Capital class suppressed, teacher expelled
On Feb. 9, the Brecht Forum informed the teacher of its course on Capital, Marx's Capital and Alternatives to Capital, Andrew Kliman, that it does not want him to teach there in the future, and that it would not object to his leaving before the current course was over. The expulsion letter came in response to Kliman's and the class' complaints that the Brecht substantively rewrote the course announcement without his knowledge or consent. The Brecht's version of the announcement hid the fact that the course is a seminar on Capital and, without permission, identified him as having written for NEWS LETTERS. * complete ARTICLE below, and at http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2004/March/teacher_Marchb04.h tm * extensive DOCUMENTATION supporting the charges made in the article available at http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2004/March/docum.html Brian Martin, a courageous fighter against suppression of dissent, notes: Publicity is undoubtedly an extremely potent method of opposing suppression. ... It is vitally important that action be taken against suppression. This is because the most important effect of suppression is ... on others who observe the process. Every case of suppression is a warning to potential critics not to buck the system. And every case in which suppression is vigorously opposed is a warning to vested interests that attacks will not be tolerated. (from his very cool website [http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/]) So please do FORWARD the article and URLs, as a warning to vested interests that attacks will not be tolerated. Thanks NY LEFT INSTITUTION PURGES CAPITAL TEACHER New York -- On Feb. 9, the Brecht Forum informed the teacher of its course on Capital, Marx's Capital and Alternatives to Capital, Andrew Kliman, that it does not want him to teach there in the future, and that it would not object to his leaving before the current course was over. The expulsion letter came in response to Kliman's and the class' complaints that the Brecht substantively rewrote the course announcement without his knowledge or consent. The Brecht's version of the announcement hid the fact that the course is a seminar on Capital and, without permission, identified him as having written for NEWS LETTERS. Such numerous and important changes are by no means 'purely stylistic,' as the Brecht claims, Kliman said. I have never before had text substantially altered like this without consultation. I've never even heard of such a case before. The Brecht has shown itself to be a petty, sectarian institution utterly lacking in intellectual integrity. Kliman had been teaching for a sixth term at the Brecht to an unusually large class of 23. The course has resumed at another location. Teachers at the Brecht Forum, a 28-year-old New York City left educational institution, are not paid. The purged seminar leader is a widely published Marxist-Humanist theorist whose writings have clashed with established Marxist economics. He and others have refuted Marxist economists' alleged proofs of Marx's internal inconsistency. What was Kliman's crime that merited expulsion? Only that he and the class objected to the Brecht re-writing the course description and Kliman's biography without his knowledge and consent for its catalogue, website, e-mail and flyers. The Brecht did this not once, but twice. The rewriting, which disguised the fact that the course was a course on CAPITAL, undoubtedly served to reduce enrollment. Although the Brecht claimed the changes were stylistic, it is known that the administration dislikes Kliman's work and politics. One student reported from personal conversations that leaders of the Brecht were out to get him. During another discussion of the rewriting problem, an influential person at the Brecht complained about Kliman's idealism and expressed disagreement with his recently published Marx's Concept of Intrinsic Value. The three-term seminar emerged out of Kliman's Brecht course on CAPITAL Vols. 2 and 3. He and several students co-wrote the new course's description. Acting on its own, the Brecht changed the course title to Four Questions and removed several points in the description, actions that disguised the fact that the course consists primarily of a close reading of Vol. 1. In addition, Kliman's biography was changed by removing references to his prior Brecht teaching, dropping some of his publications, and adding that he had published in NEWS LETTERS. When this happened last fall, Kliman objected privately, and the Brecht sent out the correct version of the course description to its email list. Yet when the winter publicity appeared, the description had again been modified, and the Brecht's rewrite of Kliman's bio again replaced his own. This occurred even though he had asked the Brecht not to alter the text without his permission. Kliman and the class then requested a correction, an apology, and assurance that such re-writing would not occur
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin)
Response: This was the same kind of excuse given for Stalin by some intellectuals during the 30s and 40s. The one thing missing in Medvedev's interview is a class analysis. Once upon a time, Medvedev was associated with Eurocommunism and Bukharin. His PR for Putin seems to reflect diminished expectations. --- Actually, Gorbachev says the same thing. So does 90% of the population. Gorby adores Putin.
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin) - edited
Roy Medvedev = brilliant historian who, for some reason, seems to support the most popular Russian leader since the tsarist era, you know, the guy who has presided over a more rapid growth of living standards than any General Secretary of the Soviet Union ever. Louis Proyect = a guy who thinks that Dagestanis like being invaded by mujaheedin from Chechnya and similar absurdities, probably believes that Ivan Shapovalov is a Bolshevik leader, and, despite knowing absolutely jack about contemporary Russia, somehow thinks he has the right to make authoritative comments about it. Incidentally, you got the name of the band wrong in your review of Brat. There is no band called Nautilus. There _was_ a very good rock band from Piter, headed by Vladimir Petkun, by the name of Nautilus Pompilus. Calling NP Nautilus is like calling the Rolling Stones the Rollings. I go with Roy.
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin)
Actually, Gorbachev says the same thing. So does 90% of the population. Gorby adores Putin. 90 percent? That cinches it. I will now have to defer to what they think, just as I defer customarily to what the 90th percentile of the American population thinks about undocumented workers, gay marriage, the Cuban revolution, etc. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin) - edited
Chris Doss wrote: Louis Proyect = a guy who thinks that Dagestanis like being invaded by mujaheedin from Chechnya and similar absurdities, probably believes that Ivan Shapovalov is a Bolshevik leader, and, despite knowing absolutely jack about contemporary Russia, somehow thinks he has the right to make authoritative comments about it. Of course I have the right. I have been studying Soviet society since 1967 and have read no less than 30 books on the topic ranging from Moshe Lewin to Alec Nove. Admittedly, I haven't gone over to work for an alternative weekly in the spirit of Russ Smith's NY Press but nobody's perfect. Incidentally, you got the name of the band wrong in your review of Brat. There is no band called Nautilus. There _was_ a very good rock band from Piter, headed by Vladimir Petkun, by the name of Nautilus Pompilus. Calling NP Nautilus is like calling the Rolling Stones the Rollings. I'm crushed. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Oil shock? - a thought
Paul Krugman has been worried lately about a possible oil shortage: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/opinion/14KRUG.html?th. He focuses on the recessionary and inflationary impact on the U.S. But China should be a bigger concern (I mean, under the radical assumption that one Chinese is just as much a human being as an American). Their development plan would be under tremendous stress with widespread regional reverberations. If something like this happens, it'll of course be temporary. Over time, painful adjustments will be made to absorb the shock. There'll be some political turmoil, but if the world doesn't break into little pieces and even if it does, the proverbial elasticity of long-run supply and demand will kick in. It'd redound in a temporary boost for Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela. Talking about Mexico, they should take to heart the lessons of the 1976-1982 oil boom. Back then, the country leveraged its oil resources in the markets like there was no tomorrow and pushed import substitution a notch up (trying to build a large petrochemical industry, with tremendous mismanagement and plunder by government top, PEMEX bureaucracy, and union leaders). They forgot to hedge against a drop in the oil price and/or (like the banks) against an interest rate hike. When Mr. Volcker came in 1979 with his big, fat inflation-buster Dan Aykroyd kind of gun and began to increase the rate, they thought everything was under control. Then in 1982 the oil price dropped and so much for the binge. Joseph Stiglitz claimed (in his 2002 ECLAC lecture) that the main responsibility for the lost decade in Latin America falls on the banks (pushers of abundant loans without proper risk assessment) and the Fed's anti-inflation therapy. He suggests that, although the Fed had no formal mandate to ponder the effects of its policies on the rest of the world, it should have been common sense... because those effects backfire on the U.S. (I guess, Volcker was teaching the banks a lesson on moral hazard. Except that U.S. taxpayers and Latin Americans ended up paying it.) Stiglitzian Monday-morning quarterbacking perhaps, but I liked his little mental exercise: Imagine -- he says -- that the balance sheets of Latin American firms had been dandy, including those of state-owned firms, circa 1979 or 1980. Now there's this hike in the interest rate induced by the Fed. What would have happened to Latin America as a result of just that? Hard to do the econometrics (he didn't even try), but he suggests that it would have been enough to devastate Latin America just by itself. The idea is that import substitution strategies were flawed, but not to the extent Krueger, Bhagwati, and others have claimed to justify dismantling them. All that is fine as ammo to denounce the unfairness of the international system, blah, blah, blah... but from their standpoint, Latin Americans have to operate under the assumption that they don't control those variables. I know that PEN-L will soon become a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary party, and will lead a successful revolution in the U.S. in the near future, but meanwhile -- it just rains, you either bring an umbrella or get soaked. Julio _ ¿Cuánto vale tu auto? Tips para mantener tu carro. ¡De todo en MSN Latino Autos! http://latino.msn.com/autos/
Samuel Huntington's racism
NPQ, Spring 2004 Huntington and the Mask of Racism Carlos Fuentes, the Mexican novelist, is a member of NPQs advisory board. Translation by Thomas D. Morin, Professor of Hispanic Studies, University of Rhode Island, Kingston. Mexico CityThe best Indian is a dead Indian. The best nigger is a nigger slave. The yellow threat. The red threat. The Puritanism one finds at the base of WASP culture (White, Anglo Saxon, and Protestant) in the United States of America expresses itself, from time to time, with shocking color. Now, another of these forceful and freely expressed simplistic ideas can be added to the colorful expressions already mentioned: The Brown Menace. The proponent of this idea is Professor Samuel P. Huntington, the tireless voice of alarm with respect to the menace that the idea of the other represents for the foundational soul of white, protestant, Anglo-Saxon United States of America. That there existed (and, still, exists) an indigenous-America (Huntington uses the United States as a name for the entire continent) prior to the European colonization is of no concern to him. That besides Anglo-America, there existed a prior French-America (Louisiana) and, even, a Russian-America (Alaska) is of no interest to Huntington. What worries him is Hispanic-America, the America of Ruben Dario, the America that speaks Spanish and believes in God. For Huntington, this brown danger is an indispensable danger for a nation that requires, in order to exist, an identifiable external menace. Moby Dick, the white whale, is a symbol of this attitude which, fortunately, not all North Americans share, including John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the North American nation, who warned his countrymen: Let us not go out into the world in search of monsters to destroy. Huntington, in his Clash of Civilizations, discovers his necessary external monster (once the USSR and the red danger disappeared) in an Islam poised to assault the borders of Western Civilization, in an attempt to outdo the feats of Saladino, the Sultan, who captured Jerusalem in 1187. As a result, Huntington outdoes the Christian Crusade of Richard the Lion Hearted in the Holy Land. Huntington the Lion Hearteds anti-Islamic Crusade expresses the profound racism in his heart and, in similar manner, his profound ignorance of the true kulturkampf evident in the Islamic world. Islam is not poised to invade the West. Islam is living, from Algeria to Iran, its own cultural and political battle between conservatives and Islamic liberals. It is a vertical battle, deep within, not a horizontal one of expansion. The Mexican as exploiter | Huntingtons new crusade is directed against Mexico and the Mexicans that live, work, and enrich life in the northern nation. As far as Huntington is concerned, Mexicans do not livethey invade; they do not workthey exploit; and, they do not enrichthey impoverish, since poverty is part a Mexicans natural condition. All of this, when taking into account the number of Mexicans and Latin Americans in the United States, constitutes a cultural threat for that which Huntington dares to mention: the Anglo-American, Protestant, and Anglo speaking white race. Are Mexicans invading the US? No, they are simply obeying the laws of the job market. There are job offers for Mexicans because there is a North American labor need. If some day, there were to exist full employment in Mexico, the US would have to find cheap labor from another country for the jobs whites, Saxons, and Protestantsnaming them as does Huntingtondo not want to fill, since they have either surpassed these levels of employment, or because they have grown old, due to the fact that the economy of the US has passed from the industrial period, to the post-industrial, technological, information age. Do Mexicans exploit the US? According to Huntington, Mexicans constitute an unjust burden for the US economy: they receive more than they give back. All of this is false. California earmarks a billion dollars a year to educate the children of immigrants. But if it were to do otherwiselisten up, Schwarzeneggerthe state would lose $16 billion a year in federal aid to education. Similarly, Mexican migrant workers pay $29 billion a year more in taxes than the services they receive. full: http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2004_spring/fuentes.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin)
In a message dated 5/14/2004 7:52:28 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, Gorbachev says the same thing. So does 90% of the population. Gorby adores Putin.90 percent? That cinches it. I will now have to defer to what theythink, just as I defer customarily to what the 90th percentile of theAmerican population thinks about undocumented workers, gay marriage, the Cuban revolution, etc. Comment Why fight staw men when the economic questions loom large. The Medvedev Interview provided information with an economic content. Since no one disputes that Putin is a representative and guardian of bourgeois property . . . what is the strife? The economic and class content of bureaucracy and how leaders of classes and the classes respond to material bureaucracy is interesting. Consider all the ideological proclamations by the neo-cons about welfare in America. The welfare bureaucracy is a . . . bureaucracy or contains its own economic logic. On the one hand attempts to cut the food stamp program provokes resistence from a section of capital - money, tied to agricultural production. A small but politically powerful section of capital says, "the people are hungry and want food" and the major food distributors join in this out cry. I am speaking of the major chains like AP, Farmer Jack, Walmart and the likes. Bureaucracy is not an abstraction. On the other hand the bureaucratic structure that is the federal - nationwide, administrative apparatus that is welfare is composed of millions of real people that go to work everyday and make wages . . . that is this bureaucracy is made up of working proletarians and seek to perpetuate itself as an economic entity. This bureaucracy - we are talking about real people, receiving money and spending money or helping todrive reproduction and the realization of surplus value - profits. No amount of sloganeering on the part of politicians is going to destroy the bureaucracy because it embody profound economic interest. A massive amount of welfare money is used simply to drive the bureaucracy and herein lies the economic or rather class and property relations. Why should the old Soviet bureaucracy . . . or any bureaucracy for that matter be any different in its class and economic content? To pose matters as ideological equations prevent the unraveling of the economic and class content of the bureaucracy that one is so upset about. The Medvedev interview mentions various aspects of the bureaucracy and goes to inordinate length to show that Putin is not surrounding by just the intelligence sector of the bureaucracy. The economists around Putin are no different from the economists in America in the sense that they are men and women being paid money and part of the societal bureaucracy, characteristic of every industrial society. All the ideological screaming about bureaucracy blind sides everyone from ascertaining its class and economic content in modern society. No one is every going to defeat the bureaucracy in any country on earth because of its economic reality. For all his pronouncements, George W, if he wins the upcoming election, is going to expand the bureaucracy because human will and politics is not going to defeat an economic imperative. The shape of the bureaucracy as organizations of men and women is altered on the basis of technological changes that revolutionize distribution (information flow, planning and accounting) and every bureaucracy distributes "something." Putin is not going to defeat the bureaucracy. George W. is not going to defeat the bureaucracy and without question Mr. Stalin did not and could not defeat the bureaucracy. The reason is that the bureaucracy does not arise from politics, but rather from the division of labor in society - at least in its genesis. The idea that the old Soviet bureaucracy arose as police action - an assertion of political and ideological Trotskyism, is not very well thought out because Soviet society and Russia today is an industrial society (in transition) with certain indispensable functions tied to the reproduction process. The unfolding "class struggle" in America is going to be an exceptionally complex process involving entrenched economic interest, overcoming the force of habit, and without question confronting the bureaucratic order and this bureaucratic order is not going to be abolished because it is not possible. The bureaucratic order can be placed on a different property basis and slowly - a thousand years, begin withering. Here is the economic and class content of the withering away of the state. Melvin P. Melvin P.
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin)
Glad to see you remain the same alienating asshole as ever, Lou. Mr Doss has done nothing but offer his own opinion and plenty of interesting material. I see no problem or a need to cut him down. (All your hackneyed adjectives about his posts are a reminder why you don't have a book contract.) Your level of immature debate remains these kind of catty remarks which divide more than unite. Splitting hairs about leftist faith is for the monks of victory. Our job is to unite. Ken. Actually, Gorbachev says the same thing. So does 90% of the population. Gorby adores Putin. 90 percent? That cinches it. I will now have to defer to what they think, just as I defer customarily to what the 90th percentile of the American population thinks about undocumented workers, gay marriage, the Cuban revolution, etc. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin)
Actually, Gorbachev says the same thing. So does 90% of the population. Gorby adores Putin. 90 percent? That cinches it. I will now have to defer to what they think, just as I defer customarily to what the 90th percentile of the American population thinks about undocumented workers, gay marriage, the Cuban revolution, etc. --- You'd better make some attempt to understand _why_ they think what they think, and know some basic facts, which you don't. Or you can continue to substitute mechanical application of categories for thought and engaging in ideological autofellation, which is of course easier and oh-so-satisfying, though it can be a pain on the back. Sorry Michael P., I will simply ignore anything this guy writes as I was doing before so as to avoid tiresome flame wars. I only accidentally saw the comment when it got quoted in someone else's post.
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin)
Chris Doss wrote: You'd better make some attempt to understand _why_ they think what they think --- The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The German Ideology --- Victory for Putin in battle for 'Russia's BBC1' Ian Traynor in Moscow Guardian Tuesday September 5, 2000 Russia's summer-long struggle for control of national television turned sharply towards victory for President Vladimir Putin yesterday when the influential Russian media mogul, Boris Berezovsky, announced that he was surrendering control of Russia's main state channel. The concession, coupled with a searing attack on Mr Putin's campaign to tame the free media, left the Kremlin confident that the two most important television channels in Russia and the most formidable sources of opposition were being brought to heel. In what was seen as a big victory for Mr Putin, who has made control of the media, particularly national television, a central plank in his campaign to entrench his political power, Mr Berezovsky said he was surrendering his 49% share of ORT, the main state television channel, to journalists and intellectuals after coming under intense pressure from the Kremlin and being presented with an ultimatum. In a letter to Mr Putin, leaked to the Interfax news agency, Mr Berezovsky said one of the president's most senior aides had told him he had a fortnight to get rid of the ORT shares. Mr Berezovsky alleged he was threatened with imprisonment if he continued to defy Mr Putin. full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4059391,00.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin)
In a message dated 5/14/2004 8:40:35 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This bureaucracy - we are talking about real people, receiving money and spending money or helping todrive reproduction and the realization of surplus value - profits. No amount of sloganeering on the part of politicians is going to destroy the bureaucracy because it embody profound economic interest. Additional Bush W. or rather Congress "Patriot Act" . . . expands the bureaucratic order or the bureaucracy. Shifting half a million people off of welfare and adding half a million to structures performing police action and another half million into the military, does not change the material fact or shape of bureaucracy and the economic logic that drives this process. Everything is tied to reproduction - value, and the realizations of profits in our society. Millions of people are jailed in our society as part of the bureaucratic order and its economic content is not hard to discern. The concerted effort to turn the penal institutions into production entities producing commodities for sale in the market, is only part of the equation. Prison construction drove the "building" or "housing industry" for many years and capital only understands profits . . .and the prison administration . . . down to the lowly guard becomes important to the economic imperative of reproduction . . . which is driven by and presupposes consumption. It seems to me . . . with my superficial views, that the Gulag in the old Soviet Union was designed to drive reproduction. Under such circumstances I personally would never be late to work and probably would have won one of the "Heroes of labor medals." I have no need to justify anything but rather try to discern - in a superficial way, the economic content of the social process. The 30 year cry for "law and order" that was escalated during the Nixon years, contains economic logic, directing impacting reproduction. At that time I had not the opportunity to reach the superficial level. Sure, we encounter this issue of "law and order" in the ideological and political sphere . . . but Pen-L is about economics. The bureaucratic order is infinitely wider than simply the police and state, however. Melvin P. .
Re: Capital class suppressed, teacher expelled
I would not like us to get involved in internal disputes. It will lead to no good. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin)
Why fight staw men when the economic questions loom large. Because that's easier and doesn't require thought. Further comment below. Putin is not going to defeat the bureaucracy. George W. is not going to defeat the bureaucracy and without question Mr. Stalin did not and could not defeat the bureaucracy. The reason is that the bureaucracy does not arise from politics, but rather from the division of labor in society - at least in its genesis. The idea that the old Soviet bureaucracy arose as police action - an assertion of political and ideological Trotskyism, is not very well thought out because Soviet society and Russia today is an industrial society (in transition) with certain indispensable functions tied to the reproduction process. You make a lot of interesting comments. (Personally, I think blaming the Soviet bureaucracy on Stalinism is a red herring; I tend to think the bureaucracy is a product of having to control an enormous territory with a sparsely inhabited population. Russia has always had a giant bureaucracy.) I think that the defining event of the past 4-5 years in Russia, in terms of domestic politics, has been the struggle between the bureaucracy and big business, the so-called oligarchy. Not that the bureaucracy wants to destroy big business, as it exists as rent-seeker on it; rather, it wants to harness it for its own ends (Russian bureaucrats aren't exactly just proletarians, unless you are talking about people very low on the totem pole). That was behind Yeltsin's resignation and the main story behind the Putin presidency. They seem to be winning. Actually Russia appears to be swinging back, after a brief interval, to the model of top-down state-sponsored development and politics that it has been repeating in different forms since at least Ivan the Terrible. I find it very interesting that, despite three revolutions and two huge upsets of class relations in the past 100 years, the Russian system is still recognizably a variant of the model that was established in the tsarist era -- authoritarian in form but anarchic in content, with relations between the periphery and the center (i.e., Moscow) characterized in terms of fealty and tribute, and with the bureaucracy still omnipotent and still a rent-seeker. Indeed, Dead Souls reads very contemporary in a lot of ways. It is still very recognizably the same place.
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin)
If you want to ignore somebody, go ahead. Making your feelings public adds nothing. On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 06:03:41PM +0400, Chris Doss wrote: Actually, Gorbachev says the same thing. So does 90% of the population. Gorby adores Putin. 90 percent? That cinches it. I will now have to defer to what they think, just as I defer customarily to what the 90th percentile of the American population thinks about undocumented workers, gay marriage, the Cuban revolution, etc. --- You'd better make some attempt to understand _why_ they think what they think, and know some basic facts, which you don't. Or you can continue to substitute mechanical application of categories for thought and engaging in ideological autofellation, which is of course easier and oh-so-satisfying, though it can be a pain on the back. Sorry Michael P., I will simply ignore anything this guy writes as I was doing before so as to avoid tiresome flame wars. I only accidentally saw the comment when it got quoted in someone else's post. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin)
Wow. I have not seen a threat degenerate so fast before. Both Lou and Ken should cool it. I invited Chris here because he does have a lot of information on Russia. I do not share his views about Putin, but I still learn from him. People are welcome to disagree with him, but to announce you will not read his posts or to call Lou an asshole won't work here! I have not been able to sort out how the thread has gone in the last 12 hours; only to see threads with lots of anger. On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 10:05:08AM -0400, Kenneth Campbell wrote: Glad to see you remain the same alienating asshole as ever, Lou. Mr Doss has done nothing but offer his own opinion and plenty of interesting material. I see no problem or a need to cut him down. (All your hackneyed adjectives about his posts are a reminder why you don't have a book contract.) Your level of immature debate remains these kind of catty remarks which divide more than unite. Splitting hairs about leftist faith is for the monks of victory. Our job is to unite. Ken. Actually, Gorbachev says the same thing. So does 90% of the population. Gorby adores Putin. 90 percent? That cinches it. I will now have to defer to what they think, just as I defer customarily to what the 90th percentile of the American population thinks about undocumented workers, gay marriage, the Cuban revolution, etc. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin)
Grin... Michael... I don't mind the thread. Someone has to point out what Louis does... Which is divide. Mr.Doss has provided a fresh and direct perspective, so what? It was like your invitation to that Chicago right wing lawyer chap... We learn thorugh being in contact. As for the asshole comment... I retract, it was not emotional merely informational. Ken.
Re: Background to Berg Beheading
Internet Hate Group Targeted Michael S. Berg, Company by the Sandwichman In the interest of wider exposure, I linked to Tom's PEN-l posting and MaxSpeak blog entry: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/05/here-is-enemy-montage-at-work.html. Juxtapose facts into a montage, and set readers to work. :-) -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * 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/
Bremer the prophet
Source: Lucy May, Homeland security adviser speaks to local business leaders, Business Courier, 25 February 2003, http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2003/02/24/daily23.html Bremer estimated a war would be over within four to six weeks but said the process of rebuilding Iraq afterwards is likely to take years. We're going to be on the ground in Iraq as soldiers and citizens for years. We're going to be running a colony almost, Bremer said, adding that one of the most important reasons to get more international support before launching a war is to get more help in rebuilding the country afterwards.
Re: Capital class suppressed, teacher expelled
Michael, Why do you characterize this as an internal dispute, rather than a matter of freedom of expression? Does this mean you will not be supporting my right to teach and not to have my course announcements tampered with? Andrew -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 10:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Capital class suppressed, teacher expelled I would not like us to get involved in internal disputes. It will lead to no good. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Capital class suppressed, teacher expelled
I just don't think that it will help the list. I am trying to calm down the Putin flame now. I have no problem with your right to teach. On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:55:21AM -0400, Drewk wrote: Michael, Why do you characterize this as an internal dispute, rather than a matter of freedom of expression? Does this mean you will not be supporting my right to teach and not to have my course announcements tampered with? Andrew -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 10:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Capital class suppressed, teacher expelled I would not like us to get involved in internal disputes. It will lead to no good. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin)
Just keep the personal stuff off list. I agree with you about Chris. On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 11:13:37AM -0400, Kenneth Campbell wrote: Grin... Michael... I don't mind the thread. Someone has to point out what Louis does... Which is divide. Mr.Doss has provided a fresh and direct perspective, so what? It was like your invitation to that Chicago right wing lawyer chap... We learn thorugh being in contact. As for the asshole comment... I retract, it was not emotional merely informational. Ken. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
News source on Iraq
This is a US govt. funded news source but it nevertheless is a treasure of world press reports on Iraq. It includes quite a few videos from Islamic militants as well. With translations. http://tides.carebridge.org/ Cheers, Ken Hanly
The perfect magazine for Hitchens to write for
NY Times, May 14, 2004 Vanity Fair Editor Got $100,000 for Suggesting a Movie By DAVID CARR and SHARON WAXMAN Graydon Carter, editor in chief of Vanity Fair, received a $100,000 payment from Universal Studios in 2003 for suggesting years earlier that the book A Beautiful Mind'' be made into a film, executives involved with the film said. The payment was confirmed by a spokeswoman for the magazine. The film was produced by Imagine Entertainment, whose principals, Brian Grazer and Ron Howard, have made Vanity Fair's annual list of new establishment power brokers the last two years, and whose other projects have received attentive coverage in the magazine. The entertainment press and Hollywood have more of a symbiotic relationship than the news media do with many other businesses - magazines and other news organizations compete for access to the studios' biggest stars, and also depend on the studios for advertising. But the payment of consulting fees to a magazine editor who controls coverage of industry subjects has no precedent, according to executives in the publishing and film industry as well as journalism scholars. Vanity Fair has been blurring the lines for some time, said Cynthia Gorney, associate dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. But there is something particularly distressing about the nice round figure of $100,000 and the fact that it directly lined Mr. Carter's pocket. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/business/media/14mag.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Roy Medvedev interview (on Putin)
In a message dated 5/14/2004 9:23:36 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that the defining event of the past 4-5 years in Russia, in terms of domestic politics, has been the struggle between the bureaucracy and big business, the so-called "oligarchy." Not that the bureaucracy wants to destroy big business, as it exists as rent-seeker on it; rather, it wants to harness it for its own ends (Russian bureaucrats aren't exactly just proletarians, unless you are talking about people very low on the totem pole). That was behind Yeltsin's resignation and the main story behind the Putin presidency. They seem to be winning.Actually Russia appears to be swinging back, after a brief interval, to the model of top-down state-sponsored development and politics that it has been repeating in different forms since at least Ivan the Terrible. Reply Putin is the CEO of a corporation called Russia. This corporation went out of business and was defeated in the world market. There are many complex and interactive reasons for the defeat of this corporation. Much of this has to do with the products that could be sent into play in the world market. Oil, furs and agricultural products will do good in the 1920s, 1930s and even the 1940s, but you are going to run into the law of value. The law of value in this sense simply means that if you want to buy my advanced machinery you must give me my money (not your money which may or may not be exchangeable in the world market) or gold or something that is the equivalent of what I am charging formy machinery. This why I can convert your product intoa recognizable form of capital in the world market. It gets tricky. "Sorry your one million pounds of wheat is not worth what it was two years ago because improvements in technology - Argentina, pays me twice as much as what you are asking and we cannot make a deal . . . . unless you reduce you request my half." This economic transaction produced a political crisis within the political structure of Soviet society and heads began to roll. This change in exchange rates would produce a crisis in any country that had not revolutionized its productive forces to stay in harmony with the leader in technology. If the law of value speaks to the amount of human labor in socially necessary means of production, - the socially necessary amount of human labor that goes into the production of a commodity, then . . . when the "Next man" reduces the human labor cost of his commodities, exchange is going to be impacted in a way that is not in your favor. This is what happened at the meeting. "Comrade Economic Adviser ain't shit and has wrong theory and is soft on the imperialists. Yesterday we paid one million pounds of wealth for our equipment and today we must pay two million for the same thing. Are you taking bribes Comrades." Comrade Economic Adviser rises to explain things. "Dear Comrades, we can make better sense of our task of socialist construction if we read a couple of fucking books and what Marx said about the law of value. Pardon. "Did notComrade Lenin say, that the bourgeoisie was going to sell us the rope we use to hang him with?" Everyone in the audience leap from their seats in wild applause. Comrade Economic advisor get a standing ovation. The meeting is disrupted and the vodka is taken from under the seats of the delegates. Endless toasts are given proclaiming the death of bourgeois property and the personal jailing of the bourgeoisie. "Long live Lenin and the Great Stalin." The sound of clanking glasses can be heard for miles and the voices of the delegates inspire another 100,000 citizens into the task of selfless communist labor. Ivan average has not thought out that the product of his labor is to be exchanged for a set of products that will be used to expand the industrial basis of the Proletarian Motherland (without quotes) extensively and intensively. Comrade Economic Advisor stands before the audience and with hands raised bring the cheers to an end. It is quieter in the auditorium than a church mouse. "Comrades we have to think things out. Comrade Lenin did not say how much we would have to pay for the rope the bourgeoisie sells us, we willing him with." The proletarian insurgency is stunned. In the background someone says "what the fuck is price? Ain't that some bourgeois economic bullshit?" (The bureaucratic order is on everyone ass day and night - 24/7, because it is infinitely more than the police and ensures the process of reproduction, . . . by definition. If we surrender the economic categories used as exposition, then we can all go home and turn out the lights on Pen-L). Comrade Economic Advisor brings silence to the great hall of Lenin. He states: "Comrades . . . the price of the rope has gone up and if we are to purchase rope , , , and carry out the behest of Lenin . . . then we have to pay the cost in the world market. "Just because our currency inside Mother
Cuban response to new Bush offensive
Date Index Re: Marx Conference in Havana just completed by Michael Perelman 14 May 2004 02:00 UTC Thread Index Thank you, Michael, for the excellent report. Thank you. I think people missed a good one. I understand that Cuba was trying to draw back from the dollar economy a bit before Bush acted. Am I wrong? Could you teach us something about the evolution of the cuban economy? Thanks again. Unfortunately, I'm not able to keep up with developments in Cuba as much as I would like because I'm absorbed in Venezuela. I'm sure others know much more. There's no question in my mind that Fidel and many others see the market as corrupting and would like to foster solidarity and to increase moral incentives rather than to let self-interest be in command. However, my sense is that there is no desire to pull back from the dollar economy as such. Cuba desperately needs dollars to pay for imports, and having locals ask their US relatives to send money is important in permitting them to purchase many things like the food, medicine, etc they don't produce. This is especially important in the context of high oil prices (much higher than budgeted for). I think this need has accelerated efforts to economise on the use of the USD. It is important to understand that, although people know that there is the peso economy and the dollar economy in Cuba (and that tourists and increasingly Cubans live in the latter), Cuba really has a 3rd currency-- the convertible peso (which is a perfect substitute for the usd internally); in this particular respect, Cuba is not a dollarised economy because they have complete control over the extent of convertible pesos in circulation--- ie., to this extent they retain their monetary sovereignty. Within the last year, the government has been moving to reduce the circulation of the usd between enterprises, replacing this with the convertible peso and has pushed to get the usd into the central bank faster. Ie., faced with scarcity of the usd for imports, it is economising on its use and substituting the convertible peso for internal circulation. If I'm correct about what is happening, it would be entirely consistent-- in the context of a real threat of reduced usd as the result of the new Bush offensive--- for them to extend this to purchase of consumer durables, ie., to further substitute that peso by requiring people to exchange their usd for these. This could occur while not in any way reducing the demand for usd remittances (and, in fact, prices of these could be increased at the same time). Again, this is only my own speculation as to what is occurring. What is not speculation, on the other hand, is that Cuba remains in difficult economic shape (if only they can succeed in finding that good oil!) and somehow manages to keep going. I hope this helps and stimulates someone who knows more to comment. in solidarity, michael ps. I've seen on tv this morning a massive crowd (and a very tired-looking Fidel) out in front of the US interests building in Havana, protesting the Bush moves. Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Once a Suspect, Always a Suspect?
It turns out that a story of degrees of separation fit for satire has killed not only thousands of Iraqis, hundreds of US and allied troops, and others but may also have been a factor in Nick Berg's 13-day detention in Iraq, which Nick's father Michael Berg believes has led to Nick's death, making it impossible for Nick to leave Iraq on March 30 as he had intended to. According to Nicole Weisensee Egan: Yesterday, the Daily News reported that another reason that Nick Berg had been held for so long was that the FBI was checking into some contact he may have had with terrorists while he attended the University of Oklahoma. . . . For more on the topic, see Once a Suspect, Always a Suspect?: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/05/once-suspect-always-suspect.html. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * 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: Samuel Huntington's racism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/14/04 9:16 AM NPQ, Spring 2004 Huntington and the Mask of Racism Carlos Fuentes, the Mexican novelist, is a member of NPQ's advisory board. Translation by Thomas D. Morin, Professor of Hispanic Studies, University of Rhode Island, Kingston. Mexico CityThe best Indian is a dead Indian. The best nigger is a nigger slave. The yellow threat. The red threat. The Puritanism one finds at the base of WASP culture (White, Anglo Saxon, and Protestant) in the United States of America expresses itself, from time to time, with shocking color. Now, another of these forceful and freely expressed simplistic ideas can be added to the colorful expressions already mentioned: The Brown Menace. The proponent of this idea is Professor Samuel P. Huntington, the tireless voice of alarm with respect to the menace that the idea of the other represents for the foundational soul of white, protestant, Anglo-Saxon United States of America. Huntington, in his Clash of Civilizations, discovers his necessary external monster (once the USSR and the red danger disappeared) in an Islam poised to assault the borders of Western Civilization,. The Mexican as exploiter | Huntington's new crusade is directed against Mexico and the Mexicans that live, work, and enrich life in the northern nation. As far as Huntington is concerned, Mexicans do not livethey invade; they do not workthey exploit; and, they do not enrichthey impoverish, since poverty is part a Mexican's natural condition. All of this, when taking into account the number of Mexicans and Latin Americans in the United States, constitutes a cultural threat for that which Huntington dares to mention: the Anglo-American, Protestant, and Anglo speaking white race. lest anyone forget, huntington's reprehensible career predates 'clash of civilizations' by decades...he worked for cia, he devised so-called 'strategic hamlet' strategy in vietnam, he posited forced urbanizaion/'modernization' for third world, he sounded post-60s 'excess of democracy' alarm... poli sci people who study government regulation often cite his mid-century study of the interstate commerce commission as important contribution to so-called 'capture theory'...michael hoover
Anything follows from a contradiction
therefore the US will stay no matter what...unless it decides to bail out is in its interest. Cheers, Ken Hanly When first asked by House International Relations Committee members whether an interim Iraqi government could force U.S. troops to leave, Grossman stressed that Iraqi leaders wanted them to remain. He also said that the Iraqi interim constitution and a U.N. resolution gave them authority to do so. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, kept asking Grossman, ''If they ask us to leave, we will leave, will we not?'' Pressed for a yes-or-no answer, Grossman eventually said yes. But he later agreed with another panelist, Lt. Gen. Walter L. Sharp, that the interim constitution and U.N. resolution gave U.S.-led forces responsibility for Iraqi security for the immediate future. After the hearing, Grossman was asked if that meant U.S. forces would not leave if asked by the interim government. ''That is correct,'' he said. http://www.boston.com/dailynews/135/world/Bremer_tells_Iraqi_leaders_US_:.shtml
