----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 01:54 PM 1/25/01 -0500, you wrote:
>I just see Milken as the typical "big fish" that prosecutors were able to
>get because of his arrogance and careless disregard for the law.
-or maybe he's a scapegoat, like William Calley of My Lai infamy.
And do you or Doug have evidence of orders coming down from the high command
of Capital to create such a scapegoat? The frustration I have is that this
kind of statement acts as if Capital issues orders with the precision of the
military, when it rarely does in such a clean and uncontested way.
Sometimes it does but the fact is that there is plenty of evidence cited for
Milken's illegal acts under the law, so why that isn't sufficient an
explanation baffles me.
The structure of capital is such that many of the central players need never
break the law to get wealthy, while marginal new players like Milken often
do, but that is not scapegoating but merely the way power polices against
new elites too agressively displacing the old. Which if that is what Doug
wanted to say, that's fine, but there is no reason to feel particularly
sorry for the failure of one undemocratic coup leader like Milken seeking to
displace older capitalist dictators of our economy. New boss same as the
old, in fact many times worse, as the 1980s seemed to show.
The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. As many union leaders from
the 1980s will attest to in the case of Milken.
-- Nathan Newman
