Chronology of Russian-Chechen relations -- intro and part one
I am posting a chronology I wrote in early 2000 about Chechnya. It deals briefly with a number of the issues raised by recent posts on PEN-L. I will serialize it in parts. Taken as a whole, it shows --that Chechnya was not a part of Russia until the late 19th century, when it was conquered after a bitter, bloody, genocidal conflict of many decades. So it isn't a historic part of old Russia, either ethnically or geographically. --that the Russian conquest was a typical brutal colonialist war, and included the ethnic cleansing of many Chechens and the deforestation of a large part of Chechnya. --that in the early days of the revolution, the Soviet Union was feeling its way to a new policy on the Caucasus, and carried out many reforms and a certain recognition of the national rights of the local nationalities. --that the Stalinist policy led up to the genocidal mass deportation of all Chechens from Chechnya in 1944 (and the removal of Chechens from the Red Army, including Chechens who had won medals in the fight against the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union). -- that Yeltsin's interference with Chechen didn't wait until 1994, but was carried out with brutality from 1991. The open war beginning in 1994 only marked an escalation of the covert war that began in October/November 1991, and that has never ended up to the present. --that, contrary to colonialist sarcasm about the Chechen Wonderland of Independent Ichkeria, Chechnya never got recognized independence from Russia. It merely got a couple of years of truce to the open warfare. The settlement of the first period of open warfare, the Khasavyurt accords, left open the question of Chechen sovereignty to be settled by 2001: but long before then the Russian government had renounced the Khasavyurt accords. In the meantime, Chechen was left without the authority needed to establish a functioning economy. It is impossible to seriously analyze what happened in Chechnya without referring to the effect of the devastation of the Chechen economy by Russian intervention, blockade and interference, and without referring to the effect on the Chechen people of the massive killings, torture in Russian filtration camps, and humiliation during the 1990s. --that the Yeltsin-Putin war on Chechnya is part of a general series of Russian imperialist activity towards the Caucasus, which includes playing off one nation against another. For example, the Russian government played with the the secession movement of Abkhazia against former Soviet Georgia. The Russian government fished in troubled waters in order to get permission to establish military bases in the guise of providing stability. --that the rise of Chechen fundamentalism has gone hand-in-hand with Russian colonialist invasion and brutality. Tsarist colonialist aggression gave rise to an upsurge of religious passion in the resistance to Russia in the late 18th and early 19th century as Chechens. And the Yeltsin-Putin war against Chechnya, from 1991 to the present, has dramatically contributed to the weight of fundamentalism in Chechnya. I hope this material will be useful to those who want to formulate a policy on Chechnya that will help the class-conscious workers of all countries unite and rebuild an independent class movement. Recently there have been dozens of recent postings on Chechnya. I have examined these postings, and I believe that the factual part of these postings (not necessarily the conclusions drawn by the person(s) who have has posted them) confirm the accuracy of this chronology. In turn I hope that this chronology will be of help for people trying to work their way through the material on Chechnya. At the time I prepared this chronology, I also reviewed three books on Chechnya, written from different points of view (the authors being the apologist of Russian imperialism Anatol Lieven, the Western journalists Carlotta Gall Thomas de Waal, and the cold-warrior John Dunlop), and those reviews describe some of these issues in more detail. For example, my review of Gall's and de Waal's book goes at more length into the issue of the attitude of the Soviet Union towards Chechnya. Links to these works can be found at www.communistvoice.org/00Chechnya.html I start with part one, the history of tsarist conquest of Chechnya, with some reference to other events in the Caucasus: - Important dates in Russian-Chechen relations - Several thousand years ago: . The ancestors of the Chechens arrive in the North Caucasus. 1550s to 1604: . The Russian state begins serious attempts to enter the North Caucasus, which however had to be given up until 1722 1722: . There is the first major battle between Chechens and the encroaching Russian state. Russian cavalry sent by Tsar Peter the Great to occupy a village in eastern Chechnya is defeated. Peter the Great dies in 1725, and tsarist expansionism
Farming back to 23,000 years ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3826731.stm
Blair in public split with Bush
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1247759,00.html Interesting how this is done. The Attorney General, a government minister, who is meant to give impartial legal advice (which is then kept secret - eg whether it is lawful to invade Iraq) has delivered a speech in a foreign capital - Paris - saying as a matter of pure jurisprudence that it is difficult to accept the system of military tribunals at Guantanamo. Typically the Blair administration has negotiated the repatriation of 5 British detainees from Guantanamo Bay (at least one of whom gave evidence of sexual humiliation and psychological torture going on there). There are only four remaining. And this news story is presented in such a way as to make highly ambiguous the degree of disagreement between Bush and Blair, and to treat is as an ongoing part of the business of diplomatic relations. But the manner of handling, allows others to speculate that the alliance is not much of an alliance, and for Blair to distance himself from Bush a little, while putting pressure for Bush to confront the Pentagon and release the remaining 4 in a gesture that will show he has not been a poodle. And this at a time when Bush is on the retreat internationally and in Iraq, whereas Blair may just be forgiven in the UK for his realpolitik that Britain had to decide whether to ally with the USA over a matter of great importance to that administration. Bush does not have that excuse, and further adverse events in Iraq may hurt Bush more than Blair. Which of course might require a sympathetic observation or two from the Brits, but could work out to be rather favourable to Britain's role in the world - the peace maker, the peace keeper, but committed to the rule of law, and with a tolerably efficient body of armed men at the disposal of a multi-lateralist model of emerging Empire. Meanwhile of course it is just a matter of time before the Brits get their remaining 4 citizens back from Guantanamo Bay, as Powell's officials have probably already privately indicated to them. When these citizens arrive in the UK there will be further news stories, which the Brits will handle with superb responsibility, but will further distance Blair if not from Bush, from Rumsfeld, and the detainees will probably be released. Thereby raising further questions in the international community about whether the USA's military adventures are in conformity with any concept of international law or not. The well judged balancing act of Perdious Albion continues to unfold, rather professionally. And as a bye-product 4 detainees may get released. If you attempt to be a modern marxist, watch news management to see how the material balance of forces is moulded in the ideological superstructure. Chris Burford London
Re: Chronology of Russian-Chechen relations -- intro and part one
Uh, I never disagreed with any of this. Once again: What should Russia's reaction have been to armed aggression onto its territory? (Now that we have established that such aggression did in fact take place.) I have never gotten an answer.
Re: Chronology of Russian-Chechen relations -- intro and part one
Chris, there are no easy answers. Engels once said that the worst time for a bad government is when it first tries to do something good. On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 03:01:17PM +0400, Chris Doss wrote: Uh, I never disagreed with any of this. Once again: What should Russia's reaction have been to armed aggression onto its territory? (Now that we have established that such aggression did in fact take place.) I have never gotten an answer. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Blair in public split with Bush
What was the response to the other released Gitmo Brits having been accused falsely? On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 07:23:08AM +0100, Chris Burford wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1247759,00.html Interesting how this is done. The Attorney General, a government minister, who is meant to give impartial legal advice (which is then kept secret - eg whether it is lawful to invade Iraq) has delivered a speech in a foreign capital - Paris - saying as a matter of pure jurisprudence that it is difficult to accept the system of military tribunals at Guantanamo. Typically the Blair administration has negotiated the repatriation of 5 British detainees from Guantanamo Bay (at least one of whom gave evidence of sexual humiliation and psychological torture going on there). There are only four remaining. And this news story is presented in such a way as to make highly ambiguous the degree of disagreement between Bush and Blair, and to treat is as an ongoing part of the business of diplomatic relations. But the manner of handling, allows others to speculate that the alliance is not much of an alliance, and for Blair to distance himself from Bush a little, while putting pressure for Bush to confront the Pentagon and release the remaining 4 in a gesture that will show he has not been a poodle. And this at a time when Bush is on the retreat internationally and in Iraq, whereas Blair may just be forgiven in the UK for his realpolitik that Britain had to decide whether to ally with the USA over a matter of great importance to that administration. Bush does not have that excuse, and further adverse events in Iraq may hurt Bush more than Blair. Which of course might require a sympathetic observation or two from the Brits, but could work out to be rather favourable to Britain's role in the world - the peace maker, the peace keeper, but committed to the rule of law, and with a tolerably efficient body of armed men at the disposal of a multi-lateralist model of emerging Empire. Meanwhile of course it is just a matter of time before the Brits get their remaining 4 citizens back from Guantanamo Bay, as Powell's officials have probably already privately indicated to them. When these citizens arrive in the UK there will be further news stories, which the Brits will handle with superb responsibility, but will further distance Blair if not from Bush, from Rumsfeld, and the detainees will probably be released. Thereby raising further questions in the international community about whether the USA's military adventures are in conformity with any concept of international law or not. The well judged balancing act of Perdious Albion continues to unfold, rather professionally. And as a bye-product 4 detainees may get released. If you attempt to be a modern marxist, watch news management to see how the material balance of forces is moulded in the ideological superstructure. Chris Burford London -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Marxist Financial Advice
Yes, it is wrong. It adds nothing to the list. You can tell X personally that you do not like him/her off list, but not here. On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:21:31PM -0700, Sabri Oncu wrote: Michael: What is wrong with letting a person know that you do not like him Michael? Do we have to like everybody? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Chronology of Russian-Chechen relations -- intro and part one
That is my whole point. Things are a lot more complicated than just evil Russian imperialists attacking noble Chechen freedom-fighters. -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 04:44:44 -0700 Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Chronology of Russian-Chechen relations -- intro and part one Chris, there are no easy answers. Engels once said that the worst time for a bad government is when it first tries to do something good.
Can't keep it in their pants
NY Times, June 26, 2004 Candidate, Under Pressure, Quits Senate Race in Illinois By STEPHEN KINZER CHICAGO, June 25 - Crippled by accusations about sex clubs and losing support from his own party, Jack Ryan, the Republican Senate candidate in Illinois, pulled out of the race on Friday, leaving Republicans searching for a new face to defend a critical Senate seat. It's clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race, Mr. Ryan said in a statement to reporters at his campaign headquarters. What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign - the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play. The candidacy of Mr. Ryan, 44, an investment banker turned teacher in the inner city, imploded when a judge unsealed custody papers that included statements by his former wife, the actress Jeri Ryan (she played 7 of 9, a reformed Borg, on Startrek), saying he had taken her to sex clubs and asked her to have public sex. Her accusations left Republicans reeling in a race that represents one of the Democrats' top chances to pick up a seat now held by a Republican, Peter G. Fitzgerald, who is not seeking a second term. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/26/politics/26ryan.html === NY Daily News, June 25, 2004 Say judge got a grip on himself OKLAHOMA CITY - Giving new meaning to the phrase if it please the court, an Oklahoma judge allegedly masturbated and used a device for enhancing erections on the bench while court was in session. A court clerk also told state officials she once saw Judge Donald Thompson shaving the area around his genitals with a disposable razor while he was on the bench. The stunning allegations were made in a petition from the state attorney general, who is seeking to remove the randy jurist from the bench. The formal complaint from Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson charges that Thompson, 57, engaged in conduct constituting an offense involving moral turpitude in violation of the Oklahoma Constitution, Edmondson's spokesman said yesterday. The Sapulpa District judge flatly denies the charges, his attorney Clark Brewster said yesterday. He said the judge received a penis pump for his 50th birthday as a gag gift, which became a source of a running joke in the courthouse. The allegations are bizarre and preposterous, Brewster said. Recently, some members of local law enforcement that are upset with a number of his rulings used this situation to embarrass and attack him. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Chronology of Russian-Chechen relations -- intro and part one
In a message dated 6/26/2004 1:01:35 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1817-64:. These are the years of the fierce series of rebellions and conflicts called the Caucasian War, in which the Chechens play a major role. Ultimately Russia subjugates the Caucasus through devastating many of its peoples. A substantial part of the Chechen population are killed, while many Chechens and other Caucasian mountaineers are deported from their regions to elsewhere in the Caucasus, or forced to leave the Caucasus entirely and settle in the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). The tsarist forces could not achieve victory over the Chechens so long as the forests provided cover for ambushes and guerrilla tactics, so the Russian army systematically cuts down the main Chechen forests. The Chechen landscape is permanently altered.. . .. Shamil also seeks to build up state or governmental institutions among the Chechens, something which the Chechen tribes had not previously had. Contrary to romanticized pictures of such revolts, he doesn't shrink from harsh, dictatorial measures to enforce his decrees and preserve unity against the Russians.1877-8:. On the occasion of a war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, there is a new anti-Russian uprising in the North Caucasus, led by Haji Mohammed in Chechnya and Ali-Bek Haji in Dagestan.1890s:. Oil is discovered in Grozny, Chechnya's main city, which by 1900 becomes second only to Baku (presently the capital of Azerbaijan) as an oil city in the tsarist empire. Later, Chechnya will be important both for oil extraction and refining in the Soviet Union. Still later, oil extraction will decline quite far by 1980, being less than half the output of 1911, but Chechnya will retain its significance for the Soviet Union as a producer of special aviation oils, as a major refining center, and as part of a major network of oil pipelines. Comment It is very easy to speak of and demand a class analysis of social forces and in the heat of the moment forget to present the economic analysis, which in fact is the meaning of the word class analysis. Class analysis means the social and political relations of economic units in their interactivity with themselves andother economic units - with the property relations within, in the social and ideological sphere. Classes are in the last instance riveted to how people are organized and group together on the basis of a definable stage in the development of productive forces - a given state of tool, instrument and machine development + human labor sitting on a definable energy grid. 1. Everyone on earth remotely familiar with human history agree that it is written on a parchment of genocide in blood ink. This is especially true for the Western hemisphere as the premier model of development for the past seven hundred years. 2. Imperialism has been and remains the general form of human advancement in the sense that more developed states (economic units) subjugate lesser developed peoples and bring them into their framework and trajectory of economic development. 3. Imperial logic as the export of more developed productive forces takes place as military conquest in history and is not peculiar to the epoch of bourgeois property and industrial relations of production. Thinking, ideological proclamations and passionate appeals to justice cannot halt this very real historical progression . . . did not alter this historical trajectory and will not halt this historical progression tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. 4. The period chronicled above is the period of the formation of what would be called the national question and the economic relations during the 1850s - 1900s became the basis for Lenin's party and Lenin personally to formulate what is called the national question as an attribute of Leninism. 5. The chronicle above is absolutely devoid of economic analysis or class analysis that is the material that would allow us today to try and unravel what the Communists - Bolsheviks,in Russia were responding to and why they put forth various political forms of resolution of the national question, short of the formation of independent national or rather multinational state structures. In as much as Chechnya is composed of more than one historically evolved peoples we are not talking about the formation of a national state structure in the first place, but rather a multinational state structure, that in theory would have existed in a federated stated structure not unlike that of the USNA. 6. The question that emerged in the discussion of Chechnya was not whether it is morally proper for the peoples of Chechnya to be beat up by the guardians of the Russian State or their own rotten and reactionary leaders, but rather what is the current form of resolution of the national factor for us today as opposed to in the time of Lenin and
Viagra, Valium, and Prostitution in Occupied Iraq
Viagra, Valium, and Prostitution in Occupied Iraq: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/06/viagra-valium-and-prostitution-in.html. -- 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/
Print versus web publishing
(Years from now historians might regard the differences between the Internet and print journals today in the same light as those that existed between handwritten manuscripts and material produced by the Gutenberg press during the dawn of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. One form of communication has enormously democratic implications while the other serves as an elitist club open only to those who have been accepted into the priesthood. In Gutenberg's day, it was the Catholic church. Today it is tenured academia.) --- NY Times, June 26, 2004 A Quiet Revolt Puts Costly Journals on Web By PAMELA BURDMAN When Dr. Miguel Nicolelis, a neurobiologist at Duke University, decided to release a groundbreaking study in an upstart online journal, his colleagues were flabbergasted. The research, demonstrating how brain implants enabled monkeys to operate a robotic arm, was a shoo-in for acceptance in premier journals like Nature or Science. Usually you want to publish your best work in well-established journals to have the widest possible penetration, Dr. Nicolelis said. My idea was the opposite. We need to open up the dissemination of scientific results. The journal Dr. Nicolelis chose PLoS Biology, a publication of the Public Library of Science aims to do just that by putting peer-reviewed scientific papers online free, at the Web site www.plosbiology.org. The high subscription cost of prestigious peer-reviewed journals has been a running sore point with scholars, whose tenure and prominence depend on publishing in them. But since the Public Library of Science, which was started by a group of prominent scientists, began publishing last year, this new model has been gaining attention and currency within academia. More than money and success is at stake. Free and widespread distribution of new research has the potential to redefine the way scientific and intellectual developments are recorded, circulated and preserved for years to come. Society pays for science, said Dr. Nicolelis, whose article in the October issue of PLoS got worldwide attention. We have the technology, we have the expertise. Why is it that the only thing that has remained the same for 50 years is the way we publish our results? The whole system needs overhaul. (clip) But more and more academics are viewing traditional publishers as obstacles to wide dissemination of studies paid for by public monies. Several open access alternatives are being hotly debated in academic online discussion groups and in the mainstream science press. The criticism even extends to some nonprofit publications, like the journal Science, which nearly tripled prices for its largest subscribers over the last two years. Late last year, two scientists at the University of California at San Francisco called for a global boycott by authors and editors of six molecular biology journals published by Elsevier. They timed the campaign to coincide with the moment that the the University of California system was renegotiating its contract with the company. The mission and mandate of scientific publishing is to provide a formal record of scientific discovery, not to make publishing companies rich or editors famous, said one of the organizers, Keith R. Yamamoto, a prominent microbiologist and the vice dean for research. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/26/books/26PUB.html -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
The hidden costs of cheaper oil
NY Times, June 26, 2004 China Pays a Price for Cheaper Oil By KEITH BRADSHER HONG KONG, June 23 - With toxic lead finally disappearing from most of the world's gasoline, a new air pollution fight is emerging around the globe over how much sulfur to allow in fuel. Rapidly developing countries like China, India, Thailand, Mexico and Brazil, where ownership and use of cars and trucks is soaring, are on the front lines. High levels of sulfur contamination occur naturally in some crude oil, especially from the Mideast and Russia. This sour oil is ordinarily harder to sell and fetches a lower price than sweet low-sulfur crude, because it is more difficult to refine and because environmental laws in the United States and Europe already impose tight ceilings on sulfur in fuel, limits that are set to grow still tighter over the next decade. But this year, oil producers are pumping and selling all the oil they can to meet surging demand, and the extra oil they are able to bring to market is, to a great extent, high in sulfur. With sweet crude commanding the highest prices, many refineries in China and elsewhere are buying cheaper sour crude, and turning it into fuels that may contain many times more sulfur than the gasoline and diesel sold in the United States or Europe. Environmentalists call sulfur the world's biggest single contributor to air pollution. It forms noxious gases like sulfur oxides, and it causes diesel engines to spew more soot. And high-sulfur fuel quickly ruins the catalytic converters installed on new gasoline-powered cars, defeating one of the main efforts in countries like China to cut down on the harm that vehicles do to air quality. Sulfur is definitely the lead of the future, said Robert Cox, the fuels manager at the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, a London-based trade group supported by oil companies. The oil industry has called on automakers to develop new catalytic converters that are more sulfur tolerant, while acknowledging that sulfur is a significant problem, especially in developing countries with limited budgets. Mr. Cox said that in September or October the trade association would issue its recommendations for what levels of sulfur are attainable for countries at various levels of economic development, adding that sulfur has got to be the next issue. The problem is especially acute in China, where car sales have been rising by close to 80 percent a year, creating huge traffic jams and contributing to some of the world's worst air pollution. At the same time, Chinese refineries have emerged as the world's most aggressive buyers of high-sulfur crude oil. They really need to ratchet down very quickly on their emissions standards, or their cities are going to become unbearable, said Michael P. Walsh, a former top American air-quality regulator who now works as a consultant to the Chinese government and other developing countries on air-quality issues. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/26/business/worldbusiness/26sulfur.html -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
don't do it.
whatever you do, don't answer the on-line poll (with all the red/white/blue colors) about whether or not the US should pull out of Iraq. You'll get much more spam if you do. jd
Democrats and George Soros operatives in the thick of Venezuela counter-revolution
Counterpunch Weekend Edition June 26/27, 2004 Venezuela: the Gang's All Here Replay of Chile and Nicaragua? By ALEXANDER COCKBURN You can set your watch by it. The minute some halfway decent government in Latin America begins to reverse the order of things and give the have-nots a break from the grind of poverty and wretchedness, the usual suspects in El Norte rouse themselves from the slumber of indifference and start barking furiously about democratic norms. It happened in 1973 in Chile; we saw it again in Nicaragua in the 1980s; and heres the same show on summer rerun in Venezuela, pending the August 15 recall referendum of President Hugo Chvez. Chvez is the best thing that has happened to Venezuelas poor in a very long time. His government has actually delivered on some of its promises, with improved literacy rates and more students getting school meals. Public spending has quadrupled on education and tripled on healthcare, and infant mortality has declined. The government is promoting one of the most ambitious land-reform programs seen in Latin America in decades. Most of this has been done under conditions of economic sabotage. Oil strikes, a coup attempt and capital flight have resulted in about a 4 percent decline in GDP for the five years that Chvez has been in office. But the economy is growing at close to 12 percent this year, and with world oil prices near $40 a barrel, the government has extra billions that its using for social programs. So naturally the United States wants him out, just as the rich in Venezuela do. Chvez was re-elected in 2000 for a six-year term. A US-backed coup against him was badly botched in 2002. The imperial script calls for a human rights organization to start braying about irregularities by their intended victim. And yes, heres Jos Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch. We last met him in this column helping to ease a $1.7 billion US aid package for Colombias military apparatus. This time hes holding a press conference in Caracas, hollering about the brazen way Chvez is trying to expand membership of Venezuelas Supreme Court, the same way FDR did, and for the same reason: that the Venezuelan court has been effectively packed the other way for decades, with judicial flunkies of the rich. I dont recall Vivanco holding too many press conferences to protest that perennial iniquity. The international observers recruited to save the rich traditionally include the Organization of American States and the Carter Center; in the case of the Venezuelan recall they have mustered dead on schedule. On behalf of the opposition, they exerted enormous pressure on the countrys independent National Electoral Council during the signature-gathering and verification process. Eventually the head of the OAS mission had to be replaced by the OAS secretary general because of his unacceptable public statements. The Carter Centers team is headed by Jennifer McCoy, whose forthcoming book, The Unraveling of Representative Democracy in Venezuela, leans heavily against the government. One of its contributors is Jos Antonio Gil of the Datanalysis Polling Firm, most often cited for US media analysis. The Los Angeles Times quoted Gil on what to do: And he can see only one way out of the political crisis surrounding President Hugo Chvez. He has to be killed, he said, using his finger to stab the table in his office far above this capitals filthy streets. He has to be killed. Media manipulation is an essential part of the script, and here, right on cue, comes Bill Clintons erstwhile pollster, Stan Greenberg, still a leading Democratic Party strategist. Greenberg is under contract to RCTV, one of the right-wing media companies leading the Venezuelan opposition and recall effort. Its a pollsters dream job. Not only does he have enormous resources against an old-fashioned, politically unsophisticated poor peoples movement, but his firm has something comrades back home can only fantasize about: control over the Venezuelan media. Imagine if the right wing controlled almost the entire media during Clintons impeachment. full: http://www.counterpunch.org/ -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Print versus web publishing
Louis Proyect wrote: One form of communication has enormously democratic implications while the other serves as an elitist club open only to those who have been accepted into the priesthood. In Gutenberg's day, it was the Catholic church. Today it is tenured academia.) --- NY Times, June 26, 2004 The journal Dr. Nicolelis chose PLoS Biology, a publication of the Public Library of Science aims to do just that by putting peer-reviewed scientific papers online free, at the Web site www.plosbiology.org. Still PEER-reviewed. That is, still dominated by tenured faculty. The internet is having a great impact, but what Lou describes here is something happening within tenured academia. Tenure (unless something else than the internet impacts it) will continue to be based on _peer-reviewed_ publication. What is different is that the publications of tenured faculty will have a (potentially) widened circulation. There is one possibility I see in the social sciences and humanities. There are too damn many scholarly books being published. Web publication would put the emphasis where it ought to be, on articles. In the physical and biological sciences the emphasis always has been on articles rather than books, so I don't see web publication making any great difference there in the structure of academia. Carrol
An exchange with Joel Kovel
(Joel's reply appears in its entirety. My comments are interspersed.) joel kovel wrote: Hi Louis, Bushism is a term used on a number of occasions by Howie Hawkins--with whom I have worked a lot in the past--to describe the identity between the mainstream parties. I absolutely agree that both parties share equal responsibility for imperialism, for perfectly transparent reasons--and as I have said on a number of occasions, for that reason I would never support Kerry. (For example, recently asked to join a group called Greens for Kerry, I refused, stating: I cannot lend my name to any support for Kerry so long as his views are those of imperialism and the reflex support of Ariel Sharon.) I also agree with your paragraph on how fundamental imperialism is. But Joel, anybody who reads your article will be reminded of how the Daily Worker used to get people to vote for the Democrats. You never actually saw them specifically instruct people to vote for LBJ or Jimmy Carter. But with the torrent of words about how the Republicans were qualitatively different from the Democrats and objectively fascist, etc., anybody would get the message. You just have to connect the dots. However, I reject the identity theory of the major bourgeois parties. This is only Marxist in the vulgar sense of the term, which argues reductively by replacing concrete analysis wth reified categories. It's as if Gramsci never existed, calling us to look at the real fabric of things rather than relying on reflex invocation of economistic laws. Certainly this would include incorporating the social bases of parties and their legitimation strategies rather than resorting over and over again to their ruling class loyalities Of course the parties are different. If the Democrats ran Zell Miller, the nitwit Senator from Georgia who goes on the Don Imus show to blast his own party, there would be such outrage that the system would risk collapse. This is not Coke and Pepsi we are talking about after all. The Democrats include many good people in their ranks like the late Paul Wellstone, the late Ted Weiss in NYC, et al. In many ways, their politics is the same as the Green Party's--heart-felt progressivism and anti-corporatism. The difference, however, is not in program but in the refusal to help preserve a *system* that underpins capitalism. At the risk of being tedious, I would like to repeat a point I already made. Chattel slavery relied on a kind of 2-party system as well. The Democrats (the same party as today) were adamantly pro-slavery. The Whigs were critical of the abuses of the slave masters but would not call for the abolition of the system. Any initiative that challenged this duopoly should have been encouraged--like the Free Soil Party. At this point in American history, we should be encouraging challenges to the 2-party system based on wage slavery, no matter the faults of individual candidates like Ralph Nader. There are deep and complex reasons why this country has slid so far to the right in recent decades--which I can't take up here--but the Republicans have been able to exploit them while the Democrats play catch up and suffer from a permanent case of bad faith. Christian fundamentalism has become the ideological linchpin of the Republicans, and it grows with the unending social and economic crises of capital. I see Bushism (though I would never use the term as such) as the specific fusion in the Bush administration between big oil capital and the religious right. I suspect that W. will be dumped by the ruling class this time around because he has made such a disaster of Iraq; but the structural problems remain. No one can say with certainty that the Bushites will further institutionalize theocratic fascism if he prevails in November, but no one can deny this as a real possibility. Hate to sound like a Trotskyite brontosaurus, Joel, but I don't think that fascism is a threat in the USA as long as the working class is quiescent. To suspend elections and the bill of rights in the face of massive resignation to the current state of affairs would be an overreaction on the part of the ruling class. They are much smarter than that. Fascism is a system of last resort. It is tremendously expensive since it relies on a beefed up security force to keep track of the citizenry. It is also politically risky since it poses the question of armed struggle, the only possible way to overthrow totalitarian rule. You'll notive how ineffective attempts have been to stop Farenheit 911 in its tracks. If we were anywhere near fascism, this film would have been quashed before it ever finished being filmed. If Nader were offering a real alternative, I would say it's worth the risk. But I don't see that he does. He may give that impression because of his charisma, but that's a very dangerous trap to fall into and it does no credit to otherwise sophisticated leftists to
New books from Merlin Press
NEW BOOKS now available from THE MERLIN PRESS www.merlinpress.co.uk PERRY ANDERSON, Marxism and the New Left Paul Blackledge For over forty years Perry Anderson, has been one of the most influential figures on the intellectual Left. Through his writings, his publishing, his editing of New Left Review, and teaching at UCLA, he has introduced and disseminated a range of European Marxist opinion to the English speaking world: Deutscher, Gramsci, Sartre, Lukcs, Althusser, Poulantzas, to name a few. His own books are seminal contributions to political theory. This survey of Andersons works explores a myriad of political writings, considers the evolution of an influential current of New Left thinking from the 1960s onwards, and reviews its engagement with critical theorists such as Brenner, Fukuyama and Jameson. --A critical survey of Marxist and Post-Modernist theories --Explains New Left evolutions: from revolutions in the 1960s - to the post-modernist, third way 1990s an impressively clear, concise, well-structured, and generally balanced intellectual biography of one of the central figures in post-war British Marxism Dr Gregory Elliot ISBN 0 85036 532 5 GB Pounds Pbk 16.95 For further information visit: http://www.merlinpress.co.uk/merlin/Recent.htm === IRAQ AND THE INTERNATIONAL OIL SYSTEM Why America Went to War in the Gulf by Stephen C. Pelletire Stephen C. Pelletire is the author of The Kurds: An Unstable Element in the Gulf. He was the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq War. Did the United States go to war against Iraq in both 1991 and 2003 to secure control of oil from the Persian Gulf? This book explains: --How the Persian Gulf came under the control of a coercive cartel with benefits for members that were denied to outsiders. --The history of the oil system that evolved in the United States: its roots in Pennsylvania, through Texas wildcatters and the dominance of Standard Oil barons. --The central role of oil in conflicts in Central Asia --The introduction and conclusion address the motivations behind the most recent war in Iraq. Pbk ISBN 0 85036 551 1 GB Pounds 14.95 For further information visit: http://www.merlinpress.co.uk/merlin/Recent.htm -- THE GLOBALIZATION DECADE A Critical Reader Edited by: Leo Panitch, Colin Leys, Alan Zuege and Martijn Konings Over the past decade the contributors to Socialist Register have been widely recognised as providing the most distinctive investigations on the left today of the contradictions of globalisation, the internationalisation of the state, progressive competitiveness, the new imperialism and popular global mobilisations against it. This anthology provides: --The most searching analyses of the political, economic and cultural contradictions of globalisation available essential reading for students in troubled times --The best set of readings on the role of states - and especially the American state - in making globalisation happen, and on the problems they now confront in trying to keep it going. ISBN 0 85036 516 3 GB Pounds 16.95 pbk For further information visit: http://www.merlinpress.co.uk/merlin/Recent.htm - also available, published for the editors by VIVEKA, India WORLD SOCIAL FORUM:CHALLENGING EMPIRES Editors: Jai Sen, Anita Anand, Arturo Escobar, Peter Waterman. A critical anthology of essays on the theory and practice of the Forum, with essays by wo/men from many parts of the world, with many different points of view. An event and an open space for debate and discussion. A forum for the articulation of alternatives embodied in the call, Another World is Possible ! A process of continuous promotion, expansion, and protection of the open space by and for millions of people worldwide. The World Social Forum has indeed progressed from the unprecedented event it was in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in January 2001 when 25,000 to 30,000 people came to challenge the World Economic Forum being held during those very days in Davos, Switzerland. Reading through the thoughtful discussions of those that have seen and experienced the evolution of the Forum, I am amazed at how easily I turn to my experiences in the women's movement to understand the questions now being raised. To achieve our dream of another world, why don't we take greater control of the discussions, strategise together and methodically work on a plan to bring about that change ? Why not create a movement or an organisation ? How do we involve more people and groups worldwide in the process without really directing the process? Forty writers and organisations have contributed to this collection including: MICHAEL ALBERT, SAMIR AMIN, WALDEN F BELLO, JEREMY BRECHER, SUSAN GEORGE, MICHAEL LWY, ARUNDHATI ROY, NAWAAL EL SAADAWI. CONTENT - Forewords - Section 1: Antecedents: Critical Perspectives -
Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice
s. artesian wrote: Then comes the advice about doing the right thing in the international debt markets and taking positions (long? short?) in Venezuelan debt. That's a real thing of beauty by the way. That was me (btw, I don't believe I've ever claimed to be a Marxist, though I reserve the right to do so in future if I want to) I'm a bit tied up with family matters at the moment, but will return to the lists on this one early doors next week. If you wish to prepare your arguments, be aware that my general theme is going to be that when you agree to lend someone money you are doing them a good turn, not a bad turn. And that having lent someone money, it is not /per se/ evil to hope that you will get it back. A friend cadged thirty quid off me to buy drinks in a nightclub on Friday night, however, so by some standards I am already presumably morally compromised. cheers and good-humoured beers dd
Re: Marxist Financial Advice
Suffice to say that, no joke, in (I think) 2002 when the 10bn lira note was introduced (quote from the Central Bank Governor at the time It's not exactly a proud moment having your name on a note with ten zeros on it, but needs must), there was a small but serious atempt by some members of the Turkish Parliament to get Ataturk's face removed from the notes, as they felt that it was sullying his memory. (In the UK, we had the opposite issue; until the 1950s, the Bank of England refused to put images of the Royal Family on banknotes, as they felt that the popularity of the royals was far too transient and risky to risk tarnishing their own brand with). And I speak as someone who does have a couple of lira-denominated instruments (IIRC, the equity shares of Turkiye Is Bankasi) in my retirement fund. Turkey is a classic example of the neo-liberal orthodoxy not working. In the last ten years I have been asked to produce disaster scenarios for the eventuality of a Turkish economic collapse on no fewer than three occasions. It hasn't happened yet. I personally don't think that it will. The secret to the Turkish economy's astounding ability to muddle through, IMO, is that the banks are, for the most part, owned by powerful industrial groups which are themselves profitable. This means that 1) the banks can be recapitalised by the families which own them, which is intrinisically more stable than having their ownership dispersed and 2) the economy as a whole is nothing like as exposed to fluctuations in the market's views of the Turkish economy, as the source of working capital for the commanding heights of the Turkish economy is a banking system largely controlled by its main customers. Turkey is in the process of bringing in Western style corporate governance, and as soon as I think they are about to achieve it I will run a mile. best, dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Devine, James Sent: 26 June 2004 01:03 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Marxist Financial Advice I won't ask how much 20 million Turkish Liras are worth but I'm going to diversify by putting my assets into gin _and_ tonic or scotch _and_ soda. jd --
Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice
1. We are not talking about personal favors, good deeds, doing friends a solid, or picking up a bar tab. We are talking about capitalist accummulation. That's not an exactly subtle distinction. Let me know how you feel when you invest your retirement savings in Venezuelean bonds, and a revolutionary government decides to auto-cancel its debt. 2. In the meantime, much is being presented about sovereignty and self-determination, and national liberation. Some view the formulas of the past as sufficient and final. Some even go so far as to say that it doesn't matter that the national resistance of the Iraqis has nothing to do with socialism, and present that as a Marxist position. I think it is critical to apply a little Marxist analysis internally, to the positions developed a hundred or so years ago about national liberation and sovereignty, and understand how even the Marxists were not coincident with their own history, relying on a fallback position of rights rather than a class analysis of the actual determinants of struggles for national liberation. In a nutshell, the resistance in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with national liberation and self-determination, but is triggered by capital's need for destruction-- and as such the resistance has everything to do with socialism-- and to be successful must put forward that thing that distinguishes revolutionists from all others-- a revolutionary program. The struggle for national liberation did not arise in the past 150 years separate and apart from critical moments in the conflict between the means and relations of production, and consequently the notion of oppressed peoples is put forward at the moment as people is archaic, is transforming itself into class. This does not mean that we do not defend resistance struggles because organizations involved are not communist. It does mean that we do identify the driving forces, provide a concrete analysis, and not subjugate a radical Marxists analysis to blanket terms, umbrellas of national liberation which obscure the class differentiation, and struggle, at the heart of the resistance. So, for those like myself, interested in disturbing the environment. http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com - Original Message - From: Daniel Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Marxist Fianancial Advice s. artesian wrote: Then comes the advice about doing the right thing in the international debt markets and taking positions (long? short?) in Venezuelan debt. That's a real thing of beauty by the way. That was me (btw, I don't believe I've ever claimed to be a Marxist, though I reserve the right to do so in future if I want to) I'm a bit tied up with family matters at the moment, but will return to the lists on this one early doors next week. If you wish to prepare your arguments, be aware that my general theme is going to be that when you agree to lend someone money you are doing them a good turn, not a bad turn. And that having lent someone money, it is not /per se/ evil to hope that you will get it back. A friend cadged thirty quid off me to buy drinks in a nightclub on Friday night, however, so by some standards I am already presumably morally compromised. cheers and good-humoured beers dd
Re: Chronology of Russian-Chechen relations -- intro and part one
I agree that it is more complicated, but I can't see why Putin's approach gives a more satisfactory explanation. When I was in France, they had terrorist attacks quite frequently -- 1979 -- but the French both repressed AND accomodated resistence forces. France is not great, but it seems a step ahead of what the US does what I see Putin as doing. Do you think that Putin could do better? On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 05:06:12PM +0400, Chris Doss wrote: That is my whole point. Things are a lot more complicated than just evil Russian imperialists attacking noble Chechen freedom-fighters. -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 04:44:44 -0700 Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Chronology of Russian-Chechen relations -- intro and part one Chris, there are no easy answers. Engels once said that the worst time for a bad government is when it first tries to do something good. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Chat about Financial Advice, was Re: Marxist Financial Advice
Carrol Cox wrote: Let's remember that very few if any of the subscribers to this list have much in the way of discretionary investment. How do you know? A lot of PEN-Lers are professors with retirement accounts that invest in stocks and bonds. Many, maybe most, are in the upper quintile of their national income distribution. Even the righteous S.artesian probably has a pension from the railroad. So these aren't just idle theoretical speculations. Doug
Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice
Devine, James wrote: I said that the superficial stuff of volume III I missed this. What's superficial in v 3? Doug
Re: Chat about Financial Advice, was Re: Marxist Financial Advice
I am not righteous. I put two daughters through college. I know a lot about investing-- none of it has anything to do with Marxism. Nobody's against pensions. Railroad pensions, for your edification, are not self-direct investments. They are defined benefit plans. My only point was that Marxist financial advice re investing is an oxymoron. Real Marxist financial advise would be limited to seize the banks, cancel the debt. - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Chat about Financial Advice, was Re: Marxist Financial Advice Carrol Cox wrote: Let's remember that very few if any of the subscribers to this list have much in the way of discretionary investment. How do you know? A lot of PEN-Lers are professors with retirement accounts that invest in stocks and bonds. Many, maybe most, are in the upper quintile of their national income distribution. Even the righteous S.artesian probably has a pension from the railroad. So these aren't just idle theoretical speculations. Doug
Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice
In a message dated 6/26/2004 12:17:19 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The struggle for "national liberation" did not arise in the past 150 yearsseparate and apart from critical moments in the conflict between the means and relations of production, and consequently the notion of "oppressed peoples" is put forward at the moment as "people" is archaic, is transforming itself into class.This does not mean that we do not defend resistance struggles because organizations involved are not communist. It does mean that we do identify the driving forces, provide a concrete analysis, and not subjugate a "radical" Marxists analysis to blanket terms, umbrellas of national liberation which obscure the class differentiation, and struggle, at the heart of the resistance. Reply Marxists finaical advice as distinct from financial advice from a Marxist is interesting. First things first. My insistence that the doctrine of Leninism is obsolete does not meaning throwing out Lenin's method or approach to concrete political phenomenon. The above is my basic position and one should look at the world in which they like and act. Iraq most certainly is not a national liberation struggle. whcih refers to a political category of history that no longer exists. The division of the world amongst imperial powers and the redivision and redivision of the redivsion long ago overrode the period of history Lenin and the communists and socialist of his time called the national movement. To accomodate this change in the economic and political relations of the world communist began to speak of the national-colonial movements because an era of history emerged - after the First Imperial War, where no one could really speak of a national movement that was not a question of the fight against the direct colonial system. The slogan of that era was Workers and Oppressed Peoples Unite. This would seem rather clear to anyone that studied the program of the Russian communists and their impact in the Third International. In other words national movement belong to a period of history during an era of transition from agricultural relations to bourgeois commodity production during a period of transition from manufacture to industry, when various peoples are undergoing economic transition and the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeois are fighting to establish their "national market" and state to protect their economic independence from more powerful states. The period of the national colonial revolts by definition indicates that the previous era of national movements had resulted in the defeat of lesser economjcally developed peoples and nations. Consquently those defeated are drawn into the orbit of the direct colonial system (in the main because development in the Western Hemisphere was somewhat different) and the national question became a question of colonialism at the hands of bourgeois property. In the second period of the reformulation of the national question the political polarity that was Soviet Power and bourgeois imperialism existed and in theory the more than less petty bourgeois masses could be won over to an alliance with Soviets as a political strategy to weaken imperialism by fighting for its economic and political reserves - sources of manpower and raw materialism. In this sense Lenin spoke of communists not imposing their/our ideology, doctrine and program on the petty bourgeois colonial masses. At the same time our common sense training as communists taught us that their can be no such thing as inpendence from imperialism without the overthrown of domestic capital as a property relations interlocked with world bnourgeois property. The national colonial question further evolved in the post Second World Imperial war era and proved conclusively that it is an act of political insanity or rather bourgeois logic to speak of independence from imperialism without flat out proletarian revolution and all the talk about the Third World and Third Way has revealed itself to be no more than the striving of petty capitalist seeking their place in the sun. This period of the national colonial revolts came to an end in terms of the political and economic logic of the American Union with the 1965 Watts Rebellion and then 1967 Detroit which began a material separation of the black workers from their own bourgeoisie. On the world stage the victory of the Vietnamese revolution is probably a recognizable juncture for revolutionaries world wide. The treachery of the Soviet leaders is not the issue but rather the political meaning of self determination which lost it real political importance as a weapon of the proletariat as the material results of the First Imperial World War. Workers and Oppressed People of the World Unite is a class formulation that subordinates self determination to Workers as a class alignment. In this current era of the
Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice
it's only superficial in Marx's framework. (Note that I put it quotes.) To use somewhat non-Marxian termionology, he saw the volume I stuff as essential (the source of surplus-value, the big picture) and the volume II stuff as more superficial. Put another way, if you understand volume I alone, you understand his world-view concerning capitalism, but if you look at volume III alone, you get pretty standard economics for his time. My view is that vol. I is abstract, while vol. III is more concrete and that both are needed. jd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list on behalf of Doug Henwood Sent: Sat 6/26/2004 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Marxist Fianancial Advice Devine, James wrote: I said that the superficial stuff of volume III I missed this. What's superficial in v 3? Doug
Re: Chat about Financial Advice, was Re: Marxist Financial Advice
sartesian writes: I know a lot about investing-- none of it has anything to do with Marxism. for what it's worth, pen-l isn't self-defined as Marxist. I'm also not sure that Marxist financial advice is necessarily oxymoronic. There may be some stuff in the volume III discussion of money and finance that says something different that might be relevant to personal finance, though I doubt it. jd
Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice/ Henry C.K. on Money
There are fundamental faults with specie money. To begin with, specie money must be based on a commodity of limited supply. There was a time when new gold was discovered so abundantly in the New World that gold was the cause of inflation in Europe. Thus an effective specie money by nature cannot support optimum economic growth, because its function is to preserve the value of money. In a high growth economy, such as most modern economies aspire to be, the limited supply of gold cannot meet the necessary monetary expansion, thus gold backed money will be deflationary and counter growth. In real terms, if the dollar were to be gold backed today, it would have to be valued at $35,000 per once. Two things will immediately happen: the equity market will fall in price by 100 fold with the DOW at 80, and Russia and other gold producers will instantly emerged as new superpowers.Money is not a storer of value, it does not need to have any intrinsic value at all to be accepted. Gold coins circulated only in markets beyond the political influence of the currency issuer. Minsky is correct that money is created whenever credit is granted. Thus anyone can create money while legal tender can only be issued by government. Capitalism is a game for those who has capital. Under capitalism, money is a unit of account of capital. Before capitalism, taxes were paid with agricultural produce, livestock and textile under feudalism. Under capitalism, money is not the root of all evil, but the lack of it is. The challenge of the capitalist regime is to deliver money to as many of the population as possible without debasing the value of money or causing inflation. This logic was operative under industrial capitalism, because capital then performed a function of increasing the productivity of labor. But this function had a limited lifespan. Capital formation soon reduced labor's share of the wealth created by increased productivity to the point of retarding the growth of aggregate demand to keep abreast of productive capacity. Marx's insight of surplus value being the cancer of capitalism is based on this cause-effect. The purpose of government are two fold: 1: to prevent revolution (the overthrow of government) and 2: to institute policies that deliver money to the population through employment in the non-government sector (not necessarily private). This is done by granting credit (a form of money creation) to the economy through government debt which in turn is serviced by taxes. When a government runs a budget surplus, it is essentially draining credit from the economy, thus slowing it down. When government desires a growth economy, it has no business running a surplus. The tax rate is not a critical as long as tax revenue is not used to reduce the national debt. A high tax rate, provided it is not confiscatory, will lead to a more dynamic economy because capital cannot afford to be idle and enjoy gain merely from passive investment. A government deficit is a way of correcting market failure, by government spending on parts of the economy that the market ignores, such as health, education, infrastructure, pollution control and environmental protection, security and research with no short term profit. Any government that incurs foreign currency sovereign debt should be impeached. The IMF notion of austerity conditionality of increasing unemployment to service foreign currency government debt is self defeatingly irrational. Full employment with high wages strengthens sovereign credit rating through high demand in an overproduction economy to generate needed tax revenue. There is no positive policy effect in pursuing unemployment and tax reduction, the darlings of supply-siders.The Austrian School formulated their precepts during a very peculiar period ofEuropean history, the hyperinflation periods following the two World Wars. It preyed on US phobia against revolution by promoting a fear of hyperinflation. The Austrians propose sound money and free markets as a deterrent against revolution, but they want to achieve it by making money scarce and by shutting off all unprofitable economic activities. This creates widespread poverty which leads directly to revolution. Money is more valuable when more people have more of it, not the other way around. End of post.Government bonds are debts, because the selling of bonds soaks up money (sovereign credit) from circulation. Money is sovereign credit because it soaks up sovereign or private debt when used to buy bonds (debt) and inject credit into the financial system. Sovereign debt is never needed to finance domestic development, which can be financed with sovereign credit. Government issues sovereign credit so that a private debt market can work without specie money. Sovereign credit is the benchmark of all credit ratings. Swapping of bonds is a common practice in finance, particularly in structured finance where a bond
Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice/ Henry C.K. on Money - 2
The Foreign Capital HoaxThe Chartalist theory of money claims that government, by virtual of its power to levy taxes payable with government-designated legal tender, does not need external financing. Accordingly, sovereign credit should enable the government to act as employer of last resort to maintain full employment even in a regulated market economy. The logic of Chartalism reasons that an excessively low tax rate will result in a low demand for currency and that a chronic government budget surplus is economically counterproductive and unsustainable because it drains credit from the economy. The colonial administration in British Africa learned that land taxes were instrumental in inducing the carefree natives into using its currency and engaging in financial productivity.Thus, according to Chartalist theory, an economy can finance its domestic developmental needs, to achieve full employment and maximize balanced growth with prosperity without any need for sovereign debt or foreign loans or investment, and without the penalty of hyperinflation. But Chartalist theory is operative only in closed domestic monetary regimes. Countries participating in neo-liberal international free trade under the aegis of unregulated global financial and currency markets, cannot operate on Chartalist principles because of the foreign-exchange dilemma. Any government printing its own currency to finance legitimate domestic needs beyond the size of its foreign-exchange reserves will soon find its currency under attack in the foreign-exchange markets, regardless of whether the currency is pegged at a fixed exchanged rate to another currency, or is free-floating. Thus all non-dollar economies are forced to attract foreign capital in dollar to meet domestic needs. But countries must accumulate dollars before they can attract foreign capital. Even then, with capital control, foreign capital will only invest in the export sector where dollar revenue can be earned. But the dollars that accumulate from trade surpluses can only be invested in dollar assets in the United States, depriving local economies of needed capital. The only protection from such attacks on domestic currency is to suspend full convertibility, which then will keep foreign investment away. Thus dollar hegemony starves the non-dollar economies of needed capital by depriving their governments of the power to issue sovereign credit domestically.Precisely to prevent such currency attacks, tight control on the international flow of capital was instituted by the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates pegged to a gold-backed dollar at $35 per ounce after World War II. Drawing lessons from the prewar 1930s Depression, economics thinking prevalent immediately after WWII had deemed international capital flow undesirable and unnecessary. Trade, a relatively small aspect of most national economies, was to be mediated through fixed exchange rates pegged to a gold-backed dollar. The fixed exchange rates were to be adjusted only gradually and periodically to reflect the relative strength of the participating economies. The impact of exchange rates were limited to the finance of international trade, and was not expect to dictate domestic monetary policy, which was crucial to domestic development and regarded as the province of national autonomy.Under principles of Chartalism, foreign capital serves no useful domestic purpose outside of an imperialistic agenda. Thus dollar hegemony essentially taxes away the ability of the trading partners of the United States to finance their own domestic development in their own currencies, and forces them to seek foreign loans and investment denominated in dollars, which the US, and only the US, can print at will.The Mundell-Fleming thesis, for which Robert Mundell won the 1999 Nobel Prize, states that in international finance, a government has the choice between (1) stable exchange rates, (2) international capital mobility and (3) domestic policy autonomy (full employment/low interest rates, counter-cyclical fiscal spending, etc). With unregulated global financial markets, a government can have only two of the three options.Through dollar hegemony, the United States is the only country that can defy the Mundell-Fleming thesis. For more than a decade since the end of the Cold War, the US has kept the fiat dollar significantly above its real economic value, attracted capital account surpluses and exercised unilateral policy autonomy within a globalized financial system dictated by dollar hegemony. The reasons for this are complex but the single most important reason is that all major commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars, mostly as an extension of superpower geopolitics. This fact is the anchor for dollar hegemony. Thus dollar hegemony makes possible US finance hegemony, which makes possible US exceptionism and unilateralism.The Foreign Exchange
Re: Marxist Fianancial Advice/ Henry C.K. on Money - 3 - end
Sovereign Credit (Part 1) By Henry C.K. Liu Credit drives the economy, not debt. Debt is the mirror reflection of credit. Even the most accurate mirror does violence to the symmetry of its reflection. Why does a mirror turn an image right to left and not upside down as the lens of a camera does? The scientific answer is that a mirror image transforms front to back rather than left to right as commonly assumed. Yet we often accept this aberrant mirror distortion as uncolored truth and we unthinkingly consider the distorted reflection in the mirror as a perfect representation. In the language of economics, credit and debt are opposites but not the same. In fact, credit and debt operate in reverse relations. Credit requires a positive net worth and debt does not. One can have good credit and no debt. High debt lowers credit rating. When one understands credit, one understands the main force behind the modern economy, which is driven by credit and stalled by debt. Behaviorally, debt distorts marginal utility calculations and rearranges disposable income. Debt turns corporate shares into Giffen goods, demand for which increases when their prices go up, and creates what US Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan calls "irrational exuberance," the economic man gone mad. Most monetary economists view government-issued money as a sovereign debt instrument with zero maturity, historically derived from the bill of exchange in free banking. This view is valid for specie money, which is a debt certificate that can claim on demand a prescribed amount of gold or other specie of value. Government-issued fiat money is not a sovereign debt but a sovereign credit instrument. Sovereign government bonds are sovereign debt while local government bonds are institutional debt, but not sovereign debt because local governments cannot print money. When money buys bonds, the transaction represents credit canceling debt. The relationship is rather straightforward, but of fundamental importance. If fiat money is not sovereign debt, then the entire conceptual structure of finance capitalism is subject to reordering, just as physics was subject to reordering when man's worldview changed with the realization that the earth is not stationary nor is it the center of the universe. For one thing, the need for capital formation for socially useful development will be exposed as a cruel hoax. With sovereign credit, there is no need for capital formation for socially useful development. For another, private savings are not necessary to finance socio-economic development, since private savings are not required for the supply of sovereign credit. Sovereign credit can finance an economy in which unemployment is unknown, and wages constantly rising. A vibrant economy is one in which there is labor shortage. Private savings are needed only for private investment that has no intrinsic social purpose or value. Savings without full employment are deflationary, as savings reduces current consumption to provide investment to increase future supply. Say's Law of supply creating its own demand is a very special situation that is operative only under full employment. Say's Law ignores a critical time lag between supply and demand that can be fatal to a fast moving modern economy. Savings require interest payments, the compounding of which will regressively make any financial system unsustainable. The religions forbade usury for very practical reasons. Fiat money issued by government is now legal tender in all modern national economies since the collapse of the Bretton Woods regime of fixed exchange rates linked to a gold-backed dollar in 1971. The State Theory of Money (Chartalism) holds that the general acceptance of government-issued fiat currency rests fundamentally on government's authority to tax. Government's willingness to accept the currency it issues for payment of taxes gives such issuance currency within a national economy. That currency is sovereign credit for tax liabilities, which are dischargeable by credit instruments issued by government in the form of money. When issuing fiat money, the government owes no one anything except to make good a promise to accept its money for tax payment. A central banking regime operates on the notion of government-issued fiat money as sovereign credit. Thomas Jefferson prophesied: "If the American people allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied ... The issuing power of money should be taken from the banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs." This warning applies to the people of the world as well. (759 words) Sovereign Credit (Part II) By Henry C.K. Liu Government
Re: Chat about Financial Advice, was Re: Marxist Financial Advice
- Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Chat about Financial Advice, was Re: Marxist Financial Advice sartesian writes: I know a lot about investing-- none of it has anything to do with Marxism. for what it's worth, pen-l isn't self-defined as Marxist. _ Really? There's a graphic of Marx on the home page. The query that triggered this all was for Marxist Fianancial Advice. I'm also not sure that Marxist financial advice is necessarily oxymoronic. There may be some stuff in the volume III discussion of money and finance that says something different that might be relevant to personal finance, though I doubt it. Nothing I've read in Vol. 3 can be considered advice for investors. jd
nader to moore
Title: nader to moore Ralph Nader letter to Michael Moore: http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=54
Re: Lenin in his tomb
Chris Doss wrote: I wish they would follow his wishes. he wanted to be buried or cremated, I forget which. I doubt that anyone wants to be put on permanent display... jd --- It's a political decision. It was outrage a lot of conservatives (in the Russian sense of the word). Most people think he should be buried and the mausoleum turned into a museum. Wasn't putting Stalin into the mausoleum alongside Lenin the former's decision? He was in there a few years (now he's about 20 meters away). Years ago (1960s), we used to joke that socialism would begin coming to the USSR when Lenin was buried and Stalin put in a tomb on display. In the 1950s, we just argued that Lenin should be buried/cremated. Larry Shute
When Marx played the stock market
From Francis Wheen's new biography Karl Marx: a Life (W. W. Norton, 2000): The annual rent for Modena Villas was 65 almost twice that of Grafton Terrace. Quite how Marx expected to pay for all luxury is a mystery: as so often, however, his Micawberish faith was vindicated. On 9 May 1864 Wilhelm Lupus Wolff died of meningitis, bequeathing all my books furniture and effects debts and moneys owning to me and all the residue of my person estate and also all real and leasehold estates of which I may seized possessed or entitled or of which I may have power dispose by this my Will unto and to the use of the said K Marx. Wolff was one of the few old campaigners from the 1840s who never wavered in his allegiance to Marx and Engels. He worked with them in Brussels on the Communist Correspondence Committee, in Paris at the 1848 revolution and in Cologne when Marx was editing the Neue Rheinishe Zeitung. From 1853 he lived quietly in Manchester, earning his living as a language teacher and relying largely on Engels to keep him up to date with political news. I dont believe anyone in Manchester can have been universally beloved as our poor little friend, Karl wrote to Jenny after delivering the funeral oration, during which he broke down several times. As executors of the will, Marx and Engels were amazed to discover that modest old Lupus had accumulated a small fortune through hard work and thrift. Even after deducting funeral expenses, estate duty, a 100 bequest for Engels and another 100 for Wolffs doctor Louis Borchardt much to Marxs annoyance, since he held this bombastic bungler responsible for the death there was a residue of 820 for the main legatee. This was far more than Marx had ever earned from his writing, and explains why the first volume of Capital (published three years later) carries a dedication to my unforgettable friend Wilhelm Wolff, intrepid, faithful, noble protagonist of the proletariat, rather than the more obvious and worthy candidate, Friedrich Engels. The Marxes wasted no time in spending their windfall. Jenny had the new house furnished and redecorated, explaining that I thought it better to put the money to this use rather than to fritter it away piecemeal on trifles. Pets were bought for the children (three dogs, two cats, two birds) and named after Karls favourite tipples, including Whisky and Toddy In July he took the family on vacation to Ramsgate for three weeks, though the eruption of a malignant carbuncle just above the penis rather spoiled the fun, leaving him confined to bed at their guest-house in a misanthropic sulk. Your philistine on the spree lords it here as do, to an even greater extent, his better half and his female offspring, he noted, gazing enviously through his window at the beach. It is almost sad to see venerable Oceanus, that age-old Titan, having to suffer these pygmies to disport themselves on his phiz, and serve them for entertainment. The boils had replaced the bailiffs as his main source of irritation. Mostly, however, he dispatched them with the same careless contempt. That autumn he held a grand ball at Modena Villas for Jennychen and Laura, who had spent many years declining invitations to parties for fear that they would be unable to reciprocate. Fifty of their young friends were entertained until four in the morning, and so much food was left over little Tussy was allowed to have an impromptu tea-party for local children the following day. Writing to Lion Philips in the summer of 1864, Marx revealed an even more remarkable detail of his prosperous new way of life: I have, which will surprise you not a little, been speculating partly in American funds, but more especially in English stocks, which are springing up like mushrooms this year (in furtherance of every imaginable and unimaginable joint stock enterprise) are forced up to a quite unreasonable level and then, for most part, collapse. In this way, I have made over 400 now that the complexity of the political situation affords greater scope, I shall begin all over again. Its a type of operation that makes small demands on ones time, and its worth while running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money. Since there is no hard evidence of these transactions, some scholars have assumed that Marx simply invented the story to impress his businesslike uncle. But it may be true. He certainly kept a close eye on share prices, and while badgering Engels for the next payment from Lupuss estate he mentioned that had had the money during the past ten days, Id have made a killing on the Stock Exchange here. The time has come again when with wit and very little money, its possible to make money in London. Playing the markets, hosting dinner-dances, walking his dogs in the park: Marx was in severe danger of becoming respectable One day a curious document arrived, announcing that he ha been elected, without his knowledge, to the
Re: Marxist Financial Advice
I'd like one. If you don't like me, I'll pay the postage myself. mbs By the way, as Michael pollak knows, you may even be able to obtain a 20 Million Liras Turkish Banknote from me free of charge. I even pay the postage. The only condition is that you have to be someone I like. Sartesian has no hope to get that 20 Million Liras Turkish banknote from me, for example. Best, Sabri
Re: Marxist Financial Advice
I'd like one. If you don't like me, I'll pay the postage myself. mbs Of course, I like you. There are not many I don't like but if I give this away things may get out of control: 20,000,000 Liras is roughly $13.5 US in these days. But I will bring you one from my trip to Turkey. I am leaving shortly and will be back in a few weeks. Best, Sabri PS: If you have my e-mail address, why don't you write to me directly? I don't have yours.
Re: Blair in public split with Bush
In answer to Michael's question [below] my impression is that it has all been handled very discretely by the British government, which did nothing to fan the controversy when the previously released detainees gave a number of interviews. But the Guardian article which I quoted, refers to Blair's split with Bush on this question emerging in the course of a legal response to an application by lawyers on behalf of some of those Brits who are still detained, that the British government must appeal for their release. Blair has now done this. It is typical of New Labour to handle all these issues as purely technical ones of social and economic engineering, and I cannot prove that Blair is using this issue to distance himself slightly from Bush. I think his action is multiply determined as so many things are, but I think you can guess the background briefings behind the scenes in which government spokepersons spread the word in studied undertones, that, of course, the British government's position is not identical to that of the US administration. As for the previously released Brits I am not aware they have found a legal opening to sue. The British government probably meets with them, sounds very willing to help if only a way can be found, but unfortunately cannot see a way to help in this murky legal situation... However, of course, the British government is already to signatory to the International Criminal Court, does uphold the principle of the rule of international law, [while wishing to rewrite it if you are Tony Blair] and things are moving in more accountable direction. etc etc Perhaps another Brit subscriber knows more or could even get their MP to forward a well-phrased question to the Home Secretary, which is the only way to ensure a reply. Chris Burford London - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Blair in public split with Bush What was the response to the other released Gitmo Brits having been accused falsely?
Fahrenheit 9/11
Hi PEN-L: We went to see Moore's new film on June 25 in Sacramento. All of the 400-plus seats were filled for the 12:15 p.m. showing at the Tower Theater, the first for the public here. Moore's latest work is a powerful critique of the Bush White House, top Democrats and American journalism. 60 Minutes is supposed to profile Moore on Sun., June 27. Cheers, Seth Sandronsky Published on Saturday, June 26, 2004 by the Associated Press 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Has Huge Opening Day by David Germain LOS ANGELES - Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore's assault on President Bush, took in $8.2 million to $8.4 million in its first day, positioning it as the weekend's No. 1 film, its distributors said Saturday. Based on Friday's numbers, Fahrenheit 9/11 was on track for an opening weekend that would surpass the $21.6 million total gross of Moore's Bowling for Columbine, his 2002 film that earned him an Academy Award for best documentary. Bowling for Columbine holds the record for highest domestic gross among documentaries, excluding concert films and movies made for huge-screen IMAX theaters. Friday grosses for Fahrenheit 9/11 ran about $1.5 million ahead of its closest competitor, the Wayans brothers comedy White Chicks. The performance of Fahrenheit 9/11 was even more remarkable considering it played in just 868 theaters, fewer than a third the number for White Chicks. Fahrenheit 9/11 benefited from a flurry of praise and condemnation. Supporters mobilized liberal-minded audiences to see it over opening weekend to counter efforts by some right-wing groups to discredit the film. It always helps when there's a group out there that says, 'Don't go see this movie. It's bad for you,' said Jonathan Sehring, president of IFC Films, one of the film's distributors. Fahrenheit 9/11 paints Bush as a neglectful president who ignored terrorism warnings before Sept. 11, then stirred up fear of more attacks to win public support for the Iraq war. The movie won the top honor at the Cannes Film Festival in May. The film has ridden a wave of publicity since just before Cannes, when Moore began assailing Disney for refusing to let subsidiary Miramax release Fahrenheit 9/11 because of its political content. Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein bought back the film and hooked up with Lions Gate Films and IFC to distribute it. The fury over Fahrenheit 9/11 resembled the firestorm created by Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, which rose to blockbuster status amid debate over whether it was anti-Semitic. It's like how 'The Passion of the Christ' redefined what a certain genre of movie could do at the box office, 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is doing the same thing, said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations. This blows away any conceivable record for box office of a documentary. © 2004 Associated Press ### _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Chronology of Russian-Chechen relations -- part two
This is the second part of my chronology of Russian-Chechen relations. It deals with the history of the Chechens during the Soviet Union. The third part will deal with the 90s, and show in particular the continuity of Yeltsin and Putin's policy on Chechnya. Some comments have been raised on part one of the chronology, which dealt with the Tsarist conquest of the Caucasus, to the effect of why worry about the atrocities against Chechnya, since history is always bloody; why worry about the history of oppression anyway, since history is always oppressive; why support national rights for Chechens unless one likes their current leadership; how could there be national rights in Chechnya because the population wasn't purely ethnic Chechen; and so forth. But this is not the way the Bolshevik revolution thought of matters. One had to remain conscious of the history of exploitation and oppression in the past, if one wanted to overcome it. And in particular, Lenin stressed the importance, in uniting the proletariat, of ensuring the right to self-determination and/or other national rights for all the nationalities. He didn't think the Caucasus was an exception for this. So while the Bolshevik revolution was still alive, it gradually felt its way to providing various rights for the Caucasian nationalities. Under Stalinist state-capitalism, however, monstrous crimes were committed against the nationalities, including the mass deportation of the entire Chechen population. This is ethnic cleansing on a vast scale, complete with many deaths during the deportation process itself, and police supervision of the deportees in their new place of residence. No socialist regime could ever do such a thing. And yet Stalin did it not just to the Chechens, but to a number of other small nationalities. All this shows that the revolution had died out in the Soviet Union, and that there is nothing in common between Stalinism and communism. But even mass deportation didn't end the issue of Chechen national rights. If almost two decades of total removal didn't suppress the Chechen national question, surely Putin's war isn't going to do so either. The question will fester on and on, poisoning the situation in the Caucasus and even in Russia, until Chechnya really obtains the right to national self-determination, and conditions that allow it to re-establish a viable economy and its own political institutions. The right to national self-determination isn't a panacea, of course, but it is a necessary part of any solution. The reason this right has been denied, isn't because it would be hard to grant it, but because the Russian government regards the entire Caucasus as its sphere of influence, and is neither going to grant national rights to the Chechens and nearby peoples, nor give up its cyncial policy of playing off one people against another in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. It is up to the Russian working masses to insist on a new policy, but to do so, it will have to organize a new movement independent of the old movements that speak in its name. One person asked about the proletarian movement in Chechnya. As I mentioned before, the economy of Chechnya has been devastated, especially the modern sector of the economy. Under those circumstances, there has been massive deproletarianization in Chechnya. This is one of the features helping the spreads of fundamentalism. The longer the war against Chechnya proceeds, the harder it will be for the Chechen working masses to assert themselves Joseph Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.communistvoice.org IMPORTANT DATES IN RUSSIAN-CHECHEN RELATIONS Part two of three - Early revolutionary history of Soviet Union and then consolidation of Stalinist state-capitalism -- 1917: . The Bolshevik revolution overthrows the tsarist empire. The Chechens fight such counter-revolutionary forces as the white armies of General Denikin. But the different social forces among the Chechens take different attitudes to the new regime; there are stormy relations between Chechnya and the Soviet Union; and certain sections of the population revolt at certain times. As well, the revolutionary forces themselves are feeling their way to new policies; there are different views about the relation of the national question to socialism; and this too complicates matters. Two major trends stand out. On one hand, based on Lenin's theories about the importance of the right to national self-determination, not just under capitalism but in a countries that have overthrown the old capitalist regime, for the first time the rights of the Chechen nationality and the Chechen common people receive serious attention from Russia. But on the other hand, as the revolution dies away, and the Soviet Union degenerates into a Stalinist, state-capitalist regime, anti-Chechen chauvinism is
