Re: Alienation?
At 24/11/01 22:12 -0800, you wrote: When gripes take on the scale and complexity of 9-11 the binary of legitimacy and it's other are literally mangled and the Hobbesian realm manifests itself -even in a post-Westphalian sense. Ian Or hopefully more a Spinozist realm. Chris Burford
pause for focussed thought?
At 24/11/01 14:21 -0800, you wrote: Mark, I asked you to put this to bed. My e-mail has been blocked for a few hours, so this just came in. I think that it would be best to unsub for a while. I regard most of what you post to be very interesting. You know a great deal about the oil industry and Russia. Why in the world would you continue to stir the pot about Doug? I think the comments do represent a more focussed criticism although I think obviously Michael's advice should be respected. But also on other lists, and I hope perhaps even within a week on this one, I think the substantive points should be addressed in a sustained way. Otherwise the appearance lingers that this is merely a personal polarization between two individuals, or that there is censorship going on (which I do not think there is providing the right form of the debate can be agreed). Key issues IMO are: [COMMENT: George's proposals inhabit that new utopian world of financial gimmickry that the Tobin Tax also belongs to. Although George's proposals are obviously reforms and IMHO she is blind to the uneven accumulation of capital, are proposals for regulation of finance at an international level necessarily gimmickry? I would be glad to join with Mark in a future discussion reviewing how the debate has changed over the last three years. Every major imperialist war has involved unprovoked attacks on us. From a certain perspective, the USA was just as justified as taking revenge over Pearl Harbor as we are today. The question of whether the war from 1941- 1945 was just an imperialist war and only to be addressed in class terms needs fuller discussion. I know Mark's position may not be identical to the brief comments indicated here. Assumptions about these questions as well as about the best left response to the first world war, underly what on the surface has been manifested in a strong personal exchange. It is about imperial power, war, class struggle, the probability of revolution. It needs a review of the role of left opposition over the whole of the 20th century, and whether the economic and political power relations have changed to a signficant degree over that time. I do not make these points to perpetuate a thread that Michael wants to be put to one side for the time being [please do not reply on any matter of substance] but to join procedurally at least in agreeing the importance of the objective issues. That might make it easier for people to accept the frustrations and prepare for a more sustained and possibly effective arguing of the case they think is necessary, after a due interval which Michael has requested. Perhaps the test should be whether anyone can prepare a more sustained argument on these questions which appears relevant to the aims of PEN-L and let Michael see it before posting directly to the list. Chris Burford London
Empire and economic periphery
At 24/11/01 23:08 -0500, Yoshie wrote: As I wrote in another post, I think that capitalism at present doesn't modernize the periphery; if anything, it tends to de-modernize, producing an increasing number of dissolved nations, failed/failing states, criminalized transnational networks of production/distribution/consumption, reactionary ideologies (including fundamentalist Islamism but far from limited to it) to go with them, all of which have been barely managed by the Empire's police actions, UN protectorates, the like. -- Yoshie Quite. Empire has not addressed the tendency of capital to uneven accumulation except by way of handwringing periodic forgiveness of debts, and partial access to rich markets while the market system under the uncontrolled fetishised domination of finance capital perpetuates, and even accelerates, the same process of uneven accumulation. The police action against Osama bin Laden will prove to be an expensive way of insuring the skyscraper temples of capital. It is likely to sow further dragon's teeth. After all the anthrax terrorist is probably a singleton. The police action could prove to be an even better dispersant, than container, of terrorism. Empire needs to get back to the economic drawing board. And the multitude need to hold them to it. Chris Burford London
Re: Re:_[PEN-L:19875]_Alienation?_was_Re:_ETUR@Î
--- Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When gripes take on the scale and complexity of 9-11 the binary of legitimacy and it's other are literally mangled and the Hobbesian realm manifests itself -even in a post-Westphalian sense. Yep, that'll convince the boys down at the tavern... I'll whip that sucker out at half-time and we'll have world peace by the end of the third quarter. 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!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Class struggle sharpens in Venezuela
Message: 3 Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 23:44:59 +0100 From: Partija rada [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Class struggle sharpens in Venezuela AP. 22 November 2001. Venezuela Calls in Riot Police to Quell Clashes Between Opposition Demonstrators, Government Supporters. CARACAS -- Venezuelan police and National Guardsmen fired hundreds of shots into the air and sprayed tear gas to stop President Hugo Chavez's supporters from storming an opposition march Thursday. The centrist Democratic Action Party organized the march through downtown Caracas to protest special powers that give Chavez the authority to pass laws without parliamentary debate. Clashes broke out as Chavez supporters from his leftist Fifth Republic Movement Party, hearing about the march, streamed downtown to stop the opposition protest. Shouts of Long live Chavez! were met with Chavez out! Riot police tried to separate the two groups - a total of about 6,000 people - but fistfights broke out between the opponents. Police trained a fire hose on Chavez backers to keep them from storming the march. Hours later, Democratic Action supporters were able to finish their march and hold a brief rally, and a tense calm prevailed. Hundreds of police stood guard as Chavez supporters rallied near Congress, some chanting: Next time, we'll come with guns! No arrests were made and no injuries were reported, Metropolitan Police Chief Henry Vivas said. Vivas said police would remain on the streets until the rival bands dissipated. A helicopter hovered overhead and police officers stood guard on rooftops. At least 100 National Guardsmen surrounded the Legislative Palace. The protest follows Chavez's approval last week of a package of 49 laws affecting the economy. [N.B.] The most contentious is a Land Reform Law that outlining government expropriation of private land that lies idle. Venezuela's biggest business group, Fedecamaras, complained that the law requires farmers to conform to a national agriculture plan drawn up by the government. Opposition parties and business groups accuse Chavez's government of failing to consult with the private sector.
Re: Alienation? was Re:ETUR@Î
Justin Schwartz wrote: I have no idea what Ian means in his remarks below, but Carol's are totally off the wall. I haven't found an accurate way to word the question yet -- but it is definitely not off the wall. What I'm asking for is an imaginative effort to see the world through the eyes of probably a couple of billion people who are (in respect to 'us') radically _other_. And let me remake a distinction I made earlier, I think on lbo. The 'perpetrators' of 911 were, seemingly, mostly from Saudi Arabia and mostly from reasonably comfortable, even wealthy backgrounds. Leaving aside (and that is a big leaving aside) their religion, they did not _personally_ suffer from U.S. global mastery. They were 'merely' angry. (Note: I used the weakest word I could think of, gripe, in my original query, expecting readers to fill it in with substance.) But mere personal anger, mere personal fanaticism, does not, ordinarily, generate mass terrorism: at most it gives us a Colombine incident. The terrorist has to have some grounds for believing that (s)he represents, speaks and acts for, something greater than his/her mere personal feelings. That is where the Palestine, Iraq, Sudan, Africa come in. Just as the Narodniks (falsely?) thought they were 'speaking' for the masses of the oppressed Russian peasantry, not merely their own rage and frustration, so al Quaida can only operate as it does because they can tell themselves that they do it in the name of those oppressed millions. Whatever gripes or criticisms someone may have with the US don't justify killing thousands of innocent people here who have done nothing to harm them. Just compare the tone of the term criticism (in respect to monstrous U.S. crimes) with all the emotional power behind U.S. 'critics' of al Quaida and 911. The response is simply all out of proportion to the actual human suffering involved. When the announcement of Pearl Harbor interrupted the radio broadcasting a Bears-Cardinals game some 60 years ago, the response I still remember was that of one of my aunts (my favorite aunt in fact) who saw it as a joke: they could not possibly be attacking us. I think there is a lot of that shock involved in responses, right and left, to 911. How dare they attack US! I still maintain that they were _not_ attacking us; they were attacking the U.S. government in the only way they knew how, and we got in the way. The obscene phrase collateral damage literally applies. (Incidentally, if you look back through my posts on 911 you will notice that I ceased using the jargon phrase innocent people whether I was referring to victims of Hiroshima and Vietnam or 911 and substituted the more neutral phrase, civilians. I started but never pursued a project a year or so ago of collecting the jargon terms used by those who condemn leftist jargon. Posts on 911 should offer a rich harvest of such terms.) There are lots of ways to resist US domination that do not involve mass murder. Come now. The U.S., with all its titanic resources, has never worked out a way of attacking its enemies without resorting to mass murder. Tell me one of those ways -- and no utopian descriptions allowed. Those ways have to account for U.S. power and the U.S. willingness to use that power without restraint. I will add, too, that the specific program of al Quaida, the apparent perpetrators of the 9/11 massacre, has nothing to do with advancing any goal that anyone on the left could care to propose--not that it would have been better if it had a left program. Granted. But leftists in the U.S. have a basic obligation (Chomsky is good on this) to oppose the double standard of judgment by which the U.S. is always assumed to be innocent (not just until proven guilty but period, regardless), and enemies of the U.S. are assumed to be guilty (of something). There is a matter of burden of proof here. Until positively demonstrated otherwise, in the case of enemies of the U.S. the principle of the enemy of my enemy is my friend applies. It will not always hold, but the burden of proof in all cases will be on those who deny that a given enemy of the U.S. is a friend of the human species. As to whether al Quaida has absolutely _nothing_ to do with _any_ possible legitimate goal -- probably but not certainly. Someone said of Napoleon, Thank god such men be but few though they build up human courage Frankly, it is not up to those living in the u.s. (or any of the OECD nations) to decide whether this is true or false of al Quaida for those billions living under the weight of the u.s. empire. [clip] === When gripes take on the scale and complexity of 9-11 the binary of legitimacy and it's other are literally mangled and the Hobbesian realm manifests itself -even in a post-Westphalian sense. Ian I myself often find Ian's short posts a bit cryptic, but I would construe this in part as suggesting that the unchallenged and seemingly
Re: Alienation?
Tim Bousquet wrote: --- Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [clip] the Hobbesian realm manifests itself -even in a post-Westphalian sense. Yep, that'll convince the boys down at the tavern... I'll whip that sucker out at half-time and we'll have world peace by the end of the third quarter. Tim, you would not sneer at a production line worker in an ammunition plant for being a poor marksman; nor would you sneer at the engineer who designed the rifle for not being in the front lines firing it. But that is what you are doing in this [non-]critique of Ian. From some of Ian's posts I gather that he has done important work in organizing and agitating for the Seattle Movement -- but frankly it would be as silly for him to use the same language on this list as it would be for the engineer to say, the hell with it, let's use the old weapons and I'm off to the front. Pen-L is an engineering lab, not the local tavern. Carrol
Re: Re: Alienation?
Point taken, but I'll go down to the tavern and watch the game the game all the same. It's a blue-collar crowd-- plumbers, electricians, teachers, nurses and the like-- but also remarkably leftist in politics. To a person they're opposed to this bombing campaign. They understand the arguments, and some of them join the anti-war demonstrations when they swing by. I'd hate to loose them. tim --- Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Bousquet wrote: --- Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [clip] the Hobbesian realm manifests itself -even in a post-Westphalian sense. Yep, that'll convince the boys down at the tavern... I'll whip that sucker out at half-time and we'll have world peace by the end of the third quarter. Tim, you would not sneer at a production line worker in an ammunition plant for being a poor marksman; nor would you sneer at the engineer who designed the rifle for not being in the front lines firing it. But that is what you are doing in this [non-]critique of Ian. From some of Ian's posts I gather that he has done important work in organizing and agitating for the Seattle Movement -- but frankly it would be as silly for him to use the same language on this list as it would be for the engineer to say, the hell with it, let's use the old weapons and I'm off to the front. Pen-L is an engineering lab, not the local tavern. Carrol = 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!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Re: Re: Re: Alienation?
- Original Message - From: Tim Bousquet [EMAIL PROTECTED] Point taken, but I'll go down to the tavern and watch the game the game all the same. It's a blue-collar crowd-- plumbers, electricians, teachers, nurses and the like-- but also remarkably leftist in politics. To a person they're opposed to this bombing campaign. They understand the arguments, and some of them join the anti-war demonstrations when they swing by. I'd hate to loose them. tim == What's the address? :-) Ian
RE:Re: Alienation
Frankly, it would be good for the left itself -- and for academics themselves -- if people would try to be plain- and clear-spoken. I try to follow Orwell's principles (elucidated in his politics of the English language) as much as I can, though I can't resist words like elucidated. The point is to prevent form from warping content. -- Jim Devine Date:Sun, 25 Nov 2001 11:25:03 -0600 From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Subject: [PEN-L:19886] Re: Alienation? Tim Bousquet wrote: --- Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [clip] the Hobbesian realm manifests itself -even in a post-Westphalian sense. Yep, that'll convince the boys down at the tavern... I'll whip that sucker out at half-time and we'll have world peace by the end of the third quarter. Tim, you would not sneer at a production line worker in an ammunition plant for being a poor marksman; nor would you sneer at the engineer who designed the rifle for not being in the front lines firing it. But that is what you are doing in this [non-]critique of Ian. From some of Ian's posts I gather that he has done important work in organizing and agitating for the Seattle Movement -- but frankly it would be as silly for him to use the same language on this list as it would be for the engineer to say, the hell with it, let's use the old weapons and I'm off to the front. Pen-L is an engineering lab, not the local tavern. Carrol _ The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb http://www.thatweb.com
Re: [PEN-L:19877] Alienation? was Re: ETUR@Î
- Original Message - From: Justin Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have no idea what Ian means in his remarks below, === A highly concresced [Whitehead] take on Tilly combined with a counterfactual exploration of the rejection of the notion that states *ought* to have a monopoly on the means of violence. The revolution that made the USA was led by non-state actors. Were their gripes legitimate or not? Legitimate enough to engage in the agression that got lots of people killed? How about Napolaean? What about Shell Oil hiring mercenaries in Nigeria? Drop for a moment your focus on the legality-illegality of aggression and shift to the politics of just *who* gets to determine what those very terms will mean. Think of Chomsky's example of the Mafia don. Post-Westphalian is a term that's been popping up quite a bit in international relations literature. It often stands for expressing the need for scholars to look far more closely at non-state actors in the shaping of the world-system and how they mold the interests of states. It's a rejection of the state-centric approach, methodologically and ontologically. It dosen't say states don't exist, it simply suggests they shouldn't be the privileged subjects of narratives, explanations etc. Excellent texts that explore the issues: Activists Beyond Borders [Margaret Keck Kathryn Sikknik] Coercion, Capital European States [Charles Tilly] War Making State Making as Organized Crime [Ditto] Mercenaries, Pirates Sovereigns [Janice Thomson] Of Rule Revenue [Margaret Levi] Approaches to World Order [Robert Cox] The Social Theory of International Politics [Alexander Wendt] here are lots of ways to resist US domination that do not involve mass murder. === Is there any form of aggression involving the death of significant numbers of human beings that isn't mass murder? If not, then what legitimates the state's monopoly on violence? Who gets to decide? And how does one go about averting the infinite regress problem that connects epistemology to a theory of authority? See: A Companion to Epistemology [Jonathan Dancy Ernest Sosa--page 209-212] Inventing nations : justifications of authority in the modern world [ Terry H. Pickett ] The philosophical issue of anarchism will not go away... I will add, too, that the specific program of al Quaida, the apparent perpetrators of the 9/11 massacre, has nothing to do with advancing any goal that anyone on the left could care to propose--not that it would have been better if it had a left program. jks = Well on that we all agree. Ian
bulls and bears
Market's Post-Attack Recovery Is a Puzzle By Carol Vinzant Special to The Washington Post Sunday, November 25, 2001; Page H01 Terrorist attack be damned: The market is on a roll. Since Sept. 21, the Nasdaq composite index has roared back 34 percent and the Dow Jones industrial average is up 20 percent, nearly to 10,000, where it had not been since August. Is the market anticipating an economic rally next year? Is the country more confident because of military success in Afghanistan? Can this stock market recovery last? The different answers come from three camps: bull, bear and a third group that wonders why the questions are being asked at all. Since the Sept. 11 attacks made the whole world, including the stock market, riskier, some think that valuing stocks at their pre-attack levels is unjustified. For now, the market has moved too far, too fast, said Alan Ackerman, chief investment strategist at Fahnestock and Co. A contraction in the market now would be neither unexpected nor unhealthy. Market fundamentals keep hopes down. My hesitancy about this market is that absolute valuations are still absurdly high, whether you look at price-to-book ratios, price-to-earnings. . . . They're all off the chart, said Jim Paulsen, chief investment officer at Wells Capital Management. By the most basic measure - the relationship between stock prices and earnings - the market is high-priced. In the past two months, the price-to-earnings ratio of the SP 500 has increased to 46 from less than 30 as stock prices surged and earnings continued to weaken. Normally those ratios reach their lows - usually around 10 or 12 - as optimism is drained from the market before a recovery starts, according to Comstock Partners. Analysts who pay attention to fundamental ratios view the current elevated price-to-earnings ratios as a sure sign of trouble ahead. It's hard for me to get used to the idea we could be at the start of a brand-new bull market from record-high valuations, Paulsen said. The reason the ratios are so out of whack is that while stock prices have risen this quarter, earnings have not. Analysts at one time held out hope that the fourth quarter would show improvement over last year's anemic final three months, if only because those numbers wouldn't be very hard to beat. Now even those low expectations have been lowered. According to First Call/Thomson Financial, the Boston-based investment research firm that tracks earnings reports, analysts at the beginning of October expected fourth-quarter earnings for SP companies to drop 8.2 percent from last year. Now they expect a 17.4 percent decrease. Many market observers contend that the stock market recovers six months before the general economy does, meaning that the current market is hinting at a recovery. Overall, analysts do expect an earnings recovery next year. The consensus is for SP 500 earnings to go up 14.9 percent, compared with a 15.5 percent decrease this year, First Call said. Last week UBS Warburg strategist Ed Kerschner raised his earnings estimates for the fourth quarter and for next year. Kerschner lowered his expectations after the Sept. 11 attacks, but a third-quarter productivity gain of 2.7 percent, among several factors, turned him around. Most important, the war on terrorism is going far better than expected, which has very positive implications for consumer, business and investor confidence, Kerschner wrote in his most recent report. Others, such as Jim Bianco, president of Bianco Research, an investment research firm based in Barrington, Ill., said recent economic data converted him from a bear to a bull. I'm a bull. I'm a believer, he said. I used to be on the dark side and now I'm not anymore. The current market reminds him of the 1974 and 1982 recoveries, which happened faster than anyone anticipated. Declining oil prices and interest rates, coupled with higher commodity prices, have Bianco smelling a recovery. If you were to ask me how the markets would have behaved pointing to a recovery, it's exactly what it's done, Bianco said. The factors many people say they worry about - primarily employment and earnings growth - typically recover last in an economic upswing, Bianco said. The factors that lead the rest of the economy, such as car sales, are improving. Last week the Conference Board said its index of 10 leading economic indicators increased by 0.3 percent in October. In September the index fell by 0.5 percent and the consensus was for a flat October. There is a camp that does not see the market's fall and recovery as meaningful indicators of where it is going. That group views the market events of the last month as simply an overwhelmed nation's reaction to a devastating terror attack. Charles Minter, a portfolio manager at Comstock Partners who is so pessimistic that he considers this bear market still a cub, is surprised that economists and strategists are even trying to interpret the dip and bounce-back. It
wage arbitrage
A Factory to the World China's Vast Labor Pool, Low Wages Lure Manufacturers By Clay Chandler Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, November 25, 2001; Page A01 DALIAN, China -- Shoji Nishimura, the Japanese general manager of Mabuchi Motor Co.'s manufacturing compound here, peered over the shoulder of a blue-smocked Chinese employee as she soldered wires to a tiny electric-shaver motor gliding down the assembly line. Two seconds, he exclaimed proudly, gesturing at his watch. It is a reference to the time each of the 6,000 young workers flanking conveyor belts has to perform a set of production tasks. In an eight-hour workday, Mabuchi's production-line workers, nearly all of whom are women in their early twenties, repeat the same series of two-second motions tens of thousands of times. It is daunting labor that requires clear eyesight, nimble fingers and the ability to concentrate for hours on end. But Mabuchi, like tens of thousands of other foreign manufacturing concerns, has discovered in China a nearly inexhaustible supply of workers capable of handling such assignments -- and willing to take them on for a fraction of the pay demanded by counterparts in more advanced economies. Back in Japan, it would be impossible for us to do anything like this, Nishimura said. For what the company would have to pay a single entry-level Japanese employee it can hire a dozen people in Dalian, all of whom do better work, he said. And so Mabuchi, the world leader for nearly every type of motor it sells, has shifted 90 percent of its annual production of 1.7 billion micro-motors to China; the company no longer makes anything in Japan. The women on Mabuchi's assembly line in Dalian are the vanguard of what many experts predict will prove to be one of the most important economic developments of the 21st century: the rise of China as a modern industrial powerhouse. China's emergence as a manufacturing giant is improving living standards here and helping multinationals such as Mabuchi hold down costs. It also is roiling the global economy, sucking jobs and investment from other countries, straining political support for open trade and driving down the price of tradable goods in the midst of a global recession. China's admission to the World Trade Organization earlier this month will only add to this trend -- increasing its appeal by locking in lower duties for products it exports. Past predictions that China would become an economic power were stymied because the nation has never been able to harness the economic potential of its vast populace. But now companies from Taiwan, Japan, the United States and other countries are seeking to satisfy the demands of their customers for lower prices, and China, with its enormous pool of cheap labor, is fast becoming a factory to the world. Japanese management consultant Kenichi Ohmae compares China's emergence as a manufacturing colossus to Japan's spectacular postwar industrial boom, the rise of America's economy in the early 1900s or even the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. The world has never seen an economy with these qualities before, he wrote of China recently. The new heft of China's economy is most keenly felt in Asia, where the Chinese mainland has swallowed up $321 billion, or 45 percent, of the $719 billion in direct foreign investment flowing into the region since 1990. For instance, General Motors Corp., the world's largest automaker, has invested $1.5 billion to build a manufacturing facility outside Shanghai. And Motorola Inc. eliminated 40,000 jobs over the past year, but it has poured $3.4 billion into operations in China, making it the nation's largest foreign investor. China is also beginning to undercut its neighbors in crucial export markets. China's exports soared 27.8 percent, to $249 billion, last year, far outstripping export growth in the rest of the region. In 2000, Japan posted exports of $477 billion, but its exports have fallen by 15 percent in the first 10 months of this year, while China's are up 6.4 percent. Andy Xie, economist with Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Co. in Hong Kong, predicts China will export a third more than Japan in dollar terms within the next five years. Since 1989, China's share of total U.S. imports has more than tripled, to 8.4 percent. Japan's share fell by almost half during that period, to 11 percent, while the combined share of Asia's four tiger economies -- Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan -- shrank by a third, to 8 percent. That of the region's other main exporters -- Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand -- rose only a smidgen. Analysts at Salomon Smith Barney calculate that, if current growth rates continue, China's high-technology exports will overtaken Japan's within the decade. In a scramble to satisfy U.S. customers' demands for lower prices, nearly all of Taiwan's leading makers of computer components have shifted production to the mainland. All told, more than
Re: Re: Alienation?
At 11:09 AM 11/25/01 -0600, Carrol Cox wrote: But mere personal anger, mere personal fanaticism, does not, ordinarily, generate mass terrorism: at most it gives us a Colombine incident. The terrorist has to have some grounds for believing that (s)he represents, speaks and acts for, something greater than his/her mere personal feelings. (Filed: 16/11/2001) Few Westerners have seen Osama bin Laden's recruitment video in full. So what did Julia Magnet, a young Jewish New Yorker, make of it? THE Third Reich may have honed a formidable propaganda machine, but even Hitler might have drawn the line at flashy music videos. In that respect, at least, Osama bin Laden has topped the Fuhrer. Until I sat down to watch a two-hour Al Qa'eda recruitment video, made just six months before the September 11 attacks, I had no idea that the champion of anti-Americanism had hijacked our Hollywood gimmicks and television tricks. Far more likely, I thought, that he'd produce a dreary display of militant fundamentalism: lots of ranting against America and Saudi Arabia, with some macho gun-play thrown in for show. What I actually saw was far more worrying: Osama bin Laden beating us at our own media game. With devilish cunning, he has plugged into the MTV generation - and it's clear he knows how to reach us. I have spent all day humming militant Islamic songs. And I am a Jewish twenty-something from New York. For the best part of a week, I have been watching his video over and over again, trying to match every syllable with a translation of the Arabic that Fawaz Gerges, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Sarah Lawrence College in New York, has just completed. Long before I understood each phrase in its context, I realised that words are only a small part of bin Laden's propaganda arsenal. Like Hitler, his speeches are more concerned with creating an emotional effect than expounding a concrete message. Let me give you a 30-second example of how he creates terrorist MTV. The screen darkens. We are in a room, playing a virtual reality game: assassinate the American leader of your choice. Light pulses from a movie screen, hanging eerily in space, as a song pounds over the speakers: We defy with our Koran/ with blood, we wipe out our dishonour and shame. Zoom in from a figure watching the screen to the still image of a Taliban fighter straddling a corpse. The music rises. Then, the image changes, as if the hands of a clock are erasing it. We are still in the dark room, but our anonymous alter-ego is now in Taliban dress. Bush Snr and Colin Powell appear on the screen. With cowboy timing, our watching figure reaches into his robe to grab a gun. He crouches and fires at the screen, in time to the martial rhythm. Smoke obliterates the face of Colin Powell. Cut to Warren Christopher and President Clinton. Boom! Cut to a close-up of Clinton, wearing his habitual self-satisfied smirk. The gunman's shadow blocks out Clinton's face. Kerpow! Now, in a parody of the American flag, a puzzle of horizontal stripes emerges from each side of the screen, finally connecting to reveal two fighters facing down Warren Christopher. Bang, bang! Whoosh - the images disappear and the screen spins to reveal Osama bin Laden. He knows his audience. His most impressionable recruits are of the same age and sex as MTV's loyal following: alienated teenage boys, full of the resentment, hyperactivity and maddening sense of impotence that typify that age group - in any country. In the video, the oppressor is not parental authority, but the West, which can be blamed for everything. This is a great propaganda film - the kind that you can't get out of your head. Bin Laden's story of Muslim subjugation turning to resistance is so effective that I barely need my transcripts. He uses the most sophisticated western film-making techniques: it's as if Guy Ritchie, Sylvester Stallone and Spielberg have banded together to make jihad, the movie. Despite all this flashiness, bin Laden seems hardly flamboyant as an orator - certainly not modern. Yet his grasp of spin, of product-packaging, is chilling. If you did not understand his hateful and ugly words, you could easily believe he is simply a preacher. His body language is gentle and controlled: only his right hand moves, and then never farther than six inches from his body. Rarely does he shake his fist, a gesture familiar in all propaganda. When he does, it is with weary anger: his cause is so self-evident that he does not need an indignant mime show. But it is those eyes that grab you - otherworldly, luminous eyes that remind me of Charles Manson's. They never meet the camera. It is as if he doesn't see this world - only the spiritual dimension. I had half-expected some of Hitler's propaganda tactics: highly choreographed mass events, flanks of elite soldiers, booming speeches. Bin Laden employs none of those. When he is on screen, the camera stays on
Re: Alienation?
Carrol Cox wrote: I have a question. Granted that some hundreds of millions of people have a real gripe against the U.S., and granted that they are utterly powerless to express that gripe in legitimate ways, what should they do? Those leftists who have labelled 911 a crime against humanity have objectively taken the position that any or all resistance to U.S. power is illegitimate. http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/viewbo.cfm?uc_fn=1uc_full_date=20011122uc_daction=Xuc_comic=bo
pretty exhaustive Doha analysis
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/
Re: Re: [PEN-L:19877] Alienation? was Re: ETUR@Î
[Should] states . . . . have a monopoly on the means of violence[?] Who said they should? I mean, it depends on the circumstances, and the violence and its purpose. In Afghanistan today, I bet the people under Northern Alliance rule wish they was a state with a monopoly on the means of violence. Despite the misbehavior of the Chicago Police, I know for sure that there are a lot of people on the South Side who wish there was a state monopoly on the means of violence. But not in, say, South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, or Niacaragau in the 1970s, etc. The revolution that made the USA was led by non-state actors. Were their gripes legitimate or not? Legitimate enough to engage in the agression that got lots of people killed? Well, aggression is loaded word, like murder. The Amedrican revolutionaries didn't think they were engaging in agression--unjustified initiation of violence. Drop for a moment your focus on the legality-illegality of aggression and shift to the politics of just *who* gets to determine what those very terms will mean. Think of Chomsky's example of the Mafia don. Despite being a lawyer, that wasn't my focus. I don't know enough about international law to know with alot of confidence when international violence is legal. Post-Westphalian is a term that's been popping up quite a bit in international relations literature. It often stands for expressing the need for scholars to look far more closely at non-state actors in the shaping of the world-system and how they mold the interests of states. Yah, I studied with Harold Jacobson at Michigan, got an earful of that. He gave me my only A+ in grad school. He was impressed that I figured out a way to operationalize Lenin's theory of imperialism. Is there any form of aggression involving the death of significant numbers of human beings that isn't mass murder? Sure. Leaving aside the word aggression, a just war is one. Murder is illegitimate killing. We _had_ to fight Nazis, even though in doing so a lot of innocent peiople would be killed. Likewise the Vietnamese and Cuban revolutions, or any more or less liberatory revolutioon. If not, then what legitimates the state's monopoly on violence? You could start with Hobbes and think about the alternative in many circumstances: the war of all against all. Who gets to decide? Well, we do, don't we? Who do you suggest that we might defer to? And how does one go about averting the infinite regress problem that connects epistemology to a theory of authority? This isn't a crucial practical problem, but I do have an elaborate answer to this in Relativism Reflective Equilibrium and Justice, to which I have referred you, and even mailed you a copy. I will add, too, that the specific program of al Quaida, the apparent perpetrators of the 9/11 massacre, has nothing to do with advancing any goal that anyone on the left could care to propose--not that it would have been better if it had a left program. jks = Well on that we all agree. God bless, then. But I could ask you: Who gets to decide? ;) jks _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: [PEN-L:19896] Re: Re: [PEN-L:19877] Alienation? was Re: ETUR@Î
- Original Message - From: Justin Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Should] states . . . . have a monopoly on the means of violence[?] Who said they should? I mean, it depends on the circumstances, and the violence and its purpose. In Afghanistan today, I bet the people under Northern Alliance rule wish they was a state with a monopoly on the means of violence. Despite the misbehavior of the Chicago Police, I know for sure that there are a lot of people on the South Side who wish there was a state monopoly on the means of violence. But not in, say, South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, or Niacaragau in the 1970s, etc. The revolution that made the USA was led by non-state actors. Were their gripes legitimate or not? Legitimate enough to engage in the agression that got lots of people killed? Well, aggression is loaded word, like murder. The Amedrican revolutionaries didn't think they were engaging in agression--unjustified initiation of violence. = How could it not be a loaded term? :-) Isn't the central problem of violence in political life the repudiation of some parties proferred justification of disagreement? Them's fightin' words..Kill the King... When have aggressors thought they weren't justified and yet gone on their merry way? Can anyone imagine Hitler in a moment of introspection even asking whether he was justified and saying to himself no I'm not but if I win, who'll be able to say I wasn't? Drop for a moment your focus on the legality-illegality of aggression and shift to the politics of just *who* gets to determine what those very terms will mean. Think of Chomsky's example of the Mafia don. Despite being a lawyer, that wasn't my focus. I don't know enough about international law to know with alot of confidence when international violence is legal. = I was attempting to point out that those who engage in war making at the interstate level aren't too interested in legalities. You think those who pursued the war in Viet Nam asked whether it was legal? How about Korea or take your pick Post-Westphalian is a term that's been popping up quite a bit in international relations literature. It often stands for expressing the need for scholars to look far more closely at non-state actors in the shaping of the world-system and how they mold the interests of states. Yah, I studied with Harold Jacobson at Michigan, got an earful of that. He gave me my only A+ in grad school. He was impressed that I figured out a way to operationalize Lenin's theory of imperialism. === Now that's a paper I'd like to see. :-) Sure. Leaving aside the word aggression, a just war is one. Murder is illegitimate killing. We _had_ to fight Nazis, even though in doing so a lot of innocent peiople would be killed. Likewise the Vietnamese and Cuban revolutions, or any more or less liberatory revolutioon. The justification of defense is barely half the problem of just war theory. If not, then what legitimates the state's monopoly on violence? You could start with Hobbes and think about the alternative in many circumstances: the war of all against all. Who gets to decide? Well, we do, don't we? Who do you suggest that we might defer to? Nobody, no one has the right to inaugurate violence. No one has the authority...isn't that some simple variant of 'the golden rule'. Obviously our species has an enforcement problem with such simplicities And how does one go about averting the infinite regress problem that connects epistemology to a theory of authority? This isn't a crucial practical problem, but I do have an elaborate answer to this in Relativism Reflective Equilibrium and Justice, to which I have referred you, and even mailed you a copy. == I just got it, thanx. I will add, too, that the specific program of al Quaida, the apparent perpetrators of the 9/11 massacre, has nothing to do with advancing any goal that anyone on the left could care to propose--not that it would have been better if it had a left program. jks = Well on that we all agree. God bless, then. But I could ask you: Who gets to decide? ;) jks = Decide a left program? Hah, you're a very funny man. We'd rather form verbal firing squads than ask such easy questions. :-) As for the Al Qaeda's of the present and future, nay, how to non-violently stop those who disagree...! Ian
Re: Alienation?
Nobody, no one has the right to inaugurate violence. If all the slaves, serfs, commoners, colonized natives, etc. had thought so, maybe we'd be still stuck in feudalism or colonialism or something like that. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Anti-War Organizing in Columbus Covered by the Media: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/media.html
Re: Re: Alienation?
- Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nobody, no one has the right to inaugurate violence. If all the slaves, serfs, commoners, colonized natives, etc. had thought so, maybe we'd be still stuck in feudalism or colonialism or something like that. -- Yoshie == Maybe we'd never have had to go through those epochs to arrive at the presentbecause those social kinds would never have existed. Ian
CIA and Taliban
It appears that events in Afghanistan follow, in many ways the same pattern that lead to the collapse of the Milosevic regime and the latter eventual apprehension. It would appear that the fingerprints of the CIA are all over the recent sequence of events in Afghanistan. The collapse of the Taliban regime has all the hallmarks of a CIA orchestrated coup. The apparent wholesale organised defections of substantial parts of Taliban forces to the Opposition explains the apparently bloodless takeover of Kabul and elsewhere. This process has snowballed to such a degree that even in the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan former supporters have defected too. This explains the apparent dramatic and rapid transfer of power from Taliban to the opposition. It would almost seem, information is so tightly restricted, that the Taliban in Islamabad has merely changed uniform --as tribal chiefs. It now appears that this process of collaboration with the CIA has penetrated right into the heart of the Taliban's natural support in the Kandahar region. Doubtlessly the relentless and intensive air strikes were a decisive factor in the disintegration of the Taliban regime. However had the organised movement of defection, in effect a coup, not occurred it is probable that the Taliban forces would have held out longer in Northern and Central Afghanistan. These defections were based, it would appear, on CIA dollars and promises. An added factor was 'rats leaving the sinking ship' phenomenon. However the fact that, it would appear, many of these Taliban defectors proceeded to take up offensive positions against their former Taliban comrades is what particularly lends truth to my coup detat thesis. The apparent welcome that the defecting Taliban forces received after defection may further confirm the thesis. As with the coup against the Milosevic regime there was much theatre involved. In many ways the ground war had all the appearances of a phoney war in the purest sense. Opposition soldiers playing volley ball, sitting around and grinning at cameras etc. Letting off a round of artillery fire with a fag hanging from the artillery man's mouth while grinning at the cameras --theatricals for the western journalists badly in need of a story and an image or two to keep themselves in a job and keep the ratings from falling. The soldiers of the Opposition were playing toy soldiers while Western journalists played toy journalism --the spectacle. The coup also involved the defection of Pakistan and Saudia Arabia from the Taliban. The key factor in the collapse of the Taliban regime was the mass internal and external defection from the Taliban --not the bombings . In the case of the defection of Pakistan bribery by Washington was a significant factor. The Afghanistan war that still has not been begun to be told. Badly needed is investigative journalism that seeks to get to the real story. Indeed the amount of misinformation, disinformation, rumour and lies has been unprecedented. Clearly the British and US counter-intelligence was busy at work putting planting the pages and screens of the media. The war in Afghanistan has been in many ways one of the best kept secrets. Yet it was presented as a war that was being well covered by the media. But this war as experienced by the Western masses is one that is pure illusion produced by the bourgeois media with the help of the CIA. This war is a war that never took place. Fact and fiction become jumbled up until they become indistinguishable. Politics and war is turned into entertainment that competes with film and sport for customers. The media was conspicuous by its failure to provide facts and information. The more this war unfold on our TV screens the more unintelligible it became. This culminates in the Northern Alliance becoming the Taliban and the Taliban the Northern Alliance. No longer were the warring parties identifiable. It becomes questionable as to were warring parties and as to what the war, if there was a war, was all about. The enemy of the Northern Alliance is no longer the Taliban but Pakistanis, Arabs and Chechens. So the Northern. This is war about which we lack the facts. It is like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing. The result is mere subjectivist speculation that renders it much more difficult that renders a correct communist approach to the war very difficult. There has been the real, but secret, war and the systematic fabrication as presented by the broadcasting and print media network. We are now being informed that only half of the 6000 fatalities really occurred in New York and Washington. The casus belli was based on a fiction. Perhaps then Bin Laden did not destroy the WTC. Perhaps the CIA knew of the attack but let it happen because of the chain reaction that it would trigger off. The role and character of the media in contributing to apparent success of US imperialism can be partly attributed to role of the bourgeois media. For
Re: Alienation?
- Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nobody, no one has the right to inaugurate violence. If all the slaves, serfs, commoners, colonized natives, etc. had thought so, maybe we'd be still stuck in feudalism or colonialism or something like that. -- Yoshie == Maybe we'd never have had to go through those epochs to arrive at the presentbecause those social kinds would never have existed. Ian But we know that ruling classes (by they lords, bourgeoisie, etc.) have never accepted the idea you advocate; nor will they. The question of use of violence has to be considered with reference to the real world.
Re: Re: Alienation?
- Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 1:42 PM Subject: [PEN-L:19901] Re: Alienation? - Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nobody, no one has the right to inaugurate violence. If all the slaves, serfs, commoners, colonized natives, etc. had thought so, maybe we'd be still stuck in feudalism or colonialism or something like that. -- Yoshie == Maybe we'd never have had to go through those epochs to arrive at the presentbecause those social kinds would never have existed. Ian But we know that ruling classes (by they lords, bourgeoisie, etc.) have never accepted the idea you advocate; nor will they. The question of use of violence has to be considered with reference to the real world. == Yup, the golden rule is for wimps and cowardspower and domination is where the fun is... Ian
Afghan Online Press
Just discovered a good resource on Afghanistan. 75 pgs. of newstories from today and yesterday in the Today's News from Afghanistan section of the Afghan Online Press website. And it recommends a website called the Rational Radical, and the Ahmad rashid book among others so don't be put off by the links there to VOA! Michael Pugliese
Re: Alienation?
Ian Murray wrote: -[clip] Nobody, no one has the right to inaugurate violence. [Ian in earlier post] [clip] [Yoshie] But we know that ruling classes (by they lords, bourgeoisie, etc.) have never accepted the idea you advocate; nor will they. The question of use of violence has to be considered with reference to the real world. == Yup, the golden rule is for wimps and cowardspower and domination is where the fun is... You jump too many stages of the argument here. The golden rule operates at far too high a level of abstraction, and the question is not of where the fun is but a question of necessity: that is, the question is not whether to _inaugurate_ violence but of how to _meet_ violence. Revolutionaries very rarely initiate violence but respond to attack. The NLF began armed resistance in South Vietnam (against the wishes of the DRV) not in a search for power or domination but in response to a choice of fight or die. John Adams, overhearing a farmer in a bar room say, Rebel, said he was disgusted -- he would _meet_ rebellion when the King began it. And the Civil War in China was initiated by the nationalist forces, not by the Red Army. Had there not been armed units in Iran prepared for resistance that peaceful revolution might well have been drowned in blood. The Shah might have trusted his troops to quell the demonstrations, but not to continue the struggle were resistance encountered. Incidentally, there is no such thing as violence -- that is, there is no acceptable category that contains all the various human activities that are loosely (and incorrectly) gathered under the label violence. Hence there can be no useful discussion of Violence in the abstract. Carrol
[Fwd: Family victims of 9/11 lead DC to NYC Peace Walk]
- Original Message - From: Irene Saikevych To: @mind.net; Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 12:04 PM Subject: Family victims of 9/11 lead DC to NYC Peace Walk Family Members of 9/11 Victims to Lead DC-NYC Peace Walk: Our Grief is Not a Cry for War WASHINGTON - November 24 - Amber Amundson, whose husband Craig was killed in the attack on the Pentagon, wrote shortly after the attack, I call on our national leaders to find the courage to break the cycle of violence. Sentiments like these have come from others who lost spouses, children, brothers or sisters. This week some of these mourners are going beyond words, joining a walk that will link the two cities that were struck. Their message to all they meet as they walk or assemble along the way: Our grief is not a cry for war. The group of survivors and friends will set off at 9 AM Sunday, November 25, from the front gates of Georgetown University in Washington, DC (37th and O Street). They will arrive the next Sunday, December 2, in New York City. In between they will walk some distances and shuttle others, stopping in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Paterson and other locations to take parts in events being organized by local churches and other groups. Craig Amundsons brother, Ryan, will also join the walk. He states, We dont want to see more widowed mothers like my sister-in-law, more little kids without a dad like my niece and nephew, more moms and dads outliving their son like my parents, or more brothers losing brothers like me. The current reliance on military force does not confront the political, social, and economic foundations of terrorism. By emphasizing a military solution, the United States will not effectively combat terrorism. Buddhist and Franciscan monks will join the walk, as will leaders from various faith-based and peacemaking communities. Any persons who support a call for nonviolence are welcome to join in the walk as it moves north. On November 25, walkers will proceed to St. Aloysius Church (19 Eye Street) where they will welcome the public to a 6:30 p.m. gathering at the McKenna Center. A large decorated school bus will shuttle walkers between cities. Daily itinerary updates available this website. This walk is endorsed by AFSC, FOR, Pax Christi USA, Peace Action USA, Veterans for Peace, War Resisters League, Voices in the Wilderness, and Womens International League for Peace and Freedom, among others.
Renowned U.S. Economists Denounce Corporate-Led Globalization
Renowned U.S. Economists Denounce Corporate-Led Globalization Published on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and internationally acclaimed economist Paul Krugman decry undemocratic, unsound, and unethical corporate agenda by James L. Phelan It seems critics of corporate-led globalization have some new allies. Recent Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, along with well-known economist Paul Krugman, have of late made a flurry of public statements critical of the policies and processes of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank / IMF, and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) while leaving plenty of harsh words for the blatantly pro-corporate actions of the Bush Administration. Both economists point to the disruptive and distorting influence of large corporate entities through their dominance over both domestic and international institutions. Stiglitz and Krugman have begun to voice their indignation more frequently in the press, raising many of the same concerns that social justice and environmental advocates have long made about the disproportionate influence of big business and the hypocrisy of free market dogma. Taking Care of Business In a recent column appearing in the New York Times, Krugman stated: Cynics tell us that money has completely corrupted our politics, that in the last election big corporations basically bought themselves a government that will serve their interests. Several related events last week suggest that the cynics have a point. As evidence of heavy-handed corporate opportunism, Krugman takes issue with the recent claims by security interests that federalizing airport security would represent a taking a bald move by private interests to maintain a questionable security status quo free from public calls for more systematic scrutiny. Krugman then assails the House Stimulus Bill, stating that the remarkable thing we learned from that bill was that conservative politicians who used to claim that they were improving incentives by reducing marginal tax rates, and that it was just an incidental side effect that big corporations and wealthy individuals were so richly rewarded no longer feel the need to disguise their payoffs. As he states, the principal goal of the bill is to repeal retroactively the corporate alternative minimum tax, which means that selected companies would immediately receive huge lump sum payments from the government, totaling around $25 billion, with no incentive effect at all. What's worse is that there are no strings attached to those gifts: if the companies want to, say, pay huge bonuses to top executives, they can. Republicans have always depended on the kindness of corporations, but this bill takes that faith to extremes. Very little here, says Krugman, is representative of sound economic policies aimed at economic recovery, not to mention the need for shared sacrifice in times of belt-tightening. Corporate interests, as Krugman rightly points out, have friends in convenient political circles. In a blunt conclusion, Krugman sums it up saying that the truth must be spoken. Lately our government has not exactly inspired confidence; its response to terrorism is starting to look a bit scatterbrained. But on some subjects our leaders are quite clearheaded: whatever else may be going on, they make sure that they are taking care of business. Corporate-Led Globalization When it comes to decrying the disruptive influence of the corporate agenda internationally whether in the WTO or the FTAA most critics have focused their energies on denouncing the anti-democratic nature of international trade and investment regimes and their narrow focus on liberalizing markets at all costs. A recent interview with Joseph Stiglitz, however the ultimate World Bank/IMF insider sheds new light on what many have long suspected: documents and testimony on secret industry-governmental meetings, the behind the scenes agenda-setting of transnational corporate interests, and the apparent hidden agenda of the WB/IMF. This conspiratorial assessment of hidden agendas could easily be shrugged off as baseless except that this account comes to us from a fired-up and increasingly political Stiglitz. Fired from the World Bank in 1999 for his criticism of the WB/IMF's policies, Stiglitz has refused to keep quiet as these institutions largely serving under the dictates of the U.S. Treasury Department impose policies internationally that he claims have condemned people to death. Only recently in the news for winning the Nobel Peace Prize for economics, Stiglitz seems to be using this surge in international attention to criticize corporate-friendly policies and to lend his support to the momentum of social justice groups organizing for greater transparency and participation in international policy-making processes. In a recent debriefing with the London Observer's Gregory Palast, the former World Bank Chief Economist roundly
Study of Cuban labor unions
MAURICE AND JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL JUSTICE: A PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 645 Griswold, Suite 1800 Y Detroit, Michigan 48226 Phone 313-962-6540 Y Fax 313-962-4492 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Y http://www.sugarlaw.org Contact : Marshall Rosenthal, Marilyn Katz 312/822-0505 Debra Evenson: [EMAIL PROTECTED] First Comprehensive Study of the Role of Cuba's Labor Unions Released Report details unions' growing voice and influence DETROIT (Nov. 19, 2001) - In the changing post-Soviet economy, labor unions in Cuba are rapidly strengthening their role and sphere of influence, as documented in the first comprehensive study to be released on unions and labor-management relations in contemporary Cuba. According to the provocative new report, Workers in Cuba, Unions Labor Relations, released today by the NLG/Maurice and Jane Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, reforms and decentralization of the Cuban economy since 1990 have obligated the unions to shed their passivity and take on new initiatives in labor-management relations. Based on a broad survey of Cuban law and literature and first-hand observations of the labor-relations process on the shop floor and at workers' meetings during the 12-months ending in May 2001, the study examines labor policy and workers' rights and participation within the framework of the Cuban socialist system. The Cuban Workers Central (CTC), the Party and the government are not synonymous, writes study author Debra Evenson, an attorney and president of the Latin American Institute for Alternative Legal Services. The fact that the CTC and the unions both recognize the political guidance of the Party and implement government policies should not be interpreted to mean that they only function to rubber stamp decisions or are merely passive recipients of directives. In many cases the study found that the CTC has had significant, and at times decisive, influence on the content of legislation. For example: § In 1995, Evenson writes, the CTC opposed a provision in the initial draft of the new Foreign Investment Law that permitted direct hiring of workers; the CTC insisted on maintaining a system of contracting workers through state employment entities. § The CTC asked for and obtained a delay in the implementation of the 1994 tax law that would have levied a tax on workers' wages to fund social security. The law, in fact, requires workers to contribute 5 percent of their salaries to the fund, but the CTC argued that salaries were still too low to bear this cost and recommended postponing implementation until wages had risen enough to make the contribution affordable. § Proposed legislation altering the social security system has been returned to the drawing boards over objections raised by the CTC. Lance Compa, senior lecturer at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations, praised the study as a thorough account of labor law and labor relations in Cuba and of the advances and retreats of the Cuban labor movement. Dealing with a country and issues so quick to arouse prejudice, Evenson's straightforward treatment provides a valuable resource for labor-law and labor-policy scholars and practitioners. It should become a standard reference in the field, Compa said. The study covers the key topics concerning labor rights and union relations in Cuba today, including: · Trade Unions in Cuba · Employment and Hiring Policies · Salary and Other Remuneration · Collective Bargaining · Grievance Procedures · Social Security and Benefits · Foreign Investment Evenson, a recognized authority on Cuba, is also the author of Revolution in the Balance: Law and Society in Contemporary Cuba, published by Westview Press in 1994. Writers may obtain an executive summary or a copy of the complete study by e-mailing Debra Evenson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or by calling Marshall Rosenthal or Marilyn Katz at 312/822-0505. Workers in Cuba, Unions and Labor Relations, a 92-page spiral-bound report plus bibliography, is available for $10 (for individuals), or $20 (for institutions) plus $4.50 postage and handling. To order single copies or for information on bulk rates write to The NLG/Maurice and Jane Sugar Law Center for Economic Social Justice, 733 St. Antoine, 3rd Floor, Detroit, MI 48226, USA or by email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ###
Re: More on JP Morgan Crashing
Michael Pugliese wrote: Ruppert is a LaRoucheite. Nuff said? So, is that a conclusive refutation? You right-sniffers have a tendency to substitute identifying an affiliation for making an argument. I think the JPM Chase story is probably way overheated, but that's another story. Doug
South Africa agit-prop
(Excuse cross-postings; please pass it on...) Some new publications/info/films from/about South Africa: - Original Message - From: Franco Barchiesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 2:55 PM Subject: DEBATE: TABLE OF CONTENTS - Debate 6/7 SUBSCRIBE NOW to Debate - Voices from the South African Left ISSUE #6/7 is OUT with: SPECIAL FOCUS: Local-Global/ Connect-Disconnect Naomi Klein, No Fence Big Enough Trevor Ngwane, Rethinking American Empire David Harvey, Talal Asad, Cindi Katz, Neil Smith and Ida Susser, Local Horror/Global Response Trevor Ngwane, The 3 Peace Marches in Washington, DC, September 18, 2001 Neil Smith, Giuliani Space: Revanchist City Chris Bolsmann, Deaths at the Stadium: A Different Kind of Terror Darlene Miller, Genuine White Lies in Zimbabwe Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee, SECC Turns Power On, and Keeps It On Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee, People's Power in Soweto Anna Weekes, Communities in the Unicity Eddie Cottle, Free Water? David Harvey, Local Concerns and Global Ambitions John Page, Glocal Opposition to Privatisation: The Case of Hackney, UK Ben Cashdan and Dennis Brutus, Racism Conference a Victory for the EU Prishani Naidoo, The Silencing Power of the World Conference Against Racism Peter Alexander and Graca Mkodzongi, Interview with Munyaradzi Gwisai, MDC's Socialist MP Darlene Miller, Jambanja - Fast Track Land Reform in Zimbabwe David Pottie, Queuing for Democracy Molly Dhlamini, The King and Us: Interview with Bongani Masuku, President of the Swaziland Youth Congress Lenny Gentle, The Blind Leading the Blind - The Australian Accord and Neoliberalism in South Africa Andile Mngxitama, Book Review of 'Banking on Change', by Helena Dolny To subscribe (1 year, 4 issues, airmail for overseas addresses) send your cheque to Debate, PO Box 517, Wits 2050, Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA, or send your subscription fee to the Account DEBATE - Voices from the Left, Nedbank, Jorissen Street, Braamfontein 2017, Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA, Account No. 1965-371418, SORT Code: 19500502, SWIFT Address: NEDSZAJJ. Subsciption fees: South Africa: Individual R42.00; Institutions: R100.00; Supporter: R100.00; Student (Copy of ID Required): R36.00; Rest of the World: Individual: 30 USD (or 20 GBP); Institutions: USD 60.00 (or GBP 40.00); Supporter: USD 50.00 (or GBP 34.00). *** On the US East Coast in late November, early December? Check out Ben Cashdan's latest doccie... You just don't know how lucky you are that black people can still tolerate living in shacks and go and work for white people in beautiful homes, and not kill those white people. ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU, JULY 2001 At the Durban anti-racism conference, 20 000 people marched for reparations and against globalisation. Then five days before the Sept 11 attack the US government walked out of Durban. This new film from South Africa asks why so many in Africa blame northern governments and corporations for their poverty. Includes exclusive interviews with Tutu, Mandela, Soros, Mbeki and others. Screenings are FREE and presented interactively by the filmmaker! Wed 28 Nov - NEW YORK, NY - New School 8:00pm, Swayduck Auditorium, 65 Fifth Ave Contact Timo Lyrra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 212-229-5580 Thur 29 Nov - NORTHAMPTON, MA - Smith College 7:30pm, Neilson Library Browsing Room Contact Tandeka Nkiwane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Fri 30 Nov - WORCESTER - Clark Contact Laila Smith: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat 1 Dec - BOSTON - MA Coll of Art 2pm, 621 Huntington Avenue Longwood Stop on Green E Line Contact Rajiv Rawat: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon 3 Dec - BALTIMORE - Johns Hopkins 7.30pm, AMR1 Multipurpose Room Johns Hopkins University, Homewood Campus 3400 No. Charles St. Contact Chris powers: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue 4 Dec - WASHINGTON DC To be finalised Contact Carole Collins: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - South Africa is in the hands of Global Capital. That's why it can't meet the legitimate aspirations of its people GEORGE SOROS, FINANCIER We can't wait 40 years like the holocaust victims. We want reparations now! ARCHBISHOP OF CAPE TOWN NJONGO NDUNGANE The gentlemen in Davos are in the minority in the world today. The future lies here in Porto Alegre. TREVOR NGWANE, SOWETO ACTIVIST The film includes an inside view of the racism conference in Durban, the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil. *** It's not enough to bring Soweto to Rosedale By NAOMI KLEIN Globe and Mail, Toronto Wednesday, November 21, 2001 – Print Edition, Page A21 On Saturday night, I found myself at a party honouring Nelson Mandela and raising money for his children's fund. It was a lovely affair and only a very rude person would have pointed out that the party was packed with many of the banking and
Studies in Political Economy
Mike Lebowitz asked me to remind the list about the journal. OUR CURRENT ISSUE SPE 66, Autumn 2001 · M. Little/Impact of Ontario Welfare Changes on Single Mothers · W. McKeen/ Feminism and the National Social Policy Debate, the 1970s and Early 1980s · C. Mooers/ Citizenship and Finance Capital · Forum: The Quebec Summit H. Friedmann/ The World Social Forum and the People's Summit at Quebec City. M. Lee/ The FTAA after Quebec J. Grundy and A. Howell/ Negotiating the Culture of Resistance: Assessing Protest Politics Macdonald Stainsby A Real Movement is Here · Document: The New Politics Initiative · Tribute to Jack Scott Subscription Information One Year(3 issues): ___ C$75 (Institutions) ___ C$40.(Individual); ___ C$20.(Student/Unemployed) Two Years(6 issues): ___ C$120 (Institutions) ___ C$60(Individual); ___ C$35.(Student/Unemployed) Free back issue(s) requested: _ Subscribers outside Canada, please remit full amount in $US Name __ Address _ _ _ Send with payment to:SPE. SR. 303 Carleton University 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON. Canada K1S 5B6 Contents of Recent Issues Number 65, Summer 2001 · Chris Howell, The End of the Relationship Between Social Democratic Parties and Trade Unions?, pp. 7-37. · Andrew Jackson, Can There Be a Second Way in the Third Millennium?, pp. 39-64. · Russell Janzen, Jerry White and Carla Lipsig-Mumméé, Junked Mail: The Politics and Consequences of Privatization, pp. 65-89. · Sarah Riegel, The Home Schooling Movement and the Struggle for Democratic Education, pp. 91-116. · Ian Angus, Subsistence as Social Right: A Political Ideal for Socialism?, pp. 117-135. Number 64, Spring 2001 · Martin Morris, Contradictions of Post-modern Consumerism and Resistance, pp. 7-32. · Ellen Wall and Barbara Beardwood, Standardizing Globally, Responding Locally: The New Infrastructure, ISO 14000, and Canadian Agriculture, pp. 33-57. · Sharon Dale Stone, Lesbians, Gays and the Press: Covering Lesbian and Gay Pride Day in Kelowna, 1996, pp. 59-81. · Gerard Greenfield, The Success of Being Dangerous: Resisting Free Trade and Investment Regimes, pp. 83-90. · Sam Gindin, Rebuilding the Left: Towards a Structured Anti-Capitalist Movement, pp. 91-97. Number 63, Fall 2000 Contesting Neo-Liberalism · Wendy Larner, Neo-liberalism: Policy, Ideology, Governmentality, pp. 5-26. · Rianne Mahon, Swedish Social Democracy: Death of a Model?, pp. 27-60. · Robert Hackett, Taking Back the Media: Notes on the Potential for a Communicative Democracy Movement, pp. 61-86. · Barbara Jenkins and Rob Aitken, Jumping Borders with Pleasure: Chicano Resistance to Neo-liberalism, pp. 87-110 · Erin Steuter and Geoff Martin, The Myth of the Competitive Challenge: The Irving Oil Refinery Strike, 1994-96 and the Canadian Petroleum Industry, pp. 111-132. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doug tells thetruth..........................
. . . It makes left politics look more like a species of psychopathology rather than an honorable, even heroic intellectual tradition. It's so tempting to say to hell with it all.Doug [back from visiting the in-laws . . . ] There's where you're wrong. This list is not 'left politics.' It's a group of leftists who permit conversation to be dominated by a very small number of singular personalities with unique political views -- most of whom are not economists, god love 'em all. Michael tries valiantly to steer the discussion to economics, but huge political events always get in the way. Which should surprise nobody. If you want an economics list, you have to just purge everything that doesn't fit. Once you open the door to politics, you get what we have (which is o.k. w/me). I love it when the way-out left drives people to the close-in left. I'll be inducting DH into the ADA any time now (dues only $50/year). Now let us all bow our heads in a moment of silence over the impending demise of several thousand fascist, anti-semitic, misogynist terrorists. (One suspects they are not down with the GBLTGTS thing either.) Oh woe! They won't get fair trials. They won't get public defenders. They won't get three meals a day. They won't get cable tv. They will receive much as they have given. cheers, mbs
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doug tellsthetruth..........................
Now let us all bow our heads in a moment of silence over the impending demise of several thousand fascist, anti-semitic, misogynist terrorists. (One suspects they are not down with the GBLTGTS thing either.) Oh woe! They won't get fair trials. They won't get public defenders. They won't get three meals a day. They won't get cable tv. They will receive much as they have given. Max, this is genuinely vile. The people who require due process are first of all the shits and scumbags. The principle that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law doesn't make an exception for the bad guys. I am astounded that I have to explain this to you. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, without due process, we have no assurance that we are getting the guilty and not the innocent. Most, perhaps all, of the Taliban and maybe many al-Quaida members, despicable as their politics may be, had nothing more to do with 9/11 than you did. Does that matter in your equation, or is it enough for you that they are antisemites and misogynists? In which case there are a lot of people who can be rounded up and railroaded, but we sort have to abandon the First Amendment. In the second place, you're next. Do you think that if the principle of abandoning due process when the targets are bad guys is accepted that it will stop with foreign members of organizations that the US has designated terrorist? I don't know what has got into you. This is the ABC of liberal democracy. These are hard won victories that cost the blood of many tens of thousands or more. And you are gloating about throwing them away and handing the axe to people for whom the difference between you and al-Qaida is insignificant. Why have you gone stupid and contemptible just at this moment when we need every person we can find standing behind civil liberties? Please come back, we miss the old Max! jks _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doug tells thetruth..........................
I did not read Max's comments about the lack of civil liberties at first. I have to agree with Justin. I find the war disgusting. I don't think that the bombing of Sudan or the sanctions on Iraq have any more claim to morality than the attack on the World Trade Center. On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 05:54:55AM +, Justin Schwartz wrote: Now let us all bow our heads in a moment of silence over the impending demise of several thousand fascist, anti-semitic, misogynist terrorists. (One suspects they are not down with the GBLTGTS thing either.) Oh woe! They won't get fair trials. They won't get public defenders. They won't get three meals a day. They won't get cable tv. They will receive much as they have given. Max, this is genuinely vile. The people who require due process are first of all the shits and scumbags. The principle that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law doesn't make an exception for the bad guys. I am astounded that I have to explain this to you. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, without due process, we have no assurance that we are getting the guilty and not the innocent. Most, perhaps all, of the Taliban and maybe many al-Quaida members, despicable as their politics may be, had nothing more to do with 9/11 than you did. Does that matter in your equation, or is it enough for you that they are antisemites and misogynists? In which case there are a lot of people who can be rounded up and railroaded, but we sort have to abandon the First Amendment. In the second place, you're next. Do you think that if the principle of abandoning due process when the targets are bad guys is accepted that it will stop with foreign members of organizations that the US has designated terrorist? I don't know what has got into you. This is the ABC of liberal democracy. These are hard won victories that cost the blood of many tens of thousands or more. And you are gloating about throwing them away and handing the axe to people for whom the difference between you and al-Qaida is insignificant. Why have you gone stupid and contemptible just at this moment when we need every person we can find standing behind civil liberties? Please come back, we miss the old Max! jks _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: econometric model
just a note about common specification: long term investment is policy determined, eg tax policy. there has to be parsimony not too many independent variables. past changes in output are necessary. the fed rate is the policy variable par excellence. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mat, Re student econometric model. Random considerations that might be relevant: 1) Nominal or real variables (e.g., real interest rate, real investment, etc)? Any theoretical reason for preferring one over the other? 2) Levels versus changes? which variables should be in levels and which in changes? Econometric problems with using levels are well-known as it might lead to spurious correlation. 3) Lags? Which variables, how long, what lag formulation? 4) any reason for interactive terms (e.g., interest rate x corporate profits)? 5) if CP is for corporate profit should I also be for corporate sector? 6) form of equation: if elasticities are desired are logs of variables needed? 7) any measure for expectations? Eric __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While Max is correct that sectarianism ends up excluding itself from communications, and while it is true that the moderate arguably comprador muslim states have not been destabilised once the war started, statements like his to which Justin objected represent a gut response from citizens of the USA. As policy such statements will be very counterproductive even from the point of view of US hegemonism, and still more from the point of view of the emerging Empire. Supposing as seems very possible bin Laden together with a special force of 2000 Al Qaida fighters, is killed along with 1900 of them. 100 slip away, of whom 20 It would have been far better to go through due process, or create it globally, and negotiate with the Taliban government for the handing over of bin Laden to an international court, through intermediaries. In terms of the political economy of a list Max has a point. Stalin's policy of directing the main blow against middle elements has only to be implemented by a few to damage seriously the atmosphere of a list. Unfortunately the authority for this policy derives from Lenin (Stalin quotes On the Struggle with the Italian Socialist Party November 1920) and clearly was a current of thinking in the whole of the Bolshevik movement. Although that 3rd International tradition particularly after the 7th Congress came to accommodate with trade unionism and the left in general, those who look back to Lenin as a source of inspiration today, repeatedly throw up reversions to this style of polemic, which is all too easily reproduced on the internet. Despite his strength of feeling Justin is careful to say that Max's remarks are vile, not that Max is vile. But it is a small step that some might not be too careful about taking in their mind. And I am afraid on other lists it might be said in a sectarian fashion that this list harbours someone with Max's views. Max's remarks have validity about the reality of the actual balance of forces in terms of how the current events will be seen through the capitalist owned media by billions of people. If Max or anyone else is wrong, people will become best convinced of this if the main blow is not directed against him, or against any other individual, such as the person whose name I have deleted from the thread title. As I think Justin does. Chris Burford At 25/11/01 22:21 -0800, you wrote: I did not read Max's comments about the lack of civil liberties at first. I have to agree with Justin. I find the war disgusting. I don't think that the bombing of Sudan or the sanctions on Iraq have any more claim to morality than the attack on the World Trade Center. On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 05:54:55AM +, Justin Schwartz wrote: Now let us all bow our heads in a moment of silence over the impending demise of several thousand fascist, anti-semitic, misogynist terrorists. (One suspects they are not down with the GBLTGTS thing either.) Oh woe! They won't get fair trials. They won't get public defenders. They won't get three meals a day. They won't get cable tv. They will receive much as they have given. Max, this is genuinely vile. The people who require due process are first of all the shits and scumbags. The principle that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law doesn't make an exception for the bad guys. I am astounded that I have to explain this to you. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, without due process, we have no assurance that we are getting the guilty and not the innocent. Most, perhaps all, of the Taliban and maybe many al-Quaida members, despicable as their politics may be, had nothing more to do with 9/11 than you did. Does that matter in your equation, or is it enough for you that they are antisemites and misogynists? In which case there are a lot of people who can be rounded up and railroaded, but we sort have to abandon the First Amendment. In the second place, you're next. Do you think that if the principle of abandoning due process when the targets are bad guys is accepted that it will stop with foreign members of organizations that the US has designated terrorist? I don't know what has got into you. This is the ABC of liberal democracy. These are hard won victories that cost the blood of many tens of thousands or more. And you are gloating about throwing them away and handing the axe to people for whom the difference between you and al-Qaida is insignificant. Why have you gone stupid and contemptible just at this moment when we need every person we can find standing behind civil liberties? Please come back, we miss the old Max! jks _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico,
[Fwd: [BRC-ANN] POEM: Wanted Dead or Alive]
Original Message Subject: [BRC-ANN] POEM: Wanted Dead or Alive Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:52:26 -0500 (EST) From: Art McGee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rabble.ca/everyones_a_critic.shtml?x=3234 Rabble (Canada) October 26, 2001 Wanted Dead or Alive By Tara Atluri [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wanted dead or alive Wanted dead or alive When the right bodies bleed red it's red alert on brown skin funny head dresses and last names Didn't have a problem tagging along on the mehndi meditation bandwagon But when more than overpriced incense is burning you want to know why the hell we ever came. Let's grieve for the America we used to know Even though for some of us burning buildings police presence and everyday living have started to look the same Even though some of us have been used for target practice since we came. And the woman at the store in the shopping mall Malled by racks of discount boutique fashion laced with traces of an immigrants blood says Let's grieve for the America we used to know. All dreams and dollars and safety and peace Pieces of apple pie that never got divvied up to aunties and sisters getting paid by the piece When brown hands bleed red it seems to get blacked out in the local press release. When their veins popped and backs cracked like a World Trade tower it never made no primetime TV hour. When bombs were going off in heads of brown-skinned people told to explode language and custom and myth 'cause it was dirty and backward and might get you deported. No one said Americans under attack They said You can't stand the heat in the slave-wage kitchen get your gun smuggling, terrorist ass back where you came from. To whatever country you're from that don't respect human rights Although I see more lefts than rights Leftover jobs you say we're stealing Leftover healthcare that leave our people bleeding Leftover stereotype from Hollywood blockbuster hit where a man in a turban threatens what's left of Harrison Ford's machismo Whoops there goes the last of it. Now that the cameo's over he's hung out to dry 'cause you know there ain't gonna be no brown folks on TV unless there's a bomb or yoga studio nearby. And the television newspaper radio station print front page clip of nondescript illegal paki immigrant to make white America feel enraged and appeased 'cause they all seem to agree that this is a sign that it's time to sweep the streets of those that just can't seem to understand that America was built on creeds and mottos and master-race plans. That we should all observe five minutes of silence at major retails chains where brown bodies have laid down their lives so white backs can get clothed for cheap Blisters on fingers and extra mild curry so white tummies can always eat. Men in turbans women in hijab beaten down detained asked to spell out holy names. Make you believe murder is an import just like dishes that are too spicy you can send it back from where it came. Well I have a news flash for you We can't grieve for America as it used to be as it once was safe from murder and mayhem before ill shit was imported The illest murders on this soil are still celebrated in turkey dinners now replaced by Chinese food orders. America was built on mass genocide for which it has never apologized Unlimited justice for the nation but let's just forget that little matter of slavery They'll repair every scabbed white knee before there's an ounce of reparation. Eloquent speeches about the value of lives but when it comes to freezing starving poor when it came to Rwanda then we ain't so sure. So don't give me this Land of peace and hope tarnished by an Asian invasion bullshit When America is a nation of minefields and graves Of civilian targets never once missed. No one counts causalities of everyday war That doesn't make your globe or your star No tribute CD for the causalities of Caucasian normalcy. Where is the headline saying America Attacks? Attacks decency dignity with every back cracked blood pact welfare cheque held back sacred forest hacked. It's not that I don't feel for people who died It's not that I don't feel for people's fears But I just want y'all to remember that while some bombs can detonate quickly the lady liberty I know has been burning crosses for years. -- Tara Atluri facilitates the Women of Colour group at the University of Toronto's Women's Centre and acts as co-coordinator of the centre. Her rants -- called spoken word -- are a feature of Radio O.P.I.R.G. on CIUT 89.5. She presented the above spoken-word piece at Media Democracy Day in Toronto. Copyright (c) 2001 Tara Atluri. All Rights Reserved. [IMPORTANT NOTE: The views and opinions expressed on this list are solely those of the authors and/or organizations, and do not necessarily represent or reflect the official political positions of the Black Radical Congress (BRC). Official BRC statements, position papers, press releases, action
