E=T=N=M1=R= M2=C= G1=W=P=G2
A theoretical explanation of the foundations of a modern model of neoclassical equilbrium, tolerance and the good society What I omitted to say in reference to the ideology of tolerance Jim Devine asked about, is that what this really refers to is negotiability, i.e. the idea that everything is negotiable. The implications of this could be explored through a process of reasoning by which reality and logic could be linked through the meaning of words. As you know, I am not a professional economist, but I will try my best, and regret that my formalisation is not as good as it could be, because I am still a bit stuck about the question of the market rationality of variable P (see below, premiss 74). As a result there may be some hidden premisses which ought to be spelled out, but this problem could be solved I think, through additional ideological work. (1) rationality, morality, certainty, knowledge and the market are desirable goods which attract consumer preference. (2) tolerance is a moral virtue, and intolerance is a moral vice. (3) intolerance equals the refusal to negotiate, the refusal to make compromises or concessions or accommodations, the refusal to take other viewpoints into account. (4) tolerance equals willingness to trade in the market place and negotiate a price, prepared to give and take in the marketplace. (5) negotiability is an intrinsic market characteristic, because all trade involves negotiation. (6) if the market expands, tolerance increases, because more people are willing to negotiate more prices, i.e. the amount of negotiability and negotiable behaviour increases. (7) intolerance is an unwillingness to adjust behaviour to the market. (8) tolerance is always desirable because it is a moral virtue, and intolerance is undesirable because it is a moral vice. (9) Non-toleration is necessary of intolerance of the existence and expansion of the market, i.e. the attachment of prices to resources, and trade in those resources. (10) a tolerant person is an economic actor who negotiates, who is prepared to negotiate, or is a good negotiator in the marketplace (11) the market creates a morality of tolerance. (12) Moral virtues can be deduced from any commercial behaviour. (13) commercial behavour and the market itself, defines what it means to be moral. (14) if somebody is being intolerant, the cause is a refusal to negotiate, an unwillingness to trade. (15) it is always possible in a free market to negotiate a price somehow. (16) if (15) is true, negotiation in the market place is always possible through appropriate exercise of consumer preference and investment decisions. (17) intolerance is an arbitrary resistance to the market, a failure to adjust behaviour to the market, the failure to negotiate a price, the unwillingness to shop around. (18) all behaviour which lead to market expansion is non-arbitrary, rational and moral behaviour, because it increases tolerance. (19) the existence and expansion of the market equals the existence and expansion of tolerance, morality, rationality etc. (20) the removal of the market equals the disappearance of tolerance, morality and rationality. (21) a tolerant, rational moral actor equals a market actor and participate from the market (22) an intolerant, irrational and immoral actor equals a non-market actor not participating in the market. (23) tolerance, rationality, morality and the market are necessary conditions for each other. (24) if human life is marketised, then it consists essentially in shopping around with an open mind, and moral behaviour consists in exercising consumer preferences and investment decisions through negotiation, with an attitude of tolerance. (25) rationality in moral market behaviour is assured by market prices providing a universal, shared and objective yardstick expressing human valuations, enabling means and ends to be linked in a non-arbitrary way on the basis of objective knowledge of prices. (26) Prices express quantities which signify human values. (27) if human values are expressed through prices, they permit reasoning through mathematical calculation. (28) mathematical logic is based on theorems which hold true at all times and places. (29) the market can express human values in a rational way in all times and places through prices evaluated through mathematical calculation. (30) Market expansion involves the growth of mathematical calculation (31) market expansion results in the growth of mathematics. (32) market uncertainty and market knowledge can ultimately only be mathematically resolved. (33) The growth of mathematics is equivalent to the growth of certainty and the growth of knowledge. (34) being a mathematician means a commitment to rationality, morality, tolerance, certainty, knowledge and the market. (35) mathematics constitutes the highest expression of rationality, morality, tolerance, certainty and the market. (36) we should all aiom to be excellent mathematicians
Venezuela confronts the FTAA
Venezuela confronts the FTAA Michael A. Lebowitz (4 October 2003) Our principle, announced Ramón Rosales (Venezuelas Minister of Production and Commerce) is as much market as possible, and as much state as necessary. What that statement, released at the September 2003 WTO meeting in Cancun, means in terms of so-called international trade agreements can only be understood in the context of what Venezuela was arguing at Cancun. Challenging the effects of free trade on human development, calling for an end to an unjust economic order, for the prioritizing of the fight against poverty and social exclusion, for putting human rights before corporate rights, the Venezuelan position called for a re-emphasis upon the role of public policy as a tool without which it is impossible to achieve the stated goal of equitable, democratic, and environmentally sustainable development. In short, it was a position which directly rejects neo-liberalism and the international institutions intended to enforce it. And, that is precisely the stance taken by the government of Hugo Chavez for the discussions of FTAA. In a statement released in April to delegations participating in the FTAA Trade Negotiations Committee (and oriented to gaining support throughout the continent), Venezuela declared that the FTAA is not merely a trade agreement; it establishes a supranational legal and institutional system that will eventually prevail over the current system in our country. Precisely because of the implications of FTAA for national sovereignty, Venezuela announced that any FTAA agreement would be the subject of a national referendum. Indeed, it pointed out that Article 73 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela requires a referendum: International treaties, conventions, and agreements that could compromise national sovereignty or transfer power to supranational entities ( ) shall be submitted to referendum. In calling for the people to decide, the Venezuelan governments own position would be clear. Ever since the defeated coup of 11 April 2002 and the subsequent opposition sabotage that has produced a crisis, the document noted, Venezuela has a new appreciation of the extraordinary importance of the need for governments to be able to draw on a wide spectrum of public policies to respond to crises (whether environmental, political, or economic), as well as to be able to tackle the challenges and demands associated with fair, sustainable development. The proposal for FTAA would prevent this. Indeed, the government argued, The recent sabotage of PDVSA, the national oil industry, is a pathetic example of everything stated in this document. Widespread democratic involvement, though, should not be limited to a vote at the end. Precisely because of the vast implications of FTAA, Venezuela declared in its statement to the Trade Negotiations Committee, we cannot continue to negotiate as if these were just some trade negotiations in which only experts and specialists in the different areas of commercial and international law need participate. Democratic negotiations need to include in an effective manner all sectors of the population continent-wide because every sector will be affected to some extent by the agreements being negotiated. And, what of those popular sectors in Venezuela at this point? Although trade unions and popular sectors have indicated that they oppose FTAA and all it stands for, the priority is support for the government in its resolve--- support in the face of an opposition aided by the US government and prepared again to do everything possible to remove the Chavez government. The struggle against international capital and its goals at this point in Venezuela is a struggle to maintain and deepen the Bolivarian Revolution. - Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
Re: the next wedge issue
In a message dated 11/20/03 12:50:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why should I not kick their ass. Do you have kids or just stupid?Melvin, Michael Perelman is probably too busy writing his next book topay attention to this thread but I will not dignify your question with areply. If I were him, I'd give you the boot for sexism and homophobia.What you are saying is really ugly. I am reminded of an article thatappears in the latest Harpers on Clear Channel Communications. Out inDenver there are 6 stations owned by this monopoly and they all haveDJ's that make fag-bashing jokes. When the reporter asks the localpresident of Clear Channel whether that is appropriate, he replies thatit is only a joke. What if you substituted the word "nigger" for "fag",he asks. Would that be as funny? That's the kind of question you shouldbe asking yourself. 1. I have spanked children before. I have spanked them on their little hands and buts. In fact I once thumped by daughter - Mikkie, on the head when she was four years old, although she was never spanked by me. Her mother spanked her before and slapped her face when she was 13. Today she is 25 and just had her first baby. Did Mikkie need her face slapped? Well, she hit her mother back and I told her that she walks around her other house like she is a damn Queen and it is only one Queen per house hould. "Baby girl you are a beautiful Princess and it is time for you to come live with your dad before Sandra kick your little fannie." Sandra did not object to paying child support. You may suggest whatever you want, but people raise their children how they see fit and some of us get it right or basically right. What the word "nigger" or "fag" has to do with this is beyond me. 2. I am not required to support or campaign on behave of homosexual life style and this does not make me homophobic. This means I believe it is wrong - not a crime. What the word "nigger" or "fag" has to do with this is beyond me. One person wrote: Actually, there is no such thing as "a man's penis," right? I meanthere's your penis, which you have the right to decide where to place.And then there's other men and their penises, and I guess the questionis, do you feel that they have the same right as you -- to put it whereit feels best? To me - IMO, this reads like the opening paragraph of the Pedophile Manifesto. Do you understand what it means to say something like this to any section of the working class? This is outrageous and I am to be unsubbed? Read the paragraph again. This is way beyond sex among consenting adults. Nevertheless, you are saying that if I advocate spanking children I will be kicked off of Marxline? If this is true then you can unsub me now. Children need to be spanked at times and its that simple. I will continue to tap their little hands when they try and stick objects into wall sockets. Be a real man Lou and send your address. You can have Shamelle - 30, and her two kids (Tapre8and Tkala 5) and Edonie - 20. :-) Now supporting homosexual lifestyle does not make one progressive and not supporting this life style does not make one reactionary. Spanking a child is not child abuse. What the word "nigger" or "fag" has to do with this is beyond me. It is you that cannot be taken serious by any parent I know. Nor, do you understand the real world of politics and the mechanics of elections - or the formation of "social issues" - or the art of political maneuver - or the nature of the battle in the ideological sphere. You do not understand how this identity movement was shaped in the ideological sphere and for what purpose. Go back to the 1950s and explore the formation of the concept called "teenager" in the ideological sphere and critically look at the evolution of the so-called nuclear family. You understand nothing of the property relations and the evolution of value and its social impact. It is in fact you that lack any critical understanding brother! You do not get it! I am telling you that I voted against extending benefits to same sex couples and voted in favor of extending benefits to all couples. The group of us that voted for benefits to all couples were defeated by the people who said "NO BENEFITS TO ALL COUPLES AND THEIR CHILDREN" - BENEFITS TO HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES ONLY." It is you who do not understand real world politics. And I am reactionary and need to be unsubed for spanking my child's hand! This is outrageous. This is Pen-L and I can abhor homosexuality. This does not make it a crime against the state or anything like that. Have you any idea what a social movement is and on what basis social movements gyrate? Melvin P.
Re: the next wedge issue
Melvin, you oppose gay marriage. I think that we all understand that by now. You are welcome to your opinion, but you should not get personal in differing with those who differ from you. Nor should those who differ with you get personal with you. So, please calm down. You made your opinion known and let's drop the matter. My original point in mentioning the subject was that gay marriage gets people emotional and prevents rational discourse. I did not expect that observation to apply here on this list. On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:12:47AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/20/03 12:50:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why should I not kick their ass. Do you have kids or just stupid? Melvin, Michael Perelman is probably too busy writing his next book to pay attention to this thread but I will not dignify your question with a reply. If I were him, I'd give you the boot for sexism and homophobia. What you are saying is really ugly. I am reminded of an article that appears in the latest Harpers on Clear Channel Communications. Out in Denver there are 6 stations owned by this monopoly and they all have DJ's that make fag-bashing jokes. When the reporter asks the local president of Clear Channel whether that is appropriate, he replies that it is only a joke. What if you substituted the word nigger for fag, he asks. Would that be as funny? That's the kind of question you should be asking yourself. 1. I have spanked children before. I have spanked them on their little hands and buts. In fact I once thumped by daughter - Mikkie, on the head when she was four years old, although she was never spanked by me. Her mother spanked her before and slapped her face when she was 13. Today she is 25 and just had her first baby. Did Mikkie need her face slapped? Well, she hit her mother back and I told her that she walks around her other house like she is a damn Queen and it is only one Queen per house hould. Baby girl you are a beautiful Princess and it is time for you to come live with your dad before Sandra kick your little fannie. Sandra did not object to paying child support. You may suggest whatever you want, but people raise their children how they see fit and some of us get it right or basically right. What the word nigger or fag has to do with this is beyond me. 2. I am not required to support or campaign on behave of homosexual life style and this does not make me homophobic. This means I believe it is wrong - not a crime. What the word nigger or fag has to do with this is beyond me. One person wrote: Actually, there is no such thing as a man's penis, right? I mean there's your penis, which you have the right to decide where to place. And then there's other men and their penises, and I guess the question is, do you feel that they have the same right as you -- to put it where it feels best? To me - IMO, this reads like the opening paragraph of the Pedophile Manifesto. Do you understand what it means to say something like this to any section of the working class? This is outrageous and I am to be unsubbed? Read the paragraph again. This is way beyond sex among consenting adults. Nevertheless, you are saying that if I advocate spanking children I will be kicked off of Marxline? If this is true then you can unsub me now. Children need to be spanked at times and its that simple. I will continue to tap their little hands when they try and stick objects into wall sockets. Be a real man Lou and send your address. You can have Shamelle - 30, and her two kids (Tapre 8 and Tkala 5) and Edonie - 20. :-) Now supporting homosexual lifestyle does not make one progressive and not supporting this life style does not make one reactionary. Spanking a child is not child abuse. What the word nigger or fag has to do with this is beyond me. It is you that cannot be taken serious by any parent I know. Nor, do you understand the real world of politics and the mechanics of elections - or the formation of social issues - or the art of political maneuver - or the nature of the battle in the ideological sphere. You do not understand how this identity movement was shaped in the ideological sphere and for what purpose. Go back to the 1950s and explore the formation of the concept called teenager in the ideological sphere and critically look at the evolution of the so-called nuclear family. You understand nothing of the property relations and the evolution of value and its social impact. It is in fact you that lack any critical understanding brother! You do not get it! I am telling you that I voted against extending benefits to same sex couples and voted in favor of extending benefits to all couples. The group of us that voted for benefits to all couples were defeated by the people who said NO BENEFITS TO ALL COUPLES AND THEIR CHILDREN - BENEFITS TO HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES ONLY. It is you who do not understand real
Re: the next wedge issue
Hello All, I am home today sick. For me, this is a sad moment. I don't look for times like this to take stands they just seem to come to me. When I was young I was assaulted many times as a queer. I didn't even know what that meant. There are certainly many people like Melvin who are in the left and feel they are leftists. To them I am morally wrong. To what extent that affects my ability to be on the left I don't know. But we can't build a left that includes gay people that sees them as morally wrong. They must keep their mouths shut, don't ask don't tell because there are so many who disapprove. The same process affects disabled people. I grew up feeling sad, depressed if you will. In those days denial was ubiquitous. I think my depression was a combination of being vulnerable and abusive conditions. At any rate don't ask don't tell also ruled my life about that. One of the key factors in dealing with depression is to be able to talk about depression to other people. The very high suicide rate among gay young people is an outcome still of how the deadly combination of moral disapproval and silence combines to kill. I do appreciate Lou's comment here. A real revolutionary movement recognizes forms of oppression and does something concrete to change conditions for those oppressed. We all grew up in reactionary climates. I grew up to a large degree hating 'queers' even though in fact I was one. I had good reason to change that opinion, but lots of gay people just reflect the prejudice around them and hate queers just as much as any 'hetero. One left prejudice is that homosexuality is a reactionary element in society. Another prejudice (not left) is homosexuals are pedophiles. Can't be trusted around children. A person can change but they must listen to a cry for justice. The disability rights movement goes a step further and asks about the rights of people who have cognition outside of the 'norm'. For various reasons people with prejudice and rigidity fall into an area like a disability. That abuse instills rigidity, that emotional disabilities make it hard for many people to participate in able bodied social structures. For example Bill Choisser, http://www.choisser.com/faceblind/ , who is face blind cannot see emotions in the face, cannot hear emotions in the voice. What is his right in a society that considers certain ways of being the norm? So nothing is ever simple about oppression. But a social movement that liberates people cannot hold onto prejudice against homosexuals. A wedge issue is an issue that seeks to portray itself as being for rights when it actually divides the movement. In the U.S. Christian fundamentalism is morally outraged against homos, so they think if Homosexuals accept Jesus Christ and their moral system then all will be well. But a wedge is simply a way to bring divisions into social settings. I am for couple rights I just don't like homos. I'll give them their rights along with everyone else. They are still 'wrong' in my view. My only answer to that is the whole working class is the whole working class. We cannot build a socialist society that does not acknowledge all the different elements that build a society and builds a whole society. Thanks, Doyle
Re: the next wedge issue
Michael Perelman wrote: My original point in mentioning the subject was that gay marriage gets people emotional and prevents rational discourse. I did not expect that observation to apply here on this list. _Every_ issue of any importance to the left gets people emotional, or ought to. And gay marriage no more prevents rational discourse than does (e.g.) the question of whether radicals should support the DP in the 2004 election. There can be no left in the United States that does not take this issue seriously. To treat it as marginal or as a distraction is to deny the possibility of a unified left. As Lou says, a revolutinary party that did not expel Melvin would not be a revolutionary party. How can you expect us to be concerned about wages if the only wages we are concerned with are (a) those for white male homophobes and (b) those wages revealed in the numbers on a check? Wages for the working class equal (with no real remainder) daily expense of reproducing themselves to go to work the next day. Those daily expenses include rent. You, by trivializing the issue of gay marriage, are saying that the wages of all gays and lesbians should be reduced since the denial of marriage rights means they pay more for rent, and also more in taxes. It is the defenders of gay marriage that are really most concerned with wages. Opponents of gay marriage (or those who trivialize the issue) are a disunifying force. That is obvious to everyone in respect to sexism and racism. Why is it not equally obvious in respect to any other sector of the working class who are singled out for special repression under contemporary capitalism? Solidarity is not a sentiment. And on this list now solidarity is measured by the total repudiation of the kind of horseshit melvin has been putting out. Carrol
Re: the next wedge issue
I agree with everything that Doyle wrote and mostly agree with everything that Carroll wrote. I take issue with his agreement with Lou's statement that a Revolutionary party would have to expel Melvin. I think that Doyle was closer to the mark. He seems to understand that we need to learn to communicate with Melvin and people like him. If we were to have the left in which everybody would have to agree with everyone one of a large number of defining issues, we would have few people left. I have great admiration for the courage of the Berrigan brothers. They did far more for the left than 1000 Michael Perelmans, yet they were very bad on abortion. Should we have expelled them from the antiwar movement? I wish Melvin were more tolerant. I hope that we can be equally so. At the same time, we need to struggle against all injustice, and cannot let toleration blind must to inequities. I wish I knew the formula to achieve this. On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:19:17AM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote: _Every_ issue of any importance to the left gets people emotional, or ought to. And gay marriage no more prevents rational discourse than does (e.g.) the question of whether radicals should support the DP in the 2004 election. There can be no left in the United States that does not take this issue seriously. To treat it as marginal or as a distraction is to deny the possibility of a unified left. As Lou says, a revolutinary party that did not expel Melvin would not be a revolutionary party. How can you expect us to be concerned about wages if the only wages we are concerned with are (a) those for white male homophobes and (b) those wages revealed in the numbers on a check? Wages for the working class equal (with no real remainder) daily expense of reproducing themselves to go to work the next day. Those daily expenses include rent. You, by trivializing the issue of gay marriage, are saying that the wages of all gays and lesbians should be reduced since the denial of marriage rights means they pay more for rent, and also more in taxes. It is the defenders of gay marriage that are really most concerned with wages. Opponents of gay marriage (or those who trivialize the issue) are a disunifying force. That is obvious to everyone in respect to sexism and racism. Why is it not equally obvious in respect to any other sector of the working class who are singled out for special repression under contemporary capitalism? Solidarity is not a sentiment. And on this list now solidarity is measured by the total repudiation of the kind of horseshit melvin has been putting out. Carrol -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the next wedge issue
Michael Perelman wrote: I take issue with his agreement with Lou's statement that a Revolutionary party would have to expel Melvin. What I said is that if Melvin made remarks at a branch meeting like he made here, he'd be brought up on charges. I know for a fact that lots of older SWP'ers, especially factory workers, felt threatened by woman's and gay liberation but they had the common sense to keep their prejudiced remarks to themselves. Sadly, it was only in the late 1970s after the SWP made its infamous turn that members' private thinking began to become an issue. This is what helped to destroy the CP in fact. In the late 1940s, as the witch-hunt took shape, they made a big point of hounding out members who might have had weak understandings of the woman or Negro question despite remaining silent on those questions in party meetings, etc. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: the next wedge issue
At the same time, we need to struggle against all injustice, and cannot let toleration blind must to inequities. I wish I knew the formula to achieve this. The Irish formula, from what I understand of it, is that if toleration blinds you to inequities, you get charged, whether you like it or not. J.
Re: the next wedge issue
Michael wrote: My original point in mentioning the subject was that gay marriage gets people emotional and prevents rational discourse. I did not expect that observation to apply here on this list. Does that mean we could realistically look forward to the next American elections as emotionalist elections, in which the media seek to massage the masses with emotional or moral messages conducive to achieving a specific election result ? Or is it rather the case that by continuously being bombarded with violence and violence on TV, Americans disregard emotional messages, other than in specific contexts ? In his book Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, Jerry Mander notes the hypnotic induction effect of television. For some statistical estimates on American TV habits on a few sites, see for example: http://youthtools.ibelieve.com/content.asp?SID=12CID=519 http://youthtools.ibelieve.com/content.asp?SID=12CID=514). www.sciam.com/ article.cfm?articleID=27DC-0410-1CD0-B4A8809EC588EEDF http://nces.ed.gov/ Jurriaan
Re: the next wedge issue
Doyle Saylor wrote: My only answer to that is the whole working class is the whole working class. We cannot build a socialist society that does not acknowledge all the different elements that build a society and builds a whole society. Thanks, Doyle Well put. Joanna
Re: the next wedge issue
Carrol Cox wrote: As Lou says, a revolutinary party that did not expel Melvin would not be a revolutionary party. Well, if a specific revolutionary party sought human liberation irrespective of wether that human was straight or gay, I assume Melvin would not join this party. Solidarity is not a sentiment. And on this list now solidarity is measured by the total repudiation of the kind of horseshit melvin has been putting out. Solidarity is not the logic of an idea. I repudiate what Melvin is saying because I don't agree with himnot because PEN-L solidarity (whatever that means) requires that I do so. There's not much love lost between Melvin and me. But, it seems to me that the whole point of these list-servs is to engage in reasoned dialogs with people one doesn't totally agree with. How else to re-build the left? How else? Joanna
Refs
Hi Yoshie, You were less dismissive about my argument about advertising. One could think it through from our point of view reading such books as: - Media Hypnosis by Lonny Kocina (Mid-America Entertainment Inc., 2002), - The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR by Laura and Al Ries reviewed at: http://www.internet-marketing-research.net/fall_of_advertising.php The real limit of alternative culture, which exists in rejection of the mainstream culture, can be that it does not connect with the semiotics of the mainstream public. That was a big defeat for socialism in my generation, if you allow me to express it that way. Jurriaan
Re: the next wedge issue
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/03 11:48AM Michael Perelman wrote: I take issue with his agreement with Lou's statement that a Revolutionary party would have to expel Melvin. What I said is that if Melvin made remarks at a branch meeting like he made here, he'd be brought up on charges. I know for a fact that lots of older SWP'ers, especially factory workers, felt threatened by woman's and gay liberation but they had the common sense to keep their prejudiced remarks to themselves. Sadly, it was only in the late 1970s after the SWP made its infamous turn that members' private thinking began to become an issue. This is what helped to destroy the CP in fact. In the late 1940s, as the witch-hunt took shape, they made a big point of hounding out members who might have had weak understandings of the woman or Negro question despite remaining silent on those questions in party meetings, etc. Louis Proyect recp 'comrades' used to kick shit out of gay rcp-er friend of mine for 'bourgeois decadence' during 'maoist self-criticism' sessions...he remained member for number of years as this was happening... michael hoover
'Shoot-to-kill' demand by US
'Shoot-to-kill' demand by US Martin Bright, home affairs editor Saturday November 15 2003 The Guardian Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity to armed American special agents and snipers travelling to Britain as part of President Bush's entourage this week. In the case of the accidental shooting of a protester, the Americans in Bush's protection squad will face justice in a British court as would any other visitor, the Home Office has confirmed. The issue of immunity is one of a series of extraordinary US demands turned down by Ministers and Downing Street during preparations for the Bush visit. These included the closure of the Tube network, the use of US air force planes and helicopters and the shipping in of battlefield weaponry to use against rioters. In return, the British authorities agreed numerous concessions, including the creation of a 'sterile zone' around the President with a series of road closures in central London and a security cordon keeping the public away from his cavalcade. The White House initially demanded the closure of all Tube lines under parts of London to be visited during the trip. But British officials dismissed the idea that a suicide bomber could kill the President by blowing up a Tube train. Ministers are also believed to have dismissed suggestions that a 'sterile zone' around the President should be policed entirely by American special agents and military. Demands for the US air force to patrol above London with fighter aircraft and Black Hawk helicopters have also been turned down. The President's protection force will be armed - as Tony Blair's is when he travels abroad - and around 250 secret service agents will fly in with Bush, but operational control will remain with the Metropolitan Police. The Americans had also wanted to travel with a piece of military hardware called a 'mini-gun', which usually forms part of the mobile armoury in the presidential cavalcade. It is fired from a tank and can kill dozens of people. One manufacturer's description reads: 'Due to the small calibre of the round, the mini-gun can be used practically anywhere. This is especially helpful during peacekeeping deployments.' Ministers have made clear to Washington that the firepower of the mini-gun will not be available during the state visit to Britain. In return, the Government has agreed to close off much of Whitehall during the visit - the usual practice in Britain is to use police outriders to close roads as the cavalcade passes to cause minimal disruption to traffic. A Home Office spokeswoman said: 'Negotiations between here and the US have been perfectly amicable. If there have been requests, they have not posed any problems.' An internal memo sent to Cabinet Office staff and leaked to the press this weekend urged staff to work from home if at possible during the presidential visit. Serious disruption would be caused by 'the President Bush vehicle entourage requesting cleared secured vehicle routes around London and the security cordons creating a sterile zone around him'. Meanwhile, negotiations are continuing between police and demonstrators about the route of the march. Representatives of the Stop the War Coalition will meet police at Scotland Yard tomorrow to discuss whether protesters will be able to march through Parliament Square and Whitehall. Spokesman Andrew Burgin said he hoped for 'a good old-fashioned British compromise'.
Facing South
F A C I N G S O U T H A progressive Southern news report November 19, 2003 - Issue 66 Published by the Institute for Southern Studies and Southern Exposure magazine. To join the Institute and get a year's worth of Southern Exposure and Facing South, visit www.southernstudies.org _ INSTITUTE INDEX - Free Trade or Global Greed? Year North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented: 1993 Number of jobs advocates said NAFTA would create in the U.S.: 200,000 Number of U.S. jobs lost to NAFTA according to federal statistics: 750,000 Amount by which U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has increased, in billions: $78 Amount by which number of Mexican workers making less than minimum wage has increased: 1,000,000 Number of countries proposed Free Trade Area of Americas would include: 34 Sources on file at the Institute for Southern Studies. _ DATELINE: THE SOUTH - News Around the Region MIAMI TRADE MEETINGS FACE ENERGIZED PROTEST MOVEMENT; INTERNAL DIVIDES The anti-war and global justice movements will unite in Miami this week to protest the Free Trade Area of the Americas meeting in Miami. Tens of thousands of demonstrators are expected -- but little-noticed is the fact that the FTAA meetings are already crumbling from within, highlighted by a battle between the U.S. and Brazil. (Mother Jones, 11/17) http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/11/we_606_01a.html WAL-MART ACCELERATING U.S. LOB LOSSES TO OVERSEAS LABOR By aggressively underselling domestic competitors, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, the world's largest company, is revolutionizing labor/management relations and forcing more and more U.S. corporations to use overseas labor.(Fast Company, December 2003) http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html SOUTH ATTRACTS MORE PEOPLE THAN IT LOSES More non-Hispanic whites, blacks, Asians and Hispanics moved to the South between 1995 and 2000 than left that region for other parts of the country, according to a Census 2000 report released in late October by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meanwhile, the other three regions registered a net domestic migration loss for some or all of these groups. The net migration gains for these groups in the South were concentrated in Atlantic coast states. (U.S. Census Bureau, 10/30) http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/001505.html DEMOCRATS WEIGHING NON-SOUTHERN STRATEGY Believing that winning the South will require too many resources for too little results, analysts like Prof. Thomas F. Schaller are encouraging the Democrats to leave the region to the Rpublicans and focus their energy elsewhere. (Washington Post, 11/16) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40359-2003Nov14.html THE MAKING OF THE CORPORATE JUDICIARY Since 1998, major corporations -- like Home Depot, Wal-Mart, and the insurance giant AIG -- have spent more than $100 million through front groups to remake the courts. By targeting incumbent judges, they have tilted state supreme courts to pro-business majorities and ousted aggressive attorneys general. At the same time, corporate lobbyists have blitzed state legislators with tort-reform proposals, overseeing the passage of new laws in 24 states over the past year alone. (Mother Jones, Nov/Dec 2003) http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/11/ma_564_01.html PERSONAL BANKRUPTCIES SKYROCKETING The record-setting pace of new personal bankruptcies continued in the 12 months ending Sept. 30, with their number rising 7.8 percent. Personal bankruptcies jumped to 1,625,813 from 1,508,578 during the same period a year earlier. The bankruptcy filings are being overwhelmingly driven by individuals with household debt, said one expert. (Associated Press, 11/14) http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031114/D7UQJ2A00.html SOUTHERN DRAWL CONFUSES PHONE VOICE SYSTEMS Southern drawls have thwarted voice recognition equipment used by the Shreveport, L.A., Police Department to route non-emergency calls. The system asked people to name the person or department they wanted. More often than not, calls wound up at the wrong place. (Associated Press, 11/17) http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=514e=8u=/ap/20031117/ap_on_re_us/brf_voice_unrecognition
Sports of the Times
Sports of The Times: A Teenager Handling the Adult World With Poise November 20, 2003 By GEORGE VECSEY FREDDY ADU is mature far beyond his 14 years. When he makes a spin move on the soccer field, he leaves opponents chomping on the turf, real or artificial. Adu is also mature in the complicated world of New York news conferences. Yesterday he signed with Major League Soccer, graciously thanking his mother and everybody else who had helped him along the way. The 46-year-old commissioner needed notes, but the 14-year-old player did not, announced Don Garber, the commissioner of the league. Afterward, Adu was catching a bite to eat in a private room. Sitting next to him was his mother, Emelia, who brought him over from Ghana when he was 9 for the normal survivor reasons people seek out the United States. His mother tells him what to do. For the foreseeable future, he will live at home in suburban Maryland, on her say-so. In return, as man of the house, he protects her. Emelia Adu does not give interviews. That was the word yesterday after she discreetly slipped out of the crowded news conference. But when I was ushered into the private room to be introduced, I tried my luck with a question about her high standards for her son. She smiled politely, sweetly, but no words came out. Freddy Adu, all 5 feet 8 inches and 140 pounds, stood up and intervened, turning the awkward moment into a joke. People ask her questions and she freezes, he said, smiling at her, smiling at me, bringing us together in the glow of his presence. Every mother should have a son like this at her side, and vice versa. Adu may indeed be one of a kind, just as the people in American soccer dare to dream for him, for them. He has been a golden boy since he showed up for a mass practice in Washington five years ago. People gasped at his moves, which he learned playing barefoot from the age of 2 in Tema, Ghana. Growing up in a world that knows and loves soccer, he saw photos of Pelé and Diego Armando Maradona, and he wanted to be like them. We had a tryout for 13-year-olds to go to France, recalled Kevin Payne, a former general manager for D.C. United. One youngster impressed Payne so much that he telephoned Bruce Arena, the United coach at the time, and said, Bruce, you have to come out here and watch this kid. Later they found out Adu was only 9. He was just in from Ghana, where his mother had won a government lottery for the right to apply to emigrate to the United States, having nothing whatsoever to do with soccer. Suddenly, he became Ghana's great gift to the United States. Arena is now the national team coach, who just may consider Adu for the next World Cup in 2006. New international soccer rules made it difficult for the great clubs of Europe to sign Adu and use him in senior competition, but it was a moot point. His mother wanted him to finish high school, which he will do in May, and she wanted him where she could keep an eye on him for the apparent four years of his new contract. During the news conference yesterday, video monitors played endless loops of Freddy Adu highlight clips. In white jerseys, blue jerseys and green workout vests, he swivel-hipped his way through defenders of all nations. Incredible ball control, said Mark Noonan, an executive vice president for M.L.S., who played for Duke when it won the national college championship in 1986. Yesterday, Noonan quietly narrated Adu's clips, with a mix of jealousy and awe. Joy, Noonan said. Vision. He's left-footed but he can shoot with his right. The Maradona factor. Knowing where his people are. Exuberance. Poise. Look at that, an uncanny cutback. He doesn't hesitate. He just slalomed through five guys! He's the youngest guy on the field. The tapes don't lie. The tapes showed a youngster playing with the improvisational skills of world soccer, the way they play in dusty streets of Naples and Buenos Aires and Lagos, rather than the rigid textbook drills of American youth leagues. Soon Adu will be playing against hardened professionals, twice his age, but yesterday he more than handled his coming-out ceremony. He recalled playing on the rocks and broken bottles in Ghana, with the occasional goat wandering onto the field. I'd cry if my mom called for me to come in, he said. Some reporters wring their hands at the growing trend of young players like LeBron James forsaking college to play pro basketball and Maurice Clarett's eagerness to leave college for the National Football League. Freddy Adu's poise and his video clips kept reporters from reporting the M.L.S. to the child-labor authorities. The league holds its championship game Sunday on ABC. The next big date for the league is April 3 - Adu's first game with D.C. United, also on ABC. Yesterday, the young man did not leave us twisted into pretzel shapes on the grass, the way he does defenders. He left us smiling in the glow of his presence. What a lovely, hopeful start.
Re: Sports of the Times
What a wonderful story. It's reassuring that: His mother tells him what to do. For the foreseeable future, he will live at home in suburban Maryland, on her say-so. In return, as man of the house, he protects her. J.
Re: the next wedge issue
In a message dated 11/21/03 8:12:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When I was young I was assaulted many times as a queer. I didn't even knowwhat that meant. There are certainly many people like Melvin who are in theleft and feel they are leftists. To them I am morally wrong. To whatextent that affects my ability to be on the left I don't know. But we can'tbuild a left that includes gay people that sees them as morally wrong. Theymust keep their mouths shut, don't ask don't tell because there are so manywho disapprove. Comment Well, for me the issue is you being beat pure and simple. You should not be beat up period. Those who beat you should have been punished. An issue arose on the factory concerning the rights of male homosexuals and one particular male. This particular male was physically beautiful - stunning attractive, and did not want to use the men restroom and began using the women's restroom. Some women objected to a man being in the women's restroom. This issue arose in the first place from continuous solicitations from men, more often than not in the restroom. There was even an incident where Renee was kissed and felt on in the restroom. My first act was to ask Renee, what is it you want to happen and point out the persons harrassing you. Renee stated, "no I want the harrassment to stop and not to get someone fired." The person that manhandled Renee would have gotten time off from work, not because Renee was homosexual but because you cannot harrass people or touch people. I explained to the fellows in a very vulgar manner that they would end up on the street in no undercertain terms if they did not stop immediately. What remained was the question of which restroom to use. I hit the wall on this issue because the Company refused to build a third set of bathrooms. A temporary solution was made. A couple of bathrooms were set aside for Renee or any other homosexual male to use offlimits to males. Women could use these restrooms if they choose because there was no harassment from the women in the plant. The point is that one does not have to agree with someone to protect ones "rights"Further, with the acceptance of homosexuality in society a number of social issue arise, of which homosexual marriage is one. In the political group I was part of there was never a political position on homosexuality because it is not a political question in our meaning of social movement generated on the basis of changes in the means of production. But a social issue fought out in the realm of politics. Therefore, no one in our group could fight for a position on homosexuality one way or another. On this matter of homosexuals being granted state sanctioned marriage, is not the real issue, the right of the state to grant marriage license in the first place -- to those over the age of consent? On this question I would certainly be expelled fromones sectarian group because I would vote that we have no right to take a position one way or another on people, but rather the state. The world of real politics require thinking matters out based on ones political tradition. Now, we did take a political posture on the question of abortion because we are dealing with a distinct configuration of humanity whose class attributes gyrate on the basis of a property relations. That is why we refer to this as the Women Question. There is no such thing as the "Homosexuality Question." There is no such thing as the "Black Question," or the "Handicap Question." There does exist what past generations of Marxist called the National question - African American Liberation and Revolution in the United States, for instance. The question of Gay marriage is a question of the state really. I oppose the states right to grant marriage license because this is a question of a property relations as it arose encased in what is called the Women Question. I do not care who marries whom or have sex withwhom, provided they are consenting adults. I teach and taught my children that homosexuality as it arose is history is primarily a question of subjugation and domination on the part of one section of society by another. I teach them that homosexuality is primarily - not exclusively, learned behavior. I maintain that at this juncture of history homosexuality is propagated by the bourgeois and part of the decay and degeneracy in society. As such it is not a crime and in the new world to come one will be able to assess human relations outside the bounds of property. Were there homosexuals in our party? For such and a couple had a crush on me because I am not hard to look at. The growth and spread of homosexuality in our society has everything do with increased rates of incarceration - especially, amongst black males and is coined "the down low." The wearing of pants exposing ones buttock, is a fashion that originated in the prison system. We can pretend that there is no connection between rape and sexual abuse
Re: the next wedge issue
In a message dated 11/21/03 9:30:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: recp 'comrades' used to kick shit out of gay rcp-er friend of mine for'bourgeois decadence' during 'maoist self-criticism'sessions...he remained member for number of years as this washappening... michael hoover Comment The reactionaries bigots I was a part of would have expelled someone for feeling they have the right to raise the question of sex between consenting adults in a party organization. In fact during one of the many dance parties we would hold in Detroit a comrade asked why two women were dancing together and kissing and fondling one another on the dance floor. He was basically told that he could raise the issue in his unit but would probably be expelled because it is not a political issue. Yes, there are people with strong feelings but anyone with real world experience in politics have to sooner of later figure out the boundary of where other people begin. Why a political group discusses someone's sexual relations - above the age of consent, is mind boggling. But then again we were always reactionary. Homosexuality is not a political issue and everyone has been duped into thinking it is. I am to be expelled for abhorring homosexuality - not homosexuals, and spanking children. The above is equated to calling someone a nigger or a fag. Utterly mind boggling. Melvin P.
Re: the next wedge issue
Melvin wrote: I maintain that at this juncture of history homosexuality is propagated by the bourgeois and part of the decay and degeneracy in society. The Bolsheviks were outspoken supporters of gay rights. Not only did the Soviet Union abolish all laws against homosexual acts in December, 1917, it also promoted a vision that the gay movement would described in the slogan Gay is just as good as straight.. This was viewed as consistent with the emancipatory vision of the world's first socialist revolution. Dr. Grigorii Batkis, the Director of the Moscow Institute of Social Hygeine, published a pamphlet titled The Sexual Revolution in Russia in 1923 and attended the pro-gay World League for Sexual Freedom congresses in an official capacity, where he offered the support of the new revolutionary government. The pamphlet stated: The relationship of Soviet law to the sexual sphere is based on the principle that the demands of the vast majority of the people correspond to and are in harmony with the findings of contemporary science... Now by taking into account all these aspects of the transition period, Soviet legislation bases itself on the following principle: it declares that the absolute non-interference of the state and society into sexual matters, as long as nobody is injured, and no one's interests are encroached upon. And just to make things crystal clear, it also states that Concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offenses against public morality--Soviet legislation treats these THE SAME AS so-called 'natural' intercourse. Let me repeat this with emphasis: the Soviet government did not view same-sex relations as being in any way *sick* or *perverted*. It did not promote homosexuality, nor did it condemn it. This is all a revolutionary government is expected to do. Furthermore, this is all the gay liberation movement has ever fought for in capitalist society. All this changed after Stalin took power. His policies are the same that are favored by Maoists and some Trotskyists unfortunately. After 1931, the ruling circles began to develop a whole mythology in which homosexuality was the product of decadence in the bourgeois sector of society and the fascist perversion. The notion that homosexuality is unnatural belongs to Stalinism, not Bolshevism. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: the next wedge issue
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Further, with the acceptance of homosexuality in society a number of social issue arise... ... I teach them that homosexuality is primarily - not exclusively, learned behavior. ... I maintain that at this juncture of history homosexuality is propagated by the bourgeois and part of the decay and degeneracy in society. ... We can pretend that there is no connection between rape and sexual abuse of children and homosexuality but the fact speak of a different logic. I am no expert at anything but have interviewed close to a thousand men - my wife perhaps ten thousand people, and homosexuality amongst the people interview in connected with some form of sex abuse as a child in at least 80% of the cases. ... Homosexuality and its growth in our very real society expresses the decay of bourgeois property. ... I abhor homosexuality... i have snipped out all the hand-waving (why, some of my best friends are gay! in fact some of them hit on me!) arguments. i want to hear the factual basis (outside of the anecdotal evidence that is given) of the far-reaching statements made above. i want further elucidation of the inferences drawn: for instance, what were these interviews? what were the variables considered for correlation? what levels of heterosexual behaviour was/is connected to sex abuse? what is the causal underpinning of the observed correlation between homosexuality and child abuse? what is the biological basis of the learned behaviour theory. if there is one, does that exclude heterosexual behaviour? claims of the decay and degeneracy of society beg the question. establish first that such decay is happening. is [reduction to] marxist or property/class relations the axiomatic system of this list? if it is, then i question such a system of logic. if not, then be sure that the proofs requested are derived from more self-evident axioms. if you cannot, at least refrain from using phrases such as the facts speak of a different logic, for you have presented neither fact nor logic, thus far. --ravi
Re: the next wedge issue
Doyle Saylor wrote: My only answer to that is the whole working class is the whole working class. what is the working class, in terms of unique characteristics or use characteristics that help lend it definition? i am truly puzzled: i go to work each day. i am part of the yuppie privileged class. there's a guy wearing a union t-shirt who installs furniture in my building. am i in the working class? is he? are we both in the same class? what about my boss's boss's boss, who has a few million dollars in his bank? what about the guy pulling ice in the sweltering heat in madras (pedalling a three-wheel cycle), starting at maybe 5am and finishing up some time in the night. what about the wife he goes home and beats up when she returns from working at three houses as a maid? perhaps this is all well defined in the classical texts (which i guess are required reading for the list). if so, i hope that the texts do not just stop at providing a definition of this class system, but also explains the superior utility in seeing the world this way. --ravi
Re: the next wedge issue/end enough of this
In a message dated 11/21/03 11:04:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let me repeat this with emphasis: the Soviet government did not viewsame-sex relations as being in any way *sick* or *perverted*. It didnot promote homosexuality, nor did it condemn it. This is all arevolutionary government is expected to do. Furthermore, this is allthe gay liberation movement has ever fought for in capitalist society. Yep, the real villain is Stalinism - the argument of last resort. I speak of homosexuality as it exist here in America right now today and as it is promoted by the bourgeoisie. The Gay Liberation Movement is not a movement and was created by the bourgeoisie. A comrade is beat up and called **, and the issue is not being beat up but being a homosexual and then everyone wants to know how they are systematically maneuvered out of the struggle and outflanked by the bourgeoisie. Gay marriage hits the front page and everyone wants to know what one thinks about homosexuality and not the state "right" to enforce the property relations on society. The issue is Gay marriage I am told not the right of the state to issue a license. Then everyone wants to know how they are systematically maneuvered out of the struggle and outflanked by the bourgeoisie. Expel Melvin because he thinks different from me. And my wrong thinking and political assessment is really Stalinism. Because Stalinism did something back n the 1930s. Forget the economic and social content of the times and the political maneuver. The issue is sodomy. Take your various positions to the working class. Any issue and I realy mean any issue that is not clearly a question of economic status - class, means defeat and many will learn this the hard way. In our political group one was expelled for feeling you have the right to raise one sexual behavior and apparently all the other groups fought over this issue. Then again we are the reactionaries. Teach your children what I tell you to teach them Melvin and stop being a Stalinist or face expulsion. Do not spank your children or face expulsion. Be more tolerate - when the fact of the matter is that where I live we are the most tolerate and so was our political grouping. Wedge issue? Then everyone wants to know how they are systematically maneuvered out of the struggle and outflanked by the bourgeoisie. Reactionary industrial workers who in fact are the most tolerant. Then everyone wants to know how they are systematically maneuvered out of the struggle and outflanked by the bourgeoisie. I fire my singular bullet - unwavering, at the state, disclose the property relations of the matterand is fired upon and expelled by the left. Which says absoutely nothing about the state power and the bourgeoisie and in unity screams get the guy trying to direct the fight against property. Talk like "us" and "think like us" and see the issue like us - at all cost do not disclose how the wedge issue divides and stop him from solving the equation and how to surmount the efforts of the bourgeoisie. Get the Stalinist. Then everyone wants to know how they are systematically maneuvered out of the struggle and outflanked by the bourgeoisie. Mind Boogling. Enough of this. Melvin P.
Re: the next wedge issue/end enough of this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Expel Melvin because he thinks different from me. And my wrong thinking and political assessment is really Stalinism. Because Stalinism did something back n the 1930s. Forget the economic and social content of the times and the political maneuver. The issue is sodomy. Take your various positions to the working class. Any issue and I realy mean any issue that is not clearly a question of economic status - class, means defeat and many will learn this the hard way. In our political group... when the fact of the matter is that where I live we are the most... Reactionary industrial workers who in fact are the most tolerant... Talk like us and think like us and see the issue like us... read the sentences aboves. and then the last one. and we are the ones asking you to conform??? that you should think and talk like us? I fire my singular bullet - unwavering, at the state, disclose the property relations of the matter and is fired upon and expelled by the left. Which says absoutely nothing about the state power and the bourgeoisie and in unity screams get the guy trying to direct the fight against property. stirring but untrue. nobody called for you to be expelled. carrol iirc took trouble to suggest that you only be edited out, which i read to mean ignored. joanna who first responded to you did not ask for even that. etc. i think it is time for you to take a position: either you make an arguable claim that it is more appropriate to see particular issues such as gay rights/abuse within the larger context of class struggle (the latter providing a comprehensive basis for the entire class of problems), or you make wild statements about the nature of homosexuality, its connections with rape and child abuse, and so on. --ravi
Re: the next wedge issue
--- joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Carrol Cox wrote: As Lou says, a revolutinary party that Solidarity is not the logic of an idea. I repudiate what Melvin is saying because I don't agree with himnot because PEN-L solidarity (whatever that means) requires that I do so. Joanna: There's not much love lost between Melvin and me. But, it seems to me that the whole point of these list-servs is to engage in reasoned dialogs with people one doesn't totally agree with. How else to re-build the left? How else? Right. Melvin offers an intelligent statement of a position that was once widely held on the left, probably less so today, that any organizing and agitation that does not go to class and property issues is a mere distraction. I believe that is what he is saying, that the gay liberation movement is a distraction at best because it doesn't address class. That is not a popular position on whatever is left of the left any more, and was not even popular in its pure form back when it was more widely held. For example, virtually every left organization that I can think of has always opposed racial discrimination and supported, e.g., black liberation under its various names over the years. The distraction argument has tended to be addressed to women's liberation and gay liberation, I believe, and less so than formerly. Why might that be? What explains the difference? That is not a rhetrocal question. One thing that is sometimes said is that women's and gay liberation are merely bourgeois struggles for bourgeois rights, equal treatment with others, nondiscrimination -- but not against exploitation and class privilege. But insofar as this is true, which is limited, isn't that also true of black liberation? And in fact it is not simply true. Just as the black liberation/civil rights/etc. movement has had (to simplify drastically), Booker T Washington accomodationist winds and WEB DuBois militant wings,so all these other movements have had too -- gay liberation as well. Two things should be said, though. One is that I believe, and many on the left do, that reformist goals that promote equality and humanity are worth fighting for even if they do not have directly revolutionary content. For example, it was worth the fight to get women the vote -- and blacks too -- even if all that got them was the right to vote for one or another bourgeois candidate. The second thing is that if improving the lives of people who are unjustifiably oppressed and marginalized requires a further justification, it does tend to overcome divisions among the workers in the long run, even if it is divisive at the time -- as suffrage was. Now all of this is pretty measured. In addition to offering a defense of a reasonable though in my view misguided view, Melvin has expressed some views that many would regard as prejudiced. While he says, and I agree, that it is none of society's business what consenting adults do in the bedroom, he says he finds homosexuality abhorrent. If that just means he doesn't find the idea of engaging himself in that behavior attractive, there can be no argument, but other things he says suggest that he thinks something stronger. He says that homosexuality is strongly correlated to child-molestation, which I believe to be a complete canard; he says that it is a sign of social decadence, which is pretty hard to square with, for example, the Golden Age of Greece. But these remarks suggest that he thinks it is a bad thing. That does not mean that he wants it banned or people who practice it to be abused, but surely it would stigmatize people to say that how they express their love and lust is abhorrent -- not just, perhaps, to Melvin? -- and decadent. And surely stigmatizing people for harmless consensual practices among adults is not what the left wants. jks __ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
new economy spillover
Reefs at risk after Disney film David Fickling in Sydney Friday November 21, 2003 The Guardian A booming trade in aquarium fish, sparked by Finding Nemo, the Disney film featuring clownfish, is endangering the wildlife of the Vanuatu archipelago in the South Pacific. Over the past year about 200,000 fish and other marine creatures have been exported from the country, and local tour firms are warning that the reefs will be at risk if the tropical fish trade is not regulated. It's a very popular trade and on the back of Finding Nemo it's boomed, said Heidi Bartram, of Vanuatu's fisheries department. It's developing faster than anyone can keep up with. There's a lack of understanding of reef systems and how fast they recover. Understanding them is hard enough without having the added pressure of people taking the fish. Concern about the trade and its sustainability is so great the government has set up a committee to examine the issue. The four species of anenome fish in Vanuatu - which are related to, but do not include, the clownfish - are classified within the archipelago's top 10 most exported species. Concern has grown among local dive firms following the arrival, in April, of a US-owned company, Sustainable Reef Supplies, which employs 20 people to fish the waters around Vanuatu's main island, Efate, and which dominates the export market. The firm flies out up to 8,000 wild animals a month from the capital, Port Vila. Rare tropical fish can fetch more than £300 an animal in the US and Australian markets, although clownfish can sell for £10. Rod Habla, president of the Vanuatu tour operators' association, said aquarium firms had to ensure sites were not overfished. The problem is managers will tell collectors not to go into restricted areas but at the same time give them a list of the species they want. Dive operators say that aquarium firms have over-fished several popular scuba sites, including Hat Island where they claim 38,000 fish were taken within one month this year. Local businesses pay custom fees to traditional, Melanesian landowners for the rights to fish or dive. According to the United Nations, the global aquarium trade deals in 11m tropical fish a year, with Britain alone importing 110,000 clownfish annually.
Re: the next wedge issue
I think that the debate with Melvin has gone on long enough. Let's call it finished. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the next wedge issue
In a message dated 11/21/03 11:44:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i have snipped out all the hand-waving (why, some of my best friends aregay! in fact some of them hit on me!) arguments. i want to hear thefactual basis (outside of the anecdotal evidence that is given) of thefar-reaching statements made above. i want further elucidation of theinferences drawn: for instance, what were these interviews? what werethe variables considered for correlation? what levels of heterosexualbehaviour was/is "connected" to sex abuse? what is the causalunderpinning of the "observed" correlation between homosexuality andchild abuse? what is the biological basis of the "learned behaviour"theory. if there is one, does that exclude "heterosexual behaviour"?claims of the decay and degeneracy of society beg the question.establish first that such decay is happening.is [reduction to] marxist or property/class relations the axiomaticsystem of this list? if it is, then i question such a system of logic.if not, then be sure that the proofs requested are derived from moreself-evident axioms. I don't have close homosexual friends - except my younger brother who died of AIDS, because of my lifestyle and my inferences are to alert one to the high level of politics that characterize my life. Who elected you to anything in life? I am political with an acute political sense of maneuver. 1. The question of a social movement is complex and all social movement take place indefinite context. Generally, I approach this from the materialist conception of history. No social movement is reducible to the framework of its emergence . . . period. Nor have I ever advocated such. There has taken place a social movement in America of industrial workers that was generated on the basis of changes in the material power of production. This social movement that was generated on the basis of the material power of production, does not require me proving its existence. This movement of industrial workers arose followed a line of trajectory roughly corresponding to the industrial curve - reached its zenith and began decay. The Women Movement is a social movement that emerged and evolved from the division of labor in society but is not reducible to the division labor in society. What have been the context of its evolution and the changing shape of its class forms is the mode of production in material life. Here it is simply a question of ones belief system of theory framework of historical narrative. If one has a different theory framework I cannot prove to them why the property relations within a mode of production give rise and shape to historically evolved human social intercourse. One accepts the theory framework or one does not. Homosexuality is not a social movement and will never be a social movement. Homosexuals are not exploited and oppressed on the basis of the configuration of the material power of production - the property relations, and this is obvious. People who are homosexual are exploited and oppressed n the basis of gender, nationalityand economic status. Male Anglo-American homosexuals and say male African American homosexuals are subject to different class and national factors. Apparently this is not obvious. The latter is subject to second class citizenship status and sex or sexual intimacy is irrelevant to this fact of life. 2. I have absolutely no intention of trying to prove to anyone the obvious social and economic decay in society. Every statistic on the life of the peoples of America proves this. The growth ofpoverty, destitutionand the intense polarization of wealth and poverty has reached monstrous proportions. 3. Allow one to back into the question. "What levels of heterosexual behavior was/is "connected" to sex abuse?" posed the question entirely incorrect because it is not learned behavior as such. By heterosexual behavior is meant the spontaneous impulse of species propagation. One may learn technique but one does not learn heterosexual behavior as such. There is much sex abuse amongst heterosexuals. The biological basis is spontaneous reproduction not very different from a cat or dog. On this basis there is no such thing as heterosexual behavior other than species reproduction. Homosexuality is learned behavior. One does not learn to reproduce as such. This is rather obvious. Society evolves rituals and traditions to ensure survival of species. Homosexuality is not a biological impulse. Sex is a spontaneous biological impulse, even if one concedes that there can exist a genetic disposition toward homosexuality. One has to learn not to have sex as reproduction with the opposite species, once the survival imperative is ritualized and made an institution. What consenting adults do in their secual intimacy is their business, but reproduction - heterosexual behavior, is not learned behavior or we would not exist. :-) Let's think out process logic so we understand what juncture of history we
Re: the next wedge issue
In a message dated 11/21/03 2:21:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that the debate with Melvin has gone on long enough. Let's callit finished.--Michael PerelmanEconomics DepartmentCalifornia State UniversityChico, CA 95929 Sorry I sent another article before I read this post. The debate is with the working class and its politics. Who represents whom and what issues and how. I will not develop the thesis here but no one even tried to speak to the wedge issue other than I. Mind boggling. Melvin P
Re: the next wedge issue
As far as I am concerned, Justin's position is correct. What people always forget in these disputes about reformism and revolutionism is that the classical debates about this topic, which occurred in Europe, between Kautsky, Bernstein, Lenin, Luxemburg and so on, took place in a historical context in which there were fast-growing mass social democratic parties and trade unions campaigning actively for social reforms which benefited the working class, and the leftwing Marxist current within the social democracy sought to shift this reformism towards a more radical, revolutionary politics. That is how those debates arose. But these days, if you don't even have any mass movement campaigning actively and democratically for social reforms and able to make gains, then this whole dispute is irrelevant, it skips over the question how you get masses of people to participate politically about basic questions that concern them and their lives. You could of course try to stereotype people and stigmatise people as reformist while considering yourself very revolutionary, but that just shows that you don't know how to take people a step further, and bring them round to a more radical point of view. Such an attitude implies a labelling theory of socialism, but a labelling theory of socialism doesn't work, because people change over time, they evolve and develop their ideas and practice, and therefore somebody who seems very radical today might be reformist in the future, and vice versa, somebody who seems reformist today might be revolutionary in the future. If you label and write them off now, you make it much more difficult to work with them in the future - best to say positively where you stand yourself, now. I have come across many people who thought of themselves as super-radical, and then later they had to tone things down, and they don't do very much, and their old reformist enemies actually achieve far more for ordinary folks in winning battles for civil rights, pay and conditions, i.e. have far more effect. Making ultraleftist propaganda is not much of a skill, the skill is in winning real political influence and having a real positive effect, and you don't do that by pontificating about sexual relations. These days, the communicative sophistication of people is very great and they realise that anybody can say anything about anything, but what they look at, is whether you can actually solve a problem for them. I don't say I am good at it really, I am more concerned with my own problems just now, but that is the way it is. As regards Melvin, I think he's basically a good guy, he just doesn't have enough experience of socialist gay or lesbian people, that is all, and if he did, he wouldn't talk that way. Personally, gay and lesbian friends helped me out a lot quite a few times, and so I would never run down anybody like that, quite apart from my belief that every adult must have the right to make their own sexual decisions, what happens to their own body. My experience was that people who had been through hell to sort out their sexuality knew far more about it, than some heterosexual dilletante wanting to make rules for the sex lives of other adults. Anyway, in places like Amsterdam, San Fransisco, New York and Sydney, if you rave on with homophobic cant, you can book a pack of problems, and the fact is, just because somebody is gay or straight, it doesn't tell you much about the person, other than giving you a clue about how to relate. There is little point in sitting in on judgement about the sex lives of other adults outside of a court of law, in cases of sexual offences, because unless you are in the sexual relationship yourself, you can rarely objectively judge the nature of the relationship anyhow, you basically have to be in the relationship yourself to understand it - unless you think you are God. Many people seek to discover and exploit the vulnerability of others, there is lots of voyeurism these days and so on, both harmless and harmful, but that is just to say that people want to appropriate and control the intimacy they haven't really got themselves, and haven't created, pretty sad really. The focus is on sex, but the real problem lies in the negotiation of the intimacy that you really want. Therefore if you focus obsessively on sex and sexual politics, you miss the real problems of human relations in the society we live in, which are at best reflected in some way way through sex. Biological urges in a human being are inseparable from his personality, and that personality is formed within social relations, those relations involve the interactions of giving and getting, taking and receiving, and therefore a narrow focus on sex abstracts from all sorts of cultural dimensions that need to be looked at, and the economic basis of that culture. Jurriaan
Nitzan on oil
On November 20, two explosions rattled Istanbul, pushing the price of oil up to $32/bbl. Eventually, the rally receded: It's hard to sustain prices at this level,'' said Marshall Steeves, an analyst with Refco Group Ltd. in New York. There has to be a constant stream of unsettling news items to justify crude oil above $30.'' (see the full Bloomberg article) According to both the neocon plans and their left-wing critiques, this is not what was supposed to happen. The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq were designed, at least in part, as the first step toward regaining control over Middle East oil. The aim was to finally relieve capitalism from the saboteurs in OPEC and to make energy cheap, so that capitalism could continue its expanded reproduction. Obviously, this plan is not working very well. The Middle East remains unstable as always (if not more). And the price of oil keeps rising (see the two charts below). Most analysts view the current chaos as entirely unintended. The more optimistic hope the crisis will soon be resolved. The pessimists talk about entanglement. Had the American known what was in store for them, perhaps they would have thought twice before stepping into the Iraqi trap. And maybe many in the American Administration were dumb enough to be so misguided and careless. But certainly many more were not. George Bush Sr., for one, knew full well what the consequences would be (read about it). Many of his friends in the CIA and the military knew it too. Even we knew it. Indeed, anyone who knew anything about the current Middle East would have realized that a liberating army would make for sitting ducks. With no regular army to fight against, and being unable to retaliate against a supposedly supportive population, the soldiers can do nothing more than sit and wait to be fired upon. And as the attacks mount, perceptions of instability substitute for stability, and the price of oil keeps creeping up. It seems that America had shot itself in the foot. Or had it? Perhaps there is an upside to regional instability and higher oil prices? To read more, click on the following links: It's All About Oil Dominant Capital and the New Wars Ch. 6 in The Global Political Economy of Israel -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Berrigan bros.
Michael brought the Berrigans up in the Thread-That-Will-Not-Be-Named. I'd like to underline that point, even though it was only originally mentioned in the context of Catholics and that dogma (and all its facets, liberation theology, etc.). Raised a Catholic, I appreciate reading about what they did, specifically, in terms of their own group conflict (with other members of their community). The ability to understand where the Berrigans were coming from, or anyone else offering to ally, it's at the heart of everything. We are enormously complex beings, and we speak to different constituencies all the time. We change things more by interacting with others, finding common ground -- and creating numbers -- than pointing out, loudly, where we differ. Doesn't mean you conform to their opinions, it just means you shut the fuck up sometimes. :) These are social behavior rules. I know there are differences in local cultures, so maybe we differ... but I have never, in my wildest moments of defiance, gotten in someone's face -- offending them directly in their self-respect, dignity. (And I don't mean email lists, I mean life.) But the preachers who offend directly are invariably non-social beings. Sitting alone and writing ideological arguments. Not tempered by interaction. We are all grown-ups, self-controlled, and we can ally with anything we want without feeling we sell out ourselves in the process. The party line was a tool in an era of poor communications. When you have the pony express, you need to have strongly stated guidelines, because the news never comes. Today, the news never stops. I can see an army of influences in history who have made positive contributions to our world. I appreciate 'em all. None were pure. Nor are any of you. Ken. P.S. I am, though. -- I would have it written of me on my stone: I had a lover's quarrel with the world. -- Robert Frost
Re: Berrigan bros.
Although the thread degenerated, one point I appreciated was Melvin's ability to transcend his abhorrance of gay sex to show solidarity with a gay worker. Almost everybody had useful contributions to the thread, amidst the heat and excessive verbiage. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Nitzan on oil
Haven't read Nizan yet, but maybe the Iraq campaign was more of a Goldfinger move. Remember Goldfinger? He wanted to render all the gold in Fort Knox radioactive so that _his_ gold would be worth more. One view of the war holds that it was over control of oil. This translates in a lot of people's minds into a simple we'll grab the oil and sell it scenario. But add this little twist, that with the military situation deteriorating, the domestic oil that is still under the control of the Texan oilers...will be worth more. Add to this the squeeze the American working class (through direct and indirect taxation) ploy to fund the reconstruction -- which is nothing more than handing out money to various domestic cronies to pay themselves to do what the Iraqis could have done for 1/10th the cost...and you have a script that plays out pretty well for the Bush cronies...no matter how the war turns out. In other words, the neo-cons are serving the interests of a fairly small slice of capitalists, which is probably more the reason they will be defeated than due to the efforts of any large-scale, organized, leftist/democratic opposition. Joanna Michael Perelman wrote: On November 20, two explosions rattled Istanbul, pushing the price of oil up to $32/bbl. Eventually, the rally receded: It's hard to sustain prices at this level,'' said Marshall Steeves, an analyst with Refco Group Ltd. in New York. There has to be a constant stream of unsettling news items to justify crude oil above $30.'' (see the full Bloomberg article) According to both the neocon plans and their left-wing critiques, this is not what was supposed to happen. The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq were designed, at least in part, as the first step toward regaining control over Middle East oil. The aim was to finally relieve capitalism from the saboteurs in OPEC and to make energy cheap, so that capitalism could continue its expanded reproduction. Obviously, this plan is not working very well. The Middle East remains unstable as always (if not more). And the price of oil keeps rising (see the two charts below). Most analysts view the current chaos as entirely unintended. The more optimistic hope the crisis will soon be resolved. The pessimists talk about entanglement. Had the American known what was in store for them, perhaps they would have thought twice before stepping into the Iraqi trap. And maybe many in the American Administration were dumb enough to be so misguided and careless. But certainly many more were not. George Bush Sr., for one, knew full well what the consequences would be (read about it). Many of his friends in the CIA and the military knew it too. Even we knew it. Indeed, anyone who knew anything about the current Middle East would have realized that a liberating army would make for sitting ducks. With no regular army to fight against, and being unable to retaliate against a supposedly supportive population, the soldiers can do nothing more than sit and wait to be fired upon. And as the attacks mount, perceptions of instability substitute for stability, and the price of oil keeps creeping up. It seems that America had shot itself in the foot. Or had it? Perhaps there is an upside to regional instability and higher oil prices? To read more, click on the following links: It's All About Oil Dominant Capital and the New Wars Ch. 6 in The Global Political Economy of Israel -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Unsubscribe please
I did not oppose Gay marriage and I do not have to agree with anyone on the politics of maneuver. I oppose the state and my statements are very clear. Although I abhor homosexuality I have never raised it as an issue but responded to the politics of entrapment by the bourgeoisie. The list is a little to smart and enlightened for me and I thought questions had a social. Political, economic and historical context. Allow me the dignity of expelling myself. I abhor homosecxuality and this is the same as being called a nigger. Thanks for the laughs. Melvin P.
Re: the next wedge issue
ravi wrote: what is the working class, in terms of unique characteristics or use characteristics that help lend it definition? i am truly puzzled: i go to work each day. i am part of the yuppie privileged class. there's a guy wearing a union t-shirt who installs furniture in my building. am i in the working class? is he? are we both in the same class? what about my boss's boss's boss, who has a few million dollars in his bank? what about the guy pulling ice in the sweltering heat in madras (pedalling a three-wheel cycle), starting at maybe 5am and finishing up some time in the night. what about the wife he goes home and beats up when she returns from working at three houses as a maid? My own, perhaps simplistic view, has it that if you have to work to live, you belong to the working class. Folks who don't have to work for a living, like capitalists and beggars, do not belong to the working class (...though I admit, the question is much more complicated in the case of beggars). It's interesting,in this regard, to note that all fictional plots involving the rich and the poor changing places, always have a capitalist trade places with a beggar...not a worker. Now, of course, it's very important to keep the working class as divided as possible (cause there's so many of them, they could get dangerous), so you stress divisions based on race, gender, nations, and relative income. When you look at the number of hours your average privileged yuppie works, the stress, the ulcers...the fact that when he/she returns to their expensive homes at night, they don't actually have the energy to enjoy their relative material advantage, it makes you wonder whether that privilege extends any farther than the yuppie's psychological satisfaction at being above other workers. I was watching Michael Apted's series of movies ( 7 and up, 14 and up, 21 and up, 28 and up...) in which he examines the life of a dozen or so people from various backgrounds (blue collar/professional), and it's really striking, on the whole, how much saner and happier, the blue collars are compared to the professionals. In fact, the only privileged type that wound up happy at all, was a guy (from a rich family) who crossed privilege boundaries, by becoming a a teacher. I also take deep umbrage (I've always wanted to use that phrase) at your characterizing the tonga driver as a wife beater. The notion that the poorer part of the working class is more violent is very untrue in my experience. There's plenty of domestic violence among the privileged; the only diff is that it seldom, if ever, lands them in jail. They're more likely to get away with it. They're also more likely to get away with theft, tax evasion, sexual abuse, drug abuse, rape and the like. So, h, I'm wondering what the real issue is here? Is it that there's no such thing as the working class? Is it that powerlessness is so shameful that no one wants to own up to being a memeber of the working class? Is it about how images have been created and manipulated to make sure that the working class is eternally warring against itself rather than its masters? You decideI'll follow. Joanna
Fiction: Rich and poor
Joanna wrote: It's interesting,in this regard, to note that all fictional plots involving the rich and the poor changing places, always have a capitalist trade places with a beggar...not a worker. Today, yes, often so. Not always so... One of my fave old movies is the Devil and Miss Jones... With a very sexy Jean Arthur as a retail clerk with a unionizing boyfriend. Evil boss goes to work in the shoe department to weed out unionists and meets her. Very funny (What's a doomsday book?). But that was a rare moment in U.S. film history. Ken. -- Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. -- John Maynard Keynes
Re: the next wedge issue
joanna bujes wrote: I also take deep umbrage (I've always wanted to use that phrase) at your characterizing the tonga driver as a wife beater. The notion that the poorer part of the working class is more violent is very untrue in my experience. There's plenty of domestic violence among the privileged; the only diff is that it seldom, if ever, lands them in jail. They're more likely to get away with it. They're also more likely to get away with theft, tax evasion, sexual abuse, drug abuse, rape and the like. you are right. i mentioned the wife-beating not to reinforce the stereotype but to show how i see these different classes of problems (i.e., homophobia, worker exploitation, alienation, domestic violence, etc) as similar but not necessary on the basis of class or working class, but i did not express that too well. in response to melvin's response to my post: the biological basis of heterosexuality and tying it to darwinistic urge to reproduce is incomplete and incorrect. survival is ensured through various means and not achieved merely through the act of putting your penis into your wife. homosexual behaviour has been observed and documented in various social animals, and there are multiple scenarios where multisexuality (i am sure there is a better word) can be passed down and even have an advantage. what is learnt and what is genetic is and how they relate with each is less simplistic than implied. i would like to get into more detail on both counts, but for MP's shutdown of the thread -- i will respond to any messages sent to me off-list. --ravi
Re: Fiction: Rich and poor
Maybe you mean domesday book [TR Introduction] The first approach to a modern assessment roll or cataster is the well known Domesday Book. The existing literature on this remarkable memorial is so extensive, that it has not appeared advisable to quote largely from it. Our first quotation contains the instructions issued to the Commissioners who made the record. The second is a specimen return. There is a wide variety in the returns, though certain factors recur constantly in each statement. The survey is the most extensive document, embracing as it does the entire area of England held by the Conqueror, which we possess in regard to medieval times. It is important to note how the feudal power as founded by William is no longer dependent like the Empire of Charles upon the personal estates of the crown, but brings the entire land under its influence through the feudal dues, and thus paves the way for the modern state founded upon the obligations of all its citizens. Joanna Kenneth Campbell wrote: Joanna wrote: It's interesting,in this regard, to note that all fictional plots involving the rich and the poor changing places, always have a capitalist trade places with a beggar...not a worker. Today, yes, often so. Not always so... One of my fave old movies is the Devil and Miss Jones... With a very sexy Jean Arthur as a retail clerk with a unionizing boyfriend. Evil boss goes to work in the shoe department to weed out unionists and meets her. Very funny (What's a doomsday book?). But that was a rare moment in U.S. film history. Ken. -- Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. -- John Maynard Keynes
Re: Fiction: Rich and poor
Maybe you mean domesday book No, no... I know that Norman accounting tax grab census you mention... I mean the Doomsday Book... you have to see his evil plot to get her comment. And I think, really, the idea of the Corporate Boss hiding in the shoe department, scribbling about unionists in his Doomsday Book is probably a good shot at property-holders (which is what the domesday book was about). Ken. -- The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. -- Samuel Johnson
Re: the next wedge issue
At 11:48 AM -0500 11/21/03, Louis Proyect wrote: What I said is that if Melvin made remarks at a branch meeting like he made here, he'd be brought up on charges. I know for a fact that lots of older SWP'ers, especially factory workers, felt threatened by woman's and gay liberation but they had the common sense to keep their prejudiced remarks to themselves. Sadly, it was only in the late 1970s after the SWP made its infamous turn that members' private thinking began to become an issue. This is what helped to destroy the CP in fact. In the late 1940s, as the witch-hunt took shape, they made a big point of hounding out members who might have had weak understandings of the woman or Negro question despite remaining silent on those questions in party meetings, etc. It seems easier to attack sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. when a movement is on a forward march, so to speak -- a political movement that has already begun to lose and become defensive (as in the late 1940s and late 1970s) is probably unable to confront what it must and will confront without splitting itself. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Norman Solomon responds
Dear Louis, Thanks for your letter. I think you make some good points. When I talk about this, I like to say that the U.S. and U.K. should recuse themselves (as aggressor nations) from U.N. decision-making on Iraq. I agree the rest of the Security Council is hardly pure as to motives, yet the situation would I think be much better if the U.S. and Britain got totally out of Iraq -- militarily and diplomatically... Best wishes, Norman Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Fiction: Rich and poor
At 7:46 PM -0500 11/21/03, Kenneth Campbell wrote: It's interesting,in this regard, to note that all fictional plots involving the rich and the poor changing places, always have a capitalist trade places with a beggar...not a worker. Today, yes, often so. Not always so... One of my fave old movies is the Devil and Miss Jones... With a very sexy Jean Arthur as a retail clerk with a unionizing boyfriend. Evil boss goes to work in the shoe department to weed out unionists and meets her. Very funny (What's a doomsday book?). But that was a rare moment in U.S. film history. Fritz Lang's _Metropolis_ has the only son (Freder) of the biggest industrialist (Jon Frederson), smitten with an angelic and virginal working-class woman reformer (Maria), descend from the heavenly paradise of the rich and idle to take the place of a laborer in the subterranean hell of working-class toil. Freder emerges from the hell as the mediator between capital and labor, having rescued his beloved from the evil scientist (Rotwang) and saved the working class from the seductive android created by Rotwang in the likeness of Maria, the mechanical agitator who escaped the control of her creator and incited toilers to revolution. -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Fiction: Rich and poor
In the broadway musical Urinetown the protagonist is a working class man fighting to overthrow the evil company that regulates the only toilets in the area. Then again he does get thrown off of a building before the story is over. But not without first inspiring the CEO's daughter to do what's right and revolt against her own father, letting all members of the city use the toilets whenever they want.
Re: Fiction: Rich and poor
Fritz Lang's _Metropolis_ has the only son (Freder) of the biggest industrialist (Jon Frederson), smitten with an angelic and virginal working-class woman reformer (Maria), descend from the heavenly paradise of the rich and idle to take the place of a laborer in the subterranean hell of working-class toil. Freder emerges from the hell as the mediator between capital and labor, having rescued his beloved from the evil scientist (Rotwang) and saved the working class from the seductive android created by Rotwang in the likeness of Maria, the mechanical agitator who escaped the control of her creator and incited toilers to revolution. a classic film. In the end, Freder is the heart, which according to Maria, is needed between the brain [the capitalists, Frederson] and the hands [the workers]. It's a clear statement of Christian Democracy, complete with Christian symbolism. (Of course, the fake Maria is the agent provacateur.) Jim
bombings in Turkey
From: Sebnem Oguz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Middle East Socialists Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] ,Discussions on the Socialist Register and its articles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [MESN] Fw: Terror blasts in Istanbul :atrocities aid Bush's war on terror Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:40:04 -0500 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/turk-n21.shtml By Justus Leicht and Peter Schwarz 21 November 2003 On Thursday, the Turkish capital of Istanbul with its 12 million inhabitants was rocked by violent explosions for the second time within the space of a few days. Bombs exploded in front of the British consulate in the Istanbul district of Beyoglu and before a branch of the major Anglo-Asian bank HSBC, situated in the Levent district of the city. Initial reports speak of 27 dead and over 450 injured. The casualty figures will very likely increase. Amongst the dead is the British Consul General in Istanbul, Roger Short. Witnesses spoke of a bloodbath. An employee of the German Goethe Institute, which has its offices just 100 metres from the British consulate, spoke to Spiegel-Online of people covered in blood on the streets. A delivery van drove into the British consulate, and there followed a violent explosion. The bomb set off in front of the HSBC bank shook a nearby shopping centre that was packed with thousands of ordinary citizens, both Turks and tourists. Two similar attacks were carried out last Saturday morning against the synagogues of Beth Israel and Neve Schalom. The latter is the largest synagogue in Istanbul. It is situated on a busy street that was filled with observers on the Sabbath, the Jewish day of rest. The two bomb blasts took 24 lives. Most of those killed were Muslims, who were employed as security personnel in nearby mosques or worked in nearby shops. Over 300 were wounded in the explosions. Turkish authorities and representatives of the Israeli, British and American governments immediately assigned responsibility for both series of bombings to Al Qaeda. On Thursday, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw made a press statement blaming Al Qaeda for that day's blasts before the dust had even settled on the sites of the explosions. Later, an anonymous person called the Turkish news agency Anadolu to claim that Al Qaeda and the Turkish Islamist group IBDA-C (Warriors Front for an Islamic Great Middle East) were responsible for the bombings. The caller said the attacks on Thursday were the result of a joint action by the two groups. The group IBDA-C also claimed responsibility for the earlier synagogue attacks. Some time later on Thursday, an Arabic newspaper received an email in which a group affiliated with Al Qaeda named The Martyrs Brigade of Abu Hafs el Masri also claimed responsibility for the attacks. Turkish authorities assert that on the basis of genetic tests they have been able to definitively establish the identity of the two suicide bombers from last Saturday. They are alleged to be two Turkish men from the eastern city of Bingöl who have links to radical Islamist groups. The television channel NTV claims that one of the men had travelled to Iran on six occasions to receive training as an explosives expert. However, the reports that have been issued up to now are full of contradictions. The Turkish interior minister, Abdulkadir Aksu, said that claims of responsibility by IBDA-C were not credible. He said no Turkish organisation was in a position to carry out attacks of such a magnitude. This raises the question, however, how it was possible for foreigners to smuggle such large amounts of explosive into Turkey, and then situate and explode the bombs almost simultaneously at two different locations. Some security experts have expressed doubts regarding the participation of Al Qaeda. The Turkish Daily News quoted the Israeli anti-terror expert Boaz Ganor, who said, At this time (there is) no indication of Al Qaeda involvement. Mustafa Alani from London's Royal United Services Institute told Reuters: There is no history of Al Qaeda operating in Turkey. It's very hard to say Al Qaeda is involved in this attack. I think the activities of Al Qaeda now are concentrated on two states-Saudi Arabia and Iraq. It remains unclear who is really responsible for the terror attacks in Istanbul. On the other hand, it is very clear that the attacks come at a highly opportune moment for both the American and British governments, as well as sections of the Turkish military. Against a background of growing resistance to the occupation of Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush used the bloodbath in Istanbul to justify the terror they are carrying out against the Iraqi people. At a joint press conference on Thursday held only a few hours after the attack on the British consulate, President Bush vowed to finish the job we have begun, and Blair stated: I can assure you of one thing: that when something like this happens today, our response is not to flinch or give way or concede one inch.
Senate Committee Tasks Army with Morale Review after Stripes' Report
* Friday, November 21, 2003 Senate committee tasks Army with morale review after Stripes' report By Patrick J. Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED], Stars and Stripes European edition, Saturday, November 22, 2003 WASHINGTON - The Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday tasked the Army with providing a point-by-point assessment of Stars and Stripes' recent Ground Truth series, in which a significant number of troops in Iraq were laboring under difficult conditions and said morale was low. Committee Chairman Sen. John Warner, R-Va., told Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee, I think it's important that you submit to the record a point-by-point perspective as to [Stripes'] findings, and how those findings coincide or do not coincide with information that you have in your profession. Brownlee and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker appeared before the full committee to testify on a number of topics. Warner opened the hearing expressing concerns that while a level of dissatisfaction is part of an arduous military life, the level of griping raises some alarms. And we'll learn from you today exactly what corrective measures and how you've examined the root causes and hopefully eliminated some of those problems. Warner noted in particular issues concerning the equitable availability of services, such as mail, PX facilities, e-mail and phones, as well as different standards between the Army and the Air Force, which he said he witnessed firsthand. These issues and others were covered in the series, which ran in mid-October. It resulted from Stripes reporting on conditions and morale among troops in Iraq, 2,000 of whom responded to a lengthy questionnaire. When that Stars and Stripes article came out, Warner said, it caused a considerable jolt among the ranks here in the Congress. SASC spokesman John Ullyot said it's a common procedure to ask those testifying to provide more detail. That is a written communication to the committee offering a more detailed answer than is possible in a hearing setting, he said, and added there was no specific deadline. It's understood that it's 'as quickly as possible,' within limits required for further research, Ullyot said. Senator Warner believes this is valuable information that Stars and Stripes was able to bring into the debate, and is interested in pursuing this. We'll be following up directly with the secretary of the Army on that. The Army was looking at the request and needed to figure out how to staff it, according to one Army official. We will provide a timely, appropriate and objective response to the committee's request, added Army spokesman Lt. Col. Jeremy Martin. Warner pointed out that 34 percent of those who filled out the questionnaire rated morale as low or very low. In his testimony, Schoomaker had a different appraisal of soldiers. They are smart, morale is solid, and they are proud of their service and what they accomplished. They understand why we are deployed in places that we are. They know why we're there. There is an intensity of focus and a dogged determination to succeed that is absolutely extraordinary. Troop safety Brownlee and Schoomaker answered pointed questions on a range of topics dealing with the war in Iraq. Brownlee said it could take until summer 2005 for the Army to have enough up-armored Humvees, which are modified to better withstand the potentially fatal blast of a land mine or other ordnance. He said the Army is hoping to speed up the process by examining options for putting armor on existing vehicles. Senators pressed him to move quickly. I don't think we can accept an '05 deadline, Warner said. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., questioned whether Humvee manufacturing lines were running 24 hours a day. It is inconceivable that with our manufacturing capability that we cannot produce that kind of a vehicle more rapidly and replace it, he said. Brownlee said he understood plants were operating at capacity and were trying to open new production lines. Regarding the shortage of body armor, Brownlee said the Army has increased production to the maximum rate the industrial base is capable of. At the current rate of production, all soldiers and contractors should have the armor by the end of December, he said. The helicopter anti-missile defenses came under scrutiny after a CH-47D Chinook transport helicopter was shot down Nov. 2 in Iraq, killing 16 soldiers. It did not have the most advanced defensive systems available, though it did have a standard package of defensive chaff and flares. Brownlee said the Army will equip Chinooks that are in Iraq or headed to Iraq. But he said it takes three weeks to rewire a helicopter and the Army can't remove all from service at once. He did not say how long the process would take. - The Associated Press contributed to this report. http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104article=18838 * Eric W Cramer, Brownlee, Schoomaker address Senate Armed Services Committee:
beltway backlash on farm states pork
washingtonpost.com Tired of Plain Greed And Subsidies By Steven Pearlstein Friday, November 21, 2003; Page E01 A message to my fellow Americans who chose to live where the wheat waves, the buffalo roam and most rites of passage still involve a pickup truck: I'm sick and tired of having my pocket picked by your two-faced politicians who talk a good game about self-reliance and limited government, and then go behind closed doors and threaten to hold up every piece of legislation unless they get another truckload of subsidies to prop up your uncompetitive businesses and inefficient lifestyles. You folks have become nothing more than welfare queens in overalls. What am I talking about? Let's start with the so-called energy bill, a monument to rural selfishness and greed. As if $15 billion to $20 billion a year in farm subsidies weren't enough, now you want to double the amount of subsidized ethanol that is required to be used as an additive for gasoline, ostensibly so we can have cleaner air here in the big city. Thanks but no thanks, Elmer. And then there are the billions more to finance the unending search for ways to turn coal into a clean fuel. Could you please explain why the coal industry is so special that it deserves to have its research and development paid for by taxpayers -- particularly us taxpayers downwind who have to continue to breathe dirty air because of the environmental waivers tucked into this energy boondoggle? Back in the 1930s, we city folk helped pay to bring electricity out to your farms and subsidize your hydroelectric dams. And what thanks do we get? We get your guys killing a plan by federal regulators to finally bring some sense to a balkanized national transmission grid -- a plan that could help prevent New York City blackouts and lower electric rates in urban areas by injecting some competition into the market. Then there is the Medicare bill, which was supposed to be about providing drug benefits to seniors but wound up being yet another chance to whine about the plight of country doctors and hospitals. Although the cost of providing medical service is actually lower out there in God's country, that hasn't stopped your guys from squeezing $25 billion more from the federal treasury over the next decade to pad Medicare payments to rural providers. Down in Miami, meanwhile, U.S. trade negotiators have decided to sell urban manufacturers and service firms down the river so that millionaire farmers won't have to face the realities of global competition, like every other American worker. The aim of the talks is to create a free-trade zone from Canada all the way down to Chile. But for Brazil and Argentina -- the key countries, from the point of view of U.S. exporters -- there's no incentive to open up their markets unless they can effectively sell their lower-cost sugar, cotton, beef and citrus here. The United States refuses even to talk about such possibilities, thanks to the stranglehold farmers have over our trade policy. So what we're left with is some really terrific agreements with Ecuador and the Dominican Republic. But the one I really love is the proposal to have the government bribe tobacco farmers to give up the price supports that have subsidized their operations -- and helped ruin the health of millions of Americans -- since 1938. Tobacco farmers consider these quotas personal property that can be bought and sold and passed on to successive generations. But now that demand for tobacco is falling, even the subsidies aren't enough to keep the burly growers in the rural lifestyle to which they are accustomed. So those free-market hypocrites, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, are trying to add a rider to the omnibus appropriations bill that would have the government spend $13 billion to buy out a bunch of quotas and bring production down to levels where it would have been if the government hadn't been subsidizing tobacco in the first place. Funny, but I don't remember McConnell or Dole proposing to buy out the jobs of steel workers or airline mechanics. Don't get me wrong, Elmer. I'm sure it's a wonderful life you've got out there. But if it's so great, then you ought to be prepared to pay for it yourself.
Euro-survey: The flat earth society loses again - additional note on public opinion surveys
I still haven't been able to study the methodology of the EU survey on globalisation, but one point I wanted to add, is that we can of course add up quantified observations which really refer to different things. For example, among other things, on my writing desk I have at the moment: 1. a computer monitor, 2. a keyboard, 3. a PC computing device, 4. a printer, 5. a cup, 6. a packet of drum tobacco, 7. a calculator, 8. a Velvet Underground CD, 9. a book by Thomas Friedman, 10. a red notebook, 11. a book by Studs Terkel, 12. a book by Isaac Deutscher, 13. some writing paper, 14. two visiting cards. 15. a book by George Soros, 16. a lighter, 17. a book by Ernest Mandel, 18. a postcard advertising the movie Divine Intervention If I said, after recording and counting up these observations, I have at least 18 objects on my desk, I would state the truth, because the term objects as aggregation principle could be validly applied to all those things on my desk. But if I said I have at least 18 mechanical devices on my desk then I would not be telling the truth, because although some are, many of the objects on my desk are not mechanical devices, at least not in ordinary language. It could of course be argued that, if I had a certain sort of lifestyle, then all the objects on my writing desk represent mechanical devices in some sense - i.e. there is some relationship between the objects on my desk, and mechanical devices which they symbolise. Nevertheless, if I were to ring up my sister and report I have 18 mechanical devices on my desk she would probably not understand what I mean immediately, or indeed think that I had gone nuts, or at least was repairing my computer. In which case my report is a miscommunication. Suppose that I now do a telephone survey, and I ask respondents how many objects are placed on their kitchen table. I would evoke considerable response burden, because the aggregation principle is not clear - how do we define discrete objects ? If some respondents are a bit blurry or blind, or if they have two kitchen desks, this might add to the response burden. One respondent might ask, do I count both the individual fruits in the fruitbowl, or, for example, do I count the fruitbowl as one object - do I count the pen and the cap of the pen as one object or two objects ? But on the other hand, they might not ask this at all, either because they assume that they know the meaning of the question, or, if they do not know it, they don't want to ask, lest they be considered stupid by the interviewer. In aggregating my telephonically gathered observations, I might therefore get a considerable distortion between the data distribution and the actual situation, exclusively because I asked respondents about objects without specifying distinctions and rules necessary to count them as discrete objects. The same trick of course could be applied when we ask about globalisation. There are many theories and ideas about globalisation, and therefore if I ask people are you in favour of globalisation, or not (which contains the assumption that globalisation is something you can be for or against) I may get a yes or a no answers, but I still do not know what the yes or no refers to, and it might well refer to a variety of things in the minds of respondents. The result might be the finding that the majority of respondents are in favour of globalisation, but I do not know exactly what they are in favour of. This is somewhat analogous to the survey question do you like dogs, or not ? Some respondents may like all dogs, some respondents may not like any dogs, okay, but some respondents might like only some dogs, or only one dog, or only fox terriers, or only pictures or sculptures of dogs but not real dogs, or only the dogs which belong to someone else at a considerable distance, and so on. And so they will understand the question differently, based on their likes and dislikes and their interpretation of the survey question. I would obtain a result that X number of people like dogs, and X number of people do not like dogs, but I do not really know what the result really means, what reality it refers to. Knowing that this is the case, we could design a survey question about globalisation which is guaranteed always to obtain over 90% of respondents in favour of globalisation, and in this way we could manufacture a public opinion in favour of globalisation. The problem however is, that if the discrepancy between survey results and real opinion is too great, people will not longer trust surveys, and refuse to co-operate with them. In that case, the survey research culture would be destroyed by the linguistic communication used. Hence, only a limited amount of conceptual distortion is compatible with survey research, such that the discrepancy between the survey result and real opinion is not too great. You can fool some people all of the time, you can fool all people some of the time, but you cannot fool all people all
Lee Harvey Oswald
Last night PBS Frontline aired a fascinating documentary on Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/). This show would have had a special resonance with members of the Socialist Workers Party, past or present. In the course of his determined but questionable attempts to establish some kind of leftist credentials, Oswald subscribed to the Militant newspaper, the organ of the SWP. In one of the most famous pictures of Oswald, you can see him in his backyard with a rifle in one hand and the Militant newspaper in the other: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/glimpse/. Oliver Stone and other conspiracy theorists argue that the photo is bogus, but I have no reason to question its authenticity. It simply strikes me as just one of a number of gestures on Oswald's part to look like some kind of leftist, but with the predictable wrong note--in this case, holding the rifle that killed JFK in all likelihood. When I applied for membership in the SWP in 1967, it was only 4 years after the assassination of JFK and the events were still very much alive in the party leadership's mind. After I received a notice to report to the draft board for a physical, a meeting was set up between Ed Shaw, the branch organizer in NYC, and me. He was to explain the party's proletarian military policy to me. In 1967 this meant trying to find a way to avoid going into the army, although not out of any moral opposition. We were simply more valuable on the outside. Eventually some SWP'ers did go in and made a big free speech stink about the right to have antiwar discussions at Fort Jackson. From that point on, the draft tended to pass us by. Ed was a lot different than any of the party leaders who would eventually assume the mantle of leadership. He was a merchant seaman during WWII and sported a large tattoo on his bicep. He was also plainspoken and endowed with a salty wit. During the course of our meeting, the question of the Kennedy assassination came up. Ed said that when he returned to his Washington Heights apartment the day of the assassination, shortly after an APB had gone out for Oswald, his building was surrounded by cops looking for him. I seem to remember Ed saying that Lee Harvey Oswald actually applied for membership, but was turned down because he gave out all sorts of wrong signals. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which the SWP played a key role in forming, also kept its distance from Oswald. As the PBS website points out: He shows an interest in guns. But Marxist politics are still his ruling passion and his hero is Fidel Castro. He writes to the leading pro-Castro group in the U.S., the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC), offering to start a New Orleans chapter. The committee discourages him, but he ignores them and begins printing his own pro-Castro leaflets and phony membership cards. He asks Marina to help him disguise the fact that he is the only member of his organization. I can only say that I am not surprised that Frontline can state that Marxist politics are Oswald's ruling passion since PBS has only the foggiest notion of what Karl Marx stood for. If hero worship for Fidel Castro and brandishing firearms is supposed to amount to Marxism, I guess I was wasting my time reading all that Leon Trotsky stuff. There was so much heat on the SWP that party chairman Farrell Dobbs sent Jackie Kennedy a telegram offering his condolences. This defensive and eminently logical move sent youth leader James Robertson into orbit. From his ultraleft perspective, the telegram was something akin to Christopher Hitchens backing the invasion of Iraq. In a couple of years he would bolt from the SWP and start a group called the Spartacist League which is devoted to this kind of batty contrarianism. When I was in the Houston branch of the SWP in 1974, I had the assignment of forum director. Even then I had an appetite for reaching as wide an audience for socialist ideas as possible--something that clashed with the insular culture of the local party leadership. Since the JFK assassination was always a hot topic for Texans, I had the bright idea to invite somebody down from Dallas who gave talks on Zapruder's film, something that he brought with him and which we showed as part of the meeting. He gave a talk that was in the spirit of Oliver Stone's movie. Afterwards our branch organizer Stu Singer spoke. He made the obvious points about JFK being a capitalist politician who would have dragged us into Vietnam if he had lived, etc., but in such a strident and obnoxious way that anybody considering socialism would have probably run the opposite direction after his presentation. Last night's documentary tried to straddle rival interpretations of Oswald. Gerald Posner, who wrote a book titled Case Closed, defended the findings of the Warren Commission. To the show's credit, it did not give a platform to some of the more kooky conspiracy theorists like Mark Lane. It also came up with
