Re: Reluctant Imperialism
[Comments below] Finishing the Job The clash at the end of history. By Stanley Kurtz Mr. Kurtz is also a fellow at the Hudson Institute February 12, 2002 8:40 a.m. National Review Online www.nationalreview.com The United States is entering an era of reluctant imperialism. That era will be neither a clash of civilizations nor the end of history, but will contain elements of both. The new American imperialism forces us out of a strictly realist posture, in which we nurture our own democracy while trying to achieve a stable balance of forces among our not always democratic civilizational counterparts. Instead, as military success grants us greater control over portions of the non-Western world, we will undertake experiments in democratization. Those experiments in democratization will encounter cultural limits, both at home and abroad, forcing a partial reversion to realism. The challenge of an era of reluctant imperialism will be to find the proper balance between active democratization and realist prudence. Given overwhelming support for this war and for the president, it may seem odd to call our coming imperialism reluctant. Yet the swift and nearly cost-free success of the war in Afghanistan obscures two post-war problems of fundamental importance - our culture, and theirs. The problem in our culture is our reluctance to take casualties and make sacrifices in the service of nation-building. The problem in their culture is the lack of fit between many non-Western societies - particularly Muslim societies - and democracy. Since the collapse of communism, America has been the dominant power in the world. Nonetheless - and notwithstanding the claims of the Left to the contrary - we have not been imperialists in any conventional sense. Our refusal to finish the job, by ousting Saddam Hussein after the Persian Gulf War, and our abandonment of Afghanistan after the retreat of the Soviets, reflect America's reluctance to take on an imperial role. Yet now that we have conquered Afghanistan and are about to conquer Iraq (and maybe other countries as well), we will be forced to confront the cultural complications, both at home and abroad. == This is bunk. Any shrewd imperialist knows that you don't conquer a nation in 'the conventional sense' if you don't think it will lead to capital accumulation. Sacking SH would not do much for the US if it had to place lots of troops and neocolonial admin personnel there. As for Pipelineistan -- I mean Afghanistan -- well, it's too early to tell.Somebody just wrote a book on whether imperialism pays, examing Japan's invasion of China and Germany's early occupations. Can't remember the author though. What's going on now ain't like that.. Concerns about taking casualties have kept the American presence in Afghanistan small, inhibiting our efforts to root out the leadership of al Qaeda. Major questions remain about the size of the post-war peacekeeping force (which, out of concern for casualties, America has declined to join), about the nature of the emerging Afghan government, and about the problem of consolidating that government's power over local warlords and across the different ethnic groups. All of these problems will emerge again in Iraq after we have conquered it. This is not to counsel passivity or doom. We can and must win a broad-based war against terrorism and rogue states. That war has only just begun. The question is not whether we can or should win such a war, but what happens after we do. In the wake of victory, reluctant imperialism will emerge - both as a problem, and as wise policy. = Came across one of the Rand Corporation's latest publications at UW library which was researched with the cooperation of lots of mid-level CIA folks and had lots of charts etc. of geopolitics, resistance movements etc. All the major pieces and antagonists were labeled 'revolutionary movements'. I mean I had to really *dig* to come across the term terrorist. And the thing was hot off the press, dated 2002, in fact The ultimate reluctant imperialist is George Bush, who disavowed any interest in nation building during the campaign, yet is prosecuting a war that will force us to reconstitute not a few governments in culturally alien lands. The president rightly refuses to stand idly by while terrorists and hostile nations prepare to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States. But that does not mean the president's concerns about nation-building have altogether disappeared. On the contrary, as noted, the administration's post-war policy in Afghanistan has already been inhibited by worries over casualties. Warlordism is cheaper than colonialism, that's Public Choice 101What about all the weapons of mass destruction the US has *and* has used against other countries? The advance and spread of technology has both forced us into imperialism and temporarily
Re: Krugman and biznesmen
Elizabeth Warren is the most politically visible and progressive bankruptcy specialist in academia. As a Harvard Law Professor, she has effectively used her status to promote a social justice position with sympathetic academics and federal legislators. The letter is typical of her efforts to present a rigorous, academic critique of the immorality of proposed bankruptcy legislation and is very influential in the social democratic wing of American politics. Robert D. Manning Krugman Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 22:56:00 -0800 [anybody know about the letter that's mentioned?] [NYTimes] February 12, 2002 Business Versus Biznes By PAUL KRUGMAN Memo to critics of the media's liberal bias: the pinkos you really should be going after are those business reporters. Even I was startled by the tone of the Jan. 21 issue of Investment News, which describes itself as "the weekly newspaper for financial advisers." The headline was "Paul O'Neill's Sweet Deal"; the blurb was "IRS backs off closing loophole, averting tax liability for execs and Treasury chief." It's not really news that the Bush administration likes tax breaks for businessmen. But two weeks later I learned from The Wall Street Journal that this loophole is more than a tax break for businessmen: it's a gift to biznesmen. And it may be part of a larger pattern. Confused? In the former Soviet Union, the term "biznesmen" (pronounced "beeznessmen") refers to the class of sudden new rich who emerged after the fall of Communism - and who generally got rich by using their connections to strip away the assets of public enterprises. What we've learned from Enron and other players to be named later is that America has its own biznesmen - and that we need to watch out for policies that make it easier for them to ply their trade. It turns out that the "sweet deal" Investment News was referring to - the use of "split-premium" life insurance policies to give executives largely tax-free compensation (you don't want to know the details) - is an even sweeter deal for executives of companies that go belly up: it shields their wealth from creditors, and even from lawsuits. Sure enough, reports The Wall Street Journal, former Enron C.E.O.'s Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling both had large split-premium policies. So what other pro-biznes policies have been promulgated lately? Last year, both houses of Congress passed bankruptcy reform bills; a reconciliation conference scheduled for Sept. 12 got put off. Now those bills are getting another hard look. They toughened the law for ordinary families. But the bills also included a provision that would have made it much easier for companies to transfer assets to "special purpose entities," putting them out of creditors' reach. To be fair, there are sometimes sound business reasons for transferring assets off a company's books. But now that we know about Chewco and JEDI and LJM and all those other "entities" that Enron executives used to siphon off cash, you have to wonder whether the legislation would really facilitate business, or whether it would mainly serve the interests of biznes. That, at any rate, is what 35 law professors argued in a Jan. 23 letter sent to Congressional leaders. "If this goes through," declared Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School, "the incentive for corporations will be to move more and more transactions off the books." My wife (who is also an economist) was more succinct: "This turns us into Russia." The issue of business versus biznes is not one that divides neatly along party lines. Democrats as well as Republicans have taken money from lobbyists, and (like the Democratic National Committee chairman, Terry McAuliffe) profited personally from investments in companies that later collapsed. And the new bankruptcy laws had overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. But right now the Bush administration is busily doing the most important thing a government can do to promote biznes: nothing. So far Harvey Pitt, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has failed to propose any meaningful reform in the lax rules that made Enron possible. And as Floyd Norris noted last week in this newspaper, the Bush administration has balked at providing a significant increase in the S.E.C.'s budget - even though "it pays far less than the private sector and, more amazingly, less than other federal regulatory agencies." The administration's curious passivity could be a simple matter of faith in the "genius of capitalism," as Paul O'Neill put it. But as many reporters have noticed, several high- ranking administration officials had prior business careers that, in retrospect, look more like biznes careers. As Molly Ivins explained at length in her book "Shrub, the list includes George W. Bush himself. It's still possible that the administration will wake up and realize that we seriously need reform. But
Sharon suspends reservists as revolt in the ranks grows
Sharon suspends reservists as revolt in the ranks grows By Phil Reeves 06 February 2002 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=118431 Israel's armed forces have decided to suspend scores of reserve soldiers from their posts in an effort to quell the largest internal revolt in the ranks since the start of the 16-month Palestinian uprising. The reservists, who include combat officers, have signed a petition saying they will refuse to serve in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip because Israel is dominating, expelling, starving and humiliating the Palestinian population. By yesterday, the petition had 173 names. The figure has risen from 100 in less than a week, adding momentum to an acrimonious national debate. It is the first big rift in Israeli public opinion over Israel's conduct of the conflict since Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister in a landslide victory 11 months ago. The army has reacted with annoyance and unease, not least because it makes wide use of reservists to patrol and guard Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. The refuseniks insist that their objections are principled, and have stressed that they are willing to defend Israel within its pre-1967 borders. One of them, Lieutenant Ishai Sagi, has described how, during one two-week stint in the West Bank, he was ordered to open fire at Palestinians who picked up stones for throwing at the troops. There were no specifics about whether [the person] was a child, a woman or an elderly man, he said, And there were no specifics as to where to shoot [the person]. He told one interviewer: I don't think that what the Israeli Defence Forces do in the territories contributes in any way to defending Israel itself ... Everything that we do in there - all the horrors, all the tearing down of houses and trees, all the roadblocks, everything - is just for one purpose, the settlers, who I believe are illegally there. So I believe that the [orders] that I got were illegal and I won't do them again.
Re: No wonder Marxism is dead.
I am really disappointed. There is nothing about the Mazda B2200 pickup or 626 car and the like. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pen-l [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 6:42 PM Subject: [PEN-L:22758] No wonder Marxism is dead. Ken Hanly is right. Google in the hands of Pugliese can find any damn thing. Michael Pugliese Zoroastrian and Parsis in Science Fiction ... Kim Stanley Robinson, Red Mars. New York: Bantam (1993) (Nebula award), 2059, Pg. 418: No wonder Marxism is dead. ... www.adherents.com/lit/sf_zor.html
Re: Re: Enron and California: The Smoking Gun?
regarding VCs, my personal experience is that things are opening up a bit again, but most of late 2001 VCs shifted to investing most of their money into existing investments (second-round) with brighter prospects. i think the numbers are: ~ $70b raised by VCs 2000, $55b 2001. from CNN money: total VC investments: q1 q2 1999 $5.9b $10.1b 2000 $26.2b $24.2b 2001 $10.4b $8.2b - q1 2002, VCs are sitting on about $45b, according to a VC newsletter i received a while ago. here are some links (from google search) that might be interesting: --- VC Money Still Flows, But IT Funding Takes A Hit By Chuck Ulie, InformationWeek Dec 24, 2001 (12:00 AM) URL: http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20011224S0003 Despite a huge drop from the year 2000's $94.3 billion, 2001 is the third most-active year for venture-capital investment, according to numbers released last week by VentureWire, which has been tracking venture-capital investment for 15 years. Private U.S. companies raised $35.3 billion in more than 3,000 financings-less than half of the 6,420 that took place in 2000. Funding remained strong in the biotech and medical devices sectors, though money for IT fell across the board. But [2001] still shapes up as a very solid year, VentureWire editor Ken Andersen says. As recently as 1998, U.S. startups only raised $13 billion. Oliver Curme of venture-capital firm Battery Ventures did 12 investment deals this year, down from about twice that number in each of the two previous years. But Curme knows firsthand that VCs aren't keeping their cash on the sidelines. We're seeing a lot of situations where we're getting outbid, he says, because there's a lot of money out there. Information sciences companies raised the most money in 2001: $29.3 billion, down from 2000's $83.4 billion. --- http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_22/b3734081.htm Where Capital Is Still Venturing As valuations return to earth, startups get another look Total VC investing sank 43%, from $20.5 billion in the fourth quarter of 2000, to $11.7 billion in the first quarter of 2001, according to researcher Venture Economics. But when VCs do buy, it looks increasingly like startups are where they want to put their money. Although the percentage of early-stage financings remained steady at 14% over the previous two quarters, 21% of all venture dollars have gone into startups so far this quarter. Surprisingly, many investors are as enamored of the Net as ever. Of the 236 seed financings in the most recent quarter, 148 are Net-related, says a PricewaterhouseCoopers/Money-Tree survey. The vast majority of those companies, some 136, are being built around the hardware and software tools needed to help consumers and businesses make better use of the Internet. For instance, Ecount.com, a next-generation online payment system, landed $11 million earlier this year. B3, a business-to-business software maker, nabbed $15 million, and Peribit Networks Inc., which is developing technology to improve network performance, got its first funding in January. Despite all the financial woes and turmoil in the telecom sector, investors are also lining up to place bets on wireless startups. Wireless, in fact, is one of the few sectors, along with biopharmaceuticals and medical devices and equipment, in which the net dollars flowing into startup deals are going up. Total spending on wireless equipment and services ventures rose from $59.5 million in the last quarter of 2000 to $93 million in the first quarter of this year, says PricewaterhouseCoopers. Everyone is looking for the killer application in the wireless space, says Jesse Reyes of Venture Economics. --- http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/biz/thumb/20010905a.asp (with a graph showing VC investments) Venture capitalists shift focus By John Burke . Bankrate.com® Medical, health and biotech companies are already stars in the venture capitalist sky, but they are getting brighter, according to second quarter 2001 figures. These sectors raked in 13.8 percent ($1.4 billion) of invested cash last quarter. That's a couple of billion dollars behind still-favorite technology operations, but up from 11.2 percent in the first quarter and 3.95 percent higher than a year ago. --- --ravi
Big Brother Bush
News Home - Yahoo! - Help Washington Plans Unprecedented Camera Network Wed Feb 13, 8:18 AM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - Washington police are building what will be the nation's biggest network of surveillance cameras to monitor shopping areas, streets, monuments and other public places in the U.S. capital, a move that worries civil liberties groups, The Wall Street Journal said on Wednesday. The system would eventually include hundreds of cameras, linking existing devices in Metro mass transit stations, public schools and traffic intersections to new digital cameras mounted to watch over neighborhoods and shopping districts, the Journal said. In the context of Sept. 11, we have no choice but to accept greater use of this technology, Stephen Gaffigan, the head of the police department project, told the Journal. He said city officials had studied the British surveillance system, which has more than 2 million cameras throughout the country, and were intrigued by that model. One of the first uses of police surveillance cameras in Washington was April 2000, when authorities set up a network to monitor protests during a meeting of the International Monetary Fund (news - web sites) and World Bank (news - web sites), the newspaper said. On Tuesday morning, in response to the latest terror alert issued by the Justice Department (news - web sites), police activated a $7 million command center that was first used on Sept. 11. The command center, which has dozens of video stations for monitoring cameras, will remain in use until federal officials end the alert, the Journal reported. Cameras installed by the police have been programmed to scan public areas automatically, and officers can take over manual control if they want to examine something more closely. The system currently does not permit an automated match between a face in the crowd and a computerized photo of a suspect, the Journal said. Gaffigan said officials were looking at the technology but had not decided whether to use it. Eventually, images will be viewable on computers already installed in most of the city's 1,000 squad cars, the Journal said. The Journal said the plans for Washington went far beyond what was in use in other U.S. cities, a development that worries civil liberties advocates. Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) in New York, noted there were few legal restrictions of video surveillance of public streets. But he said that by setting up a central point of surveillance, it becomes likely that the cameras will be more frequently used and more frequently abused. You are building in a surveillance infrastructure, and how it's used now is not likely how it's going to be used two years from now or five years from now, he told the Journal. Copyright © 2002 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Questions or Comments Privacy Policy - Terms of Service
O Joy -- another sign of recovery
. . . sales aside from cars posted their biggest surge since March 2000, aided by higher prices at the gas pump . . . I guess I'm just thick. I can't figure out how anyone figures a surge in retail sales if the uptick is entirely due to higher gas prices and excluding slumping car sales from the total. As Max pointed out, the recent surge in 4th quarter GDP was in real terms, after adjusting for price deflation. That number included car sales bloated by 0% interest rates. Lies, damned lies and audited financial statements. Tom Walker
Re: Review of Radical Political Economics statement
Chris Burford wrote: I was glad to see on the website of the Review of Radical Political Economics http://www.urpe.org/rrpehome.html the Editorial Board has removed the sanction denying Dr. Kliman the right to submit articles to RRPE for publication It also clarifies what it describes as a misunderstanding, and I am sure could well have been a misunderstanding. URPE spent something like $15,000 defending itself against Kliman's lawsuit, which has very nearly bankrupted the organization. But hey, it's important to get those value theory papers out there if we want to overturn bourgeois rule. Doug
RE: Re: Review of Radical Political Economics statement
URPE spent something like $15,000 defending itself against Kliman's lawsuit, which has very nearly bankrupted the organization. But hey, it's important to get those value theory papers out there if we want to overturn bourgeois rule. I'm just amazed that the Union of Radical Political Economists had net worth of U$15K to begin with. Who says Marxism doesn't pay? ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
Wishful thinking
Wishful thinking by Justin Schwartz 12 February 2002 15:44 UTC CB: No, no, Justin, I'm the one wishing in this thread. I'm putting forth a utopian socialism. Engels has turned into his opposite. Charles, I didn't know you had it in you. ^^^ CB: I hope you don't mean what I'm thinking you mean. ^ But seriously, I only meant that because Marxism is true, it has a tendency to fulfill itself. But there can be countervailing influences to this tendency. How this struggle will come out in the end is difficult to say. But I don't think you can count out a revival of Marxism, because its truths are confirmed everyday, say in Argentina. I mean the people in Argentina may be foreclosed from becoming Marxists or communists en masse today because of the specific anti-communist institutions that capitalism has built up in response to the SU and the first wave of socialist revolutions. But what about an Argentine depression in the next generation , when anti-communist institutions have faded, and people have no anti-communist trends like today. Didn't someone say something about what happens when history repeats itself the second time? ^^ CB: The same person, in an essay on Lincoln, also noted in a development of that idea that comedy is superior to tragedy. That's why when I first came on these lists I proposed a Party of a new type, a Detroit Cabaret, a Boston Tea Party for today. A Mardi Gras of the People, is what the Ole man called it. Don't miss out on the fun, Justin. You've got your Ma Rainey tapes. Marxism will seem like an amazinginly accurate description of what is happening to them. So, it is hard to count out Marxist revival forever , as you do. I think what is novel in my position is that I do not deny the substantial truth content of historical materialism; but the truth may not be enough. Someone also said something about the philosophers merely interpreting the world in various way. jks CB: Someone also said the rational is actual. But that the truth may not be enough is not what we are discussing. That's the inevitability argument. That one sort of puts the burden of proof on me. We are discussing the opposite end of things. Is no Marxism inevitable ? That's your claim , and the burden of proof is on you , as to why something that is so true, will not come true. I didn't say it being objectively true is enough. Certainly it will take practical critical, that is revolutionary, activity. Changing the world ( 13th thesis on Feuerbach) takes practical critical ( revolutionary) activity ( First thesis on Feuerbach). Declaring that Marxism is dead underminds people's enthusiam for taking practical critical activity to change the world. There is a subjective component to Marxism. Exactly in the First Thesis on Feuerbach , Marx indicates that past materialisms, including, Feuerbach's had been contemplative and not active, not subjective. The active side had been developed by idealism. In other words, the enthusiasm for acting was dominated by idealism. Marx distinguishes his materialism from those before in adding practical critical _activity_ and revolutionary elan to objective contemplation. Only this combination can change the world. I'm pretty sure I sent you my paper on Activist Materialism and the End of Philosophy when we were in the Committees of Correspondence, and we were corresponding :) I Thesis on Feuerbach The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism - that of Feuerbach included - is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism -- which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity. Hence, in Das Wesen des Christenthums, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty-judaical manifestation. Hence he does not grasp the significance of revolutionary, of practical-critical, activity.
RRRE legal bills
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:40:17 - URPE spent something like $15,000 defending itself against Kliman's lawsuit, which has very nearly bankrupted the organization. But hey, it's important to get those value theory papers out there if we want to overturn bourgeois rule. I'm just amazed that the Union of Radical Political Economists had net worth of U$15K to begin with. Who says Marxism doesn't pay? They spent only $15,000? At $200 an hour, which is fairly cheap as legal fees go these days, they got 75 hrs of legal work, including copying, compliation, filing, etc.--anyway, less than two 40 hour weeks of legal billing, and probably more like a week of actual legal work; with (say) twolawyers working on it for 2 1/2 days a piece. I'd say that they got off cheap. There's a lesson in this: don't be sued. Btw, when my totally impecunious disarmament group in Ann Arbor in the 1980s ran up a $25,000 campaign bill on a losing ballot initiative, we didn't want tos till the people who had extended us credit, so we hired a pro fundraiser and made the money back, paid off our debts to the penny, in less than a year. This was a little group in a small college town working with booksales, bucket drives, direct mail, and the like. I've been a big fan of pro fundraisers evers ince. I have unsuccessfuly been advocating that Solidarity hire one, but they tell me that would be too bourgeois or something. URPE might give it a thought. jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
RE: RE: Re: Review of Radical Political Economics state ment
I'm just amazed that the Union of Radical Political Economists had net worth of U$15K to begin with. Who says Marxism doesn't pay? I've been trying to sell mine for a long time, but no-one will buy. JD
RE: Re: Review of Radical Political Economics statement
Chris Burford wrote: I was glad to see on the website of the Review of Radical Political Economics http://www.urpe.org/rrpehome.html the Editorial Board has removed the sanction denying Dr. Kliman the right to submit articles to RRPE for publication It also clarifies what it describes as a misunderstanding, and I am sure could well have been a misunderstanding. Doug writes: URPE spent something like $15,000 defending itself against Kliman's lawsuit, which has very nearly bankrupted the organization. But hey, it's important to get those value theory papers out there if we want to overturn bourgeois rule. Andrew Kliman writes: A VICTORY FOR PLURALISM! February 12, 2002 Dear Supporters of Pluralism, We were completely outmatched in terms of money and power, but we have won a tremendous victory! This is a time for celebration. It is also a time to capitalize on our victory by intensifying the struggle for pluralism, especially pluralism *within* radical economics. We faced a far richer and more powerful adversary, the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE). But what proved to be more important than money and power is what *we* had -- the knowledge that our cause is just, and the determination to fight for it to the end, without regard for the consequences. Jim Devine writes: no comment.
RE: Reluctant Imperialism
hey, this guy sounds like he's about to volunteer for the armed forces and will soon be out doing one-handed push-ups at dawn in minus 50 degrees temperatures (Celsius OR Fahrenheit!) with the Delta Force. nah. Old soldiers never die, young ones do. (Lap-top bombadiers like Kurtz _never_ die in combat.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Finishing the Job The clash at the end of history. By Stanley Kurtz Mr. Kurtz is also a fellow at the Hudson Institute February 12, 2002 8:40 a.m. National Review Online [a right-wing rag] www.nationalreview.com The United States is entering an era of reluctant imperialism. That era will be neither a clash of civilizations nor the end of history, but will contain elements of both. The new American imperialism forces us out of a strictly realist posture, in which we nurture our own democracy while trying to achieve a stable balance of forces among our not always democratic civilizational counterparts. Instead, as military success grants us greater control over portions of the non-Western world, we will undertake experiments in democratization. Those experiments in democratization will encounter cultural limits, both at home and abroad, forcing a partial reversion to realism. The challenge of an era of reluctant imperialism will be to find the proper balance between active democratization and realist prudence. Given overwhelming support for this war and for the president, it may seem odd to call our coming imperialism reluctant. Yet the swift and nearly cost-free success of the war in Afghanistan obscures two post-war problems of fundamental importance - our culture, and theirs. The problem in our culture is our reluctance to take casualties and make sacrifices in the service of nation-building. The problem in their culture is the lack of fit between many non-Western societies - particularly Muslim societies - and democracy. Since the collapse of communism, America has been the dominant power in the world. Nonetheless - and notwithstanding the claims of the Left to the contrary - we have not been imperialists in any conventional sense. Our refusal to finish the job, by ousting Saddam Hussein after the Persian Gulf War, and our abandonment of Afghanistan after the retreat of the Soviets, reflect America's reluctance to take on an imperial role. Yet now that we have conquered Afghanistan and are about to conquer Iraq (and maybe other countries as well), we will be forced to confront the cultural complications, both at home and abroad. Concerns about taking casualties have kept the American presence in Afghanistan small, inhibiting our efforts to root out the leadership of al Qaeda. Major questions remain about the size of the post-war peacekeeping force (which, out of concern for casualties, America has declined to join), about the nature of the emerging Afghan government, and about the problem of consolidating that government's power over local warlords and across the different ethnic groups. All of these problems will emerge again in Iraq after we have conquered it. This is not to counsel passivity or doom. We can and must win a broad-based war against terrorism and rogue states. That war has only just begun. The question is not whether we can or should win such a war, but what happens after we do. In the wake of victory, reluctant imperialism will emerge - both as a problem, and as wise policy. The ultimate reluctant imperialist is George Bush, who disavowed any interest in nation building during the campaign, yet is prosecuting a war that will force us to reconstitute not a few governments in culturally alien lands. The president rightly refuses to stand idly by while terrorists and hostile nations prepare to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States. But that does not mean the president's concerns about nation-building have altogether disappeared. On the contrary, as noted, the administration's post-war policy in Afghanistan has already been inhibited by worries over casualties. The advance and spread of technology has both forced us into imperialism and temporarily obscured the nature of our new imperial dilemma. The technology of mass destruction, and the turning of even conventional technology into an agent of mass murder, are forcing America to impose itself upon the world with surprising thoroughness. The British were able to rule Afghanistan indirectly. If we're lucky, we may be able to do the same. But the British did not have to contend with the possibility that a few rogue Afghans might blow up London. The new situation means that we may now require not only a fully cooperative Afghan government, but an historically rare extension of that government's power to the point where the local warlords are defanged - something we may not be able to accomplish without a serious ongoing Western military presence, perhaps
RE: Reluctant Imperialism
Stanley (he dead) Kurtz writes: Some believe that the war itself will suffice to regenerate the spirit of patriotism and sacrifice that was lost in the sixties. But the cultural changes of the sixties cannot be explained simply, or even mostly, by post-war demobilization and prosperity. What really changed after World War II was the way we lived. The decline of small towns and the breakup of tightly knit ethnic neighborhoods in cities gave way to expanding suburbs and impersonal urban apartment complexes. The heightened cultural individualism that followed is rooted in these changes in the structure of our lives, and not only in the presence or absence of war or a national enemy. here's a problem for the NATIONAL REVIEW think-tanker: the destruction of the communities that he refers to also went along with the larger social process that helped destroy the labor union movement. Jim Devine
Reluctant Imperialism
Reluctant Imperialism by Sabri Oncu 13 February 2002 07:54 UTC Thread Index Finishing the Job The clash at the end of history. By Stanley Kurtz Mr. Kurtz is also a fellow at the Hudson Institute February 12, 2002 8:40 a.m. National Review Online www.nationalreview.com Mr. Kurtz, he dead - _The Heart of Darkness_ Charles
Re: Review of Radical Political Economics statement
Jim quotes: Andrew Kliman writes: A VICTORY FOR PLURALISM! February 12, 2002 Dear Supporters of Pluralism, I was one of the targets of Kliman's lawsuit. Part of the settlement that ended the lawsuit was an agreement that all parties to the lawsuit agreed NOT to talk about the lawsuit (except for the public statement published on URPE's website and to appear in a future UPRE publication). KLIMAN--and not URPE--insisted that this be part of the settlement. Therefore, I will not (now) respond to KLIMAN's mass-mailed public statement about the lawsuit. Eric Nilsson
Re: O Joy -- another sign of recovery
Tom Walker wrote: . . . sales aside from cars posted their biggest surge since March 2000, aided by higher prices at the gas pump . . . I guess I'm just thick. I can't figure out how anyone figures a surge in retail sales if the uptick is entirely due to higher gas prices and excluding slumping car sales from the total. As Max pointed out, the recent surge in 4th quarter GDP was in real terms, after adjusting for price deflation. That number included car sales bloated by 0% interest rates. Lies, damned lies and audited financial statements. Sorry to disappoint, Tom, but taking out gas station sales as well as autos, retail sales were still up 0.8% month-to-month. Surge is jounrnalistic hyperbole, for sure, but consumption is holding up in the U.S. And with the initial unemployment claims falling and consumer confidence rising, it's looking very much like a trough. It could all fall apart, but it ain't yet. And the Redbook retail sales survey for the first week of Feb was up 4.2% year-on-year, bringing the three-month moving average to +1.9%. Since auto sales are much stronger than anyone expected after the fading of 0% financing, retail is looking pretty strong. Sorry again. Doug
Re: Review of Radical Political Economics statement
The misunderstanding and how it arose all by itself remains a bit of a mystery. Hopefully, the RRPE will be able to watch out for it in the future. Alas, I fear that it will be difficult to raise funds to offset the legal costs, as Justin suggests. Funds to defeat misunderstandings of unknown orgins are scarce. At 11:36 AM 02/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: Chris Burford wrote: I was glad to see on the website of the Review of Radical Political Economics http://www.urpe.org/rrpehome.html the Editorial Board has removed the sanction denying Dr. Kliman the right to submit articles to RRPE for publication It also clarifies what it describes as a misunderstanding, and I am sure could well have been a misunderstanding. URPE spent something like $15,000 defending itself against Kliman's lawsuit, which has very nearly bankrupted the organization. But hey, it's important to get those value theory papers out there if we want to overturn bourgeois rule. Doug
Re: RE: Re: Review of Radical Political Economicsstate ment
Davies, Daniel wrote: I'm just amazed that the Union of Radical Political Economists had net worth of U$15K to begin with. Who says Marxism doesn't pay? Dues, library subs to the journal, and fundraising from the membership. For an organization to be on the verge of ruin after an expenditure of $15,000 is hardly a sign of robust finances, is it? Doug
Re: Re: RE: Re: Review of Radical Political Economics state ment
- Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:11 AM Subject: [PEN-L:22788] Re: RE: Re: Review of Radical Political Economics state ment Davies, Daniel wrote: I'm just amazed that the Union of Radical Political Economists had net worth of U$15K to begin with. Who says Marxism doesn't pay? Dues, library subs to the journal, and fundraising from the membership. For an organization to be on the verge of ruin after an expenditure of $15,000 is hardly a sign of robust finances, is it? Doug = Time to set up some off-shore partnerships. Ian
Re: O Joy -- another sign of recovery
Hi Doug, Do you have any recent statistics on business spending? I expect some improvement but haven't seen any recent numbers yet. I would appreciate it if you send some info. Sabri
Krugman
Krugman: Confused? In the former Soviet Union, the term biznesmen (pronounced beeznessmen) refers to the class of sudden new rich who emerged after the fall of Communism - and who generally got rich by using their connections to strip away the assets of public enterprises. What we've learned from Enron and other players to be named later is that America has its own biznesmen - and that we need to watch out for policies that make it easier for them to ply their trade. ^^ CB: What he should have said was Having just been born yesterday, what we've learned from Enron ...is that America has its own biznesmen
Free Trade 'Murrican style
February 13, 2002 Senate Passes Farm Subsidies Bill By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 1:53 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate passed an election-year farm bill Wednesday that boosts subsidies for grain and cotton growers and doubles spending on conservation programs. Unlike a House-passed bill, the Senate legislation would impose strict new limits on the payments that any one farm could receive. Some subsidies are now essentially unlimited. The Democratic-crafted Senate bill, which passed 58-40, also offers new subsidies to a variety of commodities, including milk, honey, wool and lentils. The Senate Agriculture Committee chairman, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, called the bill ``a tremendous victory for the economy of rural America.'' Nine Republicans, primarily from Northeastern states that stand to benefit from the dairy subsidies, voted for the bill. Two Democrats opposed it, including Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, whose farmers would be hurt by the payment caps. The legislation also boosts spending on food stamps and other nutrition programs by more than $800 million a year, twice the level of the House bill. Legal immigrants who have lived in the country at least five years would become eligible for food stamps under the Senate measure. House and Senate negotiators will work out the final version of the bill in coming weeks, with input from the White House. Bush administration officials have complained that the Senate bill is too costly and says it would encourage overproduction of subsidized crops, but they also have criticized the House measure. Both the House and Senate versions represent dramatic departures from the Republican-authored 1996 farm law, which was designed to wean farmers from government subsidies. The Senate bill ``creates incentives for overproduction by making larger payments to a few big farms, thus guaranteeing overall lower prices for farm commodities and perpetual calls for more assistance by federal lawmakers,'' said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the senior Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee. The Senate legislation, which renews farm programs through 2006, authorizes $45 billion in new spending over the next five years, a 27 percent increase over current programs. The House authorized a $38 billion increase over the same period. There are numerous thorny issues for the House and Senate negotiators to resolve, including the spending levels and payment limits. ``Everything is open'' to negotiation, Harkin said. ``Everything is on the table.'' A congressional budget agreement last year set aside $73.5 billion in new farm spending over the next decade, a level the Bush administration supports. Administration officials, however, complain that the Senate bill spends too much of that -- $45 billion -- before 2007. Congress would then be forced to slash programs or increase spending. On Tuesday, the Senate voted to include in the bill a new program that, in order to protect endangered fish, would use subsidies to encourage farmers to reduce their use of irrigation water. The $1 billion program was restricted to seven states -- Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, California, Oregon and Washington -- because of the opposition. Opponents of the program fear federal involvement in disputes over water usage and endangered species, but the Senate approved it on a 55-45 vote. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., predicted that ``all the other states will be fighting to get in'' the water conservation program once they see the benefits. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's largest farm group, opposed the water subsidies, saying the program will eventually subject farmers to new regulations. The Senate on Tuesday also refused to back off a ban on meatpackers owning their own supplies of livestock, turning aside warnings by the companies that the prohibition would cause upheaval in the beef and pork industries. The Senate narrowly approved the ban in December as an amendment to legislation extending federal farm programs. Packers, who would have up to 18 months to sell off any livestock that they own, said the restrictions make it harder for them to procure adequate supplies of top-quality meat. ^-- The bill is S.1731.
Re: Re: O Joy -- another sign of recovery
Sabri Oncu wrote: Do you have any recent statistics on business spending? I expect some improvement but haven't seen any recent numbers yet. I would appreciate it if you send some info. Nope, not much of one yet - and companies are still cutting capital budgets (though this may be to please Wall Street, and they may act differently if the economy recovers). The series people are looking at is nondefense capital goods http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/m3/hist/naicshist.htm, which was up a bit in December - down a bit if you exclude the volatile aircraft sector, as the boilerplate goes. This is the big question mark - since recession was led by capital spending cutbacks, can the recovery be consumer led? Doug
Re: Marxism as Science and Religion
Having had the misfortune of growing up in a fundamentalist evangelical household (parents belonged to different sects, however), and having observed from the outside the behaviour of the way too many marxist-flavored left grouplets here in Argentina, Justin's remarks about Marxism and religion make a whole lot of sense. Too bad left grouplets (with the exception of Luis Zamora of Autodeterminacion y Libertad) have not realized that we are no longer in the 1970s. A few general comparisons: 1) Sectarianism: christian groups are sectarian (hence the term sect); they tend to believe their interpretation of scripture (i.e. their dogma) is the only (or most) correct one. All others will rot in hell, or will have a harder time getting to heaven. The same is true of the marxist grouplets, to the point where they are unable to unite forces against neoliberalism, capitalism, or anything else. Here (Argentina) there is a United Left party and about 15 other known marxist varietals. The only leader to emerge from the marxist left to have been able to move beyond religion while still being revolutionary is Luis Zamora. 2) Dogmatism: christians are dogmatic, they cling to received dogma regardless of how many logical holes it may contain. Faith fills in the gap. The same can be said of militants of the marxist varietal parties. If you dissent you are demoted, if you dissent strongly, you start your own party/sect. 3) Verticalism: christians are verticalist, there is a line which is pushed down trhough the hierarchy. There is little space for serious theoretical discussion at the base. Rather all discussion is contained within the line or dogma. Ditto for marxist grouplets. Sure, one can find the odd exception, but from what I have seen, these observations generally hold. Personally, I think it is too bad that the left (with the exception mentioned) has been unable to engage in serious analysis and retool itself. In general, people's rejection here of political parties (que se vayan todos ---they should all leave---, which is the rallying cry of street protests today) includes all of the left grouplets (even though they haven't yet woken up to this). Their verticalism, sectarianism, and dogmatism are as much a part of the politics being rejected today as are clientelism and corruption. Alan _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Re: O Joy -- another sign of recovery
The point that is missed by the newspaper headlines and these excerpts is that retail sales as a whole, INCLUDING autos, DECLINED by 0.2% in January. Not a huge decline, but a decline. The AP headline from the NY Times website was Retail Sales Rise Sharply in January. Then the first sentence reads: A drop in car sales ... pushed down sales at the nation's retailers by 0.2 percent in January. Then it goes on to say: Excluding volatile automobile sales, overall retail sales rose by a solid 1.2 percent in January. Fred On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Doug Henwood wrote: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:09:00 -0500 From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:22787] Re: O Joy -- another sign of recovery Tom Walker wrote: . . . sales aside from cars posted their biggest surge since March 2000, aided by higher prices at the gas pump . . . I guess I'm just thick. I can't figure out how anyone figures a surge in retail sales if the uptick is entirely due to higher gas prices and excluding slumping car sales from the total. As Max pointed out, the recent surge in 4th quarter GDP was in real terms, after adjusting for price deflation. That number included car sales bloated by 0% interest rates. Lies, damned lies and audited financial statements. Sorry to disappoint, Tom, but taking out gas station sales as well as autos, retail sales were still up 0.8% month-to-month. Surge is jounrnalistic hyperbole, for sure, but consumption is holding up in the U.S. And with the initial unemployment claims falling and consumer confidence rising, it's looking very much like a trough. It could all fall apart, but it ain't yet. And the Redbook retail sales survey for the first week of Feb was up 4.2% year-on-year, bringing the three-month moving average to +1.9%. Since auto sales are much stronger than anyone expected after the fading of 0% financing, retail is looking pretty strong. Sorry again. Doug
Re: Re: Re: O Joy -- another sign of recovery
Fred B. Moseley wrote: The point that is missed by the newspaper headlines and these excerpts is that retail sales as a whole, INCLUDING autos, DECLINED by 0.2% in January. Not a huge decline, but a decline. The AP headline from the NY Times website was Retail Sales Rise Sharply in January. Then the first sentence reads: A drop in car sales ... pushed down sales at the nation's retailers by 0.2 percent in January. Then it goes on to say: Excluding volatile automobile sales, overall retail sales rose by a solid 1.2 percent in January. There are two good reasons to strip away car sales - one, is that they're normally volatile, and can provoke meaningless swings in the headline number, and two, the 0% financing incentives last year stole a bunch of early '02 sales. So anyone trying to measure the underlying trend in consumption would want to see what's going on ex-autos. But good progressive economists are irresistibly drawn to the negative number. The weight of the evidence is that the U.S. economy is troughing, or did bottom out around December. This could be a false bottom, a pause before another downleg; the recovery could be weak, and might feel little different from recession. But there's not much point in ignoring the evidence. Doug
RE: RE: ancient writing
Michael Pollak writes:Actually the point is that there isn't one bit of evidence that the Pharoahs ever were nasty to them. You are probably right.[*] (I don't know, since I know nothing of this subject, while I don't have any emotion at all invested in this topic.) But my experience in a secular Jewish community (and with other Jews) is that I often hear the sentiment that we were slaves once, so we should treat the downtrodden well. That's probably not put into practice very much, but it's better than the opposite sentiment. Unitarians have also suffered from grave persecution, so that's why they are so liberal... an excommunicated Unitarian, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine [*] I still think it's possible that the Hebrews were exiled dissidents from somewhere higher in the Egyptian power structure who exaggerrated their status of being oppressed.
Re: RE: Re: Marxism as Science and Religion
At 2/13/2002, Jim Devine wrote: Of course, just because everyone does it doesn't make it right. Or, just because everyone does it doesn't deny Justin's view of marxism as religion. It would indicate that the likeness of political beliefs to religion is not exclusive of marxism. Alan _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: O Joy -- another sign of recovery
No, the weight of the evidence is inconclusive. Too many 'big things' have happened in the interim to make month-to-month fluctuations (especially massaged ones) a reliable indicator of underlying trends. One can say, reasonably, that the inconclusiveness is at least an improvement over evidence of deterioration. But not much more. There is, after all, a war going on. As for 0% financing auto sales, the interpretive slant seems to favour the story that the sales borrowed from future auto sales. I have no doubt that's part of the story. However, another part of the story would be, I presume, some substitution of autos for other purchases, so the rebound in non-auto sales may also reflect to some extent the end of such substitutions. How much of one or another kind of substitution is going on is clearly beyond the ken of the numbers. I don't advocate ignoring evidence, but I distinguish between what is actually evidence and what is interpretation. Doug Henwood wrote, The weight of the evidence is that the U.S. economy is troughing, or did bottom out around December. This could be a false bottom, a pause before another downleg; the recovery could be weak, and might feel little different from recession. But there's not much point in ignoring the evidence. Tom Walker
Re: Re: Re: O Joy -- another sign of recovery
Doug wrote: The weight of the evidence is that the U.S. economy is troughing, or did bottom out around December. This could be a false bottom, a pause before another downleg; the recovery could be weak, and might feel little different from recession. But there's not much point in ignoring the evidence. Doug, I remember this weight of the evidence phrase quite well. Based on this weight of the evidence argument my clients/bosses had kept asking me to add this or that extra variable into the models I was trying to build as parsimoniously as possible, so I am not very fond of this phrase. But they were right in one sense: there are too many variables they try to watch and a variable that plays a significant role for sometime may become irrelevant for some other time. By the way, one doesn't build and estimate structural models for publication in Econometrica in the business world: you regress anything on everything and that is mostly it, or, at least, this is what they do there. We need to wait some more to see if the US economy is troughing. It may be, but it is too early to say. We also need to watch what is happening elsewhere. By the way, I am saying these as a scientist, not as some leftist who wants revenge!... Sabri
Re: O Joy -- another sign of recovery
Yeh, me too. I get paid to delve a lot deeper into numbers that in many ways are simpler and more self-explanatory than the retail sales data. The notion that analysts can almost instantaniously interpret these figures and unanimously agree on their import is amusing but not persuasive. Sabri Oncu wrote, By the way, I am saying these as a scientist, not as some leftist who wants revenge!... Tom Walker
RE: Re: O Joy -- another sign of recovery
Jim wrote: we should remember that the rise of the US real GDP during the last quarter of 2001 was only according to the advance estimate. This estimate will be changed, though we don't know which direction it will go. -- Jim D. Revisions are always an issue. But there are also the reliability and meaninfulness issues. I leave realibility aside, too many lies are being told in these days so one doesn't know what to believe and what not to believe anymore. But take a look at this University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment and Expectation Indices for example: they are some monthly numbers based on a survey of 500 to 600 individuals who are supposed to represent the 280+ million American consumers. There two releases of these indices every month: one preliminary, one final. Mind you, the priliminary numbers are based on roughly 250 to 280 individuals. How meaningful measures can these indices be of the feelings of the American consumers? Yet, they can move markets. There is something wrong in all of these. Sabri
Re: RE: Re: O Joy -- another sign of recovery
Sabri Oncu wrote: Revisions are always an issue. But there are also the reliability and meaninfulness issues. I leave realibility aside, too many lies are being told in these days so one doesn't know what to believe and what not to believe anymore. But take a look at this University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment and Expectation Indices for example: they are some monthly numbers based on a survey of 500 to 600 individuals who are supposed to represent the 280+ million American consumers. There two releases of these indices every month: one preliminary, one final. Mind you, the priliminary numbers are based on roughly 250 to 280 individuals. How meaningful measures can these indices be of the feelings of the American consumers? Yet, they can move markets. There's a NY Fed paper on the confidence numbers http://www.ny.frb.org/rmaghome/econ_pol/698bram.htm - the Michigan ones aren't very useful, esp the early readings, but the Conference Board's is ok. What's best are measures of current household finances people's sense of the job market. Someone posted a news story here on the Reserve Bank of Australia's study of Australian confidence numbers. They're pretty worthless, apparently http://www.rba.gov.au/PublicationsAndResearch/RDP/RDP2001-09.html. Yes they move markets, but sometimes for as little as 2 minutes. Anything moves markets. Markets move on their own, and people select reasons after the fact. Doug
Introduction from new participant from Brazil
I am a free lance journalist living and working in Brasil. During one of my online researches in the area of economy I came accross your list between one link and another. I read some of the messages and liked the very serious tone on the list. I then decided to suscribe. I am a great admirer of Marx`s and Lenin`s works eventhough I do not belong to any Communist party . Besides having finished a Journalism course at university, I also got to do 3 years of Political Sciences in Sao Paulo during the final period of the military dictatorship my country underwent for 30 years. At that time ( 1977-79) we could use many Marxist books and I studied several subjects under the lights of Marx , Lenin , Luckacz and Karel Kosik. I even studied Plekhanov` texts. I own a politcal mailing list at Yahoo called Globalization with no politcal tendency specified.Roads.We discuss all problems affecting the world. I set up the list with many people of different nationalities whom I contacted online personally. It is evident that the level on my list is not the same as the one on yours which is very high.Though we have some teachers on it I usually keep the discussions and comments on a daily level eventhough we do get into difficult issues sometimes.Each person has his /hers political tendency respected. Almost always:)) Best Regards, Claire Marie Regnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Marxism as Science and Religion
Alan writes: Or, just because everyone does it doesn't deny Justin's view of marxism as religion. It would indicate that the likeness of political beliefs to religion is not exclusive of marxism. Of course people can be religious about all sorts of political beliefs. Some religious beliefs (in the narrow sense) _are_ political beliefs. And I don't say that a political religion is a bad thing. As I have said, there was a time when it made sense for leftists to embrace Marxism as a sort of faith--that was when millions of workers did too. Now that they don't, what's left is the science of historical materialism, which ought to be approached scientifically. A mass movement needs a religious aspect. Just now we don't have one, and that's a problem. But Marxism can't provide it any more, to the extent that it ever could here in the US and Canada, and I don't think it's worth while hanging on to thelabel and hoping that someday the Marxist faith will revive. Yes. But since Marx was very much one who engaged in ruthless criticism of all existing and major followers such as Luxemburg embraced doubt all, dogmatism isn't a necessary component of Marxism. Never said it was. Religion isn't necessarily dogmatic. If we follow such folks as Georg Lukacs to see Marxism as defined by its method of understanding the world (a style of questioning rather than a list of pre-determined answers or substantive propositions), then dogmatism can be avoided. Well, Jim and I have had this one out before. As a pragmatist, I don't think that substance and method cab be seperated so neatly, and Lukacs, who coined the concept of Marxism as method, didn't believe it. He said that you could reject every substantive proposition that MArx put forth and still be a Marxist, but if someone were to propose rejecting the law of value, the desirability of the abolition of markets, the central role of the working class, and the priority of economics, I don't think that Lukacs would regard him as a MArxist for a minute, no matter how dialectical his thinking. One source of such dogmatism is the idea that Marx was the _only_ font of wisdom or theory (a view encouraged by blatant misinterpretations of his views). But that's silly. Sure. the view that Marxism _has to be_ dogmatic is simply a version of sectarianism. It's often embraced by those who used to be dogmatic Marxists, who changed what to be dogmatic about without ending their dogmatism.[*] Jim Devine [*] I don't know if this applies to Justin. Probably not. Thanks, Jim. You too, same. I hope I was never dogmatic. I believe pretty much the same things I have for more than 20 years, cleaned up and refined some, I hope; my substantive views, though, have been pretty stable. I'm trying to think whether any of them have changed that much. I've been a market socialist since 1982 or so, a liberal democrat and a kneejerk civil libertarian since I could grasp the concepts involved. I've never thought the LTV or law of value was central to a radical project. I came to accept some version of historical materialism around 1979 and still do. I've always been a realist and a materialist, and I think I've been a pragmatist since I was bitten by Rorty and Harman at Tigertown, though I didn't accept the label until graduate school. I used to think this set of views fit within Marxism, and I suppose I still think it could. I just don't see the point of the label anymore. jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: Introduction from new participant from Brazil
Welcome, Claire, I hope you can bring your fresh perspective to us. We need more smart people, more women, and more people from the South. In the US we know too little about Brazil, although it's one of the most important countries in the world. Most North Americans don't even know what language you speak down there. We had a former Senator and Vice President, Dan Quayle, VP under Bush the First, who thought you all spoke Latin (why else would it be called Latin America?). So tell us, what's going on with the PT? My tiny left group (300 members), Solidarity, has or had some some of fraternal relations with the PT. Justin (jks) I am a free lance journalist living and working in Brasil. During one of my online researches in the area of economy I came accross your list between one link and another. I read some of the messages and liked the very serious tone on the list. I then decided to suscribe. I am a great admirer of Marx`s and Lenin`s works eventhough I do not belong to any Communist party . Besides having finished a Journalism course at university, I also got to do 3 years of Political Sciences in Sao Paulo during the final period of the military dictatorship my country underwent for 30 years. At that time ( 1977-79) we could use many Marxist books and I studied several subjects under the lights of Marx , Lenin , Luckacz and Karel Kosik. I even studied Plekhanov` texts. I own a politcal mailing list at Yahoo called Globalization with no politcal tendency specified.Roads.We discuss all problems affecting the world. I set up the list with many people of different nationalities whom I contacted online personally. It is evident that the level on my list is not the same as the one on yours which is very high.Though we have some teachers on it I usually keep the discussions and comments on a daily level eventhough we do get into difficult issues sometimes.Each person has his /hers political tendency respected. Almost always:)) Best Regards, Claire Marie Regnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
New at RedGlobe
Dear Comrades, beside this stories, you will find some others at the site ## Iran: Statement of Tudeh Party The Statement of the Central Committee of the Tudeh Party of Iran: The Tudeh Party of Iran Strongly Condemns the Intrusive and Dangerous Nature of George W. Bush\'s Speech (From the editorial of \Nameh Mardom\, Central Organ of the Tudeh Party of Iran No. 627, 5th February, 2002) George W. Bush\'s \State of the Union\ Speech in the U.S. congress on Jan 29, about continuing \the American war against terrorism\ and threatening Iran, Iraq and North Korea by calling them the \Axis of Evil\ has given rise to great concern among all the people around the world. Some countries in the European Union and the Middle East, Russia, and other countries around the world taken aback at this new stance by the leaders of the United States, have expressed their surprise and opposition to the statements made by George Bush. The Tudeh Party of Iran and other progressive and patriotic forces of Iran and the Middle East condemn these irresponsible and inflammatory statements; we are deeply concerned about the dangers threatening the region\'s political stability and the future of our countries. http://www.placerouge.info/article.php?sid=84mode=threadorder=0thold=0 -- A local protest -Some global words Protest in San Francisco - 20th February AN OPEN INVITATION LOCAL PROTEST: WED FEB 20th - 4:30 pm SF FEDERAL BUILDING 450 Golden Gate Avenue SF CA First they came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, but by that time, no one was left to speak up. Pastor Martin Niemoeller, Nazi Germany We call on people everywhere to participate in a National Day of Solidarity with Muslim, Arab and South Asian Immigrants. The words of Pastor Niemoeller spell out the challenge facing all of us as people who seek justice and a better world. This time, first they are coming for the Arab, Muslim and South Asian immigrants. http://www.placerouge.info/article.php?sid=78mode=threadorder=0thold=0 -- Australia: New Secret Police ASIO -- THE NEW SECRET POLICE New legislation to be introduced by the Howard Government represents the most dangerous offensive against civil liberties and democratic rights yet seen in Australia. The new Espionage and Related Offences Bill, to come before Parliament at an as yet unspecified time, gives the Government and its agencies, particularly the spy organisation ASIO, broad powers to arrest, detain and interrogate suspects. Law enforcement bodies and spy organisations will be given free rein to trample on basic freedoms. Jules Andrews and Marcus Browning The legislation shifts the burden of proof onto defendants, allows for the prosecution and jailing of public servant whistle-blowers and takes away the right to remain silent. These new powers will effectively turn ASIO into a secret police body, totally unaccountable and add to the draconian shoot to kill powers the Government gave to the military in the lead-up to the 2000 Sydney Olympics. (The shoot to kill powers were contained in the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to the Civil Authorities) Bill, which allows for the use of the armed forces against Australian citizens engaged in domestic violence, a vague term which includes strikes, demonstrations and riots. It allows the military to use deadly force, i.e. shoot people with impunity.) The new offence of terrorism is a deadly catch-all. According to the Attorney-General, These offences will cover violent attacks and threats of violent attacks intended to advance a political, religious or ideological cause which is directed against or endanger Commonwealth interests. http://www.placerouge.info/article.php?sid=82mode=threadorder=0thold=0 -- http://www.placerouge.info freehosting for radical left sites. No adds, no banners, no costs
Enron, OPIC, Ex-Im Dabhol
http://www.atimes.com Heat from Enron's meltdown hits credit agencies By Danielle Knight WASHINGTON - The scandal and crisis surrounding the collapse of energy giant Enron Corp have reached the doors of US government agencies that finance and facilitate private projects in developing countries. One of the biggest controversies involves the Dabhol power plant in India's Maharashtra state. Environmental and human-rights organizations say the Enron debacle highlights the need for closer supervision at the Overseas Private Investment Corp (OPIC) and the US Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im). Together, these agencies have provided or insured US$2.3 billion worth of financing for about a dozen Enron projects in Asia and Latin America, says Aaron Goldzimer, a social scientist with the Washington-based Environmental Defense, a national environmental group. At least a few of these ventures, activists argue, have been environmentally destructive and associated with human-rights abuses and never should have received Washington's financial support in the first place. Not only employees and stockholders have been swindled by the Houston-based company's shady schemes, says Goldzimer. The taxpayers have been joint investors in boondoggles that profited Enron but harmed the environment and local communities, he says. Compared with other export-credit lending agencies in Japan and Europe, OPIC and Ex-Im are bound by environmental and social guidelines - including mandatory environmental assessments of proposed projects. But advocacy groups say that these standards have not been properly followed and government agencies still finance harmful business enterprises, including some of those owned by Enron. One controversial Enron project backed by the US government is the $2.8 billion gas-fired Dabhol power plant - described as the largest single foreign investment in India - that is designed to generate 2,015 megawatts of electricity. Enron was the majority owner of the project, a joint venture including General Electric, Bechtel, and the Maharashtra state government. The Dabhol plant received $640 million in financial support from OPIC and Ex-Im in the mid-1990s, including a $300 million Ex-Im loan and a total of $340 million in loans and political risk insurance from OPIC. In 1999, Human Rights Watch (HRW), a New York-based advocacy group, charged Enron subsidiaries of paying local law enforcement to suppress local opposition to the power plant. Enron is now being widely accused of arrogance and lack of transparency, but the people of Dabhol have known that all along, says Arvind Ganesan, director of the business and human-rights program at HRW. Enron, she says, has been complicit in human-rights abuses in India since 1992, when local opposition ignited over concerns about corruption and the hasty negotiations over the terms of Enron's investment. Farmers complained that the power plant had unfairly acquired their land and had diverted scarce water resources. The rights group documented how contractors for the power plant harassed and attacked individuals opposed to the project. Police refused to investigate complaints, according to the report, and in several cases actually arrested the victims on false charges. In one instance in June 1997, Maharashtra police arbitrarily beat and arrested dozens of villagers who strongly opposed the project, which is now up for sale to other investors. The US government bears special responsibility for the human-rights consequences of Enron's investment because of its aggressive lobbying on behalf of the three US-based companies developing the project, says Ganesan. Human-rights abuses aside, the project never should have been approved by OPIC and Ex-Im for purely financial reasons, say activists. The World Bank repeatedly refused to finance the project because it was not considered economically viable and its terms were seen as only beneficial to Enron. For several years, relations between Enron and the Maharashtra government have been at a rolling boil over the high cost of electricity generated by the plant. The state eventually canceled its original plan to purchase power from the plant. OPIC officials confirm that since Enron's bankruptcy, the company has filed a $180 million claim with OPIC in an attempt to recoup financial losses from the venture, arguing that the state government's decision amounts to expropriation. In another example, OPIC in 1999 approved $200 million worth of political-risk insurance for the Cuiaba gas pipeline, a joint venture between Enron and Shell Oil that aims to transport gas through eastern Bolivia to a power plant in Cuiaba, Brazil. Conservation groups, including the World Wildlife Fund and US-based Amazon Watch, strongly oppose the project. They say OPIC's backing of the project violates the agency's rules, developed during the administration of former US president Bill Clinton, that ban the funding
Re: Marxism as Science and Religion
Re: Enron, OPIC, Ex-Im Dabhol
Ian posted the article below about OPIC and Enron. But note: Enron isn't the only company using OPIC (and the US military) to do its dirty work. Mission Energy, a subsidiary of Edison International, a new holding company arisen out of the electric utility, Southern California Edison, foisted an outrageous contract on Indonesia. This is a huge coal-fired plant from which Suharto's government agreed to buy kilowatt-hours at very, very high prices. Prices that are in dollars and were very, very high BEFORE the Indonesian currency meltdown. Much higher now. Higher prices in Indonesia than are charged in the US and which people earning Indonesian wages in Indonesian currency cannot possibly pay. Mission/Edison International happens to have an ex-US Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, on its Board of Directors and on the job of forcing a settlement by the Indonesian government. OPIC loaned on this plant, which has General Electric as part owner. General Electric is also part owner of the Enron plant at Dabhol, India Mission/Edison International secured the contract by making an Indonesian with family ties to Suharto a partner in the project. He got 15% ownership without putting in any money. His investment would come out of the future profits. Suharto's family also got the coal supply contract at what appears to be a sweetheart price. OPIC has financed dozens of power plants, gas and coal, around the world for US sponsors. Sometimes with loans or loan guarentees and other times by financially insuring the project. Of course when the deals sour or get shakey, the US govenment then moves in with threats or financial squeezes from other agencies to force complaince on countries that really shouldn't honor these one-sided deals. And/or uses it ties to the military in the other countries to reinforce or create a regime that will comply. Gene Coyle an Murray wrote: http://www.atimes.com Heat from Enron's meltdown hits credit agencies By Danielle Knight WASHINGTON - The scandal and crisis surrounding the collapse of energy giant Enron Corp have reached the doors of US government agencies that finance and facilitate private projects in developing countries. One of the biggest controversies involves the Dabhol power plant in India's Maharashtra state. Environmental and human-rights organizations say the Enron debacle highlights the need for closer supervision at the Overseas Private Investment Corp (OPIC) and the US Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im). Together, these agencies have provided or insured US$2.3 billion worth of financing for about a dozen Enron projects in Asia and Latin America, says Aaron Goldzimer, a social scientist with the Washington-based Environmental Defense, a national environmental group. At least a few of these ventures, activists argue, have been environmentally destructive and associated with human-rights abuses and never should have received Washington's financial support in the first place. Not only employees and stockholders have been swindled by the Houston-based company's shady schemes, says Goldzimer. The taxpayers have been joint investors in boondoggles that profited Enron but harmed the environment and local communities, he says. Compared with other export-credit lending agencies in Japan and Europe, OPIC and Ex-Im are bound by environmental and social guidelines - including mandatory environmental assessments of proposed projects. But advocacy groups say that these standards have not been properly followed and government agencies still finance harmful business enterprises, including some of those owned by Enron. One controversial Enron project backed by the US government is the $2.8 billion gas-fired Dabhol power plant - described as the largest single foreign investment in India - that is designed to generate 2,015 megawatts of electricity. Enron was the majority owner of the project, a joint venture including General Electric, Bechtel, and the Maharashtra state government. The Dabhol plant received $640 million in financial support from OPIC and Ex-Im in the mid-1990s, including a $300 million Ex-Im loan and a total of $340 million in loans and political risk insurance from OPIC. In 1999, Human Rights Watch (HRW), a New York-based advocacy group, charged Enron subsidiaries of paying local law enforcement to suppress local opposition to the power plant. Enron is now being widely accused of arrogance and lack of transparency, but the people of Dabhol have known that all along, says Arvind Ganesan, director of the business and human-rights program at HRW. Enron, she says, has been complicit in human-rights abuses in India since 1992, when local opposition ignited over concerns about corruption and the hasty negotiations over the terms of Enron's investment. Farmers complained that the power plant had unfairly acquired their land and had diverted scarce
Re: Re: Marxism as Science and Religion
Greetings Economists, JKS has set off a chorus of Marxism is religion. Alan comparisons of Religious persons, and Christians perpetuates a problem with understanding what is going on with organizing Marxist groups by comparing them to a religion. While Alan's comments are not meant to be in depth discussion, they present a ripe opportunity for me to point at weaknesses of the theory. Alan, A few general comparisons: 1) Sectarianism: christian groups are sectarian (hence the term sect); they tend to believe their interpretation of scripture (i.e. their dogma) is the only (or most) correct one. All others will rot in hell, or will have a harder time getting to heaven. The same is true of the marxist grouplets, to the point where they are unable to unite forces against neoliberalism, capitalism, or anything else. Here (Argentina) there is a United Left party and about 15 other known marxist varietals. The only leader to emerge from the marxist left to have been able to move beyond religion while still being revolutionary is Luis Zamora. Doyle One has to admit that comparing Christians with Marxists suggests a Marxist Dogmatist attitude seems like a Christian attitude. And religious. It would be no accident if Christian methods of social organization permeated various cultures. First of all that the Christians are successful at starting groups (sects) and growing them over centuries. The above comparison though is hardly a good cognitive description of what makes a group feel that members are right and outsiders are wrong. The comparison doesn't say if that isn't true of groups in general and in particular doesn't say why the basic method works in some cases and not in others. The fear of dying is common to human beings in general, and anything that suggests being outside the group is a threat to survival might reproduce primate life from our origins. Alan, 2) Dogmatism: christians are dogmatic, they cling to received dogma regardless of how many logical holes it may contain. Faith fills in the gap. The same can be said of militants of the marxist varietal parties. If you dissent you are demoted, if you dissent strongly, you start your own party/sect. Doyle Taken together Sectarianism and Dogmatism have a heavy tinge implicating disabled persons as the problem with Sectarianism, and Dogmatism. The aim of the attack is about how well someone cognitively disabled functions in a group. The above political point while easily grasped does not in any substantial material way tell us what exactly one could do to organize groups against the capitalist that aren't religious or a collection of disabled persons since we don't have a theory saying what religing is. If one takes the inference that obsessive and compulsive behavior is the problem with these Dogmatic and Sectarian groups then one has to assume that only people who don't have those disabilities ought to form a group. We don't really know what religing does that these ideal able bodied people would not relige in ordinary groups. This also suggests that unbending faith is the problem, but for example in science where a rational argument is supposed to prevail, forming paradigms for groups notoriously points at how the group maintains a paradigm long after the next paradigm has supplanted the original paradigm. In addition there is nothing in the parallel that persuades us of what difference there is between religious thinking and not, so we have to assume as JKS likes to say this is secular religion which conflates religion and Marxism, that seems to me equally valid to say about any social group. Either we all relige in all activities, or some demonstration of what religing has to be produced to take seriously the phrase secular religion. The obvious conclusion for someone to draw is that both groups are religing. In fact the problem may not be about religion of any sort of definition but how to think about constructing groups. Alan, 3) Verticalism: christians are verticalist, there is a line which is pushed down trhough the hierarchy. There is little space for serious theoretical discussion at the base. Rather all discussion is contained within the line or dogma. Ditto for marxist grouplets. Doyle This begs the question of how a mass organization can truly reflect the views of the masses. Articulating what the process of constructing a line is left out of the description. We don't really know what to make of the line. Is a line from a Christian group the same as the formation of a line in Communist group. We can see from the analogy a resemblance, but we don't know if that is true. The sort of question about little space in the base for discussion may be true in a dogmatic group, but what is religious about that, as opposed to understanding the working function of the group? The religious analogy is not efficacious. Mostly the analogy between Religion and Secular Religion Marxism has little real insight for us to grasp what to
Re: RE: Re: O Joy -- another sign of recovery
Doug wrote: Yes they move markets, but sometimes for as little as 2 minutes. Anything moves markets. Markets move on their own, and people select reasons after the fact. Doug, Markets are people, aren't they? Sabri
