can you imagine
If Clinton had a failed war -- actually two --, a prison torture scandal, a weak economy can you imagine how the Right would have feasted on him. I am reading Nina Easton's Gang of five, telling the story of how 5 of the leading young Repugs., Norquist, Reed, Kristol, Bolich, and McIntosh organized for the right. Talk about a vangauard party! -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
WP Obtains 1,000 More Images
The Washington Post says it obtained 1,000 more digital pictures of Iraqis under torture and other images: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_montages_archive.html#108382259529189787. The US is becoming exposed as no so much an evil empire as an embarrassing empire. :-0 -- 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: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Michael said: I don't disagree with you, but I cannot see why we should take this group more seriously than Chalabi or other collaborators. We should take them more seriously because --- unlike Chalabi --- they are people who have lived in Iraq under Saddam, (something which no doubt has informed their attitudes to the ex-Ba'ath elements of the resistance) and they therefore have a better understanding of the dynamics of Iraqi society, not to mention a much greater ability to generate popular support. Grant.
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
how do the communist live under the baathist? consider fir ins this syrian joke: when the syrian communist party was allowed an office, the sign on the door said 'the syrian CP, owned by the baath party" but on a more serious note the biggest impedement to any arab cp truly becoming a mass party is its inability to relate culturally to the marginalised and disposessed. Grant Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael said: I don't disagree with you, but I cannot see why we should take this group more seriously than Chalabi or other collaborators.We should take them more seriously because --- unlike Chalabi --- they arepeople who have lived in Iraq under Saddam, (something which no doubt hasinformed their attitudes to the ex-Ba'ath elements of the resistance) andthey therefore have a better understanding of the dynamics of Iraqi society,not to mention a much greater ability to generate popular support.Grant. Do you Yahoo!?Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
Re: People Say I'm Crazy
I took the liberty of forwarding this to an email list trying to promote psychological approaches to schizophrenia and other psychoses. It is relatively strong in New York and I am sure the film would be of interest to some of the members web addresses http://www.isps-us.org/and internationally http://www.isps.org/ Chris Burford - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:57 PM Subject: [PEN-L] People Say I'm Crazy People Say I'm Crazy is a spare but effective documentary about what it means to be a schizophrenic. Dispensing with the kind of melodrama (and dubious medical science) at work in the far more ambitious A Beautiful Mind, it retains the same kind of inspirational value as it tells the story of John Cadigan, a young artist. Like so many others, Madigan experienced his first psychotic break while in college. As an art major at Carnegie-Mellon, he found himself cowering in his room just like John Nash at Princeton. As was the case with Nash, recovery was as much the result of support from friends and family as it was with medication. As it turned out, his sister Katie was a film-maker and she began documenting his struggles at the outset. The film was co-directed by her and John Cadigan and produced by Ira Wohl, who is best-known for the documentary Best Boy, which details the story of his older retarded brother's attempt to adjust to a new group home after the death of his parents. Both films are imbued with a humanitarian spirit that serves to make the most marginal figures in our society less so. With the aid of medication, Cadigan has achieved a certain modicum of self-sufficiency in Berkeley, California where his time is divided between making woodcuts, working in a food pantry for the needy and hanging out with friends who are also afflicted with mental illness. Although it is not well understood by the general population, schizophrenia is not manifested just by psychotic breaks. Even when the sufferer is in a normal state, everyday is an ordeal as black depression and fear threaten to submerge him or her into complete inactivity. For example, when Cadigan is not given a nametag like other volunteers at the food pantry, he immediately begins to think that this is a sign that people hate him. His greatest outlet is his work, which is outstanding by any criterion. (It may be viewed at the film's website at: http://www.peoplesayimcrazy.com.) A few years ago an art show made up of work by people with mental illness was assembled in Washington, DC and Cadigan's work was included. He was also interviewed on NPR's The Morning Edition. This was in a small way the counterpart to John Nash winning the Nobel Prize. Another victory for Cadigan was being accepted into a building designed for people with disabilities in Berkeley, for which, like all such facilities, the demand far exceeds the supply. I was reminded of this in my own building, which is going through a nimby (not in my backyard) outbreak right now. When it was announced that the 3 bedroom apartment down the hall from me was being rented to 5 mentally retarded men with Cerebral Palsy and their two male attendants, a group of tenants began circulating petitions filled with hysterical formulations about the fear factor attached to living in such close quarters to this threat. Eventually I will give the organizers a good piece of my mind. The stigma attached to mental illnesses and retardation is deeply rooted in bourgeois society. It is to the great credit of film-makers like Ira Wohl and Katie Catigan that they attack these prejudices at their heart and make our less fortunate brothers, sisters and neighbors more recognizable. What you will discover in People Say I'm Crazy is a story about the struggle to live a decent life--something we can all identify with. The film is now showing at Cinema Village in NYC. Highly recommended. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Grant: not to mention a much greater ability to generate popular support Greater than that of Chalabi maybe but a negligibly small (or infinitesimal) ability nevertheless. Anyone who knows anything about the left in my part of the world knows this. The left back there is not to be taken seriously and this includes yours truly. Best, Sabri
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Soula: In answer to your question, no, I don't read Arabic. I wish I had the aptitude for languages of someone like Marx (a belated happy 186th to him) who -- not content with German, Greek, Latin, French, English and Italian --- was learning Turkish when he died. I do not think the occupation forces nor their cronies enjoy a lot of support in Iraq. in old societies my friend anonymity is out of the question.. collaboration with the Americans here will not go away for centuries.. We will see. the place is older than modern imperialism. On the contrary, Iraq is a creation of modern imperialism. You said: the class formation in 'peripheral capitalism developing in severe crisis' is a case of disarticulation wherein economic interests are never so well formed within a class to break the old social bonds. I asked: What is a class without well formed economic interests? You answered: that is easy enough: there is so much economic instability in this developing market that taking refuge in precapitalist social organisational forms e.g. tribes etc is essential. Which forgets the fact that pre-capitalist classes often survive a transition to capitalism, utilising tribal links in support of their own accumulation. And that a modern proletariat -- compared to other Arab countries --- is relatively well-developed in Iraq, thanks largely to the nationalist development schemes of the 1960s and 70s. Agreed, the ICP would not be my chosen model for a communist party in the developing word; it was as prone to theoretical blindness and tactical errors as any communist parties during the mid-20th Century. But there is no doubt that they are well-organised and are probably capable of getting at least 10% of the popular vote. If I understand you correctly, the communists are a joke, the Iraqi islamists are incapable of wide support, and you admit that pan-arabism is virtually dead. And I wouldn't bet my life savings on the Ba'ath!!! So what do you see as the dominant ideology in Iraq? the biggest impedement to any arab cp truly becoming a mass party is its inability to relate culturally to the marginalised and disposessed. Hmmm. In the first place, Arab CPs have enjoyed significant followings in the past; second, they don't need to become a mass party in order to wield the balance of power; third, perhaps the marginalised and disposessed in Iraq will look at the many failures of Islamism and nationalism, and will draw their own conclusions. regards, Grant.
Re: Samuel Huntington's Hispanic panic
Chris Doss wrote: He wrote a hilarious book review in the eXile recently saying that the left should just admit that the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War were a bunch of loons and that the only one who was looking at the big picture was Stalin. Yes, hilarious is just the right word. This is the review, from the eXile: New Cant for Old By John Dolan The Spanish civil war, the Soviet Union, and Communism - by Stanley Payne Most academic writing--most writing, in fact--can be classified as updating of the literate world's stock of what Byron liked to call cant: facile explanations of the world which fit nicely into the prevailing received ideas. Payne's book is a fine example of the genre: a well-researched, reasonably well-written, convincing demolition of the old stock of cant on the Spanish Civil War--in the name of a more up-to-date cant, which replaces Leftist myth with equally doctrinaire free-market orthodoxy. Payne deserves credit for the first part of his task: destroying the sentimental and self-serving lies the Left has been telling about Spain for so many years. The Left won the propaganda war by losing the military struggle before getting a chance to show how nightmarish they could be once in power. As Payne says, The twentieth century was a great generator and destroyer of myths. By its end nearly all the great new political and ideological myths of the first half of the century had been discredited. Of them all, however, probably none has been more enduring than the myth of the Spanish Republic. In this sense, the romanticization of the Stalinist volunteers who swarmed to the Republic is an excellent demonstration of the wisdom of the proverb, Live fast, die young and leave a beautiful corpse. The corpse of the Spanish Left looked marvelous for decades. Leftists who'd learned that it was no longer acceptable in polite society to romanticize Stalin would still get moist-eyed at the thought of all the comrades from Brooklyn, Croydon and Dusseldorf fighting together in the trenches of Madrid. You can still hear echoes here and there, in more enduring literature, of the enthusiasm these amateur soldiers' Spanish crusade generated a half-century ago. These echoes even reached politically innocent science-fiction nerds in California, like me. Reading Philip K. Dick's late novel Radio Free Albemuth, which is among many other things his memoir of growing up in Berkeley, he mentions that even in the late 1940s, years before student activism was even imagined by most Americans, gangs of Communist students at UC Berkeley, dressed in Levi's, used to march down Telegraph Avenue shoving people out of their way and singing a war anthem of the German contingent of the International Brigade. I don't speak German, but there was something so exciting about Dick's description that I somehow memorized a garbled version of the song. If I remember, it goes something like: Vor Madrid im Schutzengraben, In der Stunde der Gefahr, Mit den eisernen Brigaden Sein Herz voll hass geladen, Stand Hans, der Komissar-- Hans Beimler, unser Komissar. I'm quoting from memory, so the spelling and grammar of the song are probably absurd. But I got the point. My favorite line, the crucial line, is His heart full of hate. Meant, you understand, as a compliment. Oh yes, I and hundreds of thousands of other mass-produced bohemians got the message. We could easily imagine the joy of bullying passers-by with a Crusader song like that. That's the sort of glamor Spain retained, long after every other Left myth had crumbled. Even WWII got pretty depressing after everybody read Solzhenitsyn--the Eastern Front dwindled to what one Russian called a struggle to decide whether the concentration camps of the future would be red or brown--but Spain, those cool guys doing their Junior Year Abroad in the trenches of Madrid, kept its appeal. That cant sucked in even Hemingway, whose novel For Whom the Bell Tolls was a sad attempt to get hip with the Commies about the cool Spanish War. I tried to reread it a few years ago, after being impressed anew with Hemingway's war scenes in Farewell to Arms. I was shocked by the sheer badness of For Whom the Bell Tolls. Hemingway actually did his best to suppress the sour envy that drove his books, settling for an inadvertently comic Sergio Leone western with red stars, the tale of a Commie Clint Eastwood blowing up bridges and awing the native girls. It was the third-worst novel I've read in the last decade, surpassed only by A Million Little Pieces and another shocking re-read, Brothers Karamazov. Orwell's Spanish memoir, Homage to Catalonia, was smarter, and has lasted longer. Orwell understood Leftist cant very well, and navigated carefully through the mass of acronumic factions on the Spanish Left: PCE, POUM, PCC, PCOE... Orwell's Spartan trenches made generations of readers drool, powerfully evoking what we all wanted: a clean fascism, a
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Grant Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Soula:In answer to your question, no, I don't read Arabic. I wish I had theaptitude for languages of someone like Marx (a belated happy 186th to him)who -- not content with German, Greek, Latin, French, English andItalian --- was learning Turkish when he died."I do not think the occupation forces nor their cronies enjoy a lot ofsupport in Iraq. in old societies my friend anonymity is out of thequestion.. collaboration with the Americans here will not go away forcenturies.."We will see.We are seeing it now... we saw it south Lebanon.. we see it in Palestine, and we will see it elsewhere."the place is older than modern imperialism."On the contrary, "Iraq" is a creation of modern imperialism.it is indeed, but that there was 'bilad ma bain al nahrain' and that the daily conflicts in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon and the potential volcano of Jordan all attest to the failure of this creation calledIraq on daily basis and what matters is to prove the neocons and the Zionists wrong in the sense that you cannot beat the Arabs on the head without getting hit back because they are a 'lower race.'You said: "the class formation in 'peripheral capitalism developing insevere crisis'is a case of disarticulation wherein economic interests are never so wellformed within a class to break the old social bonds."I asked: What is a "class" without "well formed" economic interests?You answered: "that is easy enough: there is so much economic instability inthisdeveloping market that taking refuge in precapitalist social organisationalforms e.g. tribes etc is essential."Which forgets the fact that pre-capitalist classes often survive atransition to capitalism, utilising tribal links in support of their ownaccumulation. And that a modern proletariat -- compared to other Arabcountries --- is relatively well-developed in Iraq, thanks largely to thenationalist development schemes of the 1960s and 70s.After 25 years of sanctions and wars in which an estimated more than one million Iraqi died, more than 5% of the population, income was at 30$ a month for 12 years, can we say that there will be a cohesive working class that transcends the boundaries of old social bonds? well again now we have tribes and it seems the tribes have not been bought out yet.Agreed, the ICP would not be my chosen model for a communist party in thedeveloping word; it was as prone to theoretical blindness and tacticalerrors as any communist parties during the mid-20th Century. But there is nodoubt that they are well-organized and are probably capable of getting atleast 10% of the popular vote. I presume now the CIA will buy the votes for themIf I understand you correctly, the communists are a joke, the Iraqiislamists are incapable of wide support, and you admit that pan-arabism isvirtually dead. And I wouldn't bet my life savings on the Ba'ath!!! So whatdo you see as the dominant ideology in Iraq?I asked a similarquestion to a prominent Iraqi human rights activist, I said do you think that the present resistance could organize itself around a progressive social program? he said not soon.. let us wait for the phoenix out of the ashes."the biggest impedement to any arab cp truly becoming a mass party is itsinability to relate culturally to the marginalised and disposessed."Hmmm. In the first place, Arab CPs have enjoyed significant followings inthe past; second, they don't need to become a mass party in order to wieldthe balance of power; third, perhaps the marginalized and dispossessed inIraq will look at the many failures of Islamism and nationalism, and willdraw their own conclusions. we do not have to call it communism we need a secular anti imperialist democratic and socially progressive movement that allies all sections of the populations under national symbols that relate culturally to each and everyone call it whatever. you go into an Arab communist party office during the cold war and you see posters from the soviet union etc..you see a clique of half-educated that consume pig and alcohol in a society where still the physical and the metaphysical go hand in hand..regards,Grant. Do you Yahoo!?Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
Re: Samuel Huntington's Hispanic panic
Chris Doss wrote: He wrote a hilarious book review in the eXile recently saying that the left should just admit that the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War were a bunch of loons and that the only one who was looking at the big picture was Stalin. Yes, hilarious is just the right word. This is the review, from the eXile: New Cant for Old By John Dolan I can't see the humour. Dolan doesn't actually manage to pin anything on the anti-Stalinist left at all, not that they _were_ angels; wars against fascists/absolutists are always a thin time for angels. He could have mentioned the Stalinists pinching the Republican govt's gold reserves; how the big picture was Stalin trying to appease the liberal govt in France, who didn't want a genuinely left wing govt just across the border from them, etc Grant.
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Sabri Oncu: It is neither up to the U.S. nor to the rest of the west to bring peace to our region My response: I wholeheartedly agree. and I don't give a shit to that so-called reconstruction, either. I disagree. The left anywhere can't afford to express such a deep lack of concern for a people who have been through it for so long. We might have discussions and disagreements about process undertaken to end US occupation and to strike a blow against US imeprialism. But I don't agree that it is ever a good idea, or maybe anything other than cynical, to say we don't care about what the outcome of the situation will be, no matter how far out of our control or from our ideal it ends up being. I just refuse to accept the the worse a situation is, the better it is argument that too many people on the left hold. Especially when, and I hate to keep hiting on this, many of the people I know who push that line, never have to experience the worse part. All my best, Joel Wendland _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
In response to James Devine: The irony of careerism is not that some people on this list have careers, are sacrificing their principles, or are trying to rise etc., but that the term careerist was applied to Communists (by this term, I mean people who are known to be or publicly associate with the Communist movement, not the small c). Outside of countries like Cuba or China where Communist Parties are the ruling parties, being a Communist doesn't help one's career unless I'm missing something. I wish people would stop using this rhetorical trick of dismissing others' views as fashionable or in fashion. You have a good point here, but I don't see a strong necessity of pointing out obvious differences between Vietnam and Iraq (the fashion of saying Iraq is like Vietnam was the point I made--presumablyt I don't have to quote any of the articles that appear daily on this?). And the comaprison has been prevalent in the peace movement and on the left. There's also the trick of not naming the people I'm arguing with (those who are only interested [in] seeing the U.S. suffer military defeats), an amorphous and undefined that western left. Thus their position doesn't have to be defined, quoted, or even argued against. I assumed that we are reading the same posts to this list and that quotations aren't necessary. Obviously we all (and I include myself) don't read the 40 or 50 e-mails that appear each day in our in-folder. I will try to be more specific in my future posts. In response, however, I find it interesting that you chose my post to make your points about rhetorical tricks as vague, combative, overgeneralizing, tricky rhetoric seems to be the rule rather than the exception on this list. I agree that I haven't been an ideal participant, but ever since my first post, I/my posts have been subjected to the very sort thing you have cited my post as being an example of--which is fine. Who am I afterall, right? Thanks for your insights, Joel Wendland _ Getting married? Find tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life Events. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Joel: But I don't agree that it is ever a good idea, or maybe anything other than cynical, to say we don't care about what the outcome of the situation will be, no matter how far out of our control or from our ideal it ends up being. This is not what I said, or at least not what I had in mind when I said what I said. If you agree with this: It is neither up to the U.S. nor to the rest of the west to bring peace to our region You should also agree with this: We, that is, those of us who are from there, will reconstruct our part of the world, not the U.S. neither the rest of the west. If we screw up along the way, so be it. I just refuse to accept the the worse a situation is, the better it is argument that too many people on the left hold. It is because you are a western leftist. The situation cannot get any worse than this. Whatever we do to fight the invaders, and it is my sorrow that at this time that I am not among those who are fighting, it can only get better. Whether the outcome will be good or not is another issue. But whatever the outcome, it will be better than what is there now. Best, Sabri
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
James Devine wrote: I wish people would stop using this rhetorical trick of dismissing others' views as fashionable or in fashion. Sometimes fashions are right, as with the late-1960s fashion of opposing the US war against Vietnam. BTW, a relative of mine uses the same trick, dismissing those who favor abortion rights, affirmative action, etc. as fashionable. It's standard among academics (and I should know, since I swim amongst them). My response: I don't want to harp on this too much, as I agree with the general thrust of your post: I need to alter the style and method of my argumentation in order to make a better contribution to the discussion. I accept that. But doesn't the comparison you make bewteen my style of argumentation here and this relative of yours fall under the same category of rhetorical trick? When it comes down to it, there is no relation between the views I posted and the manner in which I chose to post them, to which you refer, and the views of this relative of yours. But by trying to draw a relation between me and your relative, you are suggesting that I can likewise be dismissed. Isn't that the purpose of the comaprison? Anyway, this repsonse isn't meant to suggest that your criticism of style isn't correct. Thanks again for your post, I'll have to keep working on it. Best, Joel Wendland _ Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: welfare-warfare state
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/05/04 12:32 AM 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 libertarian/anarcho-capitalist economist murray rothbard was using term in 60s to identify so-called administrative-planning system arising from new deal, his take was bit simplified (but, then, libertarians tend to have underdeveloped political theory) if not entirely incorrect in holding that welfare side was pushed by 'liberals' and warfare side by 'conservatives'... michael hoover
Re: Samuel Huntington's Hispanic panic
It's typical eXile mockery of everything existing. I can't see the humour. Dolan doesn't actually manage to pin anything on the anti-Stalinist left at all, not that they _were_ angels; wars against fascists/absolutists are always a thin time for angels. He could have mentioned the Stalinists pinching the Republican govt's gold reserves; how the big picture was Stalin trying to appease the liberal govt in France, who didn't want a genuinely left wing govt just across the border from them, etc Grant.
Re: Samuel Huntington's Hispanic panic
Chris Doss forwarded Dolan's review, which is an attempt to discredit the revolutionary left and anti-Communist hacks like Stanley Payne, the author of the book being reviewed. The only person Dolan ends up discrediting is himself. Some comments: Dolan: Payne deserves credit for the first part of his task: destroying the sentimental and self-serving lies the Left has been telling about Spain for so many years. Comment: What lies might they be? Is it a lie that the revolution failed because the Popular Front government refused to enact radical land reform, grant oppressed minorities and Spanish colonies freedom and attacked workers control of industry? Dolan: In this sense, the romanticization of the Stalinist volunteers who swarmed to the Republic is an excellent demonstration of the wisdom of the proverb, Live fast, die young and leave a beautiful corpse. The corpse of the Spanish Left looked marvelous for decades. Leftists who'd learned that it was no longer acceptable in polite society to romanticize Stalin would still get moist-eyed at the thought of all the comrades from Brooklyn, Croydon and Dusseldorf fighting together in the trenches of Madrid. Comment: Bravura journalism but devoid of content. Dolan: Reading Philip K. Dick's late novel Radio Free Albemuth, which is among many other things his memoir of growing up in Berkeley, he mentions that even in the late 1940s, years before student activism was even imagined by most Americans, gangs of Communist students at UC Berkeley, dressed in Levi's, used to march down Telegraph Avenue shoving people out of their way and singing a war anthem of the German contingent of the International Brigade. Comment: Is Dolan aware that Dick was half-mad and reported people to the FBI for writing communist exegeses of his prose? The notion of gangs of Communist students shoving people out of their way in Berkeley while singing war anthems in German is utterly bizarre. Dolan: Hemingway actually did his best to suppress the sour envy that drove his books, settling for an inadvertently comic Sergio Leone western with red stars, the tale of a Commie Clint Eastwood blowing up bridges and awing the native girls. It was the third-worst novel I've read in the last decade, surpassed only by A Million Little Pieces and another shocking re-read, Brothers Karamazov. Comment: Shock-jock journalism, I guess. 50 years from now people will be reading Hemingway while the only recognition Dolan will receive is from the pigeons shitting on his tombstone. Dolan: In fact Orwell's narrative has become the standard one: the Spanish Republic was a glorious, doomed (they always go together) moment in which the People rose up and made their own democratic, humane revolution, only to be betrayed and subverted by evil Soviet agents, who were willing to facilitate the victory of Fascism rather than lose their control over the Revolution. Payne demonstrates that this version is simply wrong on all counts. The Spanish Left was, as one would expect, far more bloodthirsty and stupid than usually depicted; the Comintern was, again as one would expect, doctrinaire and callous, willing to spend the lives of thousands of loyal followers rather than admit its line might have been wrong; and Stalin was not a counterrevolutionary, but simply thinking about a bigger playing field and a longer term than the hotheads in Barcelona. Comment: Can anybody get an inkling about the social and political questions that divided the Spanish left from this specious presentation? If it is about nothing but control, then one feels that Dolan would be better suited to reviewing books by Jack Welch or Donald Trump rather than on the Spanish Civil War. Dolan: If you read this sort of book, you know that the cant of the moment is that the peasants--any peasants, anywhere, anytime--weren't heroes, they were murderous, ignorant thugs. Applying the truism to revolutionary Spain merits a shrug...except for one thing: the fact that Payne's revisionist account will discomfit the last few living members of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. These comrades from the US have grown old strutting about their youthful exploits in the Marx-crusade of Spain. They've tried to bend with the times, turning their war into a struggle for democracy against fascism, when they were simply good CPUSA zombies. Payne's quick sketch of their activities circa 1940 is devastating: The American communist volunteers who had formed the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade Association and later liked to style themselves premature anti-Fascists, mocking the straight-faced charge of the Cold-War congressional witch-hunters, in fact gave up antifascism altogether, marching in New York to oppose the United States' entry into the war, as they supported the policies of Stalin and Hitler. Comment: As should be clear to PEN-L'ers, I have sharp criticisms of the CP but this is straight out of David Horowitz's FrontPage. Look at all the lurid formulations about
Re: Samuel Huntington's Hispanic panic
Chris Doss wrote: It's typical eXile mockery of everything existing. How daring. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Sabri Oncu wrote: Joel: I just refuse to accept the the worse a situation is, the better it is argument that too many people on the left hold. I find it notable that those who spin this ridiculous canard _never_ quote particular leftists -- it is an urban legend, and passing it on without documentation is pure obscurantism. The point is an empirical one: The situation is in fact going to get worse the longer the u.s. invaders stay there. This is simply a fact, left planning that does not recognize it belongs in the pages of _Alice in Wonderland_. Recognizing the fact has no relationship to the urban legend of leftists saying the worse the better. Joel is confusing the message with the messenger, and whining that the messenger is not bringing better news, when there is no better news to bring. Carrol
news
In other news, the finale of Friends is expected to be a huge ratings winner in Iraq, where millions of Iraqis are longing for the chance to say goodbye to some Americans. -- from the BOROWITZ REPORT. Jim D.
4 films to watch out for
Chronicle of Higher Education, May 7, 2004 FILM Documentaries Cast a Cold Eye on Corporate America By JULIA M. KLEIN Philadelphia The inspiration came to him on Thanksgiving. Spurred by lawsuits involving the hazards of fast food, Morgan Spurlock, a wiry athletic man in his early 30s, decided to turn himself into a test case by adopting a 30-day regimen of all McDonald's, all the time. The title of Spurlock's film about his culinary travails, Super Size Me, derives from one of his self-imposed rules: If he is asked by a McDonald's employee whether he'd like to Supersize his order, he must do so -- even if it means imbibing mammoth portions of sugar-rich sodas and fat-laden fries. Between meals, Spurlock interviews experts and consumers about the perils of fast food, the awfulness of school lunches, and the slothfulness of the American public. Spurlock's own rapid weight gain (nearly 25 pounds) is predictable enough, as is the stonewalling of McDonald's officials. But there are surprises: His girlfriend, a vegan cook, charmingly complains about his diminished sex drive; he reports headaches and mood swings; and his soaring cholesterol level and liver damage shock the doctors monitoring his experiment. At Day 21, they urge him to stop. What am I doing to myself all in the name of art? Spurlock said he asked himself. At the Philadelphia Film Festival, he also recounted seeking the advice of his older brother, who said: People eat this shit their whole lives. Do you really think it's going to kill you in nine more days? Winner of the documentary-directing prize at the Sundance Film Festival and a sellout here in Philadelphia, Super Size Me (opening May 7) is more propaganda than art. But as propaganda it is memorable and effective. Spurlock takes some credit for the McDonald's Corporation's recent decision to eliminate its Supersize option, but the chain denies that the film played a role. The film is one of four in the Philadelphia Film Festival's documentary series that wage frontal assaults on corporate America, evoking the rabble-rousing work (Roger and Me, The Big One, Bowling for Columbine) of the Academy Award-winning director Michael Moore. Lest the comparison be missed, two of the films -- Orwell Rolls in His Grave and The Corporation -- feature Moore himself. Subtlety is not their selling point. In one scene in Super Size Me, for example, Spurlock vomits up his meal. Through repetition and metaphor run rampant, these films pound home their messages. Even so, they remind us of the overlap between art and propaganda: Each can help us forge new understandings of the world. Whatever their flaws, these propagandistic documentaries manage to shift our perspective on everything from Big Macs to the role of propaganda itself. Such shifts animate Ross McElwee's Bright Leaves, a leisurely, meandering attack on smoking and the tobacco industry dressed up as a cinematic memoir. McElwee, whose past work (like his 1986 film, Sherman's March) also had an autobiographical tinge, begins this feature with a gloriously seductive shot of bright green leaves of tobacco. He doesn't shrink from exploring what he calls the entrancing allure of smoking, its ability -- like filmmaking, he says -- to make time stop. But he also returns repeatedly to a couple who try, in vain, to swear off the habit, and to chronicles of tobacco-related deaths remembered and foretold. Of course, we're no strangers to tobacco's addictive and destructive qualities. Even the frisson supplied by McElwee's personal connection to the story -- he is the great-grandson of a (failed) tobacco titan -- is hardly unique. Such ties (remember Patrick Reynolds, the outspoken anti-smoking heir to the R.J. Reynolds fortune?) typically leave legacies of guilt, as well as denial. In North Carolina, still the country's leading tobacco producer, McElwee reveals that the conflict between agricultural livelihoods and public health obscures more intimate tragedies: Tobacco growers and their families suffer from an epidemic of smoking-related maladies. McElwee's great-grandfather, John Harvey McElwee, is a complicated figure -- a pioneer of the bright-leaf variety of tobacco who was eventually ruined by a competitor, John Buchanan Duke, and disappeared from history. The director pokes sardonic fun at the contrast between the Duke legacy (which includes Duke University and R.J. Reynolds) and his own family's now-decrepit factory and obscure memorial park. John Harvey McElwee does have one claim to fame, his great-grandson discovers: He is the model for the protagonist (played by Gary Cooper) in the 1950 Michael Curtiz melodrama Bright Leaf. Or is he? McElwee interweaves black-and-white frames of Bright Leaf with his own North Carolina footage, interviews the widow of the novelist whose book inspired the film, visits a tobacco museum, and even chats, unhelpfully, with Patricia Neal, Cooper's co-star and real-life paramour. This idiosyncratic reporting ultimately changes
Re: Samuel Huntington's Hispanic panic
I wasn't endorsing it. -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 09:25:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Samuel Huntington's Hispanic panic Chris Doss wrote: It's typical eXile mockery of everything existing. How daring. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Ken: Thanks for your reasoned remarks, which illustrate a willingness to engage with the present situation. As I've already said, my recent usage of imperialism was not supposed to be definitive, and I agree with your comments on this. THe issue is the status of those who side with imperialist occupiers when there are obvious resistant forces at work. Another issue is the extent to which the resistance is supported by the Iraqi people. As I've said before, it doesn't take many insurgents to make an insurgency, and in the absence of elections and reliable opinion polls, no-one knows what they think of (e.g.) Hakim as opposed to Sadr. Groups that side with the occupiers are prima facie quislings. Even if it is merely a tactical move it is exceedingly dangerous and liable to result in loss of any credibility. Agreed. But once that idiotic invasion opened Pandora's Box, Iraq became a no-win situation for most of the major players. A lot of people on the left seem to start from the assumption that there is never anything worse, more reactionary, or more opposable than imperialism, ignoring the specifics and never looking back; in some cases turning a blind eye to the deeply reactionary character of the anti-imperialists. Or asking what is the likely alternative to the colonial regime in question. If anti-imperialists had an inkling of the horror that would follow hard on the heels of the decolonisation of India in 1947, they may well have begged British forces to stay there a little longer. (And maybe some did, I haven't checked this out.) I don't think there's much doubt that a sudden withdrawal of US forces would cause the various resistance factions to focus their attacks not only on the quislings, but also each other. Civil war, in other words. Therefore US forces serve as a unifier of the Iraqi people: (1) in the perverse form of an increasingly-hated imperial army, (2) as a source of massive aid/investment, and (3) as an obstacle to a debilitating civil war. regards, Grant.
Re: Samuel Huntington's Hispanic panic
Actually, he'll probably be remembered as the translator of Eduard Limonov. But shock-jock is about right. The same goes for Taibbi and Ames, largely. Comment: Shock-jock journalism, I guess. 50 years from now people will be reading Hemingway while the only recognition Dolan will receive is from the pigeons shitting on his tombstone.
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Grant Lee wrote: If anti-imperialists had an inkling of the horror that would follow hard on the heels of the decolonisation of India in 1947, they may well have begged British forces to stay there a little longer. (And maybe some did, I haven't checked this out.) I guess you aren't aware that the British were responsible originally for dividing people by religion in the colonies. You might as well ask the tobacco industry to spearhead an anti-smoking campaign. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Imperialist mouthpieces air out their differences
Correspondence between Robert Kagan and Niall Ferguson: http://slate.msn.com/id/2099751/entry/2099900/ -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Louis said: I guess you aren't aware that the British were responsible originally for dividing people by religion in the colonies. You might as well ask the tobacco industry to spearhead an anti-smoking campaign. Of course I'm aware of that. And what use would it have been to point that out in a discussion immediately prior to partition? The tobacco thing suggests that you don't seem to have taken on board the dialectics _within_ the capital class as a whole. In this neck of the woods, tobacco companies _do_ spearhead the anti-smoking campaign --- for some years now they have been required by law to carry anti-smoking messages on every cigarette pack, occupying at least 25% of the surface area. More radical suggestions are circulating: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9483627%255E1702,00.html. By the same measure, the global capitalist class should not be allowed to shirk their responsibilities to the Iraqi people. Grant.
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Grant Lee wrote: The tobacco thing suggests that you don't seem to have taken on board the dialectics _within_ the capital class as a whole. In this neck of the woods, tobacco companies _do_ spearhead the anti-smoking campaign --- for some years now they have been required by law to carry anti-smoking messages on every cigarette pack, occupying at least 25% of the surface area. More radical suggestions are circulating: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9483627%255E1702,00.html. This is spearheading? I would put this in the same category as McDonald offering salad on their menu after years of protest from consumers' groups about the toxicity of Big Macs, etc. In any case, I am for withdrawal of US troops everywhere in the world, even if the restless natives decide to kill each other afterwards. For every Rwanda, there are a hundredfold slaughters that go unnoticed. Throughout Latin America for over 100 years children died of malnutrition, etc. because of poverty enforced by brutal dictatorships backed by the USA. Even when such nations as Paraguay were devoid of ethnic strife, there was a silent unannounced war between the rich and the poor. If dictators like Stroessner could not rely on US military muscle and economic backing, they would have toppled easily. That would have saved tens of millions of lives. Radical non-intervention is the best way to save lives. Everytime we rubberstamp some humanitarian intervention (scare quotes intended), the USA gets the authority it needs to remain elsewhere in the world. As Charles Brown likes to say, US out of Everywhere. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Don't forget Russian or Engels's even greater knowledge of language. Linguistic expertise seems more relevant to the list than the stand of a minor party with a rather strange political perspective. Could we kill this thread? On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 03:31:23PM +0800, Grant Lee wrote: In answer to your question, no, I don't read Arabic. I wish I had the aptitude for languages of someone like Marx (a belated happy 186th to him) who -- not content with German, Greek, Latin, French, English and Italian --- was learning Turkish when he died. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Savagery
(This was referred to in Maureen Dowd's NY Times op-ed column today.) The Toronto Star May 6, 2004 Thursday Yesterday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair's human rights envoy to Iraq said U.S. soldiers detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year, placed a harness on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey. The envoy, MP Ann Clwyd, said she had investigated the claims of the woman in her 70s and believed they were true. During five visits to Iraq in the last 18 months, Clwyd said, she stopped at British and U.S. jails, including Abu Ghraib, and questioned everyone she could about the woman's claims. She was held for about six weeks without charge, the envoy told London's Evening Standard newspaper. During that time she was insulted and told she was a donkey. A harness was put on her, and an American rode on her back. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Embarrassing Empire
The US right and multinational middle strata, who _would have liked_ to join the management of empire, may find it harder to justify an embarrassing empire than an evil empire -- plus a nod to Gramsci and an appropriation of T.S. Eliot: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_montages_archive.html#108385627640236838. -- 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: Samuel Huntington's Hispanic panic
catty. catty. On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:25:14AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: How daring. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Economic realities
NY Times, May 6, 2004 Low-Tech or High, Jobs Are Scarce in India's Boom By AMY WALDMAN HYDERABAD, India - Two years ago, with the employment market in his drought-stricken rural district as dry as the earth, Bhaliya made his way to this high-tech capital in southern India and found salvation in a low-tech straw broom. He became a city street sweeper, earning 1,800 rupees a month, or roughly $40. The pay was so low, and his 1,000 rupee-rent for one room in this inflationary city so high, that his wife became a sweeper too, leaving three toddlers in neighbors' care. Each day since, they have bent to clear errant flotsam from the curbs, and straightened to see the immaculate imagery of the new India: hundreds of billboards advertising cars, mobile phones and Louis Phillipe shirts. The temptations are forever out of reach, yet Mr. Bhaliya, 25, counts himself lucky. We have to work to live, he said, knowing better than to ask for more. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/international/asia/06indi.html === NY Times, May 6, 2004 4-Hour Trek Across New York for 4 Hours of Work, and $28 By JOSEPH BERGER There are some small mercies to living a two-hour subway and bus ride from a low-paying job. Intesar Museitef always gets a seat in the morning on the D train because her stop is the second from the line's start in the north Bronx. On the return trip home she always get a seat on the E train because her stop in Queens is its first. Otherwise, her four-hour trip, which takes her under virtually the full breadth of the city and includes the added torment of two 15-minute bus rides in Queens, is achingly dull. It's boring, Ms. Museitef (MOO-seh-tef), a 32-year-old Palestinian immigrant who cares for a frail elderly woman, said as she started her return trip on a recent Tuesday. To sit for two hours on a train is boring. Sure, there are suburban commuters from, say, Dutchess County or the Poconos who endure four-hour commuting, but usually they are drawn by Wall Street jobs with large bonuses or less glamorous blue collar jobs with good wages and benefits. Still, some workers in all corners of the city are willing to travel breathtaking distances sometimes for as many hours as they work for few dollars and virtually no benefits. They do this because whatever small amount they make is essential. Ms. Museitef commutes four hours each workday to work just four hours at $7 an hour. More than 18,000 household workers nannies, cleaners, home health aides endure daily trips of 90 minutes or more for jobs paying less than $25,000 a year, according to an analysis of 2000 Census data. Most are immigrant women from the West Indies and South America and elsewhere. (Illegal immigrants, leery of government officials, are often not counted.) These are workers who may travel from eastern Queens across the city to New Jersey, or even from New Jersey through Manhattan and the Bronx to Westchester County, almost always by several trains and buses. Sociologists say that these workers often have no choice, because they live in the city's poorer precincts while the jobs they need are scattered around the region. In the 1950's, unskilled immigrants could rely on manufacturing jobs clustered in a central place like the Garment District, said Daniel Cornfield, a sociologist at Vanderbilt University who specializes in labor. But manufacturing jobs have since evaporated while much of the low-wage job growth has been in areas like household work. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/nyregion/06COMM.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Carrol said: The situation is in fact going to get worse the longer the u.s. invaders stay there. Have I disagreed with this statement? Somewhere along the way, Carrol has come to think that I support the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. You'll have to check the archives and find a quote. As to quoting people, isn't it possible to interpret or argue that a particular argument boils down to something, or do we always have to have an exact quote? This seems to be what Carrol has done to me in attributing a position to me and then repeatedly arguing with it. Rather my position is to support democratic forces in Iraq struggling for an alternative to the spiral of U.S. occupation and armed violence. Denying, that these two things feed on each other, in my opinion, doesn't help. And I think that saying one supports the uprising unconditionally does deny the consequences. That is, if you check the post to which I responded, the upshot of what was said, notwithstanding an exact quote. Apparently I'm held to a higher standard of discussion and argumentation. I have supported holding the U.S. to its obligation as a de facto occupying force (I just can't see letting the U.S. get away with demolishing a country for over 20 years and then going home without obligation), I've supported removal of the oversight of political, economic, and security issues from the U.S. to the UN, I've supported an end to the occupation of Iraq, I've supported the speediest possible return of sovereignty to a democratic government in Iraq. I know it is not the same as Bring them home now, no conditions but I have raised my suspicions about that position before. In my view, the situation isn't as simple as that. _ Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlbpgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
It is probably silly plotting the future of Iraq from a keyboard, but I think that talk of supporting a democratic force at this time is pretty far-fetched. The US has created such turmoil that democracy at this time is probably impossible. From what I understand -- and my understanding is limited -- a democratic outcome at this time might be a Shi'ite theocracy. Another strongman might be able to institute some stability, but a bloodless exit seems impossible at this time. Of course, an exit is inevitable and the longer it is delayed the more blood will be shed. No simplistic easy answers exist. Getting out is urgent. If Kerry somehow stumbles into the White House and has to take responsibility for cleaning up Bush's mess, it will be easy to paint him in very ugly colors, probably ensuring a one term presidency. Or maybe, he will do what he says getting us in deeper in a further attempt to make himself into JFK II. I probably should have resisted the temptation to join into this speculation, which does not lead anywhere. We could also speculate on the presidency of Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or Arnold Schwarzenegger. Can't we just drop this thread? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Joel Wendland wrote: Carrol said: The situation is in fact going to get worse the longer the u.s. invaders stay there. Have I disagreed with this statement? Somewhere along the way, Carrol has come to think that I support the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. You'll have to check the archives and find a quote. It's hopeless; forget it. No matter how many times you say you're against the U.S. occupation but think some sort of international presence excluding the U.S. might be warranted, he'll quote Kipling's White Man's Burden at you. Even if you quote Iraqis, like the two Communist parties, making that argument, or cite serious polls of Iraqis to that effect. Best to move on. Doug
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Joel W writesIn response to James Devine: The irony of careerism is not that some people on this list have careers, are sacrificing their principles, or are trying to rise etc., but that the term careerist was applied to Communists (by this term, I mean people who are known to be or publicly associate with the Communist movement, not the small c). Outside of countries like Cuba or China where Communist Parties are the ruling parties, being a Communist doesn't help one's career unless I'm missing something. and it probably helps one's career to be a CP member in N. Korea. miniature Leninist parties often provide miniature careers for their leaders. That's one reason why they cling to the party line or correct program so vehemently. I had written: I wish people would stop using this rhetorical trick of dismissing others' views as fashionable or in fashion. You have a good point here, but I don't see a strong necessity of pointing out obvious differences between Vietnam and Iraq (the fashion of saying Iraq is like Vietnam was the point I made--presumablyt I don't have to quote any of the articles that appear daily on this?). And the comaprison has been prevalent in the peace movement and on the left. my feeling is that all analogies are wrong, though some are right enough to be useful. Iraq seems to be a quagmire, though there are a lot of differences from the Vietnam quagmire. There's also the trick of not naming the people I'm arguing with (those who are only interested [in] seeing the U.S. suffer military defeats), an amorphous and undefined that western left. Thus their position doesn't have to be defined, quoted, or even argued against. I assumed that we are reading the same posts to this list and that quotations aren't necessary. Obviously we all (and I include myself) don't read the 40 or 50 e-mails that appear each day in our in-folder. I will try to be more specific in my future posts. It's possible that some of the people you are responding to are on my auto-trash list, so I don't read them. Jim D. In response, however, I find it interesting that you chose my post to make your points about rhetorical tricks as vague, combative, overgeneralizing, tricky rhetoric seems to be the rule rather than the exception on this list. I agree that I haven't been an ideal participant, but ever since my first post, I/my posts have been subjected to the very sort thing you have cited my post as being an example of--which is fine. Who am I afterall, right? Thanks for your insights, Joel Wendland _ Getting married? Find tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life Events. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
I wrote: I wish people would stop using this rhetorical trick of dismissing others' views as fashionable or in fashion. Sometimes fashions are right, as with the late-1960s fashion of opposing the US war against Vietnam. BTW, a relative of mine uses the same trick, dismissing those who favor abortion rights, affirmative action, etc. as fashionable. It's standard among academics (and I should know, since I swim amongst them). Joel W: My response: I don't want to harp on this too much, as I agree with the general thrust of your post: I need to alter the style and method of my argumentation in order to make a better contribution to the discussion. I accept that. But doesn't the comparison you make bewteen my style of argumentation here and this relative of yours fall under the same category of rhetorical trick? When it comes down to it, there is no relation between the views I posted and the manner in which I chose to post them, to which you refer, and the views of this relative of yours. the trouble is rhetorical tricks cut both ways. Anyone can use them to obfuscate. But by trying to draw a relation between me and your relative, you are suggesting that I can likewise be dismissed. Isn't that the purpose of the comaprison? no. Anyway, this repsonse isn't meant to suggest that your criticism of style isn't correct. Thanks again for your post, I'll have to keep working on it. thanks. Jim D. Best, Joel Wendland _ Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Michael Perelman wrote: It is probably silly plotting the future of Iraq from a keyboard, but I think that talk of supporting a democratic force at this time is pretty far-fetched. it's more than far-fetched. Any democratic force supported by the US -- or by westerners -- would be discredited immediately. Jim D.
The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)
From: Doug Henwood Charles Brown wrote: CB: Ok , how about just profits ? Why would U.S. imperialism and U.S. based transnationals go through so much, invest so much in creating and protecting capitalist relations of production outside of U.S. territory if profits were not made there ? For sure, but 60-70% of those profits come from other rich countries, not the superexploited poor. Doug ^ CB: My thought on that is that the 30%-40% is the icing on the cake, and the icing is the extra profit ( so super means extra rather than gigantic; above and beyond the regular profit). I don't know if the concept of margin applies to this. The idea is that super means extra that wouldn't have been made had it not been invested in the neo-globalist colonies , because the return on investment domestically ( and in other rich countries) has been maxed out and begins to fall. To reiterate the last part of what I just said, doesn't the return on investment in the U.S. and other rich countries begin to fall ( overproduction)after a certain point ? Then the investment in the poor countries rescues the rate of return from its falling rate in the imperialist centers. So, transnational big corps have the advantage ( monopolistic advantage) of having more outlets (overseas) for investment than smaller companies. This becomes an extra profit relative to other companies. Oh, and to the other point, this margin is not handed over to the working class in the U.S. or other cap countries, but indirectly eases the capitalists from making maximum demands from the working class in the ongoing class struggle. So, workers indirectly benefit from the booty. Again maybe the U.S. motive for occupying so much of the world militarily is irrational even from a _bourgeois_ economic standpoint. I suppose we could start to argue against the war on Iraq because it is against the economic interests of the U.S. bourgeoisie, but it seems to me we should first go that extra step to see if looking at the data another way shows an important economic benefit to U.S. capitalism from military imperialism. Also, I can see that a lot of the Cold War might be motivated, not by some immediate opportunities for extra profit ( as I describe that above), but for longer term, strategic holding of territory for _future_ potential investment and profits. That wouldn't be irrational from the standpoint of the interests of the capitalist class, and would explain oocupations that do not yield significant profit today. Thanks for hangin' in there with me on this debate, Doug. By the way, do hedge funds and other international financial institutions gather some of the booty ;and is that part of the statistics for profits from foreign investments ?
The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)
From: Carrol Cox Profits are the _ultimate_ goal but never necessarily the immediate goal of capitalist action (particularly of the capitalist state, which among other things is the domain of intra-capitalist struggle). ^ CB: Yes, I agree with this ( though it is often said that the capitalists themselves, as opposed to the capitalist state, are fixated on the bottomline of the next quarter , i.e. _immediate_, not ultimate profit goal). There wasn't necessarily much of an immediate profit motive for the Viet Nam war, but rather a long term goal of keeping countries within the capitalist orbit for potential future profitting, and to prevent a viable alternative to the capitalist system. In any case, I can't answer your question with any certainty, but there are several obvious possible motives, none of which directly concern profits: 1. Insure against the rise of serious capitalist enemies. 2. Maintain control of natural resources. 3. Provide investment opportunity (even if at close to zero profits) for capital that can not other wise be invested at all. ^ CB: Yes, this is similar to what I just posted in response to Doug. Lets say immediate _and_ longterm profits, and maintenance of the capitalist system in the face of the communist challenge. ^^ And so forth. But I think both you and Lou are too focused on demonstrating that capitalists are bad. That goes without saying. What needs to be demonstrated, always, is that capital cannot NOT do as it does. That was Lenin's point, against Kautsky who saw imperialism as an optional policy. And profits in any given context are an option, not a necessity. ^^ CB: I'm not sure why you think I am trying to demonstrate that the capitalists are bad. I was thinking you might accuse me of trying to demonstrate that a great mass of U.S. workers are opportunist. Anyway, the ultimate question on this thread is what is the material basis for the rejection of socialist consciousness by the great majority of U.S. workers ? Is it imperial booty or high domestic productivity or what ? That's the key question for Marxist practice in the U.S. We don't aim to directly change the economic conduct of the capitalists. The motions of the capitalists and the capitalist system are an objective condition for our activity. We don't act as subjects in relation to those conditions. We have to cope with the subjectivities of the working class as impacted by the objective conditions created by the capitalists, which includes the imperialist booty the capitalists control. ^^ And if you review the various debates on lbo, marxism, pen-l over the years you will also see that whenever a debate was grounded in merely empirical claims (a poll was or wasn't accurate, an economic statistic was or wasn't accurate, etc) the debate has simply gone nowhere. Carrol ^^ CB: I don't usually think of my problem as being lack of attention to theory :)...but who knows ?
Re: The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)
Charles Brown wrote: CB: My thought on that is that the 30%-40% is the icing on the cake, and the icing is the extra profit ( so super means extra rather than gigantic; above and beyond the regular profit). I don't know if the concept of margin applies to this. The idea is that super means extra that wouldn't have been made had it not been invested in the neo-globalist colonies , because the return on investment domestically ( and in other rich countries) has been maxed out and begins to fall. Total profits from MNC investment in poor countries - all except the rich industrial countries of Asia, Europe, and North America, plus the Asian NICs - was about $25 billion in 2002, or about 0.25% of U.S. GDP. That's a pretty thin layer of icing. Here are the rates of return (profits/capital stock) for some major regions of the world for U.S. MNCs: 1982 2002 all 12.0%8.1% Canada6.7%7.3% rich Europe 10.4%7.4% rich Asia 7.9%9.1% Asian NICs 22.4% 14.6% rest of world19.5%7.4% LatAm/Car 16.2%6.2% China -6.1% 14.1% Note that returns are lower in the poorer countries than richer ones. To reiterate the last part of what I just said, doesn't the return on investment in the U.S. and other rich countries begin to fall ( overproduction)after a certain point ? Then the investment in the poor countries rescues the rate of return from its falling rate in the imperialist centers. Pretty hard to see that in these stats. Total profits from foreign investment were $123 billion in 2002, or just over 1% of U.S. GDP. That's not a gigantic number, and not much bribing of the U.S. working class can be financed out of it. Also, I can see that a lot of the Cold War might be motivated, not by some immediate opportunities for extra profit ( as I describe that above), but for longer term, strategic holding of territory for _future_ potential investment and profits. That wouldn't be irrational from the standpoint of the interests of the capitalist class, and would explain oocupations that do not yield significant profit today. The U.S. wants to keep the world safe for capitalism, no doubt about it. Keynes remarks somewhere, in The General Theory I think, that liquidity requires tremendous stability in the social and political environment. The Pentagon certainly contributes to that. Thanks for hangin' in there with me on this debate, Doug. My pleasure. I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is something I hear people assert pretty often. I'm open to the argument, if someone wants to make it. By the way, do hedge funds and other international financial institutions gather some of the booty ;and is that part of the statistics for profits from foreign investments ? Hedge funds and such aren't in these calculations; this is just productive or real investment, not profits from pure financial activities. Nor does it include debt service, which is about $400 billion a year globally. That's a lot of money for the debtor countries, but the GDP of the creditor countries is probably around $25 billion. Doug
Re: The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)
On Thursday, May 6, 2004 at 16:11:31 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes: ... My pleasure. I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is something I hear people assert pretty often. I'm open to the argument, if someone wants to make it. .. How does one measure the opportunity cost of, say, 10 million slaughtered peasants over the last 40 years? Bill
Re: The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)
Bill Lear: How does one measure the opportunity cost of, say, 10 million slaughtered peasants over the last 40 years? You really need to expand your time-frame in order to make sense of this question. Like 400 years rather than 40. If it were not for the colonial exports of silver, gold, fur, sugar, timber, cotton, etc. through the 16th to 19th century, the industrial revolution would have not been possible. Once Europe and the USA go through this supercharged development, it gains a huge edge in technology. Thus, it can maintain a lead over the South based mainly on a pre-existing momentum. Once we arrive in the late 20th century, it matters little whether IBM makes more money in Great Britain than in Bangladesh. Foreshortening of history leads to foreshortening of politics obviously. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
michael perelman wrote: It is probably silly plotting the future of Iraq from a keyboard, but I think that talk of supporting a democratic force at this time is pretty far-fetched. The US has created such turmoil that democracy at this time is probably impossible. From what I understand -- and my understanding is limited -- a democratic outcome at this time might be a Shi'ite theocracy. Another strongman might be able to institute some stability, but a bloodless exit seems impossible at this time. Of course, an exit is inevitable and the longer it is delayed the more blood will be shed. No simplistic easy answers exist. Getting out is urgent. Look. The only questions we can legitimately ask and attempt to answer are questions as to the policy of the (still very small) anti-war movement. Any attempt by anyone on this list (or in any other left forum) to detail what the U.S. government should do (either now or next January 20) is, I think, in bad faith, though probably not consciously so. It is in bad faith because it implies that _our_ (leftists) opinion will have an immediate (i.e. in the next 12 months) effect on u.s. action. It won't. In that context, the question of what should be done can only refer to what the movement should do. And the answer to that question is simple: any claim that it is complex is avoiding the real issues. The answer is: U.S. Out of Iraq. Now. No Conditions. Any other demand is academic in the sense of _merely_ academic, having no linkage to human activity, and belongs in the pages of Alice in Wonderland. Carrol
imperalist booty
[was: RE: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)] Doug writes:I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is something I hear people assert pretty often. The assertion seems to be based on the implicit assumption that first-world workers don't produce surplus-value. Nor do other workers, so that the whole story is one of redistribution between regions (unequal exchange, looting, etc.) (gonna shake some imperialist booty!) Jim D.
The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)
Doug Henwood: Total profits from MNC investment in poor countries - all except the rich industrial countries of Asia, Europe, and North America, plus the Asian NICs - was about $25 billion in 2002, or about 0.25% of U.S. GDP. That's a pretty thin layer of icing. CB: Yes, it is a thin layer of icing :). Any reason we are confining imperialism to investment in poor countries ? Why not include profits from rich industrial countries , say outside the G-7 or 8 ? Oh, one question. What percentage of U.S. total _profits_ is that $25 billion ? ^ Here are the rates of return (profits/capital stock) for some major regions of the world for U.S. MNCs: 1982 2002 all 12.0%8.1% Canada6.7%7.3% rich Europe 10.4%7.4% rich Asia 7.9%9.1% Asian NICs 22.4% 14.6% rest of world19.5%7.4% LatAm/Car 16.2%6.2% China -6.1% 14.1% Note that returns are lower in the poorer countries than richer ones. ^^ CB: There's also a big 4% overall drop in the last 20 years. Current attitudes of working masses were formed twenty years ago and more. Perhaps the above stats suggest a coming change in attitudes with less profit from foreign investment to grease the skids. To reiterate the last part of what I just said, doesn't the return on investment in the U.S. and other rich countries begin to fall ( overproduction)after a certain point ? Then the investment in the poor countries rescues the rate of return from its falling rate in the imperialist centers. Pretty hard to see that in these stats. CB: Agree. What if we take out poor , and make it all countries outside of G-7 or imperialist centers. Total profits from foreign investment were $123 billion in 2002, or just over 1% of U.S. GDP. That's not a gigantic number, and not much bribing of the U.S. working class can be financed out of it. ^ CB: That answers my question of adding in rich Third World nations. Also, I can see that a lot of the Cold War might be motivated, not by some immediate opportunities for extra profit ( as I describe that above), but for longer term, strategic holding of territory for _future_ potential investment and profits. That wouldn't be irrational from the standpoint of the interests of the capitalist class, and would explain oocupations that do not yield significant profit today. The U.S. wants to keep the world safe for capitalism, no doubt about it. Keynes remarks somewhere, in The General Theory I think, that liquidity requires tremendous stability in the social and political environment. The Pentagon certainly contributes to that. Thanks for hangin' in there with me on this debate, Doug. My pleasure. I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is something I hear people assert pretty often. I'm open to the argument, if someone wants to make it. By the way, do hedge funds and other international financial institutions gather some of the booty ;and is that part of the statistics for profits from foreign investments ? Hedge funds and such aren't in these calculations; this is just productive or real investment, not profits from pure financial activities. Nor does it include debt service, which is about $400 billion a year globally. That's a lot of money for the debtor countries, but the GDP of the creditor countries is probably around $25 billion. ^^ CB: Isn't this a candidate for further investigation as to the conduit of to the U.S. et al. ? ( Is the last figure $25 trillion ? ). Would we move toward a more significant layer of icing if we look at percentage of total profits rather than of GDP; and include profits from foreign financial activities. Then also if we look at the ratio of total profits of the biggest companies, monopolies ( somehow cogently defined) , to profits of those monopolies from foreign investments of all types... Then consider that we are talking about a fraction of the whole U.S. working class, the richest (relatively) sector, not the whole class...the socalled labor aristocracy..If that is 25 million people, then $123 billion profit is $5,000.00 cushion for each of those. Not there yet... But a little more plausible. If financial profits gets it up near a trillion, then we are at, what , $40,000 a piece. Perhaps some or all of these framings of the question, and others I can't think of, would make a more plausible booty-buyoff argument. Another idea that comes to mind is some kind of way to measure a longer term accumulation of wealth effect. In other words, is all the value added to make the GDP of 2002 from labor in 2002 ? I don't know what economists think of this, but it seems to me that the current wealth of the U.S. is in some sense derived out
Re: imperalist booty
Jim, this list is not x-rated. You should not discuss your sex life here. On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 02:15:25PM -0700, Devine, James wrote: (gonna shake some imperialist booty!) Jim D. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: imperalist booty
No, I think it's based on a confusion between the moral and explanatory dimensions of value theory. I think that advocates of this position think that we cannot attack imperialism against the third world unless we say that what is wrong with it is theft, on the analogy that what is wrong with capitalist exploitation of workers is supposed to be theft -- unearned expropriation of what the workers produce. Although it is controversial, Marx of course never regarded the appropriation and redistribution of surplus value, by itself, as wrong. He never thought that the workers deserved what they produced because they produced it. He thought profits arose from the capitalists appropriating the surplus over what the workers needed to live, but such redistribution requires something else other than the mere fact that something goes from a producer to a nonproducer to be the basis for a criticism. Otherwise those unable tow work would be entitled to nothing, and he expressly insists on their being provided for. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of be said by way of attacking imperialism against the third world even if it it had no effect, or a negative effect, on first world capitalist profits. It's unjust and creates unnecessary inequality (Marx would not like that, too bad for him); it's oppressive and destroys freedom and fosters misery, it subverts democracy and promotes war. So there are a lot of good reasons to oppose it even if the the first world is not mainly rich because it exploits the third world. If the concern is not moral but explanatory -- which, given the heated rhetoric of advocates I do not believe, that one cannot account for why imperialism occurs unless it is the source of first world wealth, that is a fallacy. Even if one insisted that a materialist explanation must be economic, all you would have to say is that imperialism against the third world occurs because it is _a_ source of profits for the first world; it would not have to be the chief or primary source of profits. Indeed, it would not have to be net-profitable, as long as the losses in terms of the cost could be palmed on on others, e.g., the workers through taxes for defense, the deficit, etc. But in fact I think that a materialist explanation need not be economic in this sense and that actual imperialist activities in the third world often can be shown to have other bases than making profits. Vietnam is a big counterexample; attempts to make it out as a corporate grab for Southeast Asian natural resources were not persuasive, and the Pentagon's Paper's conclusion that it was largely about prestige in the cold war rings true. Likewise the wars against Nicaragua and Cuba -- here Chomsky's talk of the threat of a good example is more plausible. The US ruling classes definitely do not want successful paths of independent development with freedom and prosperity. Ultimately they may worry that this would threaten their profits, but that's quite indirect. They don't really stand to make money squashing Nicaragua, probably the reverse, and the Cuba embargo may help ADM but hurts the oil companies and the sugar ones. One might go one, but there are many reasons why the US commits imperialist acts, and the profit motive enters as a constraining background factor in most of them, rather than as a direct motivation. jks --- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [was: RE: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)] Doug writes:I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is something I hear people assert pretty often. The assertion seems to be based on the implicit assumption that first-world workers don't produce surplus-value. Nor do other workers, so that the whole story is one of redistribution between regions (unequal exchange, looting, etc.) (gonna shake some imperialist booty!) Jim D. __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Bank of England takes very long view
With its remit to control inflation the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee has raised interest rates 1/4% despite infation at 1.1% being much below the 2% inflation target. The balanced interpretation seems to be that they are influenced indirectly by the renewed rise in house prices, on the grounds that this will increase domestic spending. But also everyone seems to assume that the effect of an interest rate change will only feed through in 18 months time. So the group of experts on the monetary policy committee are assuming they will be judged by bourgeois society on how smoothly they control the fluctuations of the business cycle over a time span of 1-2 years. The intention has become long term sophisticated control in contrast to shorter term political considerations which were dominant when the chancellor had the power to adjust interest rates every month. Chris Burford London
Re: imperalist booty
Justin Schwartz wrote: advocates of this position think that we cannot attack imperialism against the third world unless we say that what is wrong with it is theft, on the analogy that what is wrong with capitalist exploitation of workers is supposed to be theft -- unearned expropriation of what the workers produce. Assuming that this is a reference to what I have said, let me reply. In the early stages of capitalism, there is little production of surplus value as understood in Marx's writings on the factory system. You had slavery or other forms of forced labor. You had outright theft of land from indigenous people, which was essential to capital accumulation in Europe. You had *theft* of already existing commodities such as gold and silver from the temples and treasuries of the Incans and Aztecs. You had a myriad of economic relationships that do not fit neatly into the M-C-M' paradigm, but that does not mean that capitalism (and imperialism) were not taking shape. Marx wrote: The history of the colonial administration of Holland and Holland was the head capitalistic nation of the 17th century is one of the most extraordinary relations of treachery, bribery, massacre, and meanness [5] Nothing is more characteristic than their system of stealing men, to get slaves for Java. The men stealers were trained for this purpose. The thief, the interpreter, and the seller, were the chief agents in this trade, native princes the chief sellers. The young people stolen, were thrown into the secret dungeons of Celebes, until they were ready for sending to the slave-ships. An official report says: This one town of Macassar, e.g., is full of secret prisons, one more horrible than the other, crammed with unfortunates, victims of greed and tyranny fettered in chains, forcibly torn from their families. I would say that *stealing* men is about as critical to the birth of capitalism as anything else. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: imperalist booty
My guess is that the present value of historic resource rents (mineral, timber, land use) from colonial areas is huge. From a little essay I wrote: For starters, Abdel-Fadil (1987) claims that colonial powers had seized 85 percent of the planet's surface area by 1914. -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 5:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: imperalist booty [was: RE: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)] Doug writes:I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is something I hear people assert pretty often. The assertion seems to be based on the implicit assumption that first-world workers don't produce surplus-value. Nor do other workers, so that the whole story is one of redistribution between regions (unequal exchange, looting, etc.) (gonna shake some imperialist booty!) Jim D.
Re: imperalist booty
Max B. Sawicky wrote: My guess is that the present value of historic resource rents (mineral, timber, land use) from colonial areas is huge. I don't doubt that about the past; my query is about the present. Of course, Brenner disagrees, but I don't want to go near that one on this list. Doug
Re: imperalist booty
I wrote: The assertion [that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third] seems to be based on the implicit assumption that first-world workers don't produce surplus-value. Nor do other workers, so that the whole story is one of redistribution between regions (unequal exchange, looting, etc.) JKS writes: No, I think it's based on a confusion between the moral and explanatory dimensions of value theory. I think that advocates of this position think that we cannot attack imperialism against the third world unless we say that what is wrong with it is theft, on the analogy that what is wrong with capitalist exploitation of workers is supposed to be theft -- unearned expropriation of what the workers produce. I think it's a bit more complicated: for example, third worldists such as AG Frank argue that the Third World _could have_ and/or _would have_ developed and become capitalist if Europe hadn't conquered it, preventing that growth. (Of course, then the Third World would have dominated Europe, preventing _it_ from developing, no?) Although it is controversial, Marx of course never regarded the appropriation and redistribution of surplus value, by itself, as wrong. He never thought that the workers deserved what they produced because they produced it. He thought profits arose from the capitalists appropriating the surplus over what the workers needed to live, but such redistribution requires something else other than the mere fact that something goes from a producer to a nonproducer to be the basis for a criticism. Otherwise those unable tow work would be entitled to nothing, and he expressly insists on their being provided for. I dunno. Marx did use moral sounding language, such as likening the capitalists to vampires. My understanding is that Marx saw the production of surplus-value under capitalism as immoral in much of his presentation in CAPITAL, volume I, because it contradicted the bourgeoisie's own standards of morality (freedom, equality, etc.) That was his presentation, but I think it captures his ideas better (cf. CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAM) to say that the problem is a lack of democracy in the production, allocation, and use of the surplus-product. Following this, I've defined capitalist surplus-value extraction as being exploitation in a moral sense because it's taxation without representation. (I presume, as I presume Marx did, that exploitation is akin to taxation, since it is based on inequalities of power.) The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of be said by way of attacking imperialism against the third world even if it it had no effect, or a negative effect, on first world capitalist profits. It's unjust and creates unnecessary inequality (Marx would not like that, too bad for him); it's oppressive and destroys freedom and fosters misery, it subverts democracy and promotes war. So there are a lot of good reasons to oppose it even if the the first world is not mainly rich because it exploits the third world. right. but what's too bad for him about Marx not liking the creation of unnecessary inequality? If the concern is not moral but explanatory -- which, given the heated rhetoric of advocates I do not believe, that one cannot account for why imperialism occurs unless it is the source of first world wealth, that is a fallacy. Even if one insisted that a materialist explanation must be economic, all you would have to say is that imperialism against the third world occurs because it is _a_ source of profits for the first world; it would not have to be the chief or primary source of profits. Indeed, it would not have to be net-profitable, as long as the losses in terms of the cost could be palmed on on others, e.g., the workers through taxes for defense, the deficit, etc. right. Part of the problem is that extreme Third Worldists want to say that the domination of the third world is the _only_ source of first-world profits, while extreme First Worldists want to say that the simple story of capitalist appropriation of surplus-value (in CAPITAL) is the _only_ source of first-world profits. More sophisticated advocates of both viewpoints say that domination of the third world is _a_ source of first-world profits, but they often miss the fact that they're agreeing. That is, there's not that big a difference between those who see the first world as rich primarily at the expense of the third and those who say that the First World's exploitation of the third isn't primary even though it's a real phenomenon. But in fact I think that a materialist explanation need not be economic in this sense and that actual imperialist activities in the third world often can be shown to have other bases than making profits. Vietnam is a big counterexample; attempts to make it out as a corporate grab for Southeast Asian natural resources were not persuasive, and the Pentagon's Paper's conclusion that it was largely about prestige in the cold war
Re: Iraq Communist Party statement on Atrocities at Abu Ghraib
Doug Henwood wrote: Joel Wendland wrote: Carrol said: The situation is in fact going to get worse the longer the u.s. invaders stay there. Have I disagreed with this statement? Somewhere along the way, Carrol has come to think that I support the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. You'll have to check the archives and find a quote. It's hopeless; forget it. No matter how many times you say you're against the U.S. occupation but think some sort of international presence excluding the U.S. might be warranted, he'll quote Kipling's What I'm claiming is (a) that all those nuances you and Joel talk about won't affect the world, because the only way we can affect the world is through mass action, and the only slogan for that mass action is U.S. Out Now. No Conditions. (b) that the U.S. government will _never_, in fact, carry out the kind of program you and Joel support. Hence you might as well be opposing troop withdrawal. And finally, emulating your habit of looking for the unconscious motives of anyone you disagree with, if I were to do that I would arrive at the conclusion that, without realizing it, you and Joel _are_ being affected by the ideology of the white man's burden. You really, again without quite realizing it, believe that Arabs can't work out their own fate without guidance from the u.s. Carrol
Grounds of Misunderstanding? was Re: Iraq Communist Party ...
I mention this as a possibility, that would explain a good deal of the clashes between me and some others over the last several years. I have never _once_ written about what I think the u.s. should do. I don't think what I think about that is going to butter any parsnips. My focus has _always_ been on what an organized _movement_ should do to organize itself and grow. I don't know whether this clarifies anything or not. It is a harmless academic pastime to muse over what it would be nice for the u.s. to do, but it doesn't get us anywhere. Carrol
Re: imperalist booty
If 'rich' means stock of wealth, then the present value of stolen resources (and labor, incl slaves, forgot about that till Louis noted it) is wealth that would not be held by the descendants of colonists, hence they would be a lot less rich. This is germane to the reparations question. mbs - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 7:00 PM Subject: Re: imperalist booty Max B. Sawicky wrote: My guess is that the present value of historic resource rents (mineral, timber, land use) from colonial areas is huge. I don't doubt that about the past; my query is about the present. Of course, Brenner disagrees, but I don't want to go near that one on this list. Doug
Re: The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)
Doug Henwood wrote, I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is something I hear people assert pretty often. I'm open to the argument, if someone wants to make it. Depends first on what you mean by rich and poor. Political economy upholds the amount of revenues that are or could be raised. Dilke argued wealth was disposable time and nothing more. I suppose that translates into per capita GDP versus per capita GPI. But second I think it is a mistake to assume that enrichment and/or impoverish represent or are represented by a transfer of funds from one place to another. A rich country's monopolization of resources, markets etc. can effectively deny access to those resources or markets even with no money changing hands. So how do we measure the absence of what might have been? It seems to me that it is not so much the poor who enrich the rich as the rich who impoverish the poor. And not always by taking away something that the poor formerly have. Sometimes by giving or selling them something that they were better off without: neo-colonial regimes, ill-conceived development projects, armaments, infant formula etc. You can do a lot of damage for relatively little profit. Because it is the first world that primarily does the valuing the dollar value of the transactions may be much smaller than their impacts. Would Coke's revenues exceed the royalties paid to all third world musicians? Maybe that question encapsulates too many of the qualitative imponderables. But whoops, there I go making those moral judgements that the free market prohibits me from making. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: imperalist booty
Doug Henwood, I don't doubt that about the past; my query is about the present. Of course, Brenner disagrees, but I don't want to go near that one on this list. But capital is all about the past: dead labour. Those who appropriated the most dead labour in the past are entitled to appropriate more dead labour, compounded, in the future. Doesn't matter if you appropriated it there then and here now. Joan Robinson quipped the only thing worse than having one's labour power exploited is not having one's labour power exploited. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: imperialist booty
Tom Walker writes: A rich country's monopolization of resources, markets etc. can effectively deny access to those resources or markets even with no money changing hands. So how do we measure the absence of what might have been? dead weight loss! the gain to the imperialists the loss by the imperialized. Mr. Harberger, call your office. ;-) Jim D.
Imperialism, was Re: imperalist booty
(I changed the subject line because I think the question of imperialist booty interferes with the analysis of imperialism. It creates the illusion that the leopard could change its spots.) Devine, James wrote: I think Lennon (or what it Lenin?) had something to say here. You're talking about _imperialist policy_, which may or may not have a direct economic motivation. (My feeling is that most policies reflect the combined interests of coalitions of powerful blocs, some of which typically are crudely economic. But not always.) On the other hand, sophisticated opponents of imperialism see it not as a policy but as a social organization or institution that developed historically and characterizes world capitalism (and changes over time, so there are stages of imperialism). Imperialist policy -- such as the fear of a good example that Chomsky points to -- is generated within the framework of imperialism as a social system. It's the system that helps determine which groups have the power to form coalitions to determine policy, among other things. This is my interest. I really don't understand why some marxists are so anxious to prove that capitalists or capitalism _need_ imperialism or that imperialism is nasty. We do have a fact of some 400 years duration that core capitalist states have been invariably imperialist, and continue to be so. If, as Jim puts it here, imperialism is a social system (my wording has usually been that it is the mode of existence of capitalism), then arguments that capitalism needs imperialist profits (or needs imperialism) are as beside the point as it would be to argue that an organism needs carbon! Capitalism and imperialism are inseparable, and would be _even if_ imperialism hurt rather than aided profits. The whole attempt to prove that imperialism is bad seems to me to undercut marxism. (I say in this in abstraction from the argument over whether Marx's disapproval of capitalism was a moral judgment or not. He certainly wanted to destroy it.) What we need to do at a level of theory is _understand_ or _explain_ imperialism, not endlessly argue how bad it is. At the level of practice what we need to do is build opposition to specific imperialist policies, such as, for example, the current u.s. occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, parts of the former Yugoslavia, etc. U.S. troops out of everywhere. Carrol
Re: imperalist booty
Tom Walker wrote: But capital is all about the past: dead labour. Or so the Germans would have us believe. Those who appropriated the most dead labour in the past are entitled to appropriate more dead labour, compounded, in the future. Doesn't matter if you appropriated it there then and here now. Joan Robinson quipped the only thing worse than having one's labour power exploited is not having one's labour power exploited. Considered as wealth, the colonial booty was already consumed, directly or productively. Or it was wasted. Therefore, its value is gone to never return. The value of wealth, productive or not, the value of any non-directly-human input of production, once consumed, is gone as well. If a society is to be reproduced, then entirely new value needs to replace it, because the only way value can be preserved beyond its existing use value form is to be replaced altogether by newly created value. Even ancient old gold coins, to the extent they were found in the sea bottom or preserved in coffers or museums, ongoing labor allows their preservation. Stealing doesn't produce value and, therefore, doesn't produce surplus value. So, the question is: What pre- or co-existing social conditions in the West allowed for the value of the colonial booty to be replaced over and over again by ever-expanding newly created value in the West? The answer is in Marx's Capital, volume I, parts III-VII and it has a name: capitalist production proper, not primitive accumulation or imperialism. That is why colonial plunder gave the West an advantage. Stealing a car or killing the driver doesn't make anyone a Toyota engineer. Now, if you're a struggling engineering student and cant pay your tuition and expenses, please stay away from my neighborhood. In the framework of conventional economics, sitting on wealth entitles the owner to at least the compounding risk-free return rate. But somewhere in the hidden assumptions (and revealing these assumptions is in part what Marx set out to do) is the fact that, without ongoing capitalist production ready to consume such wealth productively and replace its value, it's like going to a potluck dinner where every guest assumes someone else will bring the food. For years and every which way, I've been telling this story to Louis Proyect and others who haven't been able to read Capital yet. Nothing suggests to me that this time they'll see my point, but I keep trying. Because the old man from Trier persuaded me, I cling to the silly idea that he will persuade them as well... :-) Max B. Sawicky wrote: This is germane to the reparations question. The value of wealth in modern capitalist societies exists because of the labor of modern direct producers as we speak. To the extent this labor is highly socialized (i.e., interdependent), communism becomes a necessity. Communism is not about re-distributing ownership, but about changing the way we engage with nature its about socializing this ownership of nature on the basis of the increasing socialization of modern production and life. That said, we don't know whether the reparations movement will take off. It depends on how the struggle evolves in the poor countries. It's good to try, like demanding that banks erase the Third World's debt. It's not to repair the damage done. The directly injured are not around anymore. It's to fix the present and create a better future. If the idea is adopted by masses of people, then it'll be a real movement (for a reform nothing necessarily wrong with reforms). My point is that there's no theoretical justification for the reparations, neither in the framework of conventional economics nor in the Marxist critique like there was no theoretical justification for primitive accumulation. It's just class struggle. Julio _ De todo para la Mujer Latina http://latino.msn.com/mujer/
