Re: Mark Jones Was Right
Without trying to get into the specific debating points in this thread,
I find the unreality of the debate to be numbing. There are a number of
points that I think we can all agree on.
1. That there is a growing threat that global warming is a real and
imminent danger.
2. That global warming is, at least in a significant part, caused by the
use fossil fuels, in particular petroleum.
3. That attempting to raise the standard of living of the existing
population of the developing world to the level of the western
industrialized countries is not possible without a major change
(reduction in standard?) in the consumption standards of the developed
world.
Where we don't agree is whether we are going to have to cut petroleum
usage because a) we are running out of readily available sources and the
price is destined to rise to unaffordable levels or b) because global
warming will make continued usage of petroleum a doomsday senario.
Further, we don't agree on whether the existing population of the earth
is sustainable at any reasonable standard of living or even at the
existing standard of living in the various regions of the world.
Here, I think the combination of population, technology/social
organization and capitalist institutions -- including 'free trade' --
makes the present situation unsustainable.
First, the world is overpopulated in an ecological sense. I have argued
for years that Canada is already overpopulated. But people argue, look
at the north and all that area there for people. Let's open the north.
But the problem is, the amount of energy necessary to maintain
population in the north (with months of complete darkness and enormous
costs of heating) means that life is not sustainable except for a small
minority, such as the original Inuit, who were prepared to live a
precarious existence using only whale, seal or fish oil for heat and
light. If I remember the figures correctly, we are talking about around
10,000 population in total in the far northern climes. Hardly a drop
in the bucket when we are talking about a world population of 6+ billion!
Second, to raise the standard of living/consumption of the, what is it,
2 billion people who live on less than 1 or 2 dollars a day to even half
the poverty level of North America would involve more pollution and
resource use than the ecosphere could handle.
Third, the attempt to generate more income in poor countries by exports
('free trade') is counterproductive since the more trade there is the
more energy use in transportation. Has anybody ever done an energy
audit on the cost of increased trade? I remember when the McKenzie
Valley Pipeline was first proposed, some economists estimated that the
energy used to produce the steel for the pipeline exceeded the energy to
be piped out in the form of oil. Whether these estimates were in fact
accurate or not, the fact is that the net energy produced was but a
fraction of the gross oil output -- something that never entered the
market calculations. Furthermore, because of the subsidization of the
oil industry, train, transit and boat transportation has either been
discontinued or priced out of competition with the automobile or the jet
plane. The way our cities are designed, it is virtually impossible for
most North Americans or other 'moderns' to live without their cars.
Take a look at Brazilia or post-earthquake Skopia -- designed so that
cars are essential given that development has taken a 'ribbon' dimension.
Fourth, all this talk about having a revolution and allowing changes in
property relations to solve the
overpopulation/overconsumption/pollition-global warming is hopeless
dreaming. Not only were the 'acutally existing' socialist countries
some of the worst polluters and inefficient energy users, does anyone
really think that the working class is going to rise up and support a
revolution that promises no beef or other meat, no cars and no
airconditioning? I know beef production is inefficient, but so are
great works of art -- paintings, ballet and opera -- much cheaper to
just produce more survival series and paint by numbers prints. But we
can only afford to be 'inefficient' in producing the 'better things of
life' if the world has a smaller population. That ain't rocket science.
So what is to be done? Obviously, we should try to reduce our
consumption of non-essentials and inefficiently produced goods. For one
thing, I eat almost no beef but do eat bison (buffalo). It's organic,
lower in fat and cholesterol, and is native to this country and region
and requires much less water and grain. (It also tastes better).
Unfortunately, because of population pressures, we have overfished our
natural fisheries to the point that the east coast fishery is in
collapse and the west coast fishery is endangered -- except of course
for the somewhat toxic farmed fish, an ecological disaster. As much as
I periodically eat soy-based meat substitutes, they are no substitute
for a non-vegetarian.
The
Re: Will more violence provoke an extension of the US occupation?
--- Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:29 PM -0500 4/10/04, dmschanoes wrote: the fighters in the streets demanding the withdrawal of US forces It is understandable that secular Communists are weary of fighters inspired by their religious faith, as the latter may not have any fond regard for the former, but the only way that Iraqi Communists can survive the occupation and its aftermath is to quit the Governing Council and position themselves at the forefront of the demonstrations in the streets, building up working-class support for the party in the process. Unless they can do that, they will be pretty soon back into exile or the underground. -- Yoshie *** Point of information: Iranian workers, organized into workers' councils in the petroleum sector were instrumental in making the relatively peaceful political revolution against the Shah a success through the strikes they enforced. They were rewarded with death for their unity with the religious tendencies in this battle against an oppressive regime. Blocking with fundamentalists is not a healthy thing for proletarian revolutionaries to do. Regards, Mike B) ** In the 20 years since the Islamic counter-revolution, the regime has murdered close to 100,000 political prisoners from many communist, socialist and left groups as well as from Mojahedin, a religious group. Their tormentors raped every woman and teenage girl facing the firing squad.1 Women have been degraded to second-class citizens. All workers associations, including shoras or workers councils, were disbanded and thousands of activists in the factories killed. The level of real wages fell from $11 to $1 a day.2 Today in Iran there is not a single independent union, no collective bargaining and strike action is illegal. Attacks against national minorities like the Kurds and religious minorities continue unabated. The war with Iraq to export Islamic counter-revolution to the region also brought devastation, a million dead or injured and a total damage of $500 billion. http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/150/150-irn.htm = Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do). Stephen Jay Gould http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com
Kerry in '72: Be Your Own Ralph Nader
* Friday, March 5, 2004 In '72 speech, a different kind of Kerry By Matthew Kelly, The Dartmouth Staff Probable Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry will likely face a challenge on the left from Ralph Nader soon, but 32 years ago, Kerry showered his possible electoral spoiler with praise in a speech at the College. Kerry implored Dartmouth students to be their own Ralph Nader in opposing the Vietnam War, urging the audience to break the cycle of non-involvement. Kerry, who had recently served as president of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, spoke on Jan. 10, 1972 at the Top of the Hop, where he urged students and Americans who opposed the Vietnam War to involve themselves in politics with greater zeal. Regarding Ralph Nader, Kerry said that opponents of the war must be public citizens in every aspect of our lives, as Kerry apparently thought Nader did. Kerry also took then-controversial positions relating to those who fled the draft. He favored amnesty and repatriation for deserters and draft dodgers, although he doubted that Americans would accept his stance. In order to convince the country to give amnesty to deserters, Kerry proposed repatriation contingent on some sort of national service. Although Kerry's remarks were controversial at the time, Russell Caplan '72, former executive editor of The Dartmouth, said time has healed many of the scars of Vietnam. Indeed, President Jimmy Carter followed through on a campaign promise just a day after his inauguration by granting a pardon to those who avoided the draft by either not registering or avoiding the war. Kerry has shrewdly avoided publicly criticizing President Bush's National Guard service, which some critics of the president have dismissed as akin to draft dodging. But, Kerry has no doubt benefited from the sharp contrast between their Vietnam experiences. I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard, Kerry told Fox News recently. Those are choices people make. Caplan said that Dartmouth as a whole was largely divided on the issue of the Vietnam War during his time. On the one hand, Larry Adelman '73, the author of the article, was a rabid peace activist who would wear anti-war armbands to class. On the pro-war side, the group Students Behind Dartmouth was formed in 1968 to counterbalance liberal activists. Although the College was split roughly 50-50 on the issue of the war, Caplan said that the campus never approached experiencing riots on the scale of those that paralyzed Columbia University in 1968. Dartmouth didn't do that because it had more of a conservative student body and alumni, and it was in an isolated location and easier to contain, Caplan said. In his 1972 speech, Kerry lashed at then-President Richard Nixon, claiming that he was personally responsible for over 130,000 Vietnam casualties a month, although Kerry also predicted reelection. He also criticized Nixon for trying to request the return of prisoners of war before the war ended. Ironically, Kerry has worked with Arizona Sen. John McCain on lingering Vietnam POW/MIA issues during their time in the Senate. Kerry had vaulted into the national spotlight after testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 1971, where he famously asked, How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? This quote was featured in the upper right corner of The Dartmouth, where editors would normally place humorous one-liners, according to Caplan. The Kerry campaign declined to comment Thursday. http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2004030501040 * John Kerry Then: Hear Kerry's Historic 1971 Testimony Against the Vietnam War, February 20, 2004: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/20/1535232. -- 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: Will more violence provoke an extension of the US occupation?
Point of information: Iranian workers, organized into workers' councils in the petroleum sector were instrumental in making the relatively peaceful political revolution against the Shah a success through the strikes they enforced. They were rewarded with death for their unity with the religious tendencies in this battle against an oppressive regime. Blocking with fundamentalists is not a healthy thing for proletarian revolutionaries to do. Regards, Mike B) Avoid being instrumental, i.e. instrumental to success of others. Communists have to get involved in the struggle against the occupation and become leaders of it. Unless they can do that, they are goners. -- 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: The Iraq Communist Party and Worker Communist Party of Iraq
These forwards are valuable, and I agree with the cautious way Mike expresses preferences. One of the lessons of internationalism in the 20th century was that whatever your leanings real internationalism requires some due modesty when you youreself are not directly in the front line. The global nature of the internet may momentarily obscure the fact that we write and read from vastly different contexts. Most of us on this list are writing from states that have declared a war that has no legal basis in international law (in fact they were very careful not to declare it) and not from a country that has had an appalling human rights record but also a proud history of standing up to imperialist interference, that has been invaded and occupied in an aggressive war for which massive indemnities should be paid. The roles of international solidarity impose different tasks on different people in terms of immediate objectives. The important message for us in the imperialist heartlands seems to me We repeat the demand of the masses for immediate withdrawal of the US forces from Iraq. We call for transfer of the task of security and stability to a government formed of the representatives of the masses in collaboration with multinational forces, excluding the US and other countries, which participated in the war coalition. However I doubt the practicality of the call that This interim government should disarm all militia forces and ensure security, freedom and the requirements of a decent life and also provide suitable situation to enable people to choose their government freely and consciously. I too somewhat prefer theWCPI statement here but even though there are probably bitter ideological disputes between them it is important to recognise there is some overlap in strategic orientation about what is a demand for basic human rights in the course of the struggle against imperialist domination. Communists have had a terrible time in the face of islamic fundamentalism and have been badly squeezed by the dual contradictory nature of reactionary islamic fundamentalism. This may be progressive against imperialism, it may be reactionary against secular and working class as well as liberal democratic internal forces. Both positions seem to me to have some merit. I suspect that the ICP is in dialogue with some of the broader minded members of the governing council who have insisted on the US at least attempting a cease fire in Fallujah, at the expense of roots in the poorest most working class parts of the population. They probably have their social base among the intelligentsia. One of the outcomes of the actual battle of forces of course may be a state in which among other things women have to wear the veil. Globally that may be progressive if it forces the USA to force Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians on the basis of genuine respect for human rights, but would be one of the dialectical contradictions of history. Those of us outside Iraq need to value the opportunity to be informed. We must hope that different progressive elements within Iraq can keep in some sort of dialogue and formulate a better way forward for the Iraqi people in their struggle against imperialism, for democracy and ultimately for socialism, and a global, classless, communist world which working people together have won, and will protect. Thanks very much for the post. Chris Burford London - Original Message - From: Mike Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 5:56 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The Iraq Communist Party and Worker Communist Party of Iraq This and other items are posted on the Worker Communist Party site: http://www.wpiraq.org/english/ Of the two, I prefer the WCP and their approach to politics and poltical-economy. Regards, Mike B)
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
Agree with number 1. Not sure on no.2 (think coal and biomass may be more contributory than oil). Totally disagree with First the world is overpopulated... and everything following that. Apocalyptic Malthusianism is a dismal science. dms - Original Message - From: paul phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 1:44 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Mark Jones Was Right Without trying to get into the specific debating points in this thread, I find the unreality of the debate to be numbing. There are a number of points that I think we can all agree on. _
Re: Will more violence provoke an extension of the US occupation?
MB is absolutely correct. But blocing with fundamentalists is not the issue, no more than blocing with the Taliban was the content, meaning or program of fighting the US invasion of Afghanistan. The issue isfirst, the recognition that the actual struggle going on has social, not religious roots, in the class structure; 2. the religious manifestation is inadequate, and will become, sooner rather than later, hostile to the tasks of that struggle-- changing the social structure at its root. 3. the only way to supplant the religious groups is in the development and practice of a combat program by revolutionists. That means being in the midst, and forefront, of every struggle against the occupation. dms - Original Message - From: Mike Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:01 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Will more violence provoke an extension of the US occupation? Iranian workers, organized into workers' councils in the petroleum sector were instrumental in making the relatively peaceful political revolution against the Shah a success through the strikes they enforced. They were rewarded with death for their unity with the religious tendencies in this battle against an oppressive regime. Blocking with fundamentalists is not a healthy thing for proletarian revolutionaries to do.
Re: Mark Jones was right
Soula: "Jones was not only right.. his little peace on the castration of Japanese capital was one good piece of Leninist analysis" Could someone give me a link to that please? Thx, Hari
Re: Will more violence provoke an extension of the US occupation?
Let's see: the fighters in the streets demanding the withdrawal of US forces are actually hoping for an extension of US dominated occupation by displacing other democratic forces that opposed Saddam all along? What other democratic forces-- those that now sit on the US dominated governing council? Chalabi? He opposed Saddam all along. He's a democratic force? Well he certainly has the credentials, having been convicted of bank fraud. Actually it is the line of the U.S. media that the IGC is only composed of Chalabi. Chalabi has no base od support in Iraq. He is no democrat, nor is he capable of anything other than ruling in the name of the Bush administration. But he not the IGC, nor is he the future of Iraq. This is actually an inter-petty capitalist squabble for power in and after the handover? That's why there is the growing alliance of Shia and Sunni forces? That's why some members of the governing group have resigned and denounced the US actions as unacceptable and illegal? This argumentation by rhetorical question actually is starting to clarify the situation. From my position safely tucked away in NYC, as opposed to your position dangerously located.exactly where?, it looks to me like you're not really talking sensibly. Just one man's opinion, of course. I too am safely tucked away here in the U.S. I made no claim to be anywhere else. But I think my point that brave intellectuals in the west who seem to support anything and everything that seems anti-imperalist because it is violent has been made. Joel _ Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar FREE! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/
Re: Will more violence provoke an extension of the US occupation?
I disagree that this is the only way. The fact is that the ICP is at the forefront of the reorganization of the working-class movement in Iraq. It has led the process of organizing the IFTU, which has come under attack by the US forces. It has called for the inclusion of Arab nationalist, secular democratic parties, and even parties that are religious in the reconstruction process, an inclusion that forces aligned with the US, like Chalabi, have opposed because his/US goal is to keep the recosntruction process as narrow as possible in order to ensure that as many pro-US individuals control it as possible. I think the ICP's view is that if they focus their work only in areas outside of the reconstruction process and outside of the arena to which the US plans to turn power over to on June 30 by quitting the IGC, they will be forfeiting that political ground to U.S. controlled interests. This won't be a positive thing for Iraq. It won't create an independent country, nor will it unify the diverse class and ethnic/cultural forces. Their view seems to be that unity is the key to rebuilding Iraq independent of the US. They have even said that Iraq doesn't need to have a completely secular constitution if it will promote unity and a national democratic movement. Joel It is understandable that secular Communists are weary of fighters inspired by their religious faith, as the latter may not have any fond regard for the former, but the only way that Iraqi Communists can survive the occupation and its aftermath is to quit the Governing Council and position themselves at the forefront of the demonstrations in the streets, building up working-class support for the party in the process. Unless they can do that, they will be pretty soon back into exile or the underground. -- Yoshie _ Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlbpgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/
Re: Will more violence provoke an extension of the US occupation?
I too am safely tucked away here in the U.S. I made no claim to be anywhere else. But I think my point that brave intellectuals in the west who seem to support anything and everything that seems anti-imperalist because it is violent has been made. Joel __ Like the Holy Roman Empire, I am neither brave, nor an intellectual, nor in support of anything and everything that is violent. My recommendation is to avoid close quarters combat whenever possible. Sometimes, however, it is just not possible to avoid. And then? Make sure you got a back up, a way out, extra ammunition. And water. Dry mouth is a gross understatement. But in the interim-- the situation in Fallujah, Baghdad is not a clash of two equal evils, or one greater one lesser evil, and the violence there has not been caused by the undemocratic militias, religious fundamentalists, or Ba'athist remnants, no more than the invasion of Iraq was precipitated by Saddam Hussein, any weapons of mass destruction, supposed links to terrorism, or the oppressive nature of his regime. The violence is caused by the presence of the occupiers. It is truly that simple. dms
Re: Will more violence provoke an extension of the US occupation?
Avoid being instrumental, i.e. instrumental to success of others. Communists have to get involved in the struggle against the occupation and become leaders of it. Unless they can do that, they are goners. -- Yoshie Who says they are not involved in the struggle against the occupation? http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/4882/1/205/ http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/4747/1/201/ http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/4516/1/193/ http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/ http://www.iraqcp.org/framse1/ Joel _ Tax headache? MSN Money provides relief with tax tips, tools, IRS forms and more! http://moneycentral.msn.com/tax/workshop/welcome.asp
Re: Will more violence provoke an extension of the US occupation?
Last comment on this. The mobilization of the general population into open combat against an occupying army, and/or its private equivalents, is fundamentally different than terrorist bombings. It is the eruption of the social struggle beyond the limits of both stabilizing and destabilizing forces, (as if the stabilizing forces weren't the biggest fomentors of destabilizaton). It is not just opportunism, not just a mistaken/failure, to confuse or ignore this critical distinction, it is outright reactionary, giving credence to the equal legitimacy of the occupation. No democracy is possible with, through the organizations sanctioned by the occupation. To preach about democracy while participating in the occupation government is to give new and true meaning to Hegel's description of liberalism as a philosophy of the abstract that capitulates before the world of the concrete. dms - Original Message - From: Joel Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who says they are not involved in the struggle against the occupation?
Poconos housing bust
(About five years ago Bill Moyers had a show on PBS that dealt with the impact of economic crisis on some working-class families. One of them was a house painter from Long Island who could not afford a house in his local community and who moved to the Poconos where housing was more affordable. A car ride to his work place in Long Island took 2 1/2 hours each day! It turns out that these houses in the Poconos were not all that they were cracked up to be. This lengthy NY Times article, the first in a series, is a classic tale of working people, especially of color, being ripped off by banks, real estate developers and politicians. It is a *must* read.) NY Times, April 11, 2004 Blue Skies and Green Yards, All Lost to Red Ink By MICHAEL MOSS and ANDREW JACOBS STROUDSBURG, Pa. Ethel Davis first glimpsed her luminous future in 1997 when she saw a television ad that offered a vision of a green, secure world that had seemed hopelessly out of reach. Why Rent? asked the ad for a home builder in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania. Our goal is homeownership for you and your family. Every American wants it; every American deserves it. And so, with the ad's irresistible kicker, The only thing you have to lose is your landlord, ringing in her ears, she did what thousands of her neighbors, many of them middle-income blacks and Hispanics from New York City, did. She took the interstate west, lured by the promise of fresh air, good schools and green, gated communities they could never afford closer to home. It turned out there was more to lose than a landlord. Six years later, after her new house proved far beyond her means and the five-hour daily round trip to her job in New York City sapped her endurance, her marriage has collapsed, the bank is seizing her house and she is back in Brooklyn renting space from a landlord who took pity on her. I worked so hard for so long, and I have nothing to show for it, said Ms. Davis, a 45-year-old legal secretary. I'm just devastated. Ms. Davis's migration west was part of a national campaign that has made homeowners of millions of middle- and lower-income Americans. But her tumble from ownership to foreclosure was part of another mass movement. In the last decade, lenders have brought foreclosure proceedings against 5,700 homes in Monroe County, Pa., or more than one in five of all mortgaged homes in this rural county that takes in most of the Poconos. Thousands more families here are struggling to hang on. In some of the fastest-growing Pocono townships, census data show, one in four minority families are using half or more of their gross earnings to pay for their homes. They are piling on credit card debt, forfeiting college savings and plundering retirement funds just to meet their mortgage payments and unexpectedly high expenses. The story of the Pocono Mountains, drawn from corporate and government documents, and interviews with more than 100 homebuyers and dozens of finance industry employees and policymakers, is one of miscalculation and greed, of questionable business practices by builders and banks, of dismal state regulation and a federal policy whose ambitions outstripped its ability to be carried out. President Bush is enthusiastically promoting his role in raising the homeownership rate, particularly among minorities. Indeed, encouraging homeownership is one of the few issues the Clinton and Bush administrations pursued with equal ardor. But the national foreclosure rate has tripled over the last three decades. Experts say mortgage fraud is on the rise in the United States and is now evident in as much as 25 percent of the loans that falter. And what happened in the Poconos is a disturbing glimpse of how a worthy goal helping more middle-income Americans own their own homes can sometimes produce disastrous results. Just last month, in a familiar scene here, a former renter from Queens, Lewis Delgado, gave up a five-year struggle to pay for his home in Tobyhanna, Pa., by helping his three sons get their belongings into storage before the sheriff arrived with eviction papers. We're losing everything that we worked for, he said, as he drove off to look for a new place to live. Some tried to avert the calamity here. Finance industry insiders warned government officials and prestigious institutions like Chase Manhattan and Freddie Mac that homebuyers were being overcharged and buried in debt, according to records and interviews. Still, the selling and lending rolled on. Ethel Davis was good for federal officials who boast of their success in promoting minority ownership. She was good for the home builder and the banks, which used mortgages like hers to reach a new market for consumer loans. She was good until she collapsed, and then she became an inconvenient casualty on the bleak side of the housing boom. Distant Yet Inviting There was, to be sure, something quite improbable from the start about
Re: town country
the sprawl was also encouraged by the government, with the interstate highway system (in then 1950s and after) and earlier infrastructural investment. -- JD -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 4/10/2004 9:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [PEN-L] town country One of the key historical factors in the development of the United States was the role of land speculators in creating sprawl -- not just suburban sprawl but rural sprawl in the early years of this country. Had the country experienced a planned development, energy needs would be far less. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: town country
Which just goes to show the links between the military-construction-real estate-sprawl-white flight industry as the interstate highway system was the creation of the National Interstate Highway for Defense (think that was the title of the original legislation) Act. And the wastefulness of the totality of capitalist accumulation. dms - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] town country the sprawl was also encouraged by the government, with the interstate highway system (in then 1950s and after) and earlier infrastructural investment. -- JD
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
Julio Huato wrote: If the Arabs control the oil in their soil, they still need to sell it at a price the buyers can accept. I don't really get the argument that the U.S. would enjoy a great windfall from the control of Iraqi oil. Say the occupation manages to pacify the country and U.S.-based (and only U.S. - what about non-U.S. firms?) oil companies end up owning Iraq's oil, like in the old days. So they capture some rents that would otherwise go to the Iraqi national oil company. Good for the oil companies involved, but how much would that help other sectors of U.S. capital? Oil companies have an interest in high oil prices, but that harms autos, airlines, chemicals, and finance. If you want to say that the Bush admin narrowly represents oil interests in the U.S., ok (but there's no evidence that big oil actively encouraged the invasion of Iraq). But the broader arguments about some great material interests behind the war - I just don't get them. This isn't the 19th century anymore. Doug
Re: Will more violence provoke an extension of the US occupation?
Joel Wendland wrote: I too am safely tucked away here in the U.S. I made no claim to be anywhere else. But I think my point that brave intellectuals in the west who seem to support anything and everything that seems anti-imperalist because it is violent has been made. The content of support is a bit vague here. As far as I can tell all it means is sit in one's chair earnestly wishing that such and such will be the case in Iraq. There _is_ violence in Iraq. There will continue to be violence, ebbing and flowing but tending towards ever more violence, until all foreign troops are withdrawn unconditionally. There will very possibly be violence, a great deal of violence, after the troops withdraw. The longer troops remain, the more likely of great violence after they do withdraw. This is a statement of empirical fact, and nothing progressive forces in the west can do will change that fact. There is only one honorable course for intellectuals (or anyone else) in the west to follow: do all we can to force the withdrawal of foreign troops. U.S. out of Everywhere! Carrol
Re: town country
it was called the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The idea was partly based on Hitler's use of the autobahns to fight a two-front war. Jim D. -Original Message- From: dmschanoes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 4/11/2004 9:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] town country Which just goes to show the links between the military-construction-real estate-sprawl-white flight industry as the interstate highway system was the creation of the National Interstate Highway for Defense (think that was the title of the original legislation) Act. And the wastefulness of the totality of capitalist accumulation. dms - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] town country the sprawl was also encouraged by the government, with the interstate highway system (in then 1950s and after) and earlier infrastructural investment. -- JD
The IFTU on the interim constittuion etc.
The meeting was chaired by Harry Barnes MP and attended by Rob Marris MP and Kelvin Hopkins MP as well as Robert G. Smith for Ann Clwyd, the Prime Minister's human rights envoy to Iraq and Alan Lloyd, for Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock, John Crowley of the Daily Telegraph, Eric Lee of LabourStart, and Gary Kent. Apologies and support were received from several Labour and Conservative MPs, who were away on parliamentary business. Contact was later made with the BBC. The meeting heard about the positive position of the IFTU with regard to the Iraqi Transitional Administrative Law. This document, despite its drawbacks, offers a balanced system of governance, giving clear separation between the three state institutions, and it guarantees (in Article 13) the right to form and join a union and the right to strike. It also guarantees the role of women with the leadership of the state and its institutions. And it also recognized Iraq as a federal state. The drawbacks include no mention of social welfare provision, nor the role of the U.N., nor the role of the occupation forces during the two-year transition. Nevertheless, it is a truly radical document, Muhsin concluded http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/archives/26.html Comment: Surely the IFTU must know that the US is to retain command of the Iraqi forces during the interim as well as of general security etc. Isnt there also a clause about the laws passed by IGC and Bremer before transition are to remain during the period? This would include reactionay laws banning strikes etc. How does this fit in with transition law? Here is quote another quote from the site: The labour laws inherited from the previous regime, which among other things banned trade unionism in the public sector (most of Iraq's economy at the time), present many obstacles for trade unions. The mission stressed the need for the administration to involve workers through their trade unions, in the development of new labour laws. Tripartite involvement in drafting these laws should help lay strong foundations for social dialogue in the future. A primary role for the UN?s International Labour Organisation in drafting the legislation, and in other relevant aspects of reconstruction, is particularly important. This will help ensure that the legal framework, and the application of these laws, conforms to international standards, and in particular the core Conventions of the ILO. Comment. They provide obstacles for the trade unions because the occupation authorities have retained the ban against public sector unions! However, they have not kept the laws against selling public assets to foreigners! Cheers, Ken Hanly
Happy Easter!
notes from life in Southern California: 1. Surreal: when I drive to or from work, I pass a pizza parlor which has very strange slogans on their sign. This week's one said Eat More Pizza Right Meow. 2. Sinister: across Pacific Coast Highway from the pizza place, is the fundamentalist Hope Chapel. They have a much larger sign (forming, with the pizza parlor, dueling signs). Until recently, their sign said: Be Ye Fishers of Men: You Catch Them, He'll Clean Them. [for those who have ever fished, you know what this means.] 3. Cynical: now that Ralph's is no longer locking out its workers, I stopped there for some groceries. They were selling Easter gifts, including a cross made out of chocolate. [of course, I had to buy it, to give to my Jewish atheist wife.] jim devine
The resolute criticism of IFTU of the occupation
The IFTU streed(sic) that the ILO should be fully involved in writing a new labour law in Iraq, in consultation with the IFTU. The delegation also visited the IFTU headquarters, which was raided by the US military in December 2003 and which is still closed. The delegation concluded: The international trade union movement will continue to work to assist Iraqi workers and their unions at the sectoral, regional and national levels. A strong a viobrant trade union movement will be a key foundation for the development of democracy in the country, and in ensuring social justice and equitable and sustainable economic development. posted by Abdullah 5 March at 15:30PM http://www.iraqitradeunions.org/archives/21.html Not a word of criticism. I guess the IFTU thinks that it is taking a great leap forward just by presenting the fact that the US raided the headquarters. The sense of righteous indignation seems to be lacking! Cheers, Ken Hanly
Re: Happy Easter!
Devine, James wrote: notes from life in Southern California: I remember from the '30s a sign in a yard in the village of Millburg, Michigan: Repent ye and therefore be saved Electrical Repairing Did Carrol
Re: Happy Easter!
When I lived in Kalamzoo, Mich. in the late 80s, we would see a sign on the road to Ann Arbor (which we visited often, K being what it was), advertising a Christian motel: Prepare to meet thy God! was the slogan. Hmmm, that's inviting. On the North shore of Chicago is a hopital called Resurrection Health Care (when ordinary medicare service just won't do!). jks --- Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Devine, James wrote: notes from life in Southern California: I remember from the '30s a sign in a yard in the village of Millburg, Michigan: Repent ye and therefore be saved Electrical Repairing Did Carrol __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
bubblicious housing?
April 11, 2004/New York TIMES In Debate Over Housing Bubble, a Winner Also Loses By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON Hhttp://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/h.gif OUSING prices have been rising significantly faster than the rate of inflation for eight years. Is it time to worry about the B word - a housing bubble, akin to the stock market bubble that burst in 2000? Are buyers who paid sky-high prices at risk of losing a big chunk of their net worth if interest rates rise and housing prices collapse? No and no, according to Hilary R. Croke, an assistant economist at the Federal Reserve Bank in Washington. On the strength of her convictions, Ms. Croke just won a $1,000 prize for a 740-word essay arguing that there is no bubble. But she didn't win over the sponsors of the contest, Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot, founders of the Center for Policy and Economic Research [AND pen-l alumni], a liberal economic research organization in Washington. Mr. Baker and Mr. Weisbrot, who warned of the stock market bubble well before it burst, are as convinced as ever that an even more catastrophic future awaits the housing market. The two men offered the prize to see how strong an argument could be built against their views. The challenge attracted 88 essays, including Ms. Croke's. Her essay, and Mr. Baker and Mr. Weisbrot's response to it, provide a snapshot of the debate over the booming housing market taking place among economists. Ms. Croke, who was expressing her personal views, wrote that there were compelling reasons'' to believe that housing prices were artificially inflated. But she said some factors indicated that the increase in housing prices was based on solid economics, not irrational exuberance in real estate. Demand for housing has been strong for more than a decade, smoothing out the historical pattern of galloping prices in good times and falling prices in recessions, she wrote. The main reason, she argued, is government incentives to bolster home ownership, including the creation of Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lower interest rates and fees for buyers and a desire to own bricks and mortar'' rather than stocks and bonds are also factors, she wrote. While housing prices may not continue a stunning climb, she concluded, a collapse commensurate with previous asset bubbles is unlikely.'' Four business students at the University of Chicago - Scott Leigh, Greg Morishige, Karl Schmidt and Michelle Su - were the contest runners-up but received no cash prize. They argued that falling interest rates largely explained why housing prices had outpaced inflation. The average rate on new mortgages in 1993 was 9.3 percent; it is now 5.4 percent. Someone who could afford a $250,000 mortgage in 1993 can now borrow $368,800, or 47 percent more, for the same monthly payment. But even if interest rates climb, the students wrote, housing prices will not fall rapidly because changes in home ownership occur slowly, while stocks can be dumped in an instant. If rates rise, they wrote, housing prices may flatten for a time, even as prices of other goods increase due to inflation. As interest rates increase, mortgage interest will be relatively more expensive and rental prices will increase,'' they added. Though unpopular, the gap between housing prices and inflation will thus not be closed by lowered housing prices, but by higher inflation. The arguments failed to sway the economists who sponsored the contest. The fact that people are borrowing against their homes at a rapid rate (more than $750 billion in 2003) is more evidence of an unsustainable bubble,'' Mr. Baker and Mr. Weisbrot wrote in response. The ratio of mortgage debt to home equity is at record highs. This fact is especially scary given that equity values may be inflated by as much as 20 to 30 percent as a result of the housing bubble, and that the nation's demographics (with the baby boomers approaching retirement) suggest that many homeowners should have largely paid off their mortgages'' but instead have borrowed their equity through home equity loans. The market is responding to the housing bubble exactly as economic theory would predict,'' they wrote, and new homes are being built far faster than can be supported by population and income growth.'' They say weak demand for rentals is the first sign of this oversupply of housing. A result will be a loss of $2 trillion to $3 trillion in housing wealth, they wrote, and a downturn that is even worse than the fallout from the stock market crash.'' So who will turn out to be right? Most homeowners are probably cheering for Ms. Croke, and those who have yet to buy for Mr. Baker and Mr. Weisbrot. JD
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
Of course a certain fraction of US capital would benefit most from control of Iraqi oil. But as the PNA and other neo-con sites make clear control of energy resources is crucial to the continued hegemony of the US. Why do you think that countries such as Japan are kissing US ass in Iraq in spite of the fact that most Japanese are opposed to Japanese involvement. The Japanese know that access to energy resources is essential for their capitalists and the US knows the same. Surely it should be evident to a left business observer and this aim is documented in lots of places.. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 10:59 AM Subject: Re: Mark Jones Was Right Julio Huato wrote: If the Arabs control the oil in their soil, they still need to sell it at a price the buyers can accept. I don't really get the argument that the U.S. would enjoy a great windfall from the control of Iraqi oil. Say the occupation manages to pacify the country and U.S.-based (and only U.S. - what about non-U.S. firms?) oil companies end up owning Iraq's oil, like in the old days. So they capture some rents that would otherwise go to the Iraqi national oil company. Good for the oil companies involved, but how much would that help other sectors of U.S. capital? Oil companies have an interest in high oil prices, but that harms autos, airlines, chemicals, and finance. If you want to say that the Bush admin narrowly represents oil interests in the U.S., ok (but there's no evidence that big oil actively encouraged the invasion of Iraq). But the broader arguments about some great material interests behind the war - I just don't get them. This isn't the 19th century anymore. Doug
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
k hanly wrote: Of course a certain fraction of US capital would benefit most from control of Iraqi oil. But as the PNA and other neo-con sites make clear control of energy resources is crucial to the continued hegemony of the US. They say that, but does that make it true? They're more of an extremist group of think-tankers than the organic intellectuals of the capitalist class. They've said many things that have turned out to be seriously false. Why do you think that countries such as Japan are kissing US ass in Iraq in spite of the fact that most Japanese are opposed to Japanese involvement. The Japanese know that access to energy resources is essential for their capitalists and the US knows the same. Surely it should be evident to a left business observer and this aim is documented in lots of places.. I've heard this a hundred times before, and I'm not convinced. If the U.S. wanted to block oil supplies to Japan, then it could blockade Japan or bomb tankers heading there. Why is necessary to take the expensive and risky option of trying to control the producing regions? It may be that our rulers think this way, but is it rational calculation, or just some fantasy of imperial glory with no real payoff? Doug
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
it may be good luck if the scare-mongers are correct that we're going to run out of oil soon, since that would limit the burning of hydrocarbons and moderate the tendency toward global warmng. -- Jim D. -Original Message- From: paul phillips [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 4/10/2004 11:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Mark Jones Was Right Without trying to get into the specific debating points in this thread, I find the unreality of the debate to be numbing. There are a number of points that I think we can all agree on. 1. That there is a growing threat that global warming is a real and imminent danger. 2. That global warming is, at least in a significant part, caused by the use fossil fuels, in particular petroleum. 3. That attempting to raise the standard of living of the existing population of the developing world to the level of the western industrialized countries is not possible without a major change (reduction in standard?) in the consumption standards of the developed world.
Re: Mark Jones Was Right/correction
In a message dated 4/10/2004 7:23:03 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The world sewage system - even in the most modern countries, is configured on the basis of man existing in a pathological condition (embedded with ancient and modern forms of property expressed in our current form and reality of the sum total of our "needs.") If obesity is the number one cause of death in America - and it most is, then we are talking about the people of America having exceeded a "certain limit," even if our present society is not conscious of what this "certain limit" consists. Gluttony and obesity is not simply wrong diet or more accurately wrong consumption, but embodies the society process called production, consumption and distribution. Each aspect of production, consumption and distibution presupposes each other. In real life this social process is sustained on the basis of an energy infrastructure. The energy infrastructure took shape on the basis of the bourgeois property relations as it creates "needs" including the need that is the energy infrastructure. The only possible cure for gluttony and obesity is to stop eating - consuming that, which is causing the mass deaths. The question presents itself in its appearance form as a lack of exercise, fatty foods and lazy Americans with too many cars.The appearance form are in fact created "needs." Marx "Economic and Philosophic Manuscript of 1844" actually discuss these questions in their theoretical dimensions under the concept of alienation, or the externalization and objectification of social activity - laboring and the evolution of property relations. Marx does not directly speak to eating and obesity because consumptiondid not exits as a social question in this form. The form of the social question - consumption in the general sense, was scarcity, which the bourgeoisie controls, or the control of scarcity (the class impulse of bourgeois production) as opposed to the abolition of scarcity. The question deepens because scarcity is not an abstraction and has for thousands of years been understood on the basis of the "needs" created by a given mode of production. We have entered an era of communist revolution, but not as an abstraction. What faces us in the imperial centers is the contradiction between the mode of production and the social relations that - unbelievably, manifest the control of scarcity as gluttony and "to much of everything" called obesity. From this point of view the barrier to sustainability (a bad concept in the first place) is the property relations and not the laws of thermodynamics, which operates outside the subjective will of man. Sustainability is a bad concept because it embody the property relations that created much of the needs one is to sustain. A projection based on the needs created on the basis of property means one is within bourgeois ideology and consumption theory. Not a refusal to acknowledge the inherently finite dimensions of earth or the computations of the geologists, but rather a more sober positioning of all questions in their property form. The manner in which we think things out embodies the property relations and its various ideological forms, aswell as tradition, cultural specificity and force of habit, which in turn embodies property relations. The issue of the environment is not a question of abstract survival of the species but a property question. The destruction of vast tracts of forest and plant life is not a question of science gone mad, but science under the direction of property - the bourgeoisie as a class. It seems reasonable to charge various environmentalists with Malthus concepts, in as much as they position the question outside the bounds of property. Henry Ford as personified capital and the automobile in the flesh, is to be charged with criminal concept for humanity and an environmental degradation unprecedented in human history. Our entire transportation infrastructure embodies property relations and not abstract road, streets and highways. Comrade Mark Jones mentions the environmental destruction within the Soviet Union and states that no one is immune to the laws of thermodynamics. "Socialism is not the answer to sustainability as it is expressed on the basis of thermodynamics" is the basic assertion. What is needed is a different kind of socialism more conscious of nature or more understanding of the law of unknown result. Absent from Mark Jones assessment is acknowledgment that socialism is a value producing society and a property relations with all its consequences. Further, public property relations in the industrial infrastructure, as it evolves as a transition from agricultural society to industry proper, recreates many of the same needs as an industrial bourgeois society. Industrial society no matter what its property relations is a historically specific mode of production with the property relations within. That is to say what was wrong with
Re: Mark Jones was right
That was a piece on that list a while back... I have been folowing the oil issue here and there. I know that MJ use tohave much to say on the topic. I have read articles pro and con of the forthcoming hubbert peak, in th end it appeared to me as the differences were more to do with the timing. ie 2006 2010 ETC. but what was certain the damn substance was running out or is to run out and substites are costlyHari Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Soula: "Jones was not only right.. his little peace on the castration of Japanese capital was one good piece of Leninist analysis"Could someone give me a link to that please? Thx, HariDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
one up to al-Sadri
The news in London this evening is that most of the hostages are going to be released and that there will be a cease fire in Falluja. Channel 4 News had an interview with a spokesman of the Iraq Governing Council Hamid Alefey (?) who openly criticised the US, presumably on behalf of the IGC for not seeking a political solution. Alefey stressed that it is important to work on a political solution to avoid influence going in favour of more extreme activities. Meanwhile the leader of the Conservative Party in the UK, Michael Howard, who will have received confidential briefings from the Labour government, called for a strengthening of the UK political representative in Baghdad, and his being made Bremer's formal deputy. The government declined to produce a spokesperson and limited themselves to a written statement that Richmond(?) is a good diplomatic and has good relations with Paul Bremer. Again the general implication is that that it is already suddenly past June 30 and the US freedom of action must be at the discretion of the IGC not the other way round. Interveners on the IGC, perhaps including the Iraq Communist Party, have clawed some influence. and al Sadri has succeeded in building links in action with the Sunni forces holding out in Falluhah. Within the range of Iraqi forces there has been some accommodation in line with the resultant of forces and a united front against arbitrary US action. Al Sadri's stock must have risen and his organisation will strengthen, but there is some alliance with liberal democratic elements. This is probably the best that the US could hope for an exit strategy. Any more thrashing around could make the situation worse for it. (At least that's my guess) Chris Burford London
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
Yes, Jim, although if as some are suggesting we shift from oil to coal, the problem will get worse, not better. Furthermore, it does nothing to solve the population pressure on other resources, in particular water. Paul Devine, James wrote: it may be good luck if the scare-mongers are correct that we're going to run out of oil soon, since that would limit the burning of hydrocarbons and moderate the tendency toward global warmng. -- Jim D.
Re: one up to al-Sadri
- Original Message - From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:45 PM Subject: [PEN-L] one up to al-Sadri Interveners on the IGC, perhaps including the Iraq Communist Party, have clawed some influence. and al Sadri has succeeded in building links in action with the Sunni forces holding out in Falluhah. Within the range of Iraqi forces there has been some accommodation in line with the resultant of forces and a united front against arbitrary US action. Al Sadri's stock must have risen and his organisation will strengthen, but there is some alliance with liberal democratic elements. Seems that this is the opening moment in a period of great potential for a real social revolutionary movement-- if it can articulate a program addressing the economic distress of the population, demanding de-privatization of oil and other productive resources, reparations from the US and the UN for the embargo, damages from the US/UK for the war, improvements in sanitation, agriculture, equal rights for women--- and a moment of great danger if no such movement with a program does emerge, as religious fundamentalism will strengthen if there is no secular remedy. dms
Third World Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity
Third World Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity by James Petras [EMAIL PROTECTED] April 7, 2004 ICH -- Falluja, Baghdad, Ramadi, Nasiriya--an entire people has risen to confront the colonial occupation army, its mercenaries, clients, and collaborators. First in massive peaceful protests, they were massacred by US, British, Spanish and Polish troops: Bare hands against tanks and machineguns. The armed resistance, in the beginning a minority, now indisputably the most popular force, backed by millions. The colonial armies, fearful of every Iraqi, shoot wildly into crowds and retreat; they encircle whole cities, fire missiles into crowded working- class neighborhoods, helicopters pour machinegun fire into homes, factories, mosques. In the eyes of the colonial soldiers, the enemy is everywhere. For once they are right. The resistance resists--every block, every house, every store rings out with gunfire, the resistance is everywhere. Every house takes hits, the resistance fights on. The people aid the wounded fighters, wash their wounds. They provide water to the thirsty to quench their parched throats and cool their hands--the automatic weapons are hot. And where are the western mercenaries? The $1,000-dollar-a-day hired guns with their flak vests, dark glasses--their swagger and insolence--have is appeared. They too have seen the charred bodies of their ex-partners of death. Hundreds of Iraqis have been killed, thousands have been injured, many more will die but after each funeral tens of thousands more, the peaceful, apolitical, wait and see ones have taken up the gun. 'It's a civil war', brays the press. This is wishful thinking. Shia and Sunni are in this together, brothers and sisters (yes, women street fighters) in arms, each covering their comrades' backs as they confront the tanks. And the resistance is winning. Never mind the proportions--five or ten or twenty Iraqis for each colonial soldier. The Iraqi Resistance has won politically: No appointed official has any future: They exist as long as the US military remains but they will flee from the rooftops of their bunkers as the US withdraws. Militarily, the US and the mercenaries are taking thousands of casualties-- scores of deaths and wounded everyday. In Washington, the civilian militarists, the architects of the destruction of Iraq are panicking. Send more troops! say Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the would-be president Kerry. From his Texas ranch, Bush proclaims the resistance leader Moqtada Sadr a killer. Far from the fire, the mayhem, the massacres, his television doesn't show the child with the mangled face. Bush once again is far from the killing fields--Vietnam and now Iraq. Now he can claim a draft deferment--he is nominally the President who unilaterally declared the end of the war in May 2003. Now, April 2004 there are more than 600 dead US soldiers as the Iraqi resistance rose to meet Bush's challenge Bring them on and took the streets from the colonial army, then they came on and conquered the cities and with sheer courage and absolute determination they hold their ground. The Arabs resist, while the overstuffed cabbage Sharon is silent. His once loquacious agents--Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams and their underlings--are strangely silent. Are they worried that there might be a mass backlash against those who cooked the data to get the US into a war in which thousands of US soldiers will die and be maimed--in order to protect Israel's undisputed claim to dominance in the Middle East? In the early spring of 2004, in April to be exact, the dreams of a new colonial empire came crashing down on the masterminds of the New World Order, an undisputed, unilateral Empire. The end of the Sharon-Wolfowitz-Blair-Cheney Greater Mid-East Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Iraqi resistance has turned the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz dream of a series of wars against Syria, Iran, Cuba, and North Korea into a nightmare of bloody street battles on every block in Falluja and Sadr City, Baghdad. The heroism, the valor, the inspiration, the mass resistance is all the more so as the Iraqi people draw on their resources, their own solidarity, their own history, their belief that they will be free or take down every colonial soldier as they fight to the death. The phrase Patria o Muerte takes on a special and very specific meaning in Iraq. It is not a slogan of a leader, a vanguard, to arouse and inspire the people--it is the living practice of a whole people. Patria or Muerte comes out of the mouths of teenage street fighters as well as street vendors and widows with black scarves. The Iraqi April Days are a lesson for the whole Third World and other would-be imperial colonialists: Mass armed resistance cannot be politically or militarily defeated. The heroism of the Iraqi resistance stands in stark contrast to the cowardly self-styled Arab leaders: The Jordanian and Saudi monarchs, the garrulous corrupt President for Life Mubarak, the Iranian Ayatollah
Re: Third World Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity
This sort of drivel reminds me why the U.S. left is so insulated from political power. mbs Third World Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity by James Petras
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
In a message dated 4/11/2004 1:46:58 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fourth, all this talk about having a revolution and allowing changes inproperty relations to solve the overpopulation/overconsumption/pollition-global warming is hopeless dreaming. Not only were the 'actually existing' socialist countries some of the worst polluters and inefficient energy users, does anyonereally think that the working class is going to rise up and support arevolution that promises no beef or other meat, no cars and no airconditioning? I know beef production is inefficient, but so are great works of art -- paintings, ballet and opera -- much cheaper to just produce more survival series and paint by numbers prints. But we can only afford to be 'inefficient' in producing the 'better things of life' if the world has a smaller population. That ain't rocket science. Comment There are not too many people on earth and one has to examine the source of their thinking. When challenged to define the carrying capacity of the earth, what we end up talking about is economics and not the physical mass of the earth and its metabolic processes. How many people can the earth carry - what ever that means? Dreams have been and remain the pistons firing the engines of human imagination. It seems that something a lot more complex than rocket scienceis required to unravel these social questions. I can find no precedent in history where the basis internal classes of a system of production (the working class) has risen up and overthrown the system it is a part of. The meaning of property and classes are more complex than meets the eye. 1. Thesocial revolution begins and is the meaning of the revolution in the means of production or the technological regime. Several factors are involved, including the changes in the form of wealth. The serf did notrise up and bring to an end the social system of landed property relations and the Nobility. Society changes never takes place in this manner. We are talking about a property relations and forms of property or what is called social revolution. What actually happened was the new emergence of classes, within the system of landed property and a corresponding change in theprimary form of wealth from land to gold. The two new classes that emerged within therelations of political feudalism or the agricultural landed property society was the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The feudal classes - nobility and serf,were not overthrown by the serf. The two basis classes that sit at the base of a social system as production logic - with the property relations within, are never free to overthrow the systemthey constitute. They literally cannot overthrow the system and their unending conflict is to reform the system in their favor. The idea that the contradictions internal to a system forces a political struggle between the two basis classes of the system that results in revolution is not correct in my opinion. The feudal political order and the agrarian system it stood upon were overthrown byclasses outside that system - the bourgeoisie and the modern working class. The working class as such cannot and will notmake revolution as such because it is not possible. The social revolution begins and accelerates as therevolution in the means of production, with the property relations within. Computerization, advance robotics, digitalized processes are destroying the industrial form of our society as witnesses in the destruction of the basis component of the old system called the industrial working class and its corresponding form of the bourgeoisie. Society is compelled to leap to a new political basis, property form or destroy various forms of property. Here is the basic meaning of social revolution. The changes in the technological regime creates new classes and most would agree that we are witnessing changes in the form of wealth in the form of speculation as fiat money - currency.The rise of dominator of the total social capital called the speculative capitalist and his extreme counterpart existing more than less outside active engagement withbourgeois production, as a means to reproduce itself, is the "communist class." The compulsion societyis under is the increasing demand to feed, clothe, house, educate and provide for the masses of earthling outside the existing system of buying and selling. This system of buying and selling is generally referred to as the value producing system. The reason several billion people cannot fit into the current world system of buying and selling as the basis of consumption is primarily because their labor power is not need to produce the existing mass of commodities. Everyone has a different opinion and ideology concerning the existence of this mass of humanity outside the logic of bourgeois production, their inability to reproduce themselves and family based on the sell of their labor power and the theory that the two basic classes of a social
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
Ok, so I broke my promise, but... this is too much.. And it proves exactly my points. The scarcity theorists are Malenthusiasts at the bone, concerned about nothing so much as the old in and out, who gets to reproduce and who gets cut. There's nothing good or lucky if the scare-mongers are correct. For one, you're not going to have anything to eat, unless you happen to have a farm, and the weapons to protect it. Secondly, even if you do, you won't be able to maintain the acreage. Dwindling output is the result of agricultural pseudo self-sufficiency. That is the truth of history. You won't be able to go anywhere-- no conferences, no seminars, no book tours-- petroleum supports 99% of the world's commercial transportation. Shift to coal? That would be the least of it. Every bit of biomass-- trees, bushes, dried grasses would be burnt. It would make Pinatubo look like morning fog. Solve the population pressure? Maybe. Like the plague solves overcrowding. Gee now that's a lucky day, isn't it? But you were both only kidding, right? dms From: paul phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Mark Jones Was Right Yes, Jim, although if as some are suggesting we shift from oil to coal, the problem will get worse, not better. Furthermore, it does nothing to solve the population pressure on other resources, in particular water. Paul Devine, James wrote: it may be good luck if the scare-mongers are correct that we're going to run out of oil soon, since that would limit the burning of hydrocarbons and moderate the tendency toward global warmng. -- Jim D.
Re: Third World Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity
Max: This sort of drivel reminds me why the U.S. left is so insulated from political power. mbs As an outsider who has the chance to observe from within, I don't think this is the reason. The American left doesn't have anything to offer to the American people, most of whom are working-class. I think this is the real reason. Best, Sabri
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
In a message dated 4/11/2004 2:57:47 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, Jim, although if as some are suggesting we shift from oil to coal,the problem will get worse, not better. Furthermore, it does nothing tosolve the population pressure on other resources, in particular water.Paul Why is there no shortage of water in Las Vegas - sitting in the desert? How our current infrastructure has been configured is a property relations. Earth is 3/4 water. What pressure on water is being talked about except a configuration of society that is the meaning of bourgeois property and production. Is it not better in today's world to demand that Coca Cola and Pepsi Co. use their vast technology to clean the water ways and reconfigure the water system - infrastructure. The so-called water shortage in the Southwest is no shortage but a problem that arose on the basis of how bourgeois property reconfigured agricultural production in our country. Bourgeois production did not "create" the problems we face but reconfigured the appearance form of the problems we face on the basis of the production of everything on the basis of profits. I do not understand "the water problem." I do most certainly understand water distribution under a system of buying and selling labor as the basis of being able to have water as a societal right. We posses the technology right now today for anyone anywhere to have a clean glass of water. This is fairly obvious and entering the consciousness of the American people. Our current problem in its salient feature is the property relations not to many people on earth. Bourgeois property creates needs to maintain itself and as the basis of its self reproduction. It is time for us to examine the concept of needs and our actual consumption pattern. This most certainly involves economics. Melvin P.
Re: Third World Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity
Sabri Oncu wrote: Max: This sort of drivel reminds me why the U.S. left is so insulated from political power. mbs As an outsider who has the chance to observe from within, I don't think this is the reason. The American left doesn't have anything to offer to the American people, most of whom are working-class. Are you two necessarily contradicting each other? Pieces like Petras' don't resonate at all with the U.S. working class, whether we like it or not. Neither do sermons about overconsumption. But I don't know if the leftists who say these sorts of things really care about their lack of an audience. Doug
Re: Third World Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity
I think that millions of working people in the US are deeply troubled about the war in Iraq. But they lack any kind of progressive mindset to give this unease meaning and to guide them to action. Might note decades of support for imperialism (and its attendant racism and belief in the superiority and goodness of the US) have a lot to do with this. I wish that Petras as well as those who criticize him would begin the engage workers. Labor education is a good place to start. Michael Yates - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Third World Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity Sabri Oncu wrote:Max: This sort of drivel reminds me why the U.S. left is so insulated from political power. mbsAs an outsider who has the chance to observe fromwithin, I don't think this is the reason.The American left doesn't have anything to offer tothe American people, most of whom are working-class.Are you two necessarily contradicting each other? Pieces like Petras'don't resonate at all with the U.S. working class, whether we like itor not. Neither do sermons about overconsumption. But I don't know ifthe leftists who say these sorts of things really care about theirlack of an audience.Doug
Re: one up to al-Sadri
dmschanoes wrote: Seems that this is the opening moment in a period of great potential for a real social revolutionary movement-- if it can articulate a program [CLIP]- and a moment of great danger if [CLIP Whichever if eventuates is beyond the reach of world progressives to affect. With luck and hard work we can maintain pressure on the U.S. to withdraw its forces. U.S. Out of Everywhere! Carrol
Re: correction
I should have written "might not decades of support for imperialism . . by organized labor..." Michael Yates - Original Message - From: MICHAEL YATES To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Third World Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity I think that millions of working people in the US are deeply troubled about the war in Iraq. But they lack any kind of progressive mindset to give this unease meaning and to guide them to action. Might note decades of support for imperialism (and its attendant racism and belief in the superiority and goodness of the US) have a lot to do with this. I wish that Petras as well as those who criticize him would begin the engage workers. Labor education is a good place to start. Michael Yates - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Third World Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity Sabri Oncu wrote:Max: This sort of drivel reminds me why the U.S. left is so insulated from political power. mbsAs an outsider who has the chance to observe fromwithin, I don't think this is the reason.The American left doesn't have anything to offer tothe American people, most of whom are working-class.Are you two necessarily contradicting each other? Pieces like Petras'don't resonate at all with the U.S. working class, whether we like itor not. Neither do sermons about overconsumption. But I don't know ifthe leftists who say these sorts of things really care about theirlack of an audience.Doug
Re: Third World Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity
I wish that Petras as well as those who criticize him would begin the engage workers. Labor education is a good place to start. Michael Yates - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Third World Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity Doug: Pieces like Petras' don't resonate at all with the U.S. working class, whether we like it or not. I don't think Petras's intention in that piece was to address the U.S. working class. My interpretation was that, among other things that are secondary, he was trying to provoke the American left. However, apparently he failed since you guys raised your guards almost instantly. I agree with Michael Y: I wish that Petras as well as those who criticize him would begin the engage workers. Labor education is a good place to start. Best, Sabri
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment There are not too many people on earth and one has to examine the source of their thinking. When challenged to define the carrying capacity of the earth, what we end up talking about is economics and not the physical mass of the earth and its metabolic processes. How many people can the earth carry - what ever that means? Since I disagree totally with this, there is not much point in carrying on the debate. But as Max has said, it is ideas like this that explains why the left has never made much headway in North America. Paul Phillips
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
paul phillips wrote: Since I disagree totally with this, there is not much point in carrying on the debate. But as Max has said, it is ideas like this that explains why the left has never made much headway in North America. I'm confused. Are you saying that the left would be more popular if we said there are too many people, and the too many of us consume too much? Doug
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
Excuse me, knowing I will unsubbed by the moderator, still -- this is a bad joke. An academic is telling Brother Melvin, one of the core members of the most important working classorganization in the USsince the CIO, the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, that it's ideas like Melvin's that explains why the left has never made much headway in North America? Without apologies the statement of Mr. Philips shows only the ignorance of its author. Excuse me again, but it's ideas like there is a silver lining to the cloud of manipulated energy scarcity; that eating bison is aprogressive action; that Japanes rock gardens count for squat, that there are too many people and we can't support them in the style to which I've become accustomed, that explains why the "left" really isn't a left at all, but a circle of the privileged with more arrogance than brains. Yeah, yeah, I know all about my tone.Just before I go, I thought Penstood for Progressive Economists Network. Can anybody show me the progressive part? dms - Original Message - From: paul phillips To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Mark Jones Was Right [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment There are not too many people on earth and one has to examine the source of their thinking. When challenged to define the carrying capacity of the earth, what we end up talking about is economics and not the physical mass of the earth and its metabolic processes. How many people can the earth carry - what ever that means? Since I disagree totally with this, there is not much point in carrying on the debate. But as Max has said, it is ideas like this that explains why the left has never made much headway in North America.Paul Phillips
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
- - . But as the PNA and other neo-con sites make clear control of energy resources is crucial to the continued hegemony of the US. They say that, but does that make it true? They're more of an extremist group of think-tankers than the organic intellectuals of the capitalist class. They've said many things that have turned out to be seriously false. Well the radicals at the PNA and other right wing think tanks surely have power within the US administration. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, FeithWhat on earth are the organic intellectuals of the capitalist class? Capitalists intellectuals in favor or organic farming? Why do you think that countries such as Japan are kissing US ass in Iraq in spite of the fact that most Japanese are opposed to Japanese involvement. The Japanese know that access to energy resources is essential for their capitalists and the US knows the same. Surely it should be evident to a left business observer and this aim is documented in lots of places.. I've heard this a hundred times before, and I'm not convinced. If the U.S. wanted to block oil supplies to Japan, then it could blockade Japan or bomb tankers heading there. Why is necessary to take the expensive and risky option of trying to control the producing regions? It may be that our rulers think this way, but is it rational calculation, or just some fantasy of imperial glory with no real payoff? Doug The point is not whether there is some real payoff or not..The point is that this is one of the important reasons for the invasion and it means that Japan will tend to co-operate with the US because it wants it share in the spoils. Your response shows nothing to disrpove this. I did not mean to suggest the the US wants to cut off Japan from sources of oil supplies. Japan simply wants to make sure they get oil on reasonable terms.. The only reason that the imperial dreamers might turn out to be false in their dreams is that the Iraqi people through their resistance turn it into a nightmare... Of course to secure energy supplies was not the sole reason for the Iraq invasion but those who deny it was significant seem to be the dreamers. The protection of Israel was also a factor and the projection of US power through the region. CHeers, Ken Hanly
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
Doug Henwood wrote: I'm confused. Are you saying that the left would be more popular if we said there are too many people, and the too many of us consume too much? Doug No, what I said , or at least what I meant to say, was that this belief that all the problems are caused by property relations and that there are not real (ecological) constraints on population growth and resource utilization has become a barrier to communicating with workers and the general population. I have done a lot of worker education with unions and with labour studies programs most of my working life (which I began as research director of a major labour federation in Canada) and the quickest way I found to alienate the workers you were working with was to tell them that they are the problem with their overconsumption and demands for a higher standard of living. What was effective was to start with the problems, pollution, unemployment, debt, poverty, global warming and show that these were problems and that they originated in the working of the system. But if I told them that the only solution was revolution or even radical change in the system, they would laugh me out of the room and not invite me back. However, if I could show that more modest and incremental changes were not only possible but would begin to control the power of capital, they were interested. And then we could discuss what they could do. I was always carefull as possible to back up my critique with the best science (and not 'bourgeois' science) that I could find, mainly from 'radical' scientists. This turned the workers and my labour studies students on. And a few became strong activists. A century ago in British Columbia the left/labour/socialist camp was rent asunder by the insistance by the Socialist Party on the 'impossibilist' doctrine. Nothing could be improved without the overthrow of the system and they actively fought participation in the parliamentary electoral system. The reform labour people took a different view and fought for reforms through the legislative process and were surprisingly successful in achieving such things as the 8 hour day and safety regulations in the mines. These were the founding members of the social democratic parties in BC and Canada which, despite their weaknesses and failures, have definitely improved the welfare of Canadian workers and Canadians generally -- medicare, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, labour law, etc all originated with a social democratic labour party. None of this is revolutionary, but it is IMHO, it is progress. What I was objecting to is the modern day 'impossibilists' and their denial of ecological constraints on population and resource utilization and their 'blame the victim' of modern day workers for overconsumption. In any case, I don't think there is enough common ground for a constructive debate on this issue and since I am heading to Slovenia for a month tomorrow (I will be leaving the list until mid-May) so this is my last post on this 'dead-end' thread. Paul
A critique of Paul Sweezy...
I received this message from a fellow worker. I thought those interested in progressive economics might find the critique of interest. Regards, Mike B) *** http://www.wsws.org ran a four-part series on the legacy of Paul Sweezy this past week, basically a critique of his ideas from a Marxian perspective, esp his discarding of Marx's crisis theory. Aside from the Trot garbage, some interesting stuff. Jeff = Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do). Stephen Jay Gould http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Latest Swans release
http://www.swans.com/ April 12, 2004 -- In this issue: Note from the Editor: The notion that one has to destroy a village to save it, put forth repeatedly by the United States to justify its long history of destructive and self-serving military endeavors, revealed itself most recently in Iraq. If history is a guide, we'll fulfill our end of the destroying bargain, as we're currently demonstrating, and disappear when the time for the saving comes. It's no wonder the administration is adamantly opposed to the phrase Nation Building -- it doesn't want expectations to be set accordingly. After all, a simple expression, if adopted, can shape perception. Just look at the Dems' increasing use of Vietnam, as in Iraq is Bush's Vietnam. And Iraq is but a grain of sand on a long list of countries -- just fill in the blank, as Ed Herman aptly points out. To the question, how do we win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, the same old answer comes forth with typical bipartisanship: Send more troops! Shall we have to wait another 10 or 12 years till we bring our troops home and stop the madness from spreading to the next village, the next country? Haven't we learned from the previous holocausts, from the Indian Nations to WWII? Manual García provides chilling statistics. Once more, this is tax crunch in the U.S.; a good time indeed to examine the hard figures behind the Administration's policies and consider just how stimulated the economy has become thanks to Mr. Bush's compassionate tax relief. First-time Swans contributor Joel Wendland, managing editor of Political Affairs, provides a staggering analysis that you won't see on the campaign trail, but may want to take with you to the voting booth. Philip Greenspan looks at the variations-on-a-theme candidates and enjoins us to make our voices heard. Says Greenspan candidly: Get off your butt. Join a progressive movement in your area. If there is none, form your own with like- minded people. There's not a moment to spare either considering the rise of censorship. We cannot afford to focus solely on the presidential election and ignore the insidious attacks on, and chipping away at, the Bill of Rights. Efforts to legislate morality are reaching new heights. To understand all of this, one need only look to Phil Rockstroh and his sardonic analysis of the Uneasy Soul Of Contemporary Conservatism, and to Milo Clark for a reasoned chronology of ethics and morality. John Blunt skeptically searches for some actionable intelligence to uplift him from the existing state of ethics... Well, we always have poetry to do just that, and we're very pleased to present for the first time the sensitive poetry of M. Shahid Alam whose subject, Alberuni, was according to George Sarton one of the very greatest scientists of Islam, and, all considered, one of the greatest of all time. Indeed, Islam has much to teach us all. As always, please form your OWN opinion, and let your friends (and foes) know about Swans. * Here are the links to all the pieces: http://www.swans.com/library/art10/herman12.html We Had To Destroy [Fill in Country Name] In Order To Save It by Edward S. Herman http://www.swans.com/library/art10/ga175.html Hearts, Minds, And The Military in Iraq by Gilles d'Aymery http://www.swans.com/library/art10/mgarci12.html Which Holocaust Matters? by Manuel García, Jr. http://www.swans.com/library/art10/joelw01.html Bush Is The Stick-up Man For The Ruling Class by Joel Wendland http://www.swans.com/library/art10/pgreen39.html Who Will It Be: Coke, Pepsi Or 7-Up? by Philip Greenspan http://www.swans.com/library/art10/jeb131.html Say No To Censorship While You Can by Jan Baughman http://www.swans.com/library/art10/procks23.html Liturgies Of Hate And Longing: The Uneasy Soul Of Contemporary Conservatism by Phil Rockstroh http://www.swans.com/library/art10/mgc124.html Progress Overwhelmed Reason by Milo Clark http://www.swans.com/library/art10/jblunt02.html A Scotch, A Cause, And A Ditch To Dig . . . by John Blunt http://www.swans.com/library/art10/msalam01.html Alberuni (973-1048 CE) A Poem by M. Shahid Alam http://www.swans.com/library/art10/xxx107.html The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson http://www.swans.com/library/art10/letter39.html Letters to the Editor Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
At 11:59 AM -0400 4/11/04, Doug Henwood wrote: So they capture some rents that would otherwise go to the Iraqi national oil company. Good for the oil companies involved, but how much would that help other sectors of U.S. capital? It doesn't, but imperialism has never benefited all sectors of capitalists in the imperial metropolis. -- 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: Third World Resistance and Western Intellectual Solidarity
At 2:55 PM -0700 4/11/04, MICHAEL YATES wrote: I think that millions of working people in the US are deeply troubled about the war in Iraq. But they lack any kind of progressive mindset to give this unease meaning and to guide them to action. We might take a look at W. E. B. DuBois' _John Brown_ (NY: International Publishers, 1962 [first published in 1909]). Free state settlers in Kansas found themselves in three parties: a few who hated slavery, more who hated Negroes, and many who hated slaves. Easily the political _finesse_ . . . might . . . have pitted the parties against one another in such irreconcilable differences as would slip even slavery through (137). And yet, over the course of four years of battle from 1854 until 1858, free state settlers withstood the attacks of the pro-slavery party and fought back -- So Kansas was free. . . . Free because strong men had suffered and fought not against slavery but against slaves in Kansas (143). That should give us a clue. -- 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: Mark Jones Was Right
k hanly wrote: The Japanese know that access to energy resources is essential for their capitalists and the US knows the same. Access to food is essential for people in Brooklyn. There's some food stored in supermarkets, grocery stores, etc. But usually we don't steal it. We buy it at the going prices. Were some individuals to steal food, some nasty consequences would follow. Somehow, people here evolved laws that roughly speaking preserve and enforce private ownership -- and that works out for them, especially for the very wealthy. I imagine that whenever the wealthy indulge in violating these laws overtly, systematically, and with impunity (and this of course happens as the recent corporate scandals show), the poor would feel less compelled to take them seriously and the wealthy would end up regretting it most. Marx's hypothesis is that profit making under capitalism is essentially the appropriation of someone else's unpaid labor by means of a kosher, voluntary market transaction. It's not outright theft. It is disguised theft, because the initial asymmetry of wealth between the parties turns the voluntary part of the transaction into a sham. With initial wealth asymmetry, any process by which people negotiate their interests (say, a democracy or a market) will in effect be a form for the rich to abuse the poor. In this case, we're talking about the market being the form of abusing, but *the form* (as Marx insisted) is what makes here the essential difference. After all, the wealthy had been stealing labor from direct producers since the onset of history, but no form of theft has been as effective and dynamic -- as able to revolutionize production, consumption, and life in general -- as capitalism. Marx's hypothesis is that the normal mode of accumulation under capitalism is by the reinvestment of profits. Primitive accumulation, characteristic of a period when capitalist production is young, is expected to play a decreasing role as capitalism develops. Profit making and accumulation entail a functional market setting, which in turn entails private ownership and its enforcement. Of course, that's in the abstract. Historically, these forms don't pop up in a pure form, they struggle against a bunch of contrary historical influences, but Marx's hypothesis is that, as capitalism evolves, its laws of motion defeat the countertendencies and end up asserting themselves in an increasingly pure form. In any case, for the capitalists, nation (i.e., the national state) was never an end in itself. It was a means to reproducing the conditions that enabled them to make a profit. Only in the most backward case, the national state was a direct vehicle to make profits (e.g., by protection, subsidies, corruption, imperialism, etc.), but when capitalists used the state this way they were eroding their legitimacy and compromising their collective wealth. Many Marxists, from Lenin to Sweezy to Miliband, believed that Marx's biggest omission was a theory of the state under capitalism. In spite of Marx's warnings on method, they couldn't understand why he would leave the topic of the state to a latter stage of his theoretical work. They thought that the reversion in late 19th century capitalist Europe to extra-economic tricks of accumulation similar to those practiced in the early stages of bourgeois history had set capitalism on a track different from that hypothesized by Marx in Capital. IMO, with the hindsight of 21st century capitalism, Marx's hypothesized laws of motion stand to reason. They were not meant as iron laws of history. They were meant as tendencies, subject to contrary influences, which -- even during entire historical periods -- could be reversed or slowed down significantly. Yet, overall, if the system was to retain its vitality and dynamism, these laws of motion would have to assert themselves in an increasingly pure form. Why is this necessary to understand the current juncture in the Middle East? I'd think it is. In Marx's hypothesis, the drive to *control* Arab oil by using the U.S. state cannot be essential to U.S. capitalists. No matter how dependent the industrial apparatus of the rich countries is on oil. Whoever owns the oil, self-interest would drive him to sell it to the highest bidder. Appropriating someone else's resources by force can only backfire on the essential logic of capitalist production and accumulation. And it is in this essential logic -- rather than in imperialist parasitism -- where it lies the remarkable ability of capitalist economies to return more wealth to the wealthy. Of course, Marx knew that -- if a venture was sufficiently profitable -- capitalists would gladly break any law or ethical code. But if all were to systematically violate the laws of voluntary commerce on which surplus value production was based, then they would regress to the old times. Collectively, capitalists had to overcome a myriad of prisoner dilemmas. A legitimate legal
Re: Mark Jones Was Right (Paul Phillips)
I'd love to reply to Paul's detailed argument. I regret that he decides not to engage. Hopefully we'll continue the conversation at another time. Julio _ Charla con tus amigos en línea mediante MSN Messenger: http://messenger.latino.msn.com/
Wal-Mart vs. Costco Again
By Stanley Holmes and Wendy Zellner Business Week APRIL 12, 2004 The Costco Way Higher wages mean higher profits. But try telling Wall Street Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST ) handily beat Wall Street expectations on Mar. 3, posting a 25% profit gain in its most recent quarter on top of a 14% sales hike. The warehouse club even nudged up its profit forecast for the rest of 2004. So how did the market respond? By driving the Issaquah (Wash.) company's stock down by 4%. One problem for Wall Street is that Costco pays its workers much better than archrival Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT ) does and analysts worry that Costco's operating expenses could get out of hand. At Costco, it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder, says Deutsche Bank (DB ) analyst Bill Dreher. The market's view of Costco speaks volumes about the so-called Wal-Martization of the U.S. economy. True, the Bentonville (Ark.) retailer has taken a public-relations pounding recently for paying poverty-level wages and shouldering health insurance for fewer than half of its 1.2 million U.S. workers. Still, it remains the darling of the Street, which, like Wal-Mart and many other companies, believes that shareholders are best served if employers do all they can to hold down costs, including the cost of labor. Surprisingly, however, Costco's high-wage approach actually beats Wal-Mart at its own game on many measures. BusinessWeek ran through the numbers from each company to compare Costco and Sam's Club, the Wal-Mart warehouse unit that competes directly with Costco. We found that by compensating employees generously to motivate and retain good workers, one-fifth of whom are unionized, Costco gets lower turnover and higher productivity. Combined with a smart business strategy that sells a mix of higher-margin products to more affluent customers, Costco actually keeps its labor costs lower than Wal-Mart's as a percentage of sales, and its 68,000 hourly workers in the U.S. sell more per square foot. Put another way, the 102,000 Sam's employees in the U.S. generated some $35 billion in sales last year, while Costco did $34 billion with one-third fewer employees. Bottom line: Costco pulled in $13,647 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee last year, vs. $11,039 at Sam's. Over the past five years, Costco's operating income grew at an average of 10.1% annually, slightly besting Sam's 9.8%. Most of Wall Street doesn't see the broader picture, though, and only focuses on the up-front savings Costco would gain if it paid workers less. But a few analysts concede that Costco suffers from the Street's bias toward the low-wage model. Costco deserves a little more credit than it has been getting lately, [since] it's one of the most productive companies in the industry, says Citigroup/Smith Barney retail analyst Deborah Weinswig. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams says that Sam's pays competitively with Costco when all factors are considered, such as promotion opportunities. PASSING THE BUCK. The larger question here is which model of competition will predominate in the U.S. Costco isn't alone; some companies, even ones like New Balance Athletic Shoe Inc. that face cheap imports from China, have been able to compete by finding ways to lift productivity instead of cutting pay. But most executives find it easier to go the Wal-Mart route, even if shareholders fare just as well either way over the long run. Yet the cheap-labor model turns out to be costly in many ways. It can fuel poverty and related social ills and dump costs on other companies and taxpayers, who indirectly pick up the health-care tab for all the workers not insured by their parsimonious employers. What's more, the low-wage approach cuts into consumer spending and, potentially, economic growth. You can't have every company adopt a Wal-Mart strategy. It isn't sustainable, says Rutgers University management professor Eileen Appelbaum, who in 2003 edited a vast study by 38 academics that found employers taking the high road in dozens of industries. Given Costco's performance, the question for Wall Street shouldn't be why Costco isn't more like Wal-Mart. Rather, why can't Wal-Mart deliver high shareholder returns and high living standards for its workforce? Says Costco CEO James D. Sinegal: Paying your employees well is not only the right thing to do but it makes for good business. Look at how Costco pulls it off. Although Sam's $11.52 hourly average wage for full-timers tops the $9.64 earned by a typical Wal-Mart worker, it's still nearly 40% less than Costco's $15.97. Costco also shells out thousands more a year for workers' health and retirement and includes more of them in its health care, 401(k), and profit-sharing plans. They take a very pro-employee attitude, says Rome Aloise, chief Costco negotiator for the Teamsters, which represents 14,000 Costco workers. In return for all this generosity, Costco gets one of the most productive and loyal workforces in all of
Re: Mark Jones Was Right
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: It doesn't, but imperialism has never benefited all sectors of capitalists in the imperial metropolis. One sector is a long way short of all sectors. Doug
