>
> WW News Service Digest #90
>
> 1) Three decades after Stonewall: Washington march continues demand for
>equality
> by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2) Microsoft breakup: When anti-monopoly is really pro-monopoly
> by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 3) Police attack youth as May Day march demands immigrant rights
> by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 4) Progressive slave wins for faculty, staff at CUNY
> by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 5) On the picket line: 5/11/2000
> by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 6) Cleveland labor joins youth in rally for Mumia
> by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 7) Providence: Case against racist killer cops gathers steam
> by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 8) Interview with socialist candidate
> by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>-------------------------
>Via Workers World News Service
>Reprinted from the May 11, 2000
>issue of Workers World newspaper
>-------------------------
>
>THREE DECADES AFTER STONEWALL:
>WASHINGTON MARCH CONTINUES DEMAND FOR EQUALITY
>
>By Gery Armsby
>Washington
>
>Hundreds of thousands of lesbian, trans, bisexual and gay
>people and their supporters came to Washington April 30 to
>reaffirm the call for full equality. Under the umbrella
>heading, "Millennium March on Washington," this event was
>the fourth national march on Washington for lesbian and gay
>civil rights.
>
>After a mid-morning march from the Washington Monument,
>large crowds of demonstrators gathered for a rally on the
>Capitol lawn. The main theme was the demand to end bashing
>and discrimination. The struggles for same-sex marriage
>rights, an end to discrimination against gays and lesbians
>in military service, and full access to HIV/AIDS drugs and
>treatment were also raised.
>
>Many speakers reminded the crowd about the recent victims
>of racist, anti-gay and anti-trans violence such as James
>Byrd Jr., Matthew Shepard, Tyra Hunter, Pvt. Barry Winchel,
>Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond and others.
>
>Verrett Byrd, the nephew of James Byrd Jr.--an African
>American man lynched by racists in Jasper, Texas, in 1998--
>told listeners, "We share the demand to have the
>opportunity, the right, to live peacefully in a diverse
>society."
>
>The loudest applause came when Byrd's sister and nephew
>stood arm-in-arm with Matthew Shepard's parents on the
>stage. Shepard was the Wyoming victim of an anti-gay
>lynching just months after the racist murder of Byrd.
>
> This show of unity in the fight against racism and anti-
>gay bigotry was reflected in portions of the rally that
>featured a multi-national line-up of speakers.
>
>Some speakers and marchers alike expressed their
>disappointment that the crowd was overwhelmingly white,
>criticizing organizers for not doing enough to involve
>people of color in the planning.
>
>A significant number of lesbian, gay, bi and trans
>activists and organizations had opposed the weekend of
>activities altogether. They cited poor timing and courting
>of big-business endorsements for the march.
>
>However, the march and rally turned out large numbers. In
>particular it drew a great many young people, including
>members of the gay-straight alliances from high schools
>around the country.
>
>Of the four national lesbian, gay, bi and trans marches
>held over the past two decades, this was the first held in
>an election year. The march's politically moderate leaders
>urged marchers to support Democratic Party presidential
>candidate Al Gore.
>
>The Clinton-Gore administration was portrayed in speeches
>and slogans as the most "pro-gay" presidential
>administration in history. Clinton's role in the disastrous
>and fatal "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy against gays and
>lesbians in the military was ignored. Both Clinton and Gore
>were invited to speak but declined, instead sending
>videotaped campaign ads and a seemingly endless supply of
>"Gore 2000" stickers.
>
>Attacks were levied against Gov. George W. Bush of Texas,
>the presumed Republican presidential candidate, for his
>record opposing gay adoption and hate crime legislation.
>But no mention was made of the racist Texas death machine
>Bush oversees, although many lesbian/gay/bi/trans
>organizations had voiced opposition to the death penalty
>last spring.
>
>Many of those organizations, along with other
>lesbian/gay/bi/trans activists, have also joined the fight
>to win a new trial for African American journalist Mumia
>Abu-Jamal, now on death row.
>
>Elijah Crane, a Rainbow Flags for Mumia organizer, handed
>out fliers on the Mall and talked with marchers about Abu-
>Jamal's case. She told Workers World: "He is a staunch
>freedom fighter and winning his liberation has everything
>to do with our struggle for liberation. That's why I'm
>telling as many people as possible about the upcoming May 7
>Day for Mumia at Madison Square Garden."
>
>
>
> - END -
>
>(Copyleft Workers World Service. Everyone is permitted to
>copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but
>changing it is not allowed. For more information contact
>Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message
>to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org)
>
>
>
>Message-ID: <00e701bfb74c$1d6e0410$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [WW] Microsoft breakup: When anti-monopoly is really pro-monopoly
>Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 07:13:32 -0400
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>-------------------------
>Via Workers World News Service
>Reprinted from the May 11, 2000
>issue of Workers World newspaper
>-------------------------
>
>MICROSOFT BREAKUP: WHEN ANTI-MONOPOLY IS REALLY PRO-MONOPOLY
>
>By Gary Wilson
>
>What's behind the U.S. Justice Department's proposal to
>break up Microsoft? Has the government in Washington become
>anti-monopoly?
>
>Hardly. The Clinton administration is not going after any
>other well-known monopolies, such as Intel Corp., whose
>monopoly on computer processor hardware is at least equal
>to Microsoft's monopoly on computer desktop operating
>system software. And Intel has been convicted in court for
>engaging in anti-competitive criminal actions against
>would-be rivals, such as AMD and Cyrix.
>
>Nor is the Clinton administration even considering going
>after the media monopolies. Normon Solomon of Fairness and
>Accuracy in Reporting asked in his April 27 Media Beat
>column why the Clinton administration doesn't propose a
>Microsoft-like breakup of the six corporations that have a
>"hammerlock grip" on the media in the United States.
>
>In fact, the Clinton administration's general policy has
>been to encourage monopolization. The Clinton
>administration has approved more big mergers than any
>previous administration in U.S. history.
>
>According to Mergerstat (www.mergerstat.com), the biggest
>mergers in history have all been in the last couple of
>years:
>
>* America Online's deal for Time Warner announced Jan. 10
>for $165.9 billion.
>
>* MCI WorldCom's deal for Sprint announced last October for
>$116 billion.
>
>* Pfizer's bid for Warner-Lambert announced last November
>for $82.3 billion.
>
>* Exxon's deal for Mobil announced in December 1998 for
>$81.5 billion.
>
>* Glaxo Wellcome's deal for SmithKline Beecham announced
>Jan. 17 for $75.7 billion.
>
>* SBC Communications' deal for Ameritech announced in May
>1998 for $75.2 billion.
>
>* Vodafone Group's deal for AirTouch Communications
>announced in January of last year for $62.7 billion.
>
>* British Petroleum's deal for Amoco in August 1998 for
>$56.4 billion.
>
>* AT&T's deal for MediaOne Group last April for $55.7
>billion.
>
>* Bell Atlantic's deal for GTE in July 1998 for $52.8
>billion.
>
>So why go after Microsoft?
>
>BREAKING UP IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS
>
>The judge in the case--U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield
>Jackson--was appointed to the federal district court by
>Ronald Reagan in 1982. He was the judge who sent Washington
>Mayor Marion Barry to prison in 1991. Jackson is a graduate
>of Dartmouth and of Harvard Law School, an Ivy League club
>member whom no one would describe as anti-big business.
>
>In fact, his ruling will probably strengthen Microsoft.
>Jesse Berst, the editorial director of ZDNet--a Web
>publication directed to computer professionals--says that
>breaking up Microsoft is the only way to save the company.
>
>Berst wrote this in a Jan. 13 column titled "Earth to Bill
>G: Wake Up and Break Up":
>
>"Here's the irony. If Gates implements a break-up strategy
>now--and if he does it right--Microsoft will be better off.
>Here's why: Microsoft has become too big, too bloated, too
>territorial. It has brilliant people, but they're stifled
>by a ponderous corporate structure. Three or four leaner,
>meaner companies could react more quickly to competitors
>and market trends."
>
>Breaking up a monopoly, thus, can actually increase its
>value when technological advancements dictate that the
>company must change or die. This is exactly what happened
>to Rockefeller's Standard Oil.
>
>>From 1870 to 1911, Standard Oil controlled almost all oil
>production, processing, marketing and transportation in the
>United States. Despite its gigantic size, the monopoly was
>not able to shift to introduce the changes needed to meet
>demand brought on by the introduction of the motor car.
>After the breakup ordered by a federal court in 1911, the
>new companies were able to respond to the technological
>advances.
>
>In fact, "of the 38 progeny some were soon to become
>bigger, in terms of profit, than the original parent."
>("The Seven Sisters" by Anthony Sampson, page 32)
>
>The court-ordered breakup of the AT&T monopoly created
>companies that were better suited to the new
>telecommunications technologies and quickly generated
>bigger profits for shareholders than were possible before
>the breakup.
>
>Swift changes in technology necessitated the breakup of
>AT&T. The continued existence of the AT&T monopoly in its
>old corporate framework was incompatible with the
>revolutionary new developments in technology.
>
>The breakup of Microsoft could have a similar impact.
>Microsoft has been unable to fully shift into new emerging
>technologies that are expanding rapidly even as desktop
>computer systems appear to be stagnating.
>
>Microsoft is desperately seeking ways to change direction.
>Bill Gates resigned as top corporate officer in order to
>head up a new division dedicated to this purpose.
>
>Microsoft is not a dominant monopoly on the Internet or on
>Internet servers--computers that handle Internet traffic.
>After more than two years in development, it still has not
>introduced its application hosting server, considered to be
>the next generation technology for providing applications
>to desktop computers. It is expected that in the next
>couple of years application software will all be accessed
>from Internet-based application service providers. Users
>will no longer install software on their desktop computers,
>but will rather run the software from a server on the
>Internet.
>
>Linux, a free operating system developed by volunteer
>programmers around the world, is based on Unix, the
>original Internet operating system.
>
>Linux is the fastest expanding operating system in
>history. It is now the dominant server software on Internet
>Web servers and a close second to Microsoft on corporate
>file servers. Linux application servers will probably be
>available at about the same time Microsoft introduces its
>version.
>
>The other area in which Microsoft has yet to make headway
>is its operating system for embedded computer processors.
>Ninety percent of the computer processors manufactured
>today are used in embedded systems, with only 10 percent
>used for desktop computers, where Microsoft dominates. This
>is quickly emerging as the biggest computer-related market
>worldwide.
>
>Embedded systems are the equipment or devices that you
>don't think of as being computers, but whose operation
>depends on some sort of internal computer function.
>Embedded systems are all around--in cars, microwave ovens,
>stereos, home automation systems, elevators, cell phones,
>security systems, in-flight entertainment systems,
>automated tellers, vending machines, medical instruments,
>and so on.
>
>There is no dominant operating system for embedded
>systems, but the competition is heating up. Microsoft has
>recently introduced two operating systems for embedded
>processors. However, the Linux operating system, which is
>virtually free, already has an edge over Microsoft in this
>area. But neither one has anything close to a dominant
>share of the market. Most existing embedded systems use
>custom-built software, but that is not expected to last
>much longer, with most turning to off-the-shelf software
>like Linux or Microsoft software.
>
>MORE MONOPOLY, NOT LESS
>
>Another indication that the breakup of Microsoft is not
>really about ending predatory monopolies is the fact that
>the Justice Department's proposal would actually create two
>monopolies out of one.
>
>ZDNet's Jesse Berst reported in an April 30 column:
>
>"Ironically, [Microsoft will be] worth more as two
>companies. Remember, both of the new companies will still
>have monopolies(!!!). The [operating system] company would
>inherit a 90 percent share of the desktop operating
>systems. The applications company would get a 94 percent
>share in word processors and spreadsheets, and an 80
>percent share in desktop databases." (Emphasis in the
>original.)
>
>The Wall Street Journal concurs. Its April 28 report
>concludes that Microsoft shareholders will be the big
>winners, as they will end up with the shares of two rich
>and powerful monopolies instead of one.
>
>One possibility is that with a breakup, the operating
>system monopoly will be freed up from having to concentrate
>on working with desktop applications and will then be in a
>position to shift more toward Internet technologies and
>embedded systems.
>
>Marxism holds that the development of the productive
>forces, the new technologies, dictates changes in economic
>conditions. The Microsoft case is really a response to new
>economic conditions.
>
>Monopoly is a tendency of capitalism that is never fully
>completed. Capitalist competition turns into monopoly, but
>contradictory trends keep competition in existence side by
>side with monopoly.
>
>Big corporations grow and become monopolies only to break
>up, allowing new corporations to emerge that tend again
>toward monopoly. That's because finance capital tends to go
>to wherever the rate of profit is highest. However, it will
>just as quickly move on when the rate of profit stagnates
>or starts to decline.
>
>Microsoft's profits are no longer expanding at the rate
>they had been for the last decade. In fact, its stock
>prices have been on a decline. Workers who are paid
>primarily in stock shares have been leaving the company.
>
>The decline is starting to accelerate. Microsoft's losses
>on the stock market in the period between April 3 and April
>24 are estimated at $140 billion.
>
>Breaking up Microsoft may ultimately benefit Bill Gates
>and the company's other big shareholders most. It could
>also give a boost to some of Microsoft's competitors,
>though probably not as much as they hope.
>
>A breakup will be of little benefit to those who aren't
>big capitalists. In fact, it is likely that a breakup could
>lead to higher prices for software and inhibit the
>development of standards for computer operating systems.
>And it won't end corporate greed, monopoly crimes or any of
>
__________________________________
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki - Finland
+358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
___________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe/unsubscribe messages
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________
