Re: Query
to be honest the only way to get an answer to this sort of thing is to track down the bloke at the statistics agency who maintains the series and get him to take you through it line by line. Most of them are quite pleased that somebody took an interest. dd On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 10:07:12 -0500, dmschanoes wrote: I realize that my submissions generally don't measure up to the quality standards of the list and for that reason deserve to be ignored, but perhaps those in need of a little pro bono work might offer some enlightenment on the following perplexing matter. The Economic Research Service of the USDA produces an abundance of data on the condition of US agricultural production. I find particularly interesting that table on capital stock 1948-1999 which shows an approximate 50% increase in capital stock for the entire period, yet a real, and dramatic decline of some 33% between 1983 and 1999. Now this makes sense to me, given the overweighted portion of production value contributed by farms with sales greater than $1,000,000-- the ability of concentrated capital stock to be be smaller in volume, but denser in output and to absorb greater amounts of manufactured and farm based inputs. However, when looking at the DofC BEA NEA tables for investment in and net stock valuation of non-residential, private fixed investments for farms, such valuations show no decline but an increase for the 1983-1999 period. I'm having some difficulty reconciling the two, or even finding the paths of divergence. Has somebody encountered the same issue and perhaps found an explanation? Note to Sabri: The guy who knows what heteroskadastic (sp?) means doesn't understand obfuscation? That's precious.
Re: On the concept of Shemano's interlocks
Note to Sabri: The guy who knows what heteroskadastic (sp?) means doesn't understand obfuscation? That's precious. Well DMS (What is your name by the way?) Certain things that you take for granted need not be so obvious to everybody else. The meaning of the word heteroskedastik is quite obvious, indeed, trivial to me but obviously you don't know what it means. Why cannot I suffer from a similar problem? Do you have any idea about what the Arabic word sabri means, for example? Or, the Turkish word oncu means? Best, Sabri Oncu
Title correction
My previous post went to the list with a wrong title, because I just hit the reply button to an old message to save myself from typing the list address. By the way, I hate to fight with people on the net and I apologize for furthering this stupid debate in a public domain. Best, Sabri
Re: bibliographic request
--- Steve Cohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Folks, I'd like to get suggestions for readings he could do for a term paper assignment that asks for a Marxist analysis of some topic (which in his case might be a Marxist analysis of the auto industry). Any ideas? You can respond on list or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Steve Try # The life of the automobile(R: Ilya Ehrenberg/ Pluto Press) First published seventy years ago, The Life of the Automobile is the novel of the consumer dream. Flamboyant characters like Henry Ford, J. P. Morgan and André Citroën move in and out of its pages and so, too, do the unhappy victims of the first crash and the first strikes in the car plants. Written at a time when confidence in science was supreme, The Life of the Automobile uncannily predicts the rise and fall of our romance with the car: it is as relevant now as when it was first published. 'This book is not a novel; it is a chronicle of our time' Ilya Ehrenburg 'A Futurist-Expressionist masterpiece, superbly translated' Sunday Times On the morning he was to be executed, after making a statement recanting his earlier confession, Isaac Babel pleaded with his killers to let him finish his work. That same evening Stalin called Ilya Ehrenberg and asked him if Babel was a great writer. Ehrenberg responded that he was. Zharke (pity), said Stalin. = The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart. former I.W.W. member, Helen Keller http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
IS MODERN DAY CAPITALISM AT FAULT?
Don't Miss this special event! ALL OVER THE WORLD PEOPLE ARE SAYING WE CAN DO BETTER - ANOTHER WORLD IS POSSIBLE GLOBALIZATION HAS MADE AMERICA AND THE WORLD WORSE NOT BETTER AS IT PROMISED IS MODERN DAY CAPITALISM AT FAULT? ARE THERE PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVES TO CAPITALISM? WHAT ARE THEY? WHAT DO THEY LOOK LIKE? Detroit Democratic Socialists of America Invite you and your friends to hear: Pat Fry, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism David Schweikart, Author, After Capitalism, Professor, Loyola University Frank Thompson, Professor, University of Michigan Sam Webb, Chairperson, Communist Party USA Sunday, April 18, 2:30 PM Workmen's Circle Center 26341 Coolidge, Oak Park (SW Corner of Coolidge and Talbot. Three blocks south of 11 Mile Rd.) Admission: $3.00 Light Refreshments
Re: From Your Friends at Dissent
http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/commentary/06_zinn.html COMMENTARY Accessing history: The importance of Howard Zinn March 29, 2004 Dale McCartney On Thursday the 25 th of March, the first of the 4-day annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians, Howard Zinn was honoured with an evening spot as a plenary speaker. He spoke on The Uses of History, clearly a topic that he is uniquely positioned to discuss. There is an irony in a professional association of historians inviting a speaker who has spent a significant portion of his career hectoring other professional historians for their failure to engage with politics in any meaningful manner. Regardless of the irony, the topic is a perfect choice for such a speaker. Not only has Zinn established himself as a legend because of his activism among historians, he is the author of the bible of radical American history A People's History of the United States . A People's History has occasioned considerable comment ever since its publication in 1980, and with his appearance in Boston this weekend, a new collection of critiques has appeared. The most prominent of these recent reviews was published in the online winter 2004 edition of Dissent magazine (www.dissentmagazine.org). Michael Kazin, himself a prominent labour historian, lashes out at Zinn and his masterwork, deriding it as bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions. Kazin reads Zinn's work as better suited to a conspiracy-monger's website than a work of scholarship. His complaints come fast and furious, but they seem to boil down to one complaint formulated in two different ways. Kazin finds Zinn's work reductionist that is, he complains that Zinn oversimplifies American history both politically and historically. A People's History , in Kazin's view, is a painful narrative about ordinary folks who keep struggling to achieve equality, democracy and a tolerant society, yet somehow are always defeated by a tiny band of rulers whose wiles match their greed. For Kazin, this sort of narrative fails to account for the historical uniqueness of figures like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, and doesn't do justice to the differing motivations of activists and rebels of the past. Kazin's head-shaking goes so far that he laments the book's enormous sales, suggesting that it has contributed to keeping the left just where it is: on the margins of American political life. Kazin's review itself oversimplifies the issue, as a careful reading of Zinn's work reveals that he offers a considerably nuanced vision of his subjects. Importantly, and this is the reason for Zinn's success, his subjects are the ordinary folks, and not the Washingtons and Jeffersons of American history. Zinn's work is not academic history, although Zinn clearly has the breadth of knowledge only possible through a life of study. Instead, the book is a chronicle of ordinary folks, for ordinary folks. Kazin is right to suggest that Zinn has written a political document, as well as an historical one where he's wrong is in assuming that these are not compatible. Kazin calls the book a polemic, and it's an accurate description. Zinn is not neglecting a more objective perspective on American history; he's rejecting it in favor of an openly political stance that reclaims the history of oppressed peoples, regardless of race or gender. His popularity is testament to both the appeal of such a reading of American history, and the desperate thirst of working class people, people of colour, women and the many other victims of modern society's ravages for a history in which they are at the centre. I would go so far as to argue that not only has Kazin underestimated the importance of this role for Zinn's book, but that the academic tradition of objectivity (read: liberalism that favors white men) has played a key role in marginalizing oppressed peoples and derailing social movements. Zinn's work is an important corrective to this destructive tradition in historical writing. A recent anniversary serves as an excellent example of the power of popular, engaged history. This past week also featured the sixtieth anniversary of the Great Escape, as commemorated in the film of the same name. On March 24 th 1944, seventy-six airmen from the Commonwealth and the United States crawled through a tunnel that led past the walls of their prisoner of war camp, Stalag Luft 3, and burst into the German winter and freedom. Ultimately, the escape can only be characterized as a failure, as only three of the seventy-six actually escaped and fifty of the escape artists were secretly executed and abandoned in ditches by their vengeful German guards. Nonetheless, it stands as a small example of the enormous courage that combatants (and civilians) showed during the Second World War, millions of whom risked their lives regularly to fight against fascism or for the freedom of their nation. To
Decisive showdown
Todays Washington Post describes how nervous US authorities have provoked a showdown with the radical wing of the Shia movement led by Moqtada al-Sadr, which could decide the fate of the occupation. American officials had been hoping to contain and diminish al-Sadrs influence, while cultivating the Shia leaders who participate on the US-appointed Governing Council, which will nominally be handed political sovereignty in several months. But the Post reports Paul Bremer and his aides have become alarmed by the rapid growth in size and influence of the Mahdi Army, the Sadrist militia, and fear it will compete for power after the U.S. administration of Iraq ends... According to the Post, the US decided to test the groups resolve by closing down its newspaper and arresting one of its top leaders, Mustafa Yaqoubi, suspected in the murder of a rival cleric last year. The US gamble has triggered a widespread and violent response, and the occupation forces are now confronted by what the Post calls their greatest fear: an untenable two-front Sunni and Shia insurgency. Article available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: Decisive showdown
I've spent a decade or three pooh-poothing orthodox Leninist-Marxist visions of military-style inter-imperialist rivalry, i.e., a replay of WWI. Now, it's becoming possible that Iraq could do to the US what Afghanistan did to the USSR... so it might just happen some day soon. Of course, there are are other alternative futures... Jim Devine -Original Message- From: Marvin Gandall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 4/5/2004 6:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [PEN-L] Decisive showdown Todays Washington Post describes how nervous US authorities have provoked a showdown with the radical wing of the Shia movement led by Moqtada al-Sadr, which could decide the fate of the occupation. American officials had been hoping to contain and diminish al-Sadrs influence, while cultivating the Shia leaders who participate on the US-appointed Governing Council, which will nominally be handed political sovereignty in several months. But the Post reports Paul Bremer and his aides have become alarmed by the rapid growth in size and influence of the Mahdi Army, the Sadrist militia, and fear it will compete for power after the U.S. administration of Iraq ends... According to the Post, the US decided to test the groups resolve by closing down its newspaper and arresting one of its top leaders, Mustafa Yaqoubi, suspected in the murder of a rival cleric last year. The US gamble has triggered a widespread and violent response, and the occupation forces are now confronted by what the Post calls their greatest fear: an untenable two-front Sunni and Shia insurgency. Article available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: Decisive showdown
Devine, James wrote: I've spent a decade or three pooh-poothing orthodox Leninist-Marxist visions of military-style inter-imperialist rivalry, i.e., a replay of WWI. Now, it's becoming possible that Iraq could do to the US what Afghanistan did to the USSR... so it might just happen some day soon. Of course, there are are other alternative futures... Jim Devine There are a few missing steps between the situation in Iraq (no matter how disastrous for the U.S.) and any replay of WW1 -- namely the development of an imperialist power prepared (and _driven_) to confront the u.s. militarily. That _could_, I believe, happen, but the EU, Russia, China, China/Japan, all have quite a way to go before they could mount such a challenge believably. But with the U.S. riding a tiger in the mideast, which I would anticipate would stretch its military capacity to the limit and force retreat elsewhere, anything could happen (that is, anything bad: nothing good can come of the u.s. occupation of Iraq, whether it ends soon or later). Incidentally, the current new uprising shows once more that passive public opinion (as measured in polls, elections, etc.) is NOT the relevant opinion. The relevant opinion is that of the minority prepared to act. I've always estimated that at about 10-15 percent of the population -- and I think even the u.s. controlled polls in Iraq indicate that that number has always existed. In a few years, even those Iraqi who actively friendly to the u.s. and concerned above all with order will see that that cannot be achieved until after the unconditional withdrawal of the U.S. That will neutralize that sector of the population politically, and the internal struggle will be between different anti-u.s. factions. Currently, the best analogy perhaps to the U.S. occupation is the Japanese invasion of China. Carrol
Re: Decisive showdown
I wrote: I've spent a decade or three pooh-poothing orthodox Leninist-Marxist visions of military-style inter-imperialist rivalry, i.e., a replay of WWI. Now, it's becoming possible that Iraq could do to the US what Afghanistan did to the USSR... so it might just happen some day soon. Of course, there are are other alternative futures... CC answers: There are a few missing steps between the situation in Iraq (no matter how disastrous for the U.S.) and any replay of WW1 -- namely the development of an imperialist power prepared (and _driven_) to confront the u.s. militarily. That _could_, I believe, happen, but the EU, Russia, China, China/Japan, all have quite a way to go before they could mount such a challenge believably. I totally agree. It's just marginally possible that US imperial over-reach in Iraq (and Afghanistan) could break NATO and similar institutions, so that European military/diplomatic/etc. independence could bloom. It should be noted, however, that US companies' direct foreign investment in Europe and Europeans' DFI in the US knits the two areas together economically, discouraging this scenario. Part of my early-morning nightmare/dream is based on a reading of Ken McLeod's THE STAR FRACTION, a science-fiction novel which posits a war of European integration that encourages a constant state of war in this century... The sketchy scenario is possible (though probably not likely). Currently, the best analogy perhaps to the U.S. occupation is the Japanese invasion of China. Hmm... I'm still thinking in terms of a US elite trying to re-fight (and win) the Vietnam war on different terrain (because the politicians and the media wouldn't let 'us' win). But all analogies can be misleading. Jim Devine
Re: From Your Friends at Dissent
True. I drew from it in my text for exactly that reason. And in lieu of a book that combines accessibility and a subtle analysis, I'd assign it to students, who gravitate to its counter-narrative. I also recognize that the left sometimes has a tendency to shoot down its few successful interventions into popular culture. Nevertheless, even if few can do it, I really wish there was another book that more closely approximates the gold standard (`writing about economics at a popular level') that you laid out. Joel Blau Michael Perelman wrote: But it appeals to young people. It is very effective for students.I am negotiating with an agent now. She is insisting that I makeeverything "dumber" to make the work popular. To do so would requireopening me up to the kind of questions that Zinn is getting -- but it isan art form to be able to do that.Doug Henwood has been able to write about economics at a popular level.I have not. Nor have most of us.On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 11:39:13PM -0400, Joel Blau wrote: Although it's good to have the alternative narrative all in one place,Zinn's book is not very good history--neither subtle nor sophisticated.You can read it for a while, but then it begins to feel as if he issimply stringing together a series of tales about people fighting back.Ultimately, it seems more journalism than history--good for the storieshe tells, but in the end, rather unsatisfying.Joel Blauandie nachgeborenen wrote: "Chris Doss" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Zinn reducesthe past to a Manichean fable and makes no seriousattempt to address thebiggest question a leftist can ask about U.S.history: why have mostAmericans accepted the legitimacy of the capitalistrepublic in which theylive?"--What's so daunting about that question? Don't mostpeople accept the legitimacy of whatever socialsystem they are socialized in, provided it isstable? I'm also not sure that Z doesn't make an attempt toanswer this question. It's just that he had noparticularly startlingly new answers, just the usualones, right? Racism, ethnic division, repression andcooption of radical organizing, individualistideology, backwards labor laws, the lack of a laborparty and the historical attachment of the main partof the labor movement to the Democratic Party, etc.,first past the post winner-take-all elections, bigmoney in politics, etc. We all know know this stiff,it's just that it's not really obvious what to doabout it.Zinn talks about all this stuff. It is true that hismain task, as he takes it in the PHUS is todelegitimate official ideologies by attacking the ideathat American history is the the story of the shiningcity on the hill.I consider myself a patriot, and I even admire a lotof aspects of American elite history, but I'm notoff ended by Zinn's deflationary approach, and itmystifies my why many self-styled social democrats andliberals are. It's not at all in the same category asraving about fascist Amerikkka. Besides, far as I knowno one really questions Zinn's accuracy andscholarship except for an incidental detail here andthere, isn't that right?Sparking of which, let me put in a nother plug, forNew Yorkers and those living nearby, for the Broadwayproduction of Stephen Sondheim's Assassins, _now openand running,_ the only musical ever made about peoplewho have assasissinated or attempted to assassinatePresidents of the US. It's about the dark side of theAmerican dream. One chorus is called "The OtherNational Anthem." The good guy in show, the only onewho offers a trace of hope or an alternative todesperation, murder, or resignation, failure, andlies, is Emma Goldman. Sondheim's no Marxist oranarchist, but this show is very much in our ballpark. The music is beautiful and the songs are great.Check it out.jks---__Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveawayhttp://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ --Michael PerelmanEconomics DepartmentCalifornia State UniversityChico, CA 95929Tel. 530-898-5321E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: From Your Friends at Dissent
Michael Perelman wrote: Doug Henwood has been able to write about economics at a popular level. I have not. Nor have most of us. (the below has nothing to do with enhancing sales of books, for which, i am sure your agent's advice is probably way more relevant) i found steal this idea quite readable, as a layperson. the one unasked for piece of advice that i would give all of you technical authors is to not assume that the general audience understands and subscribes to the axioms or assumptions or models (of thought, analysis) of your field. also, IMHO, your reader's understanding of your book boils down to her/his ability to reduce your reasoning down to some basic convictions she/he holds. often these are political and moral convictions and admittedly are extremely difficult to contest/displace. but ignoring them altogether, results in limiting your readership to the converted (those that share your moral/political positions). i was recently reading peter singer's analysis of george w bush's positions on various moral issues, in his (singer's) new book. though some might disagree with his reasoning, (again IMHO) his style is comprehensive yet readable. --ravi
Re: From Your Friends at Dissent
In a message dated 4/5/2004 10:34:39 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am negotiating with an agent now. She is insisting that I makeeverything "dumber" to make the work popular. To do so would requireopening me up to the kind of questions that Zinn is getting -- but it isan art form to be able to do that.Doug Henwood has been able to write about economics at a popular level.I have not. Nor have most of us. Comment History happens and historians to one degree or another become propagandists of ideas that inspire. The Civil War in the American Union was a very traumatic event involving a multiplicity of factors, clash of individual wills, personality factors and sectional interest. How this story is told by the historian depends not simply on the individuals point of view but the audience he/she seeks to reach. The same applies to the scholars of economics. The art or skill in constructing the beauty of the story can be elusive as each generation shifts in its ideas of beauty. The people of the American Union are not passive actors who accept the "legitimacy" of the national, state and local governments as such. This of course implies a different vision of the history process. All of American history is marked by profound social struggle and upheaval as various regions of this hugecountry passed through a given stage of economic, political and social development. Without question our history is written on a parchment of genocide in blood ink. On the other hand we are talking about very real millions of peoples seeking to eke out a better life for themselves and their children within specific boundaries of possibilities. "Boundary of possibilities" becomes an arena of enormous strife for the individual author. American society is in continuous rebellion against itself as it exits at a given moment. From the factory worker who tells another worker "to take it easy, we are not trying to do all the work," to the professor that challenges a given orthodoxy to open the mind of his students to new possibilities, to the soft ware programmer that resists the corporate demand to simply and dumb down his work inpursuit of profits to the nurse that is scolded for spending "too much time" with patients, to the executive that "blows the whistle" on harmful corporate practices. In my particular version of history the concept "legitimacy" is overpowered by possibilities in all is subjective pursuits. I would argue that the withholding of "legitimacy" is the reason half the population refuse to vote. History that is not wedded to personal narrative has always been a difficult concept of me. Thepersonal narrative oftenappears as the vision of the individual writer. Melvin P.
Kargalitsky on rating democracies
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/04/01/008.html U.S. School of Democracy By Boris Kagarlitsky A recently published report on civil liberties in 2003 by the New York-based Freedom House organization has recognized 89 countries as free, 55 as partially free and 48 as not free. The appraisal was based on a system of half-point gradations, where 1.0 is the best score and 7.0 the worst. Pretty much like at school, then. It's no surprise that the worst marks went to North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Turkmenistan. Russia fell into the category of partially free countries along with Ukraine, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. Indonesia, Argentina, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Turkey, Venezuela and Columbia are in the same group. Things become more interesting when we look at the actual figures awarded. Russia received 5.0, a very poor score. Of all of the European former Soviet republics, only Belarus fared worse with 6 points. Even Turkey earned a higher rating, 3.5. According to the Freedom House experts, Tajikistan (5.5) is freer than Belarus. But Georgia and Ukraine were rated at 4.0, Moldova 3.5 and the Baltic republics came out near the top of the class with 1.5 each. Other results of interest were Mongolia (3.0), Bulgaria (1.5), the Czech Republic (1.5), Greece (1.5), Japan (1.5), France (1.0) and Germany (1.0). The United States, of course, scored 1.0. A real blow for Argentina. Evidently the experts didn't think they could classify as truly free a country where the people can kick the parliament and the president out onto the street. And a blow for Russia, too. You can't call Russia a democratic state, but at least we don't deny a third of our citizens their rights, like Latvia. Russian national politics holds a contradictory position, between liberal declarations of equality and the daily discrimination practiced against the Muslim minority. But then the Latvian government doesn't even make these declarations; it has nothing more important to do than destroy the schools of national minorities. The pressure that the authorities in Ukraine put on the opposition is no less serious than in Russia; the only difference is that in Moscow the authorities are better at implementing the policy than those in Kiev. One guarantee for democracy in former Soviet countries is, apparently, an absence of effective centralized power. Is it really true that Shevardnadze's Georgia was freer than Putin's Russia? The scores are based on 2003 data, but the Rose Revolution overthrew Shevardnadze in November. Even if the new situation compelled Freedom House to sharply increase the country's rating, it's still somewhat confusing. Has the increase in freedom since Georgia's change in leadership been so marked? The 90 percent of votes that Mikheil Saakashvili received is evidently considered more democratic than Putin's official total of 71 percent. I must confess that I am delighted for Mongolia. But all the same, a few unpleasant thoughts still linger at the back of my mind. Why, for example, do the Baltic republics appear in the same category of countries as others that have a well-established history of economic development? Is it a high mark for Latvia and Estonia, or a low mark for Greece and Japan? And what did the Czech Republic do wrong? After all, their political institutions are identical to those in Western Europe. When one of my friends saw the results, he reminded me that the teacher's marks take account not only of progress, but also of the behavior and enthusiasm of the students. For example, while Tajikistan has allowed the building of a U.S. military base, Lukashenko's Belarus has not. Neither country has a democracy to be proud of, but now everyone should be aware: authoritarianism with U.S. bases is not the same as authoritarianism without them. If we are all students, then we are learning from the ideologies of Freedom House, our teacher. But their approach is clear as day. It all comes down to the principle that U.S. leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom. With a perfect 1.0 score, the United States is a straight-A student. There may be irregularities in Florida's vote count, an extravagant system of voter registration and an 18th-century electoral system, but none of these factors matter. This noble desire of U.S. conservatives to teach the world democracy is most laudable. Just don't be surprised when the results are less than successful. After all, we students are just doing as our teacher tells us.
Readable books
Let me make a plug for my new book The Raw Deal: How Myths and Misinformation About Deficits, Inflation and Wealth Impoverish America, due out from Beacon Press next month. It is written for a lay reader and could easily be used in an intro college course. Ellen Frank i found steal this idea quite readable, as a layperson. the one unasked for piece of advice that i would give all of you technical authors is to not assume that the general audience understands and subscribes to the axioms or assumptions or models (of thought, analysis) of your field. also, IMHO, your reader's understanding of your book boils down to her/his ability to reduce your reasoning down to some basic convictions she/he holds. often these are political and moral convictions and admittedly are extremely difficult to contest/displace. but ignoring them altogether, results in limiting your readership to the converted (those that share your moral/political positions). i was recently reading peter singer's analysis of george w bush's positions on various moral issues, in his (singer's) new book. though some might disagree with his reasoning, (again IMHO) his style is comprehensive yet readable. --ravi
Re: Kargalitsky on rating democracies
from Freedom House, the people who develop these ratings: The survey team is grateful to the input of our Freedom in the World academic advisory board, consisting of David Becker, Kenneth Bollen, Daniel Brumberg, Larry Diamond, Charles Gati, _Jeane J. Kirkpatrick_, Thomas Lansner, Peter Lewis, Andrew Moravcsik, Alexander Motyl, _Joshua Muravchik_, _Daniel Pipes_, Jack Snyder, Arturo Valenzuela, Ashutosh Varshney, and Bridget Welsh. I don't know about these other folks, but the ones I underlined are hard-core neo-conservatives. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 9:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Kargalitsky on rating democracies http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/04/01/008.html U.S. School of Democracy By Boris Kagarlitsky A recently published report on civil liberties in 2003 by the New York-based Freedom House organization has recognized 89 countries as free, 55 as partially free and 48 as not free. The appraisal was based on a system of half-point gradations, where 1.0 is the best score and 7.0 the worst. Pretty much like at school, then. It's no surprise that the worst marks went to North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Turkmenistan. Russia fell into the category of partially free countries along with Ukraine, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. Indonesia, Argentina, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Turkey, Venezuela and Columbia are in the same group.
Re: religion and US politics
[how many electoral votes does the Holy Spirit have?] You'll have to take this up with the Supreme Court. Dan Scanlan
Bush's economic policies
http://www.laborresearch.org/story2.php/352 Bush Policies Guarantee Long-Term High Unemployment The Bush administration's policies are part of the problem of persistent long-term unemployment for million of Americans, not part of the solution. An average of 80,000 jobs have been lost for each month Bush has been in office. Bush now says he will fight for job growth if he is re-elected, but his 2005 budget reduces funding for training and employment programs across the board. The average duration of unemployment is now at its highest level in decades. Extended unemployment benefits are needed to cover workers who are unemployed for long periods, but Bush provided no funding for extended benefits in his 2005 budget. Some protection for workers laid off in restructurings is provided under the federal Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, which was intended to give goods-producing workers income support, training and health coverage when they are dislocated. But TAA certifications covered less than 40 percent of the manufacturing jobs that were lost last year, and Bush's 2005 budget reduces TAA funding. IT workers have filed a complaint against the Labor Department to gain coverage under the TAA, but lack of funding for the program will mean a hollow victory for them even if they prevail in the courts. Because Bush has pushed the federal deficit to historic highs, Congress is reluctant to expand funding for existing programs or provide new funding for job creation. While the focus is on the impact of outsourcing and trade, most of the job losses of the past three years stem from labor market imbalances created by a weak economy and increased worker productivity. Despite the vast pool of unemployed workers, the U.S. still faces a shortage of college graduates; their unemployment rate is only 2.9 percent. Federal education programs are needed to reshape the pool of available workers, but Bush has cut the education budget as a portion of GDP to its lowest level in years. More than one million jobs are vacant in the skill-intensive professional, business, education and health services, but the education and training expenses to qualify for these jobs remains beyond the reach of the unemployed. There are one million job openings in the South, and less than half that number in the Northeast, but no funds are available to help workers relocate. These imbalances can be addressed through public works jobs programs, education, retraining and relocation programs, with financial protections for workers who are unemployed during the adjustment phase. European nations commonly post unemployment rates nearly double those in the U.S., but the effects of temporary joblessness are softened by employer and government programs. European nations also provide national health care and pension systems that allow labor markets to shift without destroying the financial well-being of workers caught in restructuring. While the U.S. government must spearhead programs to reduce unemployment and generate decent jobs, employers must play a central role. As long as Bush remains in office, there is little chance that the federal government will act to force employers to assume responsibility for the workers they leave on the streets when they reorganize for increased profitability. Expanded unemployment benefits can be funded through increases in the federal and state unemployment premiums employers now pay. Currently, employers pay an average of only 14¢ per hour worked, or 0.5 percent of total payroll, for federal and state unemployment insurance premiums. These costs have remained stable for years despite the growing number of unemployed. The current structure of premiums for unemployment insurance does not sufficiently allocate costs to employers that persistently lay off workers. Employers can also pay to retrain workers who are displaced by workforce reductions that ultimately save the employer millions of dollars. Covering the cost of severance pay, retraining, relocation and outplacement services for displaced workers should be considered a cost of doing business. The labor cost savings a company achieves through workforce reductions are more than enough to finance extensive programs for redeploying the workers cast aside. Unit labor costs have dropped faster in the past six quarters than they have at any time in the 50-year history of the data series. Lower unit labor costs have fueled one of the biggest profit booms in history. Companies are awash in cash and more than able to divert some of their record-level profits to the retraining and outplacement programs needed. _ Persistent heartburn? Check out Digestive Health Wellness for information and advice. http://gerd.msn.com/default.asp
Wal-Mart prepares to bury the left under a mountain of money
Title: Wal-Mart prepares to bury the left under a mountain of money No Choice Wal-Mart prepares to bury the left under a mountain of money In These Times Jim, John, Alice, Sam and Helen may carry the worlds most dangerous genetic markers. They are the Waltons, heirs to the global destructive force called Wal-Mart. With more than $100 billion in personal assets among them, the five Waltons occupy positions six through 10 in the Forbes billionaires rankings, twice as rich as Microsofts Bill Gates, the guy at the top. Collectively, they are antisocial malevolence with a last name. These spawn of Bentonville, Arkansas harbor an abiding hatred for the public sphere: business regulatory controls, nondiscrimination laws, wage and workplace safety standards, the social safety netall of itas expressed through the operations of their retail empire, which is both the largest employer in the United States and biggest importer of goods made in China. As the Democratic Socialists of America put it: Wal-Mart is more than just a participant in the low-wage economy: It is the most important single beneficiary of that economy. It uses its economic and political power to extend the scope of the low-wage economy and threatens to extend its business model into other sectors of the economy, undermining the wages of still more workers. Such a vast project of political economy is far too complex for four middle-aged children of wealth and the 84-year-old matriarch, Helen. The familys immediate personal ambitions are more modest: to destroy public education in the United States. To that end the Waltons, through their Walton Family Foundation and in close collaboration with Milwaukees Bradley Foundation, literally invented the national school choice network and its wedge issue-weapon, vouchers. It is the existence of the school vouchers movement that allows the Bush administration to savage and massively disrupt the nations public schools while positing alternative forms of education, both vouchers and charter schools that often operate very much like public-funded private schools. Choice has become national policy under Bushs Department of Education, which has doled out more than $75 million to organizations birthed by the Waltons, Bradley and their allies. (See Funding a Movement by People for the American Way, www.pfaw.org.) Public educations defenders, already outgunned by the combined resources of the right-wing political funding network plus the full weight of the Republican executive branch, now await the deluge: an infusion of $20 billion into the Waltons private philanthropy, most of it earmarked for education reformthe euphemism for school privatization. At the usual rate of foundation disbursement, this would translate as $1 billion a yeara tidal wave of money, enough to reinvent the voucher movement many times over. The Money Storm The Waltons planned transfer of $20 billion in Wal-Mart stock to the family foundation, most likely precipitated by tax exigencies, was heralded by the corporate media as a boon to prospects for education reform. Family voucher impresario John styles himself a savior of inner-city dropouts. Theyre choosing the streets over a school that apparently doesnt work for them, Walton told a receptive USA Today reporter. If choice destroys the public system, then why are we so sanguine about the choices those kids make? This minority-aimed wedge has a sharp edge. The obscenely rich Waltons arent slumming, but rather are pursuing a super-cynical, fiendishly clever, grand strategy on the way to final victory: destruction of the public sphere. Although the Waltons and their friends would love to franchise (and, ultimately, monopolize) the education marketK-12 is worth $350 billion yearly to taxpayersit is a mistake to view school privatization in vulgar market terms. Thats not how the denizens of right-funded think tanks think. The public schools by far are the most pervasive public institutions, social spaces, in American society. Therefore, they must be made fully subservient to private capital. To the world-coveters of the Waltons class (all several hundred of them, plus their legions of hirelings), public education is more an obstacle than a potential convertible asset. In the here and now, two forces stand in the way of total corporate hegemony over U.S. political life: Black American voters and organized labor, particularly the teachers unions, whose members are highly active and dependably progressive even in the more reactionary regions of the country. Blacks and labor are the two pillars of the national Democratic Party, without which not even a shell would remain. Full article ar: http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=672_0_1_0_C Jayson Funke The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by any other person is
Re: Readable books
Ellen: Can I see a table of contents?Besides deficits, inflation, and wealth, do you cover anything social welfare-y, such as poverty, privatization of social security, etc? I am looking for a new text for my Political Economy of Social Welfare class (undergraduate juniors, most of whom have little or no economics background)? Joel Blau Frank, Ellen wrote: Let me make a plug for my new book The Raw Deal: How Myths and Misinformation About Deficits, Inflation and Wealth Impoverish America, due out from Beacon Press next month. It is written for a lay reader and could easily be used in an intro college course. Ellen Frank i found steal this idea quite readable, as a layperson. the one unasked for piece of advice that i would give all of you technical authors is to not assume that the general audience understands and subscribes to the axioms or assumptions or models (of thought, analysis) of your field. also, IMHO, your reader's understanding of your book boils down to her/his ability to reduce your reasoning down to some basic convictions she/he holds. often these are political and moral convictions and admittedly are extremely difficult to contest/displace. but ignoring them altogether, results in limiting your readership to the converted (those that share your moral/political positions). i was recently reading peter singer's analysis of george w bush's positions on various moral issues, in his (singer's) new book. though some might disagree with his reasoning, (again IMHO) his style is comprehensive yet readable. --ravi
Re: Bush's economic policies
Joel Wendland wrote: http://www.laborresearch.org/story2.php/352 Bush Policies Guarantee Long-Term High Unemployment The Bush administration's policies are part of the problem of persistent long-term unemployment for million of Americans, not part of the solution. An average of 80,000 jobs have been lost for each month Bush has been in office. Bush now says he will fight for job growth if he is re-elected, but his 2005 budget reduces funding for training and employment programs across the board. Bush's policies are not causing unemployment. It is the capitalist system that is responsible. Unless the government steps forward as employer of last resort, just as it was during the Great Depression (with mixed results admittedly), all promises from bourgeois politicians remain empty. Laborresearch.org is the website of one Greg Tarpinian. Pen-l'ers might have read a Counterpunch article by Joann Wypijewski that described his less than stellar participation in the labor movement: They are cozying up to Hoffa, never anyone's idea of a reformer, whose union, despite its historic association with truckers, has shown no interest in sectoral purity. Their liaison to Hoffa is the oily Greg Tarpinian, listed on the NUP document as potential staff, a former Communist who saw the light when Hoffa and Teamsters hoary bosses started shoveling him cash to help them knock out Ron Carey. I'll never forget a party Hoffa threw in a New York hotel room a few years ago after Tarpinian's Labor Research Association held a fundraiser honoring him. Tarpinian was crooning about leftists for Hoffa and the great man's visions for leading a fighting labor movement while upstairs squirrelly guys in cheap suits were hitching up their pants, hurrying out of bedrooms in disarray, past attractive young Latinas who, in modified bedroom scuffs and casual street wear, definitely weren't their dates. full: http://www.counterpunch.org/jw10062003.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Readable books
BTW, DOLLARS SENSE produces a lot of readable material. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Frank, Ellen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 9:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Readable books Let me make a plug for my new book The Raw Deal: How Myths and Misinformation About Deficits, Inflation and Wealth Impoverish America, due out from Beacon Press next month. It is written for a lay reader and could easily be used in an intro college course. Ellen Frank i found steal this idea quite readable, as a layperson. the one unasked for piece of advice that i would give all of you technical authors is to not assume that the general audience understands and subscribes to the axioms or assumptions or models (of thought, analysis) of your field. also, IMHO, your reader's understanding of your book boils down to her/his ability to reduce your reasoning down to some basic convictions she/he holds. often these are political and moral convictions and admittedly are extremely difficult to contest/displace. but ignoring them altogether, results in limiting your readership to the converted (those that share your moral/political positions). i was recently reading peter singer's analysis of george w bush's positions on various moral issues, in his (singer's) new book. though some might disagree with his reasoning, (again IMHO) his style is comprehensive yet readable. --ravi
Re: Bush's economic policies
As we discuss every couple of years on PEN-L, we should be careful about repeating the myth that European unemployment is twice that of the U.S. It isn't. The figures are calculated differently. If we calculate ours the way the Europeans did, they'd be about the same. Bush just announced an expansion of job training, but quite apart from the issue that this is a supply-side solution to the problem of unemployment, nothing is going to happen that violates my one-in-twenty rule, i.e. that for most social welfare programs like job training, there is just one slot for every 20 eligible applicants. Moreover, the problem with specific programs extends far behind the Transitional Assistance for NAFTA, a provision that was added to defuse trade union opposition in the close 1993 NAFTA congressional vote. In the mid-1990s, the General Accounting Office found that the U.S., making a series of ad hoc exceptions to its ostensible policy of labor market laissez-faire, had somehow ended up with 163 different employment programs, many duplicative of one another, all scattered among half dozen agencies of the federal bureaucracy. So in an effort to make the U.S. more competitive, they tried to rationalize the system. The outcome of this effort, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, did drop summer youth programs (the ones that were always funded in the spring after someone in Congress got up to warn of a hot summer in the inner city), and replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (the bill Dan Quayle enacted with the help of Ted Kennedy), but it otherwise left the job training system pretty much intact. Not only did WIA keep the same funding arrangements for the remaining programs, but it essentially requires applicants to fail twice (can't get a job on their own, and then can't get a job with counseling) before they are eligible for job training. So now a very modestly reformed bureaucracy has still another layer over it, and despite the nominal goal of WIA, we're no closer than ever to a policy of universally available job training. Joel Blau Joel Wendland wrote: http://www.laborresearch.org/story2.php/352 Bush Policies Guarantee Long-Term High Unemployment European nations commonly post unemployment rates nearly double those in the U.S., but the effects of temporary joblessness are softened by employer and government programs. _ Persistent heartburn? Check out Digestive Health Wellness for information and advice. http://gerd.msn.com/default.asp
Selling democracy. No money back guarantee
http://www.iht.com/articles/513290.html On Advertising: Selling Iraq on a new government Heather Timmons IHT Monday, April 5, 2004 LONDON In the 11 months since U.S.-led forces took Baghdad, the coalition has tried to persuade the Iraqi people that the invasion and ensuing promise of democracy are in their best interests. . Many in Iraq still refuse to believe it, as the savage killings in Falluja last week demonstrated. . Now, the London-based public relations agency Bell Pottinger is trying to reinforce that message and drive it home. . Bell Pottinger, which is known for its crisis public relations work, was paid nearly $6 million to mount a television campaign that will air in Iraq from this week until sovereignty is handed over at the end of June. The firm, which will work with Bates PanGulf of WPP Group and a Baghdad-based services company, Balloch Roe, expects to continue the campaign under a separate contract after that time. The purpose is to persuade Iraqi factions to try to work together peacefully to direct their own future by participating in the national election in November. . Bell Pottinger says its mandate is to produce unbiased public service announcements. . All we're doing is trying to keep people informed about the process and persuade them to participate in it, said Tim Bell, chairman of Bell Pottinger's parent company, Chime Communications. . An escalation of violence does not change that mandate, Bell said. We deal with circumstances as they arise, he said. We're completely nonjudgmental. . The Americans writing the check have a more ideological take. The commercials will carry a message of participation in the democratic process, and the hope for the future that democracy brings to Iraq, Michael Pierson, the Coalition Provisional Authority's communication planner, said by telephone from Baghdad. . Some Arabic news outlets are not sold on the idea. Said al Shouly, deputy chief editor of Al Jazeera, the largest Arabic-language television channel, said by telephone that he did not condone this type of advocacy advertising in general. . Iraq would be a tough enough spot to pitch something as innocuous as dishwashing detergent, let alone an intangible, unfamiliar political ideal. Because the country is divided by languages, religions and tribal associations, and still racked by violence and gunfire, Bell Pottinger has had to carefully plan its strategy. . In an environment where there isn't just one answer, you have to make sure you're not exacerbating the problem, Bell said. . He would not give more details about the ads, saying that he would like to wait until they were shown in Iraq. . There is not much of a precedent for using advertising to try to spread democracy, and the idea needs to be carefully managed, said James Lee Ray, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. I'd put a lot of thought into trying to emphasize the congruence of democratic principles with Islamic culture, Ray said. I'd point to the idea that democracy is not an American invention. . Similar campaigns have had mixed results. A U.S.-sponsored campaign in Russia in the early 1990s that promoted capitalism by urging citizens to buy stakes in newly privatized companies backfired, said Harry Boyte, a professor at the University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public affairs. It was seen as America meddling in Russian affairs, he said. . Some advertising experts said they were wary about the idea of using television spots to push political change and encourage the growth of democracy. . The danger here is not just a backlash against America meddling in affairs, Boyte said. Learning about democracy through advertising could make it seem like a product, Boyte said, one that could be blamed or abandoned if things did not go well. . Howell James, a founding partner of the London public relations firm Brown Lloyd James, has been appointed by Prime Minister Tony Blair to the newly created post of permanent secretary for government communications. James is a former political aide to the former Conservative prime minister, John Major. . Media Square of Britain has hired Steve Haithwaite to become chief executive of its retail marketing division. Haithwaite was previously a marketing executive at one of Media Square's biggest clients, the British general merchandise chain Argos. International Herald Tribune Back to Start of Article LONDON In the 11 months since U.S.-led forces took Baghdad, the coalition has tried to persuade the Iraqi people that the invasion and ensuing promise of democracy are in their best interests. . Many in Iraq still refuse to believe it, as the savage killings in Falluja last week demonstrated. . Now, the London-based public relations agency Bell Pottinger is trying to reinforce that message and drive it home. . Bell Pottinger, which is known for its crisis public relations work, was paid nearly $6 million to mount a television campaign that will air in Iraq
Re: Decisive showdown
http://www.wpiraq.org/english/ To: US State Department-Paul Bremer head of CPA in Iraq Yanar Mohammed, the head of the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), is a renowned activist, and highly regarded in the world today for her brave efforts in defending women's rights in Iraq. She and the OWFI have been at the forefront of raising Iraqi women's awareness of their rights, fighting for an egalitarian secular state and full equality for women, as well as advocating for the separation of religion from the state and educational system which is a precondition for guaranteeing women's rights in Iraq. Since the recent introduction of Law Number 137 by the Iraqi Ruling Council, which is to remove the previous Personal Status Code and replace it with Sharia law, Yanar has exposed the serious threat to women's lives and rights if Sharia is imposed and organised women and men in opposition to it. As a result, she has been threatened to death within the next few days by the Army of Sahaba (Jaysh Al-Sahaba). We, the undersigned, are outraged at the threat to Yanar Mohammed's life and hold the USA government primarily responsible for the abysmal situation it has created, which now threatens the life of and affords no protection to Yanar Mohammad. We unequivocally defend her and OWFI's women's rights activists in Iraq, defend secularism, namely the separation of religion from the state and educational system and full equality for women, and strongly denounce Islamic terrorist groups. We further unequivocally denounce and hold the USA fully responsible for Yanar's life and safety. The USA government must provide her with full protection. Campaign coordinators Nadia Mahmood, and Houzan Mahmoud [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] = The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart. former I.W.W. member, Helen Keller http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
Re: Bush's economic policies
Another angle here which most importantly ties productivity to shafting. Regards, Mike B) * Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 22:44:01 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [GuvWurld] We're More Productive. Who Gets the Money? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/opinion/05HERB.html We're More Productive. Who Gets the Money? By BOB HERBERT Published: April 5, 2004 It's like running on a treadmill that keeps increasing its speed. You have to go faster and faster just to stay in place. Or, as a factory worker said many years ago, You can work 'til you drop dead, but you won't get ahead. American workers have been remarkably productive in recent years, but they are getting fewer and fewer of the benefits of this increased productivity. While the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, has been strong for some time now, ordinary workers have gotten little more than the back of the hand from employers who have pocketed an unprecedented share of the cash from this burst of economic growth. What is happening is nothing short of historic. The American workers' share of the increase in national income since November 2001, the end of the last recession, is the lowest on record. Employers took the money and ran. This is extraordinary, but very few people are talking about it, which tells you something about the hold that corporate interests have on the national conversation. The situation is summed up in the long, unwieldy but very revealing title of a new study from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University: The Unprecedented Rising Tide of Corporate Profits and the Simultaneous Ebbing of Labor Compensation - Gainers and Losers from the National Economic Recovery in 2002 and 2003. Andrew Sum, the center's director and lead author of the study, said: This is the first time we've ever had a case where two years into a recovery, corporate profits got a larger share of the growth of national income than labor did. Normally labor gets about 65 percent and corporate profits about 15 to 18 percent. This time profits got 41 percent and labor [meaning all forms of employee compensation, including wages, benefits, salaries and the percentage of payroll taxes paid by employers] got 38 percent. The study said: In no other recovery from a post-World War II recession did corporate profits ever account for as much as 20 percent of the growth in national income. And at no time did corporate profits ever increase by a greater amount than labor compensation. In other words, an awful lot of American workers have been had. Fleeced. Taken to the cleaners. The recent productivity gains have been widely acknowledged. But workers are not being compensated for this. During the past two years, increases in wages and benefits have been very weak, or nonexistent. And despite the growth of jobs in March that had the Bush crowd dancing in the White House halls last Friday, there has been no net increase in formal payroll employment since the end of the recession. We have lost jobs. There are fewer payroll jobs now than there were when the recession ended in November 2001. So if employers were not hiring workers, and if they were miserly when it came to increases in wages and benefits for existing employees, what happened to all the money from the strong economic growth? The study is very clear on this point. The bulk of the gains did not go to workers, but instead were used to boost profits, lower prices, or increase C.E.O. compensation. This is a radical transformation of the way the bounty of this country has been distributed since World War II. Workers are being treated more and more like patrons in a rigged casino. They can't win. Corporate profits go up. The stock market goes up. Executive compensation skyrockets. But workers, for the most part, remain on the treadmill. When you look at corporate profits versus employee compensation in this recovery, and then compare that, as Mr. Sum and his colleagues did, with the eight previous recoveries since World War II, it's like turning a chart upside down. The study found that the amount of income growth devoured by corporate profits in this recovery is historically unprecedented, as is the low share ... accruing to the nation's workers in the form of labor compensation. I have to laugh when I hear conservatives complaining about class warfare. They know this terrain better than anyone. They launched the war. They're waging it. And they're winning it. = The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart. former I.W.W. member, Helen Keller http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
Re: liberals
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/01/04 12:38 PM i thought liberals were bourgeois... michael hoover Not high bourgeois, the people who own capital and run the state. Among that set, Soros is about the only serious liberal (in the social democratic sense). Aren't most liberals knowledge workers of various sorts? Doug if i may be allowed to invoke this stodgy ole' bearded guy, although in this instance - '18th brumaire' - he's at his most postmodern (after all, gotta try to make marx fashionable)... marx lists 3 fractions of bourgeoisie - industrial, financial, large landowners - he also mentions 'merchant' class, 'middling' stratum, 'petty' bourgeoisie... all bourgeois fractions have overriding common interest in keeping capitalism going and keeping workers in their place... focusing solely on first three (high?) bourgeois fractions, about 30% of corporate directors, foundation trustees, 'who's who in america' types, fortune 400 individuals contribute to 2 major parties, some (about 30%) give solely/mostly to dems and others (about 40%) give solely/mostly to reps (throw out 30% who give to both parties in relatively equal amounts or who give to one party when it's doing well and to other party when it's doing well)... why - if these people are all 'conservative' - would any of them give money to dems - no need to move party to right, such party already exists... some think that capitalism works best with greater degree/various kinds of government intervention/regulation and others think it works best with less (so-called 'free market')... part of problem is that 'liberal' is 'floating signifier' (to use fashionable parlance): liberal philosophy, liberal politics, classical liberal, modern liberal, liberal democracy, neo-liberal, social/cultural liberal, liberal triumphalism, what was liberal 30 years ago ain't liberal today, etc... bourgeoisie is class position, some are politically liberal and some are politically conservative... bourgeois values - individualism, property, contract, freedom, equality (all of a particular type) - pervade u.s. culture... re. 'people who own capital and run state', this appears to be 'instrumentalist' theory in which bourgeoisie directly manages political state, in contrast to 'structural/functonalist' theory whereby bourgeoisie do not need to go into politics/administration themselves as long as gov't is run in way that doesn't interfere with their interests (or acts in ways damaging to only one fraction or another of bourgeois class)... re. 'liberalism (in social democratic sense)', two may be similar but they've arrived at that point from decidedly different starting points and with quite different political forces... if liberal and social democrat has come to mean - in some general way - a balance between market economy on one hand and state intervention on other, there was a time long ago that social democrats wanted to abolish capitalism, liberals never wanted to... michael hoover
Re: Decisive showdown
Currently, the best analogy perhaps to the U.S. occupation is the Japanese invasion of China. Carrol What's missing, alas, is a strong force of secular leftists against the Empire: * When I see the rise of As-Sadr movement and the Sunni fundamentalist groups I can't but wonder about the prospects for secularism in Iraq. The Iraqi Communist Party could have provided the credible alternative but the idiots of the party have damaged their cause for years--if not decades--to come by accepting to serve as a tool for occupation. Just as Arab communism suffered from subservience to USSR (especially on the partition question), Iraqi communism has deeply hurt the movement. posted by As'ad @ 8:06 AM link http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ * -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: liberals
Michael Hoover wrote: part of problem is that 'liberal' is 'floating signifier' (to use fashionable parlance) It's a useful concept, so what if it's fashionable? I was using liberal in the sense that some of our more hardcore participants use it to describe The Nation magazine (as in Nation liberals, usually pronounced with a sneer). In other parts of the world, they'd be called social democrats, but we don't really have those here. They support labor law reform, higher minimum wage, single payer health insurance, progressive taxation, civil liberties, public funding of the arts, etc., and oppose most U.S. military adventures. They are not socialists. But neither are they coporate Democrats, who would come down to the right of the Nation liberals on most of the issues I listed. They're the kind of people Ralph Nader is sneeringly referring to as the liberal intelligentsia. And almost no one in the ruling class thinks like Nation liberals. The closest you'll come is George Soros. Nation liberals are mostly academics, professionals, and such - affluent, but not rich; influential, but not from the owning class. And mostly marginal in American politics. Doug
Re: liberals
At 6:15 PM -0400 4/5/04, Doug Henwood wrote: I was using liberal in the sense that some of our more hardcore participants use it to describe The Nation magazine (as in Nation liberals, usually pronounced with a sneer). In other parts of the world, they'd be called social democrats, but we don't really have those here. Social Democrats - the Social Democratic Party = American Liberals -- Yoshie * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: liberals
I think Michael Hoover's point here is solid. Craig Aaron in In These Times as an interesting analysis of which sections gave how much to the Bush campaign. http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=666_0_1_0_C Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net if i may be allowed to invoke this stodgy ole' bearded guy, although in this instance - '18th brumaire' - he's at his most postmodern (after all, gotta try to make marx fashionable)... marx lists 3 fractions of bourgeoisie - industrial, financial, large landowners - he also mentions 'merchant' class, 'middling' stratum, 'petty' bourgeoisie... all bourgeois fractions have overriding common interest in keeping capitalism going and keeping workers in their place... focusing solely on first three (high?) bourgeois fractions, about 30% of corporate directors, foundation trustees, 'who's who in america' types, fortune 400 individuals contribute to 2 major parties, some (about 30%) give solely/mostly to dems and others (about 40%) give solely/mostly to reps (throw out 30% who give to both parties in relatively equal amounts or who give to one party when it's doing well and to other party when it's doing well)... why - if these people are all 'conservative' - would any of them give money to dems - no need to move party to right, such party already exists... some think that capitalism works best with greater degree/various kinds of government intervention/regulation and others think it works best with less (so-called 'free market')... part of problem is that 'liberal' is 'floating signifier' (to use fashionable parlance): liberal philosophy, liberal politics, classical liberal, modern liberal, liberal democracy, neo-liberal, social/cultural liberal, liberal triumphalism, what was liberal 30 years ago ain't liberal today, etc... bourgeoisie is class position, some are politically liberal and some are politically conservative... bourgeois values - individualism, property, contract, freedom, equality (all of a particular type) - pervade u.s. culture... re. 'people who own capital and run state', this appears to be 'instrumentalist' theory in which bourgeoisie directly manages political state, in contrast to 'structural/functonalist' theory whereby bourgeoisie do not need to go into politics/administration themselves as long as gov't is run in way that doesn't interfere with their interests (or acts in ways damaging to only one fraction or another of bourgeois class)... re. 'liberalism (in social democratic sense)', two may be similar but they've arrived at that point from decidedly different starting points and with quite different political forces... if liberal and social democrat has come to mean - in some general way - a balance between market economy on one hand and state intervention on other, there was a time long ago that social democrats wanted to abolish capitalism, liberals never wanted to... michael hoover _ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/
Re: Decisive showdown
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Currently, the best analogy perhaps to the U.S. occupation is the Japanese invasion of China. Carrol What's missing, alas, is a strong force of secular leftists against the Empire: Indeed. In any case, all friends of the Iraqi people elsewhere can do is exert as much pressure as possible for the unconditional withdrawal of u.s. forces, since the longer the forces are there, the greater will be the chaos and bloodshed after their withdrawal. And incidentally, I still think that it is really not possible to _both_ support Kerry _and_ continue to build the anti-war movement. It is essential that we keep front and center that Kerry will be a more dangerous imperial warrior than Bush. We will have our work cut out for us next January regardless of who wins in the election, and I think that work should absorb _all_ of our energy, none left over for 'supporting' (however critically) the likes of Kerry. Carrol
Two pointers from Ian Murray
http://www.navhindtimes.com/stories.php?part=newsStory_ID=04055 Dymski and Singh on multilateralism and WTO WTO annual report on global growth/trade flows http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres04_e/pr373_e.htm -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Privatization of Education!!!!
Milwaukee voucher program hit by scandal By Juliet Williams April 5, 2004 | MILWAUKEE (AP) -- One school that received millions of dollars through the nation's oldest and largest voucher program was founded by a convicted rapist. Another school reportedly entertained kids with Monopoly while cashing $330,000 in tuition checks for hundreds of no-show students. The recent scandals have shocked politicians, angered parents and left even some voucher supporters demanding reforms. The troubles have helped lead to passage of a state law requiring voucher schools to report more financial information to the state. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle signed it last month. But so far, efforts to impose more rigorous academic standards on voucher schools have failed. Milwaukee's 14-year-old voucher program has served as a model for others around the country. It doles out state money to allow poor parents to send their children to private schools. Wisconsin will spend $75 million this year on vouchers for more than 13,000 students. The schools are required to report virtually nothing about their methods to the state, or to track their students' performance. Proponents say that frees the schools from onerous bureaucracy. But some say the lack of oversight makes them a prime target for abuse. At the Mandella Academy for Science and Math, school officials admitted signing up more than 200 students who never showed and then cashing $330,000 in state-issued tuition checks, which the principal used to buy, among other things, Mercedes-Benzes for himself and the assistant principal. Meanwhile, Alex's Academics of Excellence received $2.8 million in voucher money over three years before the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the school's founder, James A. Mitchell, served nearly a decade in prison for a 1971 rape. Unlike their counterparts at public schools, principals and teachers at private schools do not have to undergo criminal background checks. The state has suspended funding for Alex's because of financial problems, and a judge shut down the Mandella academy earlier this year. I think across the community, there was outrage about what happened at Mandella. It finally raised the issue of accountability, said state Rep. Christine Sinicki, a Democrat who sponsored the legislation requiring more stringent financial oversight. The scandals have upset many, including the parents of the 190 students displaced by Mandella's closing. Some of these places they have opened up a school, it's a doggone shame. There's kids playing in alleys and the streets, said Lee Brown, who sent her daughters, ages 14 and 16, to Mandella. Mandella's principal, David Seppeh, does not have a teacher's license and was not required to submit any information about the school's philosophy or curriculum before receiving upwards of $1 million in voucher funding. The district attorney's office seized a Mercedes from his home. A criminal investigation is under way. The Mandella school initially reported an enrollment of 476 students, but 235 of them did not show. Under the voucher program, tuition checks in parents' names are sent straight from the state to the school. Parents sign a waiver authorizing the school to cash their checks, but if they later pull out, it is up to the school to notify the state and return the money. In Mandella's case, some parents who initially considered sending their children to Mandella but changed their minds said they were not aware that they were signing a waiver or that checks in their name were sent to the school. The telephone number Seppeh listed on his application to the state has been disconnected, and The Associated Press could not locate another listing for him. Seppeh has said that he does not believe he was stealing because he and his wife invested thousands in the school. (It is not clear how the school came to be called Mandella, spelled with two l's, unlike the name of South Africa's Nelson Mandela.) As for academics at Mandella, Sinicki said no one has any idea how the students were doing. That's the problem. We don't know. They don't have to tell us anything like that, she said. I highly doubt they were doing that well, since they were playing Monopoly and watching movies. Milwaukee's leading voucher advocate, Howard Fuller, worked with legislators to develop the law to impose more stringent financial requirements on voucher schools. But he said it would be unfair to cast a shadow over all voucher schools because of one failure. The governor has proposed requiring voucher schools to administer many of the same standardized tests as public schools. Other voucher programs, in Cleveland, Florida, Maine and Vermont, are also subject to little regulation. Todd Ziebarth, a policy analyst with the Education Commission of the States in Washington, said the demand for greater accountability in public schools has led to a similar debate over voucher programs. Now people are saying, 'Geez, if
time for more tax cuts??
Mckinnon, John D. 2004. Many Companies Avoided Taxes Even as Profits Soared in Boom. Wall Street Journal (6 April): p. A 1. More than 60% of U.S. corporations didn't pay any federal taxes for 1996 through 2000, years when the economy boomed and corporate profits soared, the investigative arm of Congress reported. The disclosures from the General Accounting Office are certain to fuel the debate over corporate tax payments in the presidential campaign. Corporate tax receipts have shrunk markedly as a share of overall federal revenue in recent years, and were particularly depressed when the economy soured. By 2003, they had fallen to just 7.4% of overall federal receipts, the lowest rate since 1983, and the second-lowest rate since 1934, federal budget officials say. The GAO analysis of Internal Revenue Service data comes as tax avoidance by both U.S. and foreign companies also is drawing increased scrutiny from the IRS and Congress. But more so than similar previous reports, the analysis suggests that dodging taxes, both legally and otherwise, has become deeply rooted in U.S. corporate culture. The analysis found that even more foreign-owned companies doing business in the U.S. -- about 70% of them -- reported that they didn't owe any U.S. federal taxes during the late 1990s. Too many corporations are finagling ways to dodge paying Uncle Sam, despite the benefits they receive from this country, said Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.), who requested the study along with Sen. Byron Dorgan (D., N.D.). Thwarting corporate tax dodgers will take tax reform and stronger enforcement. A 1999 GAO study on corporate tax payments reached similar results. The GAO report also may further fuel a drive in Congress to crack down on a variety of corporate tax-dodging strategies, such as a recently discovered leasing maneuver that allows companies to buy up depreciation rights to public transit lines, highways and water systems. Senate tax-committee leaders have released a list of companies involved that includes a number of well-known financial firms, such as First Union Commercial Corp., a unit of Wachovia Corp. Wachovia has defended its involvement, saying the transactions are legal. The report examined a sample of tax information for the years 1996 through 2000; for 2000, it covered about 2.1 million returns filed by U.S.-controlled corporations and 69,000 filed by foreign-controlled corporations. It showed that big companies -- defined as those with at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in gross receipts -- were more likely to pay taxes than smaller ones. Still, the GAO said 45.3% of large U.S.-controlled companies and 37.5% of large foreign-controlled companies had no tax liability in 2000. More than 35% paid less than 5% of their income. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Decisive showdown
Carrol Cox wrote: I still think that it is really not possible to both support Kerry and continue to build the anti-war movement. It is essential that we keep front and center that Kerry will be a more dangerous imperial warrior than Bush. --- Isn't this like saying a Republican victory in 1936 would have been preferable to the relection of FDR and the Democrats because the latter, by promoting social reform and collective bargaining rights, had a more sophisticated understanding of how to save capitalism? Or the same as the German KPD worrying that a more dangerous social democratic victory would postpone the German revolution, which Nazi repression would hasten? Today, the Democrats and their European allies share a common liberal political culture and, as such, can be said to have a more sophisticated understanding of how to advance capitalism's interests in the international arena than do the neoconservatives. Iraq has proved that in spades. The Europeans tried desperately to prevent the Bush administration's adventure, which has turned out to be very destabilizing not only in Iraq, but globally, and has damaged US and Western interests. A Kerry administration, in league with the Europeans, would not have invaded Iraq, but would have used subtler methods to try and force internal regime change or, failing that, would have been content to contain the Baathist regime, possibly cutting a deal in exchange for loosening sanctions. I imagine in 2000, though, you would have been telling the Iraqis that it is essential to keep front and center that Gore will be a more dangerous imperial warrior than Bush? And in 1936, would you not have been telling trade unionists that it is really not possible to both support FDR and continue to build the labour movement? Marv Gandall
Re: Decisive showdown
Kerry opposes the NMD system and that at least is a big plus compared to Bush. Of course he might change his view on this were he elected. Is there much debate on NMD in the US. In Canada Martin has sanctioned talks with the US and it seems very much as if he will support Canada joining in the system. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Decisive showdown Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Currently, the best analogy perhaps to the U.S. occupation is the Japanese invasion of China. Carrol What's missing, alas, is a strong force of secular leftists against the Empire: Indeed. In any case, all friends of the Iraqi people elsewhere can do is exert as much pressure as possible for the unconditional withdrawal of u.s. forces, since the longer the forces are there, the greater will be the chaos and bloodshed after their withdrawal. And incidentally, I still think that it is really not possible to _both_ support Kerry _and_ continue to build the anti-war movement. It is essential that we keep front and center that Kerry will be a more dangerous imperial warrior than Bush. We will have our work cut out for us next January regardless of who wins in the election, and I think that work should absorb _all_ of our energy, none left over for 'supporting' (however critically) the likes of Kerry. Carrol
