Re: Re: An invitation to the graveside to bury the past
Chris Thanks for this opportunity to add a little as I find myself in agreement with your comments. At 21/10/01 10:48 +0800, you wrote: "Although not in the language of Hardt and Negri (which I also find difficult) you seem to be calling for as radical a rethink." "But can it succeed in a compete break through images of graveside and burial?" Well first with my images which stem from a personal history of having been a good many communist funerals. Admittedly I don't expect this to be a shared experience and if I thought about it a wiser image should have been made - but now I am stuck with it. What I remember best about burying old communists is the impassioned eulogies (not those given by leadership figures but those given by their comrades), strangely these became some of the most moving and inspiring times of my life - aware at on one hand that someone very special was no more and on the other hand that their spirit lives on in struggle (hackneyed and sentimental as it sounds this is my experience of watching the generation of 1920-40s turned to ashes one by one). No better time on such occasions to sum up your own experiences and rethink what is really important - which is what I am attempting to convey. A radical rethink is required, but not because radical changes are always good ones (this can simply become a desire for fashion for fashion's sake), but because in a sense we need to do justice to the past and that our present state dishonours the struggles of that past. Insofar as we can see ourselves as part of a political movement with a history, and despite the variegated strands of that history, I would suggest we should measure ourselves by reflecting on that past. But not a past of Trotskyist vs Stalinist, or the questions of policies and theories but on a more human plane - the millions who organized, self-educated, put their necks on the line for others, the sweat and spirit of the past movement no-matter how ill-conceived or erroneous this or that particular trend turned out to be. On such a measure we owe a radical self-analysis to the past, we owe a break with the legacy of failure in order to find and embrace the neglected legacy of successful struggle (even the great betrayals stand upon this rich earth). To use a simple notion of such a break, Lenin's international did not break with the successful struggles of the Second International, it broke with the failures of that past. To do so required rethinking the whole enterprise of struggle, the nature of its expression and organisation (dare I say the negation of the negation). Of course there are many other ways of presenting the same need, and death and gravesides, are not the best images I agree. 'After all Marx wrote about how communist society emerges [his emphasis] from capitalist society and is thus "in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."' 'So is this not likely also to be true of the left wing tradition?' Birth is probably the better image, on this I agree. My bent is as a lover of history, the thought of despising the past and neglecting it is a foreign one. However because of this our view of history must necessarily always change and develop as reality moves us forward and questions which had never been asked, never even contemplated, suddenly become obvious and unavoidable. In trying to answer these with an eye on the past, the past takes on new shapes, old divisions which were thought to be absolute dissolve, similarities become more pronounced, and differences emerge from unexpected places. For some this is too much, history is something assembled and put together once, a repository for debates required for future battles, but not something that can itself move as conditions change. To suggest that aspects of the old Second International (that is of the 19th Century) are uniquely relevant today will for many simply suggest reformist revival, or that the strategy of the Arch-Stalinist period - the Popular Front may be also important begs for old debates to be disinterred and thrown about like the gravebones in "Tom Jones". A radical rethink, is a discomforting one, but not that turns its back on history, rather the reverse. "On these lists the spontaneous consciousness is to look for fellow isolates from the cruelty of capitalism and to bond together in sectarian and superior separateness from ordinary people. A smattering of knowledge of marxism, plus an arrogant supply of self-confidence can silence more enquiring voices looking for radical change which may not always lead to a violent revolution but will unite with much larger numbers of people." I find the easy and lazy formula that real struggle = violent political revolution and all the rest = reformism which is so out of place within Historical Materialism but so common with Marxism that it is
arundhati roy
third-world-women-digest Monday, October 22 2001 Volume 01 : Number 375 ** http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?sid=1fname=arundhati+%28F%; Outlook India October 29, 2001 FRONTLINES War Is Peace The world doesn't have to choose between the Taliban and the US government. All the beauty of the world-literature, music, art-lies between these two fundamentalist poles. Arundhati Roy As darkness deepened over Afghanistan on Sunday, October 7, 2001, the US government, backed by the International Coalition Against Terror (the new, amenable surrogate for the United Nations), launched air strikes against Afghanistan. TV channels lingered on computer-animated images of Cruise missiles, stealth bombers, Tomahawks, `bunker-busting' missiles and Mark 82 high-drag bombs. All over the world, little boys watched goggle-eyed and stopped clamouring for new video games. The UN, reduced now to an ineffective abbreviation, wasn't even asked to mandate the air strikes. (As Madeleine Albright once said, The US acts multilaterally when it can, and unilaterally when it must.) The `evidence' against the terrorists was shared amongst friends in the `Coalition'. After conferring, they announced that it didn't matter whether or not the `evidence' would stand up in a court of law. Thus, in an instant, were centuries of jurisprudence carelessly trashed. Nothing can excuse or justify an act of terrorism, whether it is committed by religious fundamentalists, private militia, people's resistance movements-or whether it's dressed up as a war of retribution by a recognised government. The bombing of Afghanistan is not revenge for New York and Washington. It is yet another act of terror against the people of the world. Each innocent person that is killed must be added to, not set off against, the grisly toll of civilians who died in New York and Washington. People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed. Governments moult and regroup, hydra-headed. They first use flags to shrink-wrap peoples' minds and suffocate real thought, and then as ceremonial shrouds to cloak the mangled corpses of the willing dead. On both sides, in Afghanistan as well as America, civilians are now hostage to the actions of their own governments. Unknowingly, ordinary people in both countries share a common bond-they have to live with the phenomenon of blind, unpredictable terror. Each batch of bombs that is dropped on Afghanistan is matched by a corresponding escalation of mass hysteria in America about anthrax, more hijackings and other terrorist acts. There is no easy way out of the spiraling morass of terror and brutality that confronts the world today. It is time now for the human race to hold still, to delve into its wells of collective wisdom, both ancient and modern. What happened on September 11 changed the world forever. Freedom, progress, wealth, technology, war-these words have taken on new meaning. Governments have to acknowledge this transformation, and approach their new tasks with a modicum of honesty and humility. Unfortunately, up to now, there has been no sign of any introspection from the leaders of the International Coalition. Or the Taliban. When he announced the air strikes, President George Bush said, We're a peaceful nation. America's favourite ambassador, Tony Blair, (who also holds the portfolio of Prime Minister of the UK), echoed him: We're a peaceful people. So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is Peace. Speaking at the FBI headquarters a few days later, President Bush said: This is our calling. This is the calling of the United States of America. The most free nation in the world. A nation built on fundamental values that reject hate, reject violence, rejects murderers and rejects evil. We will not tire. Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with-and bombed-since World War II: China (194546, 195053); Korea (195053); Guatemala (1954, 196769); Indonesia (1958); Cuba (195960); the Belgian Congo (1964); Peru (1965); Laos (196473); Vietnam (196173); Cambodia (196970); Grenada (1983); Libya (1986); El Salvador (1980s); Nicaragua (1980s); Panama (1989), Iraq (199199), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998); Yugoslavia (1999). And now Afghanistan. Certainly it does not tire-this, the Most Free nation in the world. What freedoms does it uphold? Within its borders, the freedoms of speech, religion, thought; of artistic expression, food habits, sexual preferences (well, to some extent) and many other exemplary, wonderful things. Outside its borders, the freedom to dominate, humiliate and subjugate-usually in the service of America's real religion, the `free market'. So when the US government christens a war `Operation Infinite Justice', or `Operation Enduring Freedom', we in the Third World feel more than a tremor of fear. Because we know that Infinite Justice for some means Infinite Injustice for others. And Enduring Freedom for some means Enduring Subjugation for others.
Re: Strategy of tension
None of the New Zealand alerts have proved to have any basis. Bill Michael Keaney wrote: Anthrax scares hit postal centers in New Zealand and Australia Associated Press The Independent, 17 October 2001 Fresh anthrax alerts hit postal centers in New Zealand and Australia , forcing their closure after workers found mail carrying unidentified white powder. Staff at the South Auckland mail center in the city's Manukau suburb were evacuated when a worker noticed white powder on her hands. Ambulance spokesman Murray Bannister said the woman and one other person were taken to hospital for observation, and 30 workers were decontaminated in showers. The powder was being tested, he said. At the rural town of Linton, near an army camp and 180 kilometers (112 miles) north of the capital, Wellington, the post office was closed and secured by emergency services after a similar white powder alert. The two scares followed the closure Tuesday of a post office in the rural township of Eltham, with the discovery of a parcel containing a yellowish powder. Police said Wednesday the mail delivery center has reopened after initial analysis suggested anthrax was not contained in the mystery substance. Later Wednesday, police issued a nationwide public warning for people to use care when handling mail. Detective Superintendent Peter Marshall said there was no suggestion of a biochemical threat against New Zealand, but people needed to be careful in the current environment. Anyone may be exposed to a suspicious piece of mail at work or at home, Marshall said in a statement. In Australia, the main mail exchange in the southern city of Adelaide was evacuated overnight after a worker found white powder inside a mail bag. Metropolitan Fire Service spokesman Bill Dwyer said the Adelaide Exchange was evacuated and 73 workers were given nasal swabs as a precaution to check for anthrax contamination. The powder was removed for analysis. Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Tuesday promised tougher penalties of up to 10 years in jail for people behind the continuing spate of anthrax hoaxes that has forced building evacuations in several states. Full article at: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/story.jsp?story=99932 Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strategy of tension
Bill Rosenberg writes: None of the New Zealand alerts have proved to have any basis. = As didn't those in Britain, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Lithuania (!), etc. The sudden, supposedly spontaneous outbreak of hoaxes involving talcum powder, baby milk, etc., is probably a mixture of genuine hoaxes and state mischief (no prizes for guessing which state). So much attention was paid to the threat of bioterrorism PRIOR to the flurry of hoaxes: newspapers and television paraded a succession of experts who, with great clarity, described how simple it would be to inflict panic upon vulnerable populations. In other words, every moron and his pet parrot had the opportunity to muse over the fun to be enjoyed frightening the life out of vast numbers of people. Meanwhile postal services have been described as a new front line against terrorism, thus legitimating state monitoring and interception of mail. And while this is going on governments are rushing to pass punitive legislation which is aimed at the hoaxers, should any of these ever be caught. The public assents because of the outrageousness of the crime, while it is manipulated into further unease regarding an unseen enemy called terrorism and achieves temporary catharsis by watching live pictures of Afghanistan being blown to smithereens. BTW, while it is quite plausible that far right militias in the US have been involved in the genuine cases of anthrax attacks, I was careful to refer to a wider category which encompasses these groups: right wing conspirators. These would also include elements of the US state apparatus and those with connections to such. The kind of people not overly concerned to capture Eric Rudolph and/or Army of God types who can accomplish state goals without adhering to the niceties of bourgeois liberal formality. Rather like the mercenaries hired by the Pentagon to do Uncle Sam's dirty work in places like Colombia, related in sufficiently chilling detail by Chalmers Johnson. Michael K.
Strategy of tension
Bill Rosenberg wrote: None of the New Zealand alerts have proved to have any basis. Same here. Cops, firemen, a closed mailroom and a suddenly switched off air-conditioning system at work today, though. None of it quite tense enough to get anyone the afternoon off, though. Even if things stay at their present satisfactory setting (if you're in Australia, that is), this has gotta be costing all kinds of money and time - and, rather than public panic, the salient risk here is probably one of growing public complacency. Cheers, Rob.
New Labour's take on history
Nazi jibe fuels Labour dissent Lucy Ward, political correspondent Monday October 22, 2001 The Guardian Labour's backbench critics of the bombing of Afghanistan warned last night of hardening opposition to the military action after ministers compared outspoken anti-war MPs to appeasers of the Nazis. The armed forces minister Adam Ingram likened the terrorist evil that is stalking the world to Nazism and fascism, and suggested anti-war voices were giving terrorists succour and support. Mr Ingram issued his condemnation after Paul Marsden, the Labour MP for Shrewsbury Atcham, published his account of a fierce dressing-down he received from the government chief whip, Hilary Armstrong, for his opposition to the military campaign. Last night the government's determination to clamp down on dissidents appeared to have strengthened the resolution of opponents of the war to continue to speak out, with several predicting the reaction would harden attitudes. Alan Simpson, leading a Labour against the bombing group at Westminster, compared the attempts to curb criticism to a McCarthyite witchhunt, and the anti-bombing MP George Galloway, summoned to a meeting with Ms Armstrong tomorrow, pledged he would not be silenced. However, despite Mr Ingram's comments, the Labour leadership yesterday resisted the temptation to discipline or condemn Mr Marsden, a little-known MP who hitherto had not been seen as a member of the so-called awkward squad. Sources made it clear that the party was unwilling to create a martyr for the anti-war faction, and had decided to take a low-key approach to the MP's breach of convention by publicising a conversation with a whip. However, there were indications yesterday that the rumour mill was being used to discredit Mr Marsden, with suggestions that he was unpopular with fellow MPs and close to a breakdown. The small number of outspoken critics of the war, who believe that many fellow Labour MPs share their concerns but have either not dared or not wanted to express them, took Mr Ingram's comments, on Sky's Adam Boulton programme, as evidence the gov ernment was panicking over growing backbench unease. One backbencher said: When there is a lack of evidence in their arguments, this is what the government resorts to. The MP forecast concern would come into the open this week, centred on the issue of getting aid into Afghanistan. Mr Simpson said: To some extent the government nervousness and the language being used reflects concern about growing unease across the country about whether uncritical support for the war in Afghanistan is wise. While ministers may still be confident that support among Labour backbenchers will hold, they have clearly been rattled by the rebels' resistance to requests to keep quiet. According to Mr Marsden's account of his meeting with Ms Armstrong, published in the Mail on Sunday, the chief whip compared him to the appeasers of Hitler in 1938, and insisted that it was not a matter of conscience and therefore not a subject for a free vote. Yesterday the MP stood by his decision to go public, saying: It is about time we took a stand against this pathetic whipping system and tried to do something to reinvigorate our failing democracy. Many people are now pretty disillusioned with politicians and do not have much faith in them. He was backed by the veteran Labour MP and father of the house Tam Dalyell, who said: The long and short of it is that that Paul Marsden should not be left on his own to hang out to dry. There are many active members of the Labour party in the country that share Paul Marsden's general view. The row could blow up afresh tomorrow, when MPs will debate a Conservative motion, as yet unpublished, relating to the email sent by spin doctor Jo Moore saying the occasion of the World Trade Centre attack was a good time to bury unfavourable stories. The prime minister's official spokesman declined to comment on discussions between Mr Marsden and the chief whip, but said: It is a democracy and people are entitled to express their views. That is one thing that distinguishes us from some other countries, notably the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Generally, when people question what we are doing ... they should look at the image of those two planes flying into the twin towers and remember the mobile phone messages, and focus on the al-Qaida terrorists broadcasting in the last week, saying that they were prepared to do it again. Full article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,578480,00.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Britain/US split?
Spot the contradictions in this. How compatible are Straw's four key principles? Interesting development of the UK's efforts to keep the initiative as regards the coalition agenda. = West must help rebuild 'failed states', says Straw Matthew Tempest, political correspondent Monday October 22, 2001 The Guardian The west's abandonment of Afghanistan allowed it to be hijacked by terrorist warlords such as Osama bin Laden, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, said today. At a speech at the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Mr Straw outlined a vision for failed states such as Afghanistan - to prevent them falling prey to terrorist leaders. He said: Terrorists are strongest where states are weakest. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida found safe havens in places not just in Afghanistan but where government and society have collapsed. Mr Straw is going to Washington later this week to discuss the crisis-torn country's prospects with the US secretary of state, Colin Powell. In his speech, Mr Straw outlined four key principles: · The future of Afghanistan should above all be in the hands of the people of Afghanistan · A global coalition is needed to rebuild Afghanistan · The UN should take the lead · The international coalition has to make a long-term commitment. Mr Straw added: Military action is not in itself a lonng-term answer but an essential first step in achieving our campaign aims. We are not going to predict how long military action will take but in time we need to be working out a robust plan for the future of Afghanistan. Britain is doing just that under the lead of the UN, the US, neighbours of Afghanistan, the EU and other states such as Turkey, which he visited last week, he told the IISS. Mr Straw has talked his vision through with Lakdhar Brahimi, the UN special envoy who is in dialogue with the different ethnic tribes in the north of Afghanistan. There is a need not only to root out the terrorist network but also to increase security at home, Mr Straw was adding, pointing out that making Afghanistan secure will safeguard the security of other nations, including Britain. Long before September 11, Bin Laden and al-Qaida hijacked Afghanistan and brought chaos to the country - on September 11, that chaos brought mass murder to New York, Mr Straw told an invited audience of experts in geo-politics. The west looked away from Afghanistan 10 to 15 years ago, now it is paying a heavy price for doing so, he added. Mr Straw was speaking after a meeting in Downing Street of the war cabinet, and as expectation grew that UK ground troops would be sent into Afghanistan soon. Mr Straw said in answer to a question at a press conference today that he could not speculate about the timing of a possible deployment of ground troops. It was not usual to announce military dispositions in advance, he said, adding: Of course there are circumstances where obviously the air action has to be supplemented by ground forces. Meanwhile, the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, said British troops were ready to go into action in Afghanistan at very short notice, but insisted that no decisions had yet been taken on whether or when to deploy them. We have always said that British ground troops are an option. No specific decisions have been taken but clearly we are exploring all of the possibilities, he said. I'm not going to put a time-scale on that. We always have troops ready to go at very short notice, he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. He acknowledged that the anti-terrorist coalition still did not know Osama bin Laden's location but added that a great deal of pressure was being brought to bear both on terror group leader and Afghanistan's Taliban regime, and would eventually mean Bin Laden would have nowhere left to hide. I believe we are a lot closer than we were two weeks ago, Mr Hoon said. The areas in which he can freely move are now distinctly limited. I am confident that in due course, either we will find him or someone else will give him up. It was too early in the military operation to expect the Taliban regime to collapse, but progress towards its overthrow could be expected soon, he said. He said: After a short period of military action, we do not expect the Taliban to give up overnight. Nevertheless, we do expect that the kind of pressure that's being brought to bear from the air strikes will have some results and we anticipate these results will come sooner rather than later. Decisions on how to conduct the campaign during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan and the Afghan winter would be taken on military grounds, he added. Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,578584,00.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Labour's take on democracy
'Those that are not with us are against us' Monday October 22, 2001 The Guardian The following is an edited transcript of the conversation between the chief whip, Hilary Armstrong, and Shrewsbury MP Paul Marsden, as recorded by Mr Marsden in the Mail on Sunday. Hilary Armstrong: Paul, we are all comrades together in the Labour party and we are all supposed to be on the same side. I want to improve your communication skills. Paul Marsden: What do you mean? HA: I want you to join the mainstream of the party. PM: What do you mean by the mainstream? HA: Look, Paul, let me put it another way, those that aren't with us are against us. PM: Name names. HA: We don't really know each other do we? We haven't had a chance to speak properly in the last four years. [Marsden mentioned three previous meetings.] HA: Oh yes, I remember now. [She picked up an inch-thick brown file and waved it in his face, opening it to reveal articles written by Marsden for his local Shropshire Star newspaper; speeches he had made; transcripts of radio interviews he had given.] HA: I want a guarantee that you will not talk to the media unless you speak to me first. PM: I won't do that. I believe it is my right to speak to whoever I choose. HA: I have been looking at your file, you are clearly very inexperienced and your attendance record is poor. [Between 1997 and 1999 Marsden had spent a lot of time away from the Commons. His wife was seriously ill and had given birth. Ex-chief whip Nick Brown gave him compassionate leave.] PM: I take great offence at that. I am not inexperienced and my attendance record is certainly not poor. My wife was being cut open in the operating theatre and Nick Brown kindly allowed me extra time at home. You must know all that. What the hell has it got to do with all this? HA: Your attendance record was not good last year either. You missed more votes than most others. PM: That is not true. We were fighting a general election and you lot told us to go home and campaign to win it. HA: You made a complete fool of yourself the other day when you got up in the Commons. [Armstrong was referring to Marsden's question to Blair in the October 8 emergency Commons debate, when the MP said the decision to go to war should be approved by a vote of all MPs, not by the prime minister alone.] HA: You just don't understand the rules here, you're too inexperienced. PM: There's no need to insult me. I know the rules, I consulted the Speaker's clerk about voting procedures. HA: In fact we may well hold a vote, but if we do, it will be whipped. PM: That is outrageous. You won't even give us a free vote on whether we go to war - it is an issue which should be a matter of conscience. HA: War is not a matter of conscience. Abortion and embryo research are matters of conscience, but not wars. PM: Are you seriously saying blowing people up and killing people is not a moral issue? HA: It is government policy that we are at war. You astound me. We can't have a trusting relationship if you keep talking to the media without permission. PM: It would help if your deputy didn't send me snotty letters disciplining me. HA: I did leave a message at your office on Monday night saying to call me. PM: Are you sure? HA: Yes. Why? PM: You couldn't have phoned the Shrewsbury office because you didn't leave a message on the answer machine. You can't have left a message in London either, because I was in the office and there was no voicemail left there. HA: But I spoke to someone and left a message with them. PM: You didn't. I checked the telephone log and there are no messages left. HA: Er, perhaps I got the wrong number. PM: Let's get this straight. You did not call me. HA: Anyway, you must stop using the media. PM: That's a bit rich coming from people like you and Downing Street when Stephen Byers's spin doctor Jo Moore says September 11 is a good day to bury bad news. HA: Jo Moore didn't say that. PM: That is exactly what she said in her email. HA: We don't have spin doctors in Number 10 - or anywhere else. PM: (laughing) You aren't seriously telling me that you don't have spin doctors and they don't exist. You are losing it Hilary. HA: (shouting) You wait until I really do lose it. I am not going to have a dialogue with you about that. It was people like you who appeased Hitler in 1938. PM: Don't you dare call me an appeaser! I am not in favour of appeasing Bin Laden, I simply disagree with the way the government is going about stopping him. That's the official line now is it? We are all appeasers if we don't agree with everything you say? HA: Well, what would you do about Bin Laden, then? PM: I think we should indict him on criminal charges. It could be done very quickly and then the UN should take charge of the military action, not the USA. It would be much more effective. By all means send in the SAS, but let's get the UN onside first. HA: The trouble
Discussion of Empire/ Imperial Cannibalism
Discussion of Empire/ Imperial Cannibalism by Carrol Cox 21 October 2001 17:52 UTC A common way of abusing Lenin (practiced by both friends and enemies) is to misjudge the level of abstraction at which, in any given case, he was operating. I think Greg does that here. _Imperialism_, I think, is of immense theoretical use only if it is not seen as general theory: as often noted, Lenin's fundamental purpose was to explain 1914. Hence he was not really all that concerned with whether imperialism was transitional but of the fact that imperialism led to inter-imperialist war. So the claim that things have changed can take one of three forms: 1. Imperialism is evolving into super-imperialism (i.e., either dystopia, as in Orwell, or utopia as in Chris Burford) 2. Inter-imperialist rivalry continues, but now takes peaceful form, with the U.S. gracefully handing over empire to the EU or Japan or both (Dennis Redmond) 3. I guess Hardt and Negri would be some third version, but after repeated rereadings and after extensive debate on one list or another, I can't really take them seriously enough to bother even to argue against them. And apparently none of their admirers takes them seriously either, since references to them are never grounds for concrete strategic proposals but serve only a vaguely negative purpose of dismissing someone else's concrete proposals. Any of these moves beyond Lenin imply that there will never again be war between advanced nations. ((( CB: I think the widespread holding of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction puts a qualitative limit on wars between advanced nations that was not there in 1914 when Lenin analyzed the stage of capitalism in his day. Also . the rise and fall of the Soviet Union contributed to a qualitative change in interimperialist rivalry as all the imperialist, great power nations united in anti-Sovietism. That unity is not broken in the short period since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the warmaking tendency of capitalism has found sufficient outlet in the neo-colonial world, including especially recently in U.S.betrayal of its former comprador client regimes as in The Phillipines, Panama, Iraq , and now Afghanistan. Sort of military cannibalism: Empire eats its own babies. At any rate, for 55 years there has not been significant warfare on the territory of the imperialist great power nations that Lenin discussed in interimperialist rivalry ( rivalry resulting in wars on t! he territories of the imperislist nations). The recent military attack on U.S. soil introduces a new (relatively slim ) possibility of war on the territory of an imperialist power not seen since WWII, although, this is not so clearly interimperialist rivalry and war. It is a stretch to see the attacks on the U.S. as coming from an imperialist state, despite the great riches and economic power in Saudi Arabia, et al. due to the criticality of oil in the imperialist economies. Saudi Arabia's relationship to the Taliban government is contradictory. It would take a new theory of the form of the imperialist state rivaling the U.S. imperialist state to see this as interimperialist rivalry and war. Of course, apparently Saudi Arabia or other oil rich nations in the region are allies of the U.S..So, the theory of this as an interimperialist war would be complicated indeed. But stranger things have been true. At any rate, for a Leninist, Lenin's theory must be supplemented and developed as concrete analysis of the new concrete situation, ( including several intervening historical phases since 1914) though some of his most general observations persist in relevance.
Fwd: terrorists at work.
We've been notified by Building Security that there have been 4 suspected terrorists working at our office. Three of the four, Bin Sleepin, Bin Loafin, and Bin Hidin, have been taken into custody. Security advised us that they could find no one fitting the description of the fourth cell member, Bin Workin. Police are confident that anyone who looks like Bin Workin should be easy to spot, and employees are asked to look for and report any sightings. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Fwd: Who's Who?
Who's who?
Confused? Having difficulty telling the good guys from the bad guys? Use
this handy guide to differences between Terrorists and the U.S. Government:
TERRORISTS:
Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from
extremely wealthy oil family
US GOVERNMENT:
Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from
extremely wealthy oil family
TERRORISTS:
Leader has declared a holy war ('Jihad') against his 'enemies'; believes
any nation not with him is against him; believes god is on his side, and
that any means are justified.
US GOVERNMENT:
Leader has declared a holy war ('Crusade') against his 'enemies'; believes
any nation not with him is against him; believes god is on his side, and
that any means are justified.
TERRORISTS:
Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred,
intolerance, subjugation of women, and persecution of non-believers
US GOVERNMENT:
Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred,
intolerance, subjugation of women,and persecution of non-believers
TERRORISTS:
Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair
democratic election
US GOVERNMENT:
Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair
democratic election
TERRORISTS:
Kills thousands of innocent civilians, some of them children, in cold
blooded bombings
US GOVERNMENT:
Kills (tens of) thousands of innocent civilians, some of them children, in
cold blooded bombings
TERRORISTS:
Operates through clandestine organization (al Qaeda) with agents in many
countries; uses bombing, assassination, other terrorist tactics
US GOVERNMENT:
Operates through clandestine organization (CIA) with agents in many
countries; uses bombing, assassination,other terrorist tactics
TERRORISTS:
Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties
US GOVERNMENT:
Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties
STOP THE WAR!
The following comic strip was CENSORED from the New York Daily News:
http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/viewbo.cfm?uc_full_date=20011004uc_comic=
bouc_daction=X
That's the Boondocks cartoon, which has been quite excellent lately,
risking censorship daily. BTW, speaking of censorship, I never saw a story
about UN denunciation of the war in the L.A. TIMES.
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy... Through violence you may
murder the hater, but you do not murder hate.
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Killing for peace is like fucking for virginity.
-- Vietnam era antiwar slogan
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Conditions and the Taliban
Karl Carlile wrote: In many ways then the Taliban's success in establishing a state in the extraordinary way that it has is the only way possible given the tremendously contradictory nature of Afghanistan. In many ways it constitutes an extraordinary achievement on the part of the Taliban. In so far as the Taliban is despotic and ruthless it is not because this is its wilfully subjective predilection. It is because objectively this is the only way, under the narrow constraints that prevail, in which a state can exist in Afghanistan. This is the only way, given the extraordinary circumstances, in which the Afghani state can exist. The Taliban state is not a capitalist state. Consequently it inevitably bears an entirely different character to the bourgeois state. I generally agree with Karl's analysis, but there are some points I'd like to make: 1) there was a unified -- and unifying -- state in Afghanistan before the Taliban. (It was also modernizing, educating women, etc., which stimulated the ire of the fundamentalist men.) This, of course, was destroyed in the Russo-Afghan war. 2) there is some commodity exchange that crosses the whole of Afghanistan. The media point to smuggling as a major economic activity. Some of this -- or most of this -- is opium, part of the world market. 3) the Taliban isn't just a product of the pre-capitalist and thus fragmented nature of Afghan society. It's also a result of the civil war that followed the Russo-Afghan war, in which the various elements of what's now called the Northern Alliance fought with each other, while raping and pillaging and changing sides. Many people in Afghanistan -- plus, I am sure, the US policy-makers -- saw the Taliban as restoring order, something necessary to everyday normal life. 4) one of the advantages that the Taliban has is that it's of the dominant Pushtun ethnicity. 5) I think that one of most likely results of the US war against the Afghans is that the civil war will return. The UN will be given the job of reconstructing society and of supporting whatever government is imposed. Since the UN is so under-funded, Afghanistan will be yet another Africa-style basket case, too poor for much of anything (except opium production). The Taliban will survive, perhaps as two or three different guerilla groups (that hate each other). Of course, my predictions regularly turn out to be wrong. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2001: RELEASED TODAY: The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rose 0.5 percent in September, before seasonal adjustment, to a level of 178.3 (1982-84=100). For the 12-month period ended in September, the CPI-U increased 2.6 percent. The Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) increased 0.6 percent in September, prior to seasonal adjustment. The September level of 174.8 was 2.6 percent higher than the index in September 2000. Real average weekly earnings were unchanged from August to September after seasonal adjustment, according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A 0.2 percent increase in average hourly earnings and 0.3 percent rise in average weekly hours were offset by a 0.5 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Consumer prices edged up in September, pushed higher by the biggest jump in gasoline prices in 15 months, the Labor Department reported today. The Consumer Price Index, a closely watched inflation gauge, rose by 0.4 percent last month, the largest increase since May, the Labor Department said. The advance came after a tiny, 0.1 percent increase in August. The core rate of inflation, which excludes energy and food prices, rose in September for the third month in a row by 0.2 percent, suggesting that most other prices are well-controlled. Inflation has simply dropped off the radar screen as a major concern, says Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. Given the tame inflation environment, the more than 50 million Social Security recipients will get a smaller, 2.6 percent cost-of-living increase in their monthly checks next year, the government said today. In other economic news, America's trade deficit shrank to $27.1 billion in August, the lowest level in 19 months, as the weak U.S. economy cut further into Americans' appetite for foreign-made computers, televisions, and other consumer goods, the Commerce Department said (Jennine Aversa, Associated Press, http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/147240p-1438910c.html). New jobless claims for the week ended October 13 numbered 490,000, an increase of 6,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 484,000, the Labor Department's Employment and Training Administration reports. The 4-week moving average of total claimants was 3,449,000, an increase of 105,750 from the preceding week's revised average of 3,343,250 (Daily Labor Report, page D-1; The Washington Post page E2; Bloomberg News, The New York Times, page C3). The effects of the World Trade Center disaster are only beginning to show up in economic statistics, but already the unemployment rate in New York City has surged, the New York State Department of Labor announced yesterday. In September, the jobless rate leapt to 6.3 percent from 5.8 percent in August, and 5.0 percent in July, all adjusted for seasonal factors. It's a large jump, not typical at all, says James P. Brown, an analyst for the labor department, adding that the unemployment rate is the highest it has been since October 1999. The surge of unemployment in the city is far worse than the state's increase of 0.2 points, to 4.9 percent. The nation's unemployment rate in September, also 4.9 percent, was unchanged. The biggest losses in September were in business services, which shed 4,000 jobs, for a cumulative loss of 25,000 positions since April. This sector of the economy includes computer services, advertising, and temporary agencies. The picture on Wall Street was mixed (The New York Times, page A17). New claims for unemployment benefits flew up last week, with New York City bearing the brunt of the pain. Initial weekly jobless claims throughout the nation increased 6,000 to 490,000 in the week ended Saturday. But it's Empire State residents who are carrying the heaviest load. New York's newly unemployed amount to 5.3 percent of the nation's total, higher than any other state in the union, said Vincent De Santis, labor market analyst for the New York State Department of Labor. Total new unemployment claims filed in New York state as of October 13 are 25,832. Half, or 12,000, were filed in New York City. And yet only a sliver of those claims are a result of the World Trade Center disasters, De Santis said (http://www.nypost.com/business/34057.htm). With unemployment in the United States headed toward 6 percent, perhaps higher, concerns are growing about the adequacy of the government's safety net for the jobless and the poor. Among the developments that poverty experts find worrisome: For the first time since the launch of federal welfare in 1935, some people will be ineligible because they have hit a 5-year limit, set by Congress in 1996. Already, some states are running short of funds for assisting the
FW: Three paragraphs which condense it all
Forwarded by Nestor to the Marxism list, reply to follow: On May 1st., 1974, Perón delivered his last Presidential address to the Chambers. During this speech, he established which were his goals and the objectives that he set to his third term in government (unfortunately he was to die in a couple of months). In the afternoon, his speech to the masses at Plaza de Mayo had to be radically changed in view of the petty bourgeois provocation led by the Montoneros, so that it has little material of interest for those interested in understanding the kernel of Peronism. But these three paragraphs, extracted from his most interesting address to the Chambers, explains why the 1976 coup took place, and why can, say, Fidel resort to foreign capital and market measures without abandoning revolution. This aging bourgeois General, whose Movement was melting beneath his feet, was still decades ahead of many self-appointed Marxists who still believed that there was no difference between Henry Ford IV and the repair shop around the corner because both exploit wage earners. These three paragraphs are all that globalisation is against. I have made a fast translation, so that some hue may be wrongly placed. But read them and you will see how simple the whole thing is... *** THE ROLE OF FOREIGN CAPITAL Argentina has always been an open country for foreign participation; so shall we remain, but it is indispensable to discipline such participation, establishing where it can exist, and the role that it will have to fulfill in our social, political and economic life. No country is really free if it does not fully exert its right to make decissions regarding the exploitation, use and marketing of its resources, and regarding the employment of its productive factors. This is why it is necessary to define the rules of the game for the participation of foreign capital. Once these have been defined, we must ensure their stability and, basically, make sure that they will be followed. Economic progress will depend on our own effort only; thus, foreign capital will have to be understood as complementary and not as a determining and irreplaceable factor in our development. Juan Perón to the Argentinean Chambers, May 1st. 1974 [The answer came on March 24, 1976. The above was unacceptable.] Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, OCTOBER 18, 2001: RELEASED TODAY: Of the 315 largest counties in the United States, 138 had rates of employment growth above the national average of 2.3 percent in 2000, and 23 experienced declines in employment, according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Average annual pay in 2000 was higher than the national average of $35,296 in 105 of the largest 315 U.S. counties. Extraordinary growth in average annual pay was experienced in the San Francisco Bay area, where three of the four counties with the highest rates of pay growth were located. The number of workers filing new claims for unemployment benefits climbed last week as the fallout from the ailing economy and the terror attacks continued to inflict damage on the labor market. For the work week ending October 13, new jobless claims increased by a seasonally adjusted 6,000 to 490,000, the Labor Department reported today. The advance came after a big drop in claims of 51,000. But in the prior 2 weeks, claims had posted sharp increases, pushing them to a 9-year high as layoffs mounted in the travel and tourism industries, which were hard hit by the September 11 attacks. The more stable 4-week moving average jumped to 491,250 last week, the highest level since April 6, 1991, when the country was emerging out of the last recession (Jeannine Aversa, Associated Press, http://www.nypost.com/apstories/business/V7431.htm). A year-long study of the sources of U.S. productivity gains during the last half of the 1990s provides encouraging projections for continued increases once the economy pulls out of its presumed recession, although productivity increases are likely to be smaller than in the economy's boom times, according to a report released Oct. 16 by the international consulting firm McKinsey Co. The latest government figures show that productivity gains already had moderated as of the second quarter of 2001, reflecting what was then a significant economic slowdown. Acknowledging the uncertainty created by the September 11 terrorist attacks, the McKinsey Global Institute said While we cannot predict how consumer and business demand will unfold, many of the product, service, and process innovations underlying the U.S. productivity improvement that began in 1995 will continue to generate productive growth above the long-term 1972-95 trend. However, the growth rate will probably not be as high as the 1995-2000 rate (Daily Labor Report, page A9). Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, said today that the damage to the economy from terrorist attacks should be temporary and that the United States would soon start benefiting from the advances of technology that helped fuel the boom of the late 1990's. In an appearance before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, Greenspan described the short-term economic outlook as murky (The New York Times, page C1). The terrorists have set us back for a few quarters, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress, but longer-term prospects for faster productivity growth are scarcely diminished, according to the Capital feature of The Wall Street Journal (page A1). The article is illustrated with a graph that shows the annual growth of non-farm output per hour of work, 1947-73; 1973-95; and 1995-00, and gives the source of the data as the Bureau of Labor Statistics. On page A2 of the Journal, Greenspan is said to be optimistic about the potential for information technology to keep the U.S. economy growing faster than it did from the mid-1970s through the mid 1990s. More women are staying home with their infant children and not holding jobs in the workforce, according to a study released today by the Census Bureau. For the first time in 25 years, the labor force participation rate of mothers with infant children decreased, falling to 55 percent in 2000 from a record high of 59 percent in 1998, the study found. The percentage of mothers in the workforce remained higher than when the government first recorded it in 1976, when it was 31 percent. Each year through 1998, the labor force participation rate for women with infants either increased or did not change significantly, the survey showed. Changes in the labor force participation of women with infants are important as they could signal changes in the demand for child care arrangements, changes in child rearing and further childbearing and spacing patterns, and the demand for employer-sponsored maternity benefits, the study said. The survey was conducted in June 2000, with 50,000 participants (Daily Labor Report, page A-3). Accompanying an article in The Washington Post (page A2) on the fall of the percentage of new mothers in the workplace is a graph that gives the percentage of working mothers by age, race and ethnicity, martial status, and educational attainment working in 1998
quote du jour
from Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: This is going to be a very, very long campaign. It may take till next spring. It may take till next summer. It may take longer than that in Afghanistan. (exerpted from http://slate.msn.com/code/TodaysPapers/TodaysPapers.asp). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Discussion of Empire 26.10.01
- Original Message - From: Greg Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ian, I would put to you that given the concept of Imperialism developed by Lenin (which I believe lies at the core of our collective understanding) - the evidence is in a sense just in such an exhaustion of the means of Imperialist competition. = By imperialist competition do you mean raw inter-state rivalry or oligopolies securing markets via state intervention in the politico-econ. affairs of another state. Bear with me a little. Lenin's Imperialism was conceived as a transitional stage, part of the process of further socialisation of the means of production and property as such. In this it was defined by the conjunction of national finance capital with existing states, which established the basis for imperial competition (and the nature of Imperialism as such). == Got it; except that the contradiction that emerged was socialization of MOP while deepening the legal appuratuses of liberal-private property. Powerful states use a vast array of techniques to induce other states to adopt property and contract law to secure stable expectations for investors from the 'home' state. In the long run [Keynes aside], standards for property and contract law are in the interests of all states; to be sure there can be variances but those variances can only thrive to the extent they share common prerogatives--capital accumulation under stable expectations. The exhaustion of the means of Imperialist struggle, is in essense the exhaustion of the conjunction beween finance capital and particular states. If this persisted then the contest itself would have the means for just that type of traditional territorial division and administration. = I don't think the exhaustion has occurred by any means. The institutional bases of finance capital vis a vis states has created competition for which types of administrative models will be implemented. IMF/WB/US Treas. vs. the 'central' banks outside the G8; clearly the latter are losing this one. To the extent that the former just *are* the institutional backbone of the imperial project it is crucial to keep the light and heat on them for the whole host of reasons that have put activists in the street. The question is what models of financial administration can replace the current one. Here *new* economic theory in it's prescriptive/normative mode is totally crucial as are maxims for how to implement them either via the current institutional arrangements [:-(] or in a call for a new Bretton Woods type Conference that is respectful of democratic norms [broadcast for the world to see, citizens from all countries vote on the representatives to attend the conference, citizens across the planet vote on the proposals etc.] In this sense there is no material grounds for the persistence of the Imperialist mindset except of course the wieght of previous history, which of course produces this very type of persistence (that is persistence in form not in essence). The mindset persists but only to clothe new movements and new contradictions. In short, given a close reading of Lenin's Imperialism, the real shock is not that Imperialism is over (Lenin himself lays the groundwork for this) but in the way the left persists in prolonging it conceptually. What I like in your response is that you follow your own logic well, the vectors and mindset you see are real - they appear to dispute what I am saying and this is properly said. But it hinges on appearance, moreover you correctly describe them as vectors and mindsets with which I would very much agree. Now the querstion is whether this actually supports the notion of Imperialism as still active or the reverse. == Well I do think we're at an aporia of a Gramscian sort. This is why, in my view, looking at how the imperial 'structures of intentionality' are produced in the academy [before one is a diplomat, State Dept. functionary, corporate manager, entrepeneuer etc., one is a student-member of a family] is crucial right now. Obviously I saw the reverse, but let it hand for a while just as a possiblity. We need to go back a few steps in this. First I by no means embrace the book Empire as a whole. Second I would not pin the transformation on a change of the intellectual apparatus of bourgeois rule but rather on the transformation of the property form of capital. === OK. I agree with this but there has not been a substantive change in the property form of capital. Here's just one example: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015s=greider Libertarian justifications for property rights have nowhere near lost their appeal in the US. This is a *big* problem. Max Sawicky says the left fetishizes ownership, but more importantly property rights are a powerful form of governance that we can no longer afford to overlook given not only the complex relations it creates among people but what it enables in terms of
overcapacity update
Fear of Recession Tips Hand of Cautious Firms From Wait and See to Cut Back Now By Steven Pearlstein Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, October 22, 2001; Page A01 Traffic has returned to the malls, airline seats and hotels are beginning to fill up again, neighborhood restaurants are bustling and auto sales are booming. The stock market has cautiously clawed back to pre-Sept. 11 levels and consumer confidence has regained its footing. But not far beneath the surface of the U.S. economy, a troubling picture emerges. In many industries, the existence of too many companies with too much capacity has sparked price wars, cutting deeply into company profits. As firms respond by laying off workers, scaling back on travel and bonuses, and deferring equipment purchases, the weakness has spread from one industry to another. Caution has bred more caution and weakness more weakness, creating a self-reinforcing downward spiral. The signs can be found almost everywhere. At Cypress Semiconductor Corp. in San Jose, slowing demand for chips and price cuts of 20 percent have left sales at about half of the level they were a year ago. The company already has trimmed its payroll by 10 percent and its travel budget by 50 percent, while also eliminating bonuses. This victim of other companies' cutbacks has sliced its annual capital expenditures by 70 percent. In Midland, Tex., the full schedule of drilling contracts that Rod Ric Corp. had through the end of the year now is full of holes as oil companies delay projects into 2002. Outside Green Bay, Wis., Don Schneider, owner of the country's largest private trucking company, has concluded it does not make sense to sell his big rigs after three years, now that prices on the used-truck market have collapsed. Instead, Schneider National Inc. plans to run its trucks for five years, which helps explain why DaimlerChrylser AG's Freightliner division announced last week that it would lay off 2,700 workers and permanently close two Canadian plants. In Washington, renovation will not begin this fall, as had been planned, on two D.C. hotels managed by Kimpton Group Inc. of San Francisco. With revenue per room down 10 percent to 20 percent at hotels nationwide, the owners of the properties have put the projects on hold. Worrisome Indicators Economists generally agree that the nation appears to be sliding into a recession. Top White House adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey echoed other Bush administration officials when he said recently that it is likely U.S. economic output declined in the three-month period from July through September and would probably shrink further in the last quarter of the year, which would meet one common definition of recession. Among the worrisome indicators is the significant decline in payroll employment since the spring, including last month's loss of 199,000 jobs, the biggest monthly drop in more than 10 years. Industrial production has declined for 12 consecutive months, the longest stretch since the close of World War II. The 2.4 percent drop in retail sales in September was the largest in a decade of record keeping. Bruce Kasman, chief U.S. economist for J.P. Morgan, said it is clear that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 accelerated a process in which many companies cut back on their operations and many consumers cut back on their spending. As a result, he predicted, this recession is likely to be steeper and longer than people had expected. Opinions differ on how steep and how long, but few forecasters expect the economy to continue contracting beyond the middle of next year. With Washington set to deliver a heavy dose of economic stimulus in the form of tax cuts, government spending and still more cuts in interest rates, most expect a strong rebound in the second half of 2002. Economists also warn that all bets are off if the economy is hit by some other shock, like a setback in the military operation in Afghanistan or an escalation of terrorist attacks here. Companies Take Action As with any downturn, people and companies are feeling the effects in different ways. Yet several trends emerged last week in an unscientific survey ofa score of companies around the country conducted by The Washington Post. One, clearly, is that many companies have decided they no longer have the luxury of sitting back and waiting to seeing how things develop. The hiring freezes of the summer have given way to layoffs and forced retirement programs, idle manufacturing plants and even pay cuts. At Metaldyne Corp., a Michigan metal parts manufacturer with 72 plants around the world, President Tim Leuliette is not just waiting for more bad news. Although the auto companies that are his biggest customers have had soaring sales in recent weeks because of zero-percent financing offers, Leuliette worries that the industry cannot survive for long selling cars at a loss. Over the past year, he had already cut the company's 16,000-member payroll by 25 percent to wring
US Considering drugs, torture on terrorist suspects
Federal officials are considering using drugs on uncooperating suspects, or sending them to other countries (read: Israel) that emply torture to extract information. See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/10/22/MN151077.DTL tim = Check out the Chico Examiner listserves at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisorderlyConduct http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChicoLeft Subscribe to the Chico Examiner for only $40 annually or $25 for six months. Mail cash or check payabe to Tim Bousquet to POBox 4627, Chico CA 95927 __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
who said it?
[no googling! :-)] Overwhelmed with the increasing scientific knowledge base, our universities are going to have to struggle to prevent the liberal arts curricula from being swamped by technology and science. It is crucial that that not happen.
Britain leans more towards euro
Sharp rise in British business support for the euro Business: support for the euro has risen by 17% over the last 3 months, according to a survey published on 10.10.01. The survey by Reed Accountancy showed that 50% of Finance Directors support British membership of the euro, with 36% opposed. The poll of 350 Finance Directors was conducted after Tony Blair's speech to the Labour party conference. Last week the Gallup poll Should Britain join the euro as soon as possible if the Government's economic conditions are met? Now (November 2000) Yes 34% 18 No 51 71 The figures show a) the public is much less strongly opposed to the euro than the unlamented William Hague believed. b) The adverse international economic and security climate is focussing people's attention on the merits of collective security, and away from being happy little Englanders. This despite the fact that Britain is weathering the recession better than many other developed capitalist countries. The 1975 referendum on British membership of the European Union recorded a swing of 22% from no to yes in the six months before the vote. Blair may be right that his emphasis on international cooperation could win a referendum for the euro, and further marginalise the Conservative Party. Britain joining the euro would strengthen the emergence of Europe as a pole of the new Empire, as a force weakening the USA as the exclusive dominant pole, and as a step towards the dominance of social democratic ideas in the world. Chris Burford London
BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, OCTOBER 22, 2001: A rise in gasoline prices in September pushed consumer prices up by 0.4 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. The consumer price index for all urban consumers rose to 178.3 in September, following a 0.1 percent increase in August. The so-called core rate, excluding food and energy prices, increased 0.2 percent in September. BLS reported that price collection for the data was conducted throughout the month of September, with two-thirds of the data collected after September 11 (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). A temporary jump in gasoline costs pushed consumer prices higher in September, but lower energy costs since then, along with the slumping economy, should keep inflation subdued. The Consumer Price Index, a closely watched inflation gauge, climbed 0.4 percent last month, after a 0.1 percent advance in August, the Labor Department reported today (Associated Press, The New York Times, October 20, page C3). The inflation-adjusted weekly earnings of U.S. workers were unchanged in September after small gains in wages and hours worked were offset by a larger increase in consumer prices, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Workers' average hourly earnings rose 0.2 percent in September after rising 0.5 percent in August, while average weekly hours rose 0.3 percent after a sharp 0.6 percent decline in August (Daily Labor Report, page D-14). A surge in gasoline prices led to accelerated consumer price inflation in September, though price increases generally remained tame. The government also announced that Social Security recipients will get a 2.6 percent cost-of-living increase next year, boosting the monthly check by $22 to $874 for the average retiree. The increase is smaller than this year's 3.5 percent boost -- the highest in 9 years--because inflation pressures have slowed (The Wall Street Journal, page A4). Consumers should find lower prices at their meat counters the rest of this year in the wake of the slowing economy that has created a glut in the nation's cattle markets, analysts said. The same public uncertainty that has reduced air travel and tourism is also driving down demand for beef at hotels, restaurants and resorts. That's having a big impact on cattle prices, considering that half of the beef raised in this country is eaten outside the home, said James Mintert, Kansas State University extension economist (Roxana Hegeman, Associated Press. http://www.usatoday.com/aponline/2001102202/2001102202582000.htm). Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao has named Lois Orr of the Bureau of Labor Statistics as acting BLS commissioner following the departure of Katharine Abraham from the post. DOL spokesman Sue Hensley says that the Bush administration is still examining potential qualified candidates for the top post at BLS. The nomination is high on our priority list, she said. Abraham left the agency October 12, after 8 years as commissioner. Orr has served as deputy BLS commissioner for the last 3 years. Before coming to the agency's Washington, D.C. headquarters nearly 5 years ago, she served as regional BLS commissioner in Chicago (Daily Labor Report, page A-10). A key gauge of future U.S. economist activity declined 0.5 percent last month, as the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. weakened an already troubled economy. The New York-based Conference Board said today its Index of Leading Economic Indicators fell to 109.2 in September, following a revised 0.1 drop in August. The decrease in the September index is the largest one-month decline since January 1996, the board said. The 2-month decline in the index suggests that the already weak economy is likely to remain weak until next year, said Conference board economist Ken Goldstein. He said the slide in the index reflects a significant slowdown in the manufacturing and service sectors (Lisi de Bourbon, Associated Press http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-economy.story?coll=chi%2Dbusine ss%2Dhed). The nation's intelligence agencies have experienced a surge in job seekers since the terrorist attacks on September 11, a boom born of lofty patriotism and cold economic realities, recruiters say. Resumes are pouring in to the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and National Security Agency at a rate 6 times as high as before the attacks (The New York Times, page B7). The September 11 attacks and the war on terrorism combined with a slumping economy that has made private sector jobs more scarce, has brought a heightened sense of public service. That might spur a generation of elites who once shunned government work in favor of high-octane business careers to reconsider (The Washington Post, page E1). Traffic has returned to the malls, airline seats and hotels are beginning to fill up again, neighborhood restaurants are bustling
BLS Daily report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2001: Industrial production fell 1.0 percent in September, the 12th month in a row that the industrial sector has declined, the Federal Reserve reports. The latest decline brought the industrial production index down to 140.3 percent of its 1992 average from a revised 141.5 percent in August (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). Housing construction rose in September despite new uncertainties about consumers' willingness to make big purchases in an economy shaken by terrorist attacks. The Commerce Department reports that builders broke ground on 1.57 million housing units at a seasonally adjusted annual rate last month, a 1.7 percent increase. That followed a sharp 6.7 percent drop in August (Jeannine Aversa, Associated Press, http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/145798p-1422735c.html). They are hiring security guards, requiring employees to wear identification badges at all times, taking X-rays of packages and reviewing evacuation plans. Businesses across the country are trying not only to make their employees and offices safe but also to reassure people, perhaps the hardest job of all. For help, they are often turning to outside security firms and consultants to identify which measures they need right away and what changes should be made permanently. The most common advice is to examine current security and then to spend more on equipment and on people with better training (The New York Times, page C1). The once-booming Pacific Northwest faces a downturn after blows to multiple sectors, says The Wall Street Journal (page B7). The series of blows has spared few parts of the region, from struggling rural communities, where energy-intensive industries are just about the only source of high-wage jobs, to technology driven metropolitan economies, which haven't experienced a recession in 25 years. Economy.com says Oregon and Washington have already slipped into recession. Oregon has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation: 6.4 percent in September, compared with 4.9 percent in the U.S. Seasonally adjusted unemployment in Washington hit 6.1 percent in September, up a percentage point from a year earlier. The state's vaunted software sector grew by 600 jobs from a year earlier, reflecting a rebound in August, when the sector experienced a loss of 1,000 jobs from a year earlier. Hotel markets are expected to recover slowly from a severe economic slowdown and a fear of flying following the terrorist attacks. Only slightly under half of the nation's largest 54 hotels are predicted to have returned to 2000 revenue levels by 2004, according to Torto Wheaton Research, the Boston-based real estate-data arm of CB Richard Ellis Services, inc. The Sun Belt is expected to recover the quickest, according to the firm's analysts, which projected revenue per available room. That's due to strong projected population growth in the region and a prior shortage of hotel rooms (Cross Country feature of The Wall Street Journal, page B7). West South Central and Rocky Mountain states ranging from Louisiana and Oklahoma to Wyoming had New Mexico will fare better than other areas in the economic aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Based on the percentage of their ouput in various industries, those areas have the highest concentration of sectors likely to benefit from -- or at least not be hurt as much by -- the attacks' effects: defense manufacturing, military bases, federal government jobs, energy mining and agriculture. Conversely, New England and East South Central states, including Connecticut, Vermont, Georgia and Tennessee, won't do as well because they're among the most reliant on aircraft manufacturing or travel-related services -- industries suffering from the slowdown in airline travel. The states with the largest share of their output -- the total value of all goods and services produced -- concentrated in negatively affected industries: Nevada, Hawaii, Washington, Arizona and Kansas (The Wall Street Journal, page B7). DUE OUT TOMORROW: Employment and Average Annual Pay for Large Counties, 2000 application/ms-tnef
EPI study
People Before Profits - PWW Hardship in America By Reed Smith A recent study confirms what many working class families know from experience - the official Federal poverty level is inadequate to meet their bare minimum needs. Released by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), it studies the real cost of living for working families and is based on 400 basic family budgets reflecting locations in the 50 states (including metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas in each state) for families ranging in size from one parent with one child to two parents with three children (under 12 years old). The budgets itemize the costs for housing, food, childcare, transportation, health care, other expenses (clothing, personal care, household items, school supplies, and television - no restaurant meals, vacations, or movies), and taxes. They explain that the official Federal Poverty level, which is issued each year by the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, is based on a 1960's formula. It takes the cost of groceries according to the Department of Agriculture's thrifty food plan and multiplies this number by three to get a family budget, because, back then, groceries comprised about one third of total living costs. Today, food accounts for less than one fifth of total expenses, whereas the costs of housing and qualified child-care (not usually a factor in the sixties) are much larger. Furthermore, the official poverty line is computed as a national figure with no accounting for the difference in cost by geographic location, and assumes a pre-tax level of income. Overall, the EPI basic budget averaged across the nation is at least twice the poverty level. In rural North Dakota, you can just barely make it on $17, 034 if you are a single parent with one child under 12 - the official poverty level for one parent and one child is $11,610. On the other hand, if you are a family with two parents and three children under 12, you will need $67,151 to make it in Nassau-Suffolk, New York. That is a long way from $20,670, the poverty level for a family of five! One of the most glaring inequities sighted in the study is the racial/ethnic disparity in incomes: 52.1 percent of Afro-Americans fall below the basic budget as do 56.3 percent of Hispanics, compared to 20.3 percent of whites. These figures are similarly skewed for those below the official poverty line: 22.3 percent, 21.5 percent and 6.2 percent respectively. The EPI study goes into considerable depth about the reality of the hardships that those falling below the basic budget in income experience: inadequate food for the family; housing - evictions, utilities disconnected, doubling up with friends or family, phone disconnected, behind on rent or utility payments; health care - not receiving necessary medical care, emergency room is main source for health care, no health insurance; child care - child cares for self, child not in after school or enrichment activities, inadequate adult-to-child ratio in child care facility. Slightly more than 41 percent of all families living below 200 percent of the poverty level (approximately the same as the basic budget) experience food insecurity. Thirty six percent of such families have no health insurance. A recent book by Barbara Ehrenreich (Nickel and Dimed) is a compelling story of her attempt to live on minimum wage jobs. She concluded that low-wage workers don't get by, they live in acute distress. The lunch that consists of Doritos or hot dog rolls, leading to faintness before the end of the shift. The 'home' that is also a car or a van. The illness or injury that must be 'worked through,' with gritted teeth, because there's no sick pay or health insurance and the loss of one day's pay will mean no groceries for the next. These experiences ... are, by almost any standard of subsistence, emergency situations. The EPI study proposes policies to help working families meet basic needs such as: boost the minimum wage - now 24 percent lower than in 1979, it needs to be doubled to really make a dent; removing some of the barriers to workers joining a union; state funding in addition to the federal earned income tax credits for low wage workers; pay equity for women, migrant workers, etc.; economic and work force development to create better job opportunities; universal health care for all workers; universal child-care by qualified and licensed agencies for all workers; extending home ownership tax benefits to renters; improved public transit systems instead of more highways; increased availability of food stamps; and paid leave for illness and new babies for all working families.
Class struggles in the current crisis
Wednesday October 17, 9:59 pm Eastern Time AFL-CIO offers plan to stimulate U.S. economy WASHINGTON, Oct 17 (Reuters) - The American labor movement unveiled its own brand of economic stimulus on Wednesday that has as its core a $60 billion package of direct support for unemployed workers. In sharp contrast to Republican-backed measures that rely almost entirely on tax cuts to give the shaky U.S. economy a boost, the AFL-CIO's package would enrich unemployment insurance benefits and pay the cost of continuing medical coverage for recently idled or underemployed workers. The labor federation's proposal follows a Bush administration stimulus plan valued at $60 billion to $75 billion and a House Ways and Means Committee plan to inject $100 billion in the economy in the next year. Both Republican plans are packed with tax cuts, especially for business. ``Our priority is getting resources into the hands and the pockets of workers who have been most hurt by the events of Sept. 11,'' Chris Owens, director of public policy at the 65-union federation, told reporters. Since the Sept. 11 airline hijacker attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, companies have announced 450,000 job cuts that dealt the U.S. economy, already teetering on the brink of recession, a punishing blow. The AFL-CIO plan, titled ``A Blueprint for Economic Recovery,'' would broaden eligibility for unemployment benefits to include temporary and part-time workers, increase the weekly payout, which varies by state but currently averages about $250, by the greater of 15 percent or $70 and extend the current 26-week maximum duration. For workers who lost their jobs or have been forced to work reduced hours, the federal government should pick up the cost of continued company-provided health care coverage, which federal law now allows laid-off employees to continue at their own expense for 18 months, the AFL-CIO said. Although enhanced jobless benefits and support for health care coverage, together valued at $60 billion, are the AFL-CIO's top priorities, it also called for more federally funded job training and retraining and more direct benefits, like food stamps, for workers hurt by the weakened economy. The AFL-CIO's longer-range stimulus proposals include its long-sought goal of raising the current $5.15 per hour federal minimum wage, giving tax rebates to workers who did not qualify for this year's $300 per individual rebate, a temporary cut in payroll taxes for employees and an end to the taxation of unemployment benefits. PUBLIC SPENDING URGED Beyond that, the federation also recommends public spending to help manufacturers, improve public health, build and repair bridges, highways and public transportation and make other ``infrastructure'' improvements. AFL-CIO officials said the stimulus proposal has been circulated to all 65 of its affiliated unions. Bill Samuel, the federation's legislative affairs director, said the proposal was ``in the same ballpark'' as ideas currently being floated by congressional Democrats, who have yet to propose a measure of their own. House Democrats may offer an alternative to the $100 billion bill of the Repulican-controlled Ways and Means Committee that was passed by on a party-line vote. Machinists Reject CEO Goodwin's Threat Washington, DC, October 17, 2001 In a letter to United Airlines employees, Chief Executive Officer James Goodwin said the nation's second largest airline will perish sometime next year. Shareholders reacted quickly by bidding the airline's stock to new lows and the company's Reservations agents were deluged with calls from nervous passengers seeking ticket refunds. United Airlines will continue to fly tomorrow, next month and next year, declared Machinists Union president Tom Buffenbarger. It will continue to deliver passengers safely, in comfort and on schedule. There are nearly 100,000 United Airlines employees who will see that it does exactly that. And they will do so with or without Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin's letter undercut passenger confidence in air travel just when it was beginning to return. United Airlines employees deserved far better than the alarmist rant of a man who is clearly not up to the task of crisis management. His credibility with employee-owners and the IAM is shot. The challenges facing the air travel industry are real, said Buffenbarger. This is the time for a calm, cool and collected response. Every IAM member, from the hangar bays to the ramp, ticket counters and reservation offices have reacted in that way to this crisis. It is too bad their CEO could not follow their lead. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) represents 45,000 employees at United Airlines, including Mechanic and Related, Ramp and Stores, Public Contact Employees, Dining Service and Security Guards.
WTO/Turtles
Monday October 22 1:06 PM ET WTO Rules for U.S. on Shrimp Dispute GENEVA (AP) - The World Trade Organization on Monday rejected for a second time complaints by Malaysia that the United States is imposing illegal trade restrictions on shrimp imports through a law aimed at protecting endangered sea turtles. A panel of trade experts upheld a ruling issued in June rejecting Malaysia's complaint. The Asian country had claimed that Washington should have fully repealed a law banning imports of shrimp from countries which use trawling nets that trap turtles. Only countries where shrimp nets are equipped with turtle-excluder devices costing about $75 are allowed to export to the United States. Environmental experts have said nets without such devices are killing up to 150,000 turtles a year. Following complaints from Malaysia, Pakistan, India and Thailand, the U.S. law was ruled illegal by the WTO three years ago, angering environmentalists who saw it as proof the WTO failed to take account of environmental concerns. The United States was given until December 1999 to change its system. But instead of repealing the legislation, it changed its guidelines and put into place a program of assistance to countries to help them equip their fishing fleet with turtle excluders. It also lifted the restrictions on Pakistan after deciding that country had sufficiently strong measures to protect turtles. In its June ruling, the panel declared itself satisfied with U.S. action to comply with the original WTO ruling but stressed that there should be more ``serious good faith efforts to reach a multilateral agreement.'' Also Monday a separate appeals panel upheld a ruling that said Mexico was continuing to act illegally by imposing antidumping duties on imports of high fructose corn syrup from the United States. Mexico claimed it had changed its policies after a ruling in February 2000 that it had not concluded correctly that cheap exports from the United States were damaging Mexican producers. But the United States said it was still imposing illegal duties. The ruling opens up the possibility of the United States demanding compensation or imposing trade sanctions on its southern neighbor.
Greenspan translated
Greenspan minus the gobbledegook Larry Elliott Monday October 22, 2001 The Guardian For years, codebreakers have been struggling to unravel the secret language of Alan Greenspan. The best brains from the world's elite universities have burned the midnight oil to crack the code. But to no avail. Greenspan scrambles his thoughts in his own personal Enigma machine, from which they emerge as incomprehensible gobbledegook when he surfaces from the depths of the Federal Reserve. Until now. For we can now reveal that the years of toil have paid off and it is now possible to decipher what Greenspan really thinks. Here in its unexpurgated form is what the Fed chairman was going to say on Capitol Hill before the encoders got to work. First things first. The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington last month were terrible events, and we must not shrink from our duty of bringing the guilty men to book. But when the politicians say that we are winning the war against Osama bin Laden they are utterly wrong. I've no real idea whether carpet bombing Afghanistan means we are achieving our military objectives, but I know one thing: the economic war has already been lost. All that remains now is damage limitation. And boy, is there plenty of damage. The economic consequences of the war have yet to make it to the front pages of the papers or into the top slots on the TV bulletins. But they are profound, and it would be wise to wake up to the possibility that the global economy is now faced with a downturn that will be the worst since my predecessor, Paul Volcker, banged up interest rates in the early 1980s and forced us to endure all those dreary Bruce Springsteen songs about life in the rust belt. It would be wrong to assume that all the problems of the economy have been caused by terrorism. We were already on course for a recession in the second half of this year, and that recession will now be longer and deeper. The initial shock to the American psyche from the attacks was profound, and has since been amplified by the anthrax scare. From a personal point of view, however, being able to blame the terrorists for higher unemployment, the bankrupt businesses and the cuts in investment makes it easier to escape my culpability for America's boom-bust cycle. At this stage, I really can't tell you how bad things are going to get. But I would certainly beware of those who are predicting only a short, sharp recession followed by a rapid recovery early next year. Last week's forecasts from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development were a better indication of what might happen. The OECD estimates that growth in our 30-nation rich man's club will be just 1.2% next year, compared to the 2.6% it was predicting only four months ago. My friend Lawrence Lindsay, economic adviser to the White House, is now admitting that the US will be in recession by the end of this year and will experience only sluggish recovery in 2002. That, too, sounds entirely plausible. The European commission says it cannot rule out a 'temporary contraction' in the EU economies, where unemployment is expected to rise from already high levels. Given what is happening to the German economy, the temporary contraction may last for some time. Why then, you might ask, have share prices been rising these past few weeks? If things really are gloomy out there on main street, isn't it a bit strange that for the first time since the hi-tech bubble burst more than 18 months ago, there has been a return of the sort of speculative buying of shares in little-known companies with bags of alleged potential but no profits? That's a very good question, and one that has led me to question my long-held belief in the efficiency of markets. Wall Street is expecting earnings to grow by 17% in the US corporate sector next year, which was always going to be a struggle but now looks utterly unrealistic at a time when businesses and consumers are coping both with the threat of bio-terrorism and the fear that there might be more conventional attacks on American cities. You do not need to be Sigmund Freud to work out that consumers who have seen the value of their investments halve, are in danger of losing their jobs, are still in a state of shock post-September 11 and fear that the Great Plague is coming to their neighbourhood shopping mall are not going to be in a mood to flash the plastic. We at the Fed are doing what we can. Interest rates are being cut, but as the Japanese have found, the impact can be negligible if people prefer to save rather than spend. If our consumers save just one cent out of every dollar they were previously spending, that will cut demand by around $70bn, the equivalent of the president's fiscal package. And if they save eight cents in every dollar, returning the savings ratio to its long-term average, it would dwarf the monetary and fiscal stimulus to the economy. To the
the ECONOMIST on the slump
The Economist/October 20, 2001 EDITORIAL: The risks are worsening SUPPOSE that the second-hand car you bought kept breaking down. Would you buy another from the same dealer? The same question might apply to economic forecasters. A year ago, most expected the American economy to grow by 3.5% in 2001. By early this year, they thought that a sharper slowdown, but still a soft landing, was likely; even in early September, almost all still ruled out a recession. Today, however, most believe that a recession was already under way before September 11th. When these same people confidently tell you that this recession will be short and mild-indeed, that it will be one of the mildest in 50 years-why would you believe them? It is surely wishful thinking to hope that the bursting of one of the biggest financial bubbles in history, combined with the aftershocks from the most serious attack ever on America's soil, will be followed by the mildest recession in history. That is not to suggest that America will follow Japan with a decade of stagnation. America is in a healthier state than Japan was at the start of the 1990s. Yet there are good reasons to expect America's recession to be deeper and longer-lasting than most people now expect (see article). One is the sheer scale of investment and borrowing during the late 1990s. Another is the unusually synchronised nature of this global slowdown, with economies around the world sinking together. Indeed, it is possible that the world economy as a whole may be about to suffer its deepest downturn since the 1930s. That, in turn, increases the chances of a deeper recession in America. Despite all this, some commentators fret that policymakers are in danger of easing monetary and fiscal policy by too much, so pushing up future inflation. The Economist has a reputation as an inflation hawk, so one might expect us to be in this camp. On the contrary. If anything, the risk to the global economy is not too much inflation, but too little. As a result of the sharp slowdown in demand, global excess capacity is by some measures at its greatest since the 1930s. That will push inflation lower over the next year, from its already low levels. One result is that growth in the G7 economies will be strikingly low in nominal terms, running at just above 1% in the current quarter. Sluggish nominal GDP growth means that it will take longer to purge the excesses of debt and overcapacity. Unexpectedly low inflation will squeeze profits, exacerbate debt problems and put strains on the financial system. By some measures, in any case, monetary policy is not that loose in America. Using the Fed's favoured measure of inflation, the personal consumption expenditure deflator, real interest rates are still positive. Moreover, rate cuts have failed to ease overall financial conditions much. Such cuts work partly by pushing down the currency or propping up equity prices. Yet, despite the recovery of the past two weeks, share prices are 30% below their peak, and the dollar is stronger than at the start of the year. Heavily indebted firms and households may also be reluctant to borrow more even with lower rates. American interest rates probably need to be cut further. Likewise, starting with the luxury of a budget surplus, America's government is right to be giving the economy a fiscal boost. To be effective, though, any fiscal easing must put money into the hands of those most likely to spend it. The exact shape of the fiscal package now being debated by Congress is therefore more important than its size. Altogether now At least American policymakers are trying hard to stave off a deep recession. The same is not always true elsewhere. Despite worsening deflation, the Bank of Japan beggars belief by arguing that further monetary easing could run the risk of triggering hyperinflation. The European Central Bank also failed to cut interest rates last week. Wim Duisenberg, its president, argued unconvincingly that a cut in rates might dent consumer confidence by giving the impression of panic. And few European governments (except France's, and then only mildly) offer much hope of fiscal stimulus, arguing instead that there should be no relaxation of budgetary discipline. Nor is there much hope from emerging economies, for many in Latin America and Asia are in recession already. Asian governments are at least using their fiscal tools more actively to boost their economies. Singapore's government has announced tax cuts and extra public spending equivalent to 7% of GDP. But many Latin American countries that are heavily dependent on foreign capital, notably Argentina, are actually having to raise interest rates and tighten fiscal policy. Economies such as Japan and Europe, which still have room for monetary or fiscal easing, would be wise to use it. Low inflation and budgetary discipline are fine long-term goals, but they are best put aside when
N17 day of action
For Immediate Release October 22, 2001 Peace Coalition Calls for Cross Canada Day of Action Against War and Corporate Globalization The September Eleventh Peace Coalition has called on groups across the country to join a cross Canada day of non-violent action for Global Peace and Justice Saturday November 17th, 2001. Actions will call on the Canadian government to withdraw Canadian Forces from military action and to asses WTO, IMF and World Bank agreements and policies based on peace and economic development. The coalition announced that already events are being planned in towns and cities across the country. Vancouver, Ottawa and Toronto are among the more high profile cities that will have non-violent actions against war and corporate globalization, said Peter Coombes, National Organizer of End the Arms Race, and Co-chair of the September 11 Peace Coalition. The November 17th call for a cross Canada day of action for Global Peace and Justice coincides with the recently announced meetings of the G-20 Finance Ministerial meetings to be held in Ottawa on the same day. The Government must use the upcoming meetings of the G20, IMF, and World Bank in Ottawa to asses current agreements and policies of institutions such as the WTO, IMF, and World Bank against Canadian values of promoting peace, social justice, and security for all people, said Steven Staples of the Council of Canadians. The alternative to war is to begin rebuilding the world's infrastructures and to provide the things that working people need, like food, shelter, medical care, education, jobs and justice. Canadians implicitly understand the need for real justice and that's why thousands of people across the country will participate in the November 17th day of Global Peace and Justice, said Deborah Bourque of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, and Co-chair of the September 11 Peace Coalition. The September Eleventh Peace Coalition, which includes high-profile national peace, labour, students, religious, women, environmental, cultural and community groups formed October 5th to oppose Canada's participation in military retaliation and to speak out against racist attacks resulting from the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States. * 30- For more information contact: Peter Coombes, End the Arms Race 604-687-3223 cel: 604-839-7543 Steven Staples, The Council of Canadians 613-233-2773 x235 or cel: 613-290-2695
query: Engels anthropology
Has there been a serious effort to consider Engels' _Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State_ from the perspective of recent anthropology, i.e., to present a serious critique (rather than a trashing) and reconciliation? (The effort by Evelyn Reed in the edition that I own seems to be a bit too hagiographical.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Discussion of Empire 26.10.01
Ian I had always assumed that the raw inter-state rivalry (most obviously 1914-1945) had overtime given way to oligopolies securing markets via state intervention and hence Imperialism persisted. Indeed up until the 1970s there is good reason to see this as a simple outgrowth. However, connected with the collapse of the USSR maintaining that the simple growth of Imperialism does not get us very far. Perhaps it was the existence of a second super-power which maintained it, perhaps it was overcome due to internal developments, but Imperialism as a conjunction between national finance capital and an Imperial state ceased to be a dominant contradiction very clearly by 1991. History has played a trick on us in this, I believe, we transformed the concept of Imperialism in order for it to be compatible with observed reality - hence the formula you use oligopolies securing markets via state intervention which originally rested on the conjuncture of national finance capital and an Imperial state became a general substitute for this specific historical phase of capital's development. That is a generalisation substituted itself for a specific historical dialectic and made Imperialism a truism. I have no doubt that in the foreseeable future oligopolies securing markets via state intervention will continue but the form of the intervention and the nature of markets have changed dramatically - the export of capital is no-longer recognisable in its older form and national financial capital has ceased to be a major player let alone a dominant form of capital. Of course older forms persist but they do so as secondary and subordinate features. To add to the confusion whatever is happening now does so disguised in its former history, the last super-power standing remains the major state player, but capital itself has got itself from under any particular state however much one particular state is favoured to do its bidding. Ian do not for one instance believe that my attempt to bury the concept of Imperialism has anything to do with painting a kinder face on capitalism, bourgeois rule remains a fundamental obstacle to social improvement and the machinations of capital in their hands a grinding burden on humanity. The point is to find those concepts which come to grips with the new possibilities the development of capital also brings forth. If we can correctly find the dominant dialectic of our period we will be in a position to politically know what to do at the state and international level. The tendency of the left to dissolve every action into a generalisied truism of Imperialism does not make anything clearer, despite the fact that it appears to be confirmed by the actions which so dominant in the news. Aside from any particular event there are areas which need to be explored - the further socialisation of the means of production and appropriation, the role of international credit capital (which I believe is the dominant form of capital and one much neglected - credit capital being the ability of international corporations to raise capital in any particular market based on their reputation a dividend providers ), the changing role of the state and its effects on social hegemony and of course international relations themselves.. Somehow all of this has to be brought under a single dialectic - something quite beyond my powers but not I think beyond our collective efforts. Greg Schofield Perth Australia --- Message Received --- From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:44:22 -0700 Subject: [PEN-L:18961] Re: Re: Re: Re: Discussion of Empire 26.10.01 - Original Message - From: Greg Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ian, I would put to you that given the concept of Imperialism developed by Lenin (which I believe lies at the core of our collective understanding) - the evidence is in a sense just in such an exhaustion of the means of Imperialist competition. = By imperialist competition do you mean raw inter-state rivalry or oligopolies securing markets via state intervention in the politico-econ. affairs of another state. Bear with me a little. Lenin's Imperialism was conceived as a transitional stage, part of the process of further socialisation of the means of production and property as such. In this it was defined by the conjunction of national finance capital with existing states, which established the basis for imperial competition (and the nature of Imperialism as such). == Got it; except that the contradiction that emerged was socialization of MOP while deepening the legal appuratuses of liberal-private property. Powerful states use a vast array of techniques to induce other states to adopt property and contract law to secure stable expectations for investors from the 'home' state. In the long run [Keynes aside], standards for property and contract law are in the interests of all states;
ANC out to get the SA left?
[Patrick Bond, if you're 'out there' what's up with this? Ian] ANC fears union plot to launch rival party South Africa's ruling movement claims it faces 'systematic assault' from ultra-leftists Chris McGreal in Johannesburg Tuesday October 23, 2001 The Guardian South Africa's trade union leaders have accused the ruling African National Congress of character assassination and stifling criticism after the leaking of a confidential ANC document alleging that there is a leftist plot to launch a rival political party and draw the liberation movement back to its socialist roots. The document, drawn up earlier this month after a meeting of the ANC's national executive committee, warns that the party faces a systematic assault from ultra-leftists within its trade union allies. The authors go so far as to warn that leftwingers are planning to launch a world revolution from South Africa. But leaders of the trade union confederation, Cosatu, say the accusations are aimed at silencing critics of the government's unpopular economic policies. The document is further evidence of the growing rift between the ANC, Cosatu and the Communist party within the tripartite alliance formed to oppose apartheid. It warns of increasing independence of thought within Cosatu by those whose first loyalty is to the trade union movement rather than the ANC. The NEC [national executive committee] concluded that there is an organised and loose conscious and sub-conscious tendency in components of the alliance which has decided to launch a systematic assault on the ANC from the left, the document says. It adds that leftwingers are planning to transform Cosatu into a political formation, independent of the ANC, and to draw the Communist party into an alliance with the unions against the government. The aim, it says, is to pressurise the ANC into adopting socialism and populist social and economic policies with dire consequences. By seeking to achieve an idealistic 'great leap' forward this would ultimately result in the collapse of our economy and country and the political victory of the forces of the right, it says. We must learn from other countries, such as Chile, Grenada and elsewhere, if we want to avoid self-destruction of the national democratic revolution through carelessness, populism and the excitement of ultra-leftism that believes the task in our country today is to wage a class struggle against capitalists in the ANC. Perhaps the most extraordinary claim is that leftists in the alliance are planning to use our country as a base to organise and launch an adventurist, ultra-left offensive against the most powerful governments and social forces in the world, to bring about 'workers' revolutions' both in South Africa and elsewhere. In this process, in an attempt that is condemned to fail, it will create conditions for the destruction of our movement and the defeat of our national democratic revolution. The leftists are not named in the document, but they are believed to include Cosatu's president, Willie Madisha, its general secretary, Zwelinzima Vavi, and Blade Nzimande, the Communist party leader. In response to the document, Cosatu issued a statement saying that the accusations elevate to a status of official policy false rumours spread by some in the ANC leadership for some time now. Cosatu leaders have been outspoken in their criticism of the policies of South Africa's president, Thabo Mbeki. The ANC document says the unions' largely unsuccessful two-day general strike against privatisation in August, and their public condemnation of the president's market-oriented economic strategy, have severely strained relations within the alliance. Mr Mbeki has also been humiliated by trade union leaders over his controversial views on Aids. What is most disturbing is that on some issues, this tendency repeats, almost word for word, positions articulated by the official opposition: in condemning what it calls [like the opposition] 'quiet diplomacy' in Zimbabwe, in demanding a state of emergency on HIV-Aids, and in demanding the release of an unprocessed report on [Aids] mortality statistics, the ANC document says. At the weekend, Mr Vavi denied that he or other Cosatu leaders were planning a rival political party. He said the accusations were an attempt at character assassination aimed at discrediting union leaders among their members and stifling criticism. This trend must be stopped in its tracks because it suppresses internal debates within the alliance, Mr Vavi told a union meeting. Cosatu should not allow itself to be blackmailed into silence. He again attacked the government's economic record, saying that its policies had resulted in a job-loss bloodbath without attracting foreign investment. Against this background it is important that we review the role of Cosatu and the alliance in the post-apartheid society, he said. Tensions have been further exacerbated by Cosatu's announcement that it plans a summit to
Re: query: Engels anthropology
Jim you have touched on an old friend (Engels OSPPFS). I am sorry I do not know of a recent work and I agree with you on Reed, but have you read George Thomson's The Prehistoric Aegean and Aesceplus in Athens (his First Philosophers is worth a read also). Thomson actually employs Engels method to great effect and though it is a bit old (1948 I believe) I am sure you will find it a revelation and far from a waste of time. I think the first book above will almost meet your needs. As you are probably aware Gorden Vere Child used Engels periodization quite extensively and also to good and productive effect in his archaeological synthesis (now proved wrong but being the foundation of its own disproof - that is his synthesis of Danubian culture and European artifacts does not follow his logic, but without his logic it could not have in the end be disproved as we would not have the basis for a new synthesis not yet created). A much harder read is Krader's Marx's Ethnological Notebooks but I am not in agreement with his preface and it is off the topic of your inquiry (it does show that Engels is not too far removed from Marx's opinions). Morgan's Ancient Society stills stands up today though some of his concerns are simply quaint (ie brain size). Jim you might not believe it but Morgans collection of kinship terms has never been equaled, in fact, in terms of modern anthropology no- one has even come close (I forget the name of the publication where he announced his first results but it is also worth a read - well at least a decent glance). Years ago I scanned Soviet archaeological sources where, unfortunately, Engels scheme was applied most mechanically and unproductively (no-doubt some keen Soviet archaeologist made good use of it but I found no evidence in translations - I recommend avoiding this area). In the late 1970s I wrote a small graduate thesis on OFPPS, which turned out to be a bit of a disaster. My first impression of Engels was not good and I decided I would write a critique (I was very young and stupid). To this end I collected all the feminist and anthropological literature I could find, everything I could lay my hands on that had anything critical to say. Just as I finished this notetaking and needed to get writing, I re-read Engels and found to my dismay that he was far better then I first thought (hence the thesis went down the toilet as the whole thrust was changed at the last minute). First the criticisms of Engels and Morgan can be traced back to Boas who displaced Morganist concerns and took the first chair in anthropology in the US. If I remember rightly his criticisms boiled down to a couple of unimportant points and a major accusation that Morgan had not understood Aztec culture at all (Boas relying on Spanish sources). Boas was wrong, very wrong in the light of modern views. I could not find in all my searches any criticism of Engels/Morgans anthropology which did not trace right back to Boas - quite a surprise after the passage of years even twenty years ago. Moreover, Boas was a empiricist of first water and whose anthropology from what I have read is ahistorical nonsense, not what I would call a reliable source (I think you will find that Reed and White assume Boas to be correct which is a real pity as Morgan has proved to be superior as a matter of record - Boas' anthropology proved incorrect in each specific instance in regard to his criticism). Morgan, Marx and Engels are not without their problems in this area, one of which was that they gave too much emphasis to the role kinship in human biological development (of course they had no ideas of the real complexity of genes and a very much compressed view of human biological evolution). Moreover, there work contains no actual social dialectic for change within pre-class societies, but other than that as an abstract theory of social evolution there work stands up very well indeed despite its reputation (Again I would refer you to Thomson's excellent application of the theory in unraveling the prehistory of the Greeks). If you are interested to track down a pamphlet by (I think) Peggy Anne Dobbins From Kin to Class you will find that she has discovered the missing dialectic in the equal exchange of necessary labour (compare this to Sahlins muddled attempt to employ use- value to understand kin societies) - a word of warning on Dobbins work (perhaps one of the most poorly printed I have ever come across) she has some rather bizarre ideas on human sexual dimorphism which should be treated as the eccentricity that they are but not used to dismiss her discovery which, at any rate, appears to have been completely ignored. Jim if you find a good recent work on any of this could you please let me know as it is an area that I am very interested in, but being removed from academic resources I would not have a clue what has happened in the last twenty years in this
love is all you need
[the Independent] Miles Kington: Love is all you need (to kill your enemies) 'President Putin doesn't know it yet, but I think American support will prove his death warrant' 23 October 2001 The news that President Bush may have given the go-ahead for Osama bin Laden to be assassinated has brought despair to Professor Steve Inkermann. Here we go again, says Professor Inkermann. Do we never learn? He puts his head in his hands and weeps silently for a moment. Then he looks up and answers his own question. No, we never learn, he says. And the professor should know. He is, after all, chief strategist at Ishapw - shorthand for the internationally respected think tank, The Institute for the Study of How America got the Plot Wrong. A government-funded body, formed to think the unthinkable and wonder out loud why America fails when it does fail, it's like a medieval court jester without the jokes. Ever since I can remember, says the professor, America has believed that if you remove public enemy No 1, you have solved your problem. There are only two objections. One, it does not solve anything, because you then get another public enemy No 1 replacing the old one. Two, we never seem able to manage an assassination that actually does get rid of enemy No 1. Remember we were once going to rub out Castro under the Kennedys? A poisoned pen or back-firing cigar or something? Correct me if I am wrong, but Castro is still going strong and the Kennedys are all gone. In fact, correct me again if I'm wrong, but the Kennedys were assassinated and Castro was not. This was what we in the trade call getting the plot wrong. Really wrong. But surely if they did manage to get rid of Osama bin Laden, the problem would be over? Wouldn't it? Professor Inkermann stares into the distance. He has heard this all before. Over the years, he says, explaining it very simply as he has no doubt had to explain things to successive uncomprehending presidents, we have always been enthralled by the idea, gleaned from too many Westerns, that if you rub out the chief baddy, peace is restored. If Wyatt Earp can kill the Clancy brothers, if Jesse James can be wiped out, then everything will be lovely in the garden again. If the Garden of Eden had been an American scenario, then Adam would have tried to shoot it out with the serpent. Trouble is, knowing our luck, he would have shot Eve by mistake... But surely the US generally gets what it wants? It's not often on the losing side? It's always on the losing side when it comes to public enemy No 1. Think of all the big bad guys that the Americans have sworn to get rid of. Think of Colonel Gaddafi. Think of Saddam Hussein. Think of Ayotollah Khomeini. Think of Castro. We have sworn to get rid of all of them, and they are all still here, with the exception of Kim Il Sung, who was replaced by a clone, and Khomeini, who died of old age. Got tired waiting to be assassinated, I expect. You might almost say that for America to say a leader should be got rid of is a guarantee he will stay in power for a long time. Look at it the other way round. What about world leaders we thoroughly approved of and wanted to stay in power? Like the Shah? President Marcos? Pinochet? What happened to them? We supported them and it was their undoing. American support is the kiss of death. American opposition is the kiss of life. Therefore... This is where Professor Inkermann starts thinking the unthinkable. Therefore we should start loving our enemies. Not only is it what we are told to do in the Bible, but it's the only way to get rid of them. I have recently managed to persuade the State Department to try, just as an experiment, cosying up to Vladimir Putin. They have started. Putin doesn't know it yet, but I think US support will be his death warrant. And bin Laden? Should America think the ultimate unthinkable and embrace him? Should America hold out the hand of peace to the Taliban? It is, after all, the ultimate logical conclusion of his argument. That we can only destroy them by taking them on as friends. I don't know, says Professor Inkermann, brooding. Maybe it's a step too far, to go to bin Laden, and say 'Howdy, come round for drinks'. Maybe... Still, it's going to be interesting to see what happens to Blair. Blair? Sure. Right now, we love Blair. Just as we loved the Shah and Marcos and all our other vanished allies. So it'll be interesting to see how long he can outlast the curse of American friendship. don't you think? Very interesting indeed.
Robert Fisk article
NOTE: I have seen one report that claims Omar's son is not dead...cheers, Ken Hanly Robert Fisk: As the refugees crowd the borders, we'll be blaming someone else 'It is palpably evident that they are not fleeing the Taliban but our bombs and missiles' 23 October 2001 Mullah Mohammed Omar's 10-year-old son is dead. He was, according to Afghan refugees fleeing Kandahar, taken to one of the city's broken hospitals by his father, the Taliban leader and Emir of the Faithful, but the boy - apparently travelling in Omar's car when it was attacked by US aircraft - died of his wounds. No regrets, of course. Back in 1985, when American aircraft bombed Libya, they also destroyed the life of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's six-year-old adopted daughter. No regrets, of course. In 1992, when an Israeli pilot flying an American-made Apache helicopter fired an American-made missile into the car of Said Abbas Moussawi, head of the Hizbollah guerrilla army in Lebanon, the Israeli pilot also killed Moussawi's 10-year-old. No regrets, of course. Whether these children deserved their deaths, be sure that their fathers - in our eyes - were to blame. Live by the sword, die by the sword - and that goes for the kids too. Back in 1991, The Independent revealed that American Gulf War military targets included secure bunkers in which members of Saddam Hussein's family - or the families of his henchmen - were believed to be hiding. That's how the Americans managed to slaughter well over 300 people in an air raid shelter at Amariya in Baghdad. No Saddam kids, just civilians. Too bad. I wonder - now that President George Bush has given permission to the CIA to murder Osama bin Laden - if the same policy applies today? And so the casualties begin to mount. From Kandahar come ever more frightful stories of civilians buried under ruins, of children torn to pieces by American bombs. The Taliban - and here the Americans must breathe a collective sigh of relief - refuse to allow Western journalists to enter the country to verify these reports. So when a few television crews were able to find 18 fresh graves in the devastated village of Khorum outside Jalalabad just over a week ago, the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could ridicule the deaths as ridiculous. But not, I suspect, for much longer. For if each of our wars for infinite justice and eternal freedom have a familiar trade mark - the military claptrap about air superiority, suppression of command and control centres, radar capabilities - each has an awkward, highly exclusive little twist to it. In 1999, Nato claimed it was waging war to put Kosovo Albanian refugees back in their homes - even though most of the refugees were still in their homes when the war began. Our bombing of Serbia led directly to their dispossession. We bear a heavy burden of responsibility for their suffering - since the Serbs had told us what they would do if Nato opened hostilities - although the ultimate blame for their ethnic cleansing'' clearly belonged to Slobodan Milosevic. But Nato's escape clause won't work this time round. For as the Afghan refugees turn up in their thousands at the border, it is palpably evident that they are fleeing not the Taliban but our bombs and missiles. The Taliban is not ethnically cleansing its own Pashtun population. The refugees speak vividly of their fear and terror as our bombs fall on their cities. These people are terrified of our war on terror'', victims as innocent as those who were slaughtered in the World Trade Centre on 11 September. So where do we stop? It's an important question because, once the winter storms breeze down the mountain gorges of Afghanistan, a tragedy is likely to commence, one which no spin doctor or propaganda expert will be able to divert. We'll say that the thousands about to die or who are dying of starvation and cold are victims of the Taliban's intransigence or the Taliban's support for terrorism or the Taliban's propensity to steal humanitarian supplies. I have to admit - having been weaned on Israel's promiscuous use of the word terror every time a Palestinian throws a stone at his occupiers - that I find the very word terrorism increasingly mendacious as well as racist. Of course - despite the slavish use of the phrase war on terrorism on the BBC and CNN - it is nothing of the kind. We are not planning to attack Tamil Tiger suicide bombers or Eta killers or Real IRA murderers or Kurdish KDP guerrillas. Indeed, the US has spent a lot of time supporting terrorists in Latin America - the Contras spring to mind - not to mention the rabble we are now bombing in Afghanistan. This is, as I've said before, a war on America's enemies. Increasingly, as the date of 11 September acquires iconic status, we are retaliating for the crimes against humanity in New York and Washington. But we're not setting up any tribunals to try those responsible. The figure of 6,000 remains as awesome as it did in the days that followed. But what happens when
Re: ANC out to get the SA left?
- Original Message - From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Patrick Bond, if you're 'out there' what's up with this? Ian] ANC fears union plot to launch rival party (Can I advertise my book on this topic of the new ultra-left - we jokingly call each other, Hey, m'ooltra' to make it sound sexy - which came out this week from University of Cape Town Press? Against Global Apartheid: South Africa meets the World Bank, IMF and International Finance... details available if you email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]) There's no Workers' Party on the way (not for the next 5 years, I'd bet). Instead, we're seeing a multiple, interlocking set of challenges to the ruling regime on a variety of fronts. There is great paranoia amongst the ANC neoliberal clique, because not only are Cosatu comrades very annoyed about privatisation - and hundreds of thousands took off two-days' pay in late August for a general strike -but in addition people on the ground are flexing muscles. Details around one example, electricity, are revealing. In a couple of hours I'm off to Soweto to party at the Orlando East Communal Hall with the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee, and to see the premiere of the new 1/2 hour video doccie, People's Power: Sparks Fly in Soweto (soon to be available more generally, in prep for Rio+10 here in Jo'burg next September). Anyhow, inspired in part by PEN-Ler Gene Coyle's excellent arguements about discriminatory pricing in electricity market, the Soweto comrades and their academic friends (http://www.queensu.ca/msp - see recent documents) argued for free lifeline services (1 kWh/person/day free), and against the pricing strategy of Eskom which has led to thousands of disconnections... and in turn to massive urban rioting... and late last week, to the following victory: *** People's Power in Soweto! An End to Eskom's Electricity Cuts-- but Related Struggles to Intensify Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 10AM, 18 OCTOBER CONTACTS: Trevor Ngwane, chairperson, 083-293-7691 and 011-339-4121 Dudu Mphenyeke, media officer, 082-953-9003 Virginia Setshedi, deputy chairperson, 072-152-4220 The Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee warmly welcomes the suspension of cut-offs by Eskom. This is a victory for humanity, for development and for the expansion of our constitutional rights to lead lives of dignity. The news comes on the eve of our launching major civil protests and legal action against Eskom and municipalities which persist in denying constitutional rights to low-income citizens. We will not rest, but will intensify the struggle of poor and working-class Sowetans in related socio-economic grievances. The Johannesburg Metro's iGoli 2002 plan, and Johannesburg Water Company's plan to cut off water supplies and impose pit latrines on poor people are now targets in our sights. But we will expand our work into a variety of other socio-economic rights, including water, healthcare, housing, the environment, employment and access to food. And in doing so, we will join people across Gauteng in our Anti-Privatisation Forum. In six weeks' time, we will host similar groups across South Africa in the National Exploratory Workshop. That workshop will spread the lessons of how people's power can overwhelm unaccountable, heartless officials from Eskom, other parastatal agencies, national and provincial government departments, and municipalities. As we approach the Rio+10 World Summit on Sustainable Development, the lesson will go out to the whole world: only struggle by the masses for social justice can reverse the tide of free-market economics and big-business interests that are corrupting our hard-fought South African liberation. Eskom's incompetence when billing Sowetans is one of its most important apartheid-era legacies. After 1994, the incompetence worsened, and was accompanied in recent months by the most cruel and unusual measures to cut peoples' supplies. In claiming victory, the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee salutes the many people who have been shot--at least two dead in the Vaal--by Eskom security officials and outsourced mercenary companies, and the dozens of people killed in electrocutions caused by inadequate Eskom and municipal services. We believe that the drive to privatise--by milking more from the poor--seemed to instill in Eskom the most anti-social, anti-environmental strategies. We also believe that the tide has turned, internationally, against privatisation. Renationalisation is now a popular sentiment. We also believe that People's Power is responsible for Eskom's U-turn. We mobilised tens of thousands of Sowetans in active protests over the past year. We established professional and intellectual credibility for our critique of Eskom, even collaborating on a major Wits University study. We demonstrated at the houses of the mayor, Amos Masondo, and local councillors, and in the spirit of non-violent civil disobedience, we went so far as to
neoclassical collective action
[ I posted the statistics link for the ITC, the publications page and at the end of the article. Why should workers get screwed because of the $ policy?] [Financial Times] Ruling opens way for curbs on steel imports By Edward Alden in Washington Published: October 23 2001 01:55 | Last Updated: October 23 2001 05:04 The US International Trade Commission ruled on Monday that foreign steel producers were hurting the US steel industry, opening the door to broad-ranging restrictions on steel imports by early next year. The decision hands the Bush administration what promises to be a difficult and politically contentious decision over whether to escalate trade tensions with US allies at a time when the country is trying to maintain a solid international coalition for the fight against terrorism. US steelmakers have continued to falter in the face of declining US demand, falling prices and lower-cost imports. Bethlehem Steel, one of the country's largest steel companies, last week filed for Chapter 11 protection from its creditors, making it the 25th US steel producer to declare bankruptcy since 1998. The administration earlier this year launched what is known as a Section 201 investigation, which would allow the US to protect the industry through higher tariffs or quotas on steel imports without violating international trade rules. Monday's decision by the ITC, an independent arm of the government, means that trade curbs could be placed on most of the main steel products, including all categories of flat-rolled steel, covering about 80 per cent of US steel imports. The ITC also excluded steel from Canada in most of the categories, though it included most steel from Mexico. Steelmakers in both countries are treated separately as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement with the US. The ITC now has 60 days to recommend a remedy, which will likely include import restrictions, but may also require the steel companies to take steps to improve their own competitiveness. The Bush administration then has another 60 days to accept or reject the remedy, or fashion one of its own. The action could get caught up politically in the administration's effort to win congressional authority for negotiating new trade accords. The steel case was launched largely as a way to persuade steel state lawmakers to back new fast-track authority. The House is expected to vote on fast-track in the next few weeks, but Senate action is unlikely until early next year. That could leave powerful steel supporters in the Senate such as Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Max Baucus, the finance committee chairman, in a position to demand relief for the steel industry. http://www.usitc.gov/er/nl2001/ER1022Y2c.pdf http://www.usitc.gov/ier.htm ftp://ftp.usitc.gov/pub/telephone/ITCPHONE.PDF
Re: neoclassical collective action
I wonder how they establish the existence of dumping. It always seemed pretty arbitrary. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: neoclassical collective action
- Original Message - From: michael perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wonder how they establish the existence of dumping. It always seemed pretty arbitrary. -- = If the producers in question do not conform to oligopolistic norms of self-restraint, they face the threat of anti-dumping and countervailing-duty trade sanctions in importing, producing countries. [Michael Webb] Ian
Tourist in Waikiki detained by FBI
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Oct/22/ln/ln07a.html This ridiulousness seems to know no end... Steve Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822
IT politics
Zoellick's Aggressive Push For Trade Bill Draws Fire By Paul Blustein Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, October 23, 2001; Page E01 Put on the back burner, postponed, held in abeyance: That is what has happened since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to many of the Bush administration's most cherished agenda items, such as Social Security privatization and faith-based initiatives. But not so for trade, thanks to Robert B. Zoellick, the U.S. trade representative, who is zealously pushing his goals on the grounds that the war against terrorism makes pursuing open markets more urgent than ever. A former State Department official, Zoellick takes pride in discerning linkages between economics and foreign policy. The developing countries supporting the U.S.-led coalition against terrorism, he contends, need to receive an unmistakable signal that the United States is committed to leading the world toward greater openness in trade -- which means swift congressional approval of trade-promotion authority, the legislation the administration has long sought to strengthen its ability to negotiate trade agreements. Democrats in the House of Representatives, where a bruising fight is looming over trade, accuse Zoellick of wrapping his agenda in the flag, but he has shrugged off their indignation. Sometimes, tragedy also presents opportunities for those who are alert, he told a news conference in Moscow a few days ago -- a comment that, although it was referring to his hope for greater Russian cooperation with the West, reflected his broader view about how to respond to the terrorist attacks. At a time when the global economy is reeling and financial markets are fragile, Zoellick asserts that success is particularly crucial at next month's meeting of the 142 member countries of the World Trade Organization, which is aimed at reaching agreement on launching a new round of global negotiations to expand international commerce. I believe there will be a positive response in financial markets to a launch of a round, Zoellick said. Or another way of putting it is, we'll avoid a negative response from financial markets, as would occur if the meeting ends in squabbling like the last one, which was held in Seattle amid raucous protests by anti-globalization activists. While mainstream trade economists share Zoellick's concern about the importance of launching a new WTO round, and generally agree that the administration needs enhanced negotiating authority from Congress eventually, some question his argument that the Sept. 11 attacks make congressional action more imperative. I think that's a stretch, said John Jackson, a trade expert at Georgetown University. The risks in Zoellick's strategy became clear Oct. 9, when the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill granting the administration trade-promotion authority, which is also known as fast track. The bill provides that trade agreements negotiated by the administration would be subject to an up-or-down vote by Congress, with no amendments, thereby ensuring that deals won't be picked apart on Capitol Hill. Only two of the panel's Democrats voted in favor of the bill, which passed 26 to 13. The rest were opposed on the grounds that the measure didn't go far enough toward satisfying a key Democratic demand -- ensuring that future trade agreements will include provisions requiring countries to protect worker rights and the environment. The dearth of Democratic support could come back to haunt the administration in the future when it seeks congressional approval for the trade deals it strikes. A vote on the bill in the full House will generate very few ayes from the Democrats, according to Democratic leaders, though it may win on a narrow, largely party-line vote. Zoellick said he isn't worried, declaring: I've never believed that close votes aren't good votes, as long as you pass things. But even some of his boosters view the prospect of a narrow victory as unsettling. Who knows what Congress is going to look like when Zoellick brings back whatever agreements he can win internationally? said Jeffrey Schott, a trade specialist at the Institute for International Economics who strongly supports Zoellick's free-trade principles. He may have a winning strategy for this bill in the House, but whether it's a winning strategy for implementing the administration's trade strategy -- that's another question. At the same time, many developing countries have voiced strong discontent with draft proposals for the launch of a new WTO round, and in a potential embarrassment for Zoellick, they include some of the very nations whose support Washington is seeking in its drive against terrorism, including Pakistan, India, Egypt and Indonesia. Developing countries have long complained that they benefit less from WTO rules than do the world's wealthy, in part because their main products, such as agricultural goods and clothing, are subject to higher tariffs and tighter trade
late colonialism
America's pipe dream A pro-western regime in Kabul should give the US an Afghan route for Caspian oil George Monbiot Tuesday October 23, 2001 The Guardian Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here, Woodrow Wilson asked a year after the first world war ended, that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? In 1919, as US citizens watched a shredded Europe scraping up its own remains, the answer may well have been no. But the lessons of war never last for long. The invasion of Afghanistan is certainly a campaign against terrorism, but it may also be a late colonial adventure. British ministers have warned MPs that opposing the war is the moral equivalent of appeasing Hitler, but in some respects our moral choices are closer to those of 1956 than those of 1938. Afghanistan is as indispensable to the regional control and transport of oil in central Asia as Egypt was in the Middle East. Afghanistan has some oil and gas of its own, but not enough to qualify as a major strategic concern. Its northern neighbours, by contrast, contain reserves which could be critical to future global supply. In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan. Transporting all the Caspian basin's fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia's political and economic control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate. Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive. But pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of diversifying energy supply and to penetrate the world's most lucrative markets. Growth in European oil consumption is slow and competition is intense. In south Asia, by contrast, demand is booming and competitors are scarce. Pumping oil south and selling it in Pakistan and India, in other words, is far more profitable than pumping it west and selling it in Europe. As the author Ahmed Rashid has documented, in 1995 the US oil company Unocal started negotiating to build oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea. The company's scheme required a single administration in Afghanistan, which would guarantee safe passage for its goods. Soon after the Taliban took Kabul in September 1996, the Telegraph reported that oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America's, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan. Unocal invited some of the leaders of the Taliban to Houston, where they were royally entertained. The company suggested paying these barbarians 15 cents for every thousand cubic feet of gas it pumped through the land they had conquered. For the first year of Taliban rule, US policy towards the regime appears to have been determined principally by Unocal's interests. In 1997 a US diplomat told Rashid the Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco [the former US oil consortium in Saudi Arabia] pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that. US policy began to change only when feminists and greens started campaigning against both Unocal's plans and the government's covert backing for Kabul. Even so, as a transcript of a congress hearing now circulating among war resisters shows, Unocal failed to get the message. In February 1998, John Maresca, its head of international relations, told representatives that the growth in demand for energy in Asia and sanctions against Iran determined that Afghanistan remained the only other possible route for Caspian oil. The company, once the Afghan government was recognised by foreign diplomats and banks, still hoped to build a 1,000-mile pipeline, which would carry a million barrels a day. Only in December 1998, four months after the embassy bombings in east Africa, did Unocal drop its plans. But Afghanistan's strategic importance has not changed. In September, a few days before the attack on New York, the US energy information administration reported that Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from central Asia to the Arabian sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines
RE: Three paragraphs which condense it all
Nestor wrote: But these three paragraphs, extracted from his most interesting address to the Chambers, explains why the 1976 coup took place, and why can, say, Fidel resort to foreign capital and market measures without abandoning revolution. Etc. = Nestor, thanks for this. The restructuring of the global political economy that was conducted by the US at this time is certainly all the clearer for the snippets of information such as this that appear from time to time. My own research in this area concerns the IMF's intervention in Britain, also in 1976. Mark Jones has referred, correctly, to the pre-revolutionary situation that was emerging in Britain at this time. Together with uppity (i.e. independently minded and non-deferential towards the US) leaders like Willi Brandt and Gough Whitlam, Harold Wilson and Juan Peron join the ranks of those deposed for the sake of ensuring the occupancy of the US as global hegemon. The IMF's intervention in Britain is very interesting if one considers the impending flow of North Sea oil, and the impossibility of Britain not meeting its balance of payments commitments (a perennial problem gifted to the UK by the US as part of a process beginning with lend-lease under Roosevelt and developing thereafter, as currency crises were employed to keep primarily Labour governments in their place). It was during this period that US Treasury Secretary William Simon cooked up a deal with the Saudis whereby they would recycle their petroleum receipts in the US, thus getting the US out of an economic hole. Furthermore, the Saudis were persuaded to conduct oil trade in US dollars, thus granting the US valuable rights of seignorage. And it was the withdrawal of Saudi money that precipitated the plunge of sterling (the second reserve currency up to that point) that led to the IMF's intervention. Why did the IMF impose so harsh a settlement on Britain, a key US ally? Despite the efforts of Callaghan and Helmut Schmidt, West German Chancellor, Simon and his allies forced upon Britain a forerunner of Thatcherism that *added* to the cuts already proposed by Denis Healey and denied the UK all possibility of a non-IMF solution (i.e. continuing run on the pound unless conditionality met). And, of course, once the conditions were accepted, the UK's position recovered, and the crisis was over, such that the loan was actually never taken up. And the idea that it would have been necessary is ridiculous anyway, given the UK's apparently stellar prospect of an oil bonanza that promised to wipe out its balance of payments deficit and set it on a new path of greater independence re economic development. But there lies the rub: independence, and the contrary intentions of the US. Thanks to IMF conditionality (according to Leo Panitch, the prototype structural adjustment program), the British economy was made to scream (reminiscent of Kissinger's efforts to destabilise Allende in Chile) and so Callaghan's government went down in ignominy in 1979, to be followed by Thatcher, whose first act was... the immediate privatisation of UK oil assets. The British National Oil Corporation, painstakingly set up by Tony Benn as Energy Secretary in the previous government, became Britoil plc (later swallowed by the equally privatised British Petroleum), while Enterprise Oil (exploration) was also sold off. Suddenly sterling's status as a petrocurrency was recognised and the UK got a massive deflation that strangled UK manufacturing and placed the City and its Wall Street parents more firmly in control than ever before. There is a lot of detail missing from this account which can be filled in later, but this is the gist of it and more work needs to be done, not only on making sense of the British episode and all of its political and economic ramifications, but also of the wider context in which it took place, and the connections between these apparently separate events in Britain, Germany, Australia, Argentina, Chile, etc., and how these all lead back to Washington DC and New York. Michael Keaney
