unsubscribe
Please Unsubscribe Me. My email was down for a while and I got 5000 emails half of which were this list. I can't keep up. Sorry. Lisa unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: [Iww-news] 1/3/2003 Seminar On Women And Poverty
Title: FW: [Iww-news] 1/3/2003 Seminar On Women And Poverty -- From: steve zeltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 15:32:36 -0800 To: bawdn [EMAIL PROTECTED], TUDN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Iww-news] 1/3/2003 Seminar On Women And Poverty Women and Poverty -Trafficking, Migration and Gender Insecurity- (Objectives and Programme) 1. The Objectives of the Seminar: The Seminar wants to be an occasion for activists and researchers from South a nd South East/East Asia to share their experience with their sisters and broth ers of South Asia, by comparing the effects of the global economy on the expl oitative structures and root causes of trafficking and undocumented migration. Reports will cover the effects of the Asian financial crisis and War on Terro rism on the immigration and security policies of the Governments whose concern is not focused on the rights and dignity of the victims of trafficking and sm uggling. The Seminar wants to be an occasion for the participants from South East/East Asia to learn from their sisters and brothers of South Asia about the specific aspects of global empoverishment on trafficking and exploitative migration in South Asia, as well as, about their activities which, among others, succeeded in having signed by the governments of the region a SARC anti-trafficking Agr eement. Among other outcomes of the Seminar, the organizers hope that new channels for experience sharing and joint struggle can be established between South Asia a nd South East/East Asia. A common platform to combat the globalization of traf ficking and exploiative migration will be discussed, including concrete demand s on governments and business sectors to take economic and political measures indispensable in combating these most violent forms of gender exploitation of poverty. IMADR wishes to expand this network to include Africa, and will welcome any su ggestion about the means to develop a South/South network against trafficking and exploitative migration. 2. The Programme of the Seminar: Date, January 3, 2003. Place, to be announced. 13:3 to 14:00: Introduction: Posing Questions for Discussion ( Kinhide Mushakoji, International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination And Racism(IMADR)) 14:00 to 15:20: Reports and Comments: Report from the Philippines (Aida Santos, International Stop Rape Contest) Report from Korea (Young-Sook Cho, Korea Women's Associations United) Report from Japan (Seiko Hanochi, IMADR/Center for International and Security Studies (York University)) Comment from Nepal (Renu Radjbandari, Women's Rehabilitation Centre) Comment from India (Burnad Fathima Netasan, Tamil Nadu Dalit Women's Movement) Comment from Sri Lanka (Nimalka Fernando, International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination And Racism(IMADR)) 15:20 to 16:50: General Discussion (Chair: Nimalka Fernando) 16:40 to 17:00: Conclusion Organiser: IMADR http://www.imadr.org/index.html Co-organiser: ARENA http://www.arenaonline.org/ For more information, please check following URL or send e-mail to contact persons; http://www.jca.apc.org/wsf_support/asf/women_and_poverty.html Contact persons: Toshi Ogura (Toyama University) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Seiko Hanochi(IMADR/York University) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: [Iww-news] Bush's Pal Returns Insider Trading Profits
Title: FW: [Iww-news] Bush's Pal Returns Insider Trading Profits -- From: steve zeltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 12:09:13 -0800 To: bawdn [EMAIL PROTECTED], TUDN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Iww-news] Bush's Pal Returns Insider Trading Profits http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43307-2002Oct30.html Top Bush Union Ally To Return Stock Gains 2 Agencies and Grand Jury Probe Deals By Thomas B. Edsall Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, October 31, 2002; Page A02 Douglas J. McCarron, president of the International Brotherhood of Carpenters and President Bush's strongest ally in the labor movement, will return profits of $276,000 or more he made on stock transactions that are under investigation by three separate parts of the federal government. It is clear from recent newspaper coverage that the stock repurchase program . . . has resulted in serious questions being raised regarding actions taken by myself and other members of the current board, McCarron wrote in a letter to the chairman of a union-owned insurance company, Ullico. In December 1999, members of the board of Ullico, a private company, were given special opportunities to buy Ullico stock at $54 a share when board members knew that the price would sharply increase. Less than a month later, the stock was revalued at $146, for a profit of $92 a share. A year later, when board members knew that the Ullico stock was soon to be revalued downward, members of the board approved a special arrangement allowing themselves to sell back their shares to the company at the $146 price. At the end of 2000, the price of Ullico stock was cut to $74 a share; those who took advantage of the chance to sell at $146 avoided a loss of $72 a share. McCarron sold 3,000 shares under the program, suggesting profits of at least $276,000. McCarron did not provide a specific figure in his letter, which was disclosed yesterday by the Bureau of National Affairs, a Washington newsletter. In his letter to Robert Georgine, Ullico's chairman, McCarron wrote: Issues surrounding our implementation of the stock repurchase program have created such a diversion and have been used by those who oppose labor's goals to damage the interests or reputations of our unions and the trade union movement in general . . . This cannot be allowed to continue, and it is with this purpose foremost in mind that I have determined to return to Ullico all profits received through my participation in the stock repurchase program. The Ullico stock transactions are under investigation by a federal grand jury, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Labor.
Re: Morgan-ists Ride On
This is so utterly disgusting I can barely type. All I can think of is how sad Einstein was that the world leaders used his science to build nuclear bombs, about how these bombs have made the annihilation of life on this planet not only a possibility but, at the rate these crazies are going-Bush, Saddam, Bin Laden et al- at best an eventuality. And then there are the thousands of reactors scattered around the world which we have no way of neutralizing, no way of safely disposing of their radioactive poisons. What an abyss they have created in the name of scientific progress. What a fool this Dr. Watson is to think that he can make guesses about human behavior based solely on genetic information, as if the historical moment you are born into and your personal situation mean nothing, as if the behavior of every human being is decided in a vacuum. And he says that governments will regulate genetic engineering? As if power subscribes to an ethic and is not already self validating, as if contractual regulations will be or ever have been a barrier to supplying the demands of the wealthy. Of course genetic engineering will widen the gap between the haves and the have nots. And imagine how screwed the world would have been if the Bush family could have paid Dr. Watson to bring little George's IQ into the double digits. He would have had not only Hitler's propensity for world domination but also his charisma and the ability to cogently rationalize his ugly and truly barbaric foreign policy. That's what the world needs, Dr. Watson, smarter, prettier despots who tirelessly make the world a safer place for the oiligarchy. Oh yeah, and the world also needs more giggling, obedient, large chested blondes. Ok. Rant finished. It's Sunday. No more Pen-l for me today. Lisa S. on 10/27/2002 6:36 AM, Hari Kumar at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dr. Watson stressed his vision is not a bleak one. He too was haunted=20 by the world portrayed in the 1997 film Gattaca, where genetically=20 perfect members of an elite, conceived in labs, reign over the=20 genetically invalid, created naturally and condemned to society's=20 lowest jobs. The movie theme echoes concern that genetic enhancements will be=20 available only to the wealthy, widening the gap between haves and=20 have-nots. But Dr. Watson has more faith in the species: Most humans=20 are programmed by their genes to have compassion for their fellow=20 man.
FW: Your Idealist Updates for 10/24/2002
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:57:32 -0400 (EDT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Your Idealist Updates for 10/24/2002 Hi lisa, We thought that the following information, added to Idealist between 10/22/2002 and 10/23/2002, would be of interest to you. Also, if you are in Portland on Wednesday (today), or in Seattle or Chicago on Friday, it'd be great to see you at the nonprofit career fairs we are doing there. For more information on all three events, please see: http://www.idealist.org/fairs.html New Jobs: (1) === New Jobs: === Sr. Political Science Analyst Academy for Educational Development Washington, District of Columbia United States Salary: $40,000 - $55,000 http://www.idealist.org/jobs/13746/92215 === Please note: * To change your profile or stop receiving these emails at any time, please go to http://www.idealist.org/mylogin and use this email to login: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * To share ideas and information with other people on Idealist, please join us at http://www.idealist.org/community * To complement the online job-matching we do at Idealist, we also organize Nonprofit Career Fairs where organizations and job-seekers can meet face-to-face. Upcoming fairs are always posted at http://www.idealist.org/fairs.html * If you find Idealist useful, you can support our work by making a donation at http://www.idealist.org/donate.html * If you have any questions about My Idealist, please see: http://www.idealist.org/myfaq.html * And if you know anyone else who could benefit from receiving these personal updates, please tell them about http://www.idealist.org Thank you!
FW: [Iww-news] Revolving Door Monsters
Title: FW: [Iww-news] Revolving Door Monsters Sorry to post so much today but good stuff is coming in from cyborg activists. Important to share alternative perspectives since they don't get any corporate media. Lisa S. -- From: steve zeltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 06:51:29 -0700 To: bawdn [EMAIL PROTECTED], TUDN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Iww-news] Revolving Door Monsters http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/11/opinion/11KRIS.html October 11, 2002 Revolving-Door Monsters By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF President Bush and Vice President Cheney portray Saddam Hussein as so menacing and terrifying that one might think they've lain awake at night for years worrying about him. But when Mr. Cheney was running Halliburton, the oil services firm, it sold more equipment to Iraq than any other company did. As first reported by The Financial Times on Nov. 3, 2000, Halliburton subsidiaries submitted $23.8 million worth of contracts with Iraq to the United Nations in 1998 and 1999 for approval by its sanctions committee. Now let me say right up front that this wasn't illegal or even, in my view, sleazy. This was legitimate business conducted through joint ventures that had been acquired as part of a larger takeover in September 1998. Zelma Branch, a Halliburton spokeswoman, says that the subsidiaries completed their pre-existing Iraq contracts but did not seek new ones. So this is not evidence of scandalous conduct or egregious misjudgment. This is not like a politician being found, as former Gov. Edwin Edwards of Louisiana put it, in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. But as we debate whether to go to war with Iraq, it's a useful reminder of how fashions change in our perceptions of rogue states. Public Enemy No. 1 today is a government that Mr. Cheney was in effect helping shore up just a couple of years ago. More broadly, the U.S. has a long history in which Saddam, though just as monstrous as he is today, was coddled as our monster. In the 1980's we provided his army with satellite intelligence so that it could use chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers. When Saddam used nerve gas and mustard gas against Kurds in 1988, the Reagan administration initially tried to blame Iran. We shipped seven strains of anthrax to Iraq between 1978 and 1988. These days, we see Iraq as an imminent threat to our way of life, while just a couple of years ago it was perceived as a pathetic dictatorship hardly worth the bother of bombing. What changed? Not Iraq, but rather our own sensibilities after 9/11. What is driving this? asked Raad Alkadiri, an analyst at the Petroleum Finance Company in Washington. It's not driven by any Iraqi provocation. You've got a regime there that has kept its head down. It's been driven by a domestic constituency in the U.S. We need to be wary that we are not just pursuing the latest fashion in monsters. Iran was the menace of the 1980's, so we snuggled up with Iraq. The Soviet threat led us to cuddle with Islamic fundamentalists like those now trying to blow us up. In 1994 the vogue threat changed, and hawks pressed hard for a military confrontation with North Korea. We came within an inch of going to war with North Korea, in a conflict that a Pentagon study found would have killed a million people, including up to 100,000 Americans. In retrospect, it is clear that the hawks were wrong about confronting North Korea. Containment and deterrence so far have worked instead, kind of, just as they have kind-of worked to restrain Iraq over the last 11 years, and we saved thousands of lives by pressing diplomatic solutions. If we spent money on hypocrisy detectors as well as anthrax detectors, they would be buzzing. For example, Republicans are trying to defeat the Democratic senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota by running commercials featuring Saddam Hussein. (When I was writing from Iraq lately, some peeved readers suggested I stay there for good; they might have had their wish if they'd been shrewd enough to have sent effusive e-mails thanking me for the fine spying, signed George Tenet.) The fact is that neither Tim Johnson nor any lily-livered columnist ever bolstered Saddam's government the way Vice President Cheney did perfectly legitimately in 1998-99. Before we prepare to go to war, we need to take a deep breath and make sure we are doing so to overcome a threat that is real and enduring, not one that we are conjuring in part out of our trauma of 9/11. Old monsters like Libya, North Korea and Iran have proved well, not ephemeral, but at least changeable, less terrifying today than they used to be. And the Iraqi threat, for which we're now prepared to sacrifice hundreds or thousands of American casualties, just a few years ago was simply another tinhorn dictatorship where C.E.O. Cheney was earning his bonus.
Re: Re: employment
I think people generally identify less and less with the companies they work for and tend to define themselves more and more outside of the context of work. This is noted in Richard Florida's book The Rise of the Creative Class, which I have mostly read and can't seem to finish. He makes a bunch of good points but ultimately seem to be tooting the horn for a technocratic bourgeois. So how are people identifying themselves? I know there are a bunch of young people identifying themselves as anti-capitalists. This is their most important work. I have not followed this thread but I just thought I would throw that in there. Sorry if I am out of context. Lisa on 10/11/2002 2:57 AM, Charles Jannuzi at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose that what interests me in this discussion is not the question of the political significance of the third digit right of the point, but rather that of the social role of different kinds of unemployment and near-unemployment. Correct! But that is determined through political struggle, not by academic spats over (as you say) the third digit to the right of the point. I'm concerned that too many maillist denizens come to think that winning an argument on a maillist has anything to do with winning political struggles. Carrol The problem as I see it is this academic tendency to reify the concept over the social reality that it is supposed to model or represent in political discourse. If I have to take a calculation on unemployment out to the third digit to satisfy the statistician down the hall, so be it. If I have to multiply a simple total (of unemployed) by two to three because my collection methods are so inadequate, I might as well be wanking myself with all ten digits. I think the whole concept of employment is equally absurd. I'm absolutely sure that the work I do of most social--and economic--value is my volunteer editing duties--totally unremunerated. Quite a bit more satisfying, though, if you think about it, than taking one hour of part-time work a week at an employment security office for 8 dollars just so some government stats person can say I'm no longer unemployed. C. Jannuzi __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: employment
Oh, I have followed this thread a bit, sorry, there is so much email. Melvin makes a fabulous analysis because he points out the opening of a positive space in which opposition to capital can occupy, both in theory and in reality. He has identified fertile ground on which an alternative economy can be built. But that is not what you are talking about here. Statistics are marginally useful at best. I think we are all saying some version of that. You are absolutely right, academics need to 'step outside (y)our lives to where the neighborhood changes.' Lisa on 10/10/2002 11:36 PM, Carrol Cox at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: lisa stolarski wrote: Actually Carrol, I think in Melvin's theory the technically unemployed and under employed play a significant role in revolution. It was really fascinating, you should read it if you have not already. Many sectors of the working class play (will play) a significant role in revolutionary struggle. But (a) it can't be predicted in advance _what_ sectors at a given time and place and (b) the quarrel over _statistics_ is a purely academic matter, and making a fuss over it on a left maillist is mere distraction. Unemployment counts _politically_ on the spot where it occurs, and counts only as local political activity can involve the unemployed in political struggle. What the hell relevance to _that_ is whether government staticians are honest or not? Too often I get the feeling that marxists who, whether through their own choices or through external forces beyond their control, have been isolated from political struggle get to playing mind games: merely trying to prove that capitalism is bad. Of course it is. That is our point of departure. Now what? Carrol
Re: [Fwd: Suicide Voters]
Wow. This is interesting. Really interesting. Lisa on 10/10/2002 10:38 AM, ravi at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Original Message http://abc.net.au/health/minutes/stories/s698150.htm An Australian study of suicide over the last century has found significantly increased rates when conservative governments have been in power compared to Labor. They've taken into account every factor they could think of which could have explained the result and the relationship persists. [...] So convincing were the findings that a British group has done an analysis for the UK and found a similar pattern there, with, for example, a big jump when Margaret Thatcher came to power. They estimated 35,000 excess deaths from suicide in the UK associated with Conservative rule in the 20th century.
Melvin Scores for Contemporary Marxism.
Title: Melvin Scores for Contemporary Marxism. Melvin...I am cheering inside. You have made my day, perhaps my week, perhaps my year because you are so right on! I have thought this through myself and have not had the time to write it down, but the essence of what you say is the way the world reads. I doubt I would have put it as eloquently. There are two things I can think of to say in response to your exciting work. First, about this comment: What causes the rupture is the injection into the unity that holds the opposites together of a new qualitative ingredient that shatters the basis on which the unity of the poles began development. The leap in the productive forces - the results of the technological revolution, is entirely objective but the full revolutionizing of the means of production are blocked by the old unity of labor and capital as the basis for exchange. The reason the revolution is blocked is because technology and materialism alone do not drive qualitative changes in social organization. The leap is not entirely objective, we much apply creative subjectivity. Capitalism can assimilate any technology. The capitalists commodify water and DNA, no doubt they can commodify air and sunlight. There is another dialectic which comes into play, a subject-object dialectic which, in order to bring about the new qualitative element of revolution, must be present to creatively contextualize technology into a new social relation. The subject-object dialectic is one of the big questions of philosophy, people usually chose sides decisively, but even if you are a hard materialist you need not reject it because even if the brain is entirely a material thing humans do have subjective capacity which can be spoken of as such in the same way that I can speak of the virtual content of my computer, letters, emails and such, even though when I open it up it consists of only chips, tubes and wires. Subjectivity and the information on my computer are synergistic phenomena...like the Aroura Borealis. Secondly, there are people all over the world who are successful in escaping the totalizing quality of capital, they are the cooperative farmers and workers, grocery store and electricity club members. There is Ithica Bucks. I hope it doesn't sound too corny, but these movements can become stronger. It is possible to exist and to economically network relatively, hopefully increasingly, outside of the reach of capital. The co-ops are very small at this time, at least in the US, but the county fair was a small happening at the end of the Feudal era and yet it is an ancestor to Chase Manhattan Bank. Oh, a third thing. I think the cause of the rupture of the capitalist system and the new qualitative ingredient need not be the same thing. I think capital and labor are perfectly capable of imploding upon themselves or rupturing each other. At this moment in history they seem to be doing a fine job of it. Might not the new qualitative element simply materialize in an opportune moment under the right subjective-objective conditions? It is doubtful that the capitalists had much to do with the rebellions and repressions of feudalism, but these antagonisms weakened the feudal system sufficiently so that capitalism, with its own ideas for organizing material society, provided a more stable economic alternative, at least in its early stages. I would like to propose that the new commodity relation of which you speak may very well be cooperative networks which are created solely for the purpose of the sustained existence of its members and the environment in which we live. The material incarnation of the qualitative change would not be likened to a hammer which shatters capitalism, it would be more like a wedge which is strategically positioned so that capitalism cannot put itself back together after it self-explodes. This would be a cooperative economic network that would organize so as to sustain life itself. I know we don't think of the co-ops and credit unions as particularly progressive, but they have that potential, and I think it is imperative that we make contact and begin to develop these possibilities. There are progressive cooperators all over the world. Also, our new contradiction which you hypothesize would be the driving force of our new socio-economic system would be the very subject-object contradiction with which humanity has struggled from time immemorial, the great question of the artist and the philosopher, what does it mean to be a human being, to be alive and conscious and a subject unto my self? Ok, its an extended question, in turn, what does this mean to the community and the forces of nature which sustain me? The co-op movement in the US is in pretty big trouble. Not enough time to tell the whole story right now, but if anyone is interested you can log on at [EMAIL PROTECTED] We have begun a discussion of pretty serious developments in the cooperative community and would welcome the input of
Re: mucking
Title: Re: [PEN-L:31223] mucking Oh my how you fellows amuse me (and gals, but to tell you the truth the fellows are the ones making a fuss). Let me tell you. I couldn't get off of the list when I tried, and you all are such a hoot I now eagerly await my next chunk of email. I personally am glad we don't all agree, how boring such a discussion would be. Don't be angry with each other, just think about how much more maddening the list would be if we had to deal with a segment of hand wringing liberals. And as for you, Doug and Jim, you mucking farxists, you have no idea how your considered analysis of current events keeps me sane. I am not connected to a university at the moment and though I have projects and political friends, I have precious few intellectuals to exchange ideas with. You all take each other for granted because you are university folks, but outside of the context in which your collaborate or come into conflict with your colleagues how many of you would be as sharp as you are? Your discussions are valuable to moving forward with a plan for rebuilding hope of humanity. In my opinion this is mucking profound. I don't read all of the emails and I did not read the one referred to here, but it sounds to me like water off a duck's back. Lisa S. on 10/10/2002 8:14 PM, Devine, James at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't remember who sent the e-mail message, but it stuck in my head. Someone made an off-hand remark about two pen-l participants (Doug and myself, seemingly) who mucked up the list or some such. I know that Doug had a fit of anger, but I did no such thing. I'd like to know how I mucked things up. (or was the reference to some other pair of participants?) Is it because I disagreed with the would-be consensus that US government unemployment statistics are either nothing but propaganda or as meaningless as the Enron balance sheet? If so, that means that I mucked things up simply because I disagreed with the popular view on pen-l. If so, that's sad. When the left starts embracing an orthodoxy in this way, it's simply encouraging its further shrinkage. Jim
Re: Re: RE: employment
Actually Carrol, I think in Melvin's theory the technically unemployed and under employed play a significant role in revolution. It was really fascinating, you should read it if you have not already. LS on 10/10/2002 7:34 PM, Carrol Cox at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Devine, James wrote: Thiago writes: there also is an issue here about what it means to be unemployed these days. It doesn't necessarily mean one is not working: [clip] I think it's useful to keep unemployment _per se_ (as with the official definitions) separate from these near-unemployments. I haven't followed this thread at all yet but have merely shuffled the posts off into a separate Netscape folder for reading some other day. But the fact that it has aroused passions is, in itself, an exhibition of either bad political thinking or simply apolitical thinking. (As almost every single post I have read on energy or ecology for the past three years has been apolitical -- i.e., utterly detached from any conception whatever of how the information provided could be embodied in an actual mass working-class movement.) Unemployment figures prove nothing politically whatsoever, nor can it make any political difference if those figures are correct or incorrect. Endless agonizing and polemics over the correctness or incorrectness of unemployment figures could only come (as Michael Hoover suggested) from those who have been cut off (or never connected to) concrete political practice. The result is that politics shrinks to the petty proportions of winning or losing a rhetorical battle on a maillist. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: employment
Doug, don't be mad, just say yes, yes, perhaps I took that point for granted when I made this other point. Sometime people just want to point the qualitative stuff out. We are all on the same side here, there is so much work to do. I hope the list won't crumble over this. Lisa S on 10/08/2002 1:59 PM, Doug Henwood at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I understand a little of what Sabri is getting at -- the intellectual and accepting way we look at the statistics -- seeing them as economic factorum and not as poor, suffering people. And who the hell isn't saying that? Is this is the best progressive economists can do? Doug
Re: RE: Re: left discourse
You all should take a lesson from the coalitions who put together the mass demonstrations...The AntiCapitalist Convergence, Another World is Possible, Direct Action Network, Mobilization for Global Justice, World Social Forum, and a socialist group I forget the name of all plan different types of things for demonstrations. Some legal marches, some reclaim the streets. Some civil disobedience, some puppet making and shouting in the streets. Our unifying message is so much more important than the points that divide us. I agree with Daniel here, none of us are Heritics. LIsa on 10/08/2002 12:51 PM, Davies, Daniel at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hate to keep quoting Michael Kinsley, but he got it dead right: people on the right are always looking for converts; people on the left, for heretics.
Re: Re: employment
Title: Re: [PEN-L:31024] Re: employment OK fellas, I am going to imagine what Sabri could have meant. JD's are not the the only perspectives on how we can treat statistics, government or otherwise. Yes, even statistics are subject to perspective, numbers may be objective but their presentation has its purposes. Here are some alternative attitudes about statistics which arise from my own experiences: we can recognize that statistics can be manipulated in order to shape public opinion 700 people a year die of disease x vs. less than .03% of the populations dies from disease x. Crime is up 16% over the past ten years vs. crime is down 5% in the past two years --both of these last two statements can be true at once and used to encourage differing opinions regarding what to do about crime. we can realize that the government has its own agenda and that the statistics the government releases and the way those statistics are handled will reflect that agenda. we can realize that statistics don't mean much when the point is to build a better world beginning with your own here and now. If you donate blood to a white male victim of a freak accident in Pittsburgh you have saved a valuable life. If you donate blood to save the 9004th Iraqi victim of cluster bombing you have saved a valuable life. If everyone would simply do what they can to make the world a better place then it would be ridiculous to prioritize according to quantifiables. People fulfill the needs with which they are presented no matter how those needs can be measured statistically. Well, I hope I have gotten us a little closer to being able to meet Sabri half way. Too tired to keep writing. Lisa S. on 10/07/2002 9:35 PM, Devine, James at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like Doug, I don't get this, Sabri. What is the problem with using some (but not all) government statistics as a half-bad/half good way of understanding what's going on, in conjunction with other information and reasoning? There seems to be a spectrum of positions on this debate. Which do you fit? (1) we can reject all statistics, even as a part of a more complete analysis; (2) we can reject all government statistics; (3) we can accept some government statistics, suitably massaged; (4) we can accept some government statistics, but treat them critically; (5) we can accept most government statistics, as a good estimate of what's going on in the phenomenal world; (6) we can accept all government statistics as a good estimate of what's going on in the phenomenal world. Perhaps there's a 7th position: we can accept all those statistics (government-produced or otherwise) that reinforce our pre-determined political position and rect all those which conflict with that position. BTW, I fit under #3 or #4. JD -Original Message- From: Sabri Oncu To: PEN-L Sent: 10/7/2002 6:12 PM Subject: [PEN-L:31020] Re: employment I said: Maybe I am just a dreamer, but I am not the only one! After reading Jim's and Doug's comments, I came to the conclusion that I am the only one. This is sad, very sad. Not best, Sabri
Re: Jim Crow Fascism (was Re: bullying)
Title: Re: [PEN-L:30870] Jim Crow Fascism (was Re: bullying) Hi Tom, I just want to repeat something I said earlier. Maybe you missed it, it is easy to do that on this prolific list. Fascism is a concept as well as a word with historical-polical meaning. You can take the overall intent and structure of fascism and abstract it from its historical context to come up with a concept of fascism which can then be used to describe other historical phenomena with the same overall structure and intent. This is done all of the time both in ordinary and theoretical discourse. I don't understand what the problem is unless someone simply is afraid that the word is too controversial. In that case we are arguing about the connotation rather than the applicability of the descriptor. There are a few ways to go with that. You can either change your word, as in communist who might call herself a socialist to distance herself from association with the CP and the USSR, or you can use the word so as to take it back, as the anarchists have begun to do with the term libertarian which has traditionally been a word used by anarchists until the right wing libertarians lifted in for their own purposes in the US. I have already argued against the first course of measure and for the second. We might want to qualify this unique-to-our-historical-moment brand of fascism with another descriptor, but we should recognize the difference between fascism the concept and fascism the historical phenomenon so that we don't keep calling a concept anachronistic, which it really can't be. That would be like saying every contemporary expose on virtue ethics is anachronistic since Aristotle wrote about virtue ethics 2500 years ago. Virtue ethics has an overall structure which can have many variants, not just the one Aristotle constructed. And though virtue ethics is an old concept popularized by Aristotle, it is not anachronistic to expound today upon the overall structure of the concept. I have not read the numerous comments in this thread so I apologize if I have duplicated someone else's point. I am reading them backwards to the last time I posted. The email is so busy I drown in it sometimes. Sorry to split hairs, Tom, but it is important for us to be able to agree upon the language we will use to discuss this very heavy shxt. As far as qualifying the term for our historical moment, I don't think Jim Crow Fascism has staying power. How about Corporate Totalitarianism, or Corporate Fascism? Lisa S. P.S. Courtesy of the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition: fascism (noun) 1. Often Fascism. a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive dictatorial control. fascist (noun) 1. Often Fascist. An advocate or adherent of fascism. 2. A reactionary or dictatorial person. [my italics]. fascist (adj) 1. Often Fascist. Of, advocating or practicing fascism. 2. Fascist. Of or relating to the regime of the Fascisti. Fascisti (noun, plural) 1. The members of an Italian political organization that controlled Italy under the fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini from 1922 to 1943. ... totalitarian (adj) Of, relating to, being or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul. totalitarian (noun) A practitioner or supporter of such a government. on 10/03/2002 2:06 PM, Tom Walker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I welcome Melvin P.'s corrective to my own forgetting, which is itself systematic. Indeed, the overthrow of bourgeois democracy in the United States has always been founded on a *southern strategy* of anti-democratic terror that predates European fascism. To call it fascism is anachronistic, but to not call it fascism leaves it without a name. Jim Crow perhaps carries too much of a connotation of mere discrimination and too much of illusion of containment -- as if it is something whose political consequences were confined to the south and whose historical dynamic has somehow been attenuated by civil rights legislation and Brown v. the Board of Education. Maybe if we call it Jim Crow Fascism, we can open up a space to recall that this is not some exotic import or faded relic. In my post, I talked about the anti-labor policies of the National Association of Manufacturers. It's important to add that the southern strategy was from the outset a key element of the N.A.M. campaigns. This is very clear in the rationale and symbolism put
Re: bullying
I don't think your rant is mindless, Michael. I really do believe we are watching the rise of a kinder, sneakier fascism. It is just as racist and as violent as the old fascism, but more totalitarian and therefore more sublimated, couched in euphemisms about ending world hunger and such. Don't be depressed. Decide what resistance means to you and go do it. You might think that it is hopeless, but it's not. Not even the cops really want the world the fascists are building for us. Lisa S. on 10/01/2002 12:26 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When is the last time anyone stood up to the US? Castro in the 50s? The NYT says that the Europeans caved on the world court. The Dems cave on everything. Bush probably can buy the Russians and cow the French on the Security Council. It is all very depressing. I recall hearing how all the Germans left Hitler , but hell, I feel like a powerless German must have felt. Depressed and feeling the need to mindlessly rant. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: bullying
Title: Re: [PEN-L:30788] RE: Re: bullying Well perhaps it might be helpful to define what I mean when I use the word 'fascist' since I brought it up. I mean a military industrial complex which increasingly seeks control of its own people as well as other peoples and nations. I mean a political rationale which attempts to gain respect in the world forum through dominance, intimidation and dehumanization of anyone who protests its increasing grab for power or stands for a more equitable point of view. I mean a government of elites who, by decree or in practice, strip world citizens of civil liberties, human rights and self determination. Just as the basic concepts that signify 'socialism' or 'capitalism' or 'humanism' take many historical shapes, so does the basic concept 'fascism.' Fascism is 83 days of 24 hour curfew in Palestine under which a person can be shot for sneaking out to go to the market for food. Does this not recall to the mind the Warsaw ghettos. Fascism is a newly published 'doctrine' of justification for bombing and invading a country which has attacked no-one... a 'doctrine' of justification for potentially bombing and invading a string of countries. Fascism is the arrogance and rhetoric which attempts to justify in the name of freedom the prolonged starvation, radiation and denial of medicine to millions of Iraqi people. It is the totalitarian mentality which answers a call for peace with the simplistic words you're either with us or against us. There is nothing 'meaningless' about the Frankfurt School. In fact, I would say that Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm, Benjamin, et. all, as intellectuals and Jews fleeing Germany, were intimately familiar with both the concept and the reality of fascism. Their critique is relevant. One cannot tacitly dismiss the first generation Frankfurt School in this discussion nor can you label and discount the left. We are not in a contest of sound bites and nobody is going to make me eat my words. Most people are far more intelligent than the media assumes. What should we care if the media decides that we have used a word that has historical context instead of a newer, more digestable, more postmodern word. The media has interests and people are beginning to understand this. When that German minister called it with the Hitler remark eight corporate media conglomerates gasped with indignation but billions of people around the world no doubt cried out at the news stand 'you tell it sister.' I had not thought about it, but perhaps I prefer this 'dated' word precisely because it *has* historical and conceptual meaning. It is an emotional word, a grave word, and I use it to describe a grave and emotional world situation. I am not for letting the media limit my discussion by declaring certain words off limits. If we allow this then they will keep taking away the words until we are left with horror devoid of expression. When I see evidence of the rise of a fascist government, my own government, it is my duty and my nature to say 'yep, looks like fascism to me.' When I hear a person express frustration at the lack of visible resistance to what is shaping up to be unchecked global military domination, the least I can do is offer my solidarity. Maybe this is oh-so-twentieth-century of me, but it is relevant. I really don't care what Reuters would think. I care what Michael thinks, and the rest of you because you are the people who matter in this discussion. Lisa S. on 10/01/2002 4:47 PM, Devine, James at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is almost like self-enforced 'political correctness' from concerned parties of the left. Don't use that word 'fascist', they'll just make us eat our words. I think the problem is that the word fascism has been over-used. Back in the 1960s, it became a psychological concept (following the Frankfurt School's F-scale), which moves toward being meaningless. Perhaps, instead, we could say there is the historic Fascism to which you refer (though again we could argue til the next world war occurs if Fascism, Nazism, Francoism, or even military rule of Japan, among other things, were more or less the same). So there is 'historic fascism' and there is 'semantic fascism'. Lexico-semantically speaking, the term has usefulness--such as when someone calls their tyrant of a boss a fascist. That makes sense to me, but I think Carrol was talking about the _left_ using the word. As for the current situation with the US national security-corporatist state (will 2001-? be seen as an aberration, the end of something, the beginning of something quite different, etc.?), I think we need to start coming historically to terms with it in and of itself. at this stage, excessive rhetoric hurts an already very-weak left. It's probably best to be concrete on such things, rather than using an abstraction such as fascism. BTW, it used to be that warmonger was one of those words that had become totally
Re: Re: Moussolini's Corporation
Yikes, Ian. I am not familiar with tort law or any of the other laws James mentions here. Could you break this down a little bit for me? What I thinkI understand is that for the fascists public law is really the will of private property owners because the fascists blurred the legislative and the judicial realms. So in enforcing the laws the powerful could change the laws. I can't be sure since you are mentioning laws that I only have a vague understanding of what them mean. Hum. If this is what the fascists were saying then I have this to say in response. The WTO has ruled that every labor law they have encountered, every environmental law, etc. to be a barrier to fair trade and therefore illegal under international law. Lisa on 09/27/2002 1:13 AM, Ian Murray at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Lisa Stolarski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Found this at this site http://cityhonors.buffalo.k12.ny.us/city/aca/hist/ibhist/ibhiststud/histlit. html Under his new government policy, every economic activity in the country was put under a government-appointed panel, called a corporation. Representatives of management and labor, in each industry served on these panels. All profits under the corporate state went to the government. The Parliament became nothing more than a instrument for the corporations. It seems that Moussolini's corporation was one that was created by the state. Still unraveling this mystery. Lisa S. From one of James Boyle's recent exams: http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/exam98.htm 2.) Furthermore, the realists understood, as had the classics, that the whole structure of the classical scheme depended upon the coherence of private law and the public/private distinction. Thus, the realists spent little time attacking the methodology of constitutional law and concentrated instead upon undermining the coherence of the key private-law categories that purported to define a sphere of pure autonomy. For example, Morris Cohen's Essay Property and Sovereignty pointed out that property is necessarily public not private. Property means the legally granted power to withhold from others. As such, it is created by the state and given its only content by legal decisions that limit or extend the property owner's power over others. Thus, property is really an (always conditional) delegation of sovereignty, and property law is simply a form of public law.. Realism had effectively undermined the fundamental premises of liberal legalism, particularly the crucial distinction between legislation (subjective exercise of will) and adjudication (objective exercise of reason.) Inescapably it had also suggested that the whole liberal worldview of (private) rights and (public) sovereignty mediated by the rule of law was only a mirage, a pretty fantasy that masked the reality of economic and political power. Since the realists, American jurists have dedicated themselves to the task of reconstruction Discuss and criticize this quotation with reference to the history of American tort law, using examples drawn from either the development of the law of product liability or the law of causation.
Bush - Hitler Comment
Question: How relevant do you all think the Bush-Hitler comment was? I think that German Chancellor was right on...the war on Iraq is a strategically timed diversion from an ailing economy prior to an important election. Hitler was known for employing political diversions. Considering Saddam has been doing what he is doing for several years it makes sense that Bush and the republicans would want to exploit this issue for the benefit of the election. Can anybody give me a synopsis of the German economy prior to the invasion of the Sudatenland? I know it was bad and there was a huge war debt being paid by the German people. How did their economy then compare or contrast with our economy now? I think it is telling that the Germans might try to warn of us fascist or protofascist tactics used by the Bush administration. Who would know better the seductive appeal of fascist rhetoric? Logged on to a site which displays old German propoganda, their version of the invasion of the Sudatenland seems pretty reasonable. The Nazis, after all, declared they were liberating oppressed German people in Austria. Interestingly, Britain and France went along on the first conquest--they were willing to give up the Sudatenland to avoid stepping to the Germans and only opposed Hitler when he moved on Poland. Also, did any of you read about Bush's family's assets being frozen in 42 because they were trading with the enemy? Also, do any of you know anything about alleged Nazis coming to the US and joining the Republican Party in the late 40s and early 50s? I had checked this out some time ago and the sources seemed to be coming from a major French paper but I can't remember the name of it. I found several references to the Moussolini quote on the net but never did find the source. Still looking. Someone asked for the source of Fascism should rightly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. If it is out there, eventually I will find it. Lisa S.
Moussolini's Corporation
Found this at this site http://cityhonors.buffalo.k12.ny.us/city/aca/hist/ibhist/ibhiststud/histlit. html Under his new government policy, every economic activity in the country was put under a government-appointed panel, called a corporation. Representatives of management and labor, in each industry served on these panels. All profits under the corporate state went to the government. The Parliament became nothing more than a instrument for the corporations. It seems that Moussolini's corporation was one that was created by the state. Still unraveling this mystery. Lisa S.
Re: humor
Now THAT'S funny. Lisa S. on 09/24/2002 5:42 PM, Doug Henwood at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Devine, James wrote: is there an on-line discussion group that specializes in humor? is it called borscht-belt-l? Don't forget news://alt.politics.socialism.trotsky! Doug
Re: raising min wage
How about this. Marx is right about many things and this is one of them: as the rich get richer and fewer in number and the poor get poorer and constitute almost everybody, what you have is a recipe for extreme social unrest. Moral and humanitarian arguments aside, this situation is expensive--to spend millions on security and beating people up every time the World Bank meets?!? And this waste is expressed in countless other ways as well. Polarization of the classes necessarily moves the state and now the stateless rogue capitalists toward fascism, this is the only way to put down such civil unrest without concessions. We even see this trend emerging in the US. Keysne did not invent the welfare state simply because he was a nice guy, the social safety net was an insurance policy for capitalism that it would not push the world to the brink of class war. Structural adjustments such as raising inflation without raising the wage are a breach of that insurance policy. Capitalism is racing a Farari on a short pier these days and State Farm has closed it's offices. See you all in the river. Lisa S. Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is a merger of state and corporate power. - Benito Mussolini on 09/18/2002 12:37 PM, Forstater, Mathew at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to collect a list of arguments for raising the minimum wage, especially those that apply in 'developing' nation contexts. Fairness, equity, social justice arguments and/or efficiency/economic/macro arguments are all fine. Do people know of any good articles, books, websites that catalogue these arguments? Also, I'd be interested in any newer or less well known arguments people may have. (send on or off list--I'll collect the ones I get off list and submit them at the end). Also I'd be interested in counter-arguments to the usual arguments against raising minimum wages. Thanks, Mat
Re: Re: Re: congress and the banks
Ok, I give up. I'll stay on the list. You all are a bunch of groovy economists and I could probably learn something. Lisa S. on 09/17/2002 7:02 PM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a very interesting discussion, especially with the rapid vertical/horizontal consolidation of the banking system, accompanied with a weakening of the regulatory system as well as the ability to obscure actions through international transfers. Isn't this a pretty sure recipe for disaster? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: autism and autistic economics
Title: Re: [PEN-L:30210] Re: Re: autism and autistic economics Gosh Ian, this is interesting. What are the principles of these two types of economics? HOw about: 4. the new emerges from the decomposing on 09/13/2002 2:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/12/02 11:17:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Recently, I was trying to convince my son, who has Asperger's Syndrome (borderline autism), that nothing can ever be perfect. This goes against his perfectionism, a common symptom of AS, which encourages him to give up too easily -- since perfection is unattainable. Then I continued, with a list: 1. Nothing is ever perfect. 2. Change is normal. 3. The future is uncertain. Then it struck me, that these represent major oppositions to the dominant form of autistic economics, i.e., neoclassical economics, which values perfect and static models of an imaginary world with no uncertainty. Can anyone think of what to add to the list? == Beings perish. Institutions become obsolete. Ian A fall in the pit a gain in your wit. Fight fail, fight again, fail again fight on to final victor. As you grow someone is at the next level waiting for you. The magic and beauty is in the discovery. Girls, who can understand them? Women, who can really know them? I looked in the mirror today and saw a different person and said were did you come from and what are you doing in my pajamas? The taxman has his foot on my neck and he don't even lived in our neighborhood. Lean on the bank for a minute and they learn on you for a life time. You are bigger than you think, smaller than you can imagine and twice as important. Don't leave a corner of milk in the container. Leave the big piece of chicken for Dad. He might not eat it but want to look at it before he goes to bed. The only thing perfect is life is Mom. If you don't believe me ask her. What lights up the dream you see is the sun of your imagination. Ask your mother. Divide the impossible by the probable and you might get close to the answer. Eyes only see. The mind produces vision. Paper money is an agreement between between me and the grocery and this agreement lets us eat. Living on easy street is hard. The dog house is not that bad. God is hard to understand. I'm still growing up with out getting any taller. God said we cannot ask questions after 8:00 pm, except to Moma. Moma knows where air comes from. Ask her. Dad had an accident when he was young and forgets the answer. Ask Mom, she has a real good memory. She has never had any accidents.
New to list, what's it about?
Hey Pen-L list: I signed up to this list because I am interested in alternative economy, is that what you guys mainly talk about? A few day I have been reading, and the topics seem to vary. I am down with collectives, cooperatives and local currency, etc. I generally feel that corporate capitalism can be neither reformed nor taken by force and that our only hope is to build an economic culture that ignores it until it goes away. I admit, this could take hundreds of years, but so did the demise of feudalism. Anybody on this list hear about how the Midwest's Blooming Prairie wholesale food distribution cooperative is about to sell out to United Natural Foods? This is quite distressing considering that BP touches about 30% of the cooperative market. I have heard mumbling about dirty tricks by Whole Foods but nothing that can be substantiated. Anybody know the history of the relationship between United Natural Foods Inc. and Whole Foods? Someone from Whole Foods, incidentally sits on the board of BP. Lisa, Pittsburgh
