[PEN-L:10591] Re: Sokolowski's cat
Wojtek argues that irreducibility "would only hold if the universe we study was neatly divided into compartments corresponding to the respective disciplines." Of course at the molecular level the universe is continuous and not compartmentalized. At the level of explanation, phenomena do operate according to different principles. How are we to reconcile these apparently contradictory observations. Wojtek denies the contradiction, seeing the different explanatory principles as ultimately unnecessary or illusory. Another strategy might be to employ the notion of emergent behaviour. Biology emerges from chemistry. In this sense, biology can be described as a series of chemical interactions, but it cannot be _explained_ as a series of chemical interactions. To explain biology, we need specifically biological concepts like natural selection. By analogy, history emerges from biology (humans are after all animals). Human history can be described as a complex series of animal behaviors. But it cannot be explained in this way. To explain history we need specifically historical concepts like class. In another missive, Wojtek describes pomo and identity politics as "a bullshit intellectual exercise marketed for college educated yuppies..." Would that it were so. Eagleton describes pomo as the left in defeat,or more specifically in a kind of stunned retreat. If this is the case, as members of the left, we are all implicated in it. If one were to survey non-college educated yuppie left individuals one would find pomo has a lot more currency than Marxism. This would be even more true at the organizational level though the college educated yuppie factor looms larger here. That said, maybe denouncing pomo in these terms is a sound rhetorical strategy given the proneness of the left to what we used to call white liberal guilt. Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:10592] labor films
Has anybody mencioned The Global Assembly line yet? I used to show this documentary about capital flight from the States into Mexico and Phillipines to my students at the Labor College (The Van Arsdale School of Labor Studies-Sunny). It documents labor capital conflict in the States as well as in those two countries; it shows the working and living conditions of the working classes of those two countries. However, it is not a recent movie, so it may describe a process of capital flight that is not accurring anymore. I am sure though that the working conditions in those countries have not changed much. Showing what those conditions are in itself justifies discussing the movie. Paulo Cipolla
[PEN-L:10596] Questions on Globalization
Doug Henwood questions "the globalization mania" in the latest LBO [#77] with statistics that show that intrafirm (imports + exports) trade slightly decreased from 1977 to 1994 (from 30% of U.S. trade to 29%). He cites other statistics which show some types of intrafirm transfer increased, but only slightly, confirming his contention that the current fears of "globalization" are inflated (and misplaced). My questions are regarding the definition of globalization and trying to figure out why people are so concerned with it. Suppose I operate International Business Company (IBC). I decide that IBC is not smashing its workers quite enough to boost profits ever higher, so I build new capacity in, say, China. Now, instead of any "intrafirm" transfers of goods, I simply start supplying the Chinese market from the Chinese side (perhaps with a small amount of intrafirm trade occurring, but assume we get most of our "raw materials" locally, or import from other firms). Now, the total market that IBC grows, but the US side of the production fence shrinks since no exports are going to China (though capacity stays roughly the same). Intrafirm trade stays about the same, but "globalization" has struck the U.S. workforce, and this won't show up in Doug's statistics. Now, my questions are: First, is this scenario reasonable and relatively important (or, can it be corrected easily to be so)? That is, can one do this sort of thing without significantly affecting intrafirm trade? Second, if this phenomenon is what is behind the globalization mania, how would it be measured? By global excess capacity? I know that William Greider contends that excess capacity has indeed gone up world-wide. Third, how important is this sort of shifting in capacity relative to domestic efforts to destroy working people, and could this indigenous effort be somehow confused with "globalization" (either intentionally or not)? Bill
[PEN-L:10598] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1997
"New data on muliple jobholding available from the CPS" by John F.
Stinson, Jr., an economist in the Office of Employment and
Unemployment Statistics of BLS, is reprinted in the Daily Labor Report
(page E-37). In the opening story (page A-5), the Daily Labor Report
points out that, after years of lagging behind men as mutiple job
holders, in 1996 women and men had virtually the same rate of
moonlighting, according to the article in the March 1997 Monthly Labor
Review. The article finds that, according to the BLS monthly survey
of 50,000 households, 7.8 million or 6.2 percent of all those
employed, held more than one job. Although men still outnumbered
women in the number of multiple jobholders, the rate for women was 6.2
percent, compared with 6.1 percent for men
__A key indicator of future economic activity declined in April for
the first time since January 1996, the Conference Board said. The 0.1
percent drop in the index of leading economic indicators, to 103.5,
fell short of economists' expectations for a 0.2 percent gain
(Daily Labor Report, page D-1; Washington Post, page C13).
__The New York Times (page D2) says that the most widely followed
index for predicting the economy declined, as 6 of 10 components moved
lower
__The page A1 chart of The Wall Street Journal is of leading
indicators, 1994 to the present.
Don't let politics do a number on the Census, is the headline on page
2A of USA Today. Walter Shapiro begins by saying that, in truth,
statisticians estimate that 4 million Americans, many of them
minorities, never were counted in the last Census. The simple, yet
baffling arithmatic issue -- how to count the population -- is headed
for the floor of Congress this week Martha Riche, Director of the
Bureau of the Census, cites a study by the National Academy of
Sciences that advocated sampling to correct the persistent undercount
in the Census
Bond prices rose on hopes that Friday's employment report will
demonstrate a continuing slowdown in the economy, allowing the Fed to
refrain from a near-term increase in interest rates ("Credit
Markets" column of The Wall Street Journal, page C20).
[PEN-L:10603] Re: French elections
JERRY: I have no such confidence in the role of "radical intellectuals" to bring about change *especially* when those RIs view the line of communication to the masses as one-way (as above). A preliminary step for activism might be for the RIs to *listen* to what working people have to say and to *participate* in their struggles without preaching to them or acting like know-it-alls. KARL: One grows increasingly tired of all this bullshit about a left of centre government being better than a right of centre government. I have been hearing this kind of rubbish for many years and still they do not learn. Politically in terms of revolution it makes no essential difference whether it is one or the other. The point is that revolutionary socialism must build itself up into an independent working class movement that struggles to achieve social revolution. In saying this I am not advocating another brand of Leninism. As I said before I am opposed to Leninism which is no more that a left counter-revolutionary force. Karl Carlile Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:10605] Re: French elections Retitled: Limit the Working Day?
Limiting the working day is all right, but does that really deal with the issues facing workers today? Isn't job security and freedom from Orwellian "downsizing" and "outsourcing" more of an issue? Don't we need to ask some of the basic questions: Is production of goods more important in society (= "efficiency" ), or are the workers, the people more important -- in the sense of making sure they have jobs and income? It seems to me that labor should be made an overhead cost -- in other words, hired as permanent workers like (non-rented) machines are. In other words, ALL labor should have tenure. It also seems to me that we need to find ways to separate Jobs and Employment from Income received. Larry Shute = At 09:01 PM 6/5/97 -0700, you wrote: Shawgi Tell asked, Tom what do you think is needed to move society forward? I posed this question to Michael yesterday. Hope to hear from the both of you and others. I will begin with a brief citation, which not only sums up my own position but states the practical program drafted by Karl Marx and adopted by the Congress of the International Working Men's Association at Geneva in 1866: "The limitation of the working day is a preliminary condition without which all further attempts at improvement and emancipation must prove abortive." A U.S. resolution to the same aim, also adopted in 1866, concluded with the following oath: "We are resolved to put forth all our strength until this glorious result is attained." What is needed is a broad popular movement to limit the working day. No one has asked me what my program would be if I found myself suddenly the socialist prime minister of France. But I'll answer anyway. My program would be based on the principle that so long as a single person is unable to find sustaining work, the hours of labour are too long. My program would also be based on dismantling the state apparatus that has been built up for the sole purpose of artificially prolonging the working day (and thereby underwriting the accumulation of capital and fostering division among workers). I wouldn't bother expounding on whether such policies are social democratic, socialist or communist. I would defend them on the sole grounds that they are necessary and just. I would be shot within a few weeks. Regards, Tom Walker -- Laurence Shute Voice: 909-869-38500 Department of Economics FAX: 909-869-6987 California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 3801 West Temple Avenue Pomona, CA 91768-4070 USAe-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
[PEN-L:10607] Copy of: Labor films
-- Forwarded Message -- From: Paolo Giussani, 106642,534 TO: FACRICEL, INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] DATE: 03/06/97 05:57 RE: Copy of: Labor films On Sat, May 31, 1997 at 08:33:39 (-0700) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am teaching a course this summer based on movies. I am curious if anyone has any suggestions for movies with a strong message concerning labor issues or unions. A really outstanding movie - unfortunately in italian - on the first strikes and the birth of workers' union in a textile factory (around 1880, Turin) is "I Compagni" (The comrades) by Mino Monicelli (1963). An english subtitled version of it should be available. Best, Paolo Giussani (Milano, Italy) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10608] Re: eurobullishit
I wanted to say how much I appreciated much that has transpired on pen-l recently. Almost everything has been constructive. Today I received a number of posts from K.C. Each took a short snippet from a post, declared it to be bullshit, and then proclaimed the correct political line. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that this sort of stuff seems to detract from our communication. Most of us are socialists. Some may want market socialism; others planning, but I think that most of us can consider each other comrades. This instance is not the only time that people have come at each other personally on the list. It is not ncessary. Karl Carlile wrote: KARL: The bullshit on this list is phenomenal. To talk about the Euro being a terrible idea is absusrd. It is like saying that one kind of money is better than another kind. That a local currency is better and kinder than a common international currency. In terms of what Colin says this means that one kind of money is kinder to the masses than another kind. Did you ever hear such shit. On the basis of this logic then bartering is better than money exchange and smaller local capitalist firms are better than international ones. The point is that in the modern capitalist world all money is essentially capitalist money. To argue that one kind of capitalism is better than another is to misunderstand the nature of capital and that the task of socialism is to prmote the abolition of capital and its money form rather than to push for one kind of capitalism as opposed to another. So cut out the bullshit and abolish neanderthalia on this and other lists. Karl Carlile Yours etc., Karl -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10612] bad writing [another contribution?]
I was shocked, shocked!, to note that no economists were given awards for their bad writing. Bad writing need not be obscure. It can also be leaden or lifeless, excessively prosaic or ungrammatical. Of course, the main reason why economists were not honored by these awards is that most of our worst writing is disguised as mathematics of one sort or another. Rather than saying nothing (as the winners tended to do), economists' writing tends to simply restate common sense notions or ideological crap (a secular religion dressed up as science). Of course, I don't think the organizers of the award wanted to examine economics. miscellaneous comments (because I don't have the time or energy this week to intervene in the issue of the French election): 1. It should be noted that it wasn't Claud Cockburn who said the line about penetrating the nether regions of the masses (or whatever). He was quoting someone. 2. bill writes: please do not misrepresent our country to an international audience. Please don't (knowingly) misrepresent _any_ country to _any_ audience! I also think that the author of the misrepresentation did so unknowingly. I wish I knew more about Australia. So I'm hoping that bill organizes an in-the-flesh conference of pen-l members for two or three weeks (and pays for the airfare and lodging) so that we can all learn more about that great country of his. cheers, in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:10614] Re: French elections
Tavis Barr wrote: I'd believe it. I just think we're talking about different political circles. You claim to have identified groups working on specific, local issues. That may indeed be true, but I don't think that's what's wrong with the above mentioned organizations. I think you've identified groups that are building through staff instead of recruiting activists. That's what we need to fight against. Tavis, I'm happy to believe you've found better people than I, but still, what are they doing together? We have a savage onslaught here in NYC, much of it of local or Albany origin, and there is next to no opposition. Judith Butler finally finished revising her plenary paper from our old friend, last December's Rethinking Marxism conference. She is concerned, after Sokal (whom she explicitly refuses to name; her only named opponent is Nancy Fraser) that calls for "unity" on the part of "neo-conservative Marxists" are an attempt to silenece the new social movements, unity always being bought at the price of marginalization, subordination, or excision. I'd be the last to deny that unity is often exactly that; I'm not dismissing Butler as some obscurantist professor of identity. But is that the only kind of unity there is? Isn't there a unity of solidarity as well as erasure? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:10620] Re: FW: Daily Report
Does anyone else fine this to be more than a bit off? At 11:59 AM 6/6/97 -0700, Richardson_D wrote: BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1997: Fueled by the issue of quality changes, the CPI debate rolls on, says Business Week (June 9, page 68). Among the quotes is one that says a Boskin panel member says that he gets better data on consumer prices by thumbing through old "Consumer Reports". For most products today, the BLS uses a crude method for estimating quality changes. Say a TV set disappears from the shelves, replaced by a new model with a better picture costing 5 percent more. If the inflation rate of other TVs was 2 percent, then the BLS assumes that the rest of the increase, 3 percent, can be attributed to higher quality -- namely the better picture. But the true test of quality is how the new set sells. For instance, if it gains market share, the quality must have risen more than the BLS's 3 percent. Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus says: "We actually don't know how much quality change exists in the BLS numbers." If it gains market share, it might just be that it is the quality of the hype not the product that accounts for better sales. The product quality could be no better than the competition's. Otherwise, if you believe what's said above, you would have to conclude that Camel's really are superior to Winston's, ignoring how seductively Joe Camel has hooked all those kids.
[PEN-L:10622] MAI Canadian Soverignty (fwd)
MAI --THE MULTINATIONALS' CHARTER OF RIGHTS COLUMN NUMBER 1 approx June 1, 1997 By HUBERT BEYER VICTORIA, BC, Canada - A couple of weeks back, I wrote a piece on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, and how it could be that Canada, along with 28 other nations, has been negotiating, in total secrecy, what could well spell an end to Canadian sovereignty as we know it. Sterling Newspapers, which runs my column in a dozen or so of its papers, posted the piece on the Internet, and an extraordinary thing happened: within days, my electronic mailbox was jammed with response to my column, not just from British Columbians, but from people around the world. Day after day, there I received between 15 and 20 messages from readers in British Columbia, the rest of Canada and the U.S., and as far away as Norway, Italy, Germany and Great Britain. The central theme of all these responses was great unease, not just about the proposed agreement, but the fact that the negotiations have been conducted in utter secrecy, without any public consultation. And considering the scope of the proposed agreement, that's cause for worry. In a nutshell, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, or MAI for short, is to facilitate the free flow of investment among member nations. One of he more alarming aspects of the agreement is a clause that would forbid any government to attach conditions to investments. In practical terms, that would mean no government, federal or provincial, could tell potential investors that they have to create jobs. BC Premier Glen Clark's Jobs and Timber Accord, which will compel the forest industry to create jobs in return for receiving tree-cutting rights, would not be permissible, once the agreement is in effect. I'm not the only one who is worried. From the Boston Cambridge Alliance for Democracy came this message: "At a time when more responsibility is being shifted to state and local government to deal with social needs, new laws are being drafted at the international level which will restrict the power of state and local government to affect economic development, environmental or labor standards, and the retention of domestic industries." George Monbiot, one of the UK's leading environmentalists, lambasted the British media for having so vocally defended the cause of democracy during the recent elections, while completely ignoring a serious threat to national sovereignty. "The real future of Britain is being discussed not here, but elsewhere, and in the utmost secrecy. The columnists who have so shrilly defended the sovereignty of Parliament from the technocrats in Brussels (headquarters of the European Union), have so far failed to devote a single column inch to the shady deliberations of the EU's bigger brother." The UK media aren't the only ones who have virtually ignored the MAI. One of the few Canadian newspapers that did touch on the issue was the Telegraph-Journal in New Brunswick. "Looking for an election issue to raise when federal candidates come knocking during this election campaign? Try the MAI on for size. Never heard of it? Join the club, the TJ said in its April 30 editorial. "The premise of the MAI is that global investors want legal protection r their money when they choose to invest in a foreign country. Against what must it be protected? Any obligations a host country may wish to impose on that foreign investment. "The MAI would prohibit any level of government from imposing job creation requirements, local hiring quotas or procurement rules, requirements to reinvest profits into research and development, or special taxation rules to capture a are of exported profits - in short, anything that would restrict profit-making or taking on foreign companies investing in, say, Canada." Well, the MAI didn't become an election issue. The Liberals avoided it like the plague, the Tories and Reform presumably like the agreement, and Alexa McDonough didn't have a clue when it was first raised. In my books, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment is a "Charter of Rights" for multinational corporations, and if we're nor careful, it will make minced meat out of our own Charter of Rights. Beyer can be reached at: Tel: (250) 920-9300; Fax: (250) 385-6783; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10623] Silent Coup Tony Clarke (fwd)
Date:Fri, 6 Jun 1997 07:43:13 -0400 From: ccpa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Silent Coup Book Release Big Business Remains the Real Election Winner Come hear Tony Clarke outline the new politics in the era of corporate rule and launch his new book SILENT COUP: Confronting the Big Business Takeover of Canada Silent Coup is the story of how CEOs of the largest corporations in Canada planned and executed their takeover of out country. It alerts us to the destructive effects of corporate rule on our economy, our jobs, our social programs, and our political democracy. Tony Clarke shows how social movements and community organizations can be retooled and revitalized, how they can effectively confront the transnational corporations and restore true economic, social and political democracy in Canada. WHEN: Monday, June 16, 1997 from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. WHERE: CCPA National Office 251 Laurier Ave. W. Suite 804, Ottawa RSVP: attendance only Fax: (613) 233-1458 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copies of Silent Coup can be obtained from the CCPA for a pre-payment of $19.95. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives 804-251 Laurier Ave. W. Ottawa, ON K1P 5J6 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.policyalternatives.ca
[PEN-L:10624] Bad writing competition
I think that we should all be on the lookout for something from economics to submit to this competition (hopefully something not written by me). Steven Zahniser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10627] response to query (fwd)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jun 5 20:35 PDT 1997 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:32:17 + From: "Andrews, David R" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: response to query Sid, I'll resond to your inquiry, but I hope you will post the results to PEN-L. Formally, I belong to the Syracuse Peace Council (which bills itself as the oldest peace group in the country) and Peace Action of Central New York, but my energies go more to my role as a member of the board of directors of a low income community development credit union, the Syracuse Cooperative Federal Credit Union (SCFCU, aka, the Smash Capitalism Federal Credit Union, our treasurer/CEO, Ron Ehrenreich is a former Socialist Party candidate for Vice President). I also serve on the board of directors of CommonWorks, an organization focused on promoting the growth of cooperatives in Central New York. I have also recently served on the steering committee of the Central New York Labor Religion Coalition. I am nevertheless still an academic and have even seen a few articles get published. David Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10630] Re: Political Holiday Song
While I realize that this is about 6 months too early or 5 months too late, it seems appropriate given the discussion on left/right/center for France and Britain. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -A POLITICAL HOLIDAY Twas the night before Christmas and throughout the White House, Al Gore was eyeing Hillary, peering into her blouse. The Secret Service were guarding the premises with care, for a whole host of Democrats were vacationing there. As Chelsea was nestled all snug in her bed, dirty thoughts swam around Mr. Kennedy's head. And Bill in his sportcoat; a heavy gray tweed, had just fried his brain with some Mexican weed. When out in the garden came a plethora of noise, all drunken and rowdy: 'twas Newt and the boys! Bill jumped to the window, and tore open the sash, "It's a raid boys!" he cried, "Quick, go hide my stash!" The pot in his blood and the moon on the snow, gave a psychedelic haze to the objects below. When what to Bill's frantic eyes should appear, but a slew of Republicans and a keg of ice beer. With a big House leader, all lively and fat: He knew it was Newt, the proponent of GATT! As viscous as vipers, the Republicans came, and Bill recognized them and called them by name. "Hey Helms, Hey Thurmond! Hey Packwood and Hatch! Hey Dole and Pataki, it's time for a bash!" A collective cheer rose out from the crowd, "Let's listen to Nugent, and turn it up loud!" Together Dems and Republicans danced and sang out in cheer "Screw health care and Haiti, it's time to drink beer!" When from the chimney, came a big black cloud of soot, as Limbaugh danced from the fireplace in a red Santa suit. He moved through the crowd, then held up his hand, and when all was silent, he did a keg stand. And the crowd raised their cups, as Newt bowed down in prayer, and champagne flowed freely, unlike welfare. As Kennedy and Reno romped in the Green Room, the rest of the crooks outlined their plan of doom. "We'll pray in the schools, shove it down their throats!" "Less welfare, more taxes, we'll still get the votes!" And they drank, hugged and danced, they crossed party lines. They cheered, "It doesn't matter, we're all bastard swines!" So they threw out allegiance and partisan crap, and they took turns sitting on the President's lap. And Gephardt and Dole passed out on the lawn, and awoke in the morning without their pants on. And Packwood gave Tipper a pat on the rear. While Schafly and Judge Thomas went out for beer. Then the party-ers discovered a sight so touching and cute, President Clinton fast asleep, snuggled up next to Newt. Santa Limbaugh smiled and threw up on his boots, "A merry Clinton to all, and to all a good Newt!"
[PEN-L:10634] Re: French elections
In a message dated 97-06-06 13:42:10 EDT, you write: I think that for all kinds of reasons, we actually have to be _in_ the communities we're trying to change. For some of us, this may mean unions, or campaings for/against various things (workfare, police brutality, a living wage) run by the people who are effected most by them. Ultimately, socialism will be built by people responding to their immediate circumstances and finding that it requires a change in the relations of power. I think local activism is important, but it is only part of the answer. People spend the bulk of their adult lives in unions, and not only do they not make social change, they vote conservatively. Certainly not all, but being involved in a local organization does not add up to working towards changes in the larger community. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10637] Americans Israelis Threatened...may be just the beginning (fwd)
FYI Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 19:35:57 -0700 From: MID-EAST REALITIES [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Americans Israelis Threatened...may be just the beginning MID-EAST REALITIES - Americans Israelis Threatened as Civil Conflict Becomes More Likely in Turkey *** "News, Analysis Commentary They Don't Want You to Know" *** To make sure you are receiving MER weekly just send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with only the words SUBSCRIBE MER-L in the subject and message areas. *** For previous MER information, commentary Readers Comments: http://WWW.MiddleEast.Org [MER - As Turkey moves toward civil striff, as the Middle East region furiously arms for future battle, and as the Turkish invasion of northern Iraq proceeds with American and Israeli encouragement, new forces are brewing in the region and new forms of "terrorism" -- historically the underdog's weapon of choice -- may be coming. This Reuter dispatch from a few days ago didn't get the attention it deserves in the U.S. in the midst of the McVey/Oklahoma Bombing trial extravaganza. Like so many other groups in the Middle East, now the Kurds are experiencing the growth of passions calling for revenge against the Americans and the Israelis. One day this powder-key of hate could yet explode, sweeping the region from country to country.] AMERICANS AND ISRAELIS MAY BE TARGETED BEIRUT, Lebanon (Reuter 6/2/97 ) - The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) Monday threatened worldwide attacks against Israeli and U.S. targets if the two countries continued to ``support Turkish massacres against Kurds.'' PKK central committee member Halil Atas told reporters in a Beirut suburb -- a bastion of the pro-Iranian Hizbollah guerrillas -- that the PKK planned attacks against tourist centers in Turkey and warned tourists of the dangers of spending their vacations there. ``In order to put Turkey in a state of bankruptcy we will hit its economy and we will especially attack touristic centers. We have planned specific attacks against such targets,'' he said. Speaking as Turkey's foray in pursuit of PKK guerrillas in northern Iraq entered its 19th day, Atas urged countries of the region to take a decisive stance in order to bring the Turkish ``barbaric attacks'' to an end. Meanwhile, Turkish troops backed by artillery, armor and helicopter gunships continued to consolidate their positions in northern Iraq. ``We will not be responsible for the safety of tourists. We are warning tourists and we are saying that it is dangerous for you to go there ... Turkey is a dangerous country,'' Atas said. The PKK also planned attacks against U.S. and Israeli ``non-civilian'' targets, he added. ``Our plan is to attack Turkish, American and Israeli centers but not civilians and we are warning them not to support the massacres taking place against the Kurdish people.'' The campaign against Kurds was carried out under a strategic deal between the three countries, he said. ``If these countries continue to carry out massacres against the Kurdish people then these people will make their objective to hit targets of these countries in the world,'' he said. MID-EAST REALITIES For previous MER go to: http://www.MiddleEast.Org --- For info about COME email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For info about MID-EAST REALITIES TV email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10639] Re: FW: Daily Report
Does anyone else fine this to be more than a bit off? At 11:59 AM 6/6/97 -0700, Richardson_D wrote: BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1997: Fueled by the issue of quality changes, the CPI debate rolls on, says Business Week (June 9, page 68). Among the quotes is one that says a Boskin panel member says that he gets better data on consumer prices by thumbing through old "Consumer Reports". For most products today, the BLS uses a crude method for estimating quality changes. Say a TV set disappears from the shelves, replaced by a new model with a better picture costing 5 percent more. If the inflation rate of other TVs was 2 percent, then the BLS assumes that the rest of the increase, 3 percent, can be attributed to higher quality -- namely the better picture. But the true test of quality is how the new set sells. For instance, if it gains market share, the quality must have risen more than the BLS's 3 percent. Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus says: "We actually don't know how much quality change exists in the BLS numbers." If it gains market share, it might just be that it is the quality of the hype not the product that accounts for better sales. The product quality could be no better than the competition's. Otherwise, if you believe what's said above, you would have to conclude that Camel's really are superior to Winston's, ignoring how seductively Joe Camel has hooked all those kids. Oh, give it up, Michael. You know that the argument must be right under the conditions of perfect competition: many buyers and sellers, homogeneous products, perfect information, no barriers to entry or exit. Get with the program already. ;-) Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10640] Re: Reply To Tom
Shawgi, You said the people in the U.S. don't hold political power (we were talking about Canada, but what the hell) and they're extremely unhappy with the political system. Sure. But then you said "in order for society to move forward, people must first have real and decisive decision-making power." For the sake of argument, I'll overlook the redundancy and focus only the imperative of your priority -- that is to say your "must first". I hate to sound corny, but isn't that like saying "in order to go someplace you *must first* already be there?" Next you give an example of "how extremely dangerous it is to promote something other than the concrete political empowerment of the citizenry." Forget the example, let's deal with your proposition. Just what do you think "concrete" means, anyway? And how do you suppose one does "promotion". Unless by "concrete" you mean the actual buildings within which state power is adminstered (along with the hydro-electric dams and freeway overpasses) -- on the premise that they are made out of "concrete" -- then you would have to be talking about an amalgam of public policies. But that's the kind of thing you dismiss as "something other than concrete". How could one promote a fundamental political change without talking about alternative public policies? Next you talk about "the people themselves, led by the working class" coming to power. . . organizing discussions. . . proposing solutions . . . So what am I, chopped liver? Your "people" and "working class" are such abstractions that actual living persons or workers need not apply. The "absence" of "this sort of discussion" (presumably about "concrete empowerment") could have more to do with its irrelevancy than its urgency. In closing you ask, "How can workers limit the working day if there aren't even any mechanisms in society which put them in a position to begin making meaningful decisions?" Forgive me if I answer with only one word: STRIKE. Regards, Tom Walker ^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Though I may be sent to Hell for it, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | such a God will never command my respect." (604) 688-8296| - John Milton ^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:10641] Re: French elections Retitled: Limit the Working Day?
Colin Danby wrote, So here's a question. Actually, several. Other things being equal a shorter working day would probably be a good thing. Stop me if you've heard this one but other things are never equal. I'm currently mining a book titled _Reduced Working Hours: Cure for Unemployment or Economic Burden?_ By John D. Owen (funded by the General Electric Foundation). It's quite a handy source book for statements opposing a shorter working day. Owen pulls out all the stops in an effort to imply, insinuate, suggest, infer, claim, inveigle and propound that reducing working hours would be an unmitigated disaster for workers, for business and for the national economy. He even goes so far as to suggest it would contribute to global warming. Not least in Professor Owen's rhetorical arsenal is ceteris paribus, and a very sly ceteris paribus it is indeed (BTW, Sid, your next assignment is based on how paribus Owen's ceteris is). Here is a short example: "For example, if employees work 9 hours a day and the law provides for time-and-a-half pay after 8 hours, their daily pay is 9.5 times their standard hourly rate. But if the law is changed so that overtime is paid after 7 hours, they are paid 10 times the hourly wage each day. Thus the cost of hiring an additional employee is, CETERIS PARIBUS [emphasis added], increased by a reduction in the standard workweek, on these assumptions. Since the cost of an additional hour per employee has remained the same and the cost of an additional employee has risen, employees have become dearer relative to hours, and the cost-minimizing employer has an incentive to substitute hours for employees, which is likely to yield a longer workday or workweek." Thusly the good Professor demonstrates that "a legislated reduction in the standard workweek would *increase*[emphasis in original] hours of work, at least for those employees already working overtime." As preposterous as the preceeding may sound, the arithmetic works. Go ahead; try it. Why it works is another matter. To make a long story short, Owen is pulling a fast one with his "ceteris paribus" -- a spitball. But "other things being equal", a little comparative eschatology is in order: ceteris paribus is to progress as predestination is to apocalypse and determinism is to "The Revolution" Don't ever, ever use any one of these six terms unless you are confident that you could expound knowledgeably on all six, all other things being equal.;-) Now what was Colin's question? Oh yes, is it possible that the lure of growth has somehow undermined social democracy? I'd go a step further and say that it's possible the idol of growth has somehow undermined reason. Regards, Tom Walker ^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Though I may be sent to Hell for it, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | such a God will never command my respect." (604) 688-8296| - John Milton ^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:10636] Re: labor films
One more that hasn't been mentioned yet (I think): Grapes of Wrath w/Henry Fonda, quite a radical movie with vivid portrayal of migrant labor. Might go well alongside one of the contemporary documentaries on labor conditions the UFW has. Thad
[PEN-L:10635] Re: French elections
In a message dated 97-06-06 18:48:36 EDT, you write: Organizing the very poor, for example, is extremely complicated. Poor people are highly overworked and have very little time. You usually have to have all your meetings on Saturday and Sunday afternoons, or else right at the end of the workday and keep it short. No long ideological battles on weekdays, I'm afraid. Are long ideological battles ever necessary? Perhaps intellectuals don't communicate to non-intellectuals because the 'nons' don't want to waste time in ideological battles--real battles are hard enough. Also, as I pointed out in another message, a higher percentage of the u.s. working class were organized into unions at the end of the nineteenth century than at any other time. The average work day was 10-11 hours a day, six days a week. Often they don't have money for the subway and you have to provide it. For all these kinds of reasons, it's a lot easier for staff-run organizations of middle class people to crop up claiming to represent the poor. T It's this we/they attitude that is at least part of the reason for the lack of communication. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10633] Response to Anders
Anders asks a series of questions, basically asking why French Social Democracy couldn't pursue a progressive program designed to transform or derail the current (reactionary) trajectory of European unification. Cutting to the chase, it seems to me that your real question is this: whether politicians with a clear sense of tactics and strategy could make an important difference if they reached out to the victims of European neoliberalism and attempted simultaneously to raise political consciousness and to promote a series of coherent political-economic alternatives. I believe that they could make an important difference if they chose this path. But I would concur with the sentiment of Michael's initial comment that generated this discussion. A move in the direction of progressive intervention by the French government is highly unlikely, given the fact that Jospin is coming into office with no sense whatsoever of what to do by way of alternative to the regressive policies in which he and Mitterand were so complicit in the 1980s and early 1990s. Even if we could overcome this problem by waving a magic wand and giving French S-D a sense of progressive initiative and audacity, I believe that their active opposition to neoliberalism would be much more likely to lead the forces of neoliberal unification, led by people like Kohl, to abandon the already shaky unification project and to unite their efforts to isolate and undermine the progressive French opposition than to promote European unification on a progressive basis. In short, I believe that the prospects for transforming the European Union from a reactionary to a progressive project are nil. Cheers, Sid
[PEN-L:10632] Re: French elections
In a message dated 97-06-05 19:35:35 EDT, you write: Practical and theoretical action, at least in the U.S., has been focused on developing a micropolitics, but it seems to me that unless these atoms talk to each other, dispersion and defeat will continue. Doug Are we talking party? maggie
[PEN-L:10631] Re: French elections
In a message dated 97-06-05 16:20:59 EDT, you write: Michael, you have a point here, but it's not enough to talk about the grass roots. Of course any seriously radical movement needs a mass base, but that's not enough. Most ordinary folks are completely confused by what's going on and feel utterly alone and powerless. To reinvigorate the grass roots requires explaining to people the world as it is and as it might be. That's what radical intellectuals are supposed to do, but we're not doing much of it. Doug I think Doug is right that not much communication between radical intellectuals and common people is going on. My question to you (this is a collective you, not a doug=you) (this is NOT a rhetorical question) is: Has There Ever Been Communication??? During three periods in United States history since the inception of capitalism (I am woefully ignorant of other country histories) there have been three periods of tremendous grass root movements, and, to my knowledge, radical intellectuals led very small portions of all of them. During the period (roughly) 1860 to 1885, the largest percentage of the United States working class was unionized than at any time before or since. This period saw not just a huge growth in trade and industry unions, but the country's first national unions: Knights of Labor (approx 500,000), the National Labor Union and the Colored National Labor Union. The intellectual community in the US was somewhere between slim and none--with most intellectuals falling firmly in the upper classes (there were a few notable exceptions), and no intellectuals associated with the union movement. During the Great Rail Strikes of 1877, there were spontaneous, and in some case sustained, armed uprisings in every rail center and urban area in the USA. For instance, in Pittsburgh the laborers in the entire city (not just the rails) won an armed confrontation with the Philadelphia Militia brought in to quel the strike. They routed the militia. During the period following the great depression, hundreds of thousands of people in the US joined the communist party. FDR did not sign all that social legislation because he thought it was good business. Hundreds of thousands were marching in the streets, the CIO was taking over the new industrial heartland, black women tobacco workers unionized, students marched on Washington, and veterans demanded higher benefits. Granted, there was a small and active intelligentsia, but was it in charge? The IWW, started by the communist party, never had a membership base larger than 10,000--very small compared with even unions in the nineteenth century. Were their ideas the inspiration for all these movements? I really don't know. Is it that the material conditions change and intellectuals play the role of summarizing activities that already were in process or that the ideas led the action? I tend to the idea that intellectuals summarize the movements already in progress. The third period of grass roots growth was in the late 50s through the early 70s. Beginning with the civil rights movement, one can argue that the ministers, like Martin Luther King, were certainly intellectuals. But to me, they were activists first. Rosa Parks was not an intellectual, but she was certainly a great woman. Was the anti war movement really run by the intellectuals, or did they hop on board following grass roots organizers against the war? What about the woman's movement? Certainly there were some very intellectual women in there, but how much of that was the media advertising and how much of the real movement was women sick of back room abortions? Let's face it, wealthy white women have always had the abortion option, it was women with less access to resources who got out there and fought for the right to choose. And believe me, those women who integrated blue collar jobs: mines, phone co., construction, rails, were NOT intellectuals. So, if it is not the intellectuals communicating which gets movements going, then what does? What creates the conditions for grass roots movements? Or is it that the concept of intellectual needs some defining here? maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10629] Re: Bitter Paradise on TV Ontario (fwd)
On Fri, June 6, 1997 at 15:25:57 (-0700) D Shniad writes: BITTER PARADISE: THE SELL-OUT OF EAST TIMOR Is it possible to order a copy of this on videotape? Bill
[PEN-L:10628] Re: French elections
D Shniad wrote: If this is the case, Doug, what should French folks have done in the context of the recent election? Pretty much what they did. People in the streets have to keep the pressure on. Doug
[PEN-L:10626] MAI Web Site Report (fwd)
NOW Magazine, Toronto June 5, 1997 Netizens out secret investment treaty Cyberspace new player in furtive top-level negotiations By COLMAN JONES Secret negotiations on a global investment treaty that threatens to greatly strengthen the power of transnational corporations aren't that secret anymore -- thanks to the Net. All around the world, activists are radically stepping up debate about the multilateral agreement on investment (MAI), a proposed deal that would rob governments of the right to make rules about foreign investment. For the last two years, away from public scrutiny, high-level senior bureaucrats from the 29 countries that form the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have been quietly drafting this new set of global regulations for investment. Until this past February, when a negotiating text was finally leaked, it had been virtually impossible to obtain information about MAI. Now that the document has entered the public domain, a large body of analysis is emerging, one that paints a frightening picture. According to William Witherell, the OECD's director of financial, fiscal and enterprise affairs, in a commentary at http://www.odc.org/wither.htm MAI is designed to provide a "level playing field" for international investors by removing most of the remaining barriers to, and controls on, the flow of cash worldwide, and instituting uniform rules on both market access and legal security. Easing rules =20 Fears abound that the agreement will speed up the flow of jobs away from industrialized nations and put more pressure on countries to compete for investment dollars by cutting wages and easing rules on labour, consumer safety and the environment. While negotiations continue behind closed doors in Paris, a far more public discourse is taking place in cyberspace. A good starting point is MAI? No Thanks...!, a page assembled by Victoria, B.C., counsellor, translator and computer whiz Hendrik Zimmermann. Zimmermann has brought together a smorgasbord of information about MAI, prefaced by a spirited poetic ode borrowing from the words of William Blake that conjures up images of mad priests frantically dancing around the biggest golden calf, presumably representing treasured opportunities for profit. One of the more straightforward critiques of MAI comes from Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch in Washington, part of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen group. Global Trade Watch has joined with the Preamble Collaborative, another D.C.-based think tank, located at http://www.rtk.net/preamble/, and a coalition of other organizations to bring the MAI negotiations out of the dark. Investors rights Preamble offers one of the more succinct analyses, The Multilateral Agreement On Investment: A 'Bill of Rights' For International Investors? The Global Trade Watch site devoted to MAI is constantly updated, and you can even subscribe to an electronic mailing list to get all the latest news on the deal delivered directly to your hard drive. The text of the proposed agreement itself can be found in several spots in cyberspace, either all in one huge text file http://web.uvic.ca/german/hendrik/mai.txt) or conveniently split up into separate sections (http://www.essential.org/monitor/mai/contents.html) courtesy of the Multinational Monitor, a monthly publication that tracks corporate activity, especially in the Third World, focusing on the export of hazardous substances, worker health and safety, labour union issues and the environment. Although the language of MAI is essentially bureaucratic in nature, some passages make for pretty scary reading, especially those outlining the most favored nation (MFN) stipulation. This requires governments to treat all foreign countries and investors identically with respect to regulatory laws. Economic sanctions that punish a country for human rights violations by preventing corporations from doing business there would be among the kinds of laws prohibited by this section. Back here in Canada, the MAI-Not project, run by Carleton students affiliated with the Ontario Public Interest Research Group, is part of the growing international movement to put a stop to the treaty. Their home page, at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~af558/, is a rather skimpy effort, however, simply featuring the text of a flier the group has produced on MAI -- which they spell out as "Mega-rich Alliance for Irresponsibility" -- and links to other resources. At least it's a start One of the most thorough summations comes from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, where Tony Clarke, director of the Polaris Institute, recently got his hands on a draft copy of the full text of the agreement. His preliminary analysis, titled The Corporate Rule
[PEN-L:10625] Re: French elections
If this is the case, Doug, what should French folks have done in the context of the recent election? Cheers, Sid A not-entirely-fanciful scenario: the new French government fails even in its weak program, unemployment remains high, and the National Front gains in appeal. So the sans papiers might have it worse in the long run. The dangers of lesser-of-two-evil politics. Doug
[PEN-L:10621] Bitter Paradise on TV Ontario (fwd)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 14:20:35 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Webster) Subject: Bitter Paradise on TV Ontario BITTER PARADISE: THE SELL-OUT OF EAST TIMOR Screens on TV Ontario this Sunday, June 15, at 9 p.m. (Province of Ontario only) Bitter Paradise is Elaine Briere's one-hour documentary about East Timor, the complicity of Canadian academics, business and government, and activist attempts to help East Timor. It won Best Political Documentary at the Hot Docs festival in Toronto earlier this year. Watch for Andre Ouellet's reply to Elaine's attempts to ask a question on East Timor: "This is not on the agenda." And ... Coming this fall: the book of the film -- Bitter Paradise study guide. "The thinking of the old world has altered little : where there are profits to be defended, law, justice, freedom, democracy and peace are the victims. Only the peoples of one nation can help those of another." -Xanana Gusmao, leader of the East Timorese resistance Cipinang prison, Jakarta, 1995
[PEN-L:10619] Re: French elections Retitled: Limit the
Colin Danby: The obvious argument (Louis might want to say more on this) is that something has happened to make the social democratic project unstable or untenable. Either something broke down at the political level, or the nature of capitalism has changed (this is the implication of much of the "globalization" argument we hashed over last month). Capitalists will no longer play ball (i.e. maintain any level of capital investment) unless you agree to raise the profit share. The social democratic project is as dead as the Soviet Union. There have been oceans of ink devoted to the fall of the Berlin Wall, etc. What needs discussion is the bankruptcy of social democracy was well. There is a related cause. Both movements are geared to horse-trading with the international bourgeoisie. In the days of Reagan and Thatcher, the bourgeoisie stopped horse-trading and the "socialist" bureaucracy failed to make adjustments. The results were the collapse of the USSR and the decline of the welfare state, Sweden probably being the most dramatic example. A reforged socialism is needed. It must reject the sort of sectarianism that pops up on this forum and on the Spoons Marxism forums as well. There is nothing more repellent that the sort of "Marxist-Leninist" posturing that some people affect like a costume at a Halloween Ball. By the same token, we should not kid ourselves into believing that the traditional social democratic project has a future. This will be much a harder belief to rid ourselves of because people's livelihood is tied up with the treasuries of foundations, trade unions and universities that provide a fertile soil for reformism. A new generation of socialists will come along. The contradictions of capitalism will be too sharp for this not to happen. That is why PEN-L and other Internet forums are so important. It allows discussion between like-minded leftists who as yet have no organization on a world scale to represent them. Surely, as capital becomes more relentlessly global in its drive for profits, the left will have to become internationalist as well. This, of course, was the original hope of Marx and Engels who described exactly such a predatory, globe-straddling capitalism in the pages of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Louis Proyect
[PEN-L:10617] Re: French elections Retitled: Limit the Working Day?
So here's a question. Actually, several. Other things being equal a shorter working day would probably be a good thing. In fact the whole social democratic program, limited though it may be, would probably be vastly preferable to what we're getting now. So where are the social democrats? The British "Labour" party appers to have become the true inheritor of Thatcherism. In France I fear that the Norbert Walter analysis that Louis posted will turn out to be correct, and the socialists will follow Mitterand's path, with no effective opposition from the communists. It would seem clear (or am I wrong in this?) that social democratic reforms like a shorter workweek would mean slower growth than in a similar economy in which workers are sweated more. I have no particular problem with slower growth, but is it possible that the lure of growth has somehow undermined social democracy? The obvious argument (Louis might want to say more on this) is that something has happened to make the social democratic project unstable or untenable. Either something broke down at the political level, or the nature of capitalism has changed (this is the implication of much of the "globalization" argument we hashed over last month). Capitalists will no longer play ball (i.e. maintain any level of capital investment) unless you agree to raise the profit share. I tend to the political answer, but I'll stop here and raise two more questions: 1. unions: the Mbhazima Shilowa speech, which Sid kindly posted, was pretty good. Is there a programmatic alternative emerging there or from other unions? 2. immigration and race: these issues are too pervasive not to be part of the answer to what's going on politically. Maybe there are lessons to be learned from the 1930's. As a related issue I feel the need to put in a word for Ajit: I don't know enough about Australia to adjudicate, but the evidence produced by Bill was not enough to persuade me that Ajit's claims were in any fundamental way mistaken. Best, Colin
[PEN-L:10616] Reply To Tom
Greetings, On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Tom Walker wrote: Shawgi Tell asked, Tom what do you think is needed to move society forward? I posed this question to Michael yesterday. Hope to hear from the both of you and others. I will begin with a brief citation, which not only sums up my own position but states the practical program drafted by Karl Marx and adopted by the Congress of the International Working Men's Association at Geneva in 1866: "The limitation of the working day is a preliminary condition without which all further attempts at improvement and emancipation must prove abortive." A U.S. resolution to the same aim, also adopted in 1866, concluded with the following oath: "We are resolved to put forth all our strength until this glorious result is attained." What is needed is a broad popular movement to limit the working day. No one has asked me what my program would be if I found myself suddenly the socialist prime minister of France. But I'll answer anyway. My program would be based on the principle that so long as a single person is unable to find sustaining work, the hours of labour are too long. My program would also be based on dismantling the state apparatus that has been built up for the sole purpose of artificially prolonging the working day (and thereby underwriting the accumulation of capital and fostering division among workers). I wouldn't bother expounding on whether such policies are social democratic, socialist or communist. I would defend them on the sole grounds that they are necessary and just. I would be shot within a few weeks. Tom, at this time the broad masses of the people in the U.S. do not hold supreme political decision-making power. They do not set the agenda in society, nor do they lay down any of the laws. They have no real and decisive say in the direction of society and continue to be marginalized and ghettoized by the present political and economic set-up of the bourgeoisie. They are extremely dissatisfied with the political process, politicians and political parties of the super-rich. In order for any serious social problem to be solved, in order for society to move forward, people must first have real and decisive decision-making power. They must first be sovereign. They cannot come to power, and therefore affect change for the better, if the present set-up of the super-rich is not rejected and a New electoral process created. So, for example, work hours, healthcare, employmnet, education, housing, enviornmental problems, arms problems, racism, inequality, poverty and so on cannot be properly addressed, let alone solved, unless the people are politically empowered, unless they capture the present state, smash it and erect a new one. Once people have political power, once the people themselves are sovereign, then they themsleves, not the so-called "experts" and politicians, can take the urgent steps to eliminate the crisis-ridden capitalist system, the source of all exploitation and oppression. Let me give you an example of how extremely dangerous it is to promote something other than the concrete political empowerment of the citizenry. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney spoke at the 1996 Democratic convention and made clear what class stand he is pushing on the workers: "What do working families want? They don't want to run the Congress, or the White House or the political parties. They want to be compensated and respected for the contributions they make. They want to send their children to decent schools. They want to go to a safe workplace everyday. They want a doctor when they need one, a little rest when they are weary, and a pension after a lifetime of work." It is necessary to seriously consider the class stand being pushed by Sweeney. Workers *do want* control over their lives and are dissatisfied with the present political set-up. Without political power, how can workers have a role in deciding the direction of society? Who is served when union leaders put forward the view that workers want no political control? This is a class stand in favor of the status quo, in favor of keeping the rich in power. The content given for what workers want reflects the same stand. No doubt workers want respect, safety, pensions, schools and doctors. But can this be the limit of the vision of the working class? As producers of all social wealth, shouldn't workers have a say in the direction of the economy? What about discussing how to organize an economic system that not only "compensates" workers but meets the ever growing material and cultural needs of all members of society? What about a government that guarantees human rights? This means, for example, not just "decent schools" and doctors, but the best possible education and healthcare, free and equal for all, from cradle to the grave. It means necessities like food, shelter, clothing and a livelihood exist as a
[PEN-L:10615] Re: eurobullishit
KARL: Ha, ha..You still have not responded to any of what you call snippets especially the snippet concerning the Euro. After all the guy was talking rubbish and needed to be inofrmed of this. Karl --- I wanted to say how much I appreciated much that has transpired on pen-l recently. Almost everything has been constructive. Today I received a number of posts from K.C. Each took a short snippet from a post, declared it to be bullshit, and then proclaimed the correct political line. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that this sort of stuff seems to detract from our communication. Most of us are socialists. Some may want market socialism; others planning, but I think that most of us can consider each other comrades. This instance is not the only time that people have come at each other personally on the list. It is not ncessary. Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:10613] FW: Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 1997: RELEASED TODAY: Nonfarm payroll employment rose in May, and unemployment was about unchanged after falling in April. The number of payroll jobs rose by 138,000 in May, following an increase of 323,000 in April (as revised). The May gain was below the average monthly increase so far this year of 229,000. The nation's jobless rate, 4.8 percent in May, has fallen by half a percentage point since the end of last year. In accordance with standard practice, the payroll survey figures were revised to reflect annual benchmark adjustments based on full universe counts of employment. The impact on employment in the March 1996 reference month was a very small upward adjustment of 57,000. Today's jobless report will be a key to Federal Reserve thinking on interest rates (Wall Street Journal, "Washington Wire", page A1). A further unemployment drop or May payroll growth above 225,000 would raise pressure on the Fed to boost rates for the second time this year at the July 1-2 meeting. The number of workers filing first-time claims for state unemployment insurance benefits rose by 19,000 to a seasonally-adjusted level of 337,000 during the week ending May 31, the Labor Department's Employment and Training Administration reports (Daily Labor Report, page D-1; The Washington Post, page G8; The Wall Street Journal, pages A1 and A16). The jump in first-time claims occurred despite a holiday-shortened workweek, and exceeded the 320,000 increase that Wall Street economists predicted.
[PEN-L:10611] FW: Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1997: There's a continuing debate over whether the rise in global competition has been good or bad for the average American worker's wages, but there is little disagreement among economists that it has been an important force in keeping U.S. inflation low. Some analysts estimate that falling prices for imported goods may be clipping as much as 0.3 percentage points off the increase in consumer prices, which rose 2.5 percent in the 12 months ended in April. While U.S. trade in services is important and growing, the impact on prices for services is far smaller because most services, such as medical care, utilities and housing, don't move in international trade (John M. Berry, in The Washington Post, page D1). Fueled by the issue of quality changes, the CPI debate rolls on, says Business Week (June 9, page 68). Among the quotes is one that says a Boskin panel member says that he gets better data on consumer prices by thumbing through old "Consumer Reports". For most products today, the BLS uses a crude method for estimating quality changes. Say a TV set disappears from the shelves, replaced by a new model with a better picture costing 5 percent more. If the inflation rate of other TVs was 2 percent, then the BLS assumes that the rest of the increase, 3 percent, can be attributed to higher quality -- namely the better picture. But the true test of quality is how the new set sells. For instance, if it gains market share, the quality must have risen more than the BLS's 3 percent. Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus says: "We actually don't know how much quality change exists in the BLS numbers." Wage data compiled by BNA for the first 22 weeks of 1997 show an all-industries median first-year wage increase of 3 percent an hour in negotiated agreements. Factoring lump-sum bonuses into median calculations raises the all-industries median first-year wage increase to 3.2 percent an hour. In manufacturing agreements, the year-to-date median wage increase is 3 percent an hour; in nonmanufacturing settlements (excluding construction) the year-to-date median wage increase in the first year of the contract is 3 percent (Daily Labor Report, page D-5). New orders for manufactured goods rose 1.2 percent in April to a seasonally adjusted $323.9 million, the Commerce Department's Census Bureau reports. The volatile transportation equipment sector drove the increase, rising 3.4 percent to $39 billion, with all component industries except railroads increasing. In the year to date, new orders are 5.7 percent greater than in the same period 1 year ago. New orders have risen in 3 of the last 4 months (Daily Labor Report, page D-1; The Wall Street Journal, page A2, graph page 1). The Labor Department is turning to the Internet in an effort to increase compliance with the myriad of employment laws it administers. Under the E-LAWS project -- Employment Laws, Assistance for Workers and Small Business -- DOL's office of policy is developing systems to enable employers and employees to use the Internet to determine their responsibilities and rights when it comes to workplace issues. Currently in place is a system providing information about a regulation requiring that veterans receive preferences for federal government jobs. Upcoming are systems on FMLA, OFCCP's affirmative action requirements, veterans' reemployment rights, and MSHA's quarterly mine employment and coal projection report (Daily Labor Report, page CC-1). A graph showing the percentage of women-owned businesses that are retail establishments, by country or area, on page D8 of The Washington Post shows Canada as having 46 percent, Mexico 41 percent, and Russia 16 percent, both U.S. and Africa 7 percent. Source of the data is the National Foundation for Women Business Owners.
[PEN-L:10610] Re: French elections Retitled: Limit the Working Day?
Larry Shute wrote, Limiting the working day is all right, but does that really deal with the issues facing workers today? Isn't job security and freedom from Orwellian "downsizing" and "outsourcing" more of an issue? Don't we need to ask some of the basic questions: Is production of goods more important in society (= "efficiency" ), or are the workers, the people more important -- in the sense of making sure they have jobs and income? The short answer is yes, limiting the working day really deals with the issues facing workers today. Period. The long answer has to rely on volumes of documentation and analysis. At the risk of invoking metaphysics, I would add that the long answer also has to rely on a profound understanding of both historical tradition and of personal experience (Weltanschauung). Larry correctly identifies 'downsizing' and 'outsourcing' as Orwellian terms. What "more" needs to be done, though, than to point out that these terms obfuscate capital's insatiable demand for an OVERSUPPLY of labour, it's need for an industrial reserve army of the unemployed. It's a little like the Peggy Lee song, "Is that all there is?" Yep, that's all there is -- so let's start dancing. Do I mean to say that Karl Marx wrote three volumes of Capital for the sole purpose of demonstrating conclusively the total dependence of the capitalist system on an OVERSUPPLY of labour? I do. Do we need to ask the "basic question" of whether goods or people are more important in society? No, because we know the answer. From the perspective of people (excepting socio-paths), people are more important. From the perspective of capital, in the short term, goods are more important. In the long term, capital has no perspective. And I'll repeat the last sentence because it is crucial to my argument, "In the long term, capital has no perspective." Capital is outside of and against human history. Capital is _dead labour_ and as such can only have meaning to the extent that it contributes to the regeneration of _living labour_. Beyond that precise limit capital ceases to be dead labour "as such"; it becomes merely death "in general" -- a meaningless abyss. Moral relativism does have its limits. We don't need to ask, for example, whether sociopathy is a valid point of view "in its own terms" or whether Hell might be o.k. for a holiday. Regards, Tom Walker ^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Though I may be sent to Hell for it, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | such a God will never command my respect." (604) 688-8296| - John Milton ^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:10609] Re: French elections
On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Doug Henwood wrote: What can I say? The activists I've talked with and reported on don't sound very much like the ones you describe. A recent confirmation of my analysis was provided in a good little report on welfare reform by Rachel Timoner for the Applied Research Center in Oakland. She talked with scores of activist groups, mainly in Calif but also around the country, and found them completely unprepared to deal with the end of AFDC: isolated from each other and the people they supposedly represent, with a palliative rather than transformative approach to politics. Individuals who work for these organizations may be seriously radical and well-informed, but the system they work within frustrates their best intentions. Doug, I think we're talking about different types of organizations. The disease I think you're seeing -- call it liberalism, Alinskyism, whaveter you like -- is more endemic to politics than the location of people's organizing. Organizing the very poor, for example, is extremely complicated. Poor people are highly overworked and have very little time. You usually have to have all your meetings on Saturday and Sunday afternoons, or else right at the end of the workday and keep it short. No long ideological battles on weekdays, I'm afraid. Often they don't have money for the subway and you have to provide it. For all these kinds of reasons, it's a lot easier for staff-run organizations of middle class people to crop up claiming to represent the poor. That's the state of a lot of the welfare-rights movement in this country. Of course there are exceptions (in New York, there's WEP Workers Together, Community Voices Heard, the Fifth Avenue Committee and lots of smaller organizations), but they don't have the political prominence of, say, the Children's Defense Fund. That's just the way class perpetuates its hegemony, even within progressive movements. Lots of such activist groups tried to organize something called the "Same Boat Coalition" to fight Mayor Rudy's austerity programs, but they've barely been able to get out a press release. Tenant organizations are fighting with each other almost as much as they're fighting schemes to do away with NYC's rent regulations. The alternative is that these groups have to develop some common institutional and programmatic structures. I worked with Same Boat at the beginning of its career. It was bullshit. It was composed of staffers from various unions and progressive organziations who all wanted to meet at 9am on Thursdays while they got paid to be there. Needless to say, this is not a recipe for getting working people to your meetings. But they didn't really care because they weren't out to mobilize huge numbers of working people, at least not in any way that might allow them to run the show. They just wanted a group that handed out petitions and built small rallies. Again, it's not because of Same Boat's project of building a fight-the-cuts coalition. It's because of their staff-based politics. As far as the tenant stuff: The disagreements between, say, Met Council on Housing and Housing Solidarity network reflect genuine political differences. Met Council wants to build a staff-based membership organization. HSN wants to build neighborhood-based collectives of tenants. HSN also has this kooky call for a citywide rent strike. You can't expect people to come together if they're not going to work well together. A few years ago at a meeting sponsored by the North Star Fund, a NYC philanthrophy for rich radicals, a Latina reproductive rights activist told me she didn't want to "coalesce" with other groups because it would weaken her cause. I think she was simply being more honest than most in saying that. I'd believe it. I just think we're talking about different political circles. You claim to have identified groups working on specific, local issues. That may indeed be true, but I don't think that's what's wrong with the above mentioned organizations. I think you've identified groups that are building through staff instead of recruiting activists. That's what we need to fight against. Cheers, Tavis
[PEN-L:10604] Re: eurobullishit
COLIN: I'm agreed that the euro is a terrible idea (both because it enforces a Europe-wide recession aimed at forcing down real wages and because I don't think the undermining of lender-of-last-resort functions has been considered seriously enough). So this has been a week of unbounded Schadenfreude over Juppe's defeat and Kohl's reversal at the hands of the Bundesbank. But the period of preparation for the euro is also unpleasant, at least in employment and growth terms. Surely it would be better to advocate scrapping than postponing the project. KARL: The bullshit on this list is phenomenal. To talk about the Euro being a terrible idea is absusrd. It is like saying that one kind of money is better than another kind. That a local currency is better and kinder than a common international currency. In terms of what Colin says this means that one kind of money is kinder to the masses than another kind. Did you ever hear such shit. On the basis of this logic then bartering is better than money exchange and smaller local capitalist firms are better than international ones. The point is that in the modern capitalist world all money is essentially capitalist money. To argue that one kind of capitalism is better than another is to misunderstand the nature of capital and that the task of socialism is to prmote the abolition of capital and its money form rather than to push for one kind of capitalism as opposed to another. So cut out the bullshit and abolish neanderthalia on this and other lists. Karl Carlile Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:10602] Re: euro
LOUIS P: The vote in France is dramatic evidence that openings exist for socialist politics. A renaissance is not only desirable but urgently necessary. The big lesson of the 1930s is that when the left stands pat with parliamentary cretinism, the masses will seek revolutionary solutions elsewhere, even when it is garbed in a black shirt. KARL: Does Louis Proyect ever give up guys? Here he is coming out with all this crap concering the French elections beign evidence of openings for socialist politics. When is he ever going to catch on. Revolutionary socialist politics is essentailly independent of how reactionary socialist and stalinist parties are doing in the polls. The development of revolutionary, not Leninist, socialist politics is a task stands on its own. Louis is constantly looking for signs from heavan of the coming socialist millenium. This does not surprise me since he never left the US SWP politics behind him. Karl Carlile Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:10601] Re: Labor films
ROBIN: I've been off line, but if nobody mentioned Norma Rae starring Sally Fields, I liked that as a labor film especially as it portrays the character of a union organizer and a local activist (Sally Fields) very well. Surprisingly, I think it was more of a Hollywood film than others such as Matewan. KARL: I question this trendy lefty stuff about good and bad films. It is the kind of thing middle class lefties or lefties aspiring towards middleclassania engage over coffee. It gives them a sense of cosy difference and a styled identity: the feeling that they are not like other "men". The point is that the bourgeois film industry with its super rich movie stars exploit important aspects of life in order to valorise capital. The film industry is patently a branch of industrial capital that produces commodities in the form of cineamatic and video films. Despite the many so called good films they have done little or nothing to assist in thw working class raising its consciousness onto a new plane. working class forward. Karl Carlile Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:10600] Re: French elections
I think that for all kinds of reasons, we actually have to be _in_ the communities we're trying to change. For some of us, this may mean unions, or campaings for/against various things (workfare, police brutality, a living wage) run by the people who are effected most by them. Ultimately, socialism will be built by people responding to their immediate circumstances and finding that it requires a change in the relations of power. For those of us at universities, that can mean student/faculty/worker control of the school. It starts with demanding things like curriculum reform, dignity for workers, the school helping the surrounding community instead of colonizing it. Ultimately people realize the school is not a democracy and that it could be. Similar things could be said about myriad other movements and community organizations in different ways. We have to struggle with people and learn this realization with them, because it's a different kind of realization for different kinds of communities. Just braodcasting to "the people" over television with our idea of the correct program is, ultimately, just politics as usual with a left face. KARL: You omit the a most decisive factor from you anlaysis: politics. You can be deeply involves in what you like but you if you lack marxist politics you will not suuceed in moving things in the right dierection. Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:10599] Re: French elections
Ajit Sinha wrote: For example, in France there is a good chance that the so-called "people without papers" will be able to stay and not deported. A not-entirely-fanciful scenario: the new French government fails even in its weak program, unemployment remains high, and the National Front gains in appeal. So the sans papiers might have it worse in the long run. The dangers of lesser-of-two-evil politics. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:10597] Re: labor films
One excellent film on the globalisation of labor is "The Emperor's New Clothes" from the Canadian Film Board. Its main focus is NAFTA, viewed on many levels, concluding with a visit by Canadian auto workers to a Mexican plant where the work Canadians did is now being done. This is a very stylish film visually and in all ways. Not your usual documentary. Has anyone mentioned American Dream? Before showing it, read other work about the Hormel-P9 strike to get background on the complexities which are only sketched out in the video. My students are always bowled over by this one. ellen Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax:619-696-
[PEN-L:10595] Re: French elections
Ajit, I think you missed at least my point: The Socialists get elected, and they perform far below expectations (but yes some people are concretely aided), that sets up a reaction which (given the dominant parties) is to the right and more right than before the first Mitterand election. In the United States, Richard Nixon was more left than Clinton is today. Why? Because Nixon had more left pressure, Carter was a disappointment, which led to Reagan/Bush who shifted to right and led to disappointment, which led to Clinton, etc. In my own state of New York, we are in the "right" phase, with disappointment over Democratic Governor Cuomo leading to Republican Governor Pataki, more right than Governor Rockefellar. In Ontario, Canada, disappointment over the NDP led to overwhelming victory of the current right-wing administration, the most right-wing in recent memory. In other words, we need to take a long view of politics, see the trends, fight against the current (the current is almost always against the workers), while recognizing the type of point you are making. There is an element of good cop--bad cop going on you seem to miss. The signal about the UK/French elections is to analyze what opportunites are being opened up for genuine working class politics. Paul * Paul Zarembka, supporting the RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY Web site at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka, and using OS/2 Warp. * On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Ajit Sinha wrote: At 07:40 AM 6/5/97 -0700, you wrote: Michael, I remember the first Mitterand/Socialist victory and the cheering in the streets. We all know now what followed! I think your point is a very valuable everywhere, including in the United States when people think voting Democratic is progressive. Paul __ But Paul and Michael, I think such political changes do make inormous difference in many people's life. For example, in France there is a good chance that the so-called "people without papers" will be able to stay and not deported. Moreover, the change in the citizenship law may also be reverted. Another example from Australia: here after the Liberals (which means conservatives in Australia) won a land slide victory, the whole environment has significantly changed against the migrants and minorities--you can experience it everyday in the streets. Now it has become almost impossible for a migrant worker to bring his or her family. Even Australian citizens marrying foreigners are simply unable to be united with their wifes or husbands. The case of the aborigines is, of course, now known world wide. They have been the biggest losers because of this political change. I think social politics do matter, and we need to remain conscious of it all the time. Cheers, ajit sinha * Paul Zarembka, supporting the RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY Web site at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka, and using OS/2 Warp. * On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Michael Perelman wrote: The French elections were a tragedy. From what I understand, the left comes in without a program. Please correct me if I am wrong. They will offer a kindler, gentler neo-liberalism, something like Giscard. The people will become disgusted, giving more credibility to the right. It is sad that we are in such a mess as to look to a disaster in the making like this as a ray of hope. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10594] Commentary on the French Elections by a class-conscious German
June 6, 1997 The Doomsayers Are Wrong By NORBERT WALTER FRANKFURT -- With 11 of 15 European governments now led by Socialists or other social democrats, European voters seem to be united in resisting tough economic medicine à la Margaret Thatcher. The trend toward privatization, vital to Europe's ability to wean itself from dependence on the public sector, appears to have hit a wall, at least in France. Even more serious, according to the conventional wisdom in the wake of the French election, the plan for a common European currency by 1999 now looks shakier. Lionel Jospin, France's new Prime Minister, has suggested that he may take his time in meeting the established timetable. But these gloomy predictions make sense only if you believe the campaign promises of the French Socialists. I would argue that it is more important now to watch their actions, rather than listen to their rhetoric. More than ever before, count on the word Bundesbank to become a dirty word in French politics. This will allow the French Socialists to deflect their frustrations onto the other side of the Rhine in one fell swoop. After all, France's willingness since the early 1980's to follow, in the spirit of European integration, the German central bank's lead in raising interest rates is clearly a factor in the nation's 12.8 percent unemployment rate. About the best thing the Germans could do now is let the Bundesbank become the whipping boy of French politics. It would be a small price for Germany to pay to keep its French partner in the boat at this precarious stage of European integration. Nobody should forget that it was the French Socialists, under the leadership of François Mitterrand, who cleaned up the country's economy as best they could between 1982 and 1995. If Mr. Jospin throws a wrench into the motor of European integration by not staying the course on monetary union, he might be charged with abandoning the Mitterrand legacy. But Mr. Jospin rose through the party ranks as Mr. Mitterrand's right-hand man. He is unlikely to turn his back on his mentor's historic achievements. Yet Mr. Jospin seems to have violated the standard of the new European left, as exemplified by Britain's new Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Throughout his campaign, Mr. Blair carefully avoided making promises he would have trouble keeping. By contrast, Mr. Jospin created a dangerous trap for himself by promising 350,000 new public-sector jobs. President Jacques Chirac of France also pledged to reduce unemployment during his election campaign in 1995. His failure to accomplish that led French voters to throw out the conservatives. Can Mr. Jospin save his own neck? For one thing, he should benefit from a somewhat improved market for French exports. Even if he does not create more jobs, he may be able to take credit for at least holding the line on job losses -- no mean feat under present circumstances. He should take to heart the recent agreement by the German chemical workers union to allow more flexibility on wages. Mr. Jospin's knack for connecting with voters -- like President Clinton, he is a skilled practitioner of the "I feel your pain" political style -- will also help him. Indeed, he played this role during Mr. Mitterrand's tenure, helping to preserve the emotional appeal of the old workers' party while Mr. Mitterrand put the French economy on a tough monetary course. But what if my scenario of French self-restraint proves to be merely wishful thinking? A potent safeguard built into the system will induce the French to stay on course. If the Socialists really try to fulfill their campaign promises, embarking yet again on a futile effort to create even more public-sector jobs, the financial markets will likely drive up interest rates on French bonds, weakening economic activity and making existing debt more expensive to service. In the worst case, they would restore the risk premium on interest rates that France worked so hard to get rid of in the 1980's. Europe is at a true crossroads. Voters in France and the other countries that have put the left back in government may not fully recognize this, but the French Socialist leaders do. They know full well that one fork in the road leads toward integration, while the other would end up in a nationalist brouhaha. They understand that European integration is far too delicate for individual countries to try to reinvent the Maastricht Treaty. That is why the new French Government is unlikely to stray too far from the prescribed path. It will offer sympathetic assurances to its citizens, but it will press ahead with the inevitable task of economic reform. Norbert Walter is chief economist of the Deutsche Bank Group. Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company --
[PEN-L:10593] Re: Response to Max (or, my plan for the Froggies)
At 02:00 PM 6/5/97 -0700, Sid wrote: Sid (from British Columbia -- but hey, all those Canadian provinces look alike): The difficulty isn't with the "case", Max. The difficulty is with the fact that we're only in the beginning of the process of saying "no" to the plans that transnational capital has for us. We are nowhere vis-a-vis seizing control of the political-economic process and building our own model of what we want. (Presuming we could agree on what that was.) [...] Max. That leaves progressive forces in a position of taking what's given them -- in this case the EU and Maastricht -- as the starting point for building positive alternatives. I've been trying to argue that if we define our starting point as shoveling the shit we're handed by transnational capital, we're never going to create a perfumed piece of art. Unless and until the folks on the ground who are finally beginning to reject the neoliberal project and the institutions in which it is incorporated start to come up with their own, progressive alternatives (with the help of engaged progressive intellectuals), then we'll be shopping around forever for the right vehicle in capitalism's car lot. Sid, Not to beat a dead horse (or its fecal matter), but could you say a little bit more about what you mean? What would be wrong with the French Lefties saying, we think social union is great, we just want a few teensy little changes: 1) We want a Europe-wide fiscal policy that promotes employment and higher wages, not stopping inflation. 2) We want rules that will encourage that capital owned by ordinary people--pension funds and the like--will be invested so they encourage full employment at fair wages, penalize CEOs who bust unions, cut benefits, etc. 3) All European governments will use their purchasing power to encourage a more sustainable, just economy. 4) Since our economies are inextricably linked to the global economy, and since most European countries were a bunch of Imperialist Fuckers who still have a debt to repay to the third world, we will use our combined govt. clout to push for justice for all families across the globe. For example, we will say to companies like Nike, we're going to hold an international conference like the Rio summit, only with a little more oomph: you can either sign onto the agreement we work out, or you can pay a 200% social justice tax when you sell sneakers in Europe. Similarly, we'll push for an international tax on speculation ala Tobin. 5) Although we are French and are therefore superior to all others, we realize we can't do this alone. Therefore, we will organize with our brothers and sisters in other European countries to make these changes a reality. If this was the main plank of the French platform, a few things would happen: 1) The EU and Maastricht as they stand now would be in deep shit, not only because France would be saying no but because I doubt Tony Clinton in Britain could hold together a Labor coalition that would be against this plan. 2) There would now be an excuse to have a real dialog across Europe about where Europe and the globe should be headed--a dialog that could be linked to cross-Europe organizing, marches, etc. 3) The French left might actually survive the next election (assuming the financial markets didn't collapse the economy) because instead of saying, "this is all bad" or admitting that there's not a hell of a lot they can do about the French economy, they'd have a villain they could blame _and_ an alternative to give people hope. So Sid, what's wrong with this plan? Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications
