Scargill resigns
Arthur Scargill is due to resign today after 20 years as the leader of the (British) National Union of Mine Workers. Despite great courage he was beaten by Mrs Thatcher's attack on the miners. The Union, which was said to have 250,000 members in 1981, is now said to have only 5,000. In 1996 Scargill set up the Socialist Labour Party in opposition to New Labour. The latter won a landslide victory at the 1997 election. Scargill attracted some criticism for allegedly using autocratic methods in the SLP. Eventually it became one of a number of participants in the Socialist Alliance which contests parliamentary and local elections, getting a few percentage of the vote. Chris Burford London BBC Report Mr Scargill was a rousing orator Arthur Scargill retires as president of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) on Thursday after more than 20 years in the job. The left-winger will retain the title of honorary president and will receive £1,000 per month for the next nine years for acting as consultant to the union. The decision to pay Mr Scargill the money has reportedly left some miners complaining that they had not been properly consulted. The prominence of Mr Scargill has faded as the coal industry suffered closure after closure. It was his claims of a coal board hit list of collieries to be closed that fuelled the 1984 miners strike, when he went head-to-head with the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Mr Scargill ultimately had to call the strike off, but his predictions over the future of the coal industry were later proved to have been accurate. Former Labour MP Tony Benn paid tribute to Mr Scargill whom he said was the most vilified man he had ever met. When you look back on it Arthur will be seen as a man of principle who stuck by his members, he told BBC TV's Breakfast. The man was vilified and all he did was to defend the miners, the mining communities and so on. The quiet end to Mr Scargill's career is in stark contrast to the prominence he held as the leader of the UK's biggest union. As he packs up his desk on his last day he does so with the knowledge that just a few thousand people remain employed in the coal industry. The union claims to have 10,000 members still. There will be no farewell party to mark Mr Scargill's departure. When the union's executive met earlier this month they voted their thanks to Mr Scargill and presented him with two presents - one was believed to be a wrapped photo. Ian Lavery - a 39-year-old miner from the North East who is taking on the new role of NUM chairman - said Mr Scargill deserved tremendous credit. He is a remarkable man and has been a remarkable trade union leader, he said. Anyone else who has been through the mill as he has would not have survived. He has seen off Mrs Thatcher and John Major and deserves tremendous credit for what he has tried to achieve for miners over the past 50 years. Unlike Mr Scargill, Mr Lavery is a member of the Labour Party who is prepared to meet government ministers and pit owners to discuss the industry's future. He is the chairman of the Wansbeck district council's cabinet and his aims in his new job are to sustain the existing coal industry and get compensation payments speeded up. Investment failure? We need a commitment from the government about the size of the coal industry, which is not a lame duck industry by any means. We produce the cheapest coal in Europe, yet we are allowing private companies to close mines because they are not prepared to invest. Mr Scargill created his own political party - Socialist Labour - in 1996 but it has failed to make any electoral in-roads. He ran against former cabinet minister Peter Mandelson in the 2001 election but failed to unseat the New Labour moderniser.
Funding conflict in Labour Government
This issue was also carried on page 4 on the Financial Times on Friday which may have been based on the Treasury sources that Michael White mentions in his Guardian article below. It is an interesting conflict about the mechanics of market socialism. The government has just published performance tables for the success of hundreds of National Health Trusts, with an implication that this will affect their entitlement to further state funding. But the crunch issue below is whether these Trusts can have access to capital markets. While they may still not be allowed to make profit themselves, they would have to on behalf of the capitalists from whom they are borrowing. But Gordon Brown's worry is that it would strip him of his ability to massage the state sector debt to keep it down and to appear ultra prudent in front of the financial markets. Any supporters of market socialism might usefully consider this as an exam question thrown up by practice to explain how the state could allow local initiative in meeting economic goals in the delivery of services, while distributing access to development capital in such a way as not to cause inflation. And how to stop a process of uneven development whereby the more successful trusts would grow in economic power and be able to take over less successful trusts in order to use finance more efficiently. Chris Burford London Ministers at odds over funding of hospitals As Milburn meets foreign surgeons here to operate on hundreds of patients, the Treasury insists on maintaining control of health spending Michael White, political editor Wednesday July 31, 2002 The Guardian Gordon Brown and Alan Milburn are deadlocked over the financial status of the NHS's new foundation hospitals as the chancellor resists the health secretary's plans to allow them to raise funds on the open markets. Mr Milburn believes the £40bn NHS plan to raise health care standards to European levels can only work if huge sums of new investment are matched by Whitehall's willingness to loosen its grip on decision making and let hospital trusts run themselves. But the chancellor's traditional role as guardian of the national chequebook - coupled with his personal obsession with detailed performance in the public sector - has made him reluctant to give even the NHS's best hospitals such a fundamental freedom. Behind the Treasury's concern lies the fear that over-ambitious hospitals could get into financial trouble, leaving the government to bail them out. Such unplanned additions to the public sector borrowing requirement would undermine Mr Brown's vaunted commitment to fiscal discipline. The Milburn camp fears that Tony Blair's commitment to deliver public sector reform cannot work without real authority being devolved to line managers and the wider community - to set their own priorities and find their own solutions. There is an important difference of view, health officials confirmed yesterday. There are huge implications in the foundation hospitals being freed from the secretary of state's powers of direction. Mr Brown and Mr Milburn worked closely on the Wanless report which confirmed the case for funding health care from general taxation as being both fair and efficient. Agreed on retaining the financial near-monopoly of NHS funds, they disagree about about how far to go to break up the monopoly of health care provision, allowing private hospitals and even foreign medical teams to do key jobs - free to the patient. NHS unions share Mr Brown's fears of creeping privatisation. But Mr Blair and his No 10 policymakers side with Mr Milburn. Though leaks on the row have appeared - apparently Treasury inspired - the Treasury yesterday declined to comment. The dispute now extends to Treasury concerns about the possibility that foundation hospitals will succumb to the temptation to raise extra funds by treating more and more foreign and private patients. The Health Department calls such suggestions drivel since all NHS hospitals have always had the right to treat private patients. The idea that they are going to be quasi-private hospitals is ridiculous, said a health source who complained that the Treasury view reflected the wider fallacy that the choice has to be between mainstream public or private organisations. Mr Milburn is already tightening the the rules by telling hospitals to devote more of their pay beds for ordinary patients as he battles to cut waiting lists. To reduce his exposure to borrowing Mr Brown is happy to see the private sector take over the risks of building hospitals and schools, even though critics say he would have to pick up the bill if things went wrong.
the new EU
At 31/07/02 11:56 +, Se c/o Natasha Potter wrote: To top this off, the loss of national control over interest rates will also have an impact - particularly given the EU limitations on Debt and Governmental Spending. Effectively, Governments will be forced to choose between increasing tax or cutting-back on state sector involvement. We can all guess which they will choose given that virtually every Government is Thatcherite in its economic ideology. Yes there will be that tendency but I guess it will not be as undiluted. Assuming Stoiber wins in September in Germany he will certainly go in this direction but how far? Social/christian democratic assumptions run deep in Germany. Note that Chirac decided to craft his government on centrist lines. We won't yet know if he is about to reveal this as all an illusion, but what is in it for him to do so? The EU will act as a servant for finance capital to tear back the remaining state sector gains from the 40s-60s eras in all EU states. But also the EU is a creation of European deal making between its finance and industrial capitalists. They are eager to gain competitive advantage against the US The task for progressive EU groups is to unite around these issues. Indeed, I think that the EU will offer us a great opportunity to link up across Europe in fighting these assaults - because they are being coordinated on a pan-EZ scale. The 'liberalisation of Energy/Water' will effect all EU states around the same time so I could envisage us calling pan-EZ protests on similar days even. There are some large socialist parties left out there willing to fight on this and I think that this fight will further radicalise them. That will be positive, but also a reason why the resultant of forces may not be a totally Thatcherite EU. First, the EU is more likely to become a strong arm of the US than anything else. No. On theoretical grounds you should expect imperialism to lead to conflict even if it does not lead to war. Europe is hungry to have some military power that can give it even slight independence from the USA The WEU is effectively controlled by NATO. Hence subtleties like the Europeans taking over completely responsibility for policing the Balkans. Even PfP is a NATO construct bringing in Russia. But - on condition that the anti-US hostility is not overt (an important condition of this serious game, the EU will make its own links with Russia, including those that are not dependent on the USA) Second, you need to concretise your balancing act. What elements of the EU would you support in order to counter-balance the US - the Euro/the European Rapid Reaction Force?? See my earlier brief strategic response to your letter: I am not advocating a strategy adequately summed up by saying that the international proletariat should support the EU. The international proletariat should unite and take advantage of contradictions between the ruling classes. What's not correct is for progressive movements to identify with their local imperialism because it's slightly better in terms of working conditions, minimum pay or in terms of only exploiting countries by 80% instead of 90%. Agreed. Within each country or state the working people and other progressive forces should continue to struggle against their own capitalists. in the whole of Europe by take-overs. Nevertheles the social democratic trends in Europe are far deeper and stronger than in the USA, and the term smoldering ruins is a great distortion of what is probably going to happen. Even five years from now, there will still be provisions in Europe that progressive people in the USA would welcome now. And we should, therefore, be thankful for small mercies...? Who is we in these sorts of sentences? The people of Argentina should not be grateful, but it may help them if the EU for whatever short term imperialist reasons of its own, offers somewhat better conditions than an IMF under the control of the US treasury. A world government can be used much more clearly to place on the agenda issues like control of global pollution and phased development. People can then promote progressive policies by all appropriate political methods, including street demonstrations. That must weaken the power of finance capital rather than strengthen it, and must accelerate radical change whether it comes through reform or revolution. In current conditions, such world Government is a pipedream given US hegemony. Especially if the left persists for revolutionary reasons to insist that it will be a pipedream for ever and that nothing can be done to oppose US hegemony. I have not caught where Se is writing from but while I would expect progressive people in Europe to oppose the imperialist policies of European imperialism I would expect progressive people in the US to fight US hegemonism in conjuctions with all possible allies including other
Zimmerwald
At 31/07/02 08:50 -0400, Louis Proyect quoted from his article on Zimmerwald in response to my comment: Chris Burford: Most relevantly on this particular debae, I think Lenin was wrong at Zimmerwald, and I appreciate Louis Proyect highlighting this issue some years ago and arguing that Lenin was correct. snip re 1914 The capitulation to war-fever threw social democracy into a crisis. Antiwar socialists held a number of meetings in Switzerland in order to develop a strategy. Zimmerwald, a small rustic town, became the center of the antiwar opposition. The antiwar opposition split into two camps. One camp was centrist. It opposed the war but advanced a strategy that was not revolutionary. It sought to mobilize public pressure in the various warring countries in order to force an early peace. The leader of this grouping was Robert Grimm, a Swiss socialist. Vladimir Lenin led the Zimmerwald left. It advocated a defeatist policy of revolution and civil war inside each warring country. Other socialists, including Trotsky, considered Lenin extreme at first, but events conspired to make Lenin look reasonable. Germany pushed into France and the armies of the two nations fought along the Meuse River over a 6-month period in 1916, while more than a million soldiers died. On July 1, the British and French launched a counteroffensive on the Somme River in Belgium. In their initial assault some 60,000 soldiers perished in a single day, a sum equivalent to all of the US deaths during the 8-year Vietnam war. While the blood-letting continued apace, Lenin sat down and wrote Imperialism the Final Stage of Capitalism. This work is not mainly an economic dissertation. It is rather a foundation for the political line defended by the Zimmerwald left. Lenin zeroed in on the bankruptcy of social democratic reformism, the existence of an objectively revolutionary situation in the warring nations, the relationship of the World War to the crisis of imperialism, the link between struggles for national self-determination and socialism, and, finally, the need for a Third International. full: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/fascism_and_war/zimmerwald.htm Obviously these are very big and important questions. I am sure neither Louis Proyect nor I mention them because we think we are just about to convert the other. But if it helps to indicate the lines of difference rather than to be polemical, (as I have to tidy things up for a while) the reasons for my statement are It is almost ahistorical to say that Lenin was wrong in that the war happened, Zimmerwald happened, Lenin happened and the Russian Revolution happened. Nevertheless I think what Lenin quotes of Robert Grimm, the Swiss Marxist, sounds to me a serious position. Now maybe Lenin did not want to demolish it with the ferocity he directed towards Kautsky for tactical reasons, but also it may be that Grimm was not wrong. And in ignoring those arguments, Lenin was. Broadly I think the Second and a Half International, with people like the Swiss and the Danes, typically in the smaller powers of Europe, provided a principled basis for marxists winning a hearing as soon as the consequences of the imperialist war started to bite. IMO once the Third International realised that revolution was not going to break out all over Europe after the first world war it and its successor parties evolved an international policy that prioritised peace in a way that could be communicated to the masses of the population, yes with some difficulty, but it did not require marxists to take a stand that would automatically deprive them of a hearing by getting them put in prison. It is also an exercise in counterfactuals. Had Lenin not been so single minded it is hard to believe that the Bolshevik Revolution would have followed the February Revolution. I am persuaded that one of the major factors compelling Lenin was to get Russia out of the war. But this set history on a path which confirmed the split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and set the young embattled Soviet State in a direction which IMO was not all caused by one person, Stalin. Struggling for peace is a long term major goal of internationalism, but it is a process, and needs to be about uniting, temporarily, with people who, in Lenin's terms, are opportunists, if that helps to get a hearing from the mass of working people. Chris Burford London
RE: convergence?
[comments?} Sala-i-Martin is a good lad; he's a Catalonian Nationalist and thus familiar to me from my short Welsh Nash period as a writer of tracts on the economic viability of small European nations. But the obvious point is that this is a piece of doublespeak from the Economist; the trick is to refer to South Korea and Indonesia as Globalisers, and then not to say a word about the progress of the neoliberal agenda in China and India. In actual fact, Sala-i-Martin's piece could be read as saying that, after a couple of decades, the only reason that the neoliberal policy mix hasn't had absolutely horrendous effects is that the two largest developing countries had the good sense to reject it. as the world spins ... dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication may contain confidential or privileged information and is for the attention of the named recipient only. It 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. (c) 2002 Cazenove Service Company or affiliates. Cazenove Co. Ltd and Cazenove Fund Management Limited provide independent advice and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and members of the London Stock Exchange. Cazenove Fund Management Jersey is a branch of Cazenove Fund Management Limited and is regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. Cazenove Investment Fund Management Limited, regulated by the Financial Services Authority and a member of IMA, promotes only its own products and services. ___
Non-profit versus profit Health Care
Subject: PRIVATISATION IN HEALTH CARE:_CANADA ORIGINAL NOTE: Among others, I think the folks at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives have been producing stuff on this, but I didn't find a specific title in my quick search at http://www.policyalternatives.ca/bc/index.html. The BC government has set up an agency to promote public-private partnerships in health delivery, e.g. they plan to open a new PPP hospital in Abbotsford, even though the accounting study commissioned projects savings of less than 3% (and this does not include lots of costs, e.g., for government planning). Bill AN ADDITION: 1) I had forgotten this earlier enquiry re the Swedish system. The notion that introduction of fees would save dollars overall - has been now discredited in Sweden, with the recognition there that in effect what happened was simply a shifting away from cost-effective preventative therapies, which leads to an impact later of serious ( expensive) health impacts. To those interested in critiquing the Swedish experience - it is worth also looking at the Australian system. The Ozzies went the British route of privatising increasing chunks of health care developed by the UK Social democrats (Labour Party) - although it is too early to tell stats on health outcomes - there appears to be increasing public complaints. However, the following article is very interesting indeed: 2) The Canucks recently published an important meta-analaysis - led by members of the Medical Reform Group (Ontario) - in the CMAJ: CMAJ 2002 May 28;166(11):1399-406: ABSTRACT: A systematic review and metaanalysis of studies comparing mortality rates of private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals. Devereaux PJ, Choi PT, Lacchetti C, Weaver B, Schunemann HJ, Haines T, Lavis JN, Grant BJ, Haslam DR, Bhandari M, Sullivan T, Cook DJ, Walter SD, Meade M, Khan H, Bhatnagar N, Guyatt GH. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED] BACKGROUND: Canadians are engaged in an intense debate about the relative merits of private for-profit versus private not-for-profit health care delivery. To inform this debate, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the mortality rates of private for-profit hospitals and those of private not-for-profit hospitals. METHODS: We identified studies through an electronic search of 11 bibliographical databases, our own files, consultation with experts, reference lists, PubMed and SciSearch. We masked the study results before determining study eligibility. Our eligibility criteria included observational studies or randomized controlled trials that compared private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals. We excluded studies that evaluated mortality rates in hospitals with a particular profit status that subsequently converted to the other profit status. For each study, we calculated a relative risk of mortality for private for-profit hospitals relative to private not-for-profit hospitals and pooled the studies of adult populations that included adjustment for potential confounders (e.g., teaching status, severity of illness) using a random effects model. RESULTS: Fifteen observational studies, involving more than 26 000 hospitals and 38 million patients, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In the studies of adult populations, with adjustment for potential confounders, private for-profit hospitals were associated with an increased risk of death (relative risk [RR] 1.020, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.003-1.038; p = 0.02). The one perinatal study with adjustment for potential confounders also showed an increased risk of death in private for-profit hospitals (RR 1.095, 95% CI 1.050-1.141; p 0.0001). INTERPRETATION: Our meta-analysis suggests that private for-profit ownership of hospitals, in comparison with private not-for-profit ownership, results in a higher risk of death for patients. PMID: 12054406 [PubMed - in process] 3) Currently in the Canadian system, the Third health care reform enquiry is being conducted by Roy Romanov - an ex-NDP (Social democrat). It appears that out he is likely to report on whether - in essence - more
More re Indian Mystics a la Shiva Gail Omvedt:re PEN-L digest 224
1) By some strange coincidence, recently, I had occasion to cite a lengthy critique of Indian eco-feminists on another list, to which no response was noted. But I see that Shiva has surfaced here. I will post that critique done I should say to Ulhas by Marxist-Leninists at: PURE GREEN, AND NO RED POLITICS: ENVIRONMENT, INDUSTRIALISATION AND THE PEASANT IN THE UNDER-DEVELOPED WORLD In Alliance 16, 1995: at: http://www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/ALLIANCE16_ECOLOGY.htm 2) Most of the critiques that I see were proffered on PEN of Shiva point out the Luddite nature of her beliefs, and the false ethos of a mystical blame the technology and not the class relations; in this regard the similarity to GANDHISM the back to the chakra loom movement is evident. She embraces Mohandas K. Gandhi : Like Gandhi challenged the processes of colonisation linked with the first industrial revolution with the spinning wheel, peasants and Third World Groups challenge the recolonisation associated with the biotechnology revolution with their indigenous seeds. Shiva 1, p.16. Mahatma Gandhi said, there is enough in the world for everyone's need, but not for some people's greed. Shiva 2, p.6. Why must India become industrial in the Western sense?' Gandhi has asked. 'What is good for one nation situated in one condition is not necessarily good for another differently situated. One man's food is often another man's poison.. Mechanisation is good when hands are too few or the work to be accomplished. It is an evil where there are more hands than required for the work as is the case in India. Shiva 1,p 239. The self-proclaimed core of the Indian eco-feminist movement rejects the philosphical basis of what has come to be termed the scientific revolution. Shiva and other eco-feminists (Carolyn Merchant, Marie Mies etc) all object to Baconian science. These objections begins with Bacon's terminology (Nature - she; Science - He): In Tempores Partus Masculus or the Masculine Birth of Time.. Bacon promised to create 'a blessed race of heroes and supermen' who would dominate both nature and society.. Modern science was a consciously gendered patriarchal activity. Shiva 2. p.16-17. The rise of mechanical philosophy with the emergence of the scientific revolution was based on the destruction of concepts of self-regenerative selforganising nature which sustained all life. For Bacon.. nature was no longer Mother Nature, but a female nature, conquered by an aggressive masculine mind. Shiva V; The Seed and the Earth: Biotechnology and the colonisation of Regeneration. In : Close to Home Women reconnect ecology health and Development Worldwide. Ed. By Vandana Shiva. Philadelphia, New Society Publ, 1994. Shiva counterposes to this a total reactionary myticism Shiva joyfully enters Indian cosmology. From the point of view Indian cosmology.. the world is produced and renewed by the dialectical play of creation and destruction, cohesion and disintegration. The tension between the opposites from which motion and movement arises is depicted as the first appearance of dynamic energy (Shakti). All existence arises from this primordial energy which is the substance of everything pervading everything. The manifestation of their power is energy is called Nature (Prakriti). Nature, both animate and inanimate is thus an expression of Shakti, the feminine and creative principle of the cosmos; in conjunction with the masculine principle (Purusha), Prakriti creates the world. Nature as Prakriti is inherently active a powerful productive force in the dialectic of the creation renewal and sustenance of all life. In Kulacudamim Nigama Prakriti says: 'There is none but Myself, Who is the Mother to create.' Shiva 2. p.38. (For many other relevant quotes from Shiva see the text at above web-site; some of the extraordinary mysticism of Shiva is counter-posed to the views of the Dead White Male so often castigated by feminists Engels). 3) I believe that there are at least two other aspects that bear commentary: 3(I) One is the number of utopian movements (by which I will loosely refer to impossibilists, anti-realist, wish-like progressive movements in India elsewhere that Vandana Shivaism is related to. In India, the long overdue, recently renewed movement of the Untouchables has in turn, re-spawned a rural peasant socialism. This latter is linked to the name of Gail Omvedt. This 'petty-bourgeois' socialism, is in general linked to the anti-Luddite views of the Shivaites. Cumulatively, a general view is taken that the poor peasant in reality as driven off the lands by modern Indian agri-business can be fought by what amounts to enlightened reformists/captalists. As such she seriously proposed the UN Brundlandt Commission as a means of effecting sustainable developemnt: This sustainable development approach is seen in the Brundtland Commission, the South Commission
Back on the EU
Yes there will be that tendency [loss of monetary freedoms forcing capitalist austerity] but I guess it will not be as undiluted. Assuming Stoiber wins in September in Germany he will certainly go in this direction but how far? Social/christian democratic assumptions run deep in Germany. Note that Chirac decided to craft his government on centrist lines. We won't yet know if he is about to reveal this as all an illusion, but what is in it for him to do so? I think the key thing is that it would be the same right now if the PS/PCF were in charge in France. Well not much different anyway. I would be to the left of these organisations. We would get caught up in fighting in the middle of the pitch, whereas we need to leap to the left. In any case, losing that control is a bad thing - with the onset of recession even a left-wing government would be forced to make some quite nasty choices given the rules from the ECB. But also the EU is a creation of European deal making between its finance and industrial capitalists. They are eager to gain competitive advantage against the US. Yes, and how will they do this? By exploiting workers more...I'm not concerned with the position which should be adopted in colonial/third world countries. That will be positive [uniting left across EU to fight neo-liberalism], but also a reason why the resultant of forces may not be a totally Thatcherite EU. In my experience with the EU (and it's not inconsiderable) the possibility for meaningful reform is limited. A coming together of the left would need to fundamentally shake the whole structure. I have indicated that I agree with you at some point in this argument - I am not sure exactly where but would certainly support a significantly reformed and democratic EU - that's not anywhere likely just yet though. No. On theoretical grounds you should expect imperialism to lead to conflict even if it does not lead to war. Europe is hungry to have some military power that can give it even slight independence from the USA. I disagree. Lenin was writing years ago - you can't just quote ITHSC and be confident that your right. There are certainly conflicting edges but in the main the EU is forcing the neo-liberal agenda to compete with the US. They will likely out-do each other in 'liberalising and privatising'. As for the military power aspect, I can't foresee the circumstances where Blair sends his troops in against the US. The only reason that the PfP was established rather than extending the WEU was to bring in special cases like Russia, Austria and Ireland. The WEU is effectively controlled by NATO. Hence subtleties like the Europeans taking over completely responsibility for policing the Balkans. Exactly, the US doesn't want it's troops tied down all around the place when they've jobs to do elsewhere. Besides, there's not much oil there! They've got the British 'mopping up' in Afghanistan too. Does this mean that you think the British are seriously challenging their influence there? Whatever small wrankles may arise, it's not likely that they will develop into full antagonisms. See my earlier brief strategic response to your letter: I am not advocating a strategy adequately summed up by saying that the international proletariat should support the EU. The international proletariat should unite and take advantage of contradictions between the ruling classes. No-one will disagree with these vagueries. It's where it gets us in reality that I'm thinking about. And we should, therefore, be thankful for small mercies [i.e. the limited benefits of the EU Vs the US] Who is we in these sorts of sentences? The people of Argentina should not be grateful, but it may help them if the EU for whatever short term imperialist reasons of its own, offers somewhat better conditions than an IMF under the control of the US treasury. We, the Europeans in the EU. We must speak for who we are not who we would like to be. The Argentinians may prefer to deal with the EU (although it's not clear why EZ capitalism would be better than US capitalism) but let's not get in behind our imperialists because of their marginal benefits. In current conditions, such world Government is a pipedream given US hegemony. Especially if the left persists for revolutionary reasons to insist that it will be a pipedream for ever and that nothing can be done to oppose US hegemony. Do you really think that a world Government is realisable within the next 20 years?? The US has been forced to tack on the Human Rights Court. All they've been forced to do is have the postphonement reconsidered after one year. It may be extended thereafter if the US is still central to UN peace missions. about Kautsky's vision these are very big issues and not adequately covered by mentioning the headlines of old polemics. There are powerful tendencies in imperialism to contention up to and including war. (It is not impossible that EU
Re: Credit market
[anyone know what they mean in the last sentence, reduced supply of what? wider spreads with between corp bonds and treasuries? I just read today that spreads had tightened. I assume this announcement means the 30-yr will be back pretty soon.] Turning to the current state of financial markets, the advisory group said that conditions have worsened noticeably in recent months, with wider spreads and reduced supply, and that a higher level of volatility is probably a permanent feature of the credit markets. I would guess they are talking about spreads on interest rate swaps, the derivative markets for which are crucial to banks liquidity. Treasury Dept. and big banks have begun to worry about the reduction in market activity for them, the WSJ said the other day. Christian
Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Michael Perelman wrote: Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere? Not really, but does any thread ever go anywhere? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Michael Perelman wrote: Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere? Not really, but does any thread ever go anywhere? Doug I know this is an onerous burden to place on pen-l'ers, but you should search for ways to impart some kind of concrete information whenever you post. In much of the discussion here, we get conclusions without the supporting facts. This has been true of the Vandana Shiva thread as well as the liberalism/expertise thread. Unfortunately, in the latter case the rules of participation would almost exclude facts, etc. because the context is preeminently philosophical. When the discussion revolves around the individual versus society, etc., you are entering the vaporous realm of political philosophy. I would as soon argue against liberalism as I would against freedom or reason. On the other hand, when it comes to agriculture, I can demonstrate how the Green Revolution undermines the long-term goal of food production through the use of relevant facts on soil fertility, etc.
liberalism
Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere? Not really, but does any thread ever go anywhere? It's the journey, dudes, not the destination. Right now, I think liberalism'd be a lovely idea. I'm sure we'd've got there years ago if the plutocrats hadn't hit on the idea of pinching the term for their preferred option - but then imperialist-mercantilist-socialism-for-the-rich-capitalism-for-the-poor-socially-reactionary-polity-dissolving-militarist-corporatism is a tad unwieldy, I guess. Don't some recent thought-pieces coming outa the states sound a bit like people are starting to wonder where the 'democratic' bit of 'democratic capitalism' has gone (a Benjamin Barber the other day, and, if memory serves, even Tom Friedman a little while back)? Not very good articles (neither identifies a tension between the forces and the relations, for instance, but then this ain't Fantasy Island), but symptomatic of anything out there in popular sentiment, d'ya think? And ain't Latin America looking a treat just now? This is the first time in twenty years I haven't really badly wanted to go there (mebbe that's just coz I'm not in Africa). And how long before we find out what sorta smelly junk bonds those big investment banks are hiding under the ledger books? And is there a single Dow member trading anywhere near what 'value' used to mean yet? How goes the current account? How travels that latter-day saviour, the consoomer? Plenty to thread aimlessly about in the months to come, methinks. Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Lou expressed my thought better than I did. I would only add that in these debates nobody seems to learn anything from anybody else -- at least, you can pretty well predict what the few participants in such debates will write. On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:25:32AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: In much of the discussion here, we get conclusions without the supporting facts. This has been true of the Vandana Shiva thread as well as the liberalism/expertise thread. Unfortunately, in the latter case the rules of participation would almost exclude facts, etc. because the context is preeminently philosophical. When the discussion revolves around the individual versus society, etc., you are entering the vaporous realm of political philosophy. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scargill resigns
Although, on the up side - or at least what sounds like an upside from the other side of the puddle - there was quite an upset in the Amicus election (Sir Ken Jackson, with the boot). Can you tell us anything about this Derek Simpson fellah, Chris? The press have been just describing him as a leftist, and are more fixated on the ouster of a notable Blair wonk, but I haven't been able to get a sense of his politics beyond this. -Ben At 01:47 AM 8/1/2002 +0100, Chris Burford wrote: Arthur Scargill is due to resign today after 20 years as the leader of the (British) National Union of Mine Workers. Despite great courage he was beaten by Mrs Thatcher's attack on the miners. The Union, which was said to have 250,000 members in 1981, is now said to have only 5,000. In 1996 Scargill set up the Socialist Labour Party in opposition to New Labour. The latter won a landslide victory at the 1997 election. Scargill attracted some criticism for allegedly using autocratic methods in the SLP. Eventually it became one of a number of participants in the Socialist Alliance which contests parliamentary and local elections, getting a few percentage of the vote. Chris Burford London
Radio Henwood
Today on my radio show (WBAI, 99.5 FM New York and http://www.wbai.org, 5-6 PM eastern US time): * Ruy Teixeira of The Century Fund, talking about public opinion on the corporate scandals * Michael Hardt, co-author with Antonio Negri of Empire, talking about the reaction to the book, any changes to their thinking since its publication (e.g., is W's unilateralism a challenge to their thesis) Doug
Bush-Connected Company Set Up Offshore Subsidiary
Published on Thursday, August 1, 2002 in the Baltimore Sun Bush-Connected Company Set Up Offshore Subsidiary Congress continues work to limit such maneuvers for dodging U.S. taxes by David L. Greene WASHINGTON - The White House acknowledged yesterday that while President Bush was serving on the board of Harken Energy Corp. in 1989, the company created an offshore subsidiary, which could have helped it avoid paying U.S. taxes. The revelation comes as Congress is engaged in debate over how to crack down on companies that move offices abroad to avoid corporate taxes or to skirt U.S. regulations. What Harken did was legal and is common practice for international corporations, analysts say. And it is not clear whether Bush was involved in the decision to create the overseas subsidiary. Still, Democrats were quick to argue that the news could further weaken the president's credibility as he responds to a series of corporate scandals that have shaken investors. The revelation about Harken comes after other occasions on which the president acknowledged that, while he was an executive in Texas, he or his company engaged in some of the practices that lawmakers are trying to eliminate as they seek to curb corporate abuses. Bush said yesterday, We ought to look at people who are trying to avoid U.S. taxes as a problem. He added, I think American companies ought to pay taxes here and be good citizens. Asked about Harken's subsidiary, Bush said only, I think there was an issue over an arrangement with Bahrain, a drilling venture there, which I opposed, as you may recall, when I was a director of the company. The White House confirmed that Harken created a subsidiary in 1989 in the Cayman Islands, which has served as a tax shelter for some U.S. companies. The subsidiary was set up to help manage a contract Harken had signed with Bahrain to drill off the coast of that Arab nation. Lawmakers in both parties have expressed support for various proposals to limit the ability of companies to shift headquarters abroad to evade taxes. Their chief concern is a series of cases in which corporations - including Tyco International and Fruit of the Loom - have moved their nominal headquarters to Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or other overseas locales. Though most of their employees stay in the United States, the companies can avoid U.S. taxes by reincorporating in a tax haven. The Harken case differs somewhat, analysts say, because the company was not moving its headquarters; rather, it was opening only a subsidiary abroad. But analysts said the intent was essentially the same - to avoid U.S. taxes on foreign income or to sidestep U.S. labor or litigation rules. Neither Harken nor Bush has been found to have done anything illegal. But Bush has been put in an awkward position as he has tried to portray himself as a forceful opponent of questionable corporate practices. More than a decade ago, for example, he or Harken took part in some of the actions targeted by the corporate reform bill he signed into law Tuesday. While he was a director at Harken, the company was accused of overstating profits and was forced by the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise its reported profits. Bush himself was investigated by the SEC about his sale of Harken stock in 1990, two months before Harken reported a bigger-than-expected loss and its share price tumbled. The SEC chose to take no action against Bush. Bush also accepted loans from his own company, a step that was severely restricted in the law signed this week. Asked about Harken's offshore subsidiary, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, said, If it is true, I think it gets harder and harder to take his position on corporate accountability seriously. If there is any question about this Cayman matter, Daschle said, I think that it's important for them to ensure that people know exactly what happened. Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, pointed out that the Harken subsidiary did not make any money, because the company found no oil off Bahrain. Fleischer added, If they had produced any oil in Bahrain and sold it in the United States, it would have, of course, been taxable in the United States. But Jon Kyle Cartwright, an energy analyst at Raymond James, noted that it would be extremely unusual to produce oil in Bahrain and bring it to the U.S. to sell it. The purpose of an oil company's creation of an offshore subsidiary, Cartwright said, is to avoid U.S. taxes and U.S. regulations when the company sells to other nations. He said it is very common for oil companies and other large firms to establish foreign subsidiaries, especially to compete in international markets. Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun
Re: RE: convergence?
From: Davies, Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:28988] RE: convergence? Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 08:40:41 +0100 [comments?} Sala-i-Martin is a good lad; he's a Catalonian Nationalist and thus familiar to me from my short Welsh Nash period as a writer of tracts on the economic viability of small European nations. But the obvious point is that this is a piece of doublespeak from the Economist; the trick is to refer to South Korea and Indonesia as Globalisers, and then not to say a word about the progress of the neoliberal agenda in China and India. In actual fact, Sala-i-Martin's piece could be read as saying that, after a couple of decades, the only reason that the neoliberal policy mix hasn't had absolutely horrendous effects is that the two largest developing countries had the good sense to reject it. as the world spins ... dd I was thinking the same re:neoliberalism and China and India. Also Korea and Indonesia are indeed worse off (not more unequal) after Korea globalised its capital flows helping set off a crisis that Indonesia, AFAIK has yet to recover from. Just a minor omission, I suppose. Also, El Salvador is a rapid globaliser by any measure (tariffs were rapidly slashed over 6 years, several free trade agreements signed, rapid internal liberalization, etc.) and the results include more inequality, 500-600 people leaving a day for the U.S, stagnant economy, egregiously low tax collection (and worsening due to the FTAs), colossal trade defecit, strangulation of the political system by compradors, and more. Nevertheless, U.S. govt spokesmen continues to refer to it as a model of economic reform in various public statements. Go figure. ___ Email Disclaimer This communication may contain confidential or privileged information and is for the attention of the named recipient only. It 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. (c) 2002 Cazenove Service Company or affiliates. Cazenove Co. Ltd and Cazenove Fund Management Limited provide independent advice and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and members of the London Stock Exchange. Cazenove Fund Management Jersey is a branch of Cazenove Fund Management Limited and is regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. Cazenove Investment Fund Management Limited, regulated by the Financial Services Authority and a member of IMA, promotes only its own products and services. ___ _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: Radio Henwood
G'day Doug, * Ruy Teixeira of The Century Fund, talking about public opinion on the corporate scandals Ask him if it's true Cisco aren't about to sign off on their statements, and that some of ther head-suits might be opting for more time with the families. Dark rumours are a material force, or at least so the NASDAQ reckons just now. Cheers, Rob.
: liberalism
Well pardon me for being a political philosopher. Personally, I learn a lot about possible misunderstanduings, objections, responses, at least from a certain viewpoint. I also find internet discussion groups a poor venue for fact intensive empirical research, but what do I know. I do wish Michael, that you would stop announcing that you find my contributions uninteresting and trying to stop lively discussions in which I participate. Who asked you? If you are not interested, don't participate. i don't horn into threads that bore me and shout, this is borting, will you all please shut up. Why do you? Is it something about me that sets you off? jks From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:28998] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 08:14:48 -0700 Lou expressed my thought better than I did. I would only add that in these debates nobody seems to learn anything from anybody else -- at least, you can pretty well predict what the few participants in such debates will write. On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:25:32AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: In much of the discussion here, we get conclusions without the supporting facts. This has been true of the Vandana Shiva thread as well as the liberalism/expertise thread. Unfortunately, in the latter case the rules of participation would almost exclude facts, etc. because the context is preeminently philosophical. When the discussion revolves around the individual versus society, etc., you are entering the vaporous realm of political philosophy. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
re: liberalism
Rob Schaap wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere? Not really, but does any thread ever go anywhere? It's the journey, dudes, not the destination. How about, Is this discussion becoming or going? Tom Walker 604 254 0470
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Michael writes: I would only add that in these debates nobody seems to learn anything from anybody else -- at least, you can pretty well predict what the few participants in such debates will write. To be sure, most postings in most PEN-L debates appear as predictable rehearsals of existing positions. But for what it's worth, that doesn't mean that no learning is going on, despite the occasionally frustrating lack of anything that looks like progress or meetings of minds. Among the things I've gotten from past PEN-L debates in which I've participated are: finding out the range of possible arguments against a given position (and possible responses); references to relevant literature (particularly useful); and offline correspondences that often *do* end up going somewhere. On the first point, for those who enter given debates seriously and in good faith, positions and counterpositions can be developed much more rapidly than via the traditional route of published exchanges in journals. I think that's been a real contribution of this medium, despite its drawbacks. Gil
Re: Zimmerwald/4
Jack A. Smith is a propaganda genius. Here is an article with enough historical data to clarify the doctrine and art of the class struggle. WHO'S GOING TO STOP BUSH? By Jack A. Smith Since Sept. 11, the U.S. left has been warning that the Bush administration was exploiting the tragedy to pursue a right-wing agenda at home, including restraints on civil liberties, and a policy of war and empire-building abroad. Now, as the nation prepares for next month's commemoration of the first anniversary of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the full implications of Washington's war on terrorism are emerging. As the pieces begin to complete the puzzle, it appears the left may have underestimated the extent to which the Bush administration would be able to gravitate to the far right. It may likewise have misjudged how far to the center and center-right the Democratic Party was drifting during its dozen or so years as captive to the Democratic Leadership Council. This has rendered the Democrats virtually neutralized in the face of George Bush's most dangerously reactionary domestic, foreign and military maneuvers. What follows is an analysis of Bush administration initiatives, first in domestic affairs, then in foreign and military matters. In combination, these proposals and programs constitute a serious challenge to democracy in America and to peace in the world. Domestically, the Bush administration is using the war on terrorism as a pretext to construct a national security state with considerably increased police and military powers accompanying sharp abrogation's in democratic liberties. President Bush's principal means of obtaining public support -- which remains relatively high -- has been to greatly exaggerate the threat of terrorism, applying a veneer of red, white and blue hyperpatriotism to all his programs, and to lie about his motives and goals. Unwilling to appear one whit less patriotic and God-fearing than the Commander-in-Chief, the opposition party has been supportive of several ultra-conservative administration initiatives, such as the USA Patriot Act, though it has been sharply critical recently on the economy and corporate scandals in hopes of gaining congressional seats in November. Here are a few of the Bush administration's less savory stated goals or programs: (1) For nearly 125 years, the U.S. has safeguarded the supremacy of civilian rule with the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the armed forces from a role in domestic civilian law enforcement and in other areas of civil life. In recent months, however, the White House has been orchestrating a review of this tradition in the name of insuring "wartime" domestic security against "the terrorist enemy." Lawyers in the Justice and Defense Departments have been instructed to analyze the pros and cons of the 1878 law in view of today's security requirements. On July 17, the New York Times reported that Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart, designated chief of the newly formed Northern Command, "said he would favor changes in existing law to give greater domestic powers to the military to protect the country against terrorist strikes." The general, who was obviously under White House instructions to make this statement, was directly quoted as saying, "We should always be reviewing things like Posse Comitatus and other laws if we think it ties our hands in protecting the American people." Of course, the formation of the Northern Command itself is an aspect of the militarization of American society. (2) The Justice Department recently decided to remove certain restraints imposed on the FBI in the mid-'70s by Congress in an effort to halt decades of unbridled spying on left and progressive organizations and individuals during the agency's COINTELPRO period. Likewise, Congress just permitted the termination of similar restraints against the CIA, imposed as recently as 1995. For example, CIA station chiefs were no longer allowed to hire murders, crooks and others of similar disrepute as informants and agents unless they received case-by-case approval from headquarters. This "guideline" was officially rescinded July 18. (3) The House on July 26 approved -- and the Senate is expected to do so with some changes in September -- the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which transfers seven different agencies into one super department. Included are the Coast Guard, Customs Service, Border Patrol, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration and the border inspection division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The well-funded Homeland Security Dept., in combination with powers already (or soon to be) granted to the Justice Department, the Northern Command, the possibility of a weakened Posse Comitatus Act, and enhanced security and police authority at the state and local level, portends the establishment of a domestic policing apparatus unparalleled
RE: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28995] Re: Re: Re: : liberalism the best any thread on pen-l (and lbo-talk?) seems to be able to do is to clarify differences. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:28995] Re: Re: Re: : liberalism Michael Perelman wrote: Is this discussion or the elitism thread going anywhere? Not really, but does any thread ever go anywhere? Doug
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28996] Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism Louis writes: I know this is an onerous burden to place on pen-l'ers, but you should search for ways to impart some kind of concrete information whenever you post. That's good, but I like a weaker standard, since not all discussions are about issues where there is new empirical information that can be presented. I don't think we want to limit the scope of the discussion the way that's implied by Louis' criterion. My weaker standard is that whenever an abstraction is applied some effort should be made to present a concrete example or exemplar to illustrate or explain the meaning of that abstraction. Rather than simply talking about democracy, for example, it's good to keep in mind what that means in practice in a specific place and time, if only to understand the contrast between the theoretical concept and the reality. Maybe we can talk about _hypothetical_ examples, but still that's better than simply throwing abstract words around such as democracy without an effort to concretize them. That is, we should try to avoid rhetorical and totally abstract assertions, such as freedom is good. This is useless, especially since one can define both terms so that the statement is always true. There's a stronger standard, which I doubt that we can live up to but is still good to keep in mind: on some theoretical difference, what are the implications for political practice or economic policy. (The latter is not something I see as very useful, but the best policy is often a useful thing to understand precisely because the government doesn't pursue it.) There are all sorts of issues -- such as that chestnut the class nature of the old USSR -- where certain ranges of opinion imply no differences in terms of practice. Within one of those ranges, we can avoid needless argument by realizing that potential practical unity. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: RE: convergence?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29002] Re: RE: convergence? Also, with these time series studies, we should adjust any numbers for the disappearance of non-market sources of livelihood, a process that is part and parcel of marketization. This hits those with the smallest incomes most. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Daniel writes: Sala-i-Martin is a good lad; he's a Catalonian Nationalist and thus familiar to me from my short Welsh Nash period as a writer of tracts on the economic viability of small European nations. But the obvious point is that this is a piece of doublespeak from the Economist; the trick is to refer to South Korea and Indonesia as globalisers, and then not to say a word about the progress of the neoliberal agenda in China and India. In actual fact, Sala-i-Martin's piece could be read as saying that, after a couple of decades, the only reason that the neoliberal policy mix hasn't had absolutely horrendous effects is that the two largest developing countries had the good sense to reject it. FG writes: I was thinking the same re:neoliberalism and China and India. Also Korea and Indonesia are indeed worse off (not more unequal) after Korea globalised its capital flows helping set off a crisis that Indonesia, AFAIK has yet to recover from. Just a minor omission, I suppose. Also, El Salvador is a rapid globaliser by any measure (tariffs were rapidly slashed over 6 years, several free trade agreements signed, rapid internal liberalization, etc.) and the results include more inequality, 500-600 people leaving a day for the U.S, stagnant economy, egregiously low tax collection (and worsening due to the FTAs), colossal trade defecit, strangulation of the political system by compradors, and more. Nevertheless, U.S. govt spokesmen continues to refer to it as a model of economic reform in various public statements. Go figure.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism
I would disagree. It seems to me that maillists are primarily conversational, and attempts to make them replace printed journals are mostly wishful thinking. I my only rarely either read or write posts much longer than 4 or 5 screens. Moreover, issues that really do depend on large amounts of empirical data simply do not belong on e-mail lists. The information given is _always_ highly selective, and hence rarely contributes to the argument. In the few cases when it appears that information offered is really crucial to the argument, it is necessary to consider more sources in any case before trusting the data. An endless rain of information (_highly selective and hard to judge_) on most ecological questions is simply pointless -- all of it is almost always obviously true-- and also obviously irrelevant to anything until one can place it in a political context. I think someone should do a dissertation on empirical arguments on maillists. Such a study would show, I believe, that in nearly all cases _everyone_ involved was (mostly unintentionally) cheating. That is, the evidence offered always fits into a strictly linear line of thought. Let's see if I can explain this. Someone argues: A causes B. Then gives endless evidence to support that proposition. But that evidence turns out to be irrelevant, because while it is perfectly true that A causes B and B is a desirable end, it is also possibly or probably true, that A ALSO causes C, D, E, F. That F in turn causes B, but only under circustances where it also causes G, which is destructive of B. And this means that anyone who continues to heap up evidence for the proposition that A causes B becomes obscurantist, however good his/her intentions may be. Moreover, there is usually at least two persons in the discussion who suffer seriously from the fetishism of facts -- i.e., who believe that facts explain themselves (and of course the explanation the facts give of themselves is always the explanation that the fetishist has actually assumed from the beginning). Such fetishists will see any attempt to point out other factors involved, or any attempt to challenge the obvious point of the facts, is deliberately changing the subject. And when there are two of them with opposing understandings of the issue, they will go on endlessly adding fact to fact with not the slightest awareness that it is not facts but clarification of the multiple issues involved that needs to be pursued. And maillists _may_ clarify issues (both for the writers and for the large number of lurkers on every list). Clarification is _not_ of course a conclusion -- why should it be? And moreover, sometimes it is in the late stages of a discussion that seems merely to go round and round that questions that have been implicit or blurred become explicit. The best any mail list can do is to clarify issues, open up new questions, and provide a forum for trying out ideas. Serious polemics or information belong in printed journals. I learn quite a bit on the run from pen-l because I have no formal training in econ. How important that is I do not know. Carrol Michael Perelman wrote: Lou expressed my thought better than I did. I would only add that in these debates nobody seems to learn anything from anybody else -- at least, you can pretty well predict what the few participants in such debates will write. On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:25:32AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: In much of the discussion here, we get conclusions without the supporting facts. This has been true of the Vandana Shiva thread as well as the liberalism/expertise thread. Unfortunately, in the latter case the rules of participation would almost exclude facts, etc. because the context is preeminently philosophical. When the discussion revolves around the individual versus society, etc., you are entering the vaporous realm of political philosophy. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is this what Stagflation looks like?
Thursday August 1, 12:14 pm Eastern Time Reuters Business Report Manufacturing Growth Nearly Halts in July By Ross Finley NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. manufacturing growth nearly ground to a halt in July, a report said on Thursday, showing the economy has cooled significantly from earlier this year and raising concerns that the recovery could be in jeopardy. ADVERTISEMENT The Institute for Supply Management said its monthly manufacturing index fell in July to its lowest level since January, down to 50.5 from 56.2 in June. While that was the sixth straight month of growth, the index showed manufacturing was barely expanding, at a level just above 50. The fall was much sharper than Wall Street expected and was a major slowdown from June, which saw the fastest growth in more than two years. Manufacturing makes up about one-sixth of the economy. There's no question that the slowdown in manufacturing will keep the economic recovery at a slow pace, said Christopher Low, chief economist at FTN Financial. This is not a pretty report. The weak report raised concerns that the Federal Reserve, already expected to leave interest rates pat until next year, may need to ease credit costs further to support the flagging economy. That gave a lift to interest-rate sensitive Treasury securities while stocks extended earlier losses. A punishing stock market sell-off in July had caused businesses to slam on the brakes after a boost of confidence about growth prospects earlier in the year, said Norbert Ore, head of the ISM committee that compiles its monthly manufacturing survey, in a teleconference with reporters. Battered down by earnings worries and corporate accounting scandals, stocks fell through July to strike their lowest level in five years before rebounding slightly. That weighed on manufacturers' confidence as they watched stocks fall. People got very conservative, Ore said. PRODUCTION, NEW ORDERS DOWN After a powerful run-off of inventories left over from boom times, factories rapidly boosted production earlier this year to meet rising demand. But as businesses became more conservative about the outlook for demand, they scaled back production. The ISM Production Index fell off sharply to 55.7 in July from 61.4 in June. And in a sign that production is likely to fall further in future months as factories curtail inventory-building, the New Orders Index, which measures future demand for goods, fell more than 10 points in July to 50.4 from 60.8. With fewer goods coming off assembly lines and orders drying up, factories also accelerated layoffs during the month, extending a trend seen since mid-2000 that has seen about 1.8 million factory workers lose their jobs. The ISM Employment Index fell in July to 45.0 from 49.7 in June, its 22nd straight month below 50. While economists cautioned that July is typically a slow month for factories, it still raised concerns that a government monthly report on employment across the nation, due on Friday, may be weaker than expected. I'm waiting for confirmation from the labor markets as to whether the business sector is turning more cautious, said Alan Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price Associates in Baltimore. PRICES CREEPING HIGHER Prices paid by manufacturers rose for the fifth straight month to their highest level in two years, boosting ISM's Prices Index to 68.3 in July from 65.5 in June. ISM's Ore said that while he was not worried about the recent price rises, they could be a problem if they persist. It would be a greater concern to me in future months if we didn't see some moderation in prices, Ore told reporters. Recent rises in prices have stemmed in part from U.S. tariffs on foreign steel and rising export demand thanks to a roughly 10 percent slide in the dollar against major world currencies this year. But ISM's new export orders index fell in July to 52.2 from a two-year high of 54.5 in June. Tempe, Arizona-based ISM bases its manufacturing index on data provided monthly by purchasing executives at over 350 industrial companies and reflects changes in the current month compared with the previous month.
RE: The last of liberalism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28981] The last of liberalism This is my last post on this thread -- and my last of the day. Work calls. (I have also cut the message down to one part, the one in which Justin makes a false accusation. I am sorry that it's so abstract.) I wrote: I don't identify democracy with majority rule. You forgot minority rights. Unlike classical liberalism (Locke, _et al_) I don't see rights as being natural. Rather, I know that people value them and will choose to allow them, if given a democratic chance. Justin accuses:You normally do forget minority rights, such as when I mention the tyranny of the majority, you start accusing me of being antidemocratic. If people will value and choose rights, they don't need to be legally protected. I am not so optimistic as you. That's why I support constitutional democracy, which insulates rights from majoritarian prejudices. 1. It should be mentioned that minority property rights claiming the means of production gives the minority (the capitalists) power over the majority. I think that this tyranny of the minority is much worse than any tyranny of the majority. 2. Unlike most advocates of socialism from above (Stalinists, social democrats, etc.) I think that people can learn from their mistakes and educate themselves in other ways, so that democracy is a _process_. Most of the examples of the tyranny of the majority that elitist theorists point to are examples where democracy was temporary and new, where people didn't get a chance to figure out how to run things (expecially since they were being attacked from the outside, by those defending privilege); these folks also forget all of the abuses associated with minority rule.[*] Most elitist theorists, however, don't need examples, since they're simply defending their own minority rights and privileges. Frankly, I think that the left would get much further if we explicitly embraced democratic sovereignty rather than saying that a new stratum of experts would do a better job. I also would like to know what Justin's alternative to the principle of democratic sovereignty. Is it the Platonic principle that the enlightened Guardians should rule? 3. I don't know where Justin gets the false impression that I'm against constitutional democracy (a phrase that is new to this thread and was never discussed, even by implication) from. It seems to me that people who are organizing things collectively _want_ a constitution (rules of the game). For example, when I've been on juries, the _first_ thing the jurors did was to decide on (informal) rules. To repeat myself, there's no _a priori_ conflict between majority rule and minority rights, since almost all people want some insulation from the domination of the majority. This formulation (with not only rule but rights) implies the need for rules of the game, i.e., a constitution. So democracy _implies_ a constitution of some sort. Perhaps Justin is confusing constitutional democracy with the actually-existing constitutional republic in the US, but I can't read his mind. 4. I must admit that democracy is often not a pretty process (though it's hard to find examples in the actually-existing US except on the micro-level). But democracy is the only legitimate way to deal with political issues (i.e., with collective decision-making). Dictatorship, rule by minorities, etc. will not do, while the idea that automatic market-like processes will replace democracy is silly. (People might decide that markets would be appropriate to making some decisions, but the basic principle of democratic sovereignty should apply.) [*] One example: the theorists of the tyranny of the majority often point to the Great Terror during the 1789 French Revolution. But they forget that the minority (capitalist) ruled government imposed many more deaths in the suppression of the Paris Commune. JD
RE: liberalism
the best any thread on pen-l (and lbo-talk?) seems to be able to do is to clarify differences. Jim Devine 'perceptual fault lines' run through apparently stable communities that appear to have agreed on basic institutions and structures and on general governing rules. Consent comes apart in battles of description. Consent comes apart over whose stories to tell. [Kim Scheppele in Another Look at the Problem of Rent Seeking by Steven Medema, JEI Vol xxv # 4] History will justify anything. It teaches precisely nothing, for it contains everything and furnishes examples of everything...Nothing was more completely ruined by the last war than the pretension to foresight. But it was not from any lack of knowledge of history, surely?...The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be. [Paul Valery]
Re: Re: We're becoming another Argentina
Thanks Lou, Your contributions are inestimable. We are at another juncture, which you grasp and expresses in your contributions. Thanks! You have singularly altered my perception of what I thought was the Trotskyite movement and individuals. I hope that an old Stalinist dog such as I have shown that a dog can learn new tricks. Trotsky wasn't that bad. Trotskyists are horrible, however.
Stop Bush's 'Wag the Dog' Invasion of Iraq
[Please sign this petition at: http://democrats.com/iraq and forward] Stop Bush's 'Wag the Dog' Invasion of Iraq To: George W. Bush, Congress, and the Media We, the undersigned, oppose the Bush Administration's plan to invade, conquer, and occupy Iraq. Iraq will accept a resumption of UN weapons inspections if the US agrees not to invade. But George W. Bush refuses to accept new weapons inspections for reasons that are purely political: 1. Bush's poll ratings are falling quickly because of public outrage over corporate corruption scandals and the falling stock market, and so he needs another war to change the news headlines and boost his poll ratings. In other words, Bush is wagging the dog. 2. Bush's Republican Party is likely to lose control of Congress and key Governorships in the November elections, and Bush desperately needs to engineer a Republican victory. In other words, the war in Iraq is also Bush's October Surprise. 3. Bush's oil industry donors want to gain complete control of Iraq's large oil reserves - by stealing them. Their views were summed up by Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) on April 12, 2002, when he told a large group of Republicans: Why don't we just take [Iraq's] oil? Why buy it? Take it! 4. Bush's weapons industry donors want to profit from another war. This includes Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, and his father's closest aide, James Baker, who are investors in the Carlyle Group, one of the largest weapons manufacturers in the US. 5. Bush wants to rewrite the history of his father's Presidency. During the Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush refused to invade Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussein because of the opposition of US allies and because the US was not prepared to occupy and rule Iraq. 6. Bush wants to demonstrate to the world that US power is supreme and unchallengeable. Bush views America as the modern-day Rome, which will rule the world through force. Bush does not believe in freedom and democracy, either around the world - or in the US. The reasons for opposing a US invasion of Iraq are overwhelming: 1. 250,000 US troops could be deployed, risking tens of thousands of American deaths and widespread illness from toxic chemical releases. Tens of thousands of Gulf War veterans are still suffering from the unexplained Gulf War syndrome. 2. The Gulf War cost $61 billion ($80 billion in current dollars), of which $48 billion was paid by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Japan - but that still caused a US recession, even though the war ended in 3 days and we did not occupy Iraq. Since no other countries will pay for the US to conquer Iraq, US taxpayers will have to pay all of the costs, which will be much greater. That means all domestic programs will be even more deeply cut, the enormous Bush deficit will get much bigger, taxes will have to be raised to maintain reduced services, and the current recession will turn into a Depression. 3. US allies among Arab countries strongly oppose an invasion, and outrage among Arab citizens could result in the overthrow of several weak pro-US governments (especially Jordan and Egypt), which would be replaced by Taliban-style anti-American and anti-Israeli extremists. 4. The US imposed strict economic sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War, which has resulted in the deaths of half a million innocent children. This is a massive violation of human rights, and it fosters the spread of anti-American hatred among Arabs. 5. Iraq has never attacked the U.S., and played no role in the September 11 attack. All propaganda efforts by right-wing officials like Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to link Iraq to 9-11 have failed. 6. The US does not have the capability to occupy Iraq and run a democratic government. Even in Afghanistan, the US-imposed government has no control outside of Kabul, despite large numbers of US and other allied troops. This undemocratic government has been paralyzed by assassinations by rival warlords. Moreover, the heroin industry - which is so devastating to the US - has resumed production. 7. Scott Ritter, the former Marine who led extensive UN weapons inspections of Iraq, is nearly certain that Iraq does not possess chemical or biological weapons. Moreover, Iraq does not possess long-range missiles to deliver such weapons, and the US (or Israel) could easily destroy any such missiles through precision bombing - as Israel did when it destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction in Iraq. When challenged about these issues, the Bush administration can only resort to the most absurd and outrageous justification for sending our children to their deaths - namely, Bush's credibility. James R. Schlesinger, a member of Bush's Defense Policy Board, says: Given all we have said as a leading world power about the necessity of regime change in Iraq, means that our credibility would be badly damaged if that regime change did not take place. Let's be clear: only Bush demanded a regime change in Iraq, not the
issues in the military
[from a friend] i was aware that domestic violence is much higher in the military and often covered up, but I would have thought the military would have become more proactive in addressing these issues rather than continuing to dismiss or hide them. yet, i feel part of the problem is that even the training sessions that are mandatory to attend are not taken seriously, based on my own observations. however, i was not aware of the second article regarding the use of go and no-go pills by pilots, dating back to 1960 when they were approved for use. the latter has come out as a possible factor in the overaggressive/paranoid response by a pilot in the friendly fire deaths of 4 Canadian military personnel. donnie domestic violence/abuse in military 2-5 times more likely than civilian sector http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow.html use of amphetamines by USAF pilots http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0801-06.htm
Bleak economic indicators
WSJ, Aug. 1, 2002 Economic Growth Slows Far More Than Expected By GREG IP Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON -- The nation's economic recovery is weaker than previously believed and last year's recession was deeper, raising the chances that the still-fragile recovery could stall. New government statistics revealed fresh signs of weakness in key sectors, including commercial real estate and government spending. Many experts still say a so-called double-dip recession is only a remote possibility, but concerns about a near-term slowdown are likely to shadow the nation's markets and businesses. The Commerce Department said economic output grew at a 1.1% annual rate in the second quarter, down sharply from a 5% rate in the first quarter, a figure that itself was revised from an earlier-reported 6.1%. The growth was so anemic that the economy would have contracted had businesses not restocked inventories after months of depleting them in anticipation of slower sales. Extensive Revisions The Commerce Department also made extensive revisions to data from previous years, most notably indicating that last year's recession was longer and deeper, with the economy shrinking in each of the first three quarters instead of just the third, as originally thought. The revisions have significant future implications. Previously, optimists argued that technological advances would allow productivity and profits to grow much more quickly without fueling inflation than in earlier decades. The new numbers have taken some of the bloom off that rosy view, though few argue the U.S. is heading back to the much pokier 1970s-era economy. Blue-chip stocks initially plunged on the news, but recovered all their losses, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing up a modest 57 points at 8737. (See a roundup of Wednesday's market activity.) Though mostly bleak, Wednesday's economic indicators weren't all bad. Much of the drop-off in growth was due not to weak spending but to a shift toward spending on imported goods instead of domestically produced ones. More recent data suggest economic activity is still advancing in July, though in fits and starts. The economy expanded modestly in recent weeks, with an uneven performance across sectors, the Federal Reserve's periodic survey of economic conditions, known as the beige book, reported Wednesday. Yet the economy continues to face strong headwinds. Commercial construction slumped 14% in the second quarter, and state and local spending shrank 1.1%, two sectors that in stronger times pump significant cash into the economy and support consumer spending. Greater Risk Those factors increase the risk that the recent stock-market swoon will set back consumers, whose spending growth slowed to 1.9% in the second quarter from 3.1% in the first, and suffocate a fledgling recovery in business spending on equipment and software. Such spending advanced 2.9% in the second quarter after six straight quarters of decline. It just means that the woes of the stock market this summer hit on a more vulnerable economy, and that's troublesome, said Jade Zelnik, chief economist at Greenwich Capital Markets. Clearly, you have to give a somewhat higher probability to a double dip even if it's not what you might consider the most likely scenario. A double-dip recession is a protracted downturn punctuated by at least one quarter of growth. Clearly worried about the political implications of the sluggish economy, President Bush put a glass-half-full spin on the numbers. We're heading in the right direction, he told reporters. But the growth isn't strong enough, as far as I'm concerned. The administration's top economic policymakers were sanguine. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said the second quarter was weak partly because lots of spending that normally would occur in the second quarter happened in the first. On average, growth in the first half of the year was about 3% at an annual rate. That seems about right given the shallowness of recession, Mr. Hubbard said. The bet has always been for a turnaround in business investment in the second half. The bet has always been for a turnaround in business investment in the second half. I see no reason to suggest that won't be the case. Fed officials also have been relatively confident the stock-market plunge won't derail the recovery, though they acknowledge it has increased the uncertainty. Most people, whatever their forecast was, would take a little bit off because of the market's fall, said Jack Guynn, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, in an interview this week. But the greatest probability is we will continue to get moderate growth of 2% to 3% in the second half, accelerating next year, he said. That means that the Fed is unlikely to cut interest rates further as long as the financial markets keep functioning relatively well. But the
We're becoming another Argentina
Washington Post, Thursday, August 1, 2002; Page A01 Economic Crisis Swells in S. America By Anthony Faiola Washington Post Foreign Service MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, July 31 -- Several additional South American countries have been swept up in what is becoming the region's worst economic crisis in two decades, igniting fears of a replay of the Latin American financial collapses of the early 1980s. The crisis, which analysts had hoped would be contained to Argentina's financial meltdown six months ago, has now spread to its neighbors Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay. It has threatened to engulf other politically unstable economies in the region as well, including Bolivia and Venezuela, where analysts predict deep recessions for this year. But this week, investor flight has particularly hit Argentina's immediate neighbors. In Brazil, Latin America's largest economy, government bonds have fallen to half their face value in recent weeks because of fears of a government default. The Brazilian real, in a tailspin that has lowered its value against the dollar by 19 percent this month, today touched its lowest point since going into circulation as the national currency in 1994. Paraguay has come face-to-face with the prospect of a banking collapse and a deepening recession. Here in tiny Uruguay, dubbed the Switzerland of Latin America for its rock-solid financial system, government officials trying to stave off a debt default are seeking an immediate loan from the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. Treasury and other major foreign lenders. To ease the pressure, the Uruguayan government was forced to close banks Tuesday for the first time in 20 years. It decided today to extend the banking holiday until Monday. The closure left many Uruguayans lining up in front of ATMs. We're becoming another Argentina, said Maurice Lopez, 45, a Montevideo store clerk who waited today to withdraw cash from an ATM. I can't believe it has come to this. full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28776-2002Jul31.html
UN Treaty Moves to Senate Floor
[This 23 year old United Nations treaty, already approved by 170 countries, that promotes women's rights worldwide is still unratified by the United States...but now it has finally reached the Senate floor...in your face Jesse Helms!] UN Treaty to Move to Senate Floor for First Time in US History WASHINGTON, DC In a 12-7 bipartisan vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved US ratification of the United Nations treaty that sets a global standard for womens rights. Today we are celebrating a victory for women, said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. For the first time in 22 years, with the steadfast leadership of Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE), the committees current chair, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the committees sole female member, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has moved this historic treaty to the Senate floor in time for a vote before adjournment. On the heels of todays victory, the full Senate will next debate US ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) for the first time since it was drafted in 1979. CEDAW http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly, is often described as an international bill of rights for women. Consisting of a preamble and 30 articles, it defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination.
A Dutch interview with Immanuel Wallerstein
(The following article I translated from Internationale Samenwerking (May 2002, p.31-33), a monthly published free by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. For the benefit of my anti-Dutch Marxmail critics I should perhaps point out that I mail this because I think it's interesting. Wallerstein can reduce complexity to simplicity and tell a story, a skill I value highly. But I don't agree with everything he says, just as I have many books on my shelf that I don't fully agree with. For example, Wallerstein oversimplifies capitalist behaviour, as leftists typically do. In reality - as Wallerstein probably knows quite well - foreign investment strategy is not simply guided by lower wages, but by a combination of factors which provide an acceptable, stable rate of return. The biggest part of investment is usually the fixed capital outlay, not wages, and that is especially true if the wages themselves are low. Even if wages are low, this doesn't necessarily mean that an investor will take the risk of having a plant built somewhere, many other factors are involved including social stability, legal frameworks, production chains, proximity to markets, and all sorts. As I said on a previous occasion, there are numerous influences affecting the rate of profit, which is why schematic Marxist falling-rate-of-profit theories often look so weird. So anyway just because you have low wages, this doesn't automatically mean you will attract investment; most of the capital flows today are between rich countries. Also, when Wallerstein foresees the collapse of capitalism, this is just false, just as when Mandel predicted the collapse of capitalism by the year 2000 twenty years ago. As Lenin remarked at the second Comintern Congress, there are no absolutely hopeless situations for capitalism in crisis, you have to kill it in order to end it. For example, the economy of Argentina may have collapsed, but that doesn't mean capitalism has collapsed there, that is a social and political question - JB). HISTORY IS ON NOBODY'S SIDE - Interview with Immanuel Wallertein by Barbara Coolen Immanuel Wallerstein made his name in the middle of the 1970s with his book The Modern World System, about the emergence and growth of the capitalist world economy. Three decades and innumerable publications later the sociologist announces the end of capitalism. Twenty-five, maybe fifty years, then the world system will collapse. What will take its place ? Nobody knows. Wallerstein looks surprisingly young at 71. The American, who in the past has been called the new Marx, talks vigorously and with big gestures. His story is just as big. He hops with great leaps through five centuries of history, from North to South and back again, from The Netherlands to Porto Alegre in Brazil. There Wallerstein attended the World Social Forum last February, opposing the negative effects of globalisation. Q: You call globalisation a hype. Why is that ? IW: Because it's nothing new under the sun. Globalisation is as old as capitalism itself. The building materials used for ships rolling off the wharves in 17th century Amsterdam came from here, there and everywhere. Just like the workers. Cross-border production and trade are therefore nothing new. At the same time, globalisation is described as something positive and inevitable, prescribed really. You have to open your borders, because that's better for everybody.But there is a lot of hypocrisy in this discussion. The European Union is in favour of free trade, but not for farm products. The USA wants France to open its borders for American movies, but their own borders remain closed for Third World textiles. Or steel. Q: You say that globalisation is part of capitalism. Elsewhere you claim that capitalism is justabout dead. Why ? IW: It is defeated by its own success. Capitalism begins and ends with the limitless accumulation of capital. A capitalist amasses capital so that he can generate more capital in order to gain even more capital. Looked at from the outside, it's a strange system really: it has no function beyond its own driving force, it must move forwards. For the first time in 500 years I now see real obstacles for further capital accumulation. The limits have been reached, the sources of growth are being exhausted. Q: In what way ? What keeps capitalism going ? IW: For capital accumulation you need profit; the difference between costprices and salesprices. The price of products can only be driven up to a certain level. Beyond that more profit can only come out of driving down production costs. The principal costs - wages, raw materials and taxes - have risen enormously in the last two to three hundred years. And they will continue to do that. Q: Is this inevitable ? IW: Yes, ultimately it is. Labour ultimately always organises itself everywhere, to negotiate better pay. This causes enterprises at some point to flee and shift
Re: Jim Blaut on world systems analysis
Louis Proyect wrote... A related position is Giovanni Arrighi's peculiar 'geometry' of world processes under capitalism. Arrighi is an admitted Kantian, and he believes that the basic forces determining the historical trajectory of the modern world are ultimately spatial, in an absolutist, Newtonian or Kantian sense. Thus he deduces what he calls the 'crisis of the nation-state', the latter seen as a mere spatial cell in the geometry of the world. In this geometry, scalar forces like imperialism -- Hobson's concept, not Lenin's, which Arrighi dismisses - are seen as acting independently of other scalar forces like capitalism. The 'crisis of the nation-state' derives from these worldscale absolute-spatial forces, which seem likely soon to erase states from the geometrician's blackboard. In sum, these are two forms of neo-Marxism which postulate not empirically observable processes, but world-embracing metaphysical forces, as the explanation for what one theorist (Arrighi) believes to be the decline of the national state and the other (Wallerstein) the insignificance of the state and of struggles to control it. Yeah, I read the Wallerstein piece that was posted earlier today and I was profoundly underwhelmed. It made me think that one cure for neo-marxism would be some kind of grunt job for at least a year (in lieu of a sabbatical). Beyond that, Hardt/Negri/Wallerstein/etc interest me only as flavors of social/intellectual/ pathology; and right now, there are more urgent tasks.like organizing against any and all forms of US aggression. Joanna
Jordan opposes action against Iraq
The Hindu Tuesday, Jul 30, 2002 Jordan opposes action against Iraq By Hasan Suroor LONDON JULY 29. King Abdullah of Jordan, who met the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, here on Monday, rejected speculation that his country would back any U.S. military action in Iraq and accused the hardliners in Pentagon of being fixated on Iraq''. His meeting with Mr. Blair took place amid growing opposition among Labour MPs, including some Cabinet ministers, to any British backing for an attack on Baghdad despite the Prime Minister's assertion last week that it was not imminent''. But the Foreign Office Minister, Ben Bradshaw, fuelled speculation when he suggested that the `threat' from Iraq would not go away by simply ignoring it and brushed aside an opinion poll which showed that 51 per cent of Britons were opposed to a military option. King Abdullah said that in his talks with the U.S. President, George W. Bush, later this week he would warn that any attack on Iraq would open up a Pandora's box'' in West Asia. He distanced himself from the U.S.-backed Iraqi dissidents who recently met in London to discuss the overthrow of the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein. The presence of his estranged uncle, Prince Hassan, at the meeting had prompted speculation that it signalled Jordanian Government's support for anti-Iraq moves. It was regarded as significant in the context of reports, which were later denied, that Jordan was willing to offer bases to U.S. to launch an attack on Iraq. ``Prince Hassan blundered into something he did not realise he was getting into, and we're all picking up the pieces,'' he told The Times. He warned that the hawks in the Bush administration, pressing for an attack on Iraq, posed a threat to American strategic interests'' in West Asia. The international community, he said, was `united' in its opposition to any such action, and so was Jordan. Ask our friends in China, in Moscow, in England, in Paris everybody will tell you that we have concerns about military actions against Iraq,'' he said. The situation in West Asia dominated his discussions with Mr. Blair with the two sides stressing the need to get Israel and the Palestinians back on the negotiating table. Their talks, however, were overshadowed by a fresh controversy over Iraq following reports that Government lawyers had advised against British participation in a military attack on Baghdad without a United Nations mandate. This seemed to contradict the Government's position that the 23 U.N. resolutions were sufficient justification for intervention. A former Defence Minister in the Blair Government, Peter Kilfoyle, meanwhile, warned of a major split in the Labour party if the Prime Minister backed an invasion of Iraq without proper authorisation. Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu
Jim Blaut on world systems analysis
(From the late Jim Blaut's regrettably out-of-print The National Question. Sharp readers will notice a strong affinity between Wallerstein's world systems perspective and the one put forward by Hardt-Negri in Empire) A second national-states-are-out-of-date position is associated with metaphysical neo-Marxists like Giovanni Arrighi, Immanuel Wallerstein, and their associates at the Fernand Braudel Center for the Study of Economies, Historical Systems, and Civilizations, of the State University of New York. This position or family of related positions, mystifies, or re-mystifies, capitalism, so that it be something different from and greater in scale than all the merely em processes taking place on the earth's surface. Wallerstein's group employs what it calls 'world system analysis'. This is a form of neo-Marxism distinguished --I employ caricature here, but not unfairly so-- by its insistence that the capitalist world system, at the global scale, determines all processes, such as politics, and all part-regions, such as states. This is very close to pure Hegelian holism. The capitalist world-system is not defined by its parts and their interrelations. Rather, this system is something greater than parts and relations, and it determines their nature, behaviour, and historical evolution. 'It' is not empirically identified, and thus closely resembles Hegel's undefinable 'world spirit' (and other undiscoverable entities of romantic philosophy, like the 'life force'). Marx's critique of Hegel's mystical and holistic theory of the state as might serve also as a critique of the metaphysics of 'world-system analysis' In any event, the 'world-system' school puts forward some empirical propositions which supposedly derive from the higher 'world-system' processes and which have concrete and troublesome meaning in the real world, not least for national liberation struggles. First, since the capitalist world system maintains in some mysterious way a hegemonic control of political processes throughout the world, no state exists outside its sphere of control, and no state in the entire therefore, is really socialist. Second, sovereignty is an illusion, since the overarching world system controls all states. Third, decolonization did no result from liberation movements, nor these from the peculiarities of colonial oppression and superexploitation; rather, decolonization occurred simply when the capitalist world-system had entered a cyclic phase -- Wallerstein believes firmly in repetitive historical cycles - in which 'informal empire' seemed more desirable than colonies. Fourth, and by the same token, all anticolonial revolutions, without exception, have failed to achieve fundamental social change. And finally, as of summing-up of all of the foregoing, the state is not of fundamental importance and struggles for state-sovereignty are somewhat frivolous. A related position is Giovanni Arrighi's peculiar 'geometry' of world processes under capitalism. Arrighi is an admitted Kantian, and he believes that the basic forces determining the historical trajectory of the modern world are ultimately spatial, in an absolutist, Newtonian or Kantian sense. Thus he deduces what he calls the 'crisis of the nation-state', the latter seen as a mere spatial cell in the geometry of the world. In this geometry, scalar forces like imperialism -- Hobson's concept, not Lenin's, which Arrighi dismisses - are seen as acting independently of other scalar forces like capitalism. The 'crisis of the nation-state' derives from these worldscale absolute-spatial forces, which seem likely soon to erase states from the geometrician's blackboard. In sum, these are two forms of neo-Marxism which postulate not empirically observable processes, but world-embracing metaphysical forces, as the explanation for what one theorist (Arrighi) believes to be the decline of the national state and the other (Wallerstein) the insignificance of the state and of struggles to control it. -- Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Jim Blaut on world systems analysis
joanna bujes : Yeah, I read the Wallerstein piece that was posted earlier today and I was profoundly underwhelmed. It made me think that one cure for neo-marxism would be some kind of grunt job for at least a year (in lieu of a sabbatical). Beyond that, Hardt/Negri/Wallerstein/etc interest me only as flavors of social/intellectual/ pathology; and right now, there are more urgent tasks.like organizing against any and all forms of US aggression. That's right. The best way of helping other nations is to change one's own by understanding it. What the Left in Chile (for example) thinks about Mongolia (for example) is of no consequence. If a Chilean Marxist wants to specialise in the history and culture of Mongolia, he is welcome to do. But endless conjectures about distant nations by dilettantes don't help anyone. Ulhas
Re: Jordan opposes action against Iraq
The Hindu Tuesday, Jul 30, 2002 Jordan opposes action against Iraq snip [King Abdullah] warned that the hawks in the Bush administration, pressing for an attack on Iraq, posed a threat to American strategic interests'' in West Asia. I saw the Middle East referred to as West Asia once before and thought it was a brilliant piece of political correctness. But is it really just a standard term for the area in Indian papers? That'd be ever better. Michael
Contagion?
[The Guardian] Real crisis of confidence Thursday August 1, 2002 Six months after Argentina's economy went into meltdown, the shockwaves are finally reaching its neighbours, including Brazil, writes Mark Tran Uruguay, long regarded as the Switzerland of Latin America because of its solid financial system, has been forced to close down its banks for the first time in 20 years to prevent a classic run on bank deposits. Already nearly $6bn (£3.8bn) has been withdrawn from Uruguay's banks since the start of the year and the government's foreign reserves have shrunk by three quarters to just over $725m since December. No wonder Uruguay is asking for help from the US and the International Monetary Fund. But the biggest domino is Brazil, where government bonds have plummeted in recent weeks because of fears of a government default on its $250bn debt. The Brazilian currency, the real, this month alone dropped 19% against the dollar. Brazil is coming under pressure even though its president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, has been praised by the IMF for having brought economic stability after years of boom and bust. Under Mr Cardoso, inflation has been tamed, while reforms have led to privatisation and more open markets. But Brazil is vulnerable because of its huge debt so any economic pressure that makes it difficult to service debt payments is a cause for worry. The crisis in Argentina has hurt Brazil because of a decline in trade between the two countries. As the Argentinian middle class sinks into poverty, demand for goods, domestic and international, has inevitably shrunk; the loss of an important market has hurt Brazilian exports. Even more nerve-wracking for the markets is the prospect of a leftwing victory in the October presidential elections. A recent poll surprised the markets by showing the two left candidates, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a former union worker, and Ciro Gomes, a left-of-centre candidate, running ahead of Mr Cardoso's anointed heir, the former health minister, Jose Serra. Investors fear that either of these two will reverse the market-friendly policies of recent years. The other cause for concern is uncertainty over whether the IMF will extend its current programme for Brazil that would include postponement of payments to the fund from 2003 to 2004 and an increase in amounts Brazil can borrow. The gaffe-prone US treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, did not ease market concern this week when he urged Brazil to pursue sound policies so that [aid] does some good and doesn't just go out of the country to Swiss bank accounts. The best thing to shore up confidence the region would be for the IMF to announce a new deal with Brazil. Indeed, Brazil's bonds soared today, extending gains that began in New York yesterday in expectation of an agreement in the talks that began in Washington this week. Analysts are surprisingly sanguine that repercussions from Argentina will be contained and that contagion will not spread as it did like a bush fire in Asia in 1997. They believe that contagion is limited as most foreign investors have been switching to US corporate bonds, which offer more security, out of emerging markets like Brazil. The contagion we are seeing in Latin America is running along the lines of shared trade or, more importantly, economic vulnerabilities, at the heart of which lie inadequate fiscal controls (spending limits), said Avinash Persaud, an analyst with State Street, a US bank. This does not dismiss the misery of Latin Americans, but it suggests that contagion will be limited and is best halted with domestic remedies, perhaps facilitated by some breathing space from the creditors. Let us hope that the analysts are right, because they certainly did not see the Asian financial crisis coming or spreading so fast.
Re: hope to hear from you
ATTN; Sir, I got your contact address on my desperate search for a reliable person/company for partnership investments overseas. By introduction, I am Mr SOLOMON PHILLIP a Sierra Leonean and son of late DR PHILLIP COLMAN . Before the death of my father he disclosed to me about the total sum of $22 million US dollars he deposited under a suspense account with a bank in Abidjan C=F4te d=92Ivoire. This fund represent the huge Sales of Gold and Diamond he diverted while in office as the director general for Gold and Diamond Mining Co-Opretionin in Sierra Leone .For security reason according to my late father, he made an agreement with the bank that his partner/ beneficiary will come forward to submit his banking details for onward transfer of the fund to his account. DR PHILLIP COLMAN , my late father advice me in case if he died that I should look for a foreigner who will stand as the beneficiary of the fund so that the fund will be transfer to his/her account for partnership investment. Right now, I am in Abidjan Ivory Coast, home number 45 Lordkings Street Abdjain,phone number 00225 075 581 47 with my two sisters for the purpose of transferring this fund to a trustworthy account. Meanwhile, I am writing to know if you can stand as the beneficiary of the fund and to also provide me your banking details so that I will submit it to the bank for transfer of the fund for partnership investment you will introduce in your country. Note that after the transfer is made to your account, you will then with draw some money and send to us in order for me and my two sisters secure the necessary documents to enable us come over to meet you for the investment. On confirmation of your interest to assist us, the certificate of deposit with the lodgement receipt of the fund which was issued to my late father by the bank on the day he deposited the fund will be forward to you for your confirmation. 10% of the total sum will be offered to you for your assistance, while 2% will be set aside for any expenses that might arise during the transfer. Indicate your interest as soon as you received this mail, and note that this transaction need to be confidential. I await to hearing from you. Regards. MR SOLOMON _ Envoyez des messages musicaux sur le portable de vos amis http://mobile.lycos.fr/mobile/local/sms_musicaux/
GMO's and international environmental law
Sustainable Agriculture: Do GMOs Imperil Biosafety? Lakshman D. Guruswamy* Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 9 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 461 http://ijgls.indiana.edu/archive/09/02/guruswamy.shtml
