Yet another oligarch gets targeted?
It's like open season on Russian billionaires or something. Jeez, how many are left? Business Day (South Africa) May 3, 2004 Writing in the snow for Norilsk Nickel By John Helmer In the snow, Russian peasants still say, the law is like a sleigh. A clever judge can steer it either way. Vladimir Potanin, controlling shareholder of Norilsk Nickel, Russia's largest mining group, should know. In the decade after he acquired the assets that comprise his multibillion-dollar holding Interros he has had his share of success in the courts fighting off legal challenges to his takeovers. His methods, which were accepted by former president Boris Yeltsin, and the size of his wealth, combined with his political clout, have led Potanin to be publicly dubbed one of Russia's oligarchs. And last week he got the message that he might be on the receiving end of Kremlin investigation. A powerful rumour swept Moscow and international markets that he had been called for questioning by the procurator-general, the federal law-enforcement arm of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rumours about the Russian oligarchs are common, but investigation of their business activities by the prosecutors are rare. In two days of share trading, Norilsk Nickel lost more than $2bn in market capitalisation. In the past two weeks, it has shed $4,5bn. The federal prosecutors first issued a refusal to confirm or deny the rumour. Then one said in carefully chosen words that currently we don't have information that Potanin has been in our office. That left open a map of other geographical possibilities for the get-together, and it left an ominous warning for Potanin as well as CEO Mikhail Prokhorov and Norilsk Nickel. Not that this was the first warning they have received. In February Putin intervened to halt the implementation of a law, which he had earlier signed into effect. If implemented, it would have allowed Norilsk Nickel to declassify hitherto state secret data on reserves, production, sales and stocks of platinum group metals. This data release, promised for early this year, is one of the requirements for Norilsk Nickel and its two controlling shareholders to offer the company shares on western stock exchanges, or for Potanin to swap his shares for another internationally listed company. But state opposition to opening up the company to foreign buyers blocked the legislative move. It was rushed through parliament. But the president was preoccupied at the time with parliamentary and presidential elections. When Putin later learned what was at stake he changed his mind. When the law was suspended, Potanin was warned that a major cash-out transaction that would transfer sizeable wealth in Norilsk Nickel to foreign hands in return for the offshore enrichment of Potanin would not be permitted. Potanin evidently did not listen. Nor did he pay attention to a second warning, also in February, that blocked the planned issue of a $1bn convertible bond by Interros. That move would have allowed Potanin to take the cash, and leave in the hands of foreign bondholders the right to claim Norilsk Nickel shares. Undeterred, Potanin got the idea of buying into Gold Fields, using mostly borrowed funds; and then later, he told banking associates in Moscow, to merge their gold assets in Norilsk Nickel into a majority takeover of Gold Fields shares. The first deal was thought to be a boon for Anglo American, which had been looking to sell its stake for months. If the Kremlin's shadow falls on Potanin, and he is obliged to sell out of Gold Fields so he can return the money to his motherland, it is unlikely another bank would be keen to agree to join a lending syndicate after Citibank's six-month deadline is reached. If such a scenario unfolded, Citibank may have to demand its money back, and if the scenario unfolded it could lead to a situation where Potanin may have no alternative but to sell out of Gold Fields, quickly. Over the next month, the prosecutors do not have to say any more to make credible their warning that Potanin may not be permitted a cash-out deal. Framing a charge sheet against Potanin, and then compiling a multicount indictment is not necessary for this warning to stick. Besides, there simply are not enough staff to prepare such documents, so heavily are they already committed to the prosecution and coming trials of the two leading Yukos oil group shareholders in prison since last year, Platon Lebedev and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. They are in prison because they tried to cash out a stake of about 40% in Yukos by selling it to ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco. Putin warned them not to; they ignored the warnings. The charges against them, and against Yukos, relate to a myriad of shareholding and cash transfers, tax-avoidance schemes, fraud, and forgery. Since February it seems Potanin may have been courting the same fate. Potanin's biggest concern now is to find out what Putin is really
Military Lawyers Put Tribunals on Trial
According to the New York Times, military lawyers assigned by the Pentagon to defend Guantánamo detainees have been giving an unexpectedly vigorous defense in public, not only in asserting their clients' innocence but also in denouncing the tribunal system as inherently unfair and rigged (Neil A. Lewis, Military Defenders for Detainees Put Tribunals on Trial, May 4, 2004). More on the subject at http://montages.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_montages_archive.html#108367521465731515. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * 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/
The new Iraqi Flag
I know Doug has presented strong arguments against superprofits being used to buy off some of the U.S. working class, but is there none of that at all ? Why is the mass standard of living in the U.S. higher than most other places ? Is it just higher U.S. productivity ? With respect to England at that time, Marx and Engels lamented bourgeoisified workers. Charles From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] Possibly (and very funny), but the thing is, the profits still go to the US. This is a common shorthand, but it is probably best to avoid it. The US is not a profit center, and hence no profits go to the US as such, any more than the riches of India went to England as such. If England included those men, women, children whose lives are summarized in the chapter on the working day in _Capital_, then there is a certain indifference to human suffering in referring to the profit England gained from the Indian empire. The same applies to the US today. I believe that it is worth some clumsiness of language or added verbosity to avoid bunching Walmart employees, the mentally ill living on on disability, and the actual recipients of those profits all under the same label, The US. Carrol
Globalia
NY Times, May 4, 2004 A Doctor Who Also Wields a Pen, Writing of a Brave New World By ALAN RIDING PARIS, May 3 In French literary circles, Jean-Christophe Rufin is definitely an outsider. Trained as a physician, he joined Doctors Without Borders in his 20's; he served two conservative governments as a troubleshooter, and he currently heads a large nonprofit organization, Action Against Hunger. He was 45 before he even tried his hand at fiction. Now 52, his idea of writing is to provide thoughtful entertainment. Most French novelists receive their revelations directly from God or from whatever is up there, he said mischievously. I'm more comfortable with writers of science fiction or thrillers. Yet in just seven years Mr. Rufin has achieved more than most writers. His first two novels, The Abyssinian and The Siege of Isfahan, did well enough to make his name here. In 2001 Brazil Red, to be published in English this summer by W. W. Norton, won the coveted Goncourt Prize and sold 850,000 copies in France. His new novel, Globalia, was on the best-seller list of L'Express for 15 weeks, with sales now exceeding 160,000 copies. What unites these books is Mr. Rufin's fascination with the encounters and misunderstandings between the first and third worlds. While his earlier novels were set in the past, Globalia steps into the future, not exactly as science fiction but as a projection of today's American-dominated world toward what he calls totalitarian democracy. In truth, it's more a description of the present day but seen through a magnifying glass, he said in an interview, noting that he prepared himself by reading Swift, Orwell, Huxley and Boris Vian, the French Surrealist and science fiction writer. Exaggeration of certain existing traits leads toward the absurd, toward extremes. It's a technique of the European philosophical story, but it's also an almost Surrealist approach. Here the future is not created through inventions and gadgets. It is done through human behavior. In the novel Globalia, which embraces much of North America and Europe and parts of Asia, is the political unit that dominates the globe, aspiring to be a perfect world in which organ replacement ensures extraordinary longevity, private companies flourish and social welfare is guaranteed, political and ethnic conflicts have disappeared thanks to the abolition of history. Its motto is Liberty, Security, Prosperity. Globalia's cities and territories are enclosed by bulletproof glass walls and roofs that protect the inhabitants from the impoverished masses who live in nonzones. These outsiders play the critical role of posing the threat that preserves Globalia's cohesion. Blamed for terrorist actions even when Globalia's agents plant the bombs, they provide the fear that persuades Globalians to accept constraints on their freedom and knowledge. The greatest threat to liberty is liberty itself, one Globalian psychologist explains. How do we defend liberty against itself? By increasing security. Security is liberty. Security is protection. Protection is surveillance. Surveillance is liberty. The hero of this novel, a 20-year-old rebel named Bakal Smith, thinks otherwise. He and his girlfriend, Kate, escape the glass bubble over Seattle and enter the nonzones. They are promptly caught, but the authorities have plans for the youths. A good enemy is the key to a balanced society, one power broker notes. We no longer have one. So, returned to the nonzones, Bakal becomes the terrorist monster Globalia needs. While hardly a terrorist, Bakal soon sees Globalia still more clearly. After a bombardment of supposed terrorist villages, for instance, he watches uniformed members of a Global Humanitarian Force arrive with food and medicine for the victims. After the bombings, the Globalians always send help, Bakal's new friend, Fraiseur, tells him. In time Bakal meets a remote community that, like him, is now devoted to overthrowing Globalia. Mr. Rufin acknowledged that Globalia is focused almost entirely on the United States. I didn't want to write an anti-American book, he explained. That's not the idea. Rather, it is to describe the United States as a laboratory, not a country, a democracy with all the trappings of democracy which, through its internal workings, can become extremely dangerous, if not actually totalitarian. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/04/books/04RUFI.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Power of a peace candidate
The Power of a Peace Candidate By Jackson Diehl Washington Post, Sunday, May 2, 2004; Page B07 When Ralph Nader announced his independent candidacy for president in February, he claimed his chief target would be the giant corporation in the White House . . . George W. Bush. Two months later, a more plausible agenda is beginning to emerge. The adversary is not Bush but John F. Kerry; the main subject is not corporate greed but Iraq. And, contrary to the conventional wisdom of win- ter, Nader may be poised for a hot summer. In February it looked as if Iraq might not be a central issue in the fall campaign. U.S casualties hit a postwar low that month, Iraqis signed a transitional constitution, and Bush and Kerry seemed to agree on the goal of establishing a democracy. Nader, according even to old friends, seemed to have no reason for his campaign other than vanity. By two weeks ago, when Nader met Washington political reporters at a breakfast, all that had changed. Twice as many American soldiers had died during the previous week in Iraq as during the entire month of February. Support for the war was dropping quickly in polls, but Kerry and Bush still mostly agreed on staying the course. And Nader had prepared a new pitch: The United States should pull all of its troops, civilian contractors and companies out of Iraq within six months. Why should voters choose Nader? Because Kerry, Nader told the reporters, is stuck in the Iraq quagmire the same way Bush is. That leaves the independent as the sole choice for the peace movement in this country. Polls show the potential constituency for that movement is growing rapidly. A New York Times/CBS poll last week found that 46 percent of Americans now believe the United States should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible -- a number equal to those who agree with Kerry and Bush on sticking it out. The percentage who believed the United States should have stayed out of Iraq had risen by 50 percent since December. Nader's numbers, too, are rising. A Washington Post/ABC News poll showed him at 3 percent in early March, about equal to the 2.8 percent he polled in 2000. Five weeks later he was at 6 percent in the same poll and 5 percent in the New York Times and CNN polls. According to those polls, almost all his support has been drawn from Kerry. Democrats have been hoping that Nader, like Ross Perot, will fade in a second campaign or fail to get on the ballot in many states. But there is no sign that's happening. The campaign recently announced that it had raised $600,000 in its first two months, triple the amount Nader had at this time four years ago and enough to organize around the country. A spokesman told the Associated Press: We're starting to establish ourselves as the only clear antiwar campaign. Nader's Iraq platform is unashamedly that of a candidate who knows he will never be called upon to implement his words. He imagines U.S. troops being replaced with a U.N.-led international peacekeeping force from neutral nations . . . and from Islamic countries, ignoring the fact that the U.N. leadership is as unwilling to conduct such an operation as Islamic and neutral countries (Turkey? Sweden?) would be to man it. As Nader sees it, while those imaginary troops magically restored order in Fallujah and Najaf, free and fair elections would be held. But how would Iraqis agree on a governmental and constitutional framework? Nader admits this will be difficult but says Iraq should be able to sort out these issues more easily without the United States. Americans should provide humanitarian aid and help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, he adds -- but only if no U.S. company is allowed to profit from such work. To the extent this policy could be implemented at all, it's pretty clear where it would lead -- to a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle, to borrow the words of John Kerry. In a speech last December, Kerry stated the obvious: An early and expedient U.S. withdrawal could risk the hijacking of Iraq by terrorist groups and former Baathists. But will Kerry stick to this view if Nader continues to gain ground? Challenged by a pull-out-now heckler a couple of weeks ago, Kerry stiffly replied that it would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America to leave a failed Iraq in its wake. But he also seemed to change his conditions for departure. Stability, not democracy, he said, was the measure for getting our troops out. Kerry's aides say he's still committed to keeping American troops in Iraq until democratic elections are held. If that's his position in November, Nader will indeed offer antiwar Americans a real choice. They may well vote for him, registering their protest in large enough numbers to reelect the president who led the country into Iraq in the first place. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
The Empire Falls Back - Niall Ferguson
Chris probably means there is one "regime" that the U.S.couldn't terminate without having the U.S. regime terminated in retaliation, and so the U.S. is deterred from terminating that regime. Charles ^ There are no contradictions between the statements below.It's not saying only the U.S. can do this. /Joanna Chris Doss wrote: The United States has the capability to inflict appalling destruction while sustaining only minimal damage to itself. There is no regime it could not terminate if it wanted to-including North Korea. --- Why do people keep saying this? One Russian Oskar-class submarine can destroy the Eastern Seaboard. .
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Charles Brown wrote: I know Doug has presented strong arguments against superprofits being used to buy off some of the U.S. working class, but is there none of that at all ? Why is the mass standard of living in the U.S. higher than most other places ? Is it just higher U.S. productivity ? Yeah. Why not? Where do these superprofits from abroad come from, anyway? Which sector, what part of the world? Doug
Democrats' Love Fest with Negroponte
As the scandal of torture at Abu Ghraib unfolded, on Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the nomination of John D. Negroponte as the first U.S. ambassador to post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. Negroponte is expected to be confirmed by the Senate next week (Crucial Bush Envoy Quits for Job at NYSE, Los Angeles Times April 30, 2004). What is more scandalous than the confirmation of the real master of torturers as US ambassador to Iraq, who will head the largest US embassy in the world, with more than 3,000 employees and over 500 CIA officers (Dems Ignore Negroponte's Death Squad Past, Look to Confirm Iraq Appointment, Democracy Now! April 28, 2004) is the Democrats' failure to even raise the question of Negroponte's abysmal human rights record in the Senate . . . . More on the subject at http://montages.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_montages_archive.html#108368164629152929. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * 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: The new Iraqi Flag
One idea is that of unequal exchange. One version of this is as follows: in an imaginary world, labor-power would be totally mobile, as would capital. Thus, wages would be equalized around the world (for workers with similar skills, etc.) But compared to this counterfactual (hypothetical) world, labor-power isn't totally mobile, nor is capital, so that workers in high-productivity areas (the core) can claim higher wages without being undercut by the low wages in the periphery.(Productivity differences arise because capital isn't totally mobile.) Eventually, however, capital will move to the low-wage areas, so this situation is undermined (and to a lesser extent, cheap labor moves north). One might think of the high wage period as being from 1945 to (say) 1975 in the US, while the undermining is since then. In this view, the unequal exchange benefits the core workers at the expense of the periphery workers as a whole. However, both groups of workers are exploited by the capitalists (or, in the periphery, non-capitalist ruling classes). Jim Devine -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 5/4/2004 7:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag Charles Brown wrote: I know Doug has presented strong arguments against superprofits being used to buy off some of the U.S. working class, but is there none of that at all ? Why is the mass standard of living in the U.S. higher than most other places ? Is it just higher U.S. productivity ? Yeah. Why not? Where do these superprofits from abroad come from, anyway? Which sector, what part of the world? Doug
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Charles Brown wrote: I know Doug has presented strong arguments against superprofits being used to buy off some of the U.S. working class, but is there none of that at all ? Why is the mass standard of living in the U.S. higher than most other places ? Is it just higher U.S. productivity ? With respect to England at that time, Marx and Engels lamented bourgeoisified workers. One can say that (part of) the U.S. working class is bourgeoisified, and one can claim that there is a relationship between the u.s. standard of living and imperialism, and betweenthe working-class support for imperialism and that standard of living, _without_ appealing to the (I think fallacious) concept of superprofits. U.S. workers _are_ exploited -- that is, they do _not_ (a) retain their own surplus labor and (b) receive _in addition_ part of the surplus labor produced by workers in China, India, etc. In fact that concept is a barrier to achieving an understanding of the mode of existence of modern capitalism (i.e., imperialism). Lenin Luxemburg were correct in seeing the inseparability of capitalism and imperialism, but the nature of that relationship needs further explication. Carrol
Re: The Empire Falls Back - Niall Ferguson
Bingo. -Original Message- From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:20:25 -0400 Subject: [PEN-L] The Empire Falls Back - Niall Ferguson Chris probably means there is one regime that the U.S.couldn't terminate without having the U.S. regime terminated in retaliation, and so the U.S. is deterred from terminating that regime. Charles ^ There are no contradictions between the statements below.It's not saying only the U.S. can do this. /Joanna Chris Doss wrote: The United States has the capability to inflict appalling destruction while sustaining only minimal damage to itself. There is no regime it could not terminate if it wanted to-including North Korea. --- Why do people keep saying this? One Russian Oskar-class submarine can destroy the Eastern Seaboard. .
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Devine, James wrote: In this view, the unequal exchange benefits the core workers at the expense of the periphery workers as a whole. However, both groups of workers are exploited by the capitalists (or, in the periphery, non-capitalist ruling classes). I have no idea why there is so much controversy around this question, as if saying that North American workers benefit from the super-exploitation of workers in the South is something from the Weathermen. Marx, Engels and Lenin all concurred on this question, as can be documented in Lenin's 1916 Imperialism and the Split in Socialism: On December 7, 1889, Engels wrote to Sorge: The most repulsive thing here [in England] is the bourgeois 'respectability', which has grown deep into the bones of the workers Even Tom Mann, whom I regard as the best of the lot, is fond of mentioning that he will be lunching with the Lord Mayor. If one compares this with the French, one realises, what a revolution is good for, after all. full: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm In a technical sense the Afrikaner bourgeoisie exploited both white and black workers, but what does that mean? Yes, a white diamond-cutter produced surplus value, just as a black miner did but the white worker would likely have a black gardener and maid. These people were the social base of apartheid, just as many southern White small farmers and workers backed slavery. In my opinion, the USA and its wealthier imperialist allies have an apartheid like relationship to the rest of the world. It would be good if a large section of the white working class would begin to understand that the cheap oil that makes their SUV's feasible comes from the blood of Nigerians et al, but it would be best not to have any illusions over the matter. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Statement on Abu Ghraib Atrocities by the Center for Human Rights (Iraqi Communist Party) Iraqi Communist Party Calls for Effective UN Supervision of Human Rights during the Transitional Period The Centre for Human Rights of the Iraqi Communist Party issued a statement condemning the torture of Iraqi detainees in Abu Graib prison by American soldiers of the occupation forces. The statement, dated 2 May 2004, said that this new scandal comes in the aftermath of vicious violations that had been highlighted by international human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, in addition to UN officials, which included the use of excessive force and a policy of collective punishment and siege of cities, as demonstrated in Falluja where hundreds of innocent civilians were killed. ICP statement said that terrorist acts, committed by gangs of the ousted dictatorial regime, including explosions, assassinations and barbaric attacks targeting mainly civilians, have been equally condemned by the Iraqi people. It said that reports about torture of detainees in Abu Graib prison has understandably been received with indignation and condemnation by the Iraqi people who had suffered atrocities by Saddams dictatorship over several decades, and have been looking forward to a dignified life free of any oppression, whether by foreign occupiers, repressive rulers or extremist groups using terror as means to achieve their heinous objectives, with utter disregard for the suffering of innocent civilians who get attacked indiscriminately, including children, women and elderly, spreading fear, and violating their fundamental rights, first and foremost the right to life. The statement reiterated Iraqi Communist Partys commitment to defending human rights in Iraq, and declared support for the call by international human rights organisations for a just, fair and independent investigation of the violations which have been exposed, putting an end to them, and providing legal guarantees for detainees. The Partys Centre for Human Rights called upon the international community, represented by the UN, to stand by our people and their aspiration for ending the occupation, and condemn all forms of violence, terror and oppression which aim at denying them the right to a free and dignified life. It called upon the UN to provide an effective and consistent supervision of the conditions of human rights (in Iraq) during the transitional period, and to support Iraqi peoples legitimate struggle to regain fully their national sovereignty and achieve a democratic regime which respects the values of human rights, justice and law. Posted at PEN-L by Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net http://classwarnotes.blogspot.com _ Mothers Day is May 9. Make it special with great ideas from the Mothers Day Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04mothersday.armx
Putting Radiotheorie into Practice on the Net
Nowadays, most socialist organizations profess to be democratic. Judged by the websites of socialist organizations (including the one of which I am a member), however, our practice of democracy leaves much to be desired, in comparison to the best practice of our anarchist brethren and sistren, for example, Indymedia and Infoshop.org. The main difference between anarchists' and socialists' approaches to the Net, in my opinion, is that the former have developed ways of making use of the potential inherent in the medium -- the possibility of enabling decentralized and interactive communication, for which each activist becomes a direct producer of content and through which activists network with one another -- whereas the latter have continued to use their websites as if they were merely digital versions of print publications. That's a shame. . . . The rest of my thoughts are at http://montages.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_montages_archive.html#108372471868862518. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * 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/
welfare-warfare state
A friend has a question: I have a question for you: what is the welfare-warfare state thesis? I thought it had been advocated by some left faction in the 70s, but also know that Austrian and ultra-rightists talk about this. What do you know about this term? I would be very grateful for any ideas that you may have. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Diversion
The talk about torture is diverting opinion from occupation.. typical Israeli tactic create new facts on the grounds to make old ones go away.. western public opinion is mesmerized by torture because essentially western working classes are benefiting to varying degrees from the subordination of the third world and the increasing differentiation in the international division of labour along national lines. by the time the US and European Jews leave the near east they would have left behind so much destruction and suffering and so little oil for things to matter at all. the problem is not brutality, war in itself is ultimate ugliness and brutality. the problem is the mixing willy-nilly of second hand emotions and morality with events as they occur daily under war offensive and occupation. the occupation of Iraq was not a 'just war' nor will we see 'justice in war.' but in the meantime the 'process' of global instability will make stronger the American economy of dollars, guns and oil. a pragmatic American process stemming from Peirce'swhere truth is that act which is sufficient in objective reality, no less no more, and where by implication a vision any vision or dream of a better worldis casuistry or irrelevantat best. so here you have the efficiency of Hegels dialectic and the dark side of Nietzsche. Can the present philosophy of the US be any different from the hitlerite one, not only on account of killing the dream of a better future but also on the basis of the actual number of casualtiesthe US and its Euro alliesinflicted sine the second world war,I know it is not different for a fact, it may be from the point of view of those who suffer and know the culprit here and now that it is far worse. Do you Yahoo!?Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
There is now an effort from many communist parties to denounce the Iraqi communist party for collaborating with the US in the invasion. It seems that theircollaboration purposely or not with the US and the CIA goes back to their vehement fight against the pan Arab project because the minorities represented inside the communist party feared losing class privileges inside their post colonial countires if and when diluted in the Arab whole. Do you Yahoo!?Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
Re: Diversion
soula avramidis wrote: The talk about torture is diverting opinion from occupation.. typical Israeli tactic create new facts on the grounds to make old ones go away.. western public opinion is mesmerized by torture because essentially western working classes are benefiting to varying degrees from the subordination of the third world and the increasing differentiation in the international division of labour along national lines. I don't think so. The talk of torture -- which is understood to be the reality behind the lies -- is revealing the essentially uncivilized nature of the west to everyone. As for the working classes benefitingHuh? by the time the US and European Jews leave the near east they would have left behind so much destruction and suffering and so little oil for things to matter at all. the problem is not brutality, war in itself is ultimate ugliness and brutality. the problem is the mixing willy-nilly of second hand emotions and morality with events as they occur daily under war offensive and occupation. the occupation of Iraq was not a 'just war' nor will we see 'justice in war.' but in the meantime the 'process' of global instability will make stronger the American economy of dollars, guns and oil. No, actually, it's revealing how weak and incompetent it is. Joanna
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
good./joanna soula avramidis wrote: There is now an effort from many communist parties to denounce the Iraqi communist party for collaborating with the US in the invasion. It seems that their collaboration purposely or not with the US and the CIA goes back to their vehement fight against the pan Arab project because the minorities represented inside the communist party feared losing class privileges inside their post colonial countires if and when diluted in the Arab whole. Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/hotjobs/hotjobs_mail_signature_footer_textlink/evt=23983/*http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
