Bush's body language in Europe
UK media, to be honest BBC and Guardian, report Bush's latest visit to Europe in the context of his campaign trail. Guardian had a comic photo of him doing a power walk in lock-step with Ahern in the context of visit to Ireland so short it was obviously only for the purpose of election videos. The latest reception in Turkey shows him beaming everywhere, thrusting his head back to look taller than he is and manhandling a Tony Blair for the television cameras. Blair grins back in a way that could be boyish or more calculating. The latest triumph of Bush diplomacy with Nato in terms of content is analysed as a climb down. His request last week for NATO troop involvement in Iraq is admitted to be hopeless. The triumph yesterday was merely that NATO will give some relief in Afghanistan to US forces, and will help with training of Iraqi forces, but perhaps not even on Iraqi territory. BBC presentation is more representative of what is seen to be accepted opinion: Bush is severely weakened by the need to get agreements at any price ahead of the election. Developments in Iraq are not assumed to be going to hurt Blair further, now we have seen the limits of the protest vote at the European and local elections earlier this month. Chris Burford
Chechnya and capitalism
Much as I think Joseph Green argues his case carefully and is right to criticise the violations of human rights that occurred under Stalin's leadership, the apparently mindless clearing of the Chechens and others in 1944, while to be condemned, needs to be understood, and put in the context of other massive population clearances which we have all condoned. I am thinking of the deportation of 14 million Germans, and the clearing of eastern Pomerania, Silesia and Prussia. I dipped into Stalin's rather scholastic but detailed Marxism and the National Question (1913) again. Although on less than thorough examination I could not find a reference to Chechens, there is a lot on the Caucusus of course. In it he has this ominous phrase. The national question in the Caucusus can be solved only by drawing the belated nations and nationalities into the common stream of a higher culture. The argument here is that the different groupings have by no means achieved the clearer characteristics of a nation, including a common territory and economy. In accordance with Lenin, the assumption is that the national movement has substantially different contents according to whether the bourgeoisie is leading it, or whether it is occurring arguably at a time of the decline of the bourgeoisie. Hence the word belated. Under conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat national contradictions were kept under firm control at the expense of other values shall we say. As the state centralised socialist countries liberalised and disintegrated, in many cases but not all, we saw a resurgence of national and racist differences which they had no social or economic structure to contain. I suspect much as I disagree with the oppression of the Chechens now, and consider it disastrous for the unity of the people of the world, since they are seen as representatives of muslim people oppressed by christians, I suspect that hidden away in current Russian analysis there are details about the economic issues for Chechnya which assume correctly it is not viable on its own. This is tied up with the emergence of gangster capitalism in parts of the former Soviet bloc. And with the apparently relentless logic that smaller territories whatever their subjective feelings, economically have to be part of a larger economic bloc than the bourgeois nation state of 19th century Europe. There are strange or not so strange echoes in Stalin's early essay: What is to be done with the Ossetians, of whom the Transcaucasian Ossetians are becoming assimilated (but are as yet by no means wholly assimilated) by the Georgians, while the Cis-Caucasian Ossetians are partly being assimilated by the Russians and partly continuing to develop and are creating their own literature? How are they to be 'organised' into a single national union? To what national union should one attach the Adjarians, who speak the Georgian language, but whose culture is Turkish and who profess the religion of Islam? Only in the last week the new president of Georgia has shifted the official time zone of Georgia one hour forward to synchronise more closely with the time zones of the European Union. Quite explicitly. There appears to be no model for different national remnants to live side by side expect in super-states dominated by finance capital, which requires minimum rules of bourgeois democratic rights. Consider how the EU has flagrantly intervened in Turkey to insist on some minimum rights for Kurds. Whether Russian finance capital is strong enough to provide this umbrella to stabilise the basic interests of the Chechens appears to be highly problematic. My instincts are all on the side of erring against any oppression by reason of nationality, gender, race, sexual preference etc etc. as a way of building unity especially of that group with which you yourself do not identify. In large states this makes for a certain encouragement of identity politics which has some similarities to the cultural autonomy that Stalin and Lenin opposed. However I am really arguing that if we try to study history concretely, as well as with a flaming heart, we have to interpret these national questions not only from the point of view of the interests of the international unity of working people, but also from the point of view of economic viability of political structures. What is the Russian Federation's economic plan for the recovery of the entire North Caucusus? Chris Burford
Re: Malthus Was Wrong
Malthus was not the first to differentiate between food supplies and population growth, that was almost received theory at the time. Malthus argued for small govenment. Long before Malthus tackled the poor law in England with his hands off welfare approach,[1] the discourse relating small government to the discrepancy between the geometric evolution of population growth and arithmetic growth in resources over time was part and parcel of the intellectual environment in the eighteenth century. The oft quoted line can be traced back to Rev. Robert Wallaces work, "Various Prospects for Mankind, Nature, and Providence, 1761", in which he enunciates that "[u]nder a perfect government .. mankind, would increase so prodigiously that the earth would be left overstocked and become unable to support its inhabitants." Statements of the sort were meant to represent an anti-enlightenment position, but as one ironically observes today, the call for small government is also meant to reduce the social cost of the reproduction of the labour force and to guarantee that labour power is expendable in a shorter or cheaper life span. Population growth under capitalism is regulated by a specific relationship of surplus value extraction which is co-determined by the rate of replacement of living by dead labour and the resulting relative surplus population that depresses wages and augments absolute and relative surplus value (Marx, Capital 1, Ch. 23).[2] [1] John B. Foster in Monthly Review, April, 2000, provides an excellent historical review of this question, and also highlights the dangers of rising Malthusianism in modern times. [2] Notions of residual profits cum low wages or family planning policies acquire pertinence only insofar as they adhere to this central relationship. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
Re: More progress in Russia
This article misstates the situation (but then it's only a wire story). What is happening is that the government is going over from a system of giving benefits (like free public transportation) to giving monetary supplements to targeted groups (pensioners, heroes of the Soviet Union or Russia, invalids, etc.). To actually see what this means for these groups, one would have to compare the value of the benefits to the cash value, which I haven't done. I find it a little strange that trade unionists are protesting, since it doesn't affect them. (Transportation is practically free in Russia anyway. It costs 30 cents to ride the Moscow metro.) -Original Message- From: k hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:01:11 -0500 Subject: [PEN-L] More progress in Russia This is old but I dont think it has been posted. Perhaps Chris has something to say about it. Russia is trying hard to catch up with and surpass the west in elimination of the safety net. Cheers, Ken Hanly Russian unions protest cuts to social benefits Last Updated Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:02:46 MOSCOW - Russian trade unions held demonstrations across the country on Thursday to protest against government plans to slash social benefits. A Kremlin-approved bill, soon to go before parliament, would end billions of dollars of Soviet-era subsidies. If passed, the law would cut free bus service for pensioners and for disabled people, end subsized drugs for veterans and phase out subsidies on electricity and water bills. About 1,500 people gathered in front of the government headquarters in Moscow, while similar demonstrations were planned in dozens of other cities across the country. Economist Oxana Sinyavskaya said the government plans to compensate those hardest hit by the elimination of subsidies with monthly cash payments. The theory behind the reform is to make sure help goes to those who need it most, she said. These benefits are not shared equally, they go more to wealthy people than to poor people, said Sinyavskaya. Trade union leaders say unless the government listens to their demands, they will hold a nationwide strike in September. Almost 20 per cent of Russia's population lives below the poverty line. cbc news june 10
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
However I am really arguing that if we try to study historyconcretely, as well as with a flaming heart, we have to interpretthese national questions not only from the point of view of theinterests of the international unity of working people, but also fromthe point of view of economic viability of political structures. Whatis the Russian Federation's economic plan for the recovery of theentire North Caucusus?--- To stabilize the situation by flooding it with money, basically. (Federal subsidies to Dagestan increased over 200% in the year following the attacks.) I think this op-ed piece gives a good idea of Kremlin thinking. Chechnya must look aheadBy Robert Bruce Ware In the short term, nothing will be settled by Sundays constitutional referendum in Chechnya. Many Chechens have endorsed the constitution, whether or not they agree with its particulars, simply because they are exhausted by the conflict and yearn for stability on almost any terms. Less conciliatory members of Chechen society will continue to engage federal troops in sporadic fights, and militants will still resort to terrorist acts to demonstrate they have not been sidelined. Indeed, as more people gradually return to Chechnya, terrorist acts will become easier to engineer and more deadly in their execution. Western critics will find ample reason to claim that the referendum was illegitimate or inconclusive. Another barrage of anti-Russian rhetoric will further undercut Russian moderates, renew the determination of Russian hardliners and limit opportunities for genuinely constructive Western influence. Critics, however, will be missing the crucial point. The short-term consequences of the referendum are relatively insignificant. Over the next five to 10 years, a new Chechen social order and new elites will slowly form around economic shifts that will develop following the entrenchment of the new administration and the consequent expansion of federal subsidies for the republic. Progressively, this new order will push Chechen radicals to the side and promote pragmatic and moderate elements. http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=36306 BTW, the main longterm threat to Russia's territorial integrity is probably not Chechen militants, since not many people in Chechnya and almost nobody outside Chechnya support them, but this: Study: Half of Economy in 6 RegionsBy Mikhail Balyasny Special to The Moscow Times The economy may have grown every year since the 1998 financial crisis, but so has the gap between rich and poor regions, according to a new study. Despite having less than 10 percent of the population, the two wealthiest regions in Russia -- oil-rich Tyumen in Western Siberia and the city of Moscow -- now account for nearly a third of gross domestic product, up from less than a fourth at the start of 1999, according to a research report by Aton investment bank. "Those regions that were poor remain poor, and those that were rich remain rich," said Peter Westin, the report's author and Aton's chief economist. Topping Aton's per capita output table at $8,981 per year is Tyumen (including Khanty-Mansiisk), followed by Moscow ($6,603), billionaire Roman Abramovich's fiefdom Chukotka ($5,093), diamond-rich Sakha ($4,568) and gold-filled Magadan ($3,245). The top six regions by output -- Moscow, Tyumen, St. Petersburg, Sverdlovsk, Tatarstan and Samara -- account for half of the overall economy, according to Aton. http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/06/29/041.html Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
Re: More progress in Russia
This gives the other side of the story: Tuesday, June 29, 2004. Page 1. Veterans, Disabled Slated for Extra AidBy Caroline McGregor Staff Writer Budget money allocated for World War II veterans will be 20 times greater and 10 times greater for the disabled, President Vladimir Putin said Monday as he tried to win support from a skeptical population for his plans to replace social welfare benefits with more transparent cash payments. "I hope that the government and the Finance Ministry will be ready to implement these proposals, bearing in mind that the resources required are very large," Putin told top ministers, aides and advisers at a Kremlin meeting to discuss economic development. Overall, monetary compensation for the canceled benefits is set to cost six times more than providing forms of noncash assistance to various categories of people, including -- but not limited to -- veterans, the disabled, pensioners, soldiers, single mothers, holders of Soviet labor medals, civil servants and survivors of the Nazi blockade of St. Petersburg in World War II. http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/06/29/002.html Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
I suspect much as I disagree with the oppression of the Chechens now,and consider it disastrous for the unity of the people of the world,since they are seen as representatives of muslim people oppressed bychristians, I suspect that hidden away in current Russian analysisthere are details about the economic issues for Chechnya which assumecorrectly it is not viable on its own.--- As I've said before, Chechnya is not seen as a Muslim issue in Russia (though it is by the mujaheedin). But anyway, I think you are right to hint at the fact that independence from the Soviet Union has been a disaster for everyone who tried it. Something that hasn't been mentioned here is that, when the Chechen electorate actually voted whether or not to be part of Russia in 1991, the great majority said "yes, we want to be part of Russia." When Yeltsin attacked in 1994, they were not fighting "for" independence. They were defending themselves. The idea of independence only become popular afterward, and not for very long, since 1996-1999 Chechnya was not exactly a wonderful place. For that matter, the majority of Soviet citizens voted to retain the Union as an integrated territory in 1991, for the obvious reason that no republic can go it alone without Russia (except for the Baltics, which have a new Russia now in the form of the EU).. ---And with the apparently relentless logic that smaller territorieswhatever their subjective feelings, economically have to be part of alarger economic bloc than the bourgeois nation state of 19th centuryEurope. --- I think this is true. My tovarishch Peter Lavelle's friend Dina, who part of the Chechen intelligentsia I mentioned who left in the early 90s, had this to say on the subject of the economic viability of an independent Chechnya (see! I have an advantage! Real live Chechens! :) ): At that time, the Chechen intelligentsia opposed Dudaev. So he and his supporters surrounded themselves both with criminals whom they released out of the two Grozny jails and the ignorant people from the mountains who were constantly paid for and fed in the so called Freedom Square in front of the Presidential Palace. They were also promised good positions, cars, etc. in the new Chechen government.The opposition turned out to be very soft, indecisive and helpless [I also was among the opposers, as most intelligentsia was, because we understood that Russia would never let its territory get separated, it is the matter of the country's constitution, besides, what could a tiny republic do without Russia?].http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/index.html?cat=4type=3art=544 Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
Re: Thomas Sowell
Michael Perelman wrote: Some of Sowell's early stuff on Say's law was pretty good. Then he became more of a right wing hack. Reagan tried to get him to be Sec. of Education. Now his most appears as a syndicated right wing ideologue. Jim's critique was excellent. I agree with both: Jim's analysis of Sowell's article was great. And some of Sowell's early stuff was quite good. For example, Marx's 'Increasing Misery' Doctrine, American Economic Review, March 1960, pp. 111-120. I think I recall that Sowell had trouble finding a job. Wasn't he teaching at Cornell for a while, then out of work? It looks like he made his right turn around then. Larry Shute Economics Cal Poly Pomona
Re: Chronology of Russian-Chechen relations -- part three
Actually, I answered this question. Chris just didn't like my answer. Ofcourse, I was referring to how to deal with a series of problems in theCaucasus, not just the Dagestani events used by Putin as a pretext to renouncethe peace accords with Chechnya, to declare that a Russian puppet government setup in 1996 is now the real government in Chechnya, and to massively invadeChechnya.--- Please provide evidence that it was a "pretext." Come on, Putin starts an incredibly expensive war over a scrap of ground Russia had tried its best to forget about since 1996? For what reason? To be mean? Because Russians just constitutionally hate Chechens? Maskhadov's regime was a "puppet government" That must have been a typo. No, you have not answered my question. Because you apparently refuse to see that there was a massive threat to Russia in 1999. Blaming it on the wreckage caused by the first war is like blaming Hitler on the Treaty of Versailles -- there's something to it, but it ain't quite the whole story. Frankly, if Lieven is an "apologist for Russian imperialism," this seems to be apologetics for throat-slitting, slave-trading warlordism, which, uh, is what Free Ichkeria was. Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Re: More progress in Russia
Cash grants are far easier to cut. First you make them means tested. Then you denigrate the less influenial people who depend on the grants as undeserving Of course, the money for WW II veterans should be in decline because of demographics. On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 03:25:04AM -0700, Chris Doss wrote: This gives the other side of the story: Tuesday, June 29, 2004. Page 1. Veterans, Disabled Slated for Extra Aid By Caroline McGregor Staff Writer Budget money allocated for World War II veterans will be 20 times greater and 10 times greater for the disabled, President Vladimir Putin said Monday as he tried to win support from a skeptical population for his plans to replace social welfare benefits with more transparent cash payments. I hope that the government and the Finance Ministry will be ready to implement these proposals, bearing in mind that the resources required are very large, Putin told top ministers, aides and advisers at a Kremlin meeting to discuss economic development. Overall, monetary compensation for the canceled benefits is set to cost six times more than providing forms of noncash assistance to various categories of people, including -- but not limited to -- veterans, the disabled, pensioners, soldiers, single mothers, holders of Soviet labor medals, civil servants and survivors of the Nazi blockade of St. Petersburg in World War II. http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/06/29/002.html - Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: More progress in Russia
I think the big issue is that the payments aren't indexed to inflation. Like I said, I haven't done the math it would be necessary to do to see the effect of the changeover for good or ill (I've seen the figures for the amounts of payments, but don't know the cash value of the benefits).Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cash grants are far easier to cut. First you make them means tested. Then youdenigrate the less influenial people who depend on the grants as undeserving Of course, the money for WW II veterans should be in decline because of demographics. Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Low Taxes Do What!?
Why is he a hack? The man turns out a book every year on far-ranging topics. His writings on international affirmative action and cultural migrations are first-rate. He writes a popular syndicated column that is clear, informative and entertaining. He is a true public intellectual. Disagree if you want, but give the man some respect. The Left shoud be so lucky to have a Thomas Sowell. David Shemano ^^ That the Left has not the same is not a matter of luck. The bourgeoisie do not pay people to be revolutionary propagandists and agitators or public intellectuals, unsurprisingly. Charles
The presidential election and the Supreme Court
(One of the main excuses of the ABB crowd for backing the pro-war, DLC, Joe Lieberman wannabe John Kerry is that we need to reverse the rightward drift of the Supreme Court. Leaving aside the question of John Kerry announcing that he is amenable to the nomination of ultraconservative judges, this rather startling landmark decision should make you think twice about all this.) LA Times, June 29, 2004 SUPREME COURT / DETAINEES' RIGHTS Wartime President Is Again Outflanked By Doyle McManus, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists seized four jetliners and caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people, President Bush has declared that the United States is at war and in wartime, presidents assume emergency powers they would not claim in times of peace. Bush and his aides said they had a right to imprison suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens, without court hearings. They asserted a prerogative to keep more secrets than before from Congress, the media and the public. And at one point, the Justice Department claimed the president could ignore laws prohibiting torture, under his inherent authority as commander in chief. But in an unusual series of reversals in recent weeks, the Supreme Court, Congress and public opinion all have intervened to draw new limits on the president's wartime authority. On Monday, the court ruled that the federal government could not hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without allowing them to challenge their detention in legal hearings, a significant setback for the administration. Earlier this month, the administration was embarrassed by a 2003 memo that claimed a presidential right to override laws regulating torture or, for that matter, any other military conduct. The White House, facing a public-opinion storm, promptly disavowed the policy. Before that, the administration sought to withhold documents and witnesses from a congressionally created commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, claiming they were sheltered by the right of executive privilege. But after protests from members of both parties in Congress, the administration backed down. For a year after 9/11, the executive branch got the benefit of the doubt, said Norman J. Ornstein, a political scientist at the predominantly conservative American Enterprise Institute. That was the case, for example, when Congress voted to authorize the war in Iraq. But it's not the case anymore. Part of it is time passing since the terrorist attacks, he added. I couldn't say the court's decisions would have been different if it were, say, three months after 9/11, but they very well might have been. Douglas W. Kmiec, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is now at Pepperdine Law School, agreed. It would have been interesting to know how different the outcome would have been if we had more recently suffered an attack on the homeland, he said. I do think the 9/11 commission and the furor over the administration's decision-making on interrogation policy affected the court's judgment. Kmiec said the decisions were an appropriate reminder of the importance of civil liberties, even in wartime. Earlier presidents also claimed emergency powers in wartime. The Supreme Court has rarely intervened and then, only after the combat was over, Kmiec noted. full: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess29jun29,1,5997448.story?coll=la-home-headlines -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Malthus Was Wrong
Malthus did not give a hoot about population. Nor did he even consult the census. His dad was sort of radical. He wrote the first essay in a few days to prove that you could not make society better because population growth would absorb any incremental improvements. Later, he worried about population control, arguing that it would make labor too expensive. I have written about this elsewhere. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
On Chechnya and the modern nation state/finance capital: Actually, Chechen radical ideologists such as Nukhayev are explicitly anti-modernist and believe that the Chechens should live like their ancestors did, live in tribes and herd goats and raid. A few years ago he was invited to Moscow to participate in a Eurasia Party conference (it's complicated to explain) and he gave a long speech saying that Russia and Chechnya should unite to fight the forces of civilization (N says that Chechnya is complete barbarism [his words] and Russia is half-barbarism, so they are natural quasi-allies). The English-language transcript of the address, which should give some idea of the ideology, no longer seems to be online, but I luckily did have a part of it already downloaded, which I post below. Also, Paul Klebnikov's last book, which in English would be called Conversations with a Barbarian, is really one long interview with Nukhayev. If you read it, and ignore Klebnikov's White Russian politics, you will get a good idea of the strange mixture of fundamentalism, Luddism and gangsterism that drives these people. Here's the snippet of the address: Address of HOJ-AHMED NUHAEV Bismillah irrakhmanirrakim! Dear participants to the conference! I shall begin my address from a fact evident to everyone. For the first time in the world history on the planet a super-power force has appeared, which openly professes the purpose to subordinate all peoples on earth to a New World Order. This force, undoubtedly, owns the financial, material and technical resources to the accomplishment of its globalist purposes and threatens in the same way the independence and the autonomy of all the peoples of the world. I am talking about the threat of globalism. In what this threat concretely shows itself? In that the forces of globalism try to gather and to bring to nothing religious and national traditions of the peoples, dating from very ancient times. The presence of traditions is the major obstacle on the path of consumer values, deprived of every spiritual content. Proceeding from this, we must formulate two main relevant conclusions: first, our opposition to globalist policies must lean on traditional Eurasian values, and, secondly, all Eurasian peoples wishing to preserve their independence and national originality must identify in the forces of globalism the common enemy. These two conclusions are the basic postulates on which is erected the ideology of eurasism, in particular, the ideology of the movement «Eurasia» headed by Aleksandr Dugin, here present. An application of the value and effectiveness of this ideology you can partly see in the fact that I, convinced supporter of Chechen independence, today appear at this conference in the capital of a state which is at war with my people. I have accepted the invitation of the organising committee of the conference and, moreover, I am its herald because I clearly acknowledge: eurasism creates that level of dialogue between Chechens and Russians on which, for the first time in history, we have a real basis for mutual understanding, for peace and for union against the common enemy, On what is founded my confidence? The purpose of Russia in this war is to clean its rim from the agents of the West, to not admit the rise on its borders of bridgeheads of hostile forces. The purpose of the Chechens in this and all the previous wars is the protection of its traditional way of life. The Kremlin must realise that the accomplishment of the Chechen purpose will also automatically accomplish the Russian purpose, as the nature of the traditional society is such that it does not accept the despiritualised Western values, and the Chechens will never allow their land to be turned into an Atlantic bridgehead. Thus, Chechens and Russians can proceed in their bilateral relations from the logic of the common enemy to the logic of the common purpose. Then a peace treaty combined with the stabilisation of the situation in the Caucasus will condition and impulse the integration of all Eurasia. Having challenged globalism, having put before herself the issue of returning to a multipolar world, Russia objectively acts in the interest of all the peoples of Eurasia. The following step is logically inevitable: Russia, leaning on the ideology of eurasism, will launch a process of consolidation of the peoples of our ancient continent. But, for this consolidation to have a strong world-view base, the eurasist ideology, in my view, must decisively to carry out heel from the specific geopolitical content to the benefit of traditionalism. Why do I think so? There are two strategies which Russia can oppose to the expansion of the Atlantic forces. The first one, geopolitical, was already tested during the cold war. It consists in a system of «dynamic equilibrium», of symmetrical challenges and answers. The essence of this strategy is to preserve parity with the Atlantic forces in all the aspects of the military
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
Chris Doss wrote: On Chechnya and the modern nation state/finance capital: Actually, Chechen radical ideologists such as Nukhayev are explicitly anti-modernist and believe that the Chechens should live like their ancestors did, live in tribes and herd goats and raid. This kind of characterization reminds me of James Robertson, leader of the Spartacist League, describing Albanians as goat-fuckers. In fact, Nukhayev's observation that: What would happen if the Old World, or more concretely Russia, will abdicate from the rules of dynamics, from the technological race, in favour of the rules of static? Let's examine this question into more detail. First, Russia would free huge means which are spent on the «technological race» with the West and allocate them to branches really relevant for the people: to the recovery of agriculture, now in permanent crisis, to ecological environmental recovery of the land, to microeconomic projects directed on reviving the countryside. differs little from the Zapatistas or Vandana Shiva. I can understand why some people might go ballistic at such a development schema, but if I had my choice between grovelling before capitalist modernization and small-scale development based on environmental sustainability, I'd opt for the latter. is really one long interview with Nukhayev. If you read it, and ignore Klebnikov's White Russian politics, you will get a good idea of the strange mixture of fundamentalism, Luddism and gangsterism that drives these people. Here's the snippet of the address: And here's a snippet that shows the character of the Bonapartist figure that wants to break their resistance: Counterpunch, April 17, 2001 Down the River With Vladimir Putin A couple of years ago Vladimir Putin journeyed to the American Southwest to take his natural son on an initiation ritual. The boy's mother is now an American citizen. First stop was a big game ranch in Texas, where Putin and Jr blasted zebras, antelopes and bison. Apparently, Putin, reenacting a scene out of Mailer's Why Are We In Vietnam, marked his son's forehead in the blood of one of these hapless creatures. Then it was on to Moab, Utah, for a raft trip down Cataract Canyon on the Colorado River, one of the world's most demanding stretches of whitewater. The Moab river guide community is still shaking its head from its close encounter with the Russian president and former KGB man. We get a lot of whacked-out people coming down the river, but Putin really is a dangerous guy, a real mobster, a guide told CounterPunch in late March. His packs were loaded with guns, vodka and tens of thousands of dollars in cash, the guide said. He seemed to be a little on edge. It was during a time when it was unclear what was going to happen to the Yeltsin government. He was a real bully. He was drunk much of the time and bossed people around as if they were his personal slaves. His son caught a channel catfish and they slapped it down in front of the guide and demanded that it be cooked up immediately. Cataract Canyon is in the heart of Canyonlands National Park, one of the most dramatic landscapes in the world. But Putin and son were soon bored with the redrock canyons and class five rapids. By the third day, Putin was demanding that the guides call in a helicopter to have his party picked up and flown out. Then he got drunk and started bragging about how many people he had personally killed. More than 40. The rafts finally exited Cataract and motored across 30 miles of Lake Powell's flat water to the marina complex known as Hite. The old town of Hite now lies submerged under 200 feet of water. The next step on the Putins' tour was supposed to be a four-wheeler excursion tearing up the desert in the bizarre Needles District of Canyonlands Park. But Putin opted for a more traditional form of initiation for his son, straight out of Notes from the Underground. From the Hite marina, he placed a call to Las Vegas. We want some whores, Putin shouted into his cellphone. Price is no object. CP -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
Somebody should tell Counterpunch that Putin has no son. He has two daughters. --- A couple of years ago Vladimir Putin journeyed to the American Southwest to take his natural son on an initiation ritual. The boy's mother is now an American citizen. Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
Chris Doss wrote: Somebody should tell Counterpunch that Putin has no son. He has two daughters. In fact I just sent a note to Jeff St. Clair to remove it from the website. In any case, it has about as much accuracy as your describing Nukhayev as recommending to the Chechens that they make their livelihoods by raiding. Maybe more. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Low Taxes Do What!?
On Monday, June 28, 2004 at 18:33:12 (-0700) David B. Shemano writes: He is a hack because he is a popularizer? ... He is a hack because he writes well-punctuated, superficial drivel. Bill
FW: element of surprise shocker
INSPIRED BY IRAQI HANDOVER, BUSH HOLDS U.S. ELECTION FOUR MONTHS EARLY Element of Surprise Cited As Bush Romps to Victory [by Andy Borowitz] Inspired by the early handover of sovereignty in Iraq, President George W. Bush employed the element of surprise once more last night, holding the U.S. presidential election four months early. The election, about which only top Bush administration officials were notified, went exceedingly well for the president, who carried all fifty states and garnered approximately one hundred percent of the vote. Mr. Bushs victory speech, which he had originally scheduled for eleven P.M. last night, was at the last minute rescheduled to nine P.M., once again capitalizing on the element of surprise. In his speech, Mr. Bush admitted that he might have had a more difficult time getting reelected if the American people had actually been notified about the time and date of the voting, but added, A wins a win, right? Mr. Bushs second inauguration is slated to take place on January 20, 2005, but administration officials acknowledged that it could happen at any time. For all I know it has already happened, one aide said. While the stealth presidential election seems to have cemented the Bush administrations reputation for secrecy, one aide said that some secrets were harder to keep than others: For example, everyone knows how Paul Wolfowitz gets his hair to look so great. White House officials praised the performance of the controversial new Diebold electronic voting machines, which successfully tabulated final results from Florida before a single vote was cast.
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
Actually, Chechen radical ideologists such as Nukhayev are explicitly anti-modernist and believe that the Chechens should live like their ancestors did, live in tribes and herd goats and raid. This kind of characterization reminds me of James Robertson, leader of the Spartacist League, describing Albanians as goat-fuckers. --- Actually, it reminds me of the time Nukhayev (who used to be a mobster) said that Chechens should live like their ancestors did, live in tribes and herd goats and raid. This is the same guy who says that God caused the Russian Army to shell Grozny in order to reduce Chechnya to a completely rural state.
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
Read Klebnikov's book. Have you ever heard of Nukhayev? -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:34:03 -0400 Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Chechnya and capitalism Chris Doss wrote: Somebody should tell Counterpunch that Putin has no son. He has two daughters. In fact I just sent a note to Jeff St. Clair to remove it from the website. In any case, it has about as much accuracy as your describing Nukhayev as recommending to the Chechens that they make their livelihoods by raiding. Maybe more. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Thomas Sowell
Once or twice, I've jokingly told my department chair (who's African-American) that he could have made Big Money if he'd gone right-wing. There's truth there, though it's very rare that someone actually chooses their political orientation as one would choose a dessert. The conservatives _love_ affirmative action if it fits their needs. Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell have benefited mightily by being right-wing _and_ Black. The conservatives can say look -- we're good-hearted too. We've got a Black man (or woman) on our side! There's no way we're racist. Of course, appointing Thomas was one of George Bush Senior's few Karl Rove moments, choosing an ultra-con who would get support from some African-Americans simply because he's Black (and making it hard for guilt-laden liberals to oppose him). jd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list on behalf of Laurence Shute Sent: Tue 6/29/2004 4:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Sowell Michael Perelman wrote: Some of Sowell's early stuff on Say's law was pretty good. Then he became more of a right wing hack. Reagan tried to get him to be Sec. of Education. Now his most appears as a syndicated right wing ideologue. Jim's critique was excellent. I agree with both: Jim's analysis of Sowell's article was great. And some of Sowell's early stuff was quite good. For example, Marx's 'Increasing Misery' Doctrine, American Economic Review, March 1960, pp. 111-120. I think I recall that Sowell had trouble finding a job. Wasn't he teaching at Cornell for a while, then out of work? It looks like he made his right turn around then. Larry Shute Economics Cal Poly Pomona
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
Hot damn, Nukhayev even has a website (with part of it "in inglish" (sic)). Yeah, this is superprogressive: No matter how blasphemous it may seem, I have to comment that the Russians, by embarking on their latest war, helped us to avoid the fate of being turned into a state and of having a totalitarian power established. Apart from anything else, by their zealous bombing campaigns and artillery barrages, they resolved a problem which the Chechens, in order to find their way back to the Truth, would sooner or later have had to resolve for themselves: the demolition of "their" capital city. Grozny, like any other city, was a hotbed of depravity and dissolute behaviour, of mixing and assimilation, and introduced the putrefying breath of civilisation. Grozny was the embryo, the foundation of a state in Chechenia, since a city is essentially the archteype of a state, a polis. Without the regulatory role of the state, neither the complex infrastructure of a city nor its socially divided, urbanised population alienated from natural law, can exist. It is cities, alienating people from one another and from the natural way of life, which faultlessly and uninterruptedly manufacture the biological raw material needed by the state: all these accumulations of people who have broken their blood ties and are living in an artificial environment. In historical terms, it is when kinship based relations are destroyed and with the appearance of cities, areas where economic blandishments rule, that the state is born with its "internal combustion engine", its economic dictates which underpin the dynamic of innovation and change. This is why spiritual and moral rebirth can go only in the opposite direction to urbanisation, away from the individualistic way of life to the communal. http://www.noukhaev.com/books/eng/david.htm Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
So where does he recommending raiding as a way of life? Or did you just make that up? Chris Doss wrote: Hot damn, Nukhayev even has a website (with part of it in inglish (sic)). Yeah, this is superprogressive: No matter how blasphemous it may seem, I have to comment that the Russians, by embarking on their latest war, helped us to avoid the fate of being turned into a state and of having a totalitarian power established. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
Read the book!Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So where does he recommending "raiding" as a way of life? Or did youjust make that up?Chris Doss wrote: Hot damn, Nukhayev even has a website (with part of it "in inglish" (sic)). Yeah, this is superprogressive: No matter how blasphemous it may seem, I have to comment that the Russians, by embarking on their latest war, helped us to avoid the fate of being turned into a state and of having a totalitarian power established.--The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
Let's keep it nice! On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 07:08:06AM -0700, Chris Doss wrote: Read the book! Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:So where does he recommending raiding as a way of life? Or did you just make that up? Chris Doss wrote: Hot damn, Nukhayev even has a website (with part of it in inglish (sic)). Yeah, this is superprogressive: No matter how blasphemous it may seem, I have to comment that the Russians, by embarking on their latest war, helped us to avoid the fate of being turned into a state and of having a totalitarian power established. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
I know. For some reason, the cheap shots always seem to come from one direction.Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no need to relate this way. Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
There is no need to relate this way. On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:03:03AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: So where does he recommending raiding as a way of life? Or did you just make that up? Chris Doss wrote: Hot damn, Nukhayev even has a website (with part of it in inglish (sic)). Yeah, this is superprogressive: No matter how blasphemous it may seem, I have to comment that the Russians, by embarking on their latest war, helped us to avoid the fate of being turned into a state and of having a totalitarian power established. -- 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
Re: Thomas Sowell
I think that Sowell, like Powell, has Caribbean roots. Sometimes, they look down on those whose ancestors were slaves here. I am sure someone here knows more about this than I do. Glen Lowry could not maintain his right wing discipline. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
And here he is apologizing for the quaint custom of blood revenge. We can cite many examples of how the state destroys blood ties, and even their genetic framework, not to mention their spiritual content. Those who watch TV and read newspapers will understand what Im speaking about: abandoned children knowing nothing about their parents, let alone their ancestors; old peoples homes; property disputes between close relatives; brothers not meeting for years while living in the same city; internecine murders and incest their enumeration is endless, but the essence of all this amounts to the catastrophic disintegration of family and blood ties in the so-called civilised nations living in states.Everywhere in the world the state acts resolutely against the barbarous vestiges of blood revenge, and monopolises in its hands the feeling of vengeance that is natural to everyone, for the evil done to him and to his relatives. The state is against blood revenge, but Allah has prescribed it for believers. I cite the Quran:O ye who believe! Retaliation is PRESCRIBED for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil). (2:178-179).And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding: these words from the Holy Quran clearly demonstrate that blood revenge is a precondition not only for the safety of an individual, but also for the preservation of blood ties, the cohesion of the family, the ancestral clan, the nation. By surrendering the right to revenge to the state, people lose the most important element preserving the family, the clan, the nation, from collapse.Sheikh Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi wrote in his «Bezels of Wisdom»:So, He (Allah) established in law the revenge in interests of preservation of mankind and restraint of those of this tribe who violate the Divine borders. And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, and they in fact are people who reached the nub of things, discovered the Divine laws and the laws of wisdom.I presume again to quote the opinion of À. Solzhenitsyn, writing in Archipelago GULAG about Chechen blood revenge: We Europeans read and hold in contempt this wild law in books and at schools, this senseless, severe carnage. But it seems that this carnage is not so senseless: it does not separate the highland of nations, but strengthens them. There are not so many victims of the law of blood revenge but it strikes a strange fear into all around! Every highlander who remembers this law will not dare to offend any other simply like how we offend each other when drunk, or because of dissoluteness, because of a whim? And all the more, which Chechen will risk coming into contact with another, and saying that he is a thief? Or that he is rough? Or that he is getting out of turn? You know that as for the answer there cannot be a word, not a curse, but a thrust of a knife into the side. And even if you seize a knife (but you dont have it, you are civilised), you will not answer with impact to impact: you see that all your family may be involved into this dangerous process! The Chechens walk on Kazakh land with impudent eyes, pushing others aside with their shoulders and the owners of the country, and those who are not the owners, all give way respectfully. Blood revenge radiates the field of fear and this way strengthens the small highland nation.Lets leave aside impudent eyes in the perception of Solzhenitsyn, as it is clear, that it is not an impudence, it is self-reliance on the part of the Chechens, the feeling of superiority above the morally run wild people, from whom the state has eradicated the ability to defend themselves and even the feeling of human self-respect. The stronger the state, the more unprotected, the weaker the man is, turning him from the free and harmonious creation of the Most High to some resemblance of a hothouse plant, and not maintaining the clash with the natural conditions of life. The state, assuming the regulation of interpersonal and public relations, gradually atrophies the ability of the man to defend himself, the feeling of responsibility in its true sense, and it turns out that the weak, unprotected by their own armour live under the powerful concrete hood of the state system. The state is an anti-civilisation, the legalised savagery when not moral laws, but rough external force, repression, becomes the superior regulator of human life. The people living in the state, begin to resemble trained animals controlled by the dosed combination of the whip and forage. But the moment the animal trainer leaves, that is when it has only to collapse even for a short space of time, and then the explosive release of the animal instincts happens, and the people begin to show what the state has brought up in them recall the Bolshevik troubles in
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
Chris Doss wrote: And here he is apologizing for the quaint custom of blood revenge. And the Old Testament calls for an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In any case, I can only conclude that he does not advocate raiding at this point. That's progress. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
It is a shame that so much information is mixed with the personal stuff. Joseph laid out a fairly non-controversial time table. Maybe Lou and Chris could each lay out a list of their key points of agreement disagreement. For example, I think that all concerned agree that Yeltsin made things worse. On other points, you disagree. On the other hand maybe the thread has exhausted itself and nothing is left but vituperation. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
Michael Perelman wrote: It is a shame that so much information is mixed with the personal stuff. What is so personal about demanding that he back up his slander about raiding? The main excuse of the Kremlin for its criminal war is that it is rooting out bandits. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
Lou, demanding does not work or belong here. I think that Chris is going to unsub because of this mode of communication. You can disagree. You can supply other facts. The non-personal part of the dialogue is useful; the personal part is not. -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Louis Proyect Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Chechnya and capitalism Michael Perelman wrote: It is a shame that so much information is mixed with the personal stuff. What is so personal about demanding that he back up his slander about raiding? The main excuse of the Kremlin for its criminal war is that it is rooting out bandits. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
Perelman, Michael wrote: Lou, demanding does not work or belong here. I think that Chris is going to unsub because of this mode of communication. Excuse me? Chris Doss: Dammit, answer my question. What should Russia's reaction have been two armed incursions by jihadi gunmen? Sit there and take it? Write them letters? Dear Mr. Khattab, we think you are a big meany. Cut it out. I could also point out that he also made a big announcement that he was killfiling me, which is fine by me. I could in addition point out that following this annoucement I had to put up with snide comments from Henwood per usual. You may be a great economist, but sometimes you suck as a moderator. Why don't you just wind down the thread. It does seem a bit *odd* that we have had something like 100 posts defending Putin's war on the Chechen people. This is an utter disgrace that so few people on pen-l would take a stand against this. Maybe pen-l should drop that little picture of Karl Marx on its web page and replace it with one of the Rostow brothers. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
[Fwd: The myth of the self-made millionaire]
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?guid=%7BB4FBCBBD-1278-4421-889C-1D4B7982B9C3%7Dsiteid=myyahoodist=myyahoo The self-made myth Societal support key to much wealth creation, report says By Thomas Kostigen, CBS.MarketWatch.com Last Update: 8:55 PM ET June 28, 2004 SANTA MONICA, Calif. (CBS.MW) -- Some of the wealthiest entrepreneurs in this country say there is no such thing as the self-made man. With more millionaires making rather than inheriting their wealth, there is a false conceit that they haven't received outside support, a new report says. But society's role in wealth creation is significant, therefore society has an obligation to maintain a level playing field for opportunities to create wealth, contends the report, I Didn't Do It Alone: Society's Contribution to Individual Wealth and Success. The idea that if government would get out of the way, then every entrepreneur would automatically succeed is wrong, the report says. The report is published by Boston-based United for a Fair Economy, a nonprofit group that researches and raises awareness on issues related to wealth and power. It has signed more than 2,200 multimillionaires and billionaires to a petition to reform and keep the inheritance tax; the I Didn't Do It Alone report was gleaned from small sample of those petitioners. Pro-business economic policies and tax policies are often centered on the myth of the self-made man, the report says. But the myth of self-made wealth is potentially destructive to the very infrastructure that enables wealth creation. Individuals profiled believe that they prospered in large part thanks to things beyond their individual control, such as social investments in education, research, technology and infrastructure, the report says. Or as Jim Sherblom, former CFO of Genzyme, says, We are all standing on the shoulders of those who came before us. He and others profiled believe it's vital to give back to society so that others in the next generation can have the same opportunities they had. This giving goes beyond taxes to charity and mentoring programs. This is not so much a call for increased taxes as it is a highlight of society's role and claim upon us as individuals. We each have a responsibility to the common wealth upon which individual wealth is possible, says Chuck Collins, the report's co-author. In prepared remarks, Collins was more emphatic: How we think about wealth creation is important since policies such as large tax cuts for the wealthy often draw on the myth of the self-made man... Taxes are portrayed as onerous, unfair redistribution of privately created wealth -- not as reinvestment or giving back to society. Yet, where would many wealthy entrepreneurs be today without taxpayer investment in the Internet, transportation, public education, legal system, the human genome and so on? Those Collins profiled in the report say their success is attributable to many factors, among them public schools and colleges, government investment in research and small business assistance, contributions of employees, and strong legal and financial systems. The idea behind the report is to point out what often gets lost in translation in the definition of success and to lobby for continued investment in public programs. Just four weeks ago, the Washington Post reported the Bush administration alerted government agencies that if President Bush is reelected, there will be domestic spending cuts, including programs in homeland security, education, nutrition, Head Start, homeownership, job-training, medical research, environmental protection and science. In Arthur Miller's play about the downfall of the American Dream, Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman says to his son on whom he had placed much hope: If only you had passed your math, things would have turned out different. Without the chance to study math, Willy wouldn't have a complaint. The myth of the self-made man is that he has made it alone. Warren Buffett, founder of Berkshire Hathaway and the second-richest man in the world, says: I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned. And Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, says, Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don't have a fraction of what I have. I realize I don't have my wealth because I'm so brilliant. What shines through the report is that those profiled and interviewed have an awareness of what made them successful, and they want to pass that along to future generations in the form of public support. Some of us call that government -- more or less.
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
Maybe some people should take their own advice. But please do take me off the list, Michael. Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com Tue May 4 16:35:29 MDT 2004 Previous message: [Marxism] My credentials? Next message: [Marxism] My credentials? Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Adam Levenstein wrote: Melvin, At the risk of starting a flame war, at the risk of pissing off Louis, at the risk of offending a comrade (you) who I normally respect and take seriously even if I don't always agree with you, let me say that you can take your condescension towards younger comrades and stick it somewhere very dark, tight, and uncomfortable. Let's stop wasting time. Melvin can be very provocative, but there is no reason to bicker with him. Out of 536 subscribers, we have exactly one African-American, retired auto-worker/unreconstructed Stalinist. If there were 15 or so like him raising hell from day to day, I'd probably have to be putting out flame wars all the time and/or ejecting people. If you are disturbed by things he says, my *strong* suggestion is to ignore him. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: More progress in Russia
Budget money allocated for World War II veterans will be 20 times greater and 10 times greater for the disabled, President Vladimir Putin said Monday as he tried to win support from a skeptical population for his plans to replace social welfare benefits with more transparent cash payments. Overall, monetary compensation for the canceled benefits is set to cost six times more than providing forms of noncash assistance to various categories of people, including -- but not limited to -- veterans, the disabled, pensioners, soldiers, single mothers, holders of Soviet labor medals, civil servants and survivors of the Nazi blockade of St. Petersburg in World War II. http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/06/29/002.html Comment Perhaps it was on Marxmail or the A-List . . . maybe Pen-L but this very question was briefly discussed perhaps six months ago. Cash versus more than less fixed social benefits is a scheme to further erode the legacy of Soviet industrial socialism "cradle to the grave" protection of the population. In economic terms it means further unleashing the law of value or as monetary policy it means allowing money to be redirected in reproduction. The retired workers will now "have a choice" as to where they can spend their money. For example if the workers decide not to spend any of their new cash allotment and tuck it into the bank, the bank as an insitution will do something with the money. That is loan it to where it can produce a healthy return. Where it can produce a healthy return with probably be in the consumer market or what was called light industry. What this section of the economy referred to as light industry produces is a set of products or needs - televsions, cookies, bikes, Coca Cola, McDonalds, digital cameras, etc, that sit at the bases of reproduction on the basis of bourgeois property. What is being further released is the unrestricted operation of the law of value and redirecting the social responsibility of the state and government to provide for the well being of its citizens in absolute terms. In other words, money can now chase the infinite number of commodities in the market, which in turn means redirecting resources andmanpower towards producing what is profitable for capital or the circuit of logic peculiar to the capitalist mode of production. It called strengthening competition in the market or simply the working of the free world market. It was one of the economists around Putin that suggested this scheme. I forget his name right off the bat. Melvin P.
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
In a message dated 6/29/2004 8:55:08 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is cities, alienating people from one another and from the natural way of life, which faultlessly and uninterruptedly manufacture the biological raw material needed by the state: all these accumulations of people who have broken their blood ties and are living in an artificial environment. In historical terms, it is when kinship based relations are destroyed and with the appearance of cities, areas where economic blandishments rule, that the state is born with its "internal combustion engine", its economic dictates which underpin the dynamic of innovation and change. This is why spiritual and moral rebirth can go only in the opposite direction to urbanisation, away from the individualistic way of life to the communal. Comment To a large degree this same logic is echoed within a section of Marxism without the fundamnetalist ideology. The crys and black flogging against technology and "globalism" without examining economic logic and real world history. Men . . . women, do not relinquish what they have gained or accumulated as the progressive accumulation of productive forces and this most certainly means the technological revolution. Advocating that the Russian State and other areas of the old Soviet Union somehow leave the "technological race" and revert to the "old way of life" uprooted by the advance of industry is nothing new . . . and utter nonsense because it cannot happen. We will never return to the communal way of life but advance to new levels of individual freedom that no longer exists in antagonistic relations. In this sense American is uniquely revolutionary being founded as a modern bourgeois state. There is really nothing for us to go back to in the meaning that we have no feudal history as a concrete economic formation. This of course does not mean one is justifying history and genocide. History has a strange way of justifying itself. An industrial society cannot be de-evolved back into a feudal society with its corresponding feudal bureaucracy, political and economic relations . . . much less an earlier clan type society. Chechnya future is the unleashing of the law of value and the conversion of land into capital. We are going to witness an uprooting of the population of Chechnya unlike what happen during the Soviet Power. Lets see what happens during the next decade or so. Melvin P.
Re: Capitalism and the environment - seems interesting
The DSP's major work on the environment is now available online athttp://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/ECS/index.htmContents: Chapter 1. The threat to human survival http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/ECS/Chapter1.htm 1. Destroying the biosphere 1. The atmosphere: greenhouse, acid rain and ozone depletion 2. The land: deforestation, desertification and pesticides 3. Depleting and polluting the waters 4. Poisoning and destroying the species 5. Passing thresholds of sustainability 2. Nuclear war 3. What hope for a solution? Chapter 2. Symptoms and causes of the environmental crisis http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/ECS/Chapter2.htm 1. Three false diagnoses 1. 'Too many people' 2. 'Overconsumption' and 'too much growth' 3. 'Technological development' 2. Society, technology and nature 1. No 'return to nature' 2. Nature, humanity and labour 3. Capitalist production and the environmental crisis 4. The environmental crisis in the former 'socialist' countries Chapter 3. The environment movement http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/ECS/Chapter3.htm 1. Sources of modern environmentalism 1. Ecological concerns in natural and social science 2. Resource management 3. Conservation and animal rights 4. Marx and Engels 5. Early blueprints for sustainable societies 2. Rise of the modern environmental movement 3. Ruling class responses to environmentalism 1. Business and the environmental crisis 2. Environmental 'governance' Chapter 4. Currents in ecological thought http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/ECS/Chapter4.htm 1. Environmental reformism and 'ecocapitalism' 2. Utopianism 3. Ecomysticism 4. The conservatives and reactionaries 5. Their common features Chapter 5. Political consequences of the environmental crisis http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/ECS/Chapter5.htm 1. The Green parties 2. Impact of the environment movement on the labour movement 3. Environmental record of the ALP 4. The DSP and the environmental movement Chapter 6. Towards an environmentally sustainable world http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/ECS/Chapter6.htm 1. Planning and public ownership 2. Parliamentary versus genuine democracy 3. Peace, disarmament and social equality 4. Social equality and environmental sustainability Appendix: Can green taxes save the environment? http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/ECS/Appendix.htm
Condi Does Michigan State
Hi All, Just wanted to let you know that Harvey Wasserman's Bob Fitrakis' The Free Press published my piece today. . .it's another chapter in the annals of higher ed corruption. http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2004/705 Brian
Re: Thomas Sowell
Laurence Shute wrote: It looks like he made his right turn around then. An interesting ambiguity. Right turn means turn to the right or the right turn to make. :-) Carrol
Re: presidential election
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/22/04 3:29 PM Is the Nader campaign the best way to build the mass movements we need? jd no election campaign is 'best' way to build mass movements, they are too periodic episodic, too narrowly focused, running a campaign 'to make a point' (or points) is self-defeating, takes too much time, effort, money, may leave something in their wake (i.e., a few voters) but their purpose runs counter to building political movements, politicians/campaigns can have 'organic' relationships with/to mass movements (or vice-versa) but two should remain independent of one another - politics of streets politics of suites...michael hoover
Gloves Off -- Summer 2004
Gloves Off Summer 2004 Issue http://www.glovesoff.org/ In our last issue, Gloves Off presented the first installment of "Perspectives on the Global Justice Movement" http://www.glovesoff.org/features/globaljustice_1003.html, with views from Latin America, Europe and the US on the future, the challenges, and the contraditions facing the movement. Now get ready for the second installment: "In the Belly of the Beast," http://www.glovesoff.org/features/gjamerica_intro.html a 4-part feature by Gloves Off co-editors Sara Burke and Claudio Puty, examines the roots and emergence of the global justice movement in the United States. Also in this issue... Economist and Indian civil-rights activist Ramaa Vasudevan debunks the economic model at the heart of neoliberalism in "The Gospel of Free Trade." http://www.glovesoff.org/features/vasudevan_freetrade.html In "Pursuing the Meaning of Abu Ghraib" Gloves Off co-editor Joe Smith considers the question of tactics and perspective that US torture of Iraqi prisoners presents to the global justice movement. http://www.glovesoff.org/columns/jsmith_2004june1.html In "The Glass Ceiling," Gloves Off reader Charles Weigl gets in the ring with Giovanni Mazzetti, Emir Sader, and Barbara Epstein -- their interviews are featured in Part I of "Perspectives on the Global Justice Movement -- to challenge their statements on the issue of relations between anarchists and Marxists and to call for a joint theoretical project focused upon their common ground in the history of Left traditions. http://www.glovesoff.org/inthering/weigel_may2004.html And in his most recent column, "Selling Neoliberal Globalization: Thomas Friedman's Excellent Adventure," Joe Smith takes free-trade cheerleader and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to task. http://www.glovesoff.org/columns/jsmith_2004june2.html If you have received this email in error or no longer with to receive occasional updates from Gloves Off, please email us at mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and write "Unsubscribe" in the subject or body of the email To receive occasional emails of new material, email us at mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: A right hook in the Washington Times
FYI From: James K. Galbraith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friends, Today's effort is co-authored with the supply-side brigand, Jude Wanniski, and appears in the notorious Washington Times. Jamie http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040628-092019-6437r.htm Rate hike reservations By James Galbraith/Jude Wanniski One of us is the First Supply Sider. The other is the Last Keynesian. One is Republican; the other Democrat. One helped invent Reaganomics; the other spent four years trying to stop it. Yet we agree on one thing. Alan Greenspan should not raise interest rates now or in the near future. To begin, there is no evidence of a monetary inflation. If that were happening, gold prices would go up. But the price of gold has fallen $35 since it touched $430 earlier this year. And while growth has returned, the economy remains far from full employment. We have enjoyed just a few decent months of job creation. A million jobs in three months is good news. But we remain about 1.3 million jobs below the actual level of payroll employment four years ago. We're still about 5 million jobs short of what we should have, given population and labor force growth since then. Economists once argued inflation would not only rise, but also accelerate in a destructive spiral leading to hyperinflation -- if the unemployment rate fell below a threshold level called the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment, or NAIRU. But where was that threshold? Six percent, as many argued 10 years ago? Five and a half? Five? We ran the experiment in the late 1990s, with unemployment below 41/2 percent for 21/2 years. Inflation numbers didn't budge. If the NAIRU exists -- which we doubt -- it isn't anywhere close to today's 5.6 percent unemployment rate. Price pressures exist. Chairman Greenspan was rightly concerned when gold, oil and commodities were all heading higher together. Yet the Fed took the path of patience at that time. Now with real recovery and rapidly rising business profits, liquidity may flow away from commodities toward investment. That would calm rather than roil commodity prices, while financing businesses at low interest rates. With a little more patience from the doctor, in other words, the patient might cure himself. And oil prices may come down soon, if the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries acts as promised. But if they do not come down, that will be due to changing world energy markets and insecurity associated with the Iraq war -- not monetary inflation. There also are large increases in health-care costs. They have nothing to do with monetary inflation, nor with tight labor markets or rising wages. A better security policy, a better energy policy, and a better health care system would help. High interest rates are not a good substitute for these measures. What will happen when interest rates rise? We don't know. But there are several good reasons to worry. * First, in the wake of the refinancing boom, banks and other financial institutions are chock-full of mortgage-backed securities with fixed and low yields. Rising interest rates will hit their value pretty hard. They could precipitate a sharp fall in their price, as well as in bank stocks, the bond market and equities more generally. To what end? No useful purpose would be served. * Second, American households remain heavily indebted. They will not be squeezed immediately by high rates, because many have converted their debts into fixed-rate mortgages (wisely so, despite Chairman Greenspan's recent advice to convert to ARMs.) But they will be hit by sticker shock on their next house or car, and we can expect a slowdown in those sectors (indeed, in housing it may be under way already). No useful purpose would be served by this either. * Third, higher interest rates probably will appreciate the dollar. This will help Americans who are consumers of foreign goods. But it hurts Americans who produce goods for foreign markets. And if all commodity prices fall (as they will), other asset prices also will tend to fall -- including the stock market. In the end, where does this deflationary course of action lead? Toward another slowdown, even a recession, with millions of jobs lost and full recovery delayed. That, through history, is the only way high interest rates fight inflation. We don't doubt the eventual effectiveness of this strategy. We question, rather, whether it is sane. On monetary policy, one of us favors the Gold Standard. The other is nostalgic for Bretton Woods. We agree, though, there is nothing wrong with a federal funds rate of 1 percent, and a yield curve rising to around 5 percent on long-term bonds, when we are below full employment and with at most a slowly creeping rise in consumer prices. That was the case in the late 1950s, the last time the yield curve looked like it does now. Short-term political pressures in the late 1950s pushed the Fed
Re: Chechnya and capitalism
In a message dated 6/29/2004 8:19:03 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "What would happen if the Old World, or more concretely Russia, will abdicate from the rules of dynamics, from the technological race, in favour of the rules of static? Let's examine this question into more detail. First, Russia would free huge means which are spent on the «technological race» with the West and allocate them to branches really relevant for the people: to the recovery of agriculture, now in permanent crisis, to ecological environmental recovery of the land, to microeconomic projects directed on reviving the countryside." response: differs little from the Zapatistas or Vandana Shiva.I can understand why some people might go ballistic at such a development schema, but if I had my choice between grovelling before capitalist modernization and small-scale development based on environmental sustainability, I'd opt for the latter. Comment "development schema, . . . my choice between . . . modernization and small-scale development . . . based onenvironmental sustainability," There is no such thing as small scale development based on environmental sustainability in human history. No one makes their history as they please. Small scale does not mean a scale that is small in the field of Marxists economics. Small compared to exactly what . . . other than the ideological categories in ones own head? We are not going back to a mythical kinder and gentler past. The past was horrible by any accounting. Then again one can put forth as rationale any ideological conception emerging from the inner contours of the mind. The agricultural relations of the epoch of feudalism were not "environmental sustainability" from any point of view. De forestation beganmany centuriesago and anti-technology ideology is a blind alley. Lord . . . if life was a simple choice between the ideas in ones head . . . we would be in worst trouble since the ideas in the individuals head differ from that of other individuals . . . and economic logic and impulse under the impact of property and the spontaneous development of productive forces would still hold sway. The hard choices humanity face will not be solved by going backwards but going forward with another understanding of the metabolic processes of the earth and man. If vast states such as Russia or China do not go forth with technological development they sign their doom - death warrents, and the existence of their respective peoples in the face of insurgent American imperialism and its awesome military and nuclear strike force. The anti-Soviet ideology of yesteryear becomes the anti-Russian and anti-China ideology of today and really is nothing more than genuflecting to American imperialism and suggesting that one put their resources into ideological "development schema," - schemes, and not arm themselves against a maniac aggressor. I am no cheerleader of Putin or any state but we can forget about him adopting such an idioticprogram - "development schema." It is idiotic because it is not possible to go back to small scale production and there never existed a form of economy there is perpetually environmentally sustainable in human history. We can forget about China adopting this "development schema" of bourgeois nationalists and reactionary clanish ideologues whose fundamentalist ideology allows them to dream of a mythical past that never existed. The results of abandoning economic logic and data is more than less the pronouncements of individual ideology. Capitalism in agriculture is a solvable problem, that requires a little more thinking that saying "overthrow capitalism." Melvin P.
The Green Party Missing the Walter Cronkite Moment
Missing the 'Walter Cronkite Moment' (an eloquent indictment of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars in the May 3rd issue of Sports Illustrated -- a Walter Cronkite moment that the Green Party missed): http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/06/missing-walter-cronkite-moment.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/
Meat Tags
Meat Tags (about marines tattooing dog tags on their bodies): http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/06/meat-tags.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/
Korean victory over privatisation
Korea recently effectively ended the move to privatize the electric power system. Privatization had been driven by the usual IMF/WB pressure, and steps had been taken down that path. A recent decision ended the move toward privatization. I was there last week for a symposium on the issue which was anti-climactic because the decision had been taken before I (and other international speakers) had arrived. I will write an account of this soon. But the labor union celebrated joyfully over the victory. Meanwhile, privatization of the natural gas company remains on the table, and privatization of water, telecom and railroads has also been looming. I hope that the Korean decision will have positive impacts in other countries. Gene Coyle
Re: Sowell's right turn
Carol Cox wrote: Laurence Shute wrote: It looks like he made his right turn around then. An interesting ambiguity. Right turn means turn to the right or the right turn to make. :-) Sorry, just hasty writing; no ambiguity or talmudic questioning intended. :-) Sowell is a bright guy and it was a shame to see him change his political views from left-wing to right-wing. I don't recall how long he's been at the Hoover Institution, or what he gets paid. But to have the time and money to go through some of their archives and not do it is a real waste. The archives contain a lot of material on Trotsky, as well as the origins and development of the Sparticist League, for instance. http://www.oac.cdlib.org/institutions/ark:/13030/tf4m3nb8sq Larry Shute
Re: Korean victory over privatisation
Gene, that is a great victory. Can you shed any light on why privatization of electricity is now off the agenda while privatization of other key services remains on that agenda. In other words, the decision to cancel privatization of the electric power system obviously does not represent a broader retreat from privatization. So, was this a victory largely of political struggle, or one due to specifics of this particular industry? Any light you can shed on this would be greatly appreciated. Marty Quoting Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Korea recently effectively ended the move to privatize the electric power system. Privatization had been driven by the usual IMF/WB pressure, and steps had been taken down that path. A recent decision ended the move toward privatization. I was there last week for a symposium on the issue which was anti-climactic because the decision had been taken before I (and other international speakers) had arrived. I will write an account of this soon. But the labor union celebrated joyfully over the victory. Meanwhile, privatization of the natural gas company remains on the table, and privatization of water, telecom and railroads has also been looming. I hope that the Korean decision will have positive impacts in other countries. Gene Coyle
Re: Thomas Sowell
Laurence Shute writes: "I agree with both: Jim's analysis of Sowell's article was great. And some of Sowell's early stuff was quite good. For example, "Marx's 'Increasing Misery' Doctrine," American Economic Review, March 1960, pp. 111-120. I think I recall that Sowell had trouble finding a job. Wasn't he teaching at Cornell for a while, then out of work? It looks like he made his right turn around then." Are you implying that Sowell does not believe what he writes? Do you have any evidence for this? Charles Brown writes: "That the Left has not the same is not a matter of luck. The bourgeoisie donot pay people to be revolutionary propagandists and agitators or publicintellectuals, unsurprisingly." Nonsense. The bourgeoise would sell the rope to a revolutionary if it would make a profit, would they not? What is the No. 1 movie in America? Who financed it? Why do the bourgeoise fund universities which employProfs. Perelman and Devine? The answer must lay elsewhere. Jim Devine writes: "Once or twice, I've jokingly told my department chair (who's African-American) that he could have made Big Money if he'd gone right-wing. There's truth there, though it's very rare that someone actually chooses their political orientation as one would choose a dessert. The conservatives _love_ affirmative action if it fits their needs. Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell have benefited mightily by being right-wing _and_ Black. The conservatives can say "look -- we're good-hearted too. We've got a Black man (or woman) on our side! There's no way we're racist." Of course, appointing Thomas was one of George Bush Senior's few Karl Rove moments, choosing an ultra-con who would get support from some African-Americans simply because he's Black (and making it hard for guilt-laden liberals to oppose him). " At leastProf. Devine does not think Sowell is a careerist. It is unavoidably true that part of Sowell's success is that he is black. It is also true that conservatives like putting foward minorities to advocate policies that raise allegations of racism. However, that does not mean that the conservatives are wrong, i.e., that the conservative love (and I mean love) for Sowell and Thomas does in fact demonstrate that conservatives truly believe their own rhetoric, which is simply old liberal rhetoric (treat everybody as individuals, do not judge by the color of skin, etc.). Michael Perelman writes: "I think that Sowell, like Powell, has Caribbean roots. Sometimes, they look down onthose whose ancestors were slaves here. I am sure someone here knows more about thisthan I do." To the extent this has any relevancy, I do not think this applies to Sowell and certainly does not apply to Thomas. Again, this highlights the very point repeatedly raised by Sowell and Thomas -- the refusal of Lefties to treat them as real people with their own mind who believe what they say based upon honest reflection. David Shemano Larry ShuteEconomicsCal Poly Pomona
the Lump redux
As some Pen-l oldtimers may recall, in the late 1990s I embarked on a quest for the locus classicus of the oddly-named lump-of-labour fallacy. I eventually identified an article by D.F. Schloss as the source. Now, it turns out, the critique of the fixed amount of work, if not the whimsical name appeared (first?) in Marx's 1865 pamphlet Wages, price and profit. The Economist magazine has now appropriated my discovery of D.F. Schloss as the source of the phrase without, however, bothering to mention how Schloss's usage and its historical context contradict the Economist own propagandistic use. For more on this story see my MaxSpeak post at http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000587.html Tom Walker 604 255 4812
