London Anti-War Demo Report

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:48:20 +
From: "T.Hartin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: London anti-war demo report
Hi all.

we had an amazing demo in London today. We gathered at the March
assembly point, but didn't get to march properly until 1.5 hours
after the official start. The mood was very good ... the make-up of
the crowd overwhelmingly young. The end point at Trafalgar Square was
jammed packed with crowds spilling down streets in all directions..
many I think gave up before they reached the Square. Judging from the
size of the crowd at the end.. and comparing with previous demos I
would have put the numbers at over 200,000. I believe the organisers
were claiming more than 300,000. The latest police estimate I saw was
110,000.
To put this in perspective.. it was the largest week day March in
British History - and so can be compared to the 2 million February 15
march. It is also quite astounding that this has come after months of
a lull since the May 1 US "victory" in Iraq. It shows that the
anti-war movement is still at its very heights ... and in fact may
still be growing.
cheers,
Tony Hartin
--
Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity: 

Re: Greenspan squawks on trade

[Eubulides]

- Original Message -
From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



> "The buildup or reduction in financial claims among trading
countries--that
> is, capital flows--are hence exact mirrors of the current account
balances.
> And just as net trade and current accounts for the world as a whole
> necessarily sum to zero, so do net capital flows. Because for any
country
> the change in net claims against all foreigners cumulates to its current
> account balance (abstracting from valuation adjustments), that balance
must
> also equal the country's domestic saving less its domestic investment."
>
> In which case there is nothing economists can actually do to optimise
the
> allocation of scarce resources, except ensure that all impediments,
> restrictions and regulation on the operation of free market forces are
> removed.




This is exactly what the language of 'non-tariff trade barriers' is
supposed to operationalize in order to undermine the distinction between
regulations and takings. It only remains for the corps. to use the new
forums for adjudication in the DSB, Nafta chapter 11 etc. etc. undo the
infinite onion of barriers until they come up against the baseline barrier
of capital itself as a mode of production.

From: FROM POLITICS TO TECHNOCRACY-AND BACK AGAIN: THE FATE OF THE
MULTILATERAL TRADING REGIME By Robert Howse
http://www.asil.org/ajil/wto6.pdf

"...there will always be a rather huge number of possible nontrade or not
explicitly trade-based policies that individual member states can
implement, which will undermine the value of the negotiated legal
disciplines to their trading partners.

These policies can take on the aspect of legitimate regulation for
noncommercial public purposes. At the same time, they may have the effect
of restricting market access, similarly to the explicit trade barriers
that member states have legally bound themselves to constrain or remove.
Let us say I bind myself not to increase tariffs on steel beyond 15
percent ad valorem.

What happens now, if by legislation I turn the steel industry into a
domestic monopoly? Or if I set a regulatory standard that foreign
competitors in the industry are unlikely to be able to meet, or that it
will cost them much more than the domestic industry to meet? Or if I
subsidize domestic production of steel? Which of these is a legitimate and
acceptable domestic policy, and which is "cheating" or reneging on my
trade liberalization commitments in a way that is apt to undermine
confidence in the system, if undertaken widely enough?

There is no natural or self-evident baseline or rule that can solve this
basic dilemma. Individual member states' perceptions of what policies fall
on one side of the line and what on the other are going to vary depending
on ideology, regulatory traditions, and so forth, all of which generate
intuitions about whether someone's regulatory behavior looks like "normal"
public policy or, rather, like something that might only be done in the
circumstances for protectionist reasons."
[snip]

Re: Greenspan squawks on trade

[Jurriaan Bendien]

Thanks Ian,

That's a brilliant exercise in tautology by Greenspan. But what does he
really mean when he says:

"Indeed, the example of the fifty states of the United States suggests that,
with full flexibility in the movement of labor and capital, adjustments to
cross-border imbalances can occur even without an exchange rate adjustment."
?

The answer seems to be given in note 6, namely that "if external assets fall
short of liabilities for some countries, net external liabilities will grow
until they can no longer be effectively serviced. Well short of that point,
market prices, interest rates, and exchange rates will slow, and then end,
the funding of liability growth."

A purer statement of faith in the ability of unfettered market forces to
establish equilibrium scarcely seems possible, and this faith does indeed
seem to be justified with reference to a globalised "ledger-concept" or
accounting concept of equilibrium, which I mentioned before on PEN-L, namely
"The buildup or reduction in financial claims among trading countries--that
is, capital flows--are hence exact mirrors of the current account balances.
And just as net trade and current accounts for the world as a whole
necessarily sum to zero, so do net capital flows. Because for any country
the change in net claims against all foreigners cumulates to its current
account balance (abstracting from valuation adjustments), that balance must
also equal the country's domestic saving less its domestic investment."

In which case there is nothing economists can actually do to optimise the
allocation of scarce resources, except ensure that all impediments,
restrictions and regulation on the operation of free market forces are
removed. This sounds a bit like the theorem that, since, in an economy based
exclusively on free trade, "every economic actor's gain is another economic
actor's loss", net world operating surplus, net debts and net capital flows
must equal zero at any point in time. Why don't they then ? If Greenspan is
correct, all economists can go home now, they've made their point, there is
nothing further to say or advice to give - it's all over to the accountants
now.

The interesting question that remains at the end of this amazing
intellectual "tour the force" is what actually happens in the real world
when liabilities can no longer be "effectively serviced" ? If holders of
liabilities can no longer make payments on liabilities, presumably they
would actually go bankrupt, lenders would suffer losses, and then the
price-level would be lowered, until bankrupted individuals could go into
business again ? Time seems an important variable here, but Greenspan
doesn't really discuss it. We remain at the end of the story musing the
paradox that while world net capital flows equal to zero, net stocks of
capital assets can increase. Isn't capitalism marvellous...

J.

Re: the next wedge issue

[ravi]

Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> Maybe the exchange shows why gay marriage is such an effective wedge
> issue.
>
> Maybe some day we can figure out how to make people get as worked up over
> working conditions, inequality, the environment ...
>

with all due respect, MP, i do get equally worked up about inequality,
working conditions, the environment, etc. i doubt you wish me to forward
the abuse i receive ;-) (including on mailing lists that i run for
free!!) defending the left position on these issues. you may be right in
referring to gay issues as a 'wedge' in the dems vs republicans
political arena, but it is not fair to extend such a perception to this
list (or at least to me). i consider it a fundamental issue, and no more
but no less privileged than the others listed.

--ravi

Marx Conference in Havana, May 2004

[michael a. lebowitz]

Dear Friends and Comrades,
I have
pasted below the invitation to attend the 2nd Marx Conference in Havana
in May 2004. For those who attended this year's conference, let me call
your attention to some significant changes. 
Whereas
this year's conference was organised on a shoe-string basis and began at
the facilities of the Cuban Workers Federation and subsequently shifted
to the Palace of Conventions (where only plenary session were possible at
that point), next year's conference will take place entirely at the
Palace of Conventions. Following the successful format of the annual
Globalisation Conference in Havana, the Marx conference will have 4
commission sessions (all with simultaneous translation) occurring in the
mornings. Afternoons will be set aside for plenary panels; as the closing
time will be flexible, in the event of extraordinary interventions in the
plenaries, it will not produce havoc with the presentation schedule.
Further, arrangements for translations both at the conference and in
advance are well in hand. Another change you will see in the invitation
below is that the length of papers to be presented is severely limited to
10 pages. This-- together with advance translation (much easier with
short papers)-- is intended to permit far more interaction and
discussion, which was a desire on the part of almost all participants
this year.
I think
those are the main changes. Again, participants will be invited to be
there for the May Day ceremonies, and there will be seminars focusing on
Cuba in the days before the Conference. 
Finally,
if you have any questions about the conference at all, please contact
Jesus Garcia Brigos, coordinator of the Academic Committee (address noted
below)--- ie., not me. Please circulate this to all lists that may be
relevant. Thank you, and I hope to see you next year in Havana.
in
solidarity,
michael

--


Second International Conference
Marxism and the challenges of
the
21st
century

Second notification


The permanent workshop 'Karl Marx and the Challenges of the
21st
Century', established by the Philosophy Institute of Cuba's Ministry of
Science, Technology & the Environment, announces the Second
International Conference on Marxism and the challenges of the
21st
century, to be held in Havana on
4th-8th
May, 2004. All those interested in analyzing the basis of the current
world order and finding ways of achieving its progressivist replacement,
thereby contributing to a strengthening of early
21st-century
revolutionary thought, are invited to attend.

The Conference marks the
20th
anniversary of the Institute of Philosophy's foundation, the
45th
anniversary of the victory of the Cuban Revolution and the
65th
anniversary of the Cuban Workers Federation (CTC).

Conference's sponsors (in alphabetical order):
-   Cuban
Society for Philosophic Research
-   Cuban
Workers Federation (CTC)
-   
Department of Marxist-Leninism and history  at the Ministry of
Education.
-   Department
of Marxist-Leninism at the Ministry of Higher Education
-   Empresa
de Servicios de Traducción y Interpretación
-   Faculty
of Philosophy, Sociology & History, University of Havana
-   Higher
Council of Social Sciences (Cuba)
-   Higher
Institute of Art (Ministry of Culture)
-   Higher
Institute of Foreign Affairs (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
-   Juan
F Noyala Centre for Economic & Planning Studies (Ministry of
Economics & Planning)
-   Latin
America Popular Memory Research Group (MEPLA)
-   Latin
American Council for the Social Sciences (CLACSO)
-   'Madres
de la Playa de Mayo' University, Argentina
-   Martian
studies Centre (Centro de Estudios Martianos)
-   National
Association of Economists & Accountants (ANEC)
-   Ñico
López College (Cuban Communist Party)
-   'Pasado
y Presente XXI' Centre
-   Social
Sciences Council of the Ministry of Science, Technology & the
Environment
-   Sociedad
Económica de Amigos del País

The event will build on work based on the guidelines approved for the
permanent workshop 'Karl Marx and the Challenges of the
21st Century', which are also the subject
areas proposed for the Conference:

1.  The
reality and contradictions of today's capitalism. Their social,
political, ideological and cultural impact on society
2.  The
social actors and the forms of revolutionary struggle generated within
capitalism's system of multiple domination
3.  Limits
and contradictions of socialist experience during the
20th century: new theoretical developments
for the improvement of the emancipator paradigm.

Drawing on the results of the working sessions in May 2003, as the
central theme for this debating and proposal-generating meeting of social
activists, politicians and scientists, we propose the following:


"Class and revolutionary power: theory and practice".


Applications to attend the Conferenc

Greenspan squawks on trade

[Eubulides]

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2003/20031120/default.htm

Remarks by Chairman Alan Greenspan
At the 21st Annual Monetary Conference, Cosponsored by the Cato Institute and The 
Economist, Washington, D.C.
November 20, 2003

US: gender and pay

[Eubulides]

[The report, at http://www.gao.gov is Women's Earnings: Work Patterns
Partially Explain Differences Between Men's and Women's Earnings.
GAO-04-35]


GAO Study Finds Work Patterns Don't Explain Pay Gap Between Men, Women
The Associated Press
Thursday, November 20, 2003; 2:40 PM


Women's income is lower on average than that of men in part because they
generally work less, leave the labor force for longer periods and tend to
hold jobs that pay less, a congressional study found.

But even after adjustments are made for those factors, women still earned
an average of 20.3 percent less than men in 2000, investigators said
Thursday.

The General Accounting Office conducted the earnings study for Democratic
Reps. Carolyn Maloney of New York and John Dingell of Michigan.

The 20 percent gap has been relatively unchanged in the past two decades.
The difference was 19.6 percent in 1983.

The study could not explain reasons for the earnings difference, but noted
that experts have speculated it could be due to discrimination or the
decision by some women to forgo career advancement for family-friendly
jobs that offer more flexibility and less stress.

"These decisions may have specific consequences for their career
advancement or earnings," the study said. "However, debate exists about
whether these decisions are freely made or influenced by discrimination in
society or in the workplace."

Maloney and Dingell want to create a research center at a public
university that would study potential solutions and publish information
for employers and employees.

"After accounting for so many external factors, it seems that still, at
the root of it all, men get an inherent annual bonus just for being men,"
Maloney said. "If this continues, the only guarantees in life will be
death, taxes and the glass ceiling. We can't let that happen."

Men work on average 2,147 hours per year, compared with 1,675 for women,
the study said.

Almost nine of 10 men worked full time compared with two of three women.
Men were out of the labor force an average of one week compared with three
weeks for women, the report said.

The influx of women in the labor force in recent decades has failed to
result in significant changes at the office, the study said.

"Research suggests that many work places still maintain the same policies,
practices and structures that existed when most workers were men who
worked full time, 40-hours per week," the report said. "As a result, there
may be a mismatch between the needs of workers with family
responsibilities and the structure of the workplace."

AP-ES-11-20-03 1226EST

Re: the next wedge issue

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Um, let's see, because it is child abuse?

Joel

Original Message:
-
From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:43:17 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the next wedge issue


In a message dated 11/20/03 12:08:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Like: "I swear, if the girls do not clean up my stove I am going to kick
their asses."

Why should I not kick their ass. Do you have kids or just stupid?

Melvin P.



mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

meanwhile, in Miami

[Eubulides]

scroll down for the daily updates:

http://www.ictsd.org/issarea/Americas/FTAA_ministerial/miami/index.htm

Also:

http://www.ftaaimc.org/en/index.shtml















To this day, no one has come up with a set of rules for
originality. There aren't any. [Les Paul]

no lookey sez bush

[Dan Scanlan]

CauseNET for November 20, 2003

EYE ON IRAQ - President Bush Says 'No' To More Transparency

The already limited powers of the newly created Inspector General
position in Iraq received another blow when President Bush indicated
he would further restrict its powers to conduct investigations.
Upon signing the $87 billion emergency supplemental bill to fund
military and reconstruction costs in Iraq, President Bush released a
statement announcing that the Inspector General in Iraq, "shall
refrain from initiating, carrying out or completing an audit or
investigation or from issuing a subpoena which requires access to
sensitive operation plans" due to reasons of national security.
The office of the Inspector General traditionally has been
responsible for matters relating to the prevention of fraud, waste,
and abuse.  The kinds of restrictions the President has placed on the
Inspector General in Iraq seem to go beyond restrictions placed on
Inspector Generals in other government agencies.
Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) expressed outrage with the President's
decision, "It is yet another example of the administration's penchant
for ducking public scrutiny in the name of national security."
The President's action drew criticism from Republicans as well.
Chairman of the House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee,
Representative Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) said, "The suggestion that the
inspector general would not have access to classified documents,
that's preposterous. He's got to have access to those documents in
order to do his job."
The role of the Inspector General in Iraq is to oversee the
reconstruction process, not military operations. We believe it is
critical that Congress exercise its oversight authority to ensure
that the rebuilding of Iraq is conducted wisely, fairly and with as
much transparency as possible.
ACTION:  Write a Letter to the Editor on this issue to your local
newspaper.  http://capwiz.com/afr/utr/1/CLHGCKCRYB/AWYFCKEQEG/
ACTION: Write a Letter to the President and tell him how you feel.
http://capwiz.com/afr/utr/1/CLHGCKCRYB/FKVNCKEQEH/
For More Information:
See the Common Cause letter to President Bush and Congress on this issue.
http://capwiz.com/afr/utr/1/CLHGCKCRYB/MQSVCKEQEI/

40 years later

[Dan Scanlan]

Title: 40 years later


The Cold November Gang
©1991 Dan Scanlan

F   
   
   

Bb
They're adventurers and spies and they have a long-range plan
  
C   
   
   F
That includes you and me as merely nameless pawns
  
   
   
  Bb
In a scrambled, futile buzzy-ness, a Zapruder fillm,
   F   
   
   
   
   
C#
C   
   F
A motorcade of lies, adventurers and spies, The Cold November
Gang.
  
   Bb 
   
   
   
 F
Oh, we were young and bright and gold and flashing in the sky
  C 
   
   
   
    F
Our eyes were tuned to love song mood, love answers in the eye
   
Bb  
   
   
   
F
And Camelot gave vibrant wonder to our naive youth
   
Bbm  Bb 
   
C     
F
Then the Cold November Gang rode in and rustled off the Truth.
   F 
   
   
   
   
C#
C   
   F
A motorcade of lies, adventurers and spies, The Cold November
Gang.


I heard a car horn honk and Jack Ruby hollered,"Lee!"
And shot the patsie in the gut in front of live TV.
Miss Killgallen talked to Jack and this is what she said:
"I'll blow this whole thing open," then she died that night in
bed.

The land was handed a heavy report to keep the big lie going
 From a panel of secret agent men and Dulles and Ford and Warren.
But folks just didn't buy it, there were rumbles sea to sea
So they sent in Walter Cronkite, Mister Credibility.

Down at the DMV I got a license with a magnetic strip;
The library checked me out with an automated laser grip.
The FBI, the CIA, they're all on the people's dole:
They build their data banks upon the Grassy Knoll.

They're adventurers and spies and they have a long-range plan
That includes you and me as merely nameless pawns
In a scrambled, futile buzzy-ness, a Zapruder fillm,
A motorcade of lies, adventurers and spies, The Cold November
Gang.


Bright leaf of gold against the
sky
Tall, flashing, regal, flying
high
Your vibrant wonder tunes my
eye
To love song mood in love's
reply
Then cold November lets you
die.
--Dr. Frank Sullivan
Loyola University, Los
Angeles
November 22, 1963

Re: Subject: Re: Re: value and gender

[Jurriaan Bendien]

> The relationship between nutrition and health is not a middle class or
> bourgeois prejudice. It is a fact.

Agreed, but we were talking about "cheap food". Not all cheap food is
healthy, to be sure, but a lot of cheap food is healthier or has the same
nutritive content as more expensive food. The bourgeois view of nutrition
means that in the world today, the problem of overeating resulting in
obesity and ill-health, is approximately as big as the problem of starvation
and malnutrition.

J.

Re: The text of Bush's speech at Whitehall Palace

[Jurriaan Bendien]

Jim asked:

could someone remind me what the content of
>marcuse's critique of abstract 'pure
tolerance' as 'repressive' < was?

See for example:
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/personal/reading/wolff-tolerance.html

I suppose the general substance in Marcuse's idea is:

(1) a position of tolerance presupposes the prior existence of a social
condition, which permits that tolerance to be exercised, and

(2) a position of tolerance is not neutral, because it does not permit a
position of non-tolerance, i.e. you cannot tolerate non-toleration, and that
is what makes it repressive and conservative; no social goals are permitted
which conflict with the principle of tolerance.

(3) tolerance could be defined negatively (removing the constraints which
prevent tolerance) or positively (mobilising the factors which enable
tolerance), and tolerance as a moral principle might just really be moral
indifference or the rejection of the need for any shared morality.

As regards (1), if the condition for tolerance suddenly disappears, then
people will become intolerant and dictatorial, and then the discussion
focuses on what exactly the preconditions for tolerance are. This is a theme
in laissez-faire liberalism, which is elaborated ideologically in different
ways, for example it is asserted:

(a) the market actually creates tolerance, because the mediation of human
relations by money prices creates the opportunity of an autonomous private
individuation on the part of persons who can coexist without being dominated
by moral obligations which are imposed by a societal morality external to
the individual - were the market to disappear, individual autonomy would be
restricted, because the regulation of human interaction would have to be
governed totally by an externally imposed social morality,

(b) The market creates a shared morality through contractual obligations
which are impartially enforcable.

(c) parliamentary-democratic institutions guarantee tolerance of different
opinions and free expression of individuality, and there is a necessary link
between democracy and the market, such that they are the necessary and/or
sufficient condition of each other.

As regards (2), if for example great social inequality of great injustice
exists between people in a society in terms of property ownership and
opportunities (this was classically called "the social question"), and we
advocate tolerance, then we actually endorse the status quo, which contains
this social inequality and injustice, and this is a partisan position which
begs the question of what non-toleration consists in, i.e. it is actually a
maneouvre for moral evasion in which heretics and dissenters may be given
the benefit of the doubt.

Typically, the way contradictions in the argument are resolved ideologically
is (1) through the concept of meritocracy where people have an equal
opportunity to become unequal according to demonstrated talent, (2) through
a Rawlsian-type theory of distributive justice which reallocates resources
in a way which prevents excessive inequality and injustice, either through a
natural trickle-down effect of the market (through the increased wealth it
provides), or through state intervention which consciously redistributes
resources, (3) through rethinking what viable democratic institutions might
consist in.

The question then arises whether the meritocracy actually exists or can have
a real existence, whether distributive justice is actualised and met out,
and if it isn't, why that could be so, and whether democratic institutions
actually provide majority rule.

As regards (3), the constraints which prevent tolerance or the conditions
promoting tolerance could be framed in different ways, and thus there are
many different ways to go with the argument in terms of the causes of
tolerance or non-tolerance in terms of attitudes, moralities, cultures,
economic conditions, and so on.

As a brief sketch, the Marxian criticism would involve points such as:

(1) capitalist society is by its property relations structurally based on
competition, unequal exchange and exploitation, which does not permit any
consistent reconciliation between the individual and the social, and
continual conflicts between them.
(2) ceteris paribus, market expansion always increases the extent of social
inequality and injustice
(3) the market does not provide or imply or oblige any morality of its own,
including tolerance, beyond what is necessary to conclude transactions, it
only means that different moralities are tolerated for the purpose of
settling transactions
(4) the meritocracy doesn't really exist, there is continual slippage
between descriptive and normative views of it.
(5) attempts at distributive justice tend to fail, because the conditions of
producing wealth, on which they are predicated, are themselves unjust,
unequal and exploitative already, and at the precise moment when wealth
creation is reduced, the means for distributive justice fail as well, since

Re: the next wedge issue

[Michael Perelman]

I have been teaching all morning.  I do not like to give anyone the boot,
but this sort of language is not acceptable.  Nor did I appreciate Carroll
saying that he filters someone.  Go ahead and filter, but you don't need
to make it public.

Maybe the exchange shows why gay marriage is such an effective wedge
issue.

Maybe some day we can figure out how to make people get as worked up over
working conditions, inequality, the environment ...

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 03:51:54PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Like: "I swear, if the girls do not clean up my stove I am going to kick
> > their asses."
> >
> >
> > Why should I not kick their ass. Do you have kids or just stupid?
>
> Melvin, Michael Perelman is probably too busy writing his next book to
> pay attention to this thread but I will not dignify your question with a
> reply. If I were him, I'd give you the boot for sexism and homophobia.
> What you are saying is really ugly. I am reminded of an article that
> appears in the latest Harpers on Clear Channel Communications. Out in
> Denver there are 6 stations owned by this monopoly and they all have
> DJ's that make fag-bashing jokes. When the reporter asks the local
> president of Clear Channel whether that is appropriate, he replies that
> it is only a joke. What if you substituted the word "nigger" for "fag",
> he asks. Would that be as funny? That's the kind of question you should
> be asking yourself.
>
> --
>
> The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: the next wedge issue

[Louis Proyect]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like: "I swear, if the girls do not clean up my stove I am going to kick
their asses."
Why should I not kick their ass. Do you have kids or just stupid?
Melvin, Michael Perelman is probably too busy writing his next book to
pay attention to this thread but I will not dignify your question with a
reply. If I were him, I'd give you the boot for sexism and homophobia.
What you are saying is really ugly. I am reminded of an article that
appears in the latest Harpers on Clear Channel Communications. Out in
Denver there are 6 stations owned by this monopoly and they all have
DJ's that make fag-bashing jokes. When the reporter asks the local
president of Clear Channel whether that is appropriate, he replies that
it is only a joke. What if you substituted the word "nigger" for "fag",
he asks. Would that be as funny? That's the kind of question you should
be asking yourself.
--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: the next wedge issue

[Waistline2]

In a message dated 11/20/03 12:08:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Like: "I swear, if the girls do not clean up my stove I am going to kicktheir asses."
 
Why should I not kick their ass. Do you have kids or just stupid?
 
Melvin P. 

Re: the next wedge issue

[Waistline2]

In a message dated 11/20/03 12:08:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that Carrol was referring to serious differences ofopinion. He was referring to stupid "shock jock" remarks that you madethat embarrass you and that get in the way of you being taken seriously.Like: "I swear, if the girls do not clean up my stove I am going to kicktheir asses."Or: "Personally, I abhor homosexuality and feel no compulsion whatsoeverto explain why I think a man penis should be place in a women and notanother man. I am not required to explain my ideology."If you said these things at a meeting of a revolutionary party, you'd bebrought up on charges. And if you weren't, the party was revolutionaryin name only.
Fair enough. 
 
Who have ever elected you to anything in the real working class and social movement in America? 
 
One must express politics and reality. 
 
I am prepared to provide a list of twenty years of elections and activity. I insist you go first.
 
Let's get real about this. 
 
Screw Carrol. 
 
Melvin P 

Re: the next wedge issue

[Waistline2]

In a message dated 11/19/03 11:34:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, there is no such thing as "a man's penis," right? I mean
there's your penis, which you have the right to decide where to place.
And then there's other men and their penises, and I guess the question
is, do you feel that they have the same right as you -- to put it where
it feels best?

Here is the crux of the issue. I of course believe it is presented poorly as
a question of feelings, when we are talking about power and domination.

Homosexuality in America is not debated as an abstract question of consenting
adults freely choosing to enter into the sexual relations of their choice.
Nor, is this how the question or rather, issue arose in history. We are talking
about domination and subjugation.

The American peoples understand this clearly.

Why does nayone think this is a "wedge issue?"

I abhor homosexuality - not as an abstract issue of feeling good, but because
of the question of power and domination, which arose on the basis of the
Women Question.

The fight of course is within the working class. One must acquire a sense of
what people are talking about as a representative to understand the essence of
social and political questions.

The so-called Gay Liberation Movement - which was not a social movement, was
always reactionary and today is indisputable reactionary. This is not because
of consenting adults entering into sexual relations of their choice. Produce
the current literatiure of the Gay Liberation Movement and examine its content.

Different strokes for different folks.

My example on benefit rights was meant to inform one of the political
dynamics of politics.

All the rights I have as proletariat are those won in class combat with
bourgeois property. The issue was never consenting sex between adults and to
present it as such is sinning against reality.

Here is a simple question. Why were homosexual partners granted benefits
rights in major union and non union companies not granted to heterosexual couples?
Why?

The issue is politics and the reason this is called the "wedge issue."

No one can put their penis where it feels good. This is a horrible
formulation.

Melvin P.

Re: the Dems are better for Capital?

[Max B. Sawicky]

I did a similar piece on my website but in reference to
investment spending.  Includes a colorful chart.

http://maxspeak.org/gm/archives/1569.html

mbs

-Original Message-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Devine,
James
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: the Dems are better for Capital?


[see comment at end.]

November 20, 2003/New York TIMES.

Which Party in the White House Means Good Times for Investors?
By HAL R. VARIAN

DOES the stock market do better when a Republican is president or when a
Democrat is?

The answer is: It's not even close. The stock market does far better
under Democrats.

This perhaps surprising finding is examined by two finance professors at
the University of California at Los Angeles, Pedro Santa-Clara and
Rossen Valkanov, in an article titled "Political Cycles and the Stock
Market," published in the October issue of The Journal of Finance.

Professors Santa-Clara and Valkanov look at the excess market return -
the difference between a broad index of stock prices (similar to the
Standard & Poor's 500-stock index) and the three-month Treasury bill
rate - between 1927 and 1998. The excess return measures how attractive
stock investments are compared with completely safe investments like
short-term T-bills.

Using this measure, they find that during those 72 years the stock
market returned about 11 percent more a year under Democratic presidents
and 2 percent more under Republicans - a striking difference.

This nine-percentage-point excess can be broken down further into an
average 5.3 percent higher real return for the stock market and a 3.7
percent lower return for Treasury bills under Democratic
administrations.

This finding raises three other questions. First, is this just some data
anomaly resulting from selective choice of sample or quirks of the
analysis?

Second, if the effect is real, why don't investors take advantage of the
predictable higher returns and buy stocks before elections that
Democrats are likely to win, in that way pushing stock prices up and
lowering returns? The third, and perhaps the most provocative, question:
What is the economic rationale for the difference in returns?

Most Democratic administrations clearly had higher-than-average excess
returns, with Franklin D. Roosevelt's second term (1937-41) being the
only significant exception. Republicans have been associated with
lower-than-average returns, with the only significant exception being
Dwight D. Eisenhower's first term (1953-57).

The difference in returns persists even if one looks at subsamples. For
example, if you break the sample in two at 1963, the Republicans still
come out with lower returns in both periods.

What would cause such a large difference? One possibility is that Wall
Street investors expect the Democrats to be bad for the market and sell
their stocks before elections that the Democratic candidate is likely to
win. Then, when the Democrats do not prove as bad as expected, stock
prices rise again.

The authors, though, find that the data do not support this theory -
stock prices generally do not tend to decline before elections that
Democrats win.

But this finding itself raises another puzzle. If returns are so much
higher for Democratic presidents than Republican ones, shouldn't we see
investors rushing to the market when a Democratic victory looks likely?

We don't see that happen, either. "In sum,'' the authors write, "the
market seems to react very little, if at all, to presidential election
news."

Here's another theory. Economic policies under Democratic
administrations may tend to be more volatile than those under
Republicans - so investors demand higher returns to compensate them for
the extra risk. A clever idea, but it is also contradicted by the
evidence. If anything, the volatility of stock market returns is
slightly higher under Republicans than under Democrats.

One interesting finding is that although both large and small companies
do better under Democratic administrations, small companies do
especially well, while larger ones do only a little better. The return
on the smallest 10 percent of traded companies is 21 percent higher
during Democratic administrations, while the return on the largest 10
percent is only 7.7 percent greater. What accounts for this difference?

We don't know.

Of course, there is always the possibility of a spurious correlation. As
econometricians say, "If you torture the data hard enough, it will
confess to anything." People have been looking for economic predictors
of stock market behavior for decades, so it's not surprising that every
now and then we find some correlations.

Still, presidents like to think - or at least claim - that they
influence economic activity. So a finding that the party occupying the
White House has an impact on stock market performance should mean
something.

With respect to the questions asked above, Professors Santa-Clara and
Valkanov can 

Re: the next wedge issue

[Louis Proyect]

Why is homosexuality a "Wedge issue?"

Here is a simply question that requires thinking. Bigotry is not the
answer.
Melvin P.
I don't think that Carrol was referring to serious differences of
opinion. He was referring to stupid "shock jock" remarks that you made
that embarrass you and that get in the way of you being taken seriously.
Like: "I swear, if the girls do not clean up my stove I am going to kick
their asses."
Or: "Personally, I abhor homosexuality and feel no compulsion whatsoever
to explain why I think a man penis should be place in a women and not
another man. I am not required to explain my ideology."
If you said these things at a meeting of a revolutionary party, you'd be
brought up on charges. And if you weren't, the party was revolutionary
in name only.
--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: the next wedge issue

[Waistline2]

In a message dated 11/20/03 8:58:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've filtered Melvin into trash for so long I'd forgotten that he was onthe list. The author of the stuff that You, Joanna, and others havequoted probably ought not to be allowed on a list that calls itselfleft.Editing is not censorship, and Melvin should be edited off the list.While he remains on, please don't quote him or waste bandwidth replyingto such garbage.Carrol
Why is homosexuality a "Wedge issue?" 
 
Here is a simply question that requires thinking. Bigotry is not the answer. 
 
 
Melvin P. 

The Nation Magazine and General Wesley Clark

[Louis Proyect]

Since it is entirely possible that their favorite candidate Howard Dean
might select this war criminal as his running mate, it appears necessary
to give him some kind of kosher stamp of approval. That task was
assigned to Frances Fitzgerald, a member of the editorial board, and
author of "Fire in the Lake", a book about the Vietnam war that was
highly regarded in the 1960s and which originally appeared in the New
Yorker magazine. As with so many other institutions from that period, it
has been subverted by a combination of big money and a reactionary
zeitgeist. The New Yorker today finds arguments to support the war in
Iraq and many other shitty things.
She reviews "Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American
Empire", a book in which Clark explains how the USA can retain its
hegemonic role.
(http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031208&s=fitzgerald) The problem
with Bush, you see, is not that he is a mass murderer but that his
reckless actions will backfire. In other words, the same worries that
were expressed by David Rieff in a NY Times Magazine article a couple of
weeks ago.
These are the concluding paragraphs:

>>In his final chapter, Clark attacks the Administration's conception
of American power and substitutes his own. Last April, he tells us,
there was talk in Washington of Iraq as the first stepping stone to a
new American empire. As the US armed forces marched on Baghdad, the
perception was that the US military had achieved such a degree of
superiority over all its rivals that Bush might fulfill his vision of
liberating Iraq and transforming the whole of the Middle East under a
Pax Americana. But the truth was that the US Army, the only force
available, was not suited to this quasi-imperial vision: It was built
for warfighting; it lacked staying power abroad and it lacked
nation-building skills. Further, the American public had little taste
for empire, and the international community had turned against the war.
As it is, Clark writes, the Army has become dangerously overstretched,
and US foreign policy dangerously dependent upon it. Clark sees the
aggressive unilateralism of the Bush Administration as having roots that
go back to the reaction to the cultural revolutions of the 1960s
and to the withdrawal from Vietnam and the other foreign policy reverses
of the 1970s. After 9/11 Bush tapped into this frustration, reinforced,
as it was, with real fear and determination.
Perhaps this should not have surprised us. "Transforming frustration at
home into action abroad has emerged as a pattern in democracies under
stress," Clark observes. "It...happened in ancient Rome, in the
Netherlands and in Britain. And like most distractions, it provided
false reassurance and was followed by damaging consequences." In Clark's
view, American power resides to a large degree in the "virtual empire"
the United States constructed after World War II: that is, among other
things, its network of economic and security arrangements, the leverage
it had in international institutions and treaty regimes, plus the shared
values and reservoir of trust, or "soft power," that permitted past
Presidents to lead by persuasion. Clark's forceful book warns that the
Bush Administration is undermining this virtual empire and at the same
time imperiling the "hard power" Bush counts upon, the power of
America's economy and armed forces.<<
Long live the virtual empire under the wise and mature leadership of the
Democratic Party.




--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

The Marxism of William "Bill" Brenner?

[Louis Proyect]

(A fascinating article from a Lebanese newspaper. I especially 
appreciated the take on Marxism that is not related to the 3rd world 
which it blames on William "Bill" Brenner. I believe that the author was 
confusing Bill Warren with Robert Brenner, an entirely understandable 
error.)

The Spread Of Marxism
Hazem Saghieh Al-Hayat 2003/11/7
http://english.daralhayat.com/
The French magazine "Nouvel Observateur" issued a supplement on the 
"return" of Marxism, with Karl Marx on the cover. The British "Prospect 
Magazine" and "The Observer" had published many articles on the same 
subject.

What is happening? Is there a ghost named Karl Marx haunting Europe? 
Similar to Communism that haunted it 155 years ago? Does the saying: 
"Stalin cannot be criticized without criticizing Lenin," stops here? and 
does not succeed the first Bolshevik?

Yes and no, and they are relatively permanent yes and no.

First, the expected version is Marxism without Leninism. This is what 
the Trotskyite "Communist League" declared a few days ago in France. 
Meaning: Socialism free of theories related to "democratic centralism," 
the party, the dictatorship of the proletariat and gaining power through 
violence.

Second, it is Marxism of social science, or Marxism as a social science. 
Why not? The great heritage from Marx to Lefever, Habermass and 
Benjamin… is as good to explain the phenomena of modern sociology as the 
heritage of Max Webber and Emile Durkheim.

Third, it concerns Europe and not the U.S. The former wants to clean 
Marxism from Soviet Totalitarianism. It wants to readopt it as a package 
of ideas for the safe world of "Venus" with a higher degree of social 
justice. This approach might help in exerting pressure on Europe's 
crumbling democratic socialism without repeating some old dogmas about 
"absolute impoverishment."

However, they are ideas that would make the old continent more different 
from the new continent. In other words, Marxism today is one of the ways 
according to which Europe becomes European.

Fourth, it is Marxism that is not closely related to the Third World. It 
sympathizes with it at the human level. It fights racism against its 
peoples and citizens. Yet, it is not tightly related to the theories of 
Samir Amin and Gunder Frank on the development of under-development and 
backwardness brought about by dependence. It is closer to the theory of 
William (Bill) Brenner who kept on asserting that capitalism causes 
development unless nationalism or religion prevents it from doing so. It 
will, most probably, be a package of ideas for the usage of 
post-workers, not the pre-peasants.

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Emrah Goker on Istanbul bombings

[Louis Proyect]

My home is in Ankara, but I just talked to a friend on the phone, and
learned that a mutual close friend was wounded in the HSBC bombing.
Luckily, only slight cuts of broken glass. Small relief amidst a
horrific disaster. I can tell from some of the message trafficking on
Turkish e-forums that Istanbul is very nervous, to say the least.
Another fresh observation might be that most people won't be buying the
usual "national security" bullshit: The causal link to the US
destabilization efforts is clear in many people's heads. So it may not
be easy to frame this as "Turkey's 9/11" for the powers that be.
Still, the dogs of antiterrorism might again be unleashed, considering
that most of the Army's terrorist networks lay dormant since the end of
the civil war with PKK. I wouldn't speculate at this moment on how the
government would want to respond. The AKP is a pragmatist party (perhaps
the "best" since 1987), they may not want to use the November bombings
as Turkey's "9/11" and go along with increased militarization. The
government gained at least some ground against the Army's power over
politics, they may not want to give up that ground. Yet there will be a
lot of pressure from both civilian and military wings of Turkish
militarist-secularist groups.
I never would exaggerate the Army's surveillance/intelligence powers,
but I was quite shocked by the cluelessness of the intelligence
community. It is well-known that the Army financed some fractions of the
Turkish Hezbollah and IBDA/C (Islamist Great Eastern Raiders/Front, this
latter terrorist group claimed responsibility for November bombings)
against PKK in the 80s and 90s, but since 1997, they have eradicated
almost all of the cells they helped organize. So, the Army should have
enormous amount of intelligence about radical Islamist activities in
Turkey, and their surveillance efforts have intensified after 2001. How
Al Qaida pulled out these attacks, using obviously a lot of Turkish
contacts, is a big mystery.
emrah

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: The text of Bush's speech at Whitehall Palace

[Devine, James]

could someone remind me what the content of
>marcuse's critique of abstract 'pure
tolerance' as 'repressive' < was?
Jim

Re: The text of Bush's speech at Whitehall Palace

[Carrol Cox]

Michael Hoover wrote:
>
>
>
> bush's attitude re. protests seems to be attempt to disempower
> them, he said same thing the other day that he said in australia a few
> weeks back: 'i love protests, people are free to protest in this
> society, iraqi's couldn't protest a year ago, north koreans can't
> protest, blah, blah, blah'

Several years before I became active in politics I recognized this dodge
reading some newspaper article which quoted one of the Kennedys re
protests against nuclear testing. They didn't take form letters or
petitions seriously either John or Bob said. And even in my (still at
that time) pro-kennedy days I recognized that as a pile of shit. A form
letter or a petition indicates that people are talking to each other. A
"personal" letter only reflects the urge for self-expression by some
isolated freak.

I suspect Bush is lying when he pretends to disregard protests. But he
will affect some people who are on the margin of becoming active. And so
Michael's next comment is on target.

>
> reminds of oh-so-unfashionable marcuse and critique of abstract 'pure
> tolerance' as 'repressive' in that it concretely protects established
> machinery...   michael hoover

Carrol

Re: The text of Bush's speech at Whitehall Palace

[Michael Hoover]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/19/03 10:47PM >>>
The NZH reports: "Police were out in force in the evening to ensure
activists did not breach a cordon in front of the palace, where Bush
and his
wife were to spend their second of three nights. Airline worker Dawn
Totten,
50, said she had flown from her home in the United States to join the
scattered protests. "I came all the way from San Francisco because
demonstrations go unrecognised and unreported there," she said. Her
message
for Bush? "I'd like to tell him to stay here."
Jurriaan
<<<>>>

bush's attitude re. protests seems to be attempt to disempower
them, he said same thing the other day that he said in australia a few
weeks back: 'i love protests, people are free to protest in this
society, iraqi's couldn't protest a year ago, north koreans can't
protest, blah, blah, blah'

reminds of oh-so-unfashionable marcuse and critique of abstract 'pure
tolerance' as 'repressive' in that it concretely protects established
machinery...   michael hoover

the Dems are better for Capital?

[Devine, James]

[see comment at end.]

November 20, 2003/New York TIMES.

Which Party in the White House Means Good Times for Investors?
By HAL R. VARIAN

DOES the stock market do better when a Republican is president or when a
Democrat is?

The answer is: It's not even close. The stock market does far better
under Democrats. 

This perhaps surprising finding is examined by two finance professors at
the University of California at Los Angeles, Pedro Santa-Clara and
Rossen Valkanov, in an article titled "Political Cycles and the Stock
Market," published in the October issue of The Journal of Finance.

Professors Santa-Clara and Valkanov look at the excess market return -
the difference between a broad index of stock prices (similar to the
Standard & Poor's 500-stock index) and the three-month Treasury bill
rate - between 1927 and 1998. The excess return measures how attractive
stock investments are compared with completely safe investments like
short-term T-bills.

Using this measure, they find that during those 72 years the stock
market returned about 11 percent more a year under Democratic presidents
and 2 percent more under Republicans - a striking difference.

This nine-percentage-point excess can be broken down further into an
average 5.3 percent higher real return for the stock market and a 3.7
percent lower return for Treasury bills under Democratic
administrations.

This finding raises three other questions. First, is this just some data
anomaly resulting from selective choice of sample or quirks of the
analysis?

Second, if the effect is real, why don't investors take advantage of the
predictable higher returns and buy stocks before elections that
Democrats are likely to win, in that way pushing stock prices up and
lowering returns? The third, and perhaps the most provocative, question:
What is the economic rationale for the difference in returns?

Most Democratic administrations clearly had higher-than-average excess
returns, with Franklin D. Roosevelt's second term (1937-41) being the
only significant exception. Republicans have been associated with
lower-than-average returns, with the only significant exception being
Dwight D. Eisenhower's first term (1953-57). 

The difference in returns persists even if one looks at subsamples. For
example, if you break the sample in two at 1963, the Republicans still
come out with lower returns in both periods.

What would cause such a large difference? One possibility is that Wall
Street investors expect the Democrats to be bad for the market and sell
their stocks before elections that the Democratic candidate is likely to
win. Then, when the Democrats do not prove as bad as expected, stock
prices rise again.

The authors, though, find that the data do not support this theory -
stock prices generally do not tend to decline before elections that
Democrats win.

But this finding itself raises another puzzle. If returns are so much
higher for Democratic presidents than Republican ones, shouldn't we see
investors rushing to the market when a Democratic victory looks likely?

We don't see that happen, either. "In sum,'' the authors write, "the
market seems to react very little, if at all, to presidential election
news."

Here's another theory. Economic policies under Democratic
administrations may tend to be more volatile than those under
Republicans - so investors demand higher returns to compensate them for
the extra risk. A clever idea, but it is also contradicted by the
evidence. If anything, the volatility of stock market returns is
slightly higher under Republicans than under Democrats.

One interesting finding is that although both large and small companies
do better under Democratic administrations, small companies do
especially well, while larger ones do only a little better. The return
on the smallest 10 percent of traded companies is 21 percent higher
during Democratic administrations, while the return on the largest 10
percent is only 7.7 percent greater. What accounts for this difference?

We don't know.

Of course, there is always the possibility of a spurious correlation. As
econometricians say, "If you torture the data hard enough, it will
confess to anything." People have been looking for economic predictors
of stock market behavior for decades, so it's not surprising that every
now and then we find some correlations.

Still, presidents like to think - or at least claim - that they
influence economic activity. So a finding that the party occupying the
White House has an impact on stock market performance should mean
something.

With respect to the questions asked above, Professors Santa-Clara and
Valkanov can give a firm answer only to the first: Stock market excess
returns have definitely been higher under Democrats than under
Republicans.

They also show that some tempting possible answers to the question of
why investors don't take advantage of this difference do not work.

They do not try to answer the last question, but they conjecture that
the fiscal and r

Re: Subject: Re: Re: value and gender

[joanna bujes]

The relationship between nutrition and health is not a middle class or
bourgeois prejudice. It is a fact.
Joanna


I don't know if that is good or bad, but anyway it is not true and more a
middleclass or bourgeois prejudice.
Seth Sandronsky

Re: the next wedge issue

[Carrol Cox]

ravi wrote:
>
> joanna bujes wrote:
> > Melvin wrote:
> >

> joanna, i commend you on your rational and measured response. i am not
> sure melvin deserves such consideration.

I've filtered Melvin into trash for so long I'd forgotten that he was on
the list. The author of the stuff that You, Joanna, and others have
quoted probably ought not to be allowed on a list that calls itself
left.

Editing is not censorship, and Melvin should be edited off the list.

While he remains on, please don't quote him or waste bandwidth replying
to such garbage.

Carrol

Re: the next wedge issue

[ravi]

joanna bujes wrote:
> Melvin wrote:
>
>>Personally, I abhor homosexuality and feel no compulsion whatsoever to
>>explain why I think a man penis should be place in a women and not another man. I am
>>not required to explain my ideology.
>
> Actually, there is no such thing as "a man's penis," right? I mean
> there's your penis, which you have the right to decide where to place.
> And then there's other men and their penises, and I guess the question
> is, do you feel that they have the same right as you -- to put it where
> it feels best?
>
> 
>

joanna, i commend you on your rational and measured response. i am not
sure melvin deserves such consideration.


>
>>The fight for homosexual rights - rights based on same sex between the same
>>sex, has never been a "progressive issue."
>
> Well, historically, it has been insomuch as it is also a right to
> privacy - a right to leave the state out of your bedroom.
>

how does history matter in this sense (i.e., when it is used to justify
the present)? and who gets to define what is a 'progressive issue' w/o
aid of appeal to the bigotry of the left past?

--ravi

Re: Re: value and gender

[Seth Sandronsky]

Joanna and Jurriaan,

Hello.  Low-priced food lets bosses pay low wages to workers.  The price,
not taste, of this crappy food is what makes it central to relations between
capitalists and the rest of us.
Regards,
Seth Sandronsky
Date:Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:30:28 +0100
From:Jurriaan Bendien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: value and gender
Hi Joanna,

(clip)

Cheaper food is not necessarily better food. I read this anecdote once
about a doctor who, when making housecalls, always went and shook the
cook's hand first for giving him good business. If you eat crap, you'll
save on food costs (maybe) but possibly see the doctor more often than
those who eat healthily.
I don't know if that is good or bad, but anyway it is not true and more a
middleclass or bourgeois prejudice.
Seth Sandronsky

_
Need a shot of Hank Williams or Patsy Cline?  The classic country stars are
always singing on MSN Radio Plus.  Try one month free!
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio

Re: The text of Bush's speech at Whitehall Palace

[Jurriaan Bendien]

Well it's really more your type of thing (the Washington Post has quite a
good micro-story: "despite all the elaborate rituals and customs the
president had to observe, the palace made certain accommodations to suit his
tastes. The orchestra played "King Cotton," a Sousa march, and "My Heart
Will Go On," the theme song from the movie "Titanic." And, just before the
guests arrived, the palace butlers placed bottles of Coca-Cola alongside
decanters of the queen's port. Despite all the elaborate rituals and customs
the president had to observe, the palace made certain accommodations to suit
his tastes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63581-2003Nov19.html ).

Just to explain, the reason why I posted on Blair and Bush is because, when
under pressure to tell some true story about the significance and motive of
the war in Iraq, and not a lumpen-bourgeois falsification, they clearly and
simply articulate the imperatives and themes of bourgeois imperialist
policy: (1) the need to enter into negotiations with competitors and keep
the lines open, (2) the need for violence to destroy resistance to
imperialist policy, and (3) the need to create political consent for
imperialist policy.

The basic problem with "globalisation" babble is that it disorients the
working class, and it disorients progressive political opinion, it is a
political disaster for the Left, as I have warned a long time ago, for many,
many reasons. If you concede to globalisation rhetoric, you have already
lost. Once there's a clear focus on imperialism, and the globalisation
babble is left behind, then socialist politics can again orient itself in
international affairs. An academic like Panitch could of course elaborate
the "meaning of imperialism", but you could also just read the daily
newspaper, and when you do that, you discover how totally stupid the
globalisation theorists really are, and how stupid Leftists inspired by Marx
are, to give them any intellectual credit. The reality is that bourgeois
social theory is incredibly weak, but instead of smashing those ideological
myths, Leftists adapt to the weakness, and ingratiate themselves with those
ideological myths.

"Globalisation" is supposed to be progressive, but it is in reality merely a
way of stating as a general principle that the international expansion of
the capitalist market and free trade is progressive, while in reality that
expansion occurs on the basis of imperialism, on the basis of
empire-building and competition. The concept of globalisation is an
ideological hot-air concept, which falsifies what really happens in the
world, and what the real result is, and if you have any knowledge of five
centuries of history of bourgeois development and the modalities of
primitive accumulation, then you know that seemingly "benign" business
development goes together with mass murder, racism and exploitation, except
that, in the mind of the imperialist bourgeois, these things somehow have
nothing to do with each other, and consequently, ordinary people should not
be made to think about it that way, either. And that is precisely what Bush
and Blair are saying, and I do not need to either read or write a learned
treatise on imperialism in order just to point that out (the Left doesn't
really want theory anyhow, it interferes with their lives, you know, sex,
power, money, consumption etc.).

Why do you think the bourgeoisie is so very keen to wipe out any discussion
about imperialism, while prattling about democracy, liberation and freedom ?
Because they consider the concept of imperialism "divisive" or
"controversial" for policy, and of course any divisions which don't
correspond to your own norms, are "divisive", just as anybody that doesn't
agree with you is "undemocratic", and anybody who has a different concept of
freedom from you is "totalitarian". We are not talking about a private
tete-a-tete here or an academic discussion, but a question of the assertion
of class power, and so the only bourgeois theorists who are allowed to
operate the concept of imperialism are those who prove its progressive
content.

According to Julius Ceasar in the Bello Gallico, the point of departure was
that Gaul consisted of three parts. "All Gaul is divided into three parts",
he says, "one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who
in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these
differ from each other in language, customs and laws." If therefore, you
were to say that this was a false idea, that there were more parts, then
Ceasar would have said you were being divisive, obstructive, irrational,
introducing irrelevancies and so on. Because he had already decided on those
three parts, basta. Understood ?

Jurriaan

Childcare... (Important note)

[Grant Lee]

I would like to request that any responses to my last post do NOT use the
same title as that post.

Regards,

Grant.

Scrooges take over child-care industry

[Grant Lee]

Millions milked

The Age, November 17, 2003

Claims of mismanagement threaten the rapidly expanding child-care industry,
writes James Kirby.

Australia's child-care boom is turning ugly. Behind the painted smiles and
cuddly brand names, this $3 billion service industry is at war with itself.
A BRW investigation reveals that big profits are drawing free-wheeling
entrepreneurs into the industry. But bitter industrial disputes and claims
of miserable operating conditions are creating a potent mix that will change
the business comprehensively. Child-care tycoon Eddie Groves, of ABC
Learning Centres, has begun an unprecedented defamation action against the
biggest union in child care, the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and
Miscellaneous Workers Union (LHMU), and the sector is still reeling from a
dispute in Western Australia, where police were called to intervene in a
protest by child-care workers.

With profit margins of up to 50% and $1.6 billion of taxpayers' money
flowing into the sector each year, everyone wants a piece of the child-care
action. Diamond miners, dot-com pioneers and real estate agents are getting
on board. But the average worker is paid about $10 an hour and there are few
regulations governing who can start a child-care business.

On the stockmarket, the two biggest companies in the sector - ABC Learning
Centres and Peppercorn Management Group - are recording performance figures
that are the envy of the market. ABC reported a 75% increase in profit to
$12 million this year. Peppercorn's maiden profit of $3 million was 81%
above prospectus forecasts. But the high multiples for these stocks -
Peppercorn is on a price/earnings multiple of 51 times - means the pressure
to grow earnings is intense.

Moreover, the industry is getting bigger than anybody might have expected
when ABC Learning Centres listed on the stockmarket two-and-a-half years
ago. ABC Learning Centres has 240 centres and Eddie Groves believes he may
have 700 within 10 years. At the 261-centre Peppercorn Management Group,
managing director Michael Gordon says: "There's nothing stopping us having
1000 centres." Because there are 50 children on average at each centre,
Gordon's forecast could represent 50,000 children under the care of one
company.

There are few barriers to entry and expenses are low, so the child-care
industry is a licence to make money. A Gold Coast real estate agent and
"child-care specialist", Bryan Hayden, says: "I've got a client and he's got
20 bottle shops, 10 hotels and three child-care centres. I say to him, 'I'm
77 and the child-care business is the best business I've ever seen in my
life.' The Government pays subsidies, the parents pay you two weeks in
advance and property prices keep going up."

* * * *

Tough calls
Allegations of leaking toilets, broken doors and missing child locks - the
crumbling assets of Perth's Gateway Centre managed by the Peppercorn
Management Group signal bigger problems ahead for the privatised industry.
In a draft agenda prepared by the LHMU for a meeting on November 5 with
senior Peppercorn management, matters of concern to the union at the Gateway
Centre included:
*Children travelling on unregistered buses.
*No medicine forms or accident forms at the centre.
*Insufficient furniture.
*Broken doors.
*No shade and no sunscreen.
*Leaking toilets and taps.
Issues raised by the union at other WA Peppercorn centres, including the
Alexander Heights centre in Perth, included:
*Staff being underpaid.
*Centres understaffed.
*Doors missing.
*Dangerous playground equipment.
*Not enough "bedding, chairs, shade and bins".

* * * *

In March this year, an IBISWorld report on the child-care industry estimated
that there were 82,000 employees in the child-care industry, making it one
of the 10 biggest employers in Australia. The report said 720,000 children
now attended some form of child-care service. The report warned: "There are
concerns that large for-profit operators will be more likely [than
non-profit centres] to cut costs to an absolute minimum."

Accusations of intense cost-cutting by the bigger operators do not come only
from unions or analysts. In Melbourne, Carl Fitchett, the owner of a private
day-care centre, Green Cottage, in Seaford, says: "There are new people in
this industry making profits in a new way. They just stick to the absolute
minimum regulations and cut expenses to the bone. I get former staff from
these big operators coming over all the time saying they won't work under
such conditions."

The flamboyant Eddie Groves and his ABC Learning Centres group (which has a
market capitalisation of $391 million) have avoided public criticism over
substandard facilities. "I couldn't sleep at night if one my centres was not
up to scratch," Groves says. "I've got three teams of renovators flying
round the country out of Brisbane and their job is to keep our centres up to
standard. We just did a centre in Melbourne, you should see it, I tell you,
it's like the Taj Mahal."

Ca

Re: The text of Bush's speech at Whitehall Palace

[joanna bujes]

I don't actually know if I can make myself read it, but thank you for
sending it. I guess it will tell me what the current voodoo words are,
and perhaps I will be able to tell whether they have a real plan or a
just another spin.
Joanna

Jurriaan Bendien wrote:

The NZH reports: "Police were out in force in the evening to ensure
activists did not breach a cordon in front of the palace, where Bush and his
wife were to spend their second of three nights. Airline worker Dawn Totten,
50, said she had flown from her home in the United States to join the
scattered protests. "I came all the way from San Francisco because
demonstrations go unrecognised and unreported there," she said. Her message
for Bush? "I'd like to tell him to stay here."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3535167&thesection=news&t
hesubsection=world
Entire text of Bush's speech:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3535168&thesection=news&t
hesubsection=world&reportid=562588
Jurriaan

Re: the next wedge issue

[joanna bujes]

Melvin wrote:

Personally, I abhor homosexuality and feel no compulsion whatsoever to
explain why I think a man penis should be place in a women and not another man. I am
not required to explain my ideology.
Actually, there is no such thing as "a man's penis," right? I mean
there's your penis, which you have the right to decide where to place.
And then there's other men and their penises, and I guess the question
is, do you feel that they have the same right as you -- to put it where
it feels best?
I abhor the idea of homosexual couples being granted medical benefits as
homosexual couples when male and female couples with children are denied the same
benefits. As a union representative I voted against this and voted in favor of
all couples being granted company benefits.
I think you're absolutely right in sticking up for all non-married
couples to have health benefits. In fact, health care should just be one
of the benefits taking part in any society.. The question is, would you
expressly forbid homosexuals to be given mendical aid, when that aid was
available to everyone else?
The fight for homosexual rights - rights based on same sex between the same
sex, has never been a "progressive issue."
Well, historically, it has been insomuch as it is also a right to
privacy - a right to leave the state out of your bedroom.
Joanna