Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marxism the Jewish Question: Selected Bibliography
Thanks. I got some main ideas out of a cursory scan of this article, but I'm confused at other points. Also, I didn't follow the historical exposition too closely. If I could read this is a bone fide English translation I'd do better. I'll just note the points that leapt out at me. 1. The author counterposes pseudo-materialist interpretations to idealist-culturalist conceptions, suggesting that both must be transcended. On the face of it I agree. I am uncertain about what his final view is, though. 2. He singles out Abram Leon as having the most sophisticated historical explanation, dissenting however from the notion of a people-class. 3. The quotation from Rosa Luxemburg reveals an underdeveloped aspect of Marxism, not only on the Jewish question, but on national questions generally. Without unpacking Luxemburg's meaning, it seems incredibly obtuse. 4. The author correctly points out that Marx's article on the Jewish Question is not entirely Marxist but marks a turning point in the break from Hegelianism. Furthermore, he claims: Après Marx, les marxistes, à quelques exceptions près (dont Trotsky durant les années 30), n'ont pas analysé de façon exhaustive et profonde cette base séculière réelle. [After Marx, the Marxists, with few exceptions (including Trotsky during the 30s) have not exhaustively analyzed this deep and genuine secular basis.] And of course he goes on to elaborate on this secular basis. But I want to point out something about Marx's essay. It is purely schematic in its contrast and positing of the relationship between the Sabbath and secular Jew, because in actuality, aside from not taking the trouble to describe the secular Jew in other than generalized stereotypical terms, Marx simply states that the Sabbath Jew is an illusory self-image of the Jew, contrasted with the real Jew, but without actually relating the material basis of Jewish existence to the form of consciousness known as Judaism, so as such fails to account at all for this religious illusion in the past or in the present, and most importantly its persistence from one epoch to a radically different ones. 5. The author does at some point relate the Old Testament as a form of consciousness to the material existence of the Jews in antiquity, and later, I think, but I do not understand this exposition. At 04:08 PM 11/16/2009, yves coleman wrote: http://www.mondialisme.org/spip.php?article1315 Here you will find many texts about the socalled Jewish question but in French, translated from English, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. Specifically about your subject maybe you will find of interest the text of Savas Michael-Matsas a Greek marxist (trotskyist) which has an original point of view, even if I strongly disagree with his political views on Israel today. You also have a book of Arlene Clemesha (a Brazilian Marxist) but in portuguese ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marxism the Jewish Question: Selected Bibliography
Dear Ralph, you can write to Savas ( e...@ath.forthnet.gr ) and arlene clemesha ( aec...@hotmail.com ) to know if the first has an English version of his article and the second an English version of her book, or an article in English related to your research. I have never met them but they know me because I have translated articles from them for the journal Ni patrie ni frontières. So you can quote my name... The Jewish Question has been recently republished with articles and prefaces notably for the Trotskyist philosopher and 4th international leader Daniel Bensaid but they are in French, as far as I know. Enzo Traverso has extensively written on the Jewish question and I see that some of his books are translated in English but I cant remember if he has explicitly written about the Jewish Question of Marx. I'll check Will look if I find any interesting things in French about your subject. Yours Yves Le 17/11/09 11:53, « Ralph Dumain » rdum...@autodidactproject.org a écrit : Thanks. I got some main ideas out of a cursory scan of this article, but I'm confused at other points. Also, I didn't follow the historical exposition too closely. If I could read this is a bone fide English translation I'd do better. I'll just note the points that leapt out at me. 1. The author counterposes pseudo-materialist interpretations to idealist-culturalist conceptions, suggesting that both must be transcended. On the face of it I agree. I am uncertain about what his final view is, though. 2. He singles out Abram Leon as having the most sophisticated historical explanation, dissenting however from the notion of a people-class. 3. The quotation from Rosa Luxemburg reveals an underdeveloped aspect of Marxism, not only on the Jewish question, but on national questions generally. Without unpacking Luxemburg's meaning, it seems incredibly obtuse. 4. The author correctly points out that Marx's article on the Jewish Question is not entirely Marxist but marks a turning point in the break from Hegelianism. Furthermore, he claims: Après Marx, les marxistes, à quelques exceptions près (dont Trotsky durant les années 30), n'ont pas analysé de façon exhaustive et profonde cette base séculière réelle. [After Marx, the Marxists, with few exceptions (including Trotsky during the 30s) have not exhaustively analyzed this deep and genuine secular basis.] And of course he goes on to elaborate on this secular basis. But I want to point out something about Marx's essay. It is purely schematic in its contrast and positing of the relationship between the Sabbath and secular Jew, because in actuality, aside from not taking the trouble to describe the secular Jew in other than generalized stereotypical terms, Marx simply states that the Sabbath Jew is an illusory self-image of the Jew, contrasted with the real Jew, but without actually relating the material basis of Jewish existence to the form of consciousness known as Judaism, so as such fails to account at all for this religious illusion in the past or in the present, and most importantly its persistence from one epoch to a radically different ones. 5. The author does at some point relate the Old Testament as a form of consciousness to the material existence of the Jews in antiquity, and later, I think, but I do not understand this exposition. At 04:08 PM 11/16/2009, yves coleman wrote: http://www.mondialisme.org/spip.php?article1315 Here you will find many texts about the socalled Jewish question but in French, translated from English, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. Specifically about your subject maybe you will find of interest the text of Savas Michael-Matsas a Greek marxist (trotskyist) which has an original point of view, even if I strongly disagree with his political views on Israel today. You also have a book of Arlene Clemesha (a Brazilian Marxist) but in portuguese ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Baraka on Barack
Baraka is and has always been a first class political asshole. How ironic that an erstwhile petty bourgeois bohemian turned anti-Semitic black nationalist turned Maoist jackass--i.e. a lifelong romantic pseudo-revolutionary--should now turn on people just like him and engage in all kinds of slander in support of Obama. I think many leftist positions are empty gestures. Cynthia McKinney's candidacy was more a waste of time even than Nader's--and mentally retarded with her vice presidential running mate--and being a refusenik regarding Obama is also an empty gesture. However, one does not have to lie in order to vote for Obama as one's best option in unfavorable circumstances. But the dishonesty and self-delusion surrounding the support of Obama was and remains over the top. I am not scandalized because a bourgeois politician is a bourgeois politician, as that is to be expected. To get huffy over that alone is a waste of time. It's the specific duplicity embedded in our historical moment and Obama's rhetoric which was dishonest from the beginning, and vacuous compared to the cold war liberals of the past who actually intended to deliver for the labor movement and even civil rights all the while reinforcing the power of capital and empire. That anyone could actually take Obama seriously is an indicator of how right-wing this country actually has become, that it has lost all political perspective. Baraka's position as such is irrelevant. Anyone could argue against various futile gestures of the left. The essential thing is to recognize how worthless Baraka is and has always been. At 10:54 AM 9/9/2008, yves coleman wrote: I think people can vote for whoever they want...but I don't want to hear their complains about the negative results of their votes afterwards ! Are Realpolitik and pushing Party X or Mr Y to do something they will never do, are these tactics worth the trial ? The problem as usual is the impotence, small size and small influence of the Revolutionary Left everywhere. Some people think there are shortcuts and they have THE solution. They are wiser and they will fool the capitalist class. Well let's see the historical results of their shortcuts. These shortcuts have been practiced for more than a century with no results whatsover anywhere. The idea that if we dont chose the lesser evil the worse evil may win is not new on the political field. It's the argument the Stalinists and Social democrats use at every election in France. It's an eternal problem for any revolutionary party or group who is not big enough on the electoral ground to make any difference. With this kind of reasoning, I should have voted Mitterrand against Giscard in 1981, and for the SP candidate in the following elections, and Chirac against Le Pen. Or to take a more dramatic example I shoud have voted for the German Communist Party against Hitler as Baraka likes to use antifascist metaphors. Or I should have entered the French CP dominated resistance and help them have a strike-breaking policy after defeating fascism with the major help of American imperialism. And if I was in Venezuela I would today support Chavez against its most reactionary opponents. In Cuba I would support Castro, etc. And in imperialist Israel I would support the Hamas. If an individual wants to make these choices, I can only tell him don't complain about the results and stop presenting your indivual choice as the most sophisticated revolutionary tactics. You dont think it's worth fighting for revolutionary politics, that's fine. But dont accuse me to be an agent of imperialism, fascism, racism, etc. if I choose another option. If a political group who claims to have an original and specific view about history, class struggle, imperialism, socialism, etc. supports actively this kind of position, I can only say this group should enter the party it is supporting: enter the Socialist party in France, the Venezuelan party in Venezuela, the Hamas in Palestine, the Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Baas in Irak, the CCP Party in Cuba, the Democratic Party in the USA, the Talibans in Afghanistan, etc. Actually that's what many leftists have done in the past and are doing or supporting. Have they ever succeeded to pushthese parties or movements to the Left ? Not until now. Can one can dream they will succeed this time ? I have strong doubts about it. Real Politik has a heavy price both in international politics and in domestic politics. The interesting question for me is rather : why is Baraka so desperate to pay this price ? That's a more interesting question than debating about if one should vote or not for Obama (1). Generally when political people make these choices, they have a whole reasoning in mind, hidden practical ambitions, or illusions the situation may radically change, etc. That's at least what I have always seen in discussions inside the Left from the leftists who supported the NLF or the Cultural Revolution and
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Re: Baraka on Barack
My apologies. I responded to a post over a year old, and so my response has no current relevance. I should have paid attention to the date. I don't think much of Baraka, though, as a poet or as a radical. Sometimes he hits the mark, but mostly he is a fool. I've seen him many times over the years in several cities. He's at his worst when engaging people in conversation, if that's what you want to call his interactions with others. He seems to be incapable of listening. And he is as politically irresponsible as anyone on the ultraleft. I remember one particularly disgusting debate with Paul Robeson Jr. in New York, which also involved black audience members insulting Robeson in the crassest possible manner. Now I think that both of them are sad cases, Robeson the more tragic one. Of all the times I saw Robeson discussing current events, I was embarrassed for him each time, since he never uttered anything but rubbish. He is exactly the opposite of the ultraleftist, constantly debasing himself as a booster of the flavor of the day, be it Jesse Jackson, David Dinkins, Mikhail Gorbachev, Bill Clinton . . . it's sad and sickening. I also remember Robeson Jr. sharply criticizing Baraka's irresponsible posturing. So as I said, what a turnaround for Baraka to lecture the left for not supporting Obama. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Baraka on Barack ( old post and topic)
At 10:54 AM 9/9/2008, yves coleman wrote: I think people can vote for whoever they want...but I don't want to hear their complains about the negative results of their votes afterwards ! Are Realpolitik and pushing Party X or Mr Y to do something they will never do, are these tactics worth the trial ? The problem as usual is the impotence, small size and small influence of the Revolutionary Left everywhere. Some people think there are shortcuts and they have THE solution. They are wiser and they will fool the capitalist class. Well let's see the historical results of their shortcuts. These shortcuts have been practiced for more than a century with no results whatsover anywhere. The idea that if we dont chose the lesser evil the worse evil may win is not new on the political field. It's the argument the Stalinists and Social democrats use at every election in France. It's an eternal problem for any revolutionary party or group who is not big enough on the electoral ground to make any difference. With this kind of reasoning, I should have voted Mitterrand against Giscard in 1981, and for the SP candidate in the following elections, and Chirac against Le Pen. Or to take a more dramatic example I shoud have voted for the German Communist Party against Hitler as Baraka likes to use antifascist metaphors. ^^^ CB: Ok this is an old post and an old topic from 1932, but you are saying one shouldn't have voted for the German CP against Hitler !!! ^ Or I should have entered the French CP dominated resistance and help them have a strike-breaking policy after defeating fascism with the major help of American imperialism. And if I was in Venezuela I would today support Chavez against its most reactionary opponents. In Cuba I would support Castro, etc. And in imperialist Israel I would support the Hamas. CB: Who _do_ you support ? ^^^ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] post-Fordism and geographical scattering of the points of production
Oddly enough in this post-Fordist era , Ford has a bit of a turnaround from disater. And afterall, even Wall Street went broke these days CB http://www.ford.com/about-ford/news-announcements/press-releases/press-releases-detail/pr-ford-posts-third-quarter-2009-net-31244 FORD POSTS Q3 2009 NET INCOME OF $1 BILLION; CASH FLOW TURNS POSITIVE; NORTH AMERICA PROFITABLE Print | Email this page | Subscribe Reported net income of $997 million, or 29 cents per share, an improvement of $1.2 billion from the third quarter of 2008. Pre-tax operating profit totaled $1.1 billion, an improvement of $3.9 billion from a year ago. It is Ford’s first pre-tax operating profit since the first quarter of 2008 Ford North America posted a pre-tax operating profit of $357 million, its first profitable quarter since the first quarter of 2005 Reduced Automotive structural costs by $1 billion, bringing the total reduction to $4.6 billion through the first nine months of 2009, and exceeding the full-year target of $4 billion A strong product lineup drove market share gains in North America, South America and Europe as well as continued improvements in transaction prices and margins Ended the quarter with $23.8 billion of Automotive gross cash, up $2.8 billion from the end of second quarter 2009++ Achieved positive Automotive operating-related cash flow of $1.3 billion for the third quarter, a $2.3 billion improvement over the second quarter Ford Credit reported a pre-tax operating profit of $677 million, a $516 million improvement from a year ago Ford now expects to be solidly profitable in 2011, excluding special items, with positive operating-related cash flow Financial Results Summary Third Quarter First Nine Months 2009 O/(U) 2008 2009 O/(U) 2008 Wholesales (000)+ 1,232 57 3,377 (891) Revenue (Bils.) + $ 30.9 $ (0.8) $ 82.9 $ (26.2) Operating Results + Automotive Results (Mils.) $446 $ 3,385 $ (2,493) $523 Financial Services (Mils.) 661 502 1,194 1,305 Pre-Tax Results (Mils.) $ 1,107 $3,887 $ (1,299) $1,828 After-Tax Results (Mils.)+++ $873 $ 3,882 $ (1,557) $ 2,381 Earnings Per Share +++ $ 0.26 $ 1.58 $ (0.54) $ 1.22 Special Items Pre-Tax (Mils.) $108 $ (2,099) $ 3,265 $ 9,484 Net Income/(Loss) Attributable to Ford After-Tax Results (Mils.) $997 $ 1,158 $ 1,831 $ 10,619 Earnings Per Share $ 0.29 $ 0.36 $ 0.61 $ 4.55 Automotive Gross Cash (Bils.) ++ $ 23.8 $ 4.9 $ 23.8 $ 4.9 See end notes on page 10. DEARBORN, Mich., Nov. 2, 2009 – Ford Motor Company [NYSE: F] today reported net income of $997 million, or 29 cents per share, in the third quarter as strong new products, structural cost reductions and improved results at Ford Credit lifted the company’s results despite continued weak global economic conditions. This is a $1.2 billion improvement compared with the same period last year. Excluding special items, Ford posted pre-tax operating profits totaling $1.1 billion, an improvement of $3.9 billion from a year ago. This marks the company’s first operating profit since the first quarter of 2008. On an after-tax basis, excluding special items, Ford posted an operating profit of $873 million in the third quarter, or 26 cents per share, compared with a loss of $3 billion, or $1.32 per share, a year ago. Ford’s North American operations posted a pre-tax operating profit of $357 million, its first quarterly profit since the first quarter of 2005. Ford South America, Ford Europe and Ford Asia Pacific Africa also posted pre-tax operating profits in the third quarter. “Our third quarter results clearly show that Ford is making tremendous progress despite the prolonged slump in the global economy,” said Ford President and CEO Alan Mulally. “Our solid product lineup is leading the way in all markets. While we still face a challenging road ahead, our One Ford transformation plan is working and our underlying business continues to grow stronger.” Ford’s third quarter revenue was $30.9 billion, down $800 million from the same period a year ago. Automotive revenue is up $100 million from a year ago. This improvement was offset by a decrease in Ford Credit’s revenue reflecting a decline in receivables. Ford reduced its Automotive structural costs by $1 billion in the quarter, largely driven by lower manufacturing and engineering costs, which included benefits from improved productivity, personnel reduction actions primarily in North America and Europe, and progress on implementing its common global platforms and product development processes. Through the first nine months, Ford has achieved $4.6 billion in Automotive structural cost reductions, exceeding its
[Marxism-Thaxis] YESTERDAY
9 texts shared and 17 discussions started yesterday --- A-day-when-nothing-is-certain by Anarchist Various http://a.rg.org/text/6021/day-when-nothing-certain This is a collection of some of the best writings to come out of the Greek insurrections. A Feminine Cinematics Luce Irigaray, Women and Film by Caroline Bainbridge http://a.rg.org/text/6022/feminine-cinematics-luce-irigaray-women-and-film This book takes as its starting point an engagement with recent work done in film theory on the question of gender and spectatorship Four Dissertations by David Hume http://a.rg.org/text/6023/four-dissertations The Natural History of Religion; Of the Passion; Of Tragedy; Of the Standard of Taste The Gesture of Writing by Vilém Flusser http://a.rg.org/text/6025/gesture-writing A review on how the actual act and gesture of writing works. In relation to thoughts and manifestation of thoughts. The Indivisible Remainder by Slavoj Zizek http://a.rg.org/text/6029/indivisible-remainder on F.W.J. Schelling, 248 p., 1996 Objectivity relativism and truth by Richard Rorty http://a.rg.org/text/6030/objectivity-relativism-and-truth book Philosophy as Cultural Politics by Richard Rorty http://a.rg.org/text/6031/philosophy-cultural-politics book Derrida on Time by Joanna Hodge http://a.rg.org/text/6032/derrida-time book Сontingency, Irony, and Solidarity by Richard Rorty http://a.rg.org/text/6038/%D1%81ontingency-irony-and-solidarity Book - Request: Donna Haraway, Primate Visions http://a.rg.org/discussion/6018/request-donna-haraway-primate-visions If Anyone happened to have a copy, I'd be eternally grateful. Thanks. REQUEST: The German IssueSEMIOTEXT(E) http://a.rg.org/discussion/6019/request-german-issuesemiotexte Does anyone have The German Issue from the journalSEMIOTEX! T(E) The German Issue (1982) was originally conceived as a follow-up to Semiotext(e)'s Autonomia/Italy issue, published two years ... request: The Architecture of the City , Aldo Rossi, 1984 http://a.rg.org/discussion/6020/request-architecture-city-aldo-rossi-1984 Mennell, Stephen. Norbert Elias : Civilization And The Human Self-Image. Oxford, Blackwell, 1989 http://a.rg.org/discussion/6024/mennell-stephen-norbert-elias-civilization-and-human-self-image-oxford-blackwell-198 Request: Derrida on Time, Johanna Hodge http://a.rg.org/discussion/6026/request-derrida-time-johanna-hodge This is only in hardcover and always check-out. would be so grateful if anyone has this... thanks! REQUEST: Objectivity, Relativism and Truth, Richard Rorty http://a.rg.org/discussion/6027/request-objectivity-relativism-and-truth-richard-rorty REQUEST: Loic Wacquant's Body and Soul - at least the intro and ch. 1 http://a.rg.org/discussion/6028/request-loic-wacquants-body-and-soul-least-intro-and-ch-1 many thanks! REQUEST: Digital Tectonics, by Neil Leach http://a.rg.org/discussion/6033/request-digital-tectonics-neil-leach Digital Tectonics, Neil Leach (editor), Wiley Publishing, 2004. REQUEST: Cinesexuality by Patricia MacCormack, 2008 http://a.rg.org/discussion/6034/request-cinesexuality-patricia-maccormack-2008 Thank you very in advance... :-) Request: Deleuze and Guattari: critical assessments of leading philosophers http://a.rg.org/discussion/6035/request-deleuze-and-guattari-critical-assessments-leading-philosophers I was wondering whether anyone has a copy of this? It is really expensive to buy but a cornucopia of DG articles. Request: Hannula, Suoranta, Vaden: Artistic Research http://a.rg.org/discussion/6036/request-hannula-suoranta-vaden-artistic-research I can't find this anywhere: Mika Hannula, Juha Suoranta, Tere Vaden. Artistic Research - Theories, Methods and Practices isbn 951-53-2743-1 request Contra the Slovenians: Returning to Lacan and away from Hegel http://a.rg.org/discussion/6039/request-contra-slovenians-returning-lacan-and-away-hegel Noah Horwitz, Philosophy Today, Spring 2005, pp. 24-32 thanks in advance REQUEST: Theodor Adorno (Routledge Critical Thinkers) by Ross Wilson http://a.rg.org/discussion/6040/request-theodor-adorno-routledge-critical-thinkers-ross-wilson Thank you very much in advance! :-) REQUEST: Graham Harman: Guerilla Metaphysics http://a.rg.org/discussion/6041/request-graham-harman-guerilla-metaphysics REQUEST: Dominic Fox: Cold World http://a.rg.org/discussion/6042/request-dominic-fox-cold-world REQUEST: Geert Lovink - 'Dark Fiber' http://a.rg.org/discussio n/6043/request-geert-lovink-dark-fiber REQUEST http://a.rg.org/discussion/6044/request Pierre Legrand : Derrida and Law; Ashgate Pub Co, 2009 ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Reading “Capital”
http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/reading-capital.htm Shortly after Marx’s death, Jevon’s theory of marginal utility gained wide popularity and according to Engels: “[The poor state of political economy in England] is the fault of [Marx], to a great extent; he has taught people to see the dangerous consequences of classical economy; they find that no science at all, on this field at least, is the safe side of the question. And they have so well succeeded in blinding the ordinary philistine, that there are at the present moment four people in London, calling themselves ‘Socialist’ who claim to have refuted our author completely by opposing to his theory that of - Stanley Jevons!” (Engels to Danielson, 15 October 1888) So this brings us to the question of when is a theory just ideology and apologia, class interests masquerading as science, and how do we know when there is science beneath the shell of ideology. The first theory of the origin of surplus value was Merchantilism, which claimed that profit arose in the sphere of exchange, that is, merchants created wealth by selling things at more than they paid for them. Unsurprisingly, the founders of Merchantilism were traders involved with the East India Company. Next came the Physiocrats who claimed that the soil was the sole source of value. In eighteenth century France, this theory made abundant sense, especially for landowners: the peasants produced more than they needed for their own subsistence, and the rest of the economy operated by circulating that surplus. Unsurprisingly again, the founder of Physiocracy, Quesnay, was himself a landowner. Nowadays, the idea that capital is the source of value, institutionalised in the going rate of interest on savings, appears to be an irrefutable fact; no-one who wants to get rich works. So, we can understand how the idea of “socially necessary labour” as the substance of value, and surplus value arising from the exploitation of wage-labour have a clear ideological function in the formation of the proletariat as a class for itself. Conversely, attacks on the labour theory of value will be seen as attacks on the workers movement. In other words, all theories of the measure of value and source of surplus value have directly reflected a particular class standpoint. Marx’s British followers reacted to the Marginalist attacks on Marx accordingly, and a theory Jevons had about sun spots being the cause of the business cycle provided a fine opportunity to subject him and his theories to ridicule. The marginal theory is after all little more than a development of the supply-and-demand theory which Marx shows to be relevant only to short-term surface phenomena, and unable to explain, for example, why a car is worth more than a diamond. But historians of economic theory talk about the Marginalist Revolution because in the 1860s Jevons, Manger and Walras introduced quite new methods which transformed economic theory and we have to ask whether it is feasible to dismiss the whole of modern economic theory as a ‘variation on supply-and-demand’ even though it has its roots in this idea. However imperfectly, modern macro-economics deals with economic wholes. Can we rest on the claim that everything after Ricardo was ideology? The only writer I know who has taken a genuinely critical stance towards modern economic theory is Luc Boltanski and his collaborator Eve Chiapello. These writers have made a deep critique of the management literature of the 1980s especially, relating it to the demands of the movements of 1968. Boltanski shows that radical criticism of capitalism is often reflected in subsequent changes in the practices of the ruling class, something by no means limited to the generation of ‘68. Transparently ‘political’ issues are to be found all through the pages of Capital which bristles with ethical language. For example, the concept of necessary and surplus labour, surplus labour being labour performed over and above what the worker is paid for their sustenance, and appropriated without payment. For example, the proof, taken over from Smith, that other things being equal, the labour market will force wages down to the socially necessary minimum level needed to keep them alive and raise the next generation of workers, and that workers can gain wage rises by industrial action, without losing the value of their pay rise through inflation, but on the contrary increasing the workers’ share of the total product. The idea of dividing up capital between constant (goods and services purchased off other capitalists and consumed in production) and variable (wages) and surplus value (lumping rent, interest and corporate largesse in with profits) and then measuring this over the cycle of turnover of capital rather than per annum, just makes no sense within the business of profit-making, but makes abundant sense from the standpoint of the workers. In other words, I think there is plenty of evidence that Harry Cleaver’s claim
[Marxism-Thaxis] Reading “Capital”
http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/reading-capital.htm Political economy is the system of thought forms within which people live by producing and exchanging commodities, and Capital demonstrated this – the whole universe of sweat-shops, insurance companies, industrial corporations, multimillionaires, famines and wars flows from commodity production. Within such a world, in the main, the concepts of political economy are valid to the extent that they are connected with practice rather than apologetic “Just So” myths. The struggle against capitalism is therefore the struggle against that world of a particular kind of inverted consciousness, one in which social relations between people take the form of relations between things. But in a letter to Kugelmann on 28 December 1862, Marx says of the soon-to-be-published book: “It is a sequel to Part I, but will appear on its own under the title, Capital, with A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy as merely the subtitle.” Marx worked hard to get the book noticed and criticised by the professional economists of his day, and clearly wanted to engage them in debate. In the letter to Kugelmann of 11 July 1868, he says: “... it shows the depth of degradation reached by these priests of the bourgeoisie: while workers and even manufacturers and merchants have understood my book and made sense of it, these ‘learned scribes’ (!) complain that I make excessive demands on their comprehension.” And while he was most interested in getting it to workers, criticising Lassalle for not working harder to encourage workers to read it, he certainly aimed at taking his fight into the recognised scientific circles. He believed (and with good reason) that his work engaged in a meaningful way with mainstream economic theory; it did not live in a parallel universe. Marx complained that he was being met with a conspiracy of silence, but history shows that Capital did get the recognition it deserved, and Capital haunts bourgeois economics to this day, like the ghost of its dead father. The point is that prices, profits, rents and so on are, in Marx’s scheme of things, merely surface appearances, like the froth and bubbles on the surface of the ocean, the forms of which tell us little about the main business of tidal shifts and melting ice-packs. Marx begins with the concept of bourgeois society and moves to more and more concrete concepts, that is to say, he reconstructs the concrete, the appearances, in scientific terms. In such an approach the effect of a drought in Australia on mortgage rates in the US, and so on, belong somewhere in Volume XX. They are not excluded, but it is the dynamics of class relations which are fundamental and central. So in summary, Capital remains an unfinished work and it seems unlikely that the job of finishing it to the point where it could provide a superior tool for management of government or corporate economic affairs will ever be completed, were it to remain the work of an isolated individual. Basically it is a practical task. With the partial exception of Boltanski, the theoretical work of critiquing political economy seems to have died with Marx. So far as I know, none of the “Marxist Economists” have critiqued the theory of marginal utility beyond denouncing it as an ideological apology aimed at discrediting Marx and demobilizing the workers’ movement (all of which may well be true, by the way). There have been a plethora of new economic forms of activity since 1883. Marx never knew Taylorism, which completely transformed work practices, the social division of labour and the composition of the working class. He never knew Fordism, which completely transformed the form of exploitation, the concept of a living wage, and the nature of working-class communities; he never knew the welfare state with its system of universal state-provided benefits, or Toyota-ism and its appropriation of worker cooperation for the benefit of capital, or the practices of franchising, out-sourcing, the practice of part-time working, and the export of manufacture to non-union industrial zones in far-off countries, or the inflow of economic migrants to the former colonial centres. All these represent transformations in political economy, not anticipated in Capital. Just one example: in Marx’s day, workers were basically locked in a large building to work under their own supervision for as long as the capitalist could force them to using the weapon of keeping wages at near-starvation level. This way of thinking is directly reflected in the categories of Capital because that’s how capital worked. But this is no longer the case in the countries where capital predominates. So those who read Capital to learn Marx’s “method” have a point. Even some very fundamental features of Capital may no longer be relevant. And what is more, it is fair to suppose that later development in the activity of capital must, in some sense at least, come closer to the essence, the
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Baraka on Barack ( old post and topic)
When I responded to your recent posts, I found this old post sitting right next to it in alphabetical order in my in box. I should have been more attentive, but this is what sleep deprivation does to a person: you just keep going on semiautomatic pilot. The Obama presidency is already dead in the water, and I'm not so much interested in debating the Middle East. My interest in the Jewish question, for example, is mostly historical, but I find it remains such a hot issue that I can't say anything at all about the Jews in any capacity without others immediately connecting it to Israel and denouncing me as a Zionist, though I've never written a single word in support of Israel of any of its policies, and I'm generally interested in questions unconnected to the Middle East. I'm not so much interested in making a political intervention as cleaning up the polluted rhetoric that effectively detracts from clarification and intelligent intervention, and I'm only interested in doing that because of the filth I'm constantly exposed to on the Internet even while minding my own business. However, as I've insisted, the politics of desperation and spectatorship are symptomatic of the moribund state of the left, if not everywhere in the world, anywhere I've had contact with people. And there's another point I made some time ago that didn't get noticed. It's quite one thing for people in the region to take extreme positions out of desperation, or to confront the problem concretely without taking on a more sophisticated perspective. It's quite another for spectators a half world away with no particular connection to the Middle East acting like rabid dogs. On the contrary, it's just because of the distance that political spectators--who may also double as useless activists--from the scene of the carnage, need to be exercise greater clarity in their grasp of the historical logic of the situation and in their agitprop. But just the opposite is happening. Secondly, there's the question of the corruption of young minds being recruited into radicalism by sectarian organizations. I'm not proud of what I was thinking as a teenager, and I see 20-year olds now, gung ho fresh converts to radicalism, adopting the most awful sound bite approaches to political problems, worst of all the impossible politics of the Middle East, without any background of historical depth or personal life experience. It's all the politics of empty gesture. What does it in fact mean to support anyone long distance? What is the significance of taking a position? It's child's play who decide to be against, but who is there there to be for? The degeneration of politics, including oppositional politics, makes it increasingly impossible to simply take a position backing any particularly political player? If there's anything worse than secular nationalism, it's religious nationalism. If there's anything worse than bourgeois politics with a democratic face, it's outright fascist politics. Who then is there to back, especially from thousands of miles away? I don't trust the left to do anything competently. Pointless floundering is its stock-in-trade. At 08:54 AM 11/17/2009, yves coleman wrote: I dont know why this old post comes up now, a year later after it was posted ! To answer your questions. I dont know what I would do if I was an isolated individual who wanted to do something in an unfavorable situation both for me and for the working class historically. The decision would depend on many specific factors I cant list here and which would be more related to fiction than to reality. If I was in a position to form a group or to join a group defending class positions I would not loose my time in Stalinist (German CP) or nationalist-antisemtic (Hamas) or third wordist groups (Chavez party). As regards the Hamas, I would not even try because they would probably kill me given my opposition both to religion, clerical fascism and antisemitism. And if I was living in Venezuela today (which I did many years ago) I would knock on the door of El Libertario and see if their acts correspond to their nice words... And then decide. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Baraka on Barack ( old post and topic)
On 11/17/09, Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org wrote: When I responded to your recent posts, I found this old post sitting right next to it in alphabetical order in my in box. I should have been more attentive, but this is what sleep deprivation does to a person: you just keep going on semiautomatic pilot. The Obama presidency is already dead in the water, and I'm not so much interested in debating the Middle East. My interest in the Jewish question, for example, is mostly historical, but I find it remains such a hot issue that I can't say anything at all about the Jews in any capacity without others immediately connecting it to Israel and denouncing me as a Zionist, though I've never written a single word in support of Israel of any of its policies, and I'm generally interested in questions unconnected to the Middle East. I'm not so much interested in making a political intervention as cleaning up the polluted rhetoric that effectively detracts from clarification and intelligent intervention, and I'm only interested in doing that because of the filth I'm constantly exposed to on the Internet even while minding my own business. However, as I've insisted, the politics of desperation and spectatorship are symptomatic of the moribund state of the left, if not everywhere in the world, anywhere I've had contact with people. And there's another point I made some time ago that didn't get noticed. It's quite one thing for people in the region to take extreme positions out of desperation, or to confront the problem concretely without taking on a more sophisticated perspective. It's quite another for spectators a half world away with no particular connection to the Middle East acting like rabid dogs. ^ CB: Somebody told me the other day that half the Israeli army has duel Israeli-US citizenship (?) ^ On the contrary, it's just because of the distance that political spectators--who may also double as useless activists--from the scene of the carnage, need to be exercise greater clarity in their grasp of the historical logic of the situation and in their agitprop. But just the opposite is happening. Secondly, there's the question of the corruption of young minds being recruited into radicalism by sectarian organizations. I'm not proud of what I was thinking as a teenager, and I see 20-year olds now, gung ho fresh converts to radicalism, adopting the most awful sound bite approaches to political problems, worst of all the impossible politics of the Middle East, without any background of historical depth or personal life experience. It's all the politics of empty gesture. What does it in fact mean to support anyone long distance? What is the significance of taking a position? It's child's play who decide to be against, but who is there there to be for? The degeneration of politics, including oppositional politics, makes it increasingly impossible to simply take a position backing any particularly political player? If there's anything worse than secular nationalism, it's religious nationalism. If there's anything worse than bourgeois politics with a democratic face, it's outright fascist politics. Who then is there to back, especially from thousands of miles away? I don't trust the left to do anything competently. Pointless floundering is its stock-in-trade. At 08:54 AM 11/17/2009, yves coleman wrote: I dont know why this old post comes up now, a year later after it was posted ! To answer your questions. I dont know what I would do if I was an isolated individual who wanted to do something in an unfavorable situation both for me and for the working class historically. The decision would depend on many specific factors I cant list here and which would be more related to fiction than to reality. If I was in a position to form a group or to join a group defending class positions I would not loose my time in Stalinist (German CP) or nationalist-antisemtic (Hamas) or third wordist groups (Chavez party). As regards the Hamas, I would not even try because they would probably kill me given my opposition both to religion, clerical fascism and antisemitism. And if I was living in Venezuela today (which I did many years ago) I would knock on the door of El Libertario and see if their acts correspond to their nice words... And then decide. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Reading “Capital”
Implicit in the concept of value is the notion of the intrinsic equality of human beings. ^^ CB: Yes indeedy. Marx's concept of value is radically egalitarian. from Reading “Capital” by Andy Blunden So what is involved is the transhistorical necessity of every society making some arrangement or other for the distribution of the social labour and its products. This is what is contained in the concept of value. Implicit in the concept of value is the notion of the intrinsic equality of human beings. In an emphatically world economy in which capital based, for example, in the US, is manufacturing in India and drastically underpaying labour, we have an instance of price being less than value for long periods of time. But once ‘the great mass of the produce of labour takes the form of commodities [and] consequently, the dominant relation between man and man, is that of owners of commodities’, there is a necessary tendency towards the equalisation of wages, which nonetheless may take centuries of war and revolution to exert itself. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Foucault’s Discursive Subject by Blunden
Andy Blunden September 2005 http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/foucault.htm Foucault’s Discursive Subject Foucault is credited with “deconstruction of the subject,” but in reality what Foucault has given us is a critique of the Cartesian subject, the intuitively-given individual subject deemed the original site of all cognitive representation and social action. Foucault’s critique is a continuation of the structuralist project of weakening the concept of agency, a critique which has contributed to the actual demolition of subjectivity since the 1980s. In The History of Sexuality Volume 1, Foucault demonstrates that even such a basic human need as sexuality is socially constructed; there is no “pre-social” sex drive. Sexuality must not be thought of as a kind of natural given which power tries to hold in check, or as an obscure domain which knowledge tries gradually to uncover. It is the name that can be given to a historical construct: not a furtive reality that is difficult to grasp, but a great surface network in which the stimulation of bodies, the intensification of pleasures, the incitement to discourse, the formation of special knowledges, the strengthening of controls and resistances, are linked to one another, in accordance with a few major strategies of knowledge and power. [p. 106] Even if deep down in the human organism there is some need for food, warmth, love and sexual intercourse, psychoanalysis notwithstanding, it has been amply demonstrated that such ‘essential’ drives and needs are buried so deep beneath elastic and socially constructed interpretations, that the constructivist hypothesis is by far the more relevant as opposed to the essentialist, at least for the purposes of understanding modern society. Human beings are their own product; our essence is nothing but the need to negate and produce our own being; humanity is essentially non-essential. If a person’s needs do not originate in an individual’s ‘inner nature’, but are socially constructed, the same is even more true of cognition, the activity of understanding the world, which is shaped by socially available discourse and objectified in books, artefacts, languages, institutions, etc., etc. This word ‘discourse’ is central to Foucault of course. “We must not imagine a world of discourse divided between accepted discourse and excluded discourse, or between the dominant discourse and the dominated one; but as a multiplicity of discursive elements that can come into play in various strategies.” [p. 100] Here the concept of ‘discourse’ is like that of ‘paradigm’ in that both arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’ are posed within the terms of a single all-embracing ‘language.’ “It is this distribution that we must reconstruct, with the things said and those concealed, ... the variants and different effects – according to who is speaking, his position of power, the institutional context in which he happens to be situated ...” [p. 100] An argument cannot be criticised just in its own terms; analysis must reveal the unspoken ‘outside’ of discourse, and how discourse shapes relations of power by the implicit relations between the speaker and what is spoken. But it should be noted that ‘discourse’ is for Foucault, a social and material, rather than purely ideal or linguistic category: “it is in discourse that power and knowledge are joined together.” [p. 100] Such a view leaves room for agency at the margins, so to speak: “Discourse transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines and exposes it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it. ...” [p. 101] If both a person’s needs and understanding are socially constructed, the same is even more true of agency, in which people attempt to assert themselves in the social field. Is it possible to talk of power that is not the power of some subject? ‘Power’ is for Foucault like an Hegelian Spirit, a “ruse of history,” an almost metaphysical substance. “Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere,” and “one is always ‘inside’ power, there is no ‘escaping’ it.” For Foucault, it is in principle impossible to oppose power, because it is only with power that power can be opposed, an observation that is possible once one has made ‘power’ into an undifferentiated metaphysical substance, detachable from the agents whose power it is. “Power comes from below; that is, there is no binary and all-encompassing opposition between rulers and ruled at the root of power relations, and serving as a general matrix. – no such duality extending from the top down and reacting on more and more limited groups to the very depths of the social body.” [p. 93] “Where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power. Should it be said that one is always ‘inside’ power, there is no ‘escaping’ it, there is no absolute outside where it is
[Marxism-Thaxis] Foucault’s Discursive Subject
Andy Blunden September 2005 Foucault’s Discursive Subject (continued) 1. Knowledge The epistemological problem of whether knowledge is entirely enclosed by the paradigm or discourse within which it exists is one that has received ample attention over the past century, and there is no need to recapitulate that debate here. A recent example is the question as to whether poverty exists and can be measured objectively or is on the contrary simply a construct of the setting of the ‘poverty line’ in welfare discourses. Foucault seemed on strong ground when he pointed out that the very concept of ‘sex’ is constructed from a multiplicity of pleasures, discourses, needs, and so on, and poverty researchers would do well to learn from this: both poverty and the concept of poverty are social constructs, differing in nature from one epoch or culture to the next, so if they are to be objective and socially relevant, measures of poverty must be constructed critically. It turns out in fact that poverty is subject to objective measurement (life expectancy, rates of psychiatric admissions, child abuse, imprisonment, etc.), even though such measures only present themselves as a result of a critique of the naïve/intuitive conception of poverty based exclusively on income and monetary wealth. And the line which asserts that on the contrary, the concept of poverty is simply a linguistic construct leads to profoundly reactionary conclusions. Natural science first took up this question on its own territory with Charles Sanders Peirce’s conception of Pragmatism (1878) and Percy Bridgman’s Operationalism (1927), culminating in Thomas Kuhn’s concept of “paradigm” (1962). Ultimately however, the validity of a theory is tested on the ground of ethics, that is to say, on the domain of a whole form of life. This insight, which can be traced back to Hegel, was first formulated within the discourse of natural science by Jacques Monod, the 1965 Nobel Laureate for Biology. Critique of knowledge can find a firm ground only in ethics, and this is something that Foucault fails to provide. How is knowledge constituted then? Knowledge is the knowledge of a subject. The Cartesian conception of the subject as a thinking ego came under attack centuries before M. Foucault came on the scene. An individual with working nervous system and sense organs, can know nothing; in addition to the nervous and sensori-motor systems with which every human individual is endowed, knowledge presupposes that the individual is participating in some collaborative activity, engaging both systems, with other people, by means of which their needs a met. Collaborative activity connects people with the entire history of humanity through languages, symbols and images, artefacts, not to mention the human bodies and sense organs shaped by many generations of such activity. The knowledge a person has makes sense to them only to the extent that it is connected with their active use of their body in meeting human needs; but closer examination shows that the specific content of that knowledge is formed not by the individual themself but by the efforts of the individual to collaborate with others using and modifying the ideal entities which mediate their collaboration. The knowing subject therefore includes not only the (socially constructed) nervous and sensori-motor systems of the individual person, but also the concept and the material products (including words and images) embodying that concept, used to recognise and make sense of sense perceptions, and the system of human relations and institutions, through which the concept is brought into relation to the person. Let me be clear here: it is not my contention that an individual “uses” artefacts and other people in order to acquire knowledge. I am saying that the knowing subject is a specific dynamic combination of individuals, ideals and social collaboration. A “thought” unrelated to any social action or meaningful artefact (word, symbol, etc.) would be as absurd as a reflection without its object, the meaning of a nonsense word, or a nation with no citizens. Foucault directs his fire against the naïve/intuitive Cartesian conception of knowledge, in support of an idea of knowledge constituted by discourse; discourse is understood as the unity of an ideal conceptual structure and a real set of power relations between people. However, Foucault is seen not as describing a more concrete conception of the subject, but rather as “deconstructing” the subject, leaving us the absurdity of knowledge without a subject. On the contrary, knowledge is knowledge of some subject, some needy social agent. 2. Human Needs As Marx said at length in the 1844 Manuscripts, “the forming of the five senses is a labour of the entire history of the world down to the present.” “The eye has become a human eye, just as its object has become a social, human object – an object made by man for man. The senses have therefore become directly in their
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Irish Socialist Workers Party has split.
by Harry McIntyre from Indymedia Ireland --- Split centred around Belfast The Socialist Workers Party has split. There has been some speculation on Indymedia and elsewhere that the SWP was having internal difficulties in Belfast. The dust has now settled, and the bulk of their Belfast organisation is now outside of the party. The SWP has been having a tough time of it in Belfast in recent years. In the early years of the decade, the Belfast SWP was the success story of the organisation, building a number of branches and a strong student group. Then a period of decline followed, with branches merging, the student group weakening and the loss of some key activists. Now an organised split has taken most of the active, politically hardened, remaining members, leaving the Belfast SWP with an occasionally visible prospective election candidate and a handful of his associates. The arguments flared up around electoral strategy. The Dublin leadership wanted to run Sean Mitchell, the excitable young member who got a small but respectable vote in West Belfast last time out. The Belfast committee, essentially a joint branch committee for the two mini-branches the party was operating in the city, wasn't so sure. Most of its members were of the view that Mitchell had been insufficiently active in the area over the last year. It was, in other words, a minor tactical difference of a sort that a democratic organisation could easily accomodate within its ranks. Unfortunately for the SWP, it is not such an organisation. With typical heavy handedness, the Dublin leadership came down on the local dissidents like a ton of bricks. Vitriolic arguments ensued and the Belfast committee was wound up to shut up those who disagreed with the Political Committee. The writing was on the wall after that. The people who had held the SWP together in Belfast over a long, hard, period were told in no uncertain terms that either they did as they were told and shut up complaining or they'd be expelled. They decided to jump before they were pushed and resigned as a group. As the dust settles, Barbara Muldoon, chair of the Anti-Racist Network, Gordon Hewitt, Mark Hewitt and their allies have found themselves outside of the organisation they helped build. It is understood that they are in the process of setting up a new organisation, based on the fundamental politics of the SWP tradition but with a greater commitment to internal democracy. A name, a platform and their first public statements are expected in the next couple of weeks. Meanwhile, the SWP in Belfast has been reduced to Mitchell, a couple of other students and an American academic. Donal Mac Fhearraigh, the SWP's Dublin full time office functionary has been sent North to shore up what's left and try to begin the process of rebuilding. It's worth looking at the wider implications of this split in one city. The splinter group are long standing SWP members with personal and political connections to SWP across the island. They could very easily make a nuisance of themselves to the SWP across the island by offering SWP members the option of an organisation with SWP politics but a less dictatorial internal regime. The big question will be whether they can gain support outside of their home city. For the SWP it further hammers home their weakness outside of Dublin. There isn't one strong branch left outside the Republic's capital. Historic strongholds like Belfast and Waterford are down to a handful of members. Cork and Galway are hanging on by a thread. There's nothing at all in Limerick. Derry has Eamon McCann, which means a high profile, but a weak branch. It wouldn't take much more of a retreat to reduce the party to a regional organisation. Perhaps more interesting for the wider left is what this incident reveals about the SWP's approach to left unity. Firstly, while the SWP is very weak outside of Dublin they do at least maintain a tenuous presence, which can't really be said for the rest of People Before Profit. In Dublin, the SWP are the dominant force in the alliance, but there are others present and involved. Elsewhere the SWP simply are the alliance. South Tipperary may become a dramatic exception when the Workers and Unemployed Action Group announce their adherence, although it is not yet clear if that affiliation will involve taking on the PBP label and fully integrating into the alliance or if it mostly represents a formal commitment to continuing their existing work together. The Belfast split remember came to a head over what candidate to stand and in what constituency in the next Westminster elections. This discussion was carried on entirely in SWP branches and committees. But they weren't talking about standing an SWP candidate, they were deciding on who and where PBP should stand. There is no People Before Profit structure in Belfast, just the SWP using the name and taking whatever decisions it
[Marxism-Thaxis] PBS Tonight 9:00 Waterfront : struggle in Detroit
PBS Tonight 9:00 Waterfront : struggle in Detroit ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Biggest State Party to Obama: Get Out of Afghanistan
Biggest State Party to Obama: Get Out of Afghanistan By Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed truthout November 16, 2009 http://www.truthout.org/1116095?print The California Democratic Party has called for withdrawal from Afghanistan. (Photo: WikiMedia) This week begins with a significant new straw in the political wind for President Obama to consider. The California Democratic Party has just sent him a formal and clear message: Stop making war in Afghanistan. Overwhelmingly approved on Sunday by the California Democratic Party's 300-member statewide executive board, the resolution is titled End the US Occupation and Air War in Afghanistan. The resolution supports a timetable for withdrawal of our military personnel and calls for an end to the use of mercenary contractors as well as an end to air strikes that cause heavy civilian casualties. Advocating multiparty talks inside Afghanistan, the resolution also urges Obama to oversee a redirection of our funding and resources to include an increase in humanitarian and developmental aid. While Obama weighs Afghanistan policy options, the California Democratic Party's adoption of the resolution is the most tangible indicator yet that escalation of the US war effort can only fuel opposition within the president's own party - opposition that has already begun to erode his political base. Participating in a long-haul struggle for progressive principles inside the party, I co-authored the resolution with savvy longtime activists Karen Bernal of Sacramento and Marcy Winograd of Los Angeles. Bernal, the chair of the state party's Progressive Caucus, said on Sunday night, Today's vote formalized and amplified what had been, up to now, an unspoken but profoundly understood reality - that there is no military solution in Afghanistan. What's more, the vote signified an acceptance of what is sure to be a continued and growing culture of resistance to current administration policies on the matter within the party. This is absolutely huge. Now, there can be no disputing the fact that the overwhelming majority of California Democrats are not only saying no to escalation, but no to our continued military presence in Afghanistan, period. The California Democratic Party has spoken, and we want the rest of the country to know. Winograd, who is running hard as a grassroots candidate in a primary race against pro-war incumbent Rep. Jane Harman, had this to say, We need progressives in every state Democratic Party to pass a similar resolution calling for an end to the US occupation and air war in Afghanistan. Bring the veterans to the table, bring our young into the room, and demand an end to this occupation that only destabilizes the region. There is no military solution, only a diplomatic one that requires we cease our role as occupiers if we want our voices to be heard. Yes, this is about Afghanistan - but it's also about our role in the world at large. Do we want to be global occupiers seizing scarce resources or global partners in shared prosperity? I would argue a partnership is not only the humane choice, but also the choice that grants us the greatest security. Speaking to The Resolutions Committee of the state party on Saturday, former Marine Cpl. Rick Reyes movingly described his experiences as a warrior in Afghanistan that led him to question and then oppose what he now considers to be an illegitimate US occupation of that country. Another voice of disillusionment reached party delegates when Bernal distributed a copy of the recent resignation letter from senior US diplomat Matthew Hoh, sent after five months of work on the ground in Afghanistan. I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan, he wrote. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons. Hoh's letter added, I do not believe any military force has ever been tasked with such a complex, opaque and Sisyphean mission as the US military has received in Afghanistan. And he wrote, Thousands of our men and women have returned home with physical and mental wounds, some that will never heal or will only worsen with time. The dead return only in bodily form to be received by families who must be reassured their dead have sacrificed for a purpose worthy of futures lost, love vanished, and promised dreams unkept. I have lost confidence such assurances can anymore be made. From their own vantage points, many of the California Democratic Party leaders who voted to approve the out- of-Afghanistan resolution on November 15 have gone through a similar process. They've come to see the touted reasons for the US war
