Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Revolutionary literature

[Ralph Dumain]

I believe that John Strachey cited Lawrence as an exemplar of the 
"fascist unconscious", which I think is correct.

In any case, Eagleton's futile exercise reminds me of how CLR James' 
ridiculed Sartre's conception of engaged literature in the late '40s / 
early '50s. Inter alia, James wrote that he didn't care about what 
political party an author belonged to; what mattered was the tacit 
assumptions embodied in the work itself. Of course, he was opposed to 
Popular Front historiography and Popular Front cultural criticism.

On 11/29/2010 7:14 PM, Mason Akhnaten wrote:
> What does one want to focus on..."the absence of genuinely
> revolutionary art", or that only radical conservatism "could produce
> the most significant literature"...
>
> Words like "genuinely" complicate the matter to no end.
> So perhaps concentrate on "the most significant literature"--and I
> think there are plenty of works of worldwide significance that
> certainly are not produced by radical conservatism.
>
> Yes, Brecht of course...
> I think Louis mentioned the surrealists and their milieu.  I would
> think Lorca is agreed upon as one of the preeminent dramatists of 20th
> century Spain, and it would be improper to call him a conservative.
> It actually looks like many of the significant figures in 20th century
> theatre were not politically conservative--I would hope GB Shaw's
> image hasn't suffered in the academy, and then you have Harold Pinter
> more recently.  It isn't that these playwrights must be 'genuinely
> revolutionary', the fact they are not conservative weakens Eagleton's
> claim.
>
> You can't really throw Upton Sinclair in there...seems doubtful than
> anyone would agree upon the man as one of the most significant in
> literature.  If you do, may as well throw in Richard Wright or any
> number of second-rate literary figures. Obviously Orwell and Huxley do
> not have the same stature as Lawrence or Joyce, but their works are
> widely read and their works are often listed among the best of the
> century--and no one would call either of these men politically
> conservative.
> Perhaps the easiest thing to do would be look at one of those "critics
> list of most significant authors" and look at trends between academic
> popularity and political attitude.
>
> So, there may be some exceptions to Eagleton's sweeping statement, but
> a couple that have been named (Brecht and Lorca) are notable for the
> historical circumstances surrounding their development as authors.  So
> perhaps a look at notable exceptions--and if there are trends amongst
> these exceptions--would be fruitful.
>
> [also, some of Pound's poetic works celebrate fascism- The Pisan
> Cantos, for example.  it is not simply restricted to some speeches on
> Mussolini]
>
> On 11/29/10, c b  wrote:
>> M.F. Kalfat mf at kalfat.net
>>
>>
>> In *Marxism and Literary Criticism*, Eagleton concludes a section entitled
>> "Base and Superstructure" in chapter one, "Literature and History" with
>> this:
>>
>> Whether those insights are in political terms ‘progressive’ or ‘reactionary’
>> (Conrad's are certainly the latter) is not the point – any more than it is
>> to the point that most of the agreed major writers of the twentieth century
>> – Yeats, Eliot, Pound, Lawrence – are political conservatives who each had
>> truck with fascism.  Marxist criticism, rather than apologising for that
>> fact, explains it – sees that, *in the absence of genuinely revolutionary
>> art*, only a radical conservativism, hostile like Marxism to the withered
>> values of liberal bourgeois society, could produce the most significant
>> literature. [emphasis added]
>>
>>
>> Is it a case of total "absence"? Is it inevitable in a capitalist society?
>> Could there be exceptions? Can you name some of these if any? For practical
>> purposes, let's stick to modern literature.
>>
>> --
>> محمد فتحي كلفت
>> Mahammad Fathy Kalfat
>>
>> ^^
>> CB: It would seem that "genuinely revolutionary" art might be hard to
>> purvey very widely in capitalist society.  You know the ruling ideas
>> of any age are the ideas of its ruling classes and all that.
>>
>> Anyway
>>
>>
>> Three Penny Opera by Bertolt Brecht ?
>>
>> The Jungle - Upton Sinclair ?
>>
>> ___
>> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
>> Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
>> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
>> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>>
> ___
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Revolutionary literature

[Ralph Dumain]

This is just another example of what a pretentious ass Eagleton is. What 
is genuine revolutionary art but a posturing notion? Furthermore, the 
vitriol directed at liberalism is the language of the right. There is 
insight among the disillusioned conservatives, to be sure, but this is 
hardly a perceptive analysis. Better you should read Raymond Williams' 
THE POLITICS OF MODERNISM than this crap.

On 11/29/2010 6:56 AM, M.F. Kalfat wrote:
> In *Marxism and Literary Criticism*, Eagleton concludes a section entitled
> "Base and Superstructure" in chapter one, "Literature and History" with
> this:
>
> Whether those insights are in political terms ‘progressive’ or ‘reactionary’
> (Conrad's are certainly the latter) is not the point – any more than it is
> to the point that most of the agreed major writers of the twentieth century
> – Yeats, Eliot, Pound, Lawrence – are political conservatives who each had
> truck with fascism.  Marxist criticism, rather than apologising for that
> fact, explains it – sees that, *in the absence of genuinely revolutionary
> art*, only a radical conservativism, hostile like Marxism to the withered
> values of liberal bourgeois society, could produce the most significant
> literature. [emphasis added]
>
>
> Is it a case of total "absence"? Is it inevitable in a capitalist society?
> Could there be exceptions? Can you name some of these if any? For practical
> purposes, let's stick to modern literature.
>

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Revolutionary literature

[Mason Akhnaten]

What does one want to focus on..."the absence of genuinely
revolutionary art", or that only radical conservatism "could produce
the most significant literature"...

Words like "genuinely" complicate the matter to no end.
So perhaps concentrate on "the most significant literature"--and I
think there are plenty of works of worldwide significance that
certainly are not produced by radical conservatism.

Yes, Brecht of course...
I think Louis mentioned the surrealists and their milieu.  I would
think Lorca is agreed upon as one of the preeminent dramatists of 20th
century Spain, and it would be improper to call him a conservative.
It actually looks like many of the significant figures in 20th century
theatre were not politically conservative--I would hope GB Shaw's
image hasn't suffered in the academy, and then you have Harold Pinter
more recently.  It isn't that these playwrights must be 'genuinely
revolutionary', the fact they are not conservative weakens Eagleton's
claim.

You can't really throw Upton Sinclair in there...seems doubtful than
anyone would agree upon the man as one of the most significant in
literature.  If you do, may as well throw in Richard Wright or any
number of second-rate literary figures. Obviously Orwell and Huxley do
not have the same stature as Lawrence or Joyce, but their works are
widely read and their works are often listed among the best of the
century--and no one would call either of these men politically
conservative.
Perhaps the easiest thing to do would be look at one of those "critics
list of most significant authors" and look at trends between academic
popularity and political attitude.

So, there may be some exceptions to Eagleton's sweeping statement, but
a couple that have been named (Brecht and Lorca) are notable for the
historical circumstances surrounding their development as authors.  So
perhaps a look at notable exceptions--and if there are trends amongst
these exceptions--would be fruitful.

[also, some of Pound's poetic works celebrate fascism- The Pisan
Cantos, for example.  it is not simply restricted to some speeches on
Mussolini]

On 11/29/10, c b  wrote:
> M.F. Kalfat mf at kalfat.net
>
>
> In *Marxism and Literary Criticism*, Eagleton concludes a section entitled
> "Base and Superstructure" in chapter one, "Literature and History" with
> this:
>
> Whether those insights are in political terms ‘progressive’ or ‘reactionary’
> (Conrad's are certainly the latter) is not the point – any more than it is
> to the point that most of the agreed major writers of the twentieth century
> – Yeats, Eliot, Pound, Lawrence – are political conservatives who each had
> truck with fascism.  Marxist criticism, rather than apologising for that
> fact, explains it – sees that, *in the absence of genuinely revolutionary
> art*, only a radical conservativism, hostile like Marxism to the withered
> values of liberal bourgeois society, could produce the most significant
> literature. [emphasis added]
>
>
> Is it a case of total "absence"? Is it inevitable in a capitalist society?
> Could there be exceptions? Can you name some of these if any? For practical
> purposes, let's stick to modern literature.
>
> --
> محمد فتحي كلفت
> Mahammad Fathy Kalfat
>
> ^^
> CB: It would seem that "genuinely revolutionary" art might be hard to
> purvey very widely in capitalist society.  You know the ruling ideas
> of any age are the ideas of its ruling classes and all that.
>
> Anyway
>
>
> Three Penny Opera by Bertolt Brecht ?
>
> The Jungle - Upton Sinclair ?
>
> ___
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
>

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

[Marxism-Thaxis] Support the Reykjavik 9

[c b]

Support the Reykjavik 9

suuporter | 14.09.2010 10:26 | Globalisation
 | Repression
 | Social Struggles


As we speak, Iceland’s first post-collapse trial is taking place. To
no-one’s surprise, the accused are individuals from the most radical
part of the uprising that toppled Iceland’s government during the
winter of 2008 and 2009. The people – anarchists and radical leftists
– are now facing somewhere between 1 and 16 years in prison, will they
be found guilty of attacking the parliament.

On December 8th 2008, a group of 30 people planned to enter the
Parliament gallery but was met with a tough response from the
Parliament’s guards. According to Iceland’s constitution, everybody
can enter the Parliament gallery to follow parliamentary sessions.
Therefore it was not only their natural right, as the opponents of
current powers, to enter there – but also their legal, constitutional
right as members of this society. Only 2 out of the 30 people managed
to get there; one of them shouted at the MP’s to get out of the
building. In reaction, the people were held hostage by police and
Parliament guards, few of them arrested and brought to the police
station. A year later, accusations were filed against 9 of them.

Between One and Sixteen Year in Prison The Reykjavík Nine (Rvk9) are
accused of violating the government authorities, disrupting public
order, committing and threatening violence against official workers,
leading an organized attack, housebreaking, disrupting a legal meeting
and last but not least, threatening the Parliament’s free will. The
last mentioned law article – which takes on attacking the Parliament
and demands somewhere between 1 and 16 years prison sentence – has
been used only once before in the history of the Icelandic state. That
was in 1949 when the police and right wing extremists beat up people
who rioted by the parliament, protesting Iceland’s entrance into NATO.
Of course, it were the NATO opponents who got sentenced, including an
official deprivation of their human rights.

Since the court case was originally filed in January this year, many
hearings have taken place. One of the Rvk9’s lawyers has
systematically shown the witch-hunting nature of the case, as well as
the police’s and judge’s favoritism. Of course that should be obvious
to everyone with a critical mind. But if anyone still had doubts about
it, the lawyer and other opponents of the Rvk9 case have very well
exposed the false neutrality of the state institutions.

A big group of policemen have been present in the courthouse at every
hearing, by the demand of the judge and chief judge. Looking back to
the history of court cases in Iceland, this police presence is unique
and shows the judge’s assumption about the threat caused by the
defendants and their supporters. Thus he has already taken a stand.
Early on, the police stayed behind the curtains but parallel to the
public increased interest in the case, the judge and chief judge have
handed the authority of the trials to the police. The police has
therefore guarded the doors to the courtroom and only allowed entrance
to as many people as there are chairs in the room. Later on, the
police has formed a wall in front of the courthouse itself and only
allowed a handful of people inside. Couple of the defendants have
undergone violence and had problems with entering. In one instance,
two of them were not allowed into their own trials and despite
repeated demands, the judge has not secured that this will not happen
again. The police presence has only thrown oil on the fire of rage
against the trials, which has resulted in rioting and several arrests.

The silence of the corporate media has of course played its part in
the case – actually since the original event and arrests happened in
December 2008 – which is to sentence the Rvk9 beforehand and create a
negative public opinion. The case’s opponents have on the other hand
managed to show the absurdity of the trials and the witch-hunting
nature of it, by pointing at the zero gravity of the accusations and
by putting the events in context with the 2008-2009 revolt and that
time’s social conditions. The judicial system’s one-sided aim has been
properly exposed.

The criticism has been pointed towards the roots of the case – the
hierarchy of the so-called democratic society – and its opponents have
increased. That was seen in the signatures of more then 700 people who
announced that they had also “attacked” the parliament that same
winter and demanded that the case would be dismissed. The media
editors’ reaction to this progress has only been shown in one way,
with bitter silence. Now they only talk about the case to bring
forward lies, purposely to criminalize the defendants and their
supporters.

But the media is not the only one who keeps silent. The first agent of
this

[Marxism-Thaxis] Marxist-Humanist Initiative

[c b]

Crisis Conference Wrap-Up (Videos & More)
To: 
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"




November 24, 2010

Dear Friend,

Marxist-Humanist Initiative
(MHI) is pleased to announce the creation of new pages in our website
publication, With Sober Senses, that are dedicated to
following-up on the conference ?Economic Crisis and Left Responses,? held Nov.
6 in New York City.

We convened the conference
in order to further discussion, if not resolve, some of the conflicting
theories coming from the Left concerning the underlying reasons for and
consequences of the recent crisis and Great Recession. Although the 150 people
at the conference didn?t agree on either the theoretical underpinnings or what
practice should flow from them, we believe the conference took a giant step
forward in the direction of working out theory and practice. That is because
many of the speakers and audience members actively engaged with each others?
issues; they did not merely put forth their positions and leave them
un-debated, nor did most people rush to prescribe ?practice? without indicating
the theory underlying their practice.

We wish to continue to
facilitate wide-ranging dialogue on the conference topics, not only so that all
views can be heard but, above all, so that we can test different ideas in
debate and work out answers to the questions we are up against at this moment.
We believe this is the only way for the Left to become relevant in the face of
increasing assaults, in the name of ?austerity,? against workers, women,
African Americans, Latinos, youth, and GLBTs in the U.S., and similar struggles
abroad.

You will find a report of
the conference at http://tinyurl.com/2vyw8z7. It contains a link to

Videos of the entire
conference,

?
Many
of the conference papers in written form,

?
The
program, abstracts and draft papers posted before the conference,

?
The
proposal we made at the conference to form a Network for the Circulation of
Theoretical Struggles, and

?
A
place to add your comments on the conference and its aftermath.

We hope you will contribute
to the discussion by submitting a comment and by taking part in the formation
of the Network for the Circulation of Theoretical Struggles?sign up at ?Contact
Us.?

We also invite you to take
a look at the rest of our website, and to tell us through the ?Contact Us? page
that you want to stay in touch with MHI (no more than two e-mails a month).

In solidarity,

Anne Jaclard for MHI

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

[Marxism-Thaxis] Revolutionary literature

[c b]

M.F. Kalfat mf at kalfat.net


In *Marxism and Literary Criticism*, Eagleton concludes a section entitled
"Base and Superstructure" in chapter one, "Literature and History" with
this:

Whether those insights are in political terms ‘progressive’ or ‘reactionary’
(Conrad's are certainly the latter) is not the point – any more than it is
to the point that most of the agreed major writers of the twentieth century
– Yeats, Eliot, Pound, Lawrence – are political conservatives who each had
truck with fascism.  Marxist criticism, rather than apologising for that
fact, explains it – sees that, *in the absence of genuinely revolutionary
art*, only a radical conservativism, hostile like Marxism to the withered
values of liberal bourgeois society, could produce the most significant
literature. [emphasis added]


Is it a case of total "absence"? Is it inevitable in a capitalist society?
Could there be exceptions? Can you name some of these if any? For practical
purposes, let's stick to modern literature.

-- 
محمد فتحي كلفت
Mahammad Fathy Kalfat

^^
CB: It would seem that "genuinely revolutionary" art might be hard to
purvey very widely in capitalist society.  You know the ruling ideas
of any age are the ideas of its ruling classes and all that.

Anyway


Three Penny Opera by Bertolt Brecht ?

The Jungle - Upton Sinclair ?

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Note to the left. Who hates you?

[Peggy Dobbins]

Meant more merely innuendo 

Peggy Powell Dobbins 
Sociology as an Art Form
www.peggydobbins.net

On Nov 29, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Doug Henwood  wrote:

> 
> On Nov 29, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Peggy Dobbins wrote:
> 
>> The Z guy writes as if he was a real participant in the movement in 1968. I 
>> don't remember him
> 
> Wow, that's a conclusive argument!
> 
> Doug
> ___
> Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
> Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Note to the left. Who hates you?

[Doug Henwood]

On Nov 29, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Peggy Dobbins wrote:

> The Z guy writes as if he was a real participant in the movement in 1968. I 
> don't remember him

Wow, that's a conclusive argument!

Doug
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

[Marxism-Thaxis] THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE QUESTION OF CRISIS

[c b]

Just published: THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE
   QUESTION OF CRISIS (RPE, Vol. 26)
To: pe...@lists.csuchico.edu
Message-ID: <382b789025c6a56c90a70...@cast-zarembka.caset.buffalo.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

I am pleased to report that THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE QUESTION OF
CRISIS is now published, 300 pages in length with the table of contents
listed below.


Abstract: This volume focuses on nationality's efficacy in much of world
affairs, andon the background and current issues surrounding global crisis.
As one of the most famous Marxist revolutionaries, Rosa Luxemburg vigorously
promoted her own conceptions, often opposing Lenin, her contemporary. In
this volume, Narihiko Ito offers a much needed, extensive analysis of her
position on the nation state versus national autonomy. This is followed
by a critique of the current Iranian conjuncture, offered by Farhang
Morady.

The development of crises in capitalism is addressed both directly
and indirectly within the volume. Radhika Desai highlights renewed
consideration of the major role of consumption demand in Marxist theory and
considers implications for the current crisis. Paul Zarembka extends,
theoretically and empirically, Marx's analysis of long-term capitalist
accumulation and shows that merely 10-15% of surplus value has been needed
for the accumulation occurring over the past 150 years. The volume
continues with Karen Petersen's analysis of the post-WWII developments of
major currencies. Restoring the concept of freedom within the current
crisis, Alan Freeman argues the need to extricate French positivism from
the Marxism that developed after Marx. The final chapter by Jorgen
Sandemose presents a careful argument that the beginning of Marx's 'Capital'
had origins in many philosophical traditions and especially in early German
philosophy and yet that this recognition does not make Marx a "Hegelian".


THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE QUESTION OF CRISIS
Volume 26, Research in Political Economy
Paul Zarembka, Editor
Emerald Group, Bingley, United Kingdom
www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?issn=0161-7230


PART I: THE NATIONAL QUESTION

Narihiko Ito, "Is the National Question an Aporia for Humanity? How to
Read Rosa Luxemburg's 'The National Question and Autonomy'"

Farhang Morady, "Iran: Islamic Republic or God's Kingdom? The Election,
Protest and Prospects for Change"


PART II: CRISIS EMPIRICALLY AND THEORETICALLY UNDERSTOOD

Radhika Desai, "Consumption Demand in Marx and in the Current Crisis"

Paul Zarembka, "Low Surplus Value Historically Required for Accumulation,
Seen in a Model Derived from Marx"

Karen Helveg Petersen, "World Money: From the Eurodollar to the Sinodollar"

Alan Freeman, "Crisis and 'Law of Motion' in Economics: A Critique of
Positivist Marxism"


PART III: A SCIENCE OF CAPITAL

Jorgen Sandemose, "Fundamentals of a Science of Capital and Bourgeois
Society: Marxian Notions of Value, Prices, and the Structure of Time"


=
(V23) HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11, Seven Stories Press, 2nd ed. softcover
(V24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA (V25) WHY CAPITALISM SURVIVES CRISES
(V26) THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND THE QUESTION OF CRISIS
>   Research in Political Economy, Emerald Group, Bingley, UK
>   P.Zarembka, Ed., www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?issn=0161-7230

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

[Marxism-Thaxis] Note to the left. Who hates you?

[Peggy Dobbins]

The Z guy writes as if he was a real participant in the movement in 1968. I 
don't remember him, but I do remember how effective agent lefter-than-thou 
provocateurs sabotaged us, feeding our resentment when leaders ignored our 
advice, took us for granted, and made mistakes, fomenting paranoia and 
dissension, splintering, bitterness and remember "burn out?."  By 1973 people 
with grants from the Ford Foundation et al who sort of looked and sort of 
sounded like we had, had usurped our popular influence and begun to effectively 
marginalize anyone serious about grounding the movement in Marxist theory, who 
had btw, been pretty dang effective at drawing the center toward the left. 

Peggy Powell Dobbins 
Sociology as an Art Form
www.peggydobbins.net
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

[Marxism-Thaxis] How Corporate America is Pushing Us All Off a Cliff

[c b]

How Corporate America is Pushing Us All Off a Cliff

by Michael Moore

michaelmoore.com (November 19 2010)

Global Research (November 21 2010)


When someone talks about pushing you off a cliff, it's just human nature
to be curious about them. Who are these people, you wonder, and why would
they want to do such a thing?

That's what I was thinking when corporate whistleblower Wendell Potter
revealed {1} that, when "Sicko" was being released in 2007, the health
insurance industry's Public Relations firm, APCO Worldwide, discussed
their Plan B: "Pushing Michael Moore off a cliff".

But after looking into it, it turns out it's nothing personal! APCO wants
to push everyone off a cliff.

APCO was hatched in 1984 as a subsidiary of the Washington, DC law firm
Arnold & Porter - best known for its years of representing the giant
tobacco conglomerate Philip Morris. APCO set up fake "grassroots"
organizations around the country to do the bidding of Big Tobacco. All of
a sudden, "normal, everyday, in-no-way-employed-by-Philip Morris
Americans" were popping up everywhere. And it turned out they were
outraged - outraged! - by exactly the things APCO's clients hated (such
as, the government telling tobacco companies what to do). In particular,
they were "furious" that regular people had the right to sue big
corporations ... you know, like Philip Morris. (For details, see the 2000
report "The CALA Files" (PDF) {2} by my friends and colleagues Carl Deal
and Joanne Doroshow.)

Right about now you may be wondering: how many Americans get pushed off a
cliff by Big Tobacco every year? The answer is 443,000 Americans die every
year {3} due to smoking. That's a big cliff.

With this success under their belts, APCO created "The Advancement of
Sound Science Coalition". TASSC, funded partly by Exxon, had a leading
role in a planned campaign by the fossil fuel industry to create doubt
about global warming. The problem for Big Oil speaking out against global
warming, according to the campaign's own leaked documents {4}, was that
the public could see the "vested interest" that oil companies had in
opposing environmental laws. APCO's job was to help conceal those oil
company interests.

And boy, have they ever succeeded. Polls now show that, as the world gets
hotter, Americans are getting less and less worried about it {5}.

How big is this particular cliff? According to the World Health
Organization, climate change contributes - right now - to the deaths of
150,000 people {6} every year. By 2030 it may be double that. And after
that ... well, the sky is literally the limit! I don't think it's crazy to
say APCO may rack up even bigger numbers here than they have with tobacco.

With this track record, you can see why, when the health insurance
industry wanted to come after "Sicko", they went straight to APCO. The
"worst case", as their leaked documents say {7}, was that "Sicko evolves
into a sustained populist movement". That simply could not be allowed to
happen. Something obviously had to be done.

As Wendell Potter explains, APCO ran their standard playbook, setting up
something called "Health Care America". Health Care America, according to
Potter, "was received by mainstream reporters, including the New York
Times, as a legitimate organization when it was nothing but a front group
set up by APCO Worldwide. It was not anything approaching what it was
reporting to be: a 'grassroots organization'. It was a sham group".

Health Care America showed up online in 2007 (the year "Sicko" was
released) and disappeared quickly by early 2008. You can still find their
website archived at {8}. As you'll see, their "moderated forum" {9}
allowed normal, everyday, in-no-way-employed-by-the-insurance-industry
Americans to speak out. For instance, here's something Nicole felt very
strongly about:

   Moore shouldn't be allowed to call his film a 'documentary'. It should
be called a political commercial. We need to fix our health care system,
but we shouldn't accept a Hollywood moviemaker's political views as the
starting point.


Here's what Wendell Potter revealed {10} about the insurance industry's
media strategy:

   As we would do the media training, we would always have someone refer
to him as 'Hollywood entertainer' or 'Hollywood moviemaker Michael Moore'.
They don't want you to think that it was a documentary that had some truth.


Thanks for your perspective, "Nicole"!

Now, how big was THAT cliff? A pretty good size - according to a recent
study {11}, 45,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health
insurance.

And here we are in 2010. A lesser Public Relations firm might be resting
on its laurels at this point, content to sit back and watch hundreds of
thousands of people continue to be pushed off the various cliffs they've
built. But not APCO! Right now they've taken on their biggest challenge
yet: leading a giant, multi-million dollar effort {12} to help Wall Street
"earn back the trust of the American people".

We may neve

[Marxism-Thaxis] Problem Solving Bacteria

[c b]

Problem Solving Bacteria
by Kevin Bonham
We, Beasties
November 17, 2010
http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2010/11/problem_solving_bacteria.php

This is just awesome:

A strain of Escherichia coli bacteria can now solve
[sudoku] puzzles [...] "Because sudoku has simple
rules, we felt that maybe bacteria could solve it
for us, as long as we designed a circuit for them to
follow," says team leader Ryo Taniuchi.

The mechanism is ingenious and yet straightforward at
the same time.

Basically, they have 16 different strains of bacteria,
with each initial strain representing a spatial
coordinate on a 4x4 grid. Each bacterium has a "4C3
leak" system, which is a chunk of DNA that the team
designed that has 4 possible outputs. Depending on
incoming signals, different chunks of that DNA will be
excised, leaving only 1 output remaining.

Once there is only 1 element left, that bacterium is
"differentiated," and starts making viruses that can
transmit information about its location and identity.
Bacteria strains in the same row, column or section can
receive information from that bacterium, but others
express special anti-sense RNA sequences that will
silence incoming viruses from other locations (this
probably doesn't make sense if you've never played
sudoku before - you can check out the team's abstract to
learn more).

[moderator: the abstract is found here -
http://2010.igem.org/Team:UT-Tokyo/Sudoku_abstract]

All 16 strains are thrown into a flask to grow together,
with a few of the strains pre-differentiated to start
the puzzle off - once these have communicated to all of
their neighbors, each strain "location" will
differentiate and transmit that new information to its
neighbors, and the puzzle will solve itself. The
information in this culture flask must then be
visualized by taking the viruses floating around in the
flask and adding them to another set of engineered
bacteria which are plated out in a 4x4 grid, and express
particularly colored fluorescent proteins.

I think that the viruses and bacteria used in this
system can barely even be called viruses and bacteria.
We don't call a hammer "shaped steel with a rubber
grip," even though that's what it's made from. These
"organisms" are so heavily engineered, so sculpted to
our ends that they are barely a shadow of their former
selves. They are membrane-enclosed tools. And we're only
getting better at these sorts of manipulations.

Like I said - awesome.

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

[Marxism-Thaxis] Revolutionary literature

[M.F. Kalfat]

In *Marxism and Literary Criticism*, Eagleton concludes a section entitled
"Base and Superstructure" in chapter one, "Literature and History" with
this:

Whether those insights are in political terms ‘progressive’ or ‘reactionary’
(Conrad's are certainly the latter) is not the point – any more than it is
to the point that most of the agreed major writers of the twentieth century
– Yeats, Eliot, Pound, Lawrence – are political conservatives who each had
truck with fascism.  Marxist criticism, rather than apologising for that
fact, explains it – sees that, *in the absence of genuinely revolutionary
art*, only a radical conservativism, hostile like Marxism to the withered
values of liberal bourgeois society, could produce the most significant
literature. [emphasis added]


Is it a case of total "absence"? Is it inevitable in a capitalist society?
Could there be exceptions? Can you name some of these if any? For practical
purposes, let's stick to modern literature.

-- 
محمد فتحي كلفت
Mahammad Fathy Kalfat
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis