Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive . Industrial capital U have the

2009-01-07 Thread CeJ
WLSeems to me you do in fact get the distinction between productive capital
and speculative capital. A good Ponzi scheme is not back until it collapses.
Profits to be made from that side of the business constituting productive
capital has never been bad business. 

I never said I didn't get such a distinction (although why do I not
like that term 'productive' capital? Will get back to you about that.)
For the purposes of analysis Marx, Lenin, Veblen and Keynes all make
such a distinction. I don't think any would deny how they overlap in
the 'magic of profit-taking' of capitalism.

Industrial capitalists like what the UK, US had in the 19th century
might not exist today (afterall, they were people in the 19th
century), but we can still use the term 'industrial capital'.

I just refuse to go over the ontological or exegetical deepends (as so
many Marxists are wont to do).

But I do detect a thesis in your posts WL.  I just don't know that it
means anyone else is wrong about the current crisis of capital.

CJ

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive . Industrial capital U have...

2009-01-07 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 1/7/2009 12:28:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jann...@gmail.com writes:

I'm not sure I'm following your arguments. One, who here has said  that
nothing has changed since Lenin?

WL: CB  . . .  repeatedly and directly . . . in his line of arguing the 
existence of industrial  capital and Lenin's Imperialism.  And in statement 
that 
American society  is not qualitatively different from feudal Russia. Russia 
was after all  basically feudal in its economic and social structures when 
Lenin 
died. America  was qualitatively different from Russia when Lenin was alive. 
 
Some of the discussion is sectarian on both sides but not the majority of  
it. I think. The matter of who rules today is going to be important with Obama  
coming into office. One cannot push him to the left. He is finance capital  
representative left to tap dance between the whims of productive and  
non-productive capital. Get ready for advocacy of the anti-monopoly coalition.  
It is 
the Democratic party that has to be isolated and their grip over the  workers 
broken. Obama has already had his day in the sun by being elected. 
 
Give it six months. 
 
WL 
 
**New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive . Industrial capital U have the

2009-01-07 Thread CeJ
I guess one question here is why Ford, Chrysler and GM didn't
re-invest profits into accumulating their industrial capital. One, if
the goal was to reach a certain level of production to stay
competitive in the world (what is the benchmark now, 2 million
vehicles per year?), the most obvious solution was to acquire stakes
in and control of other car companies and attempt integration of
production. Two, this very easily moves over to finance and
speculative finance because of the way such deals were run by
investment banks able to put together the 'leverage' to finance the
deals (while taking a huge cut for themselves). Three, what is most
surprising though is how these companies all say at the same time that
they are in effect 'bankrupt' and need federal loans to stay solvent.
So did management as ownership strip out so much money from these
companies to enrich themselves (so they could, for example, speculate
on other things)? So much for the idea that management even tries to
act in the best interest of the company.

A different area of inquiry and analysis is how so much of the
political economies we produce in have become owned by 'holding
companies', which ultimately are owned by private equity groups and
things like hedge funds (who invest for 'institutional investors'),
while these private equity groups and hedge funds are dominated by US
and UK 'interests'.


CJ

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive . Industrial capital U have the

2009-01-07 Thread CeJ
If only this guy would read Marx. No wait, that would just make him
another HCKL or something similar to that.

BTW, I noticed one of the more famous private equity groups, Carlyle
Group, is trying to put  together big deals in overseas universities.
I guess they think 'American-quality' higher education is the next big
 wave. And Laureate is the model.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09282007/watch.html

BILL MOYERS: This story in THE NEW YORK TIMES this week. What do you
think when you read a story like that?

JOHN BOGLE: Well, first, it's a national disgrace. Simply put. And
there are some things that must be entrusted to government and some
things that must be entrusted to private enterprise. And what we see
there, at least in my judgment, is that we've taken medical care,
healthcare and going from making it a profession in which the patient
is the object of the game — preserving the patient first do no harm
as Hippocrates would say or would have said and turn that into a
business. And so, it's a bottom line. I've often said we're in a
bottom line society. We're measuring the wrong bottom line.

BILL MOYERS:What does it say to you that the real owners of the
nursing home, the private investors have created this maze of smoke
and mirrors that make it virtually impossible to find out who the
owners really are?

JOHN BOGLE:Well, that's so typical of much that's going on in American
finance, the way we structure these financial instruments, which are
stock certificates or debt instruments. But it's the same thing of the
removal of your friendly, local neighborhood bank holding the mortgage
and being able to work with you when you fall on hard times to some
unnamed, often unknown, financial institution who couldn't care less.

BILL MOYERS:These private equity firms that own these nursing homes
wouldn't even talk to THE NEW YORK TIMES. They won't talk to
reporters. I mean, there's no accountability to the public.

JOHN BOGLE: There's no accountability. And it's wrong. It's
fundamentally a blight on our society.

BILL MOYERS:What does it say that big private money can operate so
secretly, with so little accountability, that the people who are hurt
by it, the residents in the nursing home have no recourse?

JOHN BOGLE:It says something very bad about American society. And you
wonder — the first question anybody would have after reading the
article — how in God's name do they get away with that? Well, we have
all these attorneys that are capable of devising complex instruments,
and money managers who are capable of devising highly complex
financial schemes. And there's kind of no one to answer to the call of
duty at the end of it.

BILL MOYERS: And we're talking about some of the most powerful names
in the business. I mean, these are formidable forces, right?

JOHN BOGLE: They're formidable forces. But, I'm afraid--

BILL MOYERS: Respectable citizens, right?

JOHN BOGLE: Well, I mean, I don't know about that. But, it's certainly
-- it's easy to say that greed is taking — playing a part — greed has
a role in a capitalistic society. But, not the dominant role and--

BILL MOYERS: What should be the dominant? What is the job of capitalism?

JOHN BOGLE:Well, ultimately, the job of capitalism is to serve the
consumer. Serve the citizenry. You're allowed to make a profit for
that. But, you've got to provide good products and services at fair
prices. And that's the long term, that's what businesses do in the
long term. The businesses that have endured in America have done that
and done that successfully.

But, in the short term, there's all these financial machinations in
which people can get very rich in a very short period of time by
creating highly complex financial instruments, providing services that
can be cut back easily as in the hospital article, not measuring up to
basically their duty.

We all know that in professions, the idea has been service to the
client before service to self. That's what a profession is. That's
what medicine was. That's what accountancy was. That's what attorneys
used to be. That's what trusteeship used to be inside the mutual fund
industry. But, we've moved from that to a big capital accumulation —
self interest — creating wealth for the providers of these services
when the providers of these services are in fact subtracting value
from society. So, it doesn't work.

BILL MOYERS:So, the private equity nursing homes have added to their
wealth. But, they've subtracted from society the care for people who
need it.

JOHN BOGLE: That is exactly correct. Not good.

BILL MOYERS:THE WALL STREET JOURNAL editorial page celebrates what it
called the animal spirits of business. And as if that's the heart of
capitalism. What do you think about that?

JOHN BOGLE:Well, I like the animal spirits of business. I mean Lord
Keynes told us about animal spirits. And it comes out of a part of his
work that says, You know, all the precise numbers and the
perspectives mean nothing. What determines the 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive . Industrial capital U have...

2009-01-07 Thread Mehmet Cagatay
Hello,

I found this list via Jim Farmelant's post on Marxmail. After reading 
Waistline's arguments about the macro economic composition of capital and his 
brave challenge that provokes us to provide evidence to the existence of the 
SECTOR called industrial capital, eventually I decided to subscribe to the 
list and post a small contribution to the debate. 

I think the fundamental error of Waistline's claim resides in confusion of 
dialectical method with the descriptive dimension of dialectical analysis. 
Therefore, he takes the concepts literally whereas their purpose is to reflect 
diverse forms of the object in its dialectical movement. 

When Marx accuses the political economy for throwing commercial capital and 
industrial capital together and overlooking the characteristics of former, he 
does not, in any sense, blame them for neglecting the categorical division of 
capital but draws attention to the diverse forms of capital in the operation of 
capitalist accumulation. 

For instance, in the vol. 3 of Capital, Marx says, ...our purpose, which is to 
define the specific difference of this special form of capital:

We have explained (Book II, Chapter VI, The Costs of Circulation,) to what 
extent the transport industry, storage and distribution of commodities in a 
distributable form, may be regarded as production processes continuing within 
the process of circulation. These episodes incidental to the circulation of 
commodity-capital are sometimes confused with the distinct functions of 
merchant's or commercial capital. Sometimes they are, indeed, practically bound 
up with these distinct, specific functions, although with the development of 
the social division of labour the function of merchant's capital evolves in a 
pure form, i.e., divorced from those real functions, and independent of them. 
Those functions are therefore irrelevant to our purpose, which is to define the 
specific difference of this special form of capital. In so far as capital 
solely employed in the circulation process, special commercial capital, partly 
combines those functions with its specific
 ones, it does not appear in its pure form. We obtain its pure form after 
stripping it of all these incidental functions.

So when Marx applies the concepts such as, industrial capital, industrial 
capitalists, fictitious capital, commercial capitalists and so on, he 
designates singular forms of capital in the movement of its being but not the 
specific categorical divisions of capital. 

With this in mind, also when Lenin invoked the financial capital or when 
Sweezy, talked about the triumph of financial capital they were merely 
describing the distinctive characteristics of a specific form which is the core 
of imperialist exploitation. 

I think the answer of Waistline's question is quite easy: There is no such a 
thing as industrial capital sector or industrial capital as a subdivision in 
the totality of capital. And in this sense, there is no financial capital too. 

The supposed difficulty of this question rises on the bizarre confusion about 
categories and forms.


Mehmet Çagatay
http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/


  

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] Piaget and Marx

2009-01-07 Thread Charles Brown
 


CB: What are some of the specifics of that integration ?

First, a correction. I must have imagined any Piaget-Vygotsky
correspondence. Piaget only found out about Vygotsky's work after his
death, through contact with people who studied under Vygotsky.

Second, we have discussed this before 

^^^
CB: Yes, I recall. Will have to look into the Thaxis archives. I recall 
developing a critique of Piaget's theory of the origin of the concept of number 
as positivistic. That is the idea of some child counting pebbles on a beach as 
occurring over and over again down through the centuries , as if the original 
discovery of the concept of number was made in this way. It is positivistic in 
the essential sense that it is individualistic, or in Marx's terminology, a 
Robinsonade.  The concept number is discovered socially , I hypothesize in 
the original commodity exchange, as abstractly outlined in Marx's first pages 
in _Capital_.  I hypothesize that Number is invented in commodity exchange.  
Name is invented at human origin. Number is invented with swivilization.

Anyway, psychologically, number is socially psychologically learned, not 
learned through re-invention by individual geniuses.

Empirically , many primary cultures don't count very, high even ones that are 
on beaches with lots of pebbles.


(or at least Piaget as a
philosopher of social science of the 20th century, a status the
Anglo-analytic traditions ignore), but since that time I have found
more online, including a straightforward Marxist critiques of Piaget
(Lektorsky, Durak):

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/p/i.htm#piaget-jean 

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/piaget2.htm 

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lektorsky/subject-object/ch01.htm#s2 

http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/comment/piaget.htm 

http://tomweston.net/PiagetDurak.pdf 


---
I will follow up on that use of the term 'means of production' as that
fascinates me more than the 'dialectic' one, which we already
discussed anyway. I think Durak's charge (after a quick scan read, so
don't hold me responsible for not understanding Durak just yet)
against Piaget of 'idealism' holds, then it makes all structuralists
and Frege idealists as well.

CJ









This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. 
www.surfcontrol.com

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] American capitalism is such that a speculative stock market dominates

2009-01-07 Thread Charles Brown
American capitalism is such that a speculative stock market  dominates
the policies of businesses.
 
by Lawrence E Mitchell
 
AlterNet (December 22 2008)
 
Editor's Note: The following is an edited excerpt from The  Speculation
Economy:  How Finance Triumphed Over Industry (2007),  Lawrence
Mitchell's definitive history of the rise of American finance  and
analysis of how it shaped corporate behavior in the modern era.
 

During the rise of the speculation economy in the early years of  the
20th century, business' focus on production was replaced with  business
management's focus on stock prices.
 
That goal might be consistent with healthy, sustainable and  responsible
business practices, but it also might not be. Understanding the  complex
development of American corporate capitalism can help us better  improve
and sustain the strength of the American economy.
 
While our current economic crisis is frequently compared to that of  the
Great Depression, its roots and causes go further back in history -  to
the development of the modern American stock market at the turn of  the
20th century.
 
Contrary to popular belief, the public market for industrial  securities
didn't finance industrialization - industrialization had already  taken
place. Instead, it exploded into existence as a result of  trust
promoters and investment bankers trying to restrain competition  through
the creation of giant combinations of corporations and at the same  time
getting rich quick by dumping the overvalued securities of these  giant
corporate behemoths onto an emerging middle class eager to share the  wealth.
 
The first major industrial stock market crash followed fast on the  heels
of its birth.
 
The formative era of American corporate capitalism took place  between
1897 and 1919. The American business landscape of the late 19th  century
had been characterized by independent factories. No matter what  their
size, they typically were owned by entrepreneur industrialists,  their
families and perhaps a few business associates.
 
But in the first decades of the 20th century, American  business
transformed into a vista of giant combinations of industrial  plants
owned directly and indirectly by widely dispersed shareholders.
 
Business reasons sometimes justified these combinations. But they  might
never have come into being if financiers and promoters had  not
discovered that they could be used to create and sell massive amounts  of
stock for their own gain.
 
The result is a form of capitalism in which a speculative stock  market
dominated the policies of American business. The result is  the
speculation economy.
 
Historians have studied virtually every aspect of the Progressive  Era,
including the social and philosophical changes that took place  in
Americans' ways of living and thinking about their world, the  dramatic
technological and economic developments that occurred, the rise of  big
business, the growth in importance of the federal government, the  fitful
creation of American industrial policy, the establishment of the  bargain
between labor and capital, the changes in political relations  between
government and big business, the development of new styles of  regulation
and America's assumption of its turn as the world's dominant  economic
power. Many have provided rich pictures of different aspects of  the
dramatic and related economic, social and political transformations  that
occurred during that period.
 
The story I tell in The Speculation Economy:  How Finance Triumphed  Over
Industry (2007) is the economic equivalent of the political creation  of
the republic. It is a story that needs to be told for many reasons,  not
least of which is that the corporate economy that emerged during  this
era has been beset with problems ranging from short-term  management
horizons that can damage the long-term health of business to  the
increasing willingness of corporate managers to externalize the  costs
of production for the benefit of their stockholders.
 
A recent survey of CEOs running major American corporations  revealed
that almost eighty percent would have at least moderately  mutilated
their businesses in order to meet financial analysts' quarterly  profit
estimates.
 
Cutting the budgets for research and development, advertising  and
maintenance, and delaying hiring and new projects are some of  the
long-term harms they would readily inflict on their corporations.  Why?
Because in modern American corporate capitalism, the failure to  meet
quarterly numbers almost always guarantees a punishing hit to  the
corporation's stock price.
 
One lesson of the formative period is that meaningful reform can  be
achieved only by reforming the market, by reforming finance itself  to
create the incentives for stockholders, and through them the market,  to
re-learn the lesson that profits come from industrial production,  not
from the breeze that blows toward tomorrow. It is a lesson that  was
often forgotten during these early 

[Marxism-Thaxis] How Finance Capital Cripples Industrial Capital

2009-01-07 Thread Charles Brown
How Finance Capital Cripples Industrial Capital: The Role of Fractional
Reserve Banking

http://www.cbpa.drake.edu/hossein-zadeh/papers/HowFinanceCapital.htm 

 

[Published in Briefing Notes in Economics, Vol. 4, Issue No. 26
(January 1997).]

Huge amounts of debt have plagued the economies of the United States
and many less-developed countries during the last two decades. Despite
the heavy toll that the debt burden is taking on these economies,
mainstream economic theories have been pitifully inept in explaining
the
causes or developments that led to the proliferation of the debts thus
accumulated. According to these theories, whether Keynesian or
monetarist, the supply of credit is determined by two factors: (a) the
savings by households and businesses, and (b) the Federal Reserve
policies that determine reserve requirements and the money supplyâthe
so-called fractional reserve banking (FRB), which will be discussed
later in this essay. 

But the huge sums of credit that financial intermediaries extended to
a
variety of borrowers during the last two decades went far beyond the
boundaries set by the amount of savings or Federal Reserve money
supply
regulations. For example, in the United States alone the amount of
domestic lending during the 1982-90 period exceeded the amount of
household and corporate savings by 23% (Citicorp Economics Database,
as
cited in Pollin, 1992:22). 

Neither do the standard theories explain the demand side of the debt
overhang (i.e., the demand for debt financing). For example,
neoclassical economists attribute the rise in the debt financing since
the mid-1960s to the low cost of borrowing in the 1960s and 1970sâthe
high inflation rates of those years made the real interest rates very
low, sometimes even negative. But this explanation is inadequate in
light of the fact that deficit spending continued through the
1980sâindeed, it speeded up during the 1980sâdespite the drastic
rise in the cost of borrowing during that decade, especially in the
first half of the decade. 

The view of the Post-Keynesian economists of the debt overhang is
similarly inadequate. Based on Hyman Minsky's financial fragility
hypothesis of mature market economies, this view maintains that
during
long expansionary business cycles both lenders and borrowers tend to
base their lending/borrowing decisions more on positive expectations
of
the upswing of the cycle than on realistic calculations of returns on
investment against which they accumulate debt claims, or debt
burdensâthis tendency to base lending/borrowing decisions on
optimisitic expectations of the expansionary of cycle is called boom
psychology. Under the boom psychology even the less secured and less
competitive businesses embark on a borrowing binge in an effort to
expand their market share. Partly due to this boom psychology, partly
due to competitive pressure, banks discard their hesitations to extend
loans to less and less-secured borrowers. Eventually as the
expansionary
cycle reaches its peak and a fall in sales and/or profits occurs,
businesses in weaker financial positions fail to meet their payment
commitments. The lenders then retreat form extending additional
credit.
The credit crunch that replaces the prior credit boom will
subsequently
lead to a crisis of illiquidity and indebtedness (Minsky, 1978 and
1982). 

Implicit in this theory is that there is a positive correlation
between
real investment (i.e., capacity buildup), on the one hand, and debt
financing, on the other. That is, investment in plant and equipment
during the upswing of the business cycle is associated with debt
financing, and a decline in real investment on the downside of the
cycle
is accompanied or followed by credit crunch and a decline in deficit
expenditure. This theory is valid as far as it goes (i.e., to the
extent
that it explains such developments in real world). In other words, it
is
an empirical explanation, not a scientific theory. For example, it
does
not explain the rise in U.S. business/corporate debt financing since
the
mid-1960s as this rise has in fact been accompanied by a relative fall
in real investment. Nor does it therefore explain the broader global
debt overhang that has tormented the economies of the United States
and
many less-developed countries during the last two decades. 

Within these two major views of the debt crisis there are a number of
less known explanations of the problem. Despite the fact that these
secondary explanations are distinct from one another in many respects,
they all tend to be based not so much on scientific theories or
factual
evidence of the debt or credit crisis as they are on exogenous or
psychological hypotheses such as rational expectations, the moral
hazard
problem, a principal-agent dilemma, uninformed bankers, overborrowing
thesis, and so on (see Darity, 1985, pp. 15-49, for example).

Thus, orthodox economic theories, whether Monetarist or Keynesian, do
not provide adequate explanations of the ongoing 

[Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan

2009-01-07 Thread Charles Brown


Jim Devine wrote: 
but even FDR's Bonapartism was not very good in the early New Deal.
The NRA, for example. Needed was mass pressure from the left.

Lou Pro:
Sad but true. With the left so weak, there is even less incentive for Obama to 
move boldly. If he has any motivation to create a kind of new New Deal, it will 
be from a policy wonk perspective. In other words, the kind of thing you get 
from the U. of Chicago economists he relies on. The screwy thing is that from 
the long term needs of the capitalist system, it is imperative to address 
infrastructure, environment, education, etc. but the state is too much a 
captive of ideological accretions and institutional inertia. When I had a house 
guest from Uganda in November who had exactly the same ethnic background as 
Obama, he dismissed Obama with one word: Brezhnev.

^
CB: Brezhnev was to the left of the Bonaparts , FDR, and Krugman.



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. 
www.surfcontrol.com

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan

2009-01-07 Thread Shane Mage

On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
 Brezhnev was to the left of...Krugman.


How many counterrevolutionary invasions did Krugman launch?  How many  
political opponents did he send to labor camps?  How many did he  
imprison in mental hospitals? Was Krugman a Stalinist?


Shane Mage

 This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
 always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
 kindling in measures and going out in measures.

 Herakleitos of Ephesos

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive . Industrial capital

2009-01-07 Thread Charles Brown
 U have the
CeJ jannuzi at



I guess one question here is why Ford, Chrysler and GM didn't
re-invest profits into accumulating their industrial capital. One, if
the goal was to reach a certain level of production to stay
competitive in the world (what is the benchmark now, 2 million
vehicles per year?), the most obvious solution was to acquire stakes
in and control of other car companies and attempt integration of
production. Two, this very easily moves over to finance and
speculative finance because of the way such deals were run by
investment banks able to put together the 'leverage' to finance the
deals (while taking a huge cut for themselves). Three, what is most
surprising though is how these companies all say at the same time that
they are in effect 'bankrupt' and need federal loans to stay solvent.
So did management as ownership strip out so much money from these
companies to enrich themselves (so they could, for example, speculate
on other things)? So much for the idea that management even tries to
act in the best interest of the company.

A different area of inquiry and analysis is how so much of the
political economies we produce in have become owned by 'holding
companies', which ultimately are owned by private equity groups and
things like hedge funds (who invest for 'institutional investors'),
while these private equity groups and hedge funds are dominated by US
and UK 'interests'.


CJ


CB: Yeah. I think the whole thing has been aimed at busting down 
auto-workers' wages and benefits. So, Waistline's point is correct at this 
level. Lenin's merger of industrial and finance capital as finance capital. 
 

By the way, did Waistline forget that he is basically putting forth Lenin's 
position ? Lenin in _Imperialism_  said that industrial and finance capital had 
merged into finance capital.  

So, this merged finance capital in the late twentieth century ordered its 
industrial branch to ruin the US companies so they could bust the autoworkers 
and wages and benefits down. They seem to have succeeded.



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. 
www.surfcontrol.com

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan

2009-01-07 Thread Charles Brown


 Shane Mage 

On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
 Brezhnev was to the left of...Krugman.


How many counterrevolutionary invasions did Krugman launch?  How many  
political opponents did he send to labor camps?  How many did he  
imprison in mental hospitals? Was Krugman a Stalinist?


CB: Stalinist is rightwing terminology. Are you are rightwinger ?


Shane Mage

 This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
 always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
 kindling in measures and going out in measures.

 Herakleitos of Ephesos

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu 
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. 
www.surfcontrol.com

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] Manufacturing Tumbles Globally

2009-01-07 Thread Charles Brown
(Chart Redacted)
  a.. JANUARY 3, 2009 Page A-1 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123094144619950373.html  
Manufacturing Tumbles Globally 

By KELLY EVANS and ROBERT GUY MATTHEWS
Manufacturing activity around the world fell sharply in December, suggesting 
that the U.S. recession will extend well into 2009, if not longer, and that 
unemployment will rise globally.

A broad index of change in U.S. manufacturing activity fell to its lowest level 
since June 1980, when the economy was on the verge of a severe double-dip 
recession, according to the Institute for Supply Management. Not one of the 18 
industries surveyed reported growth, and some, such as wood products, have been 
in decline for more than two years.

New orders, a gauge of future activity, sank to the lowest index level since 
records began 60 years ago. Exports and production also sank, and employment 
levels declined. The downturn in demand for manufactured goods is prompting 
companies of all sizes to lay off workers, shut down plants and reduce 
production of machinery, steel, plastics and other basic components.

Separate surveys of manufacturing activity around the world released on Friday, 
the first business day of the new year, were also bleak. Manufacturing is a key 
component of a country's gross domestic product, and the data often serve as a 
barometer of future economic growth.

Nevertheless, on Friday, stock markets around the world shrugged off the 
manufacturing numbers, posting gains in Hong Kong, Seoul and Europe on light 
trading volume. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 258.3 points, or 
2.94%, to close at 9034.69. Some analysts say global weakness is already priced 
into shares, which in the U.S. just closed their worst year since 1931.

Manufacturing activity contracted in Germany, France, Italy and Spain, pushing 
the Markit Economics survey of euro-zone manufacturing last month to the lowest 
level in its 11-year history. In Russia, the VTB Bank Europe manufacturing 
index fell to its lowest level since it began in September 1997.

The data from Asia also looked grim. A survey by brokerage firm CLSA showed 
employment and output fell at a record clip in Chinese factories in December. 
Indian manufacturers cut jobs for the first time in the history of a survey by 
ABN AMRO Bank.

The simultaneous woes of manufacturing in rich countries and poor countries are 
something new in the global economy. In the past, weaknesses in U.S. and 
European manufacturing meant a windfall for developing economies, which took up 
the slack.

Hong Kong, which like the euro zone slipped into recession in the third 
quarter, saw manufacturing activity as surveyed by Markit decline for the sixth 
straight month. Earlier this week, Japan's Nomura/JMMA index of manufacturing 
sank to a new low, due to a reduction in overseas demand and the deteriorating 
global economy.

The spreading and deepening manufacturing slump has some experts worried that 
the global economy in 2009 won't fare much better than last year. J.P. Morgan's 
global manufacturing index, released Friday and compiled from surveys in 19 
countries, reached a new low in December, consistent with a severe 17% 
annualized contraction in global activity. J.P. Morgan estimates global output 
declined 4% in the last three months of 2008 compared to the previous quarter, 
reflecting reduced spending and available financing on autos, housing and 
capital equipment.

Manufacturers around the world have already begun layoffs to conserve cash and 
reduce production, but many more are expected this year.

The job cuts are coming across industries and borders. Nickent Golf, a 
golf-club manufacturer in the Los Angeles area, recently cut assembly workers 
in China and the U.S. to cope with falling demand. In Elbow Lake, Minn., Cosmos 
Enterprises Inc., which makes metal and plastic parts for manufacturers 
including car and farm-equipment makers, has cut capacity, and in October it 
laid off five machinists and one quality inspector. What is 2009 going to 
bring? There's a scary thought, says sales manager Kelly Chandler.

The struggles of big steel companies are particularly troubling, because that 
industry's health is considered an early indicator of how other industries are 
faring. ArcelorMittal, U.S. Steel Corp. and AK Steel all have announced layoffs 
in the U.S. or Canada. In the U.S., mills that produce raw steel are working at 
only about 43% of capacity.

Gerdau Macsteel Inc., a specialty-steel maker, said it would eliminate 300 
employees by Jan. 16 at its Jackson, Mich., plant, although it is unclear 
whether the layoffs will be permanent. The steelmaker has been hit especially 
hard because about 50% of its output goes into automotive applications. The 
U.S. shed some 1.9 million jobs in 2008, through November, and the unemployment 
rate, currently 6.7%, is expected to rise when the government reports December 
figures next Friday.

The surveys underscore the depth of the 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan

2009-01-07 Thread Shane Mage

On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
 Shane Mage
 On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
 Brezhnev was to the left of...Krugman.
 How many counterrevolutionary invasions did Krugman launch?  How many
 political opponents did he send to labor camps?  How many did he
 imprison in mental hospitals? Was Krugman a Stalinist?

 
 CB: Stalinist is rightwing terminology. Are you are rightwinger ?


When I was young, all the Stalinists I knew were proud of the title.   
Weren't you?  Weren't you all rightwingers? [rhetorical question]

Shane Mage

 This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
 always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
 kindling in measures and going out in measures.

 Herakleitos of Ephesos

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan

2009-01-07 Thread Charles Brown


 Shane Mage shm...@pipeline.com 01/07/2009 2:26 PM 

On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
 Shane Mage
 On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
 Brezhnev was to the left of...Krugman.
 How many counterrevolutionary invasions did Krugman launch?  How many
 political opponents did he send to labor camps?  How many did he
 imprison in mental hospitals? Was Krugman a Stalinist?

 
 CB: Stalinist is rightwing terminology. Are you are rightwinger ?


When I was young, all the Stalinists I knew were proud of the title.   
Weren't you?  Weren't you all rightwingers? [rhetorical question]

Shane Mage


CB: No I taking it as an insult as it is thrown as an insult .  It's 
anti-Communist and reactionary

 ( rhetorical answer)

 This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
 always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
 kindling in measures and going out in measures.

 Herakleitos of Ephesos

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu 
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. 
www.surfcontrol.com

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] Unemployment systems crash as jobless numbers hit 26-year high

2009-01-07 Thread Charles Brown
  
 
 Unemployment systems crash as jobless numbers hit 26-year high
Archive - Daily Online 

Author: John Wojcik 
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/07/09 14:53   

  
Jobless benefit filing systems all over the country are crashing this
week as an unprecedented wave of tens of thousands of newly unemployed
Americans scrambles to survive. 

The states are saying that their web sites are going down because they
are already overloaded with data on the 4.5 million now collecting
benefits, the highest number in 26 years. 

In many states where the systems have not yet crashed the newly
unemployed are left to hold on the phone lines for hours or are cut off
with “all lines are busy” messages. 

On Jan. 6 systems in New York, North Carolina and Ohio were shut down
completely. New York’s phone and Internet claims system started to
fail on Jan. 5 and was out of service completely on Jan. 6. It was
restored a day later but workers there still report waiting hours to get
help. 

“Regardless of when you call, be prepared to wait and just hang on.
Try not to get frustrated,” is the advice offered in a telephone
interview with Howard Cosgrove, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Department
of Workforce Development. 

Unemployment statistics that the government will release Jan. 9 are
expected to show that 500,000 more people lost their jobs in December,
which could push the official national jobless rate over 7 percent.
November’s 6.7 percent figure was already the highest in 15 years. 

For people in the rapidly growing ranks of the unemployed the crashing
of the systems turns what is already a harrowing experience into a
certified nightmare. 

Tom McAvey, 54, was laid off Jan. 2 from the custodial staff in a
Brooklyn, N.Y., elementary school. “I waited until Monday to file my
claim,” he told the World. “Two of us at the school were laid off.
We had no idea it was coming. What a way to start the new Yyar. I’m
two week’s salary away from the poorhouse. My wife lost her job at
Bear Stearns and is still out. I don’t know how I’m going to pay the
bills. One of my daughters is in a Catholic high school – there’s
the tuition.” 

McAvey has difficulty mustering any sympathy for state officials who
say the systems crash because of the unprecedented number of jobless
applicants. 

“I don’t buy it. The government has computers that handle much more
information like the ones that keep track of all the taxes they are
owed. If they weren’t laying off their own workers they could maintain
better systems and plan for these emergencies. Layoffs and budget cuts
are to blame – it's not the fault of the unemployed.” 

An unemployed worker in Rhode Island emphasized how, even before the
crashes, filing for benefits in her state constituted a virtual
nightmare. Her state, along with Michigan, tops the nation with the
highest unemployment rates. 

“They have eliminated the old unemployment offices, she said. They
have laid off state employees. You can’t go anywhere to talk to a
person. If I was lucky I got a recording that told me to call back
later. This went on for days.” 

The woman described for the World how she had to research the location
of an actual office where she could find a live person. “But even
there, I was told to fill out a form with a message and that in a few
days someone would call me back. I was lucky to be home at the time they
did call back. They were helpful – it was a worker trying to do a good
job, but there just aren’t enough of them. 

“Between the trips back and forth, the 75-minute waits on hold –
once, out of desperation I held on for two hours – it’s a struggle.
It’s a lot of time lost that could be spent on the Internet or going
out to look for a job,” she said.
 



This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. 
www.surfcontrol.com

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] Another Crisis of Capitalism

2009-01-07 Thread Charles Brown
Another Crisis of Capitalism
By Wadi’h Halabi
  



click here for related stories: capitalism  11-24-08, 9:31 am 


  
Unfolding globally today is another capitalist crisis of
overproduction and a corresponding crisis of unmet human needs, even
for food and water. Earlier crises (1907, 1929) led to terrible
suffering, political breakdowns and war, but also opened the path for
the Russian, Chinese (1917, 1949) and other socialist revolutions. 

Today, without labor unity and action, humanity itself faces a
terrifying death amidst war and social and environmental destruction.
Capitalism's failure will accelerate the damage already done to the
social and environmental foundations of human existence, and further
spread the nightmare that millions are facing in the Congo, Haiti,
Palestine, India and the Russian Federation – and in significant
pockets of poverty in most capitalist countries, the US included. 

The crisis is certain to escalate Wall Street and big capital's efforts
to further cheapen labor and plunder weaker countries. The capitalists
will make every attempt to divide workers, to provoke nationalist
reactions and racism among workers and their organizations everywhere,
and to oppose internationalist class-based responses. This attempt to
provoke nationalism as opposed to internationalism will be extend
worldwide (even to China), with the most dangerous focus of reaction
being white American nationalism, a tendency already evident in
supremacist and anti-immigrant groups. 

Global labor unity, organization, class-consciousness, and coordinated
action can turn this latest failure of the old system into victories for
a new system, and holds extraordinary potential for human liberation
from capitalism. 

Sponsored Ad

  
Subscribe to Socialist Economics  
Email:
Visit this group  
 
For any economy to avoid crisis, an approximate balance must be
maintained between production and demand by both producers and
consumers. A similar, approximate balance must be maintained between the
countless factors necessary for modern production. Otherwise,
significant waste and economic losses result. (Note that only
approximate balances are ever achievable even under communism, due to
inevitable changes in technology, the environment and consumer tastes.)


Rosa Luxemburg correctly identified imbalances between production and
demand as the underlying causes of capitalism's periodic crises. These
crises are best labeled crises of disproportionality rather than
crises of overproduction. But Luxemburg only pointed to imbalances
between production and workers' incomes. The Soviet economists Nikolai
Bukharin and Evgeny Preobrazhensky correctly added the income and demand
of producers (enterprises and their owners) to that of workers, and
introduced the general contradictions of commodity production into the
equation of disproportionality and crises. 

Contrary to bourgeois propaganda (which unfortunately has penetrated
the labor movement), the capitalists do not control a capitalist
economy. If they did, they would avoid periodic crises, such as today's,
which slash their profits and can endanger their rule. A capitalist
economy is regulated by the laws of commodity production and exchange,
independent of the capitalists' wishes. This was one of Marx's basic
contributions to our understanding of capitalist political economy and
its periodic crises. 

The only element of control capitalists hold lies in the redistribution
of pain caused by crises and environmental destruction. The IMF, WTO,
NAFTA, etc., are among the global institutions used for redistributing
pain, backed by the US military, NATO, the FBI and the CIA. As such all
pretense at democracy or national sovereignty quickly disappear. 

China and the Global Economy 

After a socialist revolution countries can gain a degree of control
over their economy, through planning, greater participation and input
from below, and the constant re-allocation of the surplus (rather than
the private appropriation of profit), in order to achieve an approximate
balance in the economy. For these reasons, socialist economies are not
subject to the intensity and depth of the economic cycles that plague
capitalist economies. Wars and other political crises, along with
mismanagement, however, can lead to economic downturns in economies
formed by socialist revolutions, or even collapse. 

With capitalism still a significant mode of production worldwide,
control over the economy after a socialist revolution is limited, in
part because of the domestic legacies of capitalism (poverty,
small-scale production), and in part because of capitalism's inherent
instability. 

Today, the growth of economies formed by workers' revolutions,
particularly China, tends to introduce some stability into the world
economy. China's potential stabilizing role is why I am still reluctant
to call the present crisis a general 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive . Industrial capital U hav...

2009-01-07 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 1/7/2009 2:30:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
farmela...@juno.com writes:
Forwarded from Mehmet Cagatay.
\
Reply
 
 
Thank you very much for this contribution. 
 
You are quite correct in me taking categories of capital in their literal  
sense. This literal interpretation is political and part of my tradition,  
which I am not wedded to. On the other hand it is part of trying to chart the  
development of industry and its corresponding historically distinctive form of  
capital. 
 
It seems what is being stated is that from the standpoint of circulation  
(circulation of commodities or M-C-M as a circuit) historically distinctive  
forms of capital lose their distinction and their origin is immaterial to the  
fact of circulation and reproduction.  On the other hand in the circulation  of 
commercial capital - money, whose specific circuit is C-M-C, its distinctive  
form and origin is immaterial to the fact of capital in its totality. 
 
Literal interpretations over the years have on more than one occasion been  
my undoing. The question posed was trying to make heads or  tails out of  the 
concept of capital without a notional value and the relatively new  non-banking 
financial regime, that appears to have severed even a remote  connection 
with value as reproduction and circulation of commodities.  And its expression 
in the world of finance and as policy. 
 
Welcome. 
 
 
 
Waistline 
 
 
 
 

Jim Farmelant

--- On Wed, 1/7/09, Mehmet Cagatay  mehmetcagatayay...@yahoo.com wrote:

 With this in mind, also  when Lenin invoked the
 financial capital or when Sweezy, talked  about
 the triumph of financial capital they were
 merely  describing the distinctive characteristics of a
 specific form which is  the core of imperialist exploitation.
 
 
 I think the  answer of Waistline's question is quite
 easy: There is no such a thing  as industrial capital
 sector or industrial capital as a subdivision in  the
 totality of capital. And in this sense, there is no
  financial capital too. 
 
 The supposed difficulty of this  question rises on the
 bizarre confusion about categories and  forms.
 
 
 Mehmet �agatay
  http://weblogmca.blogspot.com/





Refine  your culinary schools at a top Culinary program near  you.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2ROjvk74Ry8g42dyLN1LMUCcAZae
7p140NwIzRTaGTCtBnz/

___
Marxism-Thaxis  mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or  unsubscribe go  to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
 
**New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] Bush a Socialist? Don't Make Me Laugh; Response

2009-01-07 Thread Charles Brown
 
Bush a Socialist? Don't Make Me Laugh
By Joel Wendland
  



click here for related stories: socialism  1-02-09, 10:14 am 

The Republican Party is lashing out again. This time at itself. Several
media sources recently reported that at an upcoming Republican National
Convention meeting a resolution has been submitted that accuses George
W. Bush of promoting socialism through the Wall Street bailout. 

This move is remarkably ironic given that Republicans unabashedly
supported Bush until just weeks ago. Many had accused his critics of
anti-Americanism and of supporting terrorism. A host of Republican
ideologues and right-wing media outlets even took to calling Barack
Obama a communist for a variety of reasons, but especially for his plan
to give 95 percent of Americans a tax cut. 

Here is what the resolution reportedly said, in part: WHEREAS, the
Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system,
giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating
financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another
dangerous step closer toward socialism. 

Now it is tempting to laugh at this nonsense and let it go. But the
chance offered by these circumstances to explain a socialistic response
to the economic crisis is too tempting to do so. 

Additional resources: 
Podcast #89 – Auto Bailout: Why and What's the Reason For




PA Editors Blog

Obama Admin. and the Employee Free Choice Act
Ten Best and Worst of Marxism for 2008
Act Now! Imminent Vote on Fair Pay Legislation
 Subscribe to this Feed

 
In a recent article, we here at PoliticalAffairs.net reported recently
on a new campaign to halt the bailout because of the lack of oversight
in the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. Almost $350 billion in
taxpayer money has been given to the world's richest banks without the
least bit of curiosity on the part of the Bush administration about what
they have done with the cash. 

According to some accounts the application for taxpayer money is a
surprisingly uninquisitive two-page document that can be submitted
online. Also, a recent media survey of several major banks who have
taken the money revealed that they are flat out refusing to explain what
they have done with the cash. 

A little deeper digging found, however, that many banks have hoarded
the money rather trying to stimulate economic activity by loosening
credit. Others have used the cash to buy smaller banks or expand their
holdings in others. And the most corrupt have simply used the money to
pad their profit margins or to pay outrageous executive bonuses,
stockholder dividends, and for corporate jets and getaways. It is what
Political Affairs contributing editor Norman Markowitz, in a recent
article, called vulture capitalism. 

This isn't socialism. Those are the fundamentals of the Republican
ideology of the free market – with direct government assistance. Far
from being a dangerous step toward socialism, that's how Republican
free market concept works. Privatize benefits and profits; socialize
costs and pain. No government oversight. 

Some actual socialist thinkers have called this type of economic
activity the state monopoly stage of capitalism. It is the worst, most
exploitative stage. Smaller businesses are gobbled up or eliminated;
workers' rights are squashed. Rules and laws designed to reign in the
worst excesses are discarded. Monopolies grow increasingly large and
powerful. 

It is also this stage of capitalism that is most vulnerable to change,
a stage in which socialist solutions to crises seem most feasible and
even necessary. 

A socialist program for resolving the crisis in the banking industry
would possibly have begun by using the TARP funds to gain public
ownership and oversight of the banks. It would not have been a handout.


Further, the socialist approach would have originated with the interest
of working families. If indeed the TARP project had been a socialist
one, it would have been embedded in, controlled by, and enacted with
working people's interests at its center. The guiding principle would be
the socialization of benefits and profit. 

For example, if TARP were handled in a socialistic way, homeowners who
now face the loss of their homes would be a top priority. Mortgages
would have been renegotiated with greater urgency than that which the
Bush administration rushed to give payouts to the JP Morgans,
Citigroups, and Bank of Americas. Credit with good terms for small
farmers and small businesses would have been prioritized above the
bottom lines of Wall Street. 

Capitalism is based on a couple of basic building blocks. Wealth is
socially created and privately accumulated. Simply put, workers, for
example, make all of the value accumulated by the auto companies, but
the Ford family (and stockholders who rarely add an significant value to
the end product) get the profit. Profit, then, is the 

[Marxism-Thaxis] Act Now! Imminent Vote on Fair Pay Legislation

2009-01-07 Thread Charles Brown
Act Now! Imminent Vote on Fair Pay Legislation 
From the National Organization for Women:

Two important bills, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11) and the 
Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 12), will be among the House of Representatives' 
first votes of the 111th Congress. Please take time now to call or email your 
representative and urge her/him to vote for these bills that will help reduce 
wage discrimination against women. The votes could come as early as Wednesday, 
Jan. 7, but might possibly be held off until Friday, Jan. 9.

Regardless, please send your message -- by sending an email or calling your 
House member's office. The U.S. Capitol switchboard number is 202-224-3121; 
just ask to be connected to your representative's office and leave a message of 
support for these bills.




This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. 
www.surfcontrol.com

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan

2009-01-07 Thread Shane Mage

On Jan 7, 2009, at 6:33 PM, waistli...@aol.com wrote:


 I am one of those persons who once wore the mantel of Stalinism with
 pride. However, this tells no one of who I am or my body of politics  
 or belief
 system. I tend to avoid such sloganeering and throwing Stalinism or
 Trotskyism at an individual because it tells no one nothing.

You seem not to notice that the individual at whom I threw  the  
brand Stalinist wasBrezhnev.

 On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:04 PM,  Charles Brown wrote:
 Brezhnev was to the left of...Krugman.
 How many counterrevolutionary invasions did Krugman launch?  How   
 many
 political opponents did he send to labor camps?  How many did  he
 imprison in mental hospitals? Was Krugman a  Stalinist?



Shane Mage

 This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
 always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
 kindling in measures and going out in measures.

 Herakleitos of Ephesos

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan

2009-01-07 Thread CeJ
You seem not to notice that the individual at whom I threw  the
brand Stalinist wasBrezhnev.

Hey call me a Stalinist if you want, I couldn't give a toss,
really--just don't call me a Krugmanite.

I think the point to be made here though is we need more than Krugman
to critique the evolution of the ruling class's response to the crisis
(which some focus on the presidency of a guy who hasn't even taken
office yet). Afterall, the Krugman dude went at the Bushwa for 8 years
and it was pretty milquetoast for we Stalinists.

CJ

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evidence please. Productive . Industrial capital U have the

2009-01-07 Thread CeJ
And as the past 8 years (and before as well) have shown, MILITARISM
really hasn't left the 'equation' and in fact has grown even more
immense in its hold on the US. Of course we Marxists already knew
this, but here is the analysis showing up in American academia (albeit
from someone who is not Marxist but Marxist ideas permeate non-Marxist
discourse). Much better than the Chalmers Johnson books from what I
can tell looking at copies online (read-only, so I can't quote).
It's in my Amazon shopping cart now.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0230602282/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8m=ATVPDKIKX0DERv=glance

Review
Ismael Hossein-zadeh's penetrating analysis of the role of the
military-industrial complex in driving U.S. foreign policy and
rearranging domestic priorities could not be more timely. With U.S.
military spending at levels higher than the peak years of the Vietnam
War, Hossein-zadeh provides the most cogent explanation yet of how we
got to this point.--William D. Hartung, Senior Research Fellow, World
Policy Institute at the New School America has been overrun not by
military force, but by the force of militarism.  Using statistics,
analysis and historical references, Hossein-zadeh reveals the
troubling picture that America may have succumbed to militarism
despite the warnings of Washington, Eisenhower and Butler.
Hossein-zadeh reveals the true cost of Pentagon programs by adjusting
the federal budget for Social Security and unmasking the insatiable,
consuming maw of spending run amok.  He reveals how budgetary
militarism is defeating the New Deal, even as it musters a long term
assault on the Bill of Rights and other foundations of American
democracy. The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism is a must-read for
patriots concerned about the future of the United States. --Grant F.
Smith, Director of Research, Institute for Research, Middle Eastern
Policy
Writing in a scholarly but accessible manner, Ismael Hossein-zadeh
provides an impressive overview of policy trends, their historical
background and their political and economic influences.  In examining
the recent tendencies towards war and militaristic responses to
foreign policy issues, the author looks past the now dominant
neo-conservative justifications, focusing on the powerful interests
that lie beneath.--David Gold, Associate Professor, International
Affairs Program, The New School

Ismael Hossein-zadeh has produced an original and powerful synthesis
of previous explanations of contemporary U.S. militarism. He locates
the relevant economic, political, and ideological forces within a
power-elite military-industrial complex framework firmly grounded in a
structural analysis of capital accumulation. By steering past the twin
dangers of conspiracy theory and economic reductionism, this framework
clearly reveals the parasitic, class-biased, and systemic character of
the Bush administration's unilateralism. Along the way, Hossein-zadeh
provides a challenging analysis of the cyclical fluctuations of U.S.
military spending since World War II.--Paul Burkett, Professor of
Economics, Indiana State University



Product Description
This wide-ranging, interdisciplinary analysis blends history,
economics, and politics to challenge most of the prevailing accounts
of the rise of U.S. militarism. While acknowledging the contributory
role of some of the most widely-cited culprits (big oil,
neoconservative ideology, the Zionist lobby, and President Bush's
world outlook), this study explores the bigger, but largely submerged,
picture: the political economy of war and militarism. The study is
unique not only for its thorough examination of the economics of
military spending, but also for its careful analysis of a series of
closely related topics (petroleum, geopolitics, imperialism,
terrorism, religious fundamentalism, the war in Iraq, and the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict) that may appear as digressions but, in
fact, help shed more light on the main investigation.

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


[Marxism-Thaxis] Revolution and the Role of New Ideas

2009-01-07 Thread Waistline2
Revolution and the Role of New Ideas 
 
The history of revolution shows that fundamental change in society does not  
occur without the introduction of new ideas. What we have in our favor today,  
over any other historical period, is that the conditions are favorable for  
abolishing private property forever. Millions are being propelled into motion  
against the capitalist system, but revolutionary transformation cannot take  
place unless there is an understanding of the root of the problem and the  
solution. Poverty and oppression, or even the energy of a global movement  
against 
today’s horrendous conditions – only create the opportunity for change.  
They have never on their own created revolution. Only a vision of what’s  
possible can do that. That’s what we mean when we talk about introducing new  
ideas. 
What’s new today is that a society that nourishes the material,  intellectual, 
spiritual and cultural needs of all its people is possible. The  role of 
revolutionaries is to help align the people’s thinking with the  possibilities 
of 
today. 
 
How revolution comes about 
 
Once the objective conditions for revolution are in place, the intellectual  
development of the people is key to revolution. By objective, we mean those  
processes that exist independent of thought – the qualitative changes in the  
means of production that disrupt the economic and social order. In this era  
automation and globalization have created an explosion of destitute people who  
are living in urban slums. 
 
Revolution comes about as a result of conscious revolutionaries utilizing  
the objective changes to develop the subjective side of the revolution. By  
subjective, we mean the ideological expressions in peoples’ minds about the  
objective processes – their beliefs, hopes, and visions, their religious and  
spiritual life. This ideological process – that is, what people think and  
believe –
 is currently dominated by the ruling class. Revolutionaries focus  their 
activity here. 
 
full: _http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v16ed5art4.html_ 
(http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v16ed5art4.html) 


This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ 
(http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis