa7b12d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com><DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV><C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta><7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV><C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta><6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV><C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta><171650F28BB94FE49F692A6E59B0E495@dmsthinkpad><web-4860287@twum.lboro.ac.uk>
	<e1d1857b0904051850s66f49bb7seaaad65b6fa7b12d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A6AE9CF5F9C846B38999EC8904C594E8@albanta>

chegitz guevara raises a number of points worth commenting on:  

CG: <<Now, Juaquin raises the issue of modern "stuff" being better than
"stuff" from forty years ago, and this is undeniably true. Doesn't matter
though, as poverty is both relative and real. Some poor people today live
better than rich people did 3,000 years ago. Doesn't mean we shouldn't
consider them poor. Better, cheaper tvs doesn't mean that people are richer.
It means that what were once luxury items (like salt and pepper) are now
things that anyone can have.>>

COMMENT: My point is simply that the statement that wages have fallen 10%
over a period of 20 or 30 years is not a meaningful one, because the
implicit statement is that 8-tracks and iPods are interchangeable. That may
be true in some abstract sense of constant dollar equivalence, but for the
consumer it is not their exchange value but their use value which is
paramount. Thus the "deprivation" of the worker who with their wages can now
afford only one iPod whereas they use to be able to buy three 8-tracks is
likely to be perceived as progress by that person. Moreover, the very
difficult problem of quantification in exchange value of changes in the
quality of products over time, and changes in consumer purchasing patterns
in response to price changes, making the "basket" of goods used to measure
inflation outdated, means that a measurement like a 10% decline in wages
over 20 or 30 years is ALSO not meaningful in exchange-value terms, because
the cumulative error of the measuring instrument may be as great or greater
than the measured change. This is especially the case when the two big
issues that have been identified with this sort of index would tend to give
the index and upward bias, i.e., overstate inflation.

CG: <<Juaquin also raised the point that living in an imperialist country is
better than living in a developing nation (ceteris paribus). Leaving out
certain Indian reservations, the rural poor in America, and some poor in
certain American cities (Gary, Camden, etc), it's mostly true.
But if we extend that argument to its logical conclusion, then MIM (or it's
successor splinters) are correct, and for all intents and purposes, the
entire population of the imperialist world benefits from imperialism.>>

COMMENT: I don't know the MIM or how it construed the statement, "for all
intents and purposes, the entire population of the imperialist world
benefits from imperialism." This is largely true as working people compare
the situation of an average person in an imperialist country compared to
that of a person in the third world. If you move from a third world country
to an imperialist one, as a general rule you "benefit" in the sense of
getting a higher standard of living. 

CG: <<Of course, it ignores how much of America's wealth is
self-generated.>>

COMMENT: This, however, speaks to a different interpretation of "benefits,"
benefits in the sense of "exploits." I think THAT is a discussion about
morality. That said, I believe it is true that imperialist COUNTRIES AS
SUCH, as complex socio-economic formations, "benefit" (realize net economic
gains) from their economic relations with third world countries at the
expense of the latter. But this is Marxism of the purest water, directly
from Marx, as we will see in a minute.

CG: <<In truth, it's not a simple question, because despite the fact that
most trade in the U.S. is inter-imperialist trade, there is the question of
value added from products extracted from the Third World.
<<But Marxism 101 tells us that the products coming from the Third World are
valued by the socially necessary labor embodied in them, and while
monopolies certainly distort that value . . .
<<It's too complex a problem to be figured out in email threads. It's a PhD
project, analyzing all the threads of capital and figuring out exactly how
much imperialism contributes to living standards in the imperialist world.>>

COMMENT: It is NOT true that "products coming from the Third World are
valued by the socially necessary labor embodied in them," according to Marx.
On the contrary, Marx explains that trade between countries at different
levels of development is of necessity an unequal exchange. From Capital,
Chapter 22:

*  *  *

MARX: In every country there is a certain average intensity of labour below
which the labour for the production of a commodity requires more than the
socially necessary time, and therefore does not reckon as labour of normal
quality. Only a degree of intensity above the national average affects, in a
given country, the measure of value by the mere duration of the
working-time. This is not the case on the universal market, whose integral
parts are the individual countries. The average intensity of labour changes
from country to country; here it is greater, there less. These national
averages form a scale, whose unit of measure is the average unit of
universal labour. The more intense national labour, therefore, as compared
with the less intense, produces in the same time more value, which expresses
itself in more money. 

But the law of value in its international application is yet more modified
by the fact that on the world-market the more productive national labour
reckons also as the more intense, so long as the more productive nation is
not compelled by competition to lower the selling price of its commodities
to the level of their value. 

In proportion as capitalist production is developed in a country, in the
same proportion do the national intensity and productivity of labour there
rise above the international level. [2] The different quantities of
commodities of the same kind, produced in different countries in the same
working-time, have, therefore, unequal international values.

*  *  *

COMMENT: The key is this: "on the world-market the more productive national
labour reckons also as the more intense," and Marx had already noted that
"The more intense national labour, therefore, as compared with the less
intense, produces in the same time more value, which expresses itself in
more money." Also Marx is very clear in saying what is involved is relations
between NATIONS: After noting that expending more or less labour time than
the average in producing a given commodity does not change its value within
a country, he adds: "This is not the case on the universal market, whose
integral parts are the individual countries."

As can be seen from what Marx says, where two countries at different levels
of development are concerned, as a rule trade results in a net transfer of
value FROM the less developed to the more developed country. A similar point
is made in the Grundrisse, on the point "Theory of foreign trade. Two
nations may exchange according to the law of profit in such a way that both
gain, but one is always defrauded."

"From the possibility that profit may be less than surplus value, hence that
capital [may] exchange profitably without realizing itself in the strict
sense, it follows that not only individual capitalists, but also nations may
continually exchange with one another, may even continually repeat the
exchange on an ever-expanding scale, without for that reason necessarily
gaining in equal degrees. One of the nations may continually appropriate for
itself a part of the surplus labour of the other, giving back nothing for it
in the exchange, except that the measure here [is] not as in the exchange
between capitalist and worker." 

To this unequal exchange, you have to add rents of various kinds (the
"intellectual property" scam, for example), the whole usury racket, which is
closely intertwined with the advantages the U.S. realizes from its currency
being the main reserve and international trade currency (all the dollars
involved in international trade and in the reserves of central banks and
private parties abroad originated in the United States and got abroad by
being used to purchase something. Because those dollars remain abroad, the
U.S. has, in  effect, gotten something for nothing. And also the monopoly
pricing already mentioned by CG.

Joaquin



From marvgandall at videotron.ca  Mon Apr  6 10:39:18 2009
From: marvgandall at videotron.ca (Marv Gandall)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:39:18 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
References: <bde.41088ce6.370a76e3@aol.com>
	<BCFE2D00B60A4CB6B5463090FDD4EDAA@dmsthinkpad>
	<09237262860E4236AE885E0527D8D1B2@albanta>
Message-ID: <6C62F45D4B6948E7AFC4823C3906779B@MARV>

Joaquin writes:

> For the record, and so there is no ambiguity, I believe the US working
> class, and most of all its white component, are fools for failing to
> understand that they would be much better off acting as part of their
> class.
> Like duh...

But this can be said of the working class worldwide, which has not
recognized or acted in it's historic interests, as the classicial Marxists
fully expected it would. It has limited itself for the most part to the
fight for reforms under capitalism rather than overthrowing the system and
replacing it with socialized property forms and relations.

Different national components of the international working class developed a
revolutionary socialist consciousness while fighting militantly for reforms
at different times in their histories, but this has been true of workers in
BOTH the imperialist and oppressed nations. It's worth noting in this
context that the high tide of European working class militancy coincided
with the high tide of European imperialism, while the increasing reformism
of the European working class coincided with the decline of European
imperial power, which would appear to be the inverse of Joaquin's thesis
that imperialism provides the sole or primary material basis foir reformism.

Even the maligned US workers, including whites, can't be accused of acting
like "fools" all of the time - clearly not during the time of Debs, the IWW,
and the CIO when many understood they were "acting as part of their class."
By the same token, there have been long periods of political quiescence in
the colonial and semi-colonial world.

This is not to deny the immense transfers of wealth from the oppressed
nations to the imperialist RULING classes, but it is impossible to quantify
how much of this wealth has been passed on to the metropolitan working class
in the form of higher wages and social benefits, and how much improvement in
the workers' standard of living - and their consequent reformism - owes to
"endogenous" factors such as technological change resulting in higher
productivity, favourable conditions for economic growth resulting from
geography and climate, faster growth resulting from prior class struggles
between the landowning aristocracy and bourgeoisie, etc..

[...]

> How much does the U.S. benefit from its domination of the world as the top
> dog imperialist power? Consider this: The U.S. is spending three quarters
> of
> a trillion dollars a year on its military establishment, which is
> EXCLUSIVELY dedicated to projecting force to dominate other countries,
> since
> the U.S. "homeland" is in absolutely no military danger from anybody. "In
> 2007, US military spending was above 1/4 of combined industrial and
> agricultural production in the USA," says Wikipedia.

The US built up its armed forces in World War II against major powers like
Japan and Germany and subsequently expanded them further to contain the
Soviet Union and China. It doesn't need it's vast nuclear and conventional
arsenal to contain the limited anti-imperialist rebellions it periodically
now confronts in third world countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

There have been continuing pressures within the military and political
establishment to to redirect military spending towards lower-cost,
lower-intensity counter-insurgency war. But these pressures have been offset
by opposing ones from the defence industry, which has a huge stake in the
current level of spending on mammoth weapons systems. Until very recently,
the lure of the vast US market played a greater role in allowing it to
exercise imperial control than did it's military power.





From jbustelo at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 10:48:32 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:48:32 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class (Was YADL)
In-Reply-To: <3F934A8BA2574D738241457CAB7DB836@dmsthinkpad>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad><54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta><b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com><6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad><b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com><20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart><b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com><DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV><C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta><7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV><C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta><6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV><C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta><171650F28BB94FE49F692A6E59B0E495@dmsthinkpad><048279C8A83A499792D4784242B261BF@albanta>
	<3F934A8BA2574D738241457CAB7DB836@dmsthinkpad>
Message-ID: <F5799FFCA68046AD91A2B59002834845@albanta>

S Artesian: "And when people cite the price of coffee or sugar vs the price
of industrial goods, as if that discrepancy in price is the mechanism by
which super-profits are extracted and realized-- as if the "unequal
exchange"-- quotes intended because it is a notion that is so poorly
supported as JB's own post evidences-- of industrial for resource or
agricultural goods constitutes a significant portion of capital
accumulation--  well, it doesn't drive me up a whole-- it just proves that
they cannot find, cannot evaluation, cannot produce, anything to support
their contentions about wealth transfer."

On unequal exchange, please go here, paying special attention to paragraphs
two, three and four: 

<http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch22.htm> 

And also here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch17.htm#p872

And note there is a very bad typo in the MIA archive, which presents the
header as the nonsensical "No nations may exchange according to the law of
profit in such a way that both gain, but one is always defrauded" rather
than "Two nations may exchange..." as is correctly presented in the Index of
the MIA Grundrisse, and can be verified on this reproduction of the printed
page in Google books: 

<http://books.google.com/books?id=bDyemaqiZjUC&pg=RA1-PA872&lpg=RA1-PA872&dq
=No+nations+may+exchange+according+to+the+law+of+profit+in+such+a+way+that+b
oth+gain,+but+one+is+always+defrauded&source=bl&ots=wIzPurCXP-&sig=4gLkillPF
7qdyjQ6r9EihOMXeqQ&hl=en&ei=YCPaSeutHJOktweZx4nhDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=re
sult&resnum=1>

Joaquin



From jbustelo at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 10:52:02 2009
From: jbustelo at gmail.com (Joaquin Bustelo)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:52:02 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] Imperialism and the US working class
In-Reply-To: <87zleuqvr0.fsf@piracy.kokonino.net>
References: <COL112-W758465273C0F65235CC99AD78B0@phx.gbl><20090401171634.4e3d7d05@crashcart><239749.2858.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><20090401173407.7d703ab5@crashcart><1AC4EC8639A34090A5B230BCAC3C5293@dmsthinkpad><54F99143AD9249D8AF7891E0C06F0257@albanta><b16d8daf0904011857o596d1a08w320b9289b221cde@mail.gmail.com><6ACDE9FBA35F4775857BBB215266D223@dmsthinkpad><b16d8daf0904012101w61e16a0bv744f427fd7a2568@mail.gmail.com><20090402005026.737a2b25@crashcart><b16d8daf0904012313i4585c34du7eb653015707d572@mail.gmail.com><DED23FA5857449909F2B9F3456A11968@MARV><C0DAF4C602E94FDBBEAB1323CB8D5221@albanta><7F1114EF42074BB98723EAEEDC3B1BD2@MARV><C2C49F4C62444AE3B848E61B75CED519@albanta><6C7F0BC20ADB48B8A091D42CC76AE7FA@MARV><C4D4F5DBB61448DE949A60C46188A045@albanta><171650F28BB94FE49F692A6E59B0E495@dmsthinkpad><048279C8A83A499792D4784242B261BF@albanta>
	<87zleuqvr0.fsf@piracy.kokonino.net>
Message-ID: <6404E9B826DF499C9BAD9763EB54B2F1@albanta>

Craig says, "As a software developer, I would.  I would like my family to
move there too.  I think Argentina or Bolivia, or maybe Brazil, or Cuba, or
Venezuela."

So why don't you? 

And even if you do, do you think your one exception really disproves the
social phenomenon I was addressing?

Joaquin




From acpollack2 at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 11:08:00 2009
From: acpollack2 at gmail.com (Andrew Pollack)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:08:00 -0400
Subject: [Marxism] A New Way Forward (sic)
Message-ID: <2fa1449b0904061008w6a1982cepb68c581349298313@mail.gmail.com>

Would appreciate comments on anewwayforward.org, a dangerous and
apparently increasingly popular effort to resurrect trustbusting to
deal with the banks. They propose to break them up into smaller but
still private banks.
References to Marxist critiques of past such efforts would be good too.
Andy Pollack


From giobon at comcast.net  Mon Apr  6 11:17:37 2009
From: giobon at comcast.net (Bonnie Weinstein)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:17:37 -0700
Subject: [Marxism] Ward Churchill Redux
In-Reply-To: <49D941CA.4090504@greenleft.org.au>
References: <49D941CA.4090504@greenleft.org.au>
Message-ID: <9502B50E-5247-467D-9304-36956B510959@comcast.net>


Ward Churchill Redux
April 5, 2009, 10:00 pm
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/ward-churchill-redux/

Last Thursday, a jury in Denver ruled that the termination of  
activist-teacher Ward Churchill by the University of Colorado had  
been wrongful (a term of art) even though a committee of his faculty  
peers had found him guilty of a variety of sins.

The verdict did not surprise me because I had read the committee?s  
report and found it less an indictment of Churchill than an example  
of a perfectly ordinary squabble about research methods and the  
handling of evidence. The accusations that fill its pages are the  
kind scholars regularly hurl at their polemical opponents. It?s part  
of the game. But in most cases, after you?ve trashed the guy?s work  
in a book or a review, you don?t get to fire him. Which is good,  
because if the standards for dismissal adopted by the Churchill  
committee were generally in force, hardly any of us professors would  
have jobs.

At least two reviewers of my 2001 book ?How Milton Works? declared  
that my reading of ?Paradise Lost? rests on an unproven assumption  
that Milton repeatedly and designedly punned on the homonyms  
?raised? (elevated), ?razed? (destroyed) and ?rased? (erased). I was  
accused of having fabricated these puns out of thin air and of  
building on the fabrication an interpretive house of cards that fell  
apart at the slightest touch of rationality and evidence.

I use the criticism of my own work as an example because to talk  
about the many others who have been accused of incompetence,  
ignorance, falsification, plagiarism and worse would be bad form. And  
it wouldn?t prove anything much except that when academics assess one  
another they routinely say things like, ?Professor A obviously has  
not read the primary sources?; ?Professor B draws conclusions the  
evidence does not support?; ?Professor C engages in fanciful  
speculations and then pretends to build a solid case; he?s just  
making it up?; ?Professor D does not acknowledge that he stole his  
argument from Professor E who was his teacher (or his student).?

The scholars who are the objects of these strictures do not seem to  
suffer much on account of them, in part because they can almost  
always point to positive reviews on the other side, in part because  
harsh and even scabrous judgments are understood to be more or less  
par for the course. And I won?t even go into the roster of big-time  
historians who in recent years have been charged with (and in some  
instances confessed to) plagiarism, distortion and downright lying.  
With the exception of one, these academic malfeasants are still  
plying their trades, receiving awards and even pontificating on  
television.

Why, given these examples of crimes or errors apparen