How the US Government goes about saving its ass
The bureaucratic machine swings in motion. The Senate Intelligence Committee of the US Senate now gives the CIA 48 hours to supply files on intelligence it gathered on Iraq prior to the start of the military campaign. The deadline was communicated by Pat Roberts and John Rockefeller, in a response to a letter from Mr Tenet on Friday which promised to supply the relevant files as soon as possible, a response to which the Committee objected as troubling. The Senate Intelligence Committee said the CIA had until noon on Friday to produce the files, and schedule interviews with CIA operatives. The committee clearly and obviously aims to publish a report indicting the CIA and its director Mr Tenet, to the effect that they overstated the case against Saddam Hussein, and thus provided a wrong informational basis for Government policy. Tenet, a Clinton appointee, is equally obviously being blamed to deflect criticism away from Republican White House officials and their abuse of intelligence reports. The CIA is an easy target, because it has little means of publicly defending itself anyhow. But what the tactic should alert us to, I think, is (1) the inability of the US Government, with all its resources, to make any socio-political analysis which has genuine predictive and explanatory power, and thus, that its policies are mainly pragmatically and experientially based, with Christian fundamentalist myth as its unifying ideology; (2) that the spread of Christian fundamentalist myth both grows out of, and obstructs, any rational and honest way of publicly talking about political issues, grounded in a solid political analysis which is in any way objective - since we are for good and against evil, no further controversy is necessary (in a way, the modern method of politics thus expresses the mystification of politics itself, the death of political participation); (3) that the US Government seeks to absolve itself from blame in regard to the disastrous foreign policies without having to give clear reasons and justifications for its actions anyway, without having to concede anything as a mistake, and without stating any substantive constructive goals in positive terms beyond waffly rhetoric about threats, risks, civilisation, terrorism and suchlike; (4) The super-centralisation and corporatisation of political power in the last years, in utter contempt for the de facto disenfranchised American voter, is in the end a snake eating its own tail, culminating in ludicrous and arbitrary political gyrations and posturing, the loss of perspective; (5) The shadow government, the apparatus which operates beyond the formally mandated government, which places Senators and Congressmen in the position of being reactive to the executive and frequently just trying to find out or second-guessing what the central executive is actually doing or why it is doing it. In New Zealand in the 1970s, a new non-alcoholic beer was introduced and advertised as Clayton's - the beer you have when you aren't having one. Likewise, we might say that modern American politics consists of the public political debate and dialogue you have, when you aren't having it. Jurriaan
Re: Interview with Karl Marx
this Karl Marx is tame, domesticated and suitable for a western audience so much so that he could be in few years a candidate for the pentagon cabal. i like the way he demeaned Slavs; there was a definite flirt with the third Reich there. that democratic centralism and Hegel are simple anomalies unrelated to his thought is rather strange. what is really dangerous is when Marx ceases to be the nemesis of western culture and thought. attempts to bring him into mainstream simply like any otherwell meaning saint whose thoughts could not be practiced is the ultimate idealist trap. Marx is alive in the struggle that will bring down imperialism and will never be incorporated willy nilly into classical zestern thought. the very thought is appaulling Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
Re: Teaching in Large Classrooms
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/29/03 07:59PM San Diego Union Tribune October 27, 2003 New SDSU classroom can seat 520 students By Lisa Petrillo UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER snip This single room will enable roughly a dozen SDSU faculty members, in just one semester, to teach nearly 7,000 students. The logical next step would be to videotape professors' lectures and use the videotaped lectures from the next semester on, eliminating the necessity for live professors. The school would then become an academic mega-multiplex. Additional revenues will be raised from sales at concession stands next to lecture halls. -- Yoshie university of central florida was using lectures taped by professore in a tv studio in the early 1980s (how long before that time, i don't know), don't recall how often tapes were updated, and no one had apparently thought of potential concessions revenue... ucf also uses equivalent of teleconferencing, students go to a classroom at one of several campuses or 'satellite centers' and lecture is beamed lived to them, 'interactivity' even allows students sitting in daytona to ask questions of prof in orblando...michael hoover
Re: Interview with Karl Marx
soula avramidis writes: this Karl Marx is tame, domesticated and suitable for a western audience Karl _was_ tame, polite and reasonable in interview and personal interaction. He spoke to the other side in a conversation -- didn't sit there delivering monologues. Quite human. Sorry about that, pal. Ken. -- A little sincerity is a dangerous thing; And a great deal of it is absolutely fatal. -- Oscar Wilde
The casualisation of labour in the United States
What is the growth area in the United States labour market ? Answer: casual labour. 122,000 seasonally adjusted jobs in temporary help employment were added since April. This sector tends to be a sensitive indicator for overall employment movements. Global Insight estimates that more than 93% of the unadjusted quarter-to-quarter movement in total nonfarm employment is explained by trends in temporary help services. Global Insight expects the recent buildup in temporary help payrolls will soon translate into some slow but steady employment gains, with the more significant job creation however being delayed until the spring of 2004. Source: http://www.globalinsight.com/Perspective/PerspectiveDetail541.htm
Re: Interview with Karl Marx
--- soula avramidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this Karl Marx is tame, domesticated and suitable for a western audience so much so that he could be in few years a candidate for the pentagon cabal. Don't be silly. Just because he's not your sort of PC firebrand doesn't make someone a sellout. Actually I thought this was a very clever and rather accurate picture of Marx, working from his actual views and prejudices. He despised explicit moralizing. He look the long view. He hated the parties of his time, including the ones he worked with. He was ruthlessly unsentimental. i like the way he demeaned Slavs; there was a definite flirt with the third Reich there. The real Karl Marx had a low view of Slavs, although he revised that towards the end of his life. It is, morever, an instance, of Whosiz Law, mentioned in another post on the list today, to drag in the Nazis; a clear indication that rational discussion just stopped. Just because Marx had racial prejudices, and he he surely did, doesn't mean that he was a proto-Nazi. Most people with such prejudices are not Nazis. that democratic centralism and Hegel are simple anomalies unrelated to his thought is rather strange. Although I think the anti-Hegelian view is wrong it has a respectable pedigree. Althusser madea career out of arguing that MArx was no Hegelian. Democratic centralsim is not an expression or a concept that occurs in Marx. He has almost no discussion about the nature of the party, betond saying thatthe Communists impose no sectarian principles on the workers' movement. what is really dangerous is when Marx ceases to be the nemesis of western culture and thought. attempts to bring him into mainstream simply like any other well meaning saint whose thoughts could not be practiced is the ultimate idealist trap. Heaven forbid that anyone should learn from him; he must be maintained as the Other, The Enemy. Any acknowledgement that Marx was part of western civilization must lead to prostration before the bourgeoisie. To . . . gasp . . . bourgeois liberalism. Of course I am a bourgeois liberal myself. Marx is alive in the struggle that will bring down imperialism and will never be incorporated willy nilly into classical zestern thought. the very thought is appaulling Odd, them that Engels saw Marx has realizing the ends of classical German philosophy, and insisted that most of the elements of his thought were not original, including the importance of class, the centrality of the economy, the law of value, etc. Sorry, Soula, what's left of Marxism are elements of a pretty good theory of capitalism, a theory that is firmly rooted in the classical Western Enlightement tradition. Lenin was right about this when he talked about the three sources of Marxism: French socialism, English (Scottish) political economy, and German philosophy. The movementw ith the red banners and the hammers and sickles and the marchinhg workers -- that's over. I am as sorry about it as you, but Marx was never one for sentiment,a nd he would discourage self-deception. He would not have wanted you to be a Marxist either, a term he never used. Engels either. jks __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
Re: Teaching in Large Classrooms
Connecting students through teleconferencing etc. is surely a common practice. It is used extensively by IUN interuniversities north in Manitoba a co-operative programme of three Manitoba universities. This is thought of as a cost effective way of teaching courses in remote northern reserves and mining areas. However profs usually go to visit the areas several times as well. The programme has been going for decades and the technology has steadily improved so that visual data, charts, etc can be used and there is two way visual and oral interaction. It is virtually equivalent to a classroom situation. There is a specially designed studio at Brandon University for remote education classes. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:40 AM Subject: Re: Teaching in Large Classrooms [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/29/03 07:59PM San Diego Union Tribune October 27, 2003 New SDSU classroom can seat 520 students By Lisa Petrillo UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER snip This single room will enable roughly a dozen SDSU faculty members, in just one semester, to teach nearly 7,000 students. The logical next step would be to videotape professors' lectures and use the videotaped lectures from the next semester on, eliminating the necessity for live professors. The school would then become an academic mega-multiplex. Additional revenues will be raised from sales at concession stands next to lecture halls. -- Yoshie university of central florida was using lectures taped by professore in a tv studio in the early 1980s (how long before that time, i don't know), don't recall how often tapes were updated, and no one had apparently thought of potential concessions revenue... ucf also uses equivalent of teleconferencing, students go to a classroom at one of several campuses or 'satellite centers' and lecture is beamed lived to them, 'interactivity' even allows students sitting in daytona to ask questions of prof in orblando...michael hoover
Re: Interview with Karl Marx
Kenneth Campbell wrote: Karl _was_ tame, polite and reasonable in interview and personal interaction. He spoke to the other side in a conversation -- didn't sit there delivering monologues. Quite human. Not true, or wholly true, from various accounts I have read. It would be true, however, of Eleanor Marx. See Yvonne Kapp's wonderful biography of Eleanor. Karl was not very friendly to his illegitimate son. Eleanor, meeting Helmut after her father's death, tried to make up for that as best she could. Carrol
Re: Interview with Karl Marx
Soula writes: that democratic centralism and Hegel are simple anomalies unrelated to his thought is rather strange. JKS writes:Although I think the anti-Hegelian view is wrong it has a respectable pedigree. Althusser madea career out of arguing that MArx was no Hegelian. methinks that the bit about Marx being anti-Hegelian and not having even read key works by Hegel was a joke, an effort to twit the Hegelian Marxists, some of whom have too great a sense of self-importance. Also, I agree with JKS that democratic centralism has no organic link to Marx's thought. On the left, it comes from people as Babeuf and Blanqui, from Lasalle and the German Social Democrats. In practice, democratic centralism is an oxymoron in many cases. Jim
Re: Interview with Karl Marx
Carrol Cox writes: [Some general gossip] We all have our moments, good and bad. That's the very definition of quite human. Do you have a different one? Ken. -- Gossip is charming! But scandal is merely gossip made tedious by morality. -- Oscar Wilde
militias
from MS SLATE'S news summary today: The New York Times leads with President Bush's apparent order to get more Iraqi police trained pronto. During what appeared to be an Iraq (re)assessment meeting with aides yesterday, Bush made it clear that [training] is not happening fast enough, one unnamed official recounted. As the Times describes it, Iraqis will be given a few weeks training then sent to the frontlines. also from that summary: The [Los Angeles Times's] Paul Watson gets on Page One with a piece saying that U.S.-supported militia in Afghanistan harassed and terrorized people in one village. They stand with the Americans, and when Americans leave an area, then the militias go by another route and rob the houses, said one villager. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Engels's use of the term Marxist
In his foreword to his essay Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886), dated February 21, 1888, Frederick Engels does use the term Marxist, namely, he claimed confidently, In the meantime, the Marxist world outlook has found representatives far beyond the boundaries of Germany and Europe and in all the literary languages of the world. Source: http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1886-ECGP/lf0.html Justin is therefore wrong if he claims that Engels did not use the term Marxist, but also correct insofar as the German original text reads: Inzwischen hat die Marxsche Weltanschauung Vertreter gefunden weit über Deutschlands und Europas Grenzen hinaus und in allen gebildeten Sprachen der Welt. The word Marxsche could be translated as either Marxian or Marxist and among English followers of Marx around the turn of the 20th century these terms were often used interchangeably. It referred specifically to Marx's view of history and economics. To my knowledge, Engels did authorise the English translation and therefore did not explicitly object to the use of the term Marxist. In fact Engels considered it appropriate that Marx's name should be attached to the new scientific, materialist interpretation of human history that had developed during the 19th century in criticism of religious-idealist interpretations, and compared Marx's achievements in social science to Darwin's achievements in natural science. Clearly, the main thrust was that of breaking through the monopoly over the knowledge about human nature, history and society by religious authorities and idealist ideologues of the ruling classes. But it is true that the old Engels himself hardly used the term Marxism in his writings, even though he sought to popularise and propagandise the new world outlook. The problem was really that whereas the old Engels sought to systematise and propagate Marx's new world view, and the same time he wanted to prevent that world view from collapsing back into a general philosophy which people would accept without independent thought or doing any real research of their own, the latter which he knew Marx hated, since Marx's point of view was that philosophical generalisations had to be transcended and replaced with empirical, scientific knowledge, reducing the field for philosophical inquiry to epistemology, logic and possibly ethics (although ethics for Marx could not be discussed separately from real practical activity, and consequently could not be discussed separately from class interests; ethics abstracted from real practical activity he considered an ideological discourse). Jurriaan
Re: Interview with Karl Marx
a young man ran towards the old marx all joy and zeal wanting to join the cause; marx simply told him to bugger off. he was nice but not naive. he was not a racist. the only way forward is the rule iron rule of the working class, capitalism was born with blood and fire and it will go down that way. sorry guys you have got fight, it takes guts, and at times you have to be brutal. the principal thing in marx's thought is the oxymoron in transient evolving form or then one asks where is the dance of the dialectic. but the key point is not to incorporate into western thought under some heading in the history of economic thought. if marx was not a marxist then it matters little in what shape or form humanity proceeds forwards under whatever ideological guise that organises man and nature in the ovens of the class struggle. the faster history spins the faster we get there.Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kenneth Campbell wrote: Karl _was_ tame, polite and reasonable in interview and personal interaction. He spoke to the "other side" in a conversation -- didn't sit there delivering monologues. Quite human.Not true, or wholly true, from various accounts I have read. It would betrue, however, of Eleanor Marx. See Yvonne Kapp's wonderful biography ofEleanor. Karl was not very friendly to his illegitimate son. Eleanor,meeting Helmut after her father's death, tried to make up for that asbest she could.Carrol Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
Engels's use of the term Marxist -- and Ours
Thanks, I'd missed that. But one really has to look for it, right? Calling scientific socialism Marxism isn't something either of them did muchj, Marx, never; in a couple of letters, Engels reports that Marx rejected the label in particular contexts. I don't have the references to hand, but some of them are in my my paper that is posted on Kelly's popular culture studies website; however, my research indicated taht Marxist was originally a pejorative directed at folowers of Marx in the First International by Bakunin and his followers, and the Marxists objected. Later Kautsky made Marxist Into a term of honor. The history is interesting, but the real question is what purpose and function the term now serves. Until the mid-late 20th century, when there were self-identified Marxist states and mass workers parties that called themselves Marxist, it indicated a political affiliation with the Communist movement -- roughly the people who thought that in some sense or other the October Revolution of 1917 had been a Good Thing. Practically speaking there are no such states and movements any more, and no more of a Communist Movement. Today, the term rather indicates (1) an academic brand name, useful for classifying a theoretical position or putting material in a syllabus, and (2) as Soula's useful post indicates, an expression of extreme and angry alienation from the existing state of affairs -- unconnected, in large part, with any movement. Of course there are local self-styled Marxist and communist movements are parties here and there, some boring and harmless, like the CPUSA or the CPF (France), some quite malevolent and evil, as in Columbia's FARC or the Shining Path of Peru, a few using the name for historical reasons but with no remaining living connection to any communist revolutionary movement, such as the CPRF (Russia) or the CPC (China). But the historical basis for the appellation is no longer alive. Perhaps it is time to return to the unsentimentality of Marx, who would have had little patience for grandstanding and posturing using his name. jks --- Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In his foreword to his essay Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886), dated February 21, 1888, Frederick Engels does use the term Marxist, namely, he claimed confidently, In the meantime, the Marxist world outlook has found representatives far beyond the boundaries of Germany and Europe and in all the literary languages of the world. Source: http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1886-ECGP/lf0.html Justin is therefore wrong if he claims that Engels did not use the term Marxist, but also correct insofar as the German original text reads: Inzwischen hat die Marxsche Weltanschauung Vertreter gefunden weit über Deutschlands und Europas Grenzen hinaus und in allen gebildeten Sprachen der Welt. The word Marxsche could be translated as either Marxian or Marxist and among English followers of Marx around the turn of the 20th century these terms were often used interchangeably. It referred specifically to Marx's view of history and economics. To my knowledge, Engels did authorise the English translation and therefore did not explicitly object to the use of the term Marxist. In fact Engels considered it appropriate that Marx's name should be attached to the new scientific, materialist interpretation of human history that had developed during the 19th century in criticism of religious-idealist interpretations, and compared Marx's achievements in social science to Darwin's achievements in natural science. Clearly, the main thrust was that of breaking through the monopoly over the knowledge about human nature, history and society by religious authorities and idealist ideologues of the ruling classes. But it is true that the old Engels himself hardly used the term Marxism in his writings, even though he sought to popularise and propagandise the new world outlook. The problem was really that whereas the old Engels sought to systematise and propagate Marx's new world view, and the same time he wanted to prevent that world view from collapsing back into a general philosophy which people would accept without independent thought or doing any real research of their own, the latter which he knew Marx hated, since Marx's point of view was that philosophical generalisations had to be transcended and replaced with empirical, scientific knowledge, reducing the field for philosophical inquiry to epistemology, logic and possibly ethics (although ethics for Marx could not be discussed separately from real practical activity, and consequently could not be discussed separately from class interests; ethics abstracted from real practical activity he considered an ideological discourse). Jurriaan __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
Re: Interview with Karl Marx
Hey! soula avramidis! a young man ran towards the old marx all joy and zeal wanting to join the cause; marx simply told him to bugger off. he was nice but not naive. That sounds heartbreaking. I'm sorry to hear it. If you, personally, have to believe that Karl Marx was about the iron rule of the working class as a fixed principle, power to ya. We all need to have core ideas to continue our own lives (on our internal level), and if taking that idea you have there, and giving it a bushy beard and giving it a first name Karl -- if that is what helps you get through the night, fine by me. Karl Marx (the human being, which is the main focus of the article that started this thread) was not an ideologue, he lived in a human body, he had a father and mother who expected him to be certain things, he lived in London after being chased outta the continent, he had rivals on the plain upon which he vigorously competed, he had kids and some died (I cannot comprehend living in such a time of high infant mortality, and what it does to one), he apparently fucked around, he worked very hard at what he did, and he had friends who loved him very dearly unto death. But you know... even if Karl Marx had not been born... we'd still have something like Marxism. Just a different name. As Michael P once put it to me, Karl just nudged history along. History was happening with or without that kid born on the Rhine (who now apparently attends all American Social Science History Association conferences as a ghost). Ken. -- You know how they make kosher meat? They make the animal feel so guilty, it dies. -- Elayne Boosler
Learning from Lawrence?
Associated Press, October 30, 2003 BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Saboteurs brought a trainload of U.S. Army supplies to a fiery halt west of Baghdad on Thursday, as a Ramadan campaign of terror bombs and escalating attacks spurred a new Iraq pullout by international aid groups. full: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq.html === T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: My journey was to Yenbo, now the special base of Feisal's army, where Garland single-handed was teaching the Sherifians how to blow up railways with dynamite, and how to keep army stores in systematic order. The first activity was the better. Garland was an enquirer in physics, and had years of practical knowledge of explosives. He had his own devices for mining trains and felling telegraphs and cutting metals; and his knowledge of Arabic and freedom from the theories of the ordinary sapper-school enabled him to teach the art of demolition to unlettered Beduin in a quick and ready way. His pupils admired a man who was never at a loss. http://www.gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100111.txt -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Nailing Krugman
Counterpunch, October 30, 2003 CounterPunch Diary Paul Krugman: Part of the Problem By ALEXANDER COCKBURN Enter the world of Paul Krugman, a world either dark (the eras of Bush One and Bush Two), or bathed in light (when Bill was king). What do you think of the French revolution? someone is supposed to have asked Chou En Lai. Too soon to tell, Chou laconically riposted. Krugman entertains no such prudence. Near the beginning of his collection of columns, The Great Unravelling, Krugman looks back on Clinton-time. A throb enters his voice. He becomes a Hesiod, basking in the golden age. At the beginning of the new millennium, then, it seemed that the United States was blessed with mature, skillful economic leaders, who in a pinch would do what had to be done. They would insist on responsible fiscal policies; they would act quickly and effectively to prevent a repeat of the jobless recovery of the early 90s, let alone a slide into Japanese-style stagnation. Even those of us who considered ourselves pessimists were basically optimists: we thought that bullish investors might face a rude awakening, but that it would all have a happy ending. A few lines later: What happened to the good years? A couple of hundred pages later: How did we get here? How did the American political system, which produced such reasonable economic leadership during the 1990s, lead us into our current morass of dishonesty and irresponsibility? Across the past three years Krugman has become the Democrats' Clark Kent. A couple of times each week he bursts onto the New York Times op-ed in his blue jumpsuit, shoulders aside the Geneva Conventions and whacks the bad guys. For an economist he writes pretty good basic English. He lays about him with simple words like liar, as applied to the Bush crowd, from the president on down. He makes liberals feel good, the way William Safire returned right-wingers their sense of self-esteem after Watergate. Krugman paints himself as a homely Will Rogers type, speakin' truth to the power elite from his virtuous perch far outside the Beltway: Why did I see what others failed to see? he asks, apropos his swiftness in pinning the Liars label on the Bush administration. I'm not part of the gang, he answers. I work from central New Jersey, and continue to live the life of a college professor--so I never bought into the shared assumptions. I don't need to be in the good graces of top officials, so I also have no need to display the deference that characterizes many journalists. All of which is self-serving hooey. The homely perch is Princeton. Krugman shares, with no serious demur, all the central assumptions of the neo-liberal creed that has governed the prime institutions of the world capitalist system for the past generation and driven much of the world deeper, ever deeper into extreme distress. The unseemly deference he shows Clinton's top officials could be simply, if maliciously explained by his probable hope that one day, perhaps not to long delayed in the event of a Democratic administration taking over in 2005, he may be driving his buggy south down the New Jersey turnpike towards a powerful position of the sort he has certainly entertained hopes of in the past. full: http://www.counterpunch.org/ -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Interview with Karl Marx
soula avramidis wrote: a young man ran towards the old marx all joy and zeal wanting to join the cause; marx simply told him to bugger off. he was nice but not naive. he was not a racist. the only way forward is the rule iron rule of the working class, capitalism was born with blood and fire and it will go down that way. sorry guys you have got fight, it takes guts, and at times you have to be brutal. the principal thing in marx's thought is the oxymoron in transient evolving form or then one asks where is the dance of the dialectic. but the key point is not to incorporate into western thought under some heading in the history of economic thought. if marx was not a marxist then it matters little in what shape or form humanity proceeds forwards under whatever ideological guise that organises man and nature in the ovens of the class struggle. the faster history spins the faster we get there. What in heaven's name does this mean? Armed struggle? By whom against whom? Or is just some romantic maximalism? Please clarify. Doug
Re: Engels's use of the term Marxist -- and Ours
From: andie nachgeborenen Calling scientific socialism Marxism isn't something either of them did much According to Hal Draper, Marx never referred to scientific socialism either, although the term was already around, invented by Karl Grün. Engels obviously _did_ use it. I believe it was Engels (or possibly Plekhanov) who invented the term dialectical materialism. Regards, Grant.
Re: militias
The full article is curious when read closely. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/30/politics/30PREX.html It seems to me like the continuing saga of the Generals\State\CIA vs the Radicals over the need to 'backpedal' faster. The article does indeed start with a description of an effort to take current security guards give them a few weeks training and then put them on the front lines in the Sunni hot spots. They would swell the ranks of the what is called the Civil Defense Forces which are now a small group that occasionally patrol alongside the U.S. troops - in the future they would be sent out alone. It reads to me as desultory, half hearted description almost designed to look like it will fall short. Then comes what seems like another trial balloon: A major goal is to rapidly increase the number of militiamen, and one option under consideration is to recruit former soldiers from the disbanded Iraqi Army, a senior Pentagon official said Wednesday. This is the fifth or sixth time, over the last few weeks, an anonymous source says 'we are thinking of reversing our policy of eliminating the old military strata and recruiting them back'. Always just that tentative. Similar articles appear regarding recruiting the feared former secret police, the Mukhabarat (the first came in the Washington Post five days after the U.N. building was bombed). While this may sound like just Washington insider issues, in fact I believe the issues are quite large, for Iraq and for the larger vision of restructuring the third world. It is not just a question of bringing back a few people, but a question of which social strata should rule Iraq and hence just how subservient they should be. It is a bit analogous to the question of which social groups should be rehabilitated in post-war Germany and Japan. (Likely different outcome this time.) Paul At 10:05 AM 10/30/2003 -0800, you wrote: from MS SLATE'S news summary today: The New York Times leads with President Bush's apparent order to get more Iraqi police trained pronto. During what appeared to be an Iraq (re)assessment meeting with aides yesterday, Bush made it clear that [training] is not happening fast enough, one unnamed official recounted. As the Times describes it, Iraqis will be given a few weeks training then sent to the frontlines. also from that summary: The [Los Angeles Times's] Paul Watson gets on Page One with a piece saying that U.S.-supported militia in Afghanistan harassed and terrorized people in one village. They stand with the Americans, and when Americans leave an area, then the militias go by another route and rob the houses, said one villager. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
iraq joke
Mildly funny. J. Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny Subject: Iraq perspective Up in Heaven, Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great and Napoleon are looking down on events in Iraq. Alexander says, Wow, if I had just one of Bush's armored divisions, I would definitely have conquered India. Frederick the Great states, Surely if I only had a few squadrons of Bush's air force I would have won the Seven Years War decisively in a matter of weeks. There is a long pause as three continue to watch events. Then Napoleon speaks, And if I only had that Fox News, no one would have ever known that I lost the Russia campaign.
back to the 'strong dollar' mantra
[New York Times] October 30, 2003 Treasury Chief Says China Isn't Manipulating Its Currency By KENNETH N. GILPIN Seeking to avoid the onset of what could turn into a trade war with China, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told senators today that Beijing was not manipulating its currency exchange rate to gain an unfair advantage over American manufacturers. But in practically the next breath, Mr. Snow acknowledged that China did not meet the technical requirements established under Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, the same finding for nearly 10 years of past reports. Under the terms of the act, if the Treasury finds a country has been unfairly manipulating its currency, the administration must begin negotiations with the offending country to correct the problem. But if those discussions fail, the United States could take retaliatory trade action. In his opening remarks before the Senate Banking Committee, Mr. Snow also made his strongest statement yet in support of the dollar. A strong dollar is in the U.S. national interest, he said. Mr. Snow's statement was a message to the foreign-exchange market that it had misinterpreted the meaning of a statement issued last month by the finance ministers of the Group of 7 leading industrialized countries at a meeting in Dubai. Currency traders had interpreted that statement as being consistent with the Treasury secretary's suggestions earlier this year that the Bush administration would not be displeased to see the value of the dollar decline as a way of increasing American exports and thereby reducing its enormous trade deficit, which this year will be around $550 billion. Snow posted a much stronger defense of the strong dollar than many expected, said Jeremy P. Fand, senior proprietary trader at WestLB, a German bank. Mr. Snow made his comments about the dollar against the backdrop of a government report today that showed that the American economy expanded at an annual rate of 7.2 percent in the third quarter, the biggest quarterly increase in almost two decades. The dollar rose moderately in the wake of Mr. Snow's testimony. This afternoon in New York, the dollar was quoted at 108.75 Japanese yen, up from 108.23 yen late Wednesday. Meanwhile, the euro slipped to $1.1631, from $1.1675 on Wednesday. China has come under increasing scrutiny - and criticism - because for the past decade it has chosen to peg its currency, the yuan, at about 8.28 to the American dollar. At that rate, many analysts estimate the yuan may be undervalued by anywhere from 15 percent to as much as 40 percent against the dollar. Even though many American companies have established operations in China and export goods back into the United States from there, manufacturers and lawmakers in this country argue that a pegged currency gives China an unfair trade advantage, costing millions of American jobs. Through the first eight months of this year, China posted an $88.3 billion trade surplus with the United States. Earlier this week, Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans said that surplus could reach $130 billion for all of 2003, up sharply from the $103 billion surplus recorded for all of 2002. But in his testimony today, Mr. Snow pointed out that even as China's bilateral surplus with the United States has mushroomed, its global current account surplus has been declining. For the first eight months, China's global current account surplus, which measures trade in goods and services, amounted to $9 billion. Members of the Senate panel were given copies of Mr. Snow's conciliatory remarks prior to the start of the hearing. In a reflection of the toll the decline in manufacturing has taken on employment around the country, senators from both parties reacted with disappointment or even anger before the Treasury secretary began his testimony before them. I am disappointed that this Treasury report fails to acknowledge the seriousness of the Chinese currency peg, said Senator Elizabeth Dole, Republican of North Carolina. Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, said: We shouldn't scapegoat China, but we shouldn't give them a pass, either. Unfortunately, the report today does little to point in the direction of a policy. It might be a diagnosis, but it's certainly not a prescription for what we should do. Already pending in the Senate is a a bill sponsored by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, Mrs. Dole and four of their colleagues that would levy a 27.5 percent tariff on imports from China unless it adjusts its exchange rate. Based on the $103 billion trade deficit the United States ran with China last year, such a tariff, if implemented, would be the equivalent of a $28 billion tax on Chinese imports. The time for diplomatic niceties is past, said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. Mr. Schumer, who is another sponsor of the tariff legislation, labeled the Treasury report a whitewash. The administration needs to take a firm line with the
Death of contract people..
Someone was asking about contract workers being killed in Iraq. Here is a sample, also some in Gaza. The article points out that many military functions are contracted out and resulting deaths are not in body counts; also, the costs of war are hidden. Cheers, Ken Hanly http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031029/API/310290908 A contractor near the Iraqi city of Fallujah died and an American engineer was wounded when their vehicles came under attack Monday - possibly by U.S. soldiers, said the British-based company, European Landmine Solutions. U.S. officials said their soldiers weren't responsible. The chief military contractor in Iraq, Kellogg, Brown Root, has had three workers killed in Iraq, two of whom died in ambushes. Another top U.S. military contractor, DynCorp, saw three of its workers killed in an ambush by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip this month. In Afghanistan, two civilian contractors working for the CIA were slain in an ambush Saturday.
In defence of Krugman and against Alexander Cockburn: choice of targets
Alexander Cockburn, whom I traditionally respect and admire, now writes: Krugman is a press agent, a busker, for Clintonomics. For him as for so many others on the liberal side, the world only went bad in January, 2001. If a Democrat, pretty much any Democrat conventional enough to win Wall Street's approval, takes over again, maybe in 2005, the world will get better again. The question that needs to be asked is what we achieve by polemically writing off Krugman and calling him nasty names. Krugman is a very learned left-liberal economist capable of very good critical inquiry into the US economy and suggesting positive alternatives. I personally believe we should aim to attract people like that to the socialist movement, rather than vent abuse language against them. By doing so, we just shoot ourselves in the foot more than anything else. If you look at most American economists, rightwing economists vastly outnumber leftwing economists, and incompetent leftwing economists vastly outnumber competent leftwing economists. This being the case, and given the policy of the US government to encourage barbarism across the planet, I think we should be doing everything possible to attract good people like that to our side. This does not mean that we shouldn't criticise them, but rather that we should criticise them with a purpose, namely to bring them over to our side. There is nothing specifically radical in these ad hominem attacks against individuals, and it convinces only the converted in your own camp. I could for example go and say things like Joseph Stigler is a nasty such-and-such but this achieves nothing other than that Stigler would get disgusted with socialist people and their puberal behaviour, whereas if I advance a cogent knock-down argument which proves Stigler is mistaken in some point of economics, or alternatively show why Stigler is correct on some issue, then Stigler would be more interested in me, and I might be able to persuade him of something more, perhaps even win him to my side of the argument in particular cases. Then I have a new friend, instead of a new enemy. As long as leftism remains at the level of ad hominem attacks which aim to prove how nasty other leftists, liberals or conservatives are, we will never get anywhere. Our criticism should be aimed at what people actually do, and not at the spirit or integrity of the people who do it. The principle here is to accept the the person, and criticise/change the behaviour, so that we show superior insight and humanity, rather than demonstrating our superior ability to substitute swearing for cogent argument and criticism. This is correct, because socialists are no more good or bad people than anybody else. Stupid polemics and ad hominem attacks is one of the main reason why the Left fails, because most people reject this cultural habit and find it unpleasant. The Socialist Party of the Netherlands therefore had adopted it as a norm of conduct that we do not engage in direct ad hominem attacks in public politics (you might curse somebody in private or among friends, workingclass people can do that at times, but that is another story). We want to concentrate on better ideas and on what people actually do, rather than on their personal failings, and thus we show a constructive alternative. Personally, I have very good reason to feel extreme hostility towards quite a few people who intervened in my adult life without my consent in violation of my civil and human rights, nearly driving me to suicide sevral times. But constantly verbalising this hostility does not get me anywhere, and is not conducive to anything or restoring my own sense of joie de vivre or dignity, it does not benefit me, nor anybody else. I am better off avoiding or ignoring those who do me harm and concentrating on what I positively have to do, making good, cogent arguments and criticisms and, trying as I am able, to show a better way of doing things. And I recommend the attitude which I have described to Alexander Cockburn and everybody else on our side, because that is the only way we will succeed in the long term. I might add that I consider a lot of leftwing discussion and criticism as myopic in the sense of attesting a warped world view. Instead of targeting the people who are the most influential, and the most dangerous people from the point of view of human progress, the people that could do that target their own people, and they target people who are small fry anyhow or who, although they differ from us, could be won to our side. And on that basis, you can never hope to succeed politically. I also admit I do not always get it correct myself, but I know what my norm is in this area, as I have explained. Refer also Karl Marx: sectarians always emphasise how they differ from other progressive people in order to prove that they are more radical, instead of radicalising other progressive people more, they seek to distinguish themselves from the movement instead
Re: Engels's use of the term Marxist - reply to Justin
Hi Justin, Thanks, I'd missed that. But one really has to look for it, right? Yes, although when I studied Engels's writings (published and unpublished) in the early 1980s, I found several loci. It is just that I do not have the literature handy here anymore, and I am too preoccupied to go to the International Institute of Social History round the corner to trace these quotes, it doesn't have a high priority in the wider scheme of things (but they have an extremely comprehensive collection of literature). Calling scientific socialism Marxism isn't something either of them did muchj, Marx, never; in a couple of letters, Engels reports that Marx rejected the label in particular contexts. I don't have the references to hand, but some of them are in my my paper that is posted on Kelly's popular culture studies website; however, my research indicated taht Marxist was originally a pejorative directed at folowers of Marx in the First International by Bakunin and his followers, and the Marxists objected. Later Kautsky made Marxist Into a term of honor. Yes, I would go along with that, except that Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lenin and others did not simply seek to make Marxism a term of honour, but to expound it as a complete theoretical system. This is most evident in Lenin's pamphlet The three component parts of Marxism which provides the basis for Mandel's The place of Marxism in history (the latter contains useful information on the reception and diffusion of Marx's ideas). To explain this, I think that we have to refer to at least three factors. First, the systematisers aimed to shape up an ideology, method and attitude for the social democratic parties, and this required presenting a system of thought that could be readily assimilated by literate workers. Second, many workers at that time were not literate, or if they were, they did not have easy access or the opportunity to read very much (a situation similar to many Third World countries today) and this exerted a pressure to subject the enormous complexity and diversity of Marx's thought to simplification aimed at plugging into the real experience of the working class. Finally, the systematisers aimed to provide a world view or even a cosmology which would be a complete alternative to religion, a scientific outlook or scientific philosophy, which would completely tear out the idea that human history was pre-ordained and de-emphasised the ability of people to change the world. Even so, Stalin's idea of the inevitability of socialism has its intellectual precursors already in the Second International towards the end of the 19th century, because the idea that historical laws propelled the working class towards the achievement of socialism seemed to be confirmed by the rapid growth of the labour movement and unionisation at that time. One could say, that in seeking to displace the grip of religion, the socialist movement absorbed some of its mentality and propensity for a transcendent metaphysics, or, if one wanted to be unkind, substituted one religion for another. Even so, the young Gyorgy Lukacs observed in 1910 that It would seem that socialism lacks that religious force capable of taking possession of man's entire soul, as was the case with primitive Christianity (cited by Istvan Meszaros in Georg Lukacs: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtsdag, p. 193 - I am taking the quote over from George Lichtheim). One reason for this was that Marx's thought contained at least one very large lacuna: namely, while stressing the imperative of revolt against injustice and exploitation, he provided no explicit moral norms and values to guide the movement, or at least not ones that were unambiguous or could be applied easily by ordinary workers and peasants. Marx did consider it his prerogative to pronounce on this beyond basic norms of political conduct, he did not want to promote sects, but the point was that from his scientific insight no specific moral claims or norms could be definitely deduced beyond some heuristics. This caused a great deal of controversy, and somebody like Hilferding would say that Marx just offered a positive science from which no particular political conclusion followed. Consequently, people like Kautsky and Lenin sought to deduce such a morality, implicitly or explicitly, because they knew the ethical dimension was indispensable for politics, and Lenin concluded specifically that Marxism was both an ideology (system of values) and a science, departing from Marx's critical and more pejorative concept of ideology. Another tiny but revealing illustration is that at one time a worker approached Rosa Luxemburg and asked her if it was politically correct for him as a socialist to marry his girlfriend, and Rosa replied it's your own choice. In fact, the dillemma was that Marx's work was radically unfinished, it set an intellectual challenge but did not complete it, but the systematisers and popularisers in practice glossed over this in their urge to
Re: Interview with Karl Marx
Why would I disagree with that,... what I disagree with is the notion that he is simply bigger than bentham, spencer or jevons. it is not a question of magnitude he simply does not fit with the rest of them and should be treated like that out of respect for the man. the minute we become selective about his thought in order to justify half hearted reform he seizes to be a working class theorist. in a real interview he warned against that. then again in the fictitious interview it appears that the United states is the only truly working class country because they fast food and wear jeans. now that is an absurd travesty if there was any. the minfestation of macdonalds determines the degree of adherence to working class identity. the logic of the man speaking in that interview spews with pan nationalist euro centrism, a sad reflection for a universalistic philosopher. the level of political responsibility is inversely related class hatred. the more the working class hates its oppressor the more it mythologizes the class struggles, adheres to nihilist beliefs, and acts accordingly. if it was social being that determines consciousness than western intellectuals should be very careful in the way theyspeak even if they consider themselves on the left, Marxist or what have you. the very structure of the language is telling as you know. that structure of the language in the said interview can prejudice someone from the third world, where hate is plenty. Kenneth Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey! soula avramidis!a young man ran towards the old marx all joy and zealwanting to join the cause; marx simply told him tobugger off. he was nice but not naive.That sounds heartbreaking. I'm sorry to hear it.If you, personally, have to believe that Karl Marx was about the "ironrule of the working class" as a fixed principle, power to ya. We allneed to have core ideas to continue our own lives (on our internallevel), and if taking that idea you have there, and giving it a bushybeard and giving it a first name "Karl" -- if that is what helps you getthrough the night, fine by me.Karl Marx (the human being, which is the main focus of the article thatstarted this thread) was not an ideologue, he lived in a human body, hehad a father and mother who expected him to be certain things, he livedin London after being chased outta the continent, he had rivals on theplain upon which he vigorously competed, he had kids and some died (Icannot comprehend living in such a time of high infant mortality, andwhat it does to one), he apparently fucked around, he worked very hardat what he did, and he had friends who loved him very dearly unto death.But you know... even if Karl Marx had not been born... we'd still havesomething like "Marxism." Just a different name.As Michael P once put it to me, "Karl just nudged history along."History was happening with or without that kid born on the Rhine (whonow apparently attends all "American Social Science History Association"conferences as a ghost).Ken.--You know how they make kosher meat?They make the animal feel so guilty, it dies.-- Elayne Boosler Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
