[Marxism-Thaxis] Killing Joke
A lot of music watchers have argued that Jaz Coleman, the frontman of Killing Joke, is over the deepend in paranoia and conspiracy, but when he shouts stuff like 'Fuck the bankers' and 'take back your country' at a concert in Greece, he seems pretty sane to me. He uses the mass rock concert platform to provoke and antagonize. But I would bet it was music like Killing Joke the kids in the UK were listening to when they tried to do something about the government. And The Blood on Your Hands video will never make it to US TV. Over on Marxmail, they were having a discussion about metal and Rammstein and politics and it seems to me that Killing Joke largely invented the sort of artistic spaces Rage Against the Machine and Rammstein would inhabit. It might seem ironic that Killing Joke had to go towards a metal sound to find a new audience, but in a way that takes them back to their beginnings 30 years ago, when they sounded like they were from another planet. The conclusion on Marxmail about Rammstein seems to be that because they are ambiguous, they are not real left. But I think ambiguously is the only way using popular forms of music to provoke political thinking work. It starts with the reaction like: what the f- do they actually mean with those lyrics, with that music, with those images in their video or at their concert? http://thequietus.com/articles/04796-jaz-coleman-on-killing-joke-and-absolute-dissent Jaz: "I'm more concerned with food supply. Yes, there must be change. But staples are going up so fast. Food prices are predicted to go up 40% in the next couple of years. People's wages are being slashed. Where is it leading to? You don't have to be Einstein to work it out. It mustn't be allowed to get to that. What is required is a sweeping green communism." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T869Obl03oE&feature=related Killing Joke 'In Excelsis' In Excelsis lyrics Liberty is ours to protect The glorious pursuit of happiness The rights of free speech by consent The right to express discontent The glory of freedom, simple liberties In excelsis The rights of man to eat and drink and breathe In excelsis The glory of freedom The glory of freedom In excelsis In excelsis The glorious pursuit of happiness In excelsis In excelsis In excelsis In excelsis Liberty our common goal Smash the cabals that control This world is ours We won't be sold No profit, interest or loans The glory of freedom, simple liberties In excelsis The rights of man to eat and drink and breathe In excelsis The glory of freedom The glory of freedom In excelsis In excelsis The glorious pursuit of happiness In excelsis In excelsis In excelsis In excelsis The glory of freedom, simple liberties In excelsis The rights of man to eat and drink and breathe In excelsis The glory of freedom The glory of freedom In excelsis In excelsis The glorious pursuit of happiness In excelsis In excelsis In excelsis In excelsis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc-YDG7GG0s&feature=related Killing Joke 'Here Comes the Singularity' Here Comes The Singularity lyrics World population mass has reached the critical Humanity shall function as a single cell Machines design and clone a different race of man Who is the architect, who is the hidden hand? Kneel down and freedom’s gone Speak out – something’s wrong So when society breaks down in screaming insanity And when the sky cracks open Here comes the singularity Military industrial complex on the rise Let new Pearl Harbours take no-one by surprise One million people marched against a traitor’s war No weapons found and no-one heard their call Kneel down and freedom’s gone Speak out – something’s wrong So when society breaks down in screaming insanity And when the sky cracks open Here comes the singularity Foundations and shareholders identified on lists Big corporations dismantled brick by brick Investment bankers crushed like lilies under feet Let Baboeuf and Saint-Just pass judgement from the street Kneel down and freedom’s gone Speak out – something’s wrong So when society breaks down in screaming insanity And when the sky cracks open Here comes the singularity Kneel down and freedom’s gone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62cbc_EDQxk Killing Joke (live in Greece) 'Absolute Dissent' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4v66x7nXCs&feature=related Killing Joke 'Blood on Your Hands' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXQbgqRTvI4&feature=related Killing Joke 'Total Invasion' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naUAuptzUb4&feature=related Killing Joke 'European Super State' ___ 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] "Working Class Hero"
Looks like at the archive a couple songs got clipped out--perhaps too long a post? Here is what didn't make it to the archive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOTHdjymnW0 Atom and Cell David Sylvian Her skin was darker than ashes And she had something to say Bout being naked to the elements At the end of yet another day And the rain on her back that continued to fall >From the bruise of her lips Swollen, fragile, and small And the bills that you paid with were worth nothing at all A lost foreign currency Multi-coloured, barely reputable Like the grasses that blew in the warm summer breeze Well she offered you this to do as you pleased And where is the poetry? Didn't she promise us poetry? The redwoods, the deserts, the tropical ease The swamps and the prairie dogs, the Joshua trees The long straight highways from dirt road to tar Hitching your wheels to truck, bus, or car And the lives that you hold in the palm of your hand You toss them aside small and damn near unbreakable You drank all the water and you pissed yourself dry Then you fell to your knees and proceeded to cry And who could feel sorry for a drunkard like this In a democracy of dunces with a parasites kiss? And where are the stars? Didn't she promise us stars? Nothing will ever be as it was The price has been paid with a thousand loose shoes Pictures are pasted on shop windows and walls Like a poor mans Boltanski Lost one and all. Sell, sell Bid your farewell Come, come Save yourself Give yourself over Pushing your consciousness Deep into every atom and cell, Sell, Bid your farewell Come, come Save yourself Give yourself over Pushing your consciousness Deep into every atom and cell, Sell, Bid your farewell Come, come Save yourself Give yourself over Pushing your consciousness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Uz8ud1qns&feature=related What are you working for? Stuart Adamson and Big Country There was a crooked man and he wore a crooked smile He built a crooked highway and it ran for miles and miles With money from the revenue and sponsorship from Ford But it barely holds together with the goodwill of the Lord In the penthouse of the baron, the little children sleep Daddy talks to smugglers while armed guerillas creep Poison for the great unwashed, business for the mob Another teenage murder, it's just trouble on the job Now I see what I must see The poor do time the rich go free You keep the faith and they keep score Is this what you are working for A newsleak in the city, another scandal breaks Sex and drugs in city hall, someone on the make Legal bounty hunters aim their lawsuits well The victim talks to Playboy says I guess I'll go to hell ___ 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] "Working Class Hero"
I was trying to think of songs that actually expressed working class consciousness outside of accepting the fantasy that 'pop music' is one means to escape it (either through commercial success from making it or being transported somewhere while listening to it). Or songs that actually acknowledge the existence of working class. My memory takes me back to the 70s and 80s, or to artists who continued producing after that but come from that time. Some of it seems to be working class rejection and parody of bourgeois values (something the Beatles stood out for but most didn't understand that back in the 1960s). The first song on my list is trying to be an anthem for the working class but ends on a less than hopeful note. The Skids' song 'Charles' strikes me now as one I actually hadn't understood back in 1978 when I first heard it. I thought the factory job had resulted in some sort of physical injury, but what the song is really saying is that when you participate in a machinic assembly line you become a machine that loses human thinking ability and feeling, while your life is worth as much as a machine written off the books as obsolete. The Skids were a punk/post-punk band of the late 70s. Stuart Adamson would go on to form Big Country, whose name seemed to confuse Americans (they were more hard rock and Celtic folk rock but did do some country later). The Mekons 'Millionaire' is simply brilliant. They got started as one of the acts that always got compared to Gang of Four (there is some similarity of sound). David Sylvian's song, it seems to me, is about how working class status helps define the foreign other--we want 'poetry' from them in their existence, but once we see them closer to how they are (desperate, disposable, but 'damn near unbreakable'), we are changed. I know it sounds like a cliche' but the 'third world poverty' I have seen near tourist resorts always struck me as people with more dignity than the poor of a 'developed democracy' like the US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF5t4FH5B4Y&feature=related Belief In The Small Man Stuart Adamson/Big Country --- Just as one life turns from birth Just as the ring finds its worth Just as the leaf turns to gold So you and I will be sold Chorus Sold for the work done While we could feel young Sold for the new son Gold for the pure one Where does our home lie When is our own Lonely the cold cry Only unknown Dark comes the night on the aged Hard comes the day still unpaid yet All in a bed still unmade it Chokes like the tomb and it says its Chorus (three times) Unknown, unknown Chorus Where does our home lie When is our own Lonely the cold cry Only unknown Unknown, unknown http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50LwbnBlk6A&feature=related Millionaire Mekons everybody's so in love but they don't touch or meet eyes all stinging eyes all red a bunch of flowers in the street i love a millionaire the champagne was never cheap but i could pay someone to drink it for me never rise up from these sheets watching time just roll away stretching out my bones a million miles from home lust corrodes my body i've lost count of my lovers but i can count my money for ever and forever dreaming of a creature who is too pale and large to stand and only feels the terror of his vain flight from earth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHOOnhpCy8&feature=related America Killing Joke I can survive the rat race honey Time is money and money is honey, honey My megabucks your symmetrical beauty Together we can serve the nation - yeah! The quality of life filled us all with pride America And as I watched I just cried and cried How I love America I will buy you rich perfumes And we will eat the finest foods A mansion in New England A silver dollar for every child Where everybody has got their price They'll sustain our way of life You and I will fly to Rio I'll make you feel like a millionaire I can survive the rat race honey Time is money and money is honey, honey My megabucks your symmetrical beauty Together we can serve the nation - yeah! The quality of life filled us all with pride America And as I watched I just cried and cried How I love America West is best and might is right And with our allies - fight the good fight A first class, five star enterprise Now everybody's got to compromise My moral code's on overload Liberty still takes it's toll Take a look at the losers wasting in the bars Where they cut their losses! I can survive the rat race honey Time is money, and money is honey, honey My megabucks your symmetrical beauty Together we can serve the nation - yeah! The quality of life filled us all with pride America And as I watched I just cried and cried How I love America There were fireworks in the Gulf There was champagne at home - How I love America But showbiz and Hollywood still shouted out - America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pEGM47bkvQ Charles The Skids Charles got a job in a factory Drilling sheet metal from six till three Work
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Test Scorer
That piece doesn't even read like a good MRZINE piece, let alone the usually ponderous, pretentious MR. All those words and I still can't get a good idea what the guy actually does. Standardized tests are for the most part machine-/computer-scored. Some tests require recorded oral responses (TOEIC, TOEFL) and many require short written responses (little personal essays on an assigned topic--such as LSAT, GRE, TOEFL, new additional TOEIC 'Speaking-Writing' test, etc.). The way these are scored is three people give a holistic response to the mini-essay. If one response is an outlier, it's thrown out and the thing is scored on the avg. of two scores. Otherwise, three scores are averaged. I think the guy means to say that institutional and standardized testing is a huge money-making business, made even larger because of the Bushturds out of Texass's drive to leave no child behind, fully phonically aware as they go to bed hungry or lack medical care or decent housing. Test-scoring is but one pathetic aspect of the industry. Pearson wants to be a big player, as do a lot of other for-profit entities moving into education. CJ -- ELT in Japan http://www.eltinjapan.com/ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.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] Octavius Catto was murdered on Election Day 1871
Interesting photo of a sign on Catto. http://www.flickr.com/photos/23021...@n06/3075692379/ ___ 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] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008
> > "Substance" of what? Finance capital remains fianance capital but it is not > the financial industrial capital of the time of Lenin. > > Here's something from 2002. > > WL. Do you even read your own posts? You are the one who used the word 'substance'. I merely echoed it in my reply. Again what you haven't done is shown how capital has pushed into a new ontological category. Warren Buffett warned about the dangers of the newer derivatives, and then bet billions on them because he didn't want to get left out of the drive for 20% plus profits. The whole notion of derivative is not new at all. 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] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
About the only thing Time is good for now--reading online articles I can remember reading in my father's copy of Time back in the 70s. Looks a lot like QE2 to me. Now instead of pegging the dollar to some sort of imaginary value of gold, we have pegged the value of gold to the dollar (and the price of oil is also pegged to the dollar). CJ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943884,00.html BY ripping the dollar loose from gold and slapping a 10% surtax on imports, Richard Nixon inaugurated a global power play designed to boost U.S. exports and cut the country's worsening balance of payments deficit. Though his moves came as a shock, it appears that he acted none too soon; last week the Commerce Department reported that in July U.S. imports had exceeded exports for the fourth straight month. Still, now that some of the excitement surrounding the Nixon initiative is subsiding, a hard truth is hitting bankers, businessmen and government leaders the world over: a return to any sort of lasting stability in trade and currency dealings will be tedious, time-consuming and laden with difficulties. Closed Window. Nixon's dollar moves constituted an invitation to foreign governments to float the dollar against their own currencies by allowing the factors of supply and demand to dictate its value overseas. His aim was to force the U.S.'s major trading partners, especially Japan and the Common Market countries, to increase the value of their currencies—and thus the cost of their exports. Once Nixon shut the gold window, the dollar was expected to drop, and the value of foreign currencies to go up. The money exchanges of the world had been effectively closed since the Nixon announcement; until they reopened last week, no one knew for sure how much the dollar would fall or other currencies rise. The only decisive development came at week's end from Tokyo. After two weeks of agonizing over the Nixon pressure and several times denying flatly that the yen would be revalued, the government of Prime Minister Eisaku Sato finally announced that it would allow the Japanese yen to float against the dollar. This was probably an unavoidable decision for Sato, but it was especially painful and will produce wide-ranging economic woes for Japan. By in effect increasing the price of the yen, Sato dulled the cutting edge of Japan's export drive, not only in the U.S.—which buys 30% of all Japanese exports—but throughout the world. Beyond that, a floating yen proportionately decreases the value of Japanese dollar holdings, which now total $11.3 billion. Japanese shipyards, which currently hold more than $5 billion in construction contracts written in dollars, will be especially hard hit. A 10% floating revaluation would cost Japanese shipbuilders $500 million. Just how widely the yen will be allowed to fluctuate is not yet clear; the Bank of Japan said it would intervene to prevent too drastic a swing, at least for now. On the first day of the limited float, the yen was traded at an increase of 5% to 7% over the old rate, but just where it will settle is still uncertain. Japanese officials noted that the flotation was only a temporary measure, but U.S. importers were already predicting that the higher yen rate on top of the 10% surtax could effectively close the American market to Japanese steel and most consumer goods. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943884,00.html#ixzz16YokTgS7 ___ 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] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
WL: The quality that has changed is the substance of modern finance capital that is outside of and evolves based on detachment from production of surplus value. ... Wealth today is a very super symbolic abstract thing not riveted to gold or any tangible. This is the change. --- Hence the recent oil futures and gold bubbles because parasitic investors were scared shitless about anything linked to actual production that might require THEIR capitalization. What you haven't done is make any coherent argument that would convince me that the substance has changed that much during the past 130 years. Of course there are those who have made the quantitative argument but you didn't do that either here. 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] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
Sorry WL but I have to disagree. For a start, I'm not sure what your concept of Lenin's concept of banks actually is. This time around people started to notice the crisis when there was a run on a building society type bank in the UK. I predicted something tumultuous would happen when I saw that the price of oil futures had peaked just under 150 dollars to the barrel (and I still think this had something to do with 'capital drying up' at the investment banks). Then the turmoil began with the mortgage brokers. However, if we look at the 1907 crisis we actually see a lot of continuity and analogues. We see the panic actually starts and is expressed in institutions that are outside the 'traditional bank' of the era but have taken on functions in areas of business and the country that the banks didn't. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/moen.panic.1907 excerpt: Why Were There Runs on Trust Companies? There were three main types of financial intermediaries during the National Banking Era: national banks, state banks, and later in the period trust companies. It is not surprising that trust companies were the focal point of the panic. In New York, assets at the trust companies had grown phenomenally between 1890 and 1910, increasing 244 percent during the 10 years ending in 1907, from $396.7 million to $1,394.0 million. In contrast, national bank assets had grown 97 percent, from $915.2 million to $1,800.0 million, while state-chartered bank assets had grown 82 percent, from $297 million to $541.0 million (Barnett 1911, 234-35). Thus the manner in which trust companies used their assets greatly affected the New York money market (Moen and Tallman 1992). Trust companies were much less regulated than national or state banks in New York. In 1906 New York State instituted a requirement that trusts maintain reserves at 15 percent of deposits, but only 5 percent of deposits needed to be kept as currency in the vault. Before that time trusts simply kept whatever reserves they felt necessary to conduct business. National bank notes were adequate as cash reserves for trusts while national banks in central reserve cities like New York were required to keep a 25 percent reserve in the form of specie or legal tender (greenbacks or treasury notes but not national bank notes). Trusts were originally rather conservative institutions, managing estates, holding securities, and taking deposits, but by 1907 trusts were performing most of the functions of banks except issuing bank notes. Many of the larger trusts specialized in underwriting security issues. Others wrote mortgages or invested directly in real estate activities barred or limited for national banks. New York City trusts had a higher proportion of collateralized loans than did New York City national banks. Conventional banking wisdom associated collateralized loans with riskier investments and riskier borrowers. The trusts, therefore, had an asset portfolio that may have been riskier than those of other intermediaries. National and private banks found the investment banking functions of trusts so useful that many of them gained direct or indirect control of a trust through holding companies or by placing their associates on a trust's board of directors. In many instances a bank and its affiliated trust operated in the same building. Trusts appear to have provided intermediary functions different from those of banks. Although the volume of deposits subject to check at trusts was similar to that at banks, trusts had many fewer checks (in number and value) written against their demand deposits than did banks. The check clearings of trusts were only about 7 percent of the volume of those at banks. Trusts were not then like commercial banks, whose assets are used as transactions balances by individual depositors or firms. National banks were part of a network of regional banks that had correspondent relationships to expedite interregional transactions (James 1978, 40). Trusts were not part of the correspondent banking system, so their deposits were more local and less directly subject to the recurring seasonal strains on funds. ___ 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] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
As I posted before, it's deja vu all over again when you get down to what human relations create such crises. JP Morgan himself was caught up in helping to create the crisis, although he went down in history as one of those guys who helped overcome it. BTW, I don't necessarily agree with the smithsonianmag's analysis of what 'caused' the current meltdown. However, I will point out that a lot of the same things were said about the main players in 1907-8--that they were mysterious, behind-the-scenes people only acting out of self-interest, that what they did was out of control, that because of technological innovation in finance and banking, too much was being done in very little time and it was out of control. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h952.html Social Issues In the summer of 1907, the American economy was showing signs of weakness as a number of business and Wall Street brokerages went bankrupt. In October, the respected Knickerbocker Trust in New York City and the ¹Westinghouse Electric Company both failed, touching off a series of events known as the Panic of 1907. In the wake of the initial business collapses, stock market prices plummeted and depositors made a massive run on the nation’s banks. The U.S. Treasury pumped millions of dollars into weak banks in the hope of saving them, but the string of collapsed institutions lengthened. In a reprise of his role during the second Cleveland administration when the gold standard was under assault, J.P. Morgan acted to restore order. He summoned the leading bankers and financial experts to his home where they set up shop in his library. Over the course of the next three weeks, Morgan and his associates labored to channel money from the strong institutions to the weaker ones in an effort to keep them afloat. The joint effort of the government and the business leaders improved conditions markedly over the course of several weeks. While the crisis passed, the finger-pointing began. Reform elements of both political parties believed that the American banking system was fundamentally flawed and needed wholesale change. Business leaders, however, held that Roosevelt's progressive legislation had upset the natural order of the economy and the government should stop its meddling. Following the Panic of 1907, the reform elements gradually gained the upper hand. An emerging consensus affirmed that thorough bank reform was necessary to provide badly needed currency elasticity (a major issue in the Panic) and the general soundness of the banking system. Congress responded by passing stop-gap legislation, the Aldrich-Vreeland Act (1908), until more thorough actions could be prepared. With the passing of the Owen-Glass Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the Federal Reserve System was created. The "Fed" was designed to be flexible and responsive to the economy and independent of politics. The Fed has evolved through the years by implementing many strict checks and balances. New departments, the General Accounting Office, GAO, and the Office of Management & Budget, OMB, were created to audit the Fed and most other government departments. As a result, the American economy, and American society are more stable. See other Theodore Roosevelt domestic activity. 1: Westinghouse Electric was the victim of foul business practices by J.P. Morgan. Morgan controlled General Electric and Thomas Edison’s Direct Current, (DC) electrical patents. He contended with Westinghouse Electric, who controlled Nicola Tesla’s Alternating Current, (AC) electrical patents. Morgan and Edison strove for control of all electrical power in America. Edison used deceptive demonstrations of the supposed increased dangers of AC and Morgan had spread rumors in Wall Street that Westinghouse was insolvent, causing Westinghouse stock to collapse, along with the stock of the Westinghouse backers. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/1907_Panic.html What was the Panic of 1907, and what caused it? The Panic of 1907 was a six-week stretch of runs on banks in New York City and other American cities in October and early November of 1907. It was triggered by a failed speculation that caused the bankruptcy of two brokerage firms. But the shock that set in motion the events to create the Panic was the earthquake in San Francisco in 1906. The devastation of that city drew gold out of the world's major money centers. This created a liquidity crunch that created a recession starting in June of 1907. In 2008 , is the housing market the culprit this time? Today's panic was triggered by the surprising discovery of higher defaults on subprime mortgages than anybody expected. This discovery occurred in late 2006 and early 2007. A panic always follows a real economic shock; panics are not random occurrences of market emotions. They are responses to unambiguous, surprising, costly events that spook investors. But the first cause of a panic is the boom that precedes the panic. Every panic has been prec
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
I don't think either CB or myself is arguing for Nostradamus status here. What you haven't done is shown anything that would convince me there has been some categorical change in relations of production and capital that says this time is different different, other than history doesn't repeat itself, each time is always different. 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Moral dilemma
>>CB: Yes, objectively it is. Even welfare was not _really_ a Black thing. So, the problem is that they control the mass subjective factor so much, and tens of millions seem to be willing to lie to themselves and accept the Big Reaganite lie that Welfare and any social spending is giveaway to "lazy, over-fucking" Black people. The Tea Party is still got this line<< Just as with the 80s savings-and-loan segue to junk bonds meltdowns, much of the imagery linked to the housing loans bubbles gets pinned on black people. The whole class of 'sub-prime loans' was directed at them--they couldn't get regular loans to buy houses in the suburbs. I think the reality of the loan bubble is something totally different, but it still goes to this great societal need for working class, poor but also rising upper working class to have a secure place to live and investments in their neighborhoods. Tea Party people hate latinos too. Anyway their 'explanatory' version of the loan bubble is going to be: a bunch of 'those people' got loans when they shouldn't have. The same sort of things got said about S&Ls (which made loans to urban neighborhoods) and junk bonds (which were used to finance government and business in urban neighborhoods). 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] Did Vladimir Lenin Predict The Banking Disaster Of 2008?
>>Certainly, the possibility of reducing the cost of production and increasing profits by introducing technical improvements operates in the direction of change. But the tendency to stagnation and decay, which is characteristic of monopoly, continues to operate, and in some branches of industry, in some countries, for certain periods of time, it gains the upper hand imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries, amounting, as we have seen, to 100,000-50,000 million francs in securities. Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of rentiers, i.e., people who live by ?clipping coupons?, who take no part in any enterprise whatever, whose profession is idleness. T<< And if you read Dickens' last completed novel, Our Mutual Friend, you get a narrative that depicts very much the same things. I know people are going to disagree with you and me on this one, but I have to say, you are right to re-iterate Lenin's points here, here and now. It's a tautological argument to say that this time it's different somehow deep down simply because things have changed, or the structures have changed, or the relations have changed. We of all people know history doesn't simply repeat itself. But what some wiseacres need to do is show how in essence, in substance the banking and financial disasters of the 19th and 20th centuries are categorically different not simply because it is "this time around" and "things have changed". 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] Another paradox of state/local rights (stems from Molly Maguires)
So the selfish impetus to protect home property value, drinking water, small farms and small businesses is supposed to lead somewhere big, but I have my doubts. Also if you were ever young growing up in such a place as a 'small farm community in PA', you quickly realize how the people are all 'conservative to reactionary', anti-union, completely contradicted over government and big business (the worst case being Dept. of Defense workers), and often don't give a toss about job creation (since so many in E. and So. Central PA live in one place and commute to another, there is no connection between being a homeowner and being a worker--unless it's support for building more roads). It's the CELDF in Chambersburg again: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/stand-up-to-corporate-power/communities-take-power Beyond Site Fights With the deck stacked against local control, what are citizens to do to step outside the regulatory game and take back power? Some bold communities have banned specific corporate operations, not based on regulation, but on a declaration that human beings have the right to control their local resources, and that corporations are not people and not entitled to rights the Constitution grants to humans. That happened first in Pennsylvania when farmers and small-town residents tried to resist the encroachment of corporate feedlots and the dumping of sewage sludge from other states. Ruth Caplan, of the Alliance for Democracy's “Defending Water for Life” program, tells how a Pennsylvania coalition including the Sierra Club, the Farm Bureau, unions, and the Democratic governor responded by getting legislation passed limiting pollution from corporate feedlots. “The farmers in rural Pennsylvania were furious,” about the new law, Caplan says, “because they didn't want less pollution. They didn't want those corporate farms in their area. Period.” Lawyer Thomas Linzey, founder of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), started getting calls from those outraged farmers. Linzey, Caplan says, had been working within the regulatory system, but he and the Pennsylvania farmers realized that they needed a new strategy. Linzey drafted model ordinances asserting community rights to self-governance and banning corporations from damaging operations in townships. More than 100 Pennsylvania townships have adopted those ordinances. Linzey and CELDF began offering “Democracy Schools,” intensive weekend programs presenting the history of corporate power in the United States, and the history of successful movements, such as the abolitionists and suffragists, to overturn settled law. Caplan attended one of those schools. It was “a real wake-up call for me,” she says, “because most of the work we've done has been through the regulatory system, with some success. But it's not leading toward a fundamental change between corporations and the rights of people and nature.” Caplan took her newfound knowledge to a U.S.-Canadian meeting on the problem of bottled water. There she met activists from New Hampshire who subsequently introduced her to Darrell and St. Germaine. Caplan told them of CELDF's work, and offered to work with them and the people of Barnstead on the water issue. Darrell and St. Germaine made presentations to the town's Select Board, which had earlier passed a “Warrant Article” declaring the town's intention to protect its water. Ultimately, they invited CELDF to make a presentation to the Board. At the end of that presentation, the Board asked Linzey to draft an ordinance similar to the ones in Pennsylvania. Linzey told the group that they needed to understand that they would be taking on settled law, Caplan says.“Well, Mr. Linzey, we understand that, and we're ready to walk point for you,” Jack O'Neil replied, using a Vietnam-era term for being out front on patrol. Reclaiming Rights CELDF's model ordinances go beyond zoning or other efforts to control corporate behavior. They ban corporations from specific operations altogether, citing the Declaration of Independence, international law, state law conferring rights on citizens, and the general rights of human beings to govern themselves and take care of their own communities. Darrell says that she and St. Germaine spent the next year educating Barnstead residents about the proposed ordinance. “We talked to people about water rights everywhere we met them—at the dump, in parks. We told them why we needed to have this ordinance be unanimous and in place before corporations came to town.” People were receptive to the idea but curious why the ordinance needed to cite such a broad range of law. “There was a lot of education about why we needed to deny corporate personhood,” Darrell says, “People don't understand how we've gotten to this point and how corporations have gotten so much power.” Darrell credits CELDF's Democracy Schools with giving her the information she needed to provide that education. In March 2006, the ordinance came befor
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Another paradox of state/local rights (stems from Molly Maguires)
Chambersburg is an exurb of Harrisburg-York-Lancaster, but also Baltimore and DC. It's the DC connection that probably led the CELDF to locate there--along with the cheap rents. Here is their journalistic, ready-for-media write up of the Licking Township ordinance (which will probably lead to a shooting war between pro-fracking/dumping vs. anti-fracking/dumping factions if I know Clarion County). http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/pennsylvania-township-declares-freedom-from-fracking Pennsylvania Township Declares Freedom from Fracking Licking, Pennsylvania defies state law by banning corporations from dumping fracking wastewater. Document Actions by Mari Margil, Ben Price posted Oct 27, 2010 Natural Gas Drilling, image by Helen Slottje Photo by Helen Slottje In Pennsylvania—a central target for natural gas drilling and the controversial drilling practice known as horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking"—local communities don’t have the legal authority to keep unwanted drilling from happening. As fracking's impacts on water safety make headlines and public resistance to drilling grows, some towns have tried to use land use zoning to keep drilling companies out—but they can’t use zoning laws to stop an activity the state has declared legal. (At best, they can zone where the corporations site their drill pads. But since drilling is not vertical but horizontal, there’s no way to contain its impact on a community’s water and environment.) Taking local control One small community in western Pennsylvania wanted more say over what happens within its borders. Licking Township, population 500, chose to defy state law with its own local ordinance, banning corporations from dumping fracking wastewater within its borders. Licking sits atop the Marcellus Shale, a geological formation that contains large and mostly untapped natural gas reserves. On Oct. 12, 2010, the Licking Township Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ban corporations from dumping fracking wastewater within the township. "When it comes to land use issues and the preservation of important resources, the local community is best suited to set priorities as they feel impacts most acutely," said Mik Robertson, chairman of the Licking Township Supervisors. Pennsylvania's preferential laws for drilling companies are not unique. For years, the drilling industry has worked closely with government to pave the way for widespread drilling, eliminating regulatory barriers that may stand in its way. The so-called “Halliburton Loophole” was inserted into the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt companies drilling for natural gas, including those drilling in the Marcellus Shale (which extends from New York to West Virginia) from having to comply. Corporations have also been exempted from a host of other laws and regulations, and states have enacted laws pre-empting municipalities from taking steps to reign in the industry. The residents of Licking felt that they should be the ones to decide what happens in their township. "People have the right to determine what is suitable for their community, as they are most directly affected by intended or unintended consequences of resource extraction,” said Robertson. The dangers of fracking The residents of Licking aren't alone in their concerns about fracking. Across the Appalachian highlands, residents worried about the health effects of fracking have been calling on their elected officials to protect them. In New York, a citizen movement convinced the state Senate to place a 9-month moratorium on the practice while its safety is evaluated. However, the moratorium is only temporary and has not been voted into state law. In adopting the ordinance, Licking joins more than a dozen other communities in legally recognizing the rights of nature and subordinating corporate constitutional rights to the rights of human and natural communities. Fracking involves pumping water laced with sand and a cocktail of chemicals underground to fracture the shale rock and release the natural gas. In the process, thousands of gallons of toxic wastewater are produced and can contaminate waterways and drinking water. Natural gas wells are often driven through aquifers. The impacts from drilling can include exploding wells, groundwater contamination, and fish kills. Recently, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture quarantined cattle believed to have drunk from a frack wastewater spill. Their milk was no longer considered safe to drink. A new study by researchers at the University of Buffalo found that fracking also releases uranium trapped in the rock, raising additional health concerns. Collateral damage includes lost property value, drying up of mortgage loans for prospective home buyers, and the threatened loss of organic certification for farmers. And it’s not only rural communities feeling the pressure. In Pittsburgh and Buffalo (both of which straddle the Marcellus), gas extraction corporations have quiet
[Marxism-Thaxis] Time for a New Theory of Money
Interesting analysis about how the current system of banking and finance works, including the shadow banking system. Not sure about the solution proposed, it looks rather half-assed. Like an American variation on micro-credit economics for the third world--well, I'm from a small town and that is what comes to mind when I think of all those small towns I've been to in the NE, MW and South. http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/time-for-a-new-theory-of-money Time for a New Theory of Money By understanding that money is simply credit, we unleash it as a powerful tool for our communities. Document Actions by Ellen Brown posted Oct 28, 2010 The reason our financial system has routinely gotten into trouble, with periodic waves of depression like the one we’re battling now, may be due to a flawed perception not just of the roles of banking and credit but of the nature of money itself. In our economic adolescence, we have regarded money as a “thing”—something independent of the relationship it facilitates. But today there is no gold or silver backing our money. Instead, it’s created by banks when they make loans (that includes Federal Reserve Notes or dollar bills, which are created by the Federal Reserve, a privately-owned banking corporation, and lent into the economy). Virtually all money today originates as credit, or debt, which is simply a legal agreement to pay in the future. Money as Relationship In an illuminating dissertation called “Toward a General Theory of Credit and Money” in The Review of Austrian Economics, Mostafa Moini, Professor of Economics at Oklahoma City University, argues that money has never actually been a “commodity” or “thing.” It has always been merely a “relation,” a legal agreement, a credit/debit arrangement, an acknowledgment of a debt owed and a promise to repay. In the payment system of ancient Sumeria, prices of major commodities were fixed by the government. Interest was also fixed and invariable, making economic life very predictable. The concept of money-as-a-commodity can be traced back to the use of precious metal coins. Gold is widely claimed to be the oldest and most stable currency known, but this is not actually true. Money did not begin with gold coins and evolve into a sophisticated accounting system. It began as an accounting system and evolved into the use of precious metal coins. Money as a “unit of account” (a tally of sums paid and owed) predated money as a “store of value” (a commodity or thing) by two millennia; the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations using these accounting-entry payment systems lasted not just hundreds of years (as with some civilizations using gold) but thousands of years. Their bank-like ancient payment systems were public systems—operated by the government the way that courts, libraries, and post offices are operated as public services today. In the payment system of ancient Sumeria, goods were given a value in terms of weight and were measured in these units against each other. The unit of weight was the “shekel,” something that was not originally a coin but a standardized measure. She was the word for barley, suggesting the original unit of measure was a weight of grain. This was valued against other commodities by weight: So many shekels of wheat equaled so many cows equaled so many shekels of silver, etc. Prices of major commodities were fixed by the government; Hammurabi, Babylonian king and lawmaker, has detailed tables of these. Interest was also fixed and invariable, making economic life very predictable. Grain was stored in granaries, which served as a form of “bank.” But grain was perishable, so silver eventually became the standard tally representing sums owed. A farmer could go to market and exchange his perishable goods for a weight of silver, and come back at his leisure to redeem this market credit in other goods as needed. But it was still simply a tally of a debt owed and a right to make good on it later. Eventually, silver tallies became wooden tallies became paper tallies became electronic tallies. The Credit Revolution The problem with gold coins was that they could not expand to meet the needs of trade. The revolutionary advance of medieval bankers was that they succeeded in creating a flexible money supply, one that could keep pace with a vigorously expanding mercantile trade. They did this through the use of credit, something they created by allowing overdrafts in the accounts of their depositors. Under what came to be called “fractional reserve” banking, the bankers would issue paper receipts called banknotes for more gold than they actually had. Their shipping clients would sail away with their wares and return with silver or gold, settling accounts and allowing the bankers’ books to balance. The credit thus created was in high demand in the rapidly expanding economy; but because it was based on the presumption that money was a “thing” (gold), the bankers had to engage in a shell game that periodicall
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Another paradox of state/local rights (stems from Molly Maguires)
And this part is just too weird. The CELDF is located in Chambersburg, PA (in So. Central PA, about an hour away from Harrisburg, the state capital) and the center of political action, such as it is, is in townships in Clarion County, in NW PA, and Clarion County is the home of my mother, where she still holds a few acres of land that might end up being fracked for gas. It boggles my imagination that two such obscure places could be at the center of what will become court cases of national importance and that I should somehow feel I have a connection to them. Clarion County is about as hardscrabble as it gets, an Allegheny wing of full-on Appalachia Hatfields and McCoys style. I don't think they will have to worry about the groundwater on my mother's property, it's already completely polluted by oil drilling and coal mining. First two stores detail the coming frack for gas boom, the stories after show township resistance using the help of CELDF. Chambersburg, PA, my hometown, by the way, has the distinction of being the town the Confederate burned during the Civil War (they did twice too). It's about 25 miles west of Gettysburg, about 90 miles north-northwest of Baltimore, MD (Baltimor and DC are closer than Philadelphia or Pittsburgh). Clarion is about an hour north-northeast of Pittsburgh. http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=25907779 Marcellus shale ‘boom’ is taking off in Clarion County http://www2.theclarionnews.com/General_News/80543.shtml By Tom DiStefano, Clarion News Writer Clarion News photo by Tom DiStefano Excavators, bulldozers and off-road dump trucks were hard at work Aug. 25 leveling sites for two Marcellus gas wells along Knight Town Road in Elk Township . ELK TOWNSHIP - There has been a lot of talk about the Marcellus Shale gas reserves and the drilling boom it is bringing to Pennsylvania , but in Clarion County , it has been only talk until this year. The Marcellus Boom is huge in Southwest and Northeast Pennsylvania , but only a few permits have been issued and only one Marcellus well has been started in Clarion County so far. Now, the DEP Aug. 27 approved two permits for the big horizontal Marcellus wells in Elk Township, a vertical Marcellus well has been drilled in Toby township, and there are others both planned and under way in neighboring counties. According to the DEP’s publicly available databases, EQT Production Inc. of Pittsburgh , part of Equitable Gas, applied for permits to drill two wells in Elk Township along Knight Town Road between Pine City and Shippenville. EQT submitted the permit applications July 29 and DEP spokesperson Freda Tarbell said her agency approved the permits Aug. 27. EQT was granted a erosion and sedimentation permit for the well site by the DEP’s Oil and Gas division July 30; such “E&S” permits had been granted by conservation districts, but DEP earlier this year took over responsibility for E&S permits relating to drilling sites. Work on preparing the well sites is already under way, with heavy equipment clearing and leveling many acres for the large rigs required for drilling deep horizontal wells. Horizontal Marcellus wells start out vertically, and descend as far as two miles to the Marcellus Shale beds, curving into a horizontal direction to extend along the shale bed. Once at the shale bed, as many as six horizontal boreholes can be developed in different directions to tap as much of the shale as possible. Drilling rigs capable of reaching the Marcellus form are massive, twice the size of typical shallow well rigs, reaching heights of 150 feet, and configured with an equipment platform 20 feet from ground level. Rigs for horizontal drilling are even larger, as they require more horsepower to drive the bits farther. EQT spokesman Kevin West confirmed his company is planning to drill two horizontal Marcellus wells in Elk Township , noting the horizontal techniques maximizes the amount of gas recovered while minimizing surface disruption compared to drilling multiple vertical wells. West said he is gathering information on the specifics of the wells in Elk Township, but said it is likely the company will move in one rig and drill one well at a time. A lot of water needed Tapping this reserve is not easy; drillers use an intensive process known as hydrofracking to bring gas to the surface. And hydrofracking needs massive amounts of water – water mixed with special and secret recipes of chemicals and sand pumped under high pressure into the shale until it forces the gas up and out. Water comes back out of the well and must be treated to remove the fracking chemicals and the salts and metals it may have picked up underground. Tarbell said the DEP has approved a plan by EQT to purchase the water needed from Pennsylvania American Water Company’s system based in Clarion. Jake Gentile, Pennsylvania American field operations supervisor, said EQT wants to purchase bulk water totaling between 4 and 8 million gallons
[Marxism-Thaxis] Another paradox of state/local rights (stems from Molly Maguires)
As the Molly Maguire cases show, private corporations often like 'state rights' approaches to governance because this power is more easily bent, broken, corrupted to serve the prevailing interests of the corporations that operate or want to operate in a given state or locality. However, if the state or local government fights them and their interests, then the private corporation has use state and then federal courts to prevail. So a paradox emerges in 'state rights' in that sometimes private corporations support state rights and local autonomy because they think they can control it or defeat it. Or they end up opposing it--or it opposes them--and have to prevail over it--which is why having influence and sympathetic judges in the court system is also necessary. In the second source I cite here--celdf.org (which interestingly enough is HQ'd in my hometown, Chambersburg, PA, a VERY REPUBLICAN area of defense workers, defense worker retirees, and federally-subsidized dairy farmers), they seem to be arguing that the solution is to go BELOW states rights, since the federal-state structure has favored private corporations, and re-establish local autonomy. I'm not sure how workable that is outside of real socialism, but that isn't a term this legal action and advocacy group is going to discuss on its homepage. So I think it's possible to take 'tenther' arguments in the leftward direction if we have socialism, anarcho-syndicalism and non-profit cooperative production in mind. BTW, these local rightists are challenging corporate moves to turn Pennsylvania into the nation's biggest 'fracking' natural gas production site using township government action. Unlike southern states, local 'power' in Pennsylvania can often be found at the township level, especially when it comes to land and water use. The school district is another focus of local power, but they have long been dominated by adherence to state requirements to get federal money and to local/regional university-based 'schools of education' for the indoctrination of teachers. Their real power is in levying property taxes to pay for schools. CJ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Maguires excerpt: Four members of the Molly Maguires, Alexander Campbell, John "Black Jack" Kehoe, Michael Doyle and Edward Kelly, were hanged on June 21, 1877 at a Carbon County prison in Mauch Chunk (renamed Jim Thorpe in 1953), for the murder of mine bosses John P. Jones and Morgan Powell, following a trial that was later described by a Carbon County judge, John P. Lavelle, as follows: The Molly Maguire trials were a surrender of state sovereignty. A private corporation initiated the investigation through a private detective agency. A private police force arrested the alleged defenders, and private attorneys for the coal companies prosecuted them. The state provided only the courtroom and the gallows. http://www.celdf.org/corporate-rights "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816 "In 1819 in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the U.S. Supreme Court introduced a distinction between the rights of a public corporation and a private one. The U.S. Constitution's contract clause did not protect the political powers granted in the charter of a public corporation such as a municipality. State legislatures could, therefore, unilaterally amend or revoke municipal charters and strip a city of authority without the municipality's consent. But the charter of a private corporation, such as a business enterprise or a privately endowed college, was an inviolate grant of property rights guaranteed by the nation's Constitution." -- Jon C. Teaford, Municipal Charters The structure of federal and state law – both statutory and constitutional – empowers corporations to override local democratic decision making. Since the early 1800s, corporations have gained rights and protections under the United States Constitution. While we never find the word “corporation” in the Constitution, corporations are able to invoke constitutional “rights” and protections under the Commerce Clause and Contracts Clause, as well as under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Corporations use these “rights” to challenge state and local laws, and to chill efforts at the local level to fight corporate siting plans. Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Dartmouth case in 1819, "private" business corporations first gained constitutional protection from government interference in internal governance, ostensibly under the Contract Clause of the Constitution. Curiously, the court found no reason to similarly protect municipal corporations, such as towns, boroughs, cities and counties from state interference with self-government. As an example: the Waste Management Corporation was able to successfully sue the
[Marxism-Thaxis] Tea Party
I know I'm being too harsh on Obama. I want him to leave office after this term or the second term renouncing the military interventionist policies, slashing the military budgets, and telling it like it is to Americans about the death throes of the imperium and why their society and political economy fails them. That would not make him a SUCCESSFUL president in the eyes of most Americans, I suspect. As I have said before, a successful president is one, in the view of the 'general public', who transcends the interests of the narrow interest groups who financed his or her way into the Repugnicratic system, somehow transcends those interests, in domestic policy, in foreign policy, etc. It's been a while since a president has succeeded on such terms. There might have been a sense that Clinton did by the end of his second term, but he had also relented and signed the Democratic Party onto 'regime change' now (not later) in Iraq. And transcendance seems to have been making the Democrats the sponsors of 'welfare reform' and 'regime change'. In the case of Obama, he represents a coming together, however ephemeral and however shallow, a much broader coalition of interests and forces. There is no where to go on the accepted political spectrum for him to move in order to transcend that, if that sort of transcendance is even possible. That is why I think his best success as president would be to fail and tell like it really is--because he might yet get enough interest for it to mean something. So far he has shown himself to be a very cautious leader. I doubt if anyone gets even a fraction of as far as he did without being very cautious. Like Carter I want to know what the guy really thinks. 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Molly Maguires
They are still a near-forbidden topic for re-examination in US history. The inherited view has long struck me as total bull. You know also from the 19th century, there is still persistent in the US an inherited view that the Wilimington Riot was an event where uppity blacks got the commeuppance they deserved? If you want to show fascism in US history actually resulted in a political coup, that would be a good set of events to analyze too. And that inherited view seems to have come to us from influential NORTHERNERS. 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] critique of the ideology of the Tea Party needed W
You also have a huge 'ghost' force of 'shadow workers' who comprise a quasi-civil service. And the info. in this article is over 10 years old, pre 9/11 and the 'national security' bubble of the Bushwar-Obomber years. See: http://www.govexec.com/features/0199/0199s1.htm ___ 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] critique of the ideology of the Tea Party needed W
Tenthers (the Tenth Amendment cult) are largely people who move in the area of law, scholarly activity, intelligentsia, but I think it is clear that they overlap with the Tea Party activities, which tends towards rallies and media events. I'm not sure how coherent tentherism is when you get to its dissemination among the 'masses'. The irony of states rights as an expression of it is that it destroys the constitution it claims to uphold--that is not just incoherence but a destructive paradox. I think in actual practice, though, its a constitutionally oriented form of right-wing libertarianism, and the actual paradox there is: fiscal conservative but unwilling to do anything about runaway military budgets. Perhaps even more so than libertarians who want to stand outside the constitution and even the inherited precedent of applied constitutional law and court decisions of the past 200 years. That is because most would when forced to decide say that the only thing the federal government should do is provide for the common defense, and that would then be used to justify 1.5 trillion dollars a year on military, national security, intelligence (and this figure goes even higher if you factor in legacy costs, such as servicing that portion of the debt created by deficits that are caused by runaway military spending, but also veterans' benefits, and militarized foreign aid, such as 'foreign aid' going to Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and this is really most US foreign aid). This is however why whether they are tea party people, tenthers, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, Christian reactionaries, etc. they all fit together once they get to Congress--that is they compete to get more federal spending for their district, state, important factions of their voters, their local party people, etc. I have to disagree about less government. In practice, the past 30 years has given us ever more people employed by the government, not even counting military active duty (which, without a large conscripted force, seems small, but is actually enlarged by the use of reserve and guard on active duty). I doubt there is another country in the OECD with the levels of government employment as the US. Certainly not Japan, which actually has a rather tiny level of government employment when compared to the US. Where are the government jobs? School districts, municipal and county governments, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PRISONS, and of course the military-industrial complex (which has been privatized so to quite an extent through a proliferation of contractors, sub-contractors, sub-sub-contractors, etc.). You might find this interesting, although I have to disagree with its idea that white working class voters vote against their interests when they vote Republican or right-wing populist independent. To make that argument you would have to show that the Democratic Party or some other viable political power ready to take power does represent their interests--or die trying to show that. As the presidency of Bushwar Obomber shows all too well, his health care plan doesn't provide health cover to working Americans. It's a 'compromise' that unifies the divided and competing interests of private health care providers, big pharma, and those citizens who already have (what they believe to be) sufficient coverage--a compromise that will probably hold stable for 3-5 years and then collapse when prices can't inflate beyond the system's ability to pay those prices (which was also the source of a sense of crisis when BO promised health care). http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=rally_round_the_true_constitution >>Today, however, the tenthers tap into the same populist outrage that inspired >>a generation of working-class religious conservatives to enthusiastically >>vote against their own interests. Fox News star Glenn Beck exhorts his >>audience to "be a constitutional watchdog for America" by lining up against >>health-care reform, cap-and-trade legislation, and the stimulus package. Gov. >>Rick Perry of Texas, who enthusiastically backed a tenther "state sovereignty >>resolution," told a right-wing radio host that he is "willing and ready for >>the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very >>expansive government philosophy down our collective throats." >>Tenther-inspired claims that federal spending violates the Constitution are >>so common at "tea party" protests that it is impossible to tell where the >>tenthers end and the tea baggers begin. << >>More important, there is something fundamentally authoritarian about the >>tenther constitution. Social Security, Medicare, and health-care reform are >>all wildly popular, yet the tenther constitution would shackle our democracy >>and forbid Congress from enacting the same policies that the American people >>elected them to advance. After years of raging against mythical judges who >>"legislate from the bench," tenther conservatives now demand a constituti
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Tea Party
>>I have been scouring websites in the USA to try to find a good socialist critique of the ideology of the Tea Party. But so far I have found nothing. The WSWS website says absolutely nothing to critique the ideology of the Tea Party. It seems that many on the left are adapting to the reactionary ideas of white sociologically working class men.<< There is no real Tea Party. It's the usual instigators trying to get white working class to vote Republican. The basic idea is that playing up nationalism, anti-immigration, and anger over economic malaise can keep these people voting Republican, especially in the South and the West. It's the usual 'insider as outsider' story of right wing politics. This time around the interests that fund such activities had to go outside the Republican Party mainstream, at least during the primaries, in order to get more people involved. Because quite a few are right-wing independents, that strategy actually makes good sense. Republicans, however, are often running against their own party. That is because they are pork barrel politicians locally, with pork barrel being where the pork is--military and security budgets. Ideologically such conservatives will say they are fiscal conservatives but they will actually compete for the federal budgets to go to their states, their voting districts and about the only thing they will actually agree on with their colleagues in the House and Senate is the need to increase the military budgets so everyone gets what they want--more spending in their state and local districts. The significant shift this time around, and one that means quite likely that Obama is a one-term president, is that so many governorships went Republican. That means they will control the voting in the presidential election. It will take some doing to unseat the president and his party from the executive branch. I'm not sure though that Obama can use the same strategies that kept Clinton in the WH. About the only thing remarkable about Clinton when you get right down to it is that boy sure knew how to win elections. I wonder if the challenge to the Republican establishment won't come from the Palin types but rather the Bloomberg types. OTOH, neither party has really managed to keep everything stitched together when a white male ETHNIC is involved--Iacocca, Cuomo, Giuliani, now Bloomberg. If he challenges as an Independent, he could spend billions in futility. If he tries to integrate into the Republican Party, they will have a hard time selling him and branding him for the nationwide election. If Obama had been caucasian (e.g., dark-featured caucasian, like some Arabs or Turks or Persians), that combined with his funny name would have doomed him. A plurality of American voters tends to not like ethnic Catholics, ethnic Jews, and African-American politicians (the ones with real African-American community roots, like slave ancestors, like parents and uncles and aunts who participated in the civil rights movements, etc). But Obama was seen as an 'African-American' who said 'white Anglo-Saxon' things most of the time and this made him the darling of a temporarily expanded Democratic Party, in which young and African-American and even anti-war lefties participated for the presidential election. That he managed to split the independent vote to favor the Democrats also helped. The guy had a lot of things to say when he was running, most of which I didn't think much of at the time. Now it seems he doesn't even have much to say. As for a Palin presidency--she is about as qualified as anyone else the Democrats or Republicans are going to let into the race. I don't think even the Republicans can sell and brand a woman though, especially one who can't read the script much of the time and extemporizes. What self-respecting Repug man would want to be her VP candidate? 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] Election Day Thoughts
Outside the orthodoxy of the two-party US, Kucinich retained his congressional seat. VICTORY: We won, 53% - 44% Dear Friends, Your support made it possible for our campaign to have a strong media presence in the closing days of the election, so that we were able to withstand the powerful anti-incumbent tide which swept across the nation. Five incumbent House Democrats lost in Ohio. The entire state ticket went down. Democrats lost control of the Ohio House. Yet, in the midst of this electoral disaster we survived because of your constant help. People forget that when I was first elected to the House in 1996, I won a seat which was held by a Republican incumbent. I was able to strengthen the district through constituent service and focusing in Washington on economic issues which related to the practical aspirations of people: Jobs, trade, health care, education, Social Security, pensions, as well as environment and peace. I have spent the past decade and more challenging the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party on the central tenets of an economic orthodoxy which tolerates massive unemployment, disinvestment, acceleration of the wealth of America upwards and endless war. You have made it possible for me to be your voice on many issues of importance to the people of the 10th District and United States. I begin each day with grateful heart and thoughts of those who make my life and my work possible, people like you. Thank you and much love, Dennis ___ 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] Election Day Thoughts
The turning over of the House of Reps to the Republicans demonstrates clearly one thing (to me at least): That American voters, as diverse as they are, tend to prefer the incoherence of the Republicans to the incoherence of the Democrats. The incoherence of the Republicans is the idea that they stand for 'fiscal responsibility' while they plan to spend even more of the federal budgets on the military, intelligence and 'national security'--indeed the Republicans announced that the day of the election. The incoherence of the Democrats is that they would talk about the need to reduce military spending while going along with the budgets the national security bureaucracy asks for year after year--and then adding to them with an expanded 'mission' in Afghanistan. The incoherence of the Republicans is that they would of course consult with key allies in major foreign policy decisions but announce to their supporters in the US that no one but Americans influenced foreign policy. The incoherence of the Democrats is that they would make a big deal about consulting key allies, go ahead and act more or less unilaterally, and then give speeches about how the US has a responsibility to consult key allies and pretend that the US obeys by international laws. The incoherence of the Republicans is signing on to crap 'health care coverage' patterned after the state of Mass. (the success of a Republican governor there) while saying that America and Americans have the best health care in the world and don't need major reform. The incoherence of the Democrats is saying it's tragic that up to 80 million Americans don't have access to health insurance and even health care (because they lack insurance) and then going on to sign onto crap coverage patterned after the Republican crap plan piloted in the stae of Mass. I could go on, but I think the point is: The Republicans are much better at selling the imperialist fantasy vision of America at the center of the world, America right or wrong, America the chosen people with a godly mission to make the rest of the world more like America--not because Americans want that but the rest of the world wants it and needs it. It's hard to make much of mid-term elections when so few people actually vote in them. It's the presidential elections where you see so much of the fantasy machine cranked up to a level beyond human capacity to absorb it (the last best hope of mankind rests on one man's shoulders, ladies and gentlement I give you Prophet and Messiah, the next President of the US). The religion of America really is America (which is an ideology as circular as it is incoherent), and until something comes along to shatter that, I'm afraid the world's only superpower can't enjoy OECD levels of anything, while it drags its key OECD allies and satellites down with it. The Republican H of R won't be able to turn back the clock and revert America back to the mortgage securities and commodities speculation bubbles of 2000-2008. The question is where will it and a mostly willing Democratic Senate and WH take the US in dealing with the bad economy and the unviable fiscal situation? 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Kucinich in heated congressional race
I know that many are not pleased that he caved into pressure from Obama WH on health care, specifically the issue of universal coverage, but having Kucinich in a congressional seat in Cleveland does matter. He has to face down pro-war Democratic competition as well as well-funded Republican challengers every two years. A message from Congressman Kucinich: Fear, Hate, Racism and the Pain of 9/11 Dennis Kucinich - www.Kucinich.us Fear, Hate, Racism and the Pain of 9/11 Dear Friends, Cleveland is the epicenter of a sub-prime meltdown with an extraordinary level of foreclosures and a very high level of unemployment. My Republican opposition has thrown into this mix the politically incendiary issue of immigration through radio ads, telephone calls, electronic billboards and direct mail. Here is a link to one of several gutter level distortions that are appearing in mailboxes across the district. Additionally, my supporters in the district who have chosen to put up lawn signs in support of my candidacy are receiving at their door anonymous circulars which can only be described as menacing, aimed at stirring up hate, racism and the pain of 9/11 We have three days to go until the election. Your contributions have enabled us to buy TV and radio time to respond to these attacks. Click here to hear our radio ad and view our ad for TV. Anything you can contribute between now and Monday morning will enable us to increase the size of our media buy and perhaps even create more ads. I'm heartened by the response to my campaign's appeal over the last two days. People really do care. People really do want a government that's decent and fair. People want a nation that IS courageous, that seeks unity, that tries to live the deeper meaning of democracy. Thank you, so much for everything that you do to keep these sentiments alive. Sincerely Dennis Please circulate this message to your lists. please contribute FacebookTwitter MySpace Digg Paid for by the Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee PO Box 110475 | Cleveland | OH | 44111 | 216-252-9000 Forward email Safe Unsubscribe This email was sent to jann...@gmail.com by re...@kucinich.us. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee | PO Box 110475 | Cleveland | OH | 44111 ___ 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] Bernero Takes New Tactic in Fighting Unfair and Fraudulent Foreclosures
http://action.seiu.org/page/speakout/wheresthenote CJ -- ELT in Japan http://www.eltinjapan.com/ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Bernero Takes New Tactic in Fighting Unfair and Fraudulent Foreclosures
1. Stay in your home. 2. Ask to see the paperwork. The banks aren't getting the foreclosure documents together, and often no one knows who actually HOLDS the loan. http://readersupportednews.org/video/4-video/3591-michael-moore-you-be-squatters-in-your-own-home Clip from Moore's film. 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] Bernero Takes New Tactic in Fighting Unfair and Fraudulent Foreclosures
RE: [Marxism-Thaxis] Bernero Takes New Tactic in Fighting Unfair and Fraudulent Foreclosures These are tactics that came to prominence in Michael Moore's film, Capitalism: A Love Story. I think he charts how it started in Dade County Florida and spread nationwide. That film has a lot more going for it than against it, if you ask me. It's his best film since Roger and Me. 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] Why the IMF Meetings Failed
The NYT ran a correction that 1995 article--the Japanese had lost 400 BILLION on their overseas dollar holdings, not million. And that was 1995. 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] Why the IMF Meetings Failed
And while on my 80s nostalgia/obscure agit-prop kick (I suppose I could have posted this to the barter-money thread). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Bq9YdDVc8 Style Council Money-go-round Lyrics It's no good praying to the powers that be 'Cause they won't shake the roots of the money tree No good praying to the pristine alters Waiting for the blessing with Holy water They like the same old wealth in the same old hands Means the same old people stay old people stay in command Watch your money-go-round; watch your money-go-round They got it wrapped up tight, they got it safe and sound Watch your money-go-round; watch your money-go-round As you fall from grace and hit the ground Too much money in too few places Only puts a smile on particular faces Said too much power in not enough hands Makes me think "get rich quick; take all I can" They're too busy spending on the means of destruction To ever spend a penny on some real construction Watch the money-go-round; watch the money-go-round They amuse themselves as they fool around Watch your money-go-round; watch your money-go-round Do like they say, make them vulnerable No good looking to the Empire corners, "Civilization" built on slaughter Carrying hopes and carrying maps The spinless ones fall in their laps The brave and the bold are the ones to be fooled With a diet of lies by the Kipling school Watch your money-go-round; watch your money-go-round But I just can't help being cynical Watch your money-go-round; watch your money-go-round Do like I say, make me wonderful Their morals are clean and their clear They bend your arm and they bend your ear Said they bend your mind as you talk in circles Bend over forwards, this won't hurt you Till there's blood in your lap; blood on your hands Watch the money-go-round; watch the money-go-round Come spend a penny, go out with a pound Watch the money-go-round; watch the money-go-round As you fall from grace and hit the ground (On the money-go-round, you wanna get on but it won't slow down) The need your votes and you know where to send 'em Be we don't get the choice of a public referendum On all the real issues that affect our lives Like the USA base to which we play midwife Take a cruise and forget this scene Said come back later when the slates wiped clean Watch your money-go-round; watch your money-go-round Born of woman, killed by man Watch the money-go-round; watch your money-go-round Do like they pray, make it wonderful The good and righteous sing their hymns The crimpoline dresses who have no sins Christians by day, killers in war The hypocrites who know what they're fighting for Killing for peace, freedom and truth But they're too old to go so they send the youth Watch the money-go-round, watch the money-go-round I don't think he was an astronaut Watch the money-go-round, watch the money-go-round I must insist - he was a Socialist! Watch your money-go-round; watch your money-go-round They got it wrapped up tight, they got it safe and sound Watch your money-go-round; watch your money-go-round As you fall from grace and hit the ground http://www.metrolyrics.com/moneygoround-club-mix-lyrics-the-style-council.html longer version, more lyrics too ___ 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] Argument for historical existence of barter
RE: Argument for historical existence of barter I remember being told by an American history professor about how corn and rye whiskies were used as 'currency' for trade, from Pittsburgh to New Orleans. See: http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/northamerica.html Forms of Money in use in the American Colonies The British colonies in north America suffered a chronic shortage of official coins with which to carry out their normal, everyday commercial activities. An indication of the severity of this shortage and of the resultant wide variety of substitutes is given by the fact that during 1775 in North Carolina alone as many as seventeen different forms of money were declared to be legal tender. However, it should be remembered that all these numerous forms of means of payment had a common accounting basis in the pounds, shillings and pence of the imperial system. The main sources which provided the colonists with their essential money supplies fall into five groups. 1. Traditional native currencies such as furs and wampum which were essential for frontier trading with the indigenous population but thereafter were widely adopted by the colonists themselves, e.g. in 1637 Massachusetts declared white wampum legal tender for sums up to one shilling, a limit raised substantially in 1643. 2. The so-called "Country Pay" or "Country Money" such as tobacco, rice, indigo, wheat, maize, etc. - "cash crops" in more than one sense. Like the traditional Indian currencies these were mostly natural commodities. Tobacco was used as money in and around Virginia for nearly 200 years, so lasting about twice as long as the US gold standard. 3. Unofficial coinages, mostly foreign, and especially Spanish and Portuguese coins. These played an important role in distant as well as local trade. Not all the unofficial coins were foreign. John Hall set up a private mint in Massachusetts in 1652 and his popular "pine-tree" shillings and other coins circulated widely until the mint was forced to close down in 1684. 4. The scarce but official British coinage. 5. Paper currency of various kinds, particularly in the colonies' later years. The first State issue of notes (in north America) was made in 1690 by the Massachusetts Bay Colony. These notes, or "bills of credit". were issued to pay soldiers returning from an expedition to Quebec. The notes promised eventual redemption in gold or silver and could be used immediately to pay taxes and were accepted as legal tender. The example of Massachusetts was followed by other colonies who thought that by printing money they could avoid the necessity to raise taxes. Another early form of paper money used in north America was "tobacco notes". These were certificates attesting to the quality and quantity of tobacco deposited in public warehouses. These certificates circulated much more conveniently than the actual leaf and were authorized as legal tender in Virginia in 1727 and regularly accepted as such throughout most of the eighteenth century. In addition to the State issues, a number of public banks began issuing loans in the form of paper money secured by mortgages on the property of the borrowers. In these early cases the term "bank" meant simply the collection or batch of bills of credit issued for a temporary period. If successful, reissues would lead to a permanent institution or bank in the more modern sense of the term. One of the best examples was the Pennsylvania Land Bank which authorized three series of note issues between 1723 and 1729. This bank received the enthusiastic support of Benjamin Franklin who in 1729 published his Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency. His advocacy did not go unrewarded as the Pennsylvania Land Bank awarded Franklin the contract for printing its third issue of notes. Gradually the British government began to restrict the rights of the colonies to issue paper money. In 1740 a dispute arose involving a "Land Bank or Manufactury Scheme" in Boston, and the following year the British parliament ruled that the bank was illegal in that it transgressed the provisions of the Bubble Act of 1720 (passed after the collapse of the South Sea Bubble - one of the most notorious outbreaks of financial speculation in history). Restrictions were subsequently tightened because some colonies, including Massachusetts and especially Rhode Island, issued excessive quantities of paper money thus causing inflation. Finally, in 1764 a complete ban on paper money (except when needed for military purposes) was extended to all the colonies. The American Revolution and the War of 1812 When he was in London in 1766 Benjamin Franklin tried in vain to convince Parliament of the need for a general issue of colonial paper money, but to no avail. The constitutional struggle between Britain and the colonies over the right to issue paper money was a significant factor in provoking the American Revolution. When the war broke out the mon
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Walls Comes Tumbling Down
Hey puts me to mind of that other great agit-prop guy who could get no airplay in the US during the 1980s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5HfOipwvts&ob=av2e ___ 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] Why the IMF Meetings Failed
RE: Why the IMF Meetings Failed Quote from the IMF piece posted earlier: >>So other countries are obliged to solve the problem on their own. Japan is holding down its exchange rate by selling yen and buying U.S. Treasury bonds in the face of its carry trade being unwound as arbitrageurs pay back the yen they earlier borrowed to buy higher-yielding but increasingly risky sovereign debt from countries such as Greece. These paybacks have pushed up the yen’s exchange rate by 12% against the dollar so far during 2010, prompting Bank of Japan governor Masaaki Shirakawa to announce on Tuesday, October 5, that Japan had “no choice” but to “spend 5 trillion yen ($60 billion) to buy government bonds, corporate IOUs, real-estate investment trust funds and exchange-traded funds – the latter two a departure from past practice.”[6]<< But look where we were in 1995: MARKET WATCH; The Yen Bubble Keeps Growing BY FLOYD NORRIS Published: March 19, 1995 Correction Appended It is the bubble of the decade, and there is no telling when it will stop expanding. But someday it will, and then it will burst. The bubble is in the Japanese yen, a currency that, on the basis of comparative purchasing power, has gone from unreasonably high to ridiculously overvalued. The latest leap of the yen has come as Japanese have dumped dollars, and it is not hard to understand why. William Sterling, a Merrill Lynch economist, estimates that since 1977 the Japanese have lost the equivalent of $400 million from depreciation of the dollars they took in exchange for Toyotas and other exports. Nor did their attempts to buy long-term assets -- among them Pebble Beach, Rockefeller Center and Columbia Pictures -- work out very well. The panic could continue, but not forever. Bob Barbera, the economist at Capital Investments International, sees signs of a vicious circle. As the yen strengthens, Japanese companies get less competitive and their profit outlook weakens. That puts pressure on Japanese stock prices, and thus on the capital adequacy of Japanese banks, which are stuffed full of stocks. So the banks need to shore up their capital by selling foreign assets. And that drives the yen up. The dollar now trades for 89.1 yen, down from 100 yen in early January. --- --- Conclusion: we have two bubbles. One bubble is Japan's savings going into limited classes of investments and currencies. The other bubble is a currency exchange arbitrage bubble predicated on one idea: whatever else happens, the yen must go up. Ironically some of these speculators are still able to tap into Japan's savings pools to feed these bubbles in search of ever higher profits over ever shorter periods of time. It's interesting to note some of the side effects of this bubble for those who live in Japan: health care, education continue to get more expensive. But we can probably buy large quantities of soybeans more cheaply in Japan than where they are produced. 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] The REAL Song of the South
Interesting that the band's next album did not get a release in the US, despite the fact that all their previous albums had decent sales there (with little airplay). http://www.amazon.com/Live-Moscow-Peace-Our-Time/dp/B002V0JBLG Editorial Reviews Product Description 2009 two disc (CD + NTSC/Region 0 DVD) live archive release from the Scottish quartet. In 1988, the Iron Curtain still existed. In September of that year, Big Country became the first Western band to play live in the Soviet Union promoted by a private individual (not the state) and before the general paying public (not an invited audience). The band released their Top Five album Peace In Our Time in September of 1988 and, after launching the album at the Russian Embassy in London, took 286 people to Moscow. The concert was recorded and a documentary was made from the Embassy launch through the return from Moscow. Both the concert and documentary are on the DVD disc while the concert is also included on a separate CD. Features stunning live versions of tracks from their first four albums including 'Look Away', 'King Of Emotion', 'Wonderland' and 'In A Big Country'. Track. ___ 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] The REAL Song of the South
Play for the good ole boys and see what reaction you get. The songwriter said of the song: "Was done at the Power Plant with Robin Millar producing. Robin is one of the nicest people I have ever worked with and has remained a source of good advice and inspiration. The song is about apartheid and I kind of liked the idea of using a Disney title for it to show how the media exploit real suffering for ratings." — Stuart Adamson, Restless Natives & Rarities liner notes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BlKFR_43PM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESrhBgj4EZ4&feature=related I kind of like how this guy tried to do socialist agit-prop in the pop-rock anthem, but that also made his group pariahs on American radio back in the 80s (when radio and MTV airplay were the only way you could get to an American audience). He personally financed a music tour of the Soviet Union. I think this is the only case of a 'western' big label rock act doing that. Others went on the invitation of the Soviet government, with corporate sponsors. BC and Stuart Adamson couldn't get that because, ironically enough, he supported socialist, communist politics. 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] cool version of the american 'freedom eagle'
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vEau-yJJL._SL500_AA280_.jpg CJ -- ELT in Japan http://www.eltinjapan.com/ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.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] Wouldn't this have made a really cool t-shirt?
When the single was marketed in 1989, the record company put a sticker over the upper left corner of the flag, of course. http://www.mattscdsingles.com/acatalog/1195%20new.jpg ___ 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] White America Has Lost Its Mind
It's interesting how more and more the 'brown' military the US sends to control and kill Iraqis and Afghans looks more and more like the very people they are controlling and killing. This is especially true if you look at who are actually the dog soldiers doing things like military convoys and foot patrols in non-glory military specialities (lower enlisted MP, ammunition clerk, a 'specialist' on an armored vehicle'). It's even more true, apparently, of the 'dog sailors' the Navy gave up to the Army in order to fill all these shitty jobs. 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] Castro says remark that Cuban model doesn't work misinterpreted
Now it's starting to make sense, even if through a shit-coated lens like the Atlantic. The American reporters wish to emphasize tangential elements and 'back story'--Castro (long accused of Antisemitism) shows his humanity by deploring Holocaust denial and supposedly mentioning Iranian leaders in the same breath. But then he used this American zionist reporter to help make publicity for Cuba's economic reforms. And the seemingly offhand remark along the lines of : Even the Cuban system doesn't work for Cuba anymore, it means something like: we are getting ready for 'liberalization' and privatization of some sort. But looking at Castro's own clarifications it seems more to say: all systems of governance and economic organization have to change over time, so why are the Americans still so keen on promoting their failed capitalism (in perfect accord with A.'s speech at the poverty conference in NY)? And there is probably no one on the earth more aware than Castro of how Cuba still has to fit into a world system of trade, money flows, communication, diplomacy etc. DOMINATED by the hegemon 150 km to the north. BTW, the one article mentions Kevin Costner's '13 Days'. This is a surprisingly good movie. About the only part that misfires is in the conversations with certain air force pilots about the actions taken over Cuba--a bit goofily patriotic (as if the Cubans had no right to fire on any US aircraft invading their airspace). Actually rather scary too if a WH aid to the president had to orchestrate military actions by skipping the downward chain of command. Perhaps the most interesting issue the film raises is this idea that the US and USSR came to agreement, that the US would never really overtly attack Cuba again, and that the US has honored this agreement from then until now. Most likely Bushwa thought about it, but was probably advised (1) Cuban military forces are, in their own theater of operation, pretty good, with Cuba hard to invade (it isn't like they could roll in tanks there) and (2) Putin would probably mount a vigorous defense of some sort. 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] Fidel Castro Blasts Ahmadinejad As Anti-Semitic
Yes, due to the growth in population in Latin America and the greater spread of TV and radio, no doubt. I meant 'don't listen' in the sense of 'don't heed'. Reading through the crap on A., the guy really doesn't know what he is talking about, but that never stopped him before. I still think Castro has been more right than wrong on most matters, but not this one, if the reports from zionist bloggers are to be believed. 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] Communist Parties have always supported Israel's right to
>>CB: "Communist PartieS have supported the right of Israel to exist" is a true statement that I made earlier on this thread. You questioned it. I presented proof positive that "Communist PartieS have supported the right of Isael to exist.<< I questioned your statement about always supported--see thread title if you want to get lawyerly on me. And that should have been qualified by the FACT that not all communists or CPs did, not before 1948, not in 1948, and not after 1948. There is nothing essential to communism that required support of a European Zionist colonization of Palestine, not in 1930, not in 1940, not in 1947-8 and not now. 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] Communist Parties have always supported Israel's right to exist
>>CB: I'm talking about now and for about 60 years, the Soviet Union and most CP's supported the right of Israel to exist. That's the issue I'm addressing<< And my points were (1) 60 years ago is not always, (2) there was an abrupt shift coming from the SU and this explains the toe-the-line phenomenon of many, and not all CPs toed the line (Yugoslavia, I'm thinking perhaps Greece but I could well be wrong on that). Also, it's one thing to say you support the right of a Jewish state/Zionist state/Israel to exist within the framework of two states as worked out in the UN plans (however unfair those plans were), it's altogether a different thing to say you support that right while the rights of the Palestinians are trampled by the very state you say you are supporting the existence of. 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] Communist Parties have always supported Israel's right to exist
>>In general, the Communist Parties agreed on such. The CPUSA certainly
wasn't the only one ( smile)<<
But the original point was and is: CPs haven't ALWAYS supported the
creation of a Jewish state in Palestine (now called Israel), nor did
they do so before many US and UK politicians who were most decidedly
not of the left (see the thread title, taken from something you wrote
on LBO-T). Most likely one key issue hardly discussed in this
otherwise good piece at ahram is that Germany ceded territory to
Poland, and Poland didn't want to re-settle the Jews, nor did the Jews
want to stay in a ruined Poland. So perhaps one Soviet Union goal was
to make peace and settle things in E. Europe by getting rid of the
Jewish refugees and survivors of the Holocaust.
It basically goes back to a shift in policy that came out of the
Soviet Union, obviously instigated by Stalin and his top advisors.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/897/op6.htm
Crucially, there are two curious, unexpected, twists to the tale
concerning the superpower states that had just embarked upon their
Cold War rivalry, the US and USSR. All those interested in this
intriguing and surprising history would be rewarded in reading an
enlightening paper by French historian Laurent Rucker, who utilises
voluminous primary research from Soviet archives ("Moscow's surprise:
The Soviet-Israeli Alliance of 1947-1949", Woodrow Wilson Centre for
International Scholars, Working Paper 46), the main points of which I
elaborate upon, whilst drawing my own conclusions.
Put briefly, there is compelling evidence to suggest that had the USSR
not supported the partition of Palestine and Israel's creation, such a
partition would not have happened. On the one hand, the US's support
for the partition plan was by no means as strong as is ordinarily
imagined. We surely need to recognise that the political terrain in
the US with regard to a Jewish state was very different 60 years ago
than it is now. On the other hand, the USSR's late change of stance
and its uncompromising support for the Zionist project during the
fateful years of 1947-48 was arguably the decisive factor.
Recognising that it had no weight in the Middle East, during World War
II the Soviet Union opened embassies in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq
in an attempt to exert some influence. A corollary to this endeavour
was weakening and removing Britain's influence in the region and
somehow forging divisions between the UK and the US. It was this
thinking that drove Soviet policies. When the Anglo-American Committee
of Inquiry into the Fate of European Jews was set up in January 1946,
the erstwhile ally USSR, which had a legitimate interest in the issue
as there were about five million Jews living under Soviet rule, was
simply excluded, the crucial reason being that Britain and the US did
not want Stalin to poke his nose into the Palestine issue.
Yet after the war, there arose the issue of some quarter of a million
displaced Jews in Eastern Europe that was now under the Soviet sphere
of influence. It was the issue of the settlement of the bulk of these
that proved fundamental to what happened. The Soviets and East
European regimes failed to do what was incumbent upon them, that is,
to re-settle displaced Jews in their old homes and counter any
hostility from the local population. Naturally, therefore, many of
these displaced persons wished to emigrate, the preferred option, and
understandably so, being the US which had not suffered destruction
during the war. But the US operated a closed-door policy to the
"tired, poor huddled Jewish masses yearning to be free" -- thus
enabling the second preferred option, Palestine, to come to the fore.
This conveniently suited the Americans and the Soviets, as well as the
East European regimes (none of whom wanted the displaced persons) so
that the Zionist programme of settling European Jewry in Palestine
quickly gathered momentum. Britain, however, was at first wary as it
did not wish to alienate the Arab world.
The Zionist organisations had foresight and forged links with Soviet
diplomats, quietly calling for support for their designs. This,
however, did not immediately lead to the USSR agreeing to a future
Jewish state in Palestine (which the USSR had never supported), though
the seeds were sown and came to fruition surprisingly soon. The
official USSR position was for the removal of the British mandate and
troops and for a unitary Palestine to be granted independence but
under UN "trusteeship" (meaning, under joint control of the "big
three" powers). In March 1947, the Near East Department of the Soviet
UN delegation accordingly argued for a "single democratic Palestine
that ensures that the peoples living there will enjoy equal national
and democratic rights".
A month later, there was a dramatic U- turn. At the extraordinary
session of the UN General Assembly, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
Andrei Gromyko was instructed to present the new line. For the first
time th
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Tightening the Noose on Credit
>>Two years after the 2008 bailout, the economy continues to struggle with a lack of credit, the hallmark of recessions and depressions. Credit (or debt) is issued by banks and is the source of virtually all money today. When credit is not available, there is insufficient money to buy goods or pay salaries, so workers get laid off and businesses shut down, in a vicious spiral of debt and depression.<< This is too simplistic of an explanation. I've seen it here for 20 years in Japan, which went to the new banking standards earlier than the US did. Doing so caused the fake bankruptcy of some rather large banks and some smaller ones, but this was mostly a sop to US-based private equity interests, who wanted a way into Japan's banking system (which would give them lots of credit to put into the US bubbles). At a local level, loans are available and at very low interest rates--at least so it seems. But individuals and small businesses don't want the loans or can't qualify to get the loans. Meanwhile, everyone and thing with money to put somewhere ends up either directly or indirectly buying and holding government bonds or cash savings (with the idea that at least these things don't lose money). Loans are the source of profits for banks that take savings, but in the bubble years even small banks and savings and loans -- and credit unions -- ended up bypassing much of the local loan markets and going to the financial bubbles to try and get better returns. So banking institutions weren't interested in local housing or student loan markets, but other financial entities created housing, student loan and personal credit bubbles and fed them back to the banking system as portfolios of 'securities' and 'insurance'. They did the same thing back in the 80s using different instruments of financial bubble-ization and mass destruction, with similar results only on a somewhat smaller scale. Basically what the US financial markets have said to the American people is: you don't qualify for credit to buy a house or a university education unless we can make huge profits from 'securitizing' such debt. So all that money will sit in stocks, bonds, and cash--with some hedge fund investing--until the next bubble is created. Unless the whole system crashes. The only bubble that is immune from another crash for the next 3-5 years is the health insurance, health care and medicine pricing bubble(s) in the US. And that , as it turns out, is what Obama had Clinton out trying to sell to the American public during the recent round of interviews and appearances (since the plan basically uses federal money to keep growing the health care business in the US while not helping uninsured and under-insured working people). And we all know Clinton is a good salesman. 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] Communist Parties have always supported Israel's right to exist
> Well, I wouldn't have said it if I didn't think it was true. Certainly > , the CPUSA supported a two state solution, with one of the states > being Israel; and therefore Israel would exist, and have a right to > exist. > > Gus Hall Geez, I didn't think Gus was into such Stalinist bullshit until the 1960s. However, CB, you said PARTIES, and I have to wonder if it is worth researching just where that particular CP was on the issue in 1945-1949, and I'm not really sure it is worth the time and trouble. Also, it is one thing to say you support a two-state solution, another to say you support a two-state solution under the UN plan(s), another to say you support Israel (rogue state). From the very start, the proposed division of Palestine into two states was grossly unfair to the Palestinians and overtly favorable to the land-grabbing European Zionists. 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] ??Communist Parties have always supported Israel's right to exist??
It still comes down to whether or not 'de jure' status is something that can be given or only acknowledged. http://talknic.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/the-recognition-of-israel-de-jure-de-facto-the-jewish-state/ //Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel… ” I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.// Based on this information, the majority of the International Community of States recognized Israel, over riding the Arab League’s objections. (International democracy at work) Recognition – de facto or de jure?: (de facto – facts on the ground) – (de jure – in law). The territories of the Sovereign State of Israel were recognized de jure by default, through the de facto recognition given to the A) Provisional Government over those territories declared. B) through the de jure recognition given to the authority of the Provisional Government over those territories declared C) through the de jure recognition of the Government of Israel set up under the authority of the Provisional Government. Link to this section Three examples of this recognition : The US granted the Provisional Government de facto recognition to administer the Sovereign Territories of the State of Israel, based on the information supplied by the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel, (by the boundaries in UNGA res 181), until such time as a permanent institutions of Government were set up. It then granted de jure recognition. This was marked when the first political party was elected to Government. The USSR granted de jure recognition of the de facto (provisional) Government’s authority to administer the Sovereign Territories of the State of Israel and to set up a Government. To the best of my knowledge, the USSR has never actually given de jure recognition. Although having given de jure recognition to the ‘authority’ of the Provisional Government, it would naturally follow by default. Link to this section The British waited until a political party was elected to the Government. The British then granted de jure recognition, with conditions. The territories Israel had acquired by war, outside of it’s declared Sovereign Boundaries, were considered to be ‘occupied’. I.e., NOT Israeli Sovereign territory. His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid 1139 down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them. Israel has never legally annexed any territory. Unilateral annexation is not legal. It must be under a treaty or agreement. “territories occupied” and never withdrawn from or legally annexed, are still ‘occupied’. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/palestin.htm April 20, 1946: The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry submits its report, which recommends that Britain immediately authorize the admission of 100,000 Jews into Palestine. May 8, 1946: President Truman writes to Prime Minister Attlee, citing the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, and expressing the hope that Britain would begin lifting the barriers to Jewish immigration to Palestine. June 21, 1946: A Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum to the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee warns that if the United States uses armed force to support the implementation of the recommendations of the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, the Soviet Union might be able to increase its power and influence in the Middle East, and United States access to Middle East oil could be jeopardized. September 24, 1946: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford writes to the President
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] ??Communist Parties have always supported Israel's right to exist??
What this seems to mean is: recognition is recognition, for the US president to give. The terms 'de facto' and 'de jure' only apply to the nature of the government being recognized. So, a provisional government of Israel was recognized by Truman as 'de facto'. When it held elections, he recognized it 'de jure'. CJ http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Recognition-Belligerent-recognition.html If the character of a civil war will be admitted to the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine, that will serve as a fine example. The British shifted responsibility for their League of Nations mandate over Palestine on 3 December 1947, effective 15 May 1948, to the United Nations, which late in 1947 adopted a partition plan vehemently opposed by the Arabs but upheld by President Harry S. Truman. At midnight local time, 14 May 1948, the provisional government of Israel proclaimed the existence of the Republic of Israel that it had carved out of Palestine. Overriding objections from the Department of State, disregarding the wishes of Britain, France, and the Soviet Union, overlooking the nonrecognition of Israel by strategically located and oil-rich Arab states, the general fighting between Arabs and Jews throughout Palestine, and stating that he did so in keeping with the principle of self-determination and for humanitarian reasons, Truman extended de facto recognition when Israel was but eleven minutes old. Perhaps his need to win the Jewish vote in the fall elections stimulated his prompt action. After Israel held its first elections, on 25 January 1949, Truman extended it de jure recognition six days later. War between Israel and its Arab neighbors has been intermittent since the Republic of Israel first saw light. At the beginning of the twenty-first century the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was demanding a Palestine state with the capital in Jerusalem and sovereignty over shrines sacred to both Jews and Muslims—which Israel would not let him have. ___ 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] ??Communist Parties have always supported Israel's right to exist??
Saw this over on the Liberal/Lily-livered Bored/Bourgeois Observer/Oaf (LBO Talk) list and thought I would comment. I am no expert on this matter, so correct me where I'm wrong, but it seems to me you are wrong CB: >>CB: Actually, Communist Parties have always supported Israel's right to >>exist. The Soviet Union supported Israel establishment before the US did. So, >>that's not new.<< This is junk history put out there by the Zionists. Yugoslavia, for example, abstained on the vote for the UN to take over from the British mandate in creating a two-state, three-territory solution. I'm not sure if the Soviet leadership vacillated as much as the American side--the American side didn't agree on what to do. Marshall was dead set against the creation of a separate 'Jewish state'. The US and USSR both agreed at the UN on the creation of some sort of three-territory solution that was to follow the British Mandate. In votes at the UN, I don't think it matters who voted first since the votes are done in some pre-set order (alphabetical order? alphabetical order in French? Not sure) and most delegates vote according to what their leadership tells them to vote. So big deal if the USSR voted ahead of the US at the UN. Also, it's semantic, but remember the support and/or votes were for, in part, the creation of a Jewish entity as part of a three-territory solution, not something standalone and rogue called 'Israel', and in this three-territory solution in which the UN was supposed to play a key role, taking over from the British and their mandate. And it would take votes and actions form the Security Council to make something like this work, and it's rather obvious that this never happened--they never made it work. As for who recognized Israel DE FACTO first, it was Israel, whose leadership declared its existence (in Israeli law this is DE JURE too). Or perhaps it was the UK, who had officially ended its mandate so Israel could be self-declared a minute later. The US was quick to follow in recognition--minutes later. As to whether it was de facto or de jure, I'll let legal scholars determine that--if it wasn't de jure, why did Truman bother to sign something? If it was de jure, it seems unconstitutional, but when did that get in the way of post-war foreign policy? It took a year for the UN to admit/recognize Israel as a state, in May 1949. Once admitted, Israel became nothing but a violent, rogue settler state warring obstacle to solving all the problems that the UN-driven partition had created. Just what is your date, CB, for the USSR recognizing the state of Israel? Wikipedia, without source, says 3 days after Israel was declared the USSR de jure recognized the state. So I guess the argument rests on what is the validity of Truman's declaration 11 minutes after Ben Gurion's. See: http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105017.htm Clifford closes with the well-known story of how a Jewish Agency employee driving to the White House with the request for recognition of "the Jewish state" was overhauled by another Jewish Agency employee. Epstein had just heard on the radio that the new state was to be called "Israel" and instructed the second employee to write in that name in ink before handing over the request for recognition to the White House. Meanwhile, General Marshall agreed that, although he could not support President Truman on the issue, he would not oppose it. When the news was broken to the American delegation at the UN, which had been lining up votes for continued trusteeship, US Ambassador Warren Austin left the building in order not to be present when US recognition of Israel was announced, just 11 minutes after the state's creation. Dean Rusk subsequently had to rush to the UN to talk US delegation members out of resigning en masse in protest. Lovett, who Clifford believes talked General Marshall out of resigning because "this issue did not merit resignation," remained friendly with Clifford, who writes: "Lovett remained adamant for the rest of his life, however, in his view that the president and I had been wrong. So did most of his colleagues. Nothing could ever convince him, Marshall, Acheson, Forrestal, or Rusk that President Truman had made the right decision ... Because President Truman was often annoyed by the tone and fierceness of the pressure exerted on him by American Zionists, he left some people with the impression that he was ambivalent about the events of May 1948. This was not true. He never wavered in his belief that he had taken the right action." -- ELT in Japan http://www.eltinjapan.com/ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fidel Castro Blasts Ahmadinejad As Anti-Semitic
>>Castro was the one who put out the big alarm about the US sending ships to harass Iran. He is not some heavy critic of Iran and is a long term critic of Israel, which is why his very specific and narrow criticism of A is significant. A probably sees it as advice from an "ancestor" who is not yet a pile of ashes.<< The problem is no one listens to Castro much anymore--well, Atlantic bloggers do. I'm not really sure he knows what A.'s views are. ___ 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] Bill Clinton goes out stumping for Obama
Race might be a social category but I would refrain from using metaphysically. I think you are missing the obvious--these tempest in a teapot teabaggers are doing a great service to the Demoncrats. I wasn't out to critique race in America. I was out to critique the warpig Obama. 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] Bill Clinton goes out stumping for Obama
Well the first black president goes stumping for the second black president. Bill does have better moves on the dance floor than the cool thin yellow one, though. Clinton simply backed his wife to the bitter end of the Democratic primaries, and neither of them could believe that a relatively obscure mixed race dude hiding out in Chicago could beat their NY state strategy to get to the White House. Hilary should have gone back to her Illinois roots. Clinton is out to help shore up the waning support for the beleaugered one in upper working class, lower middle class Demoncratia (it's the tanking economy dude). The fact that his visage in the media will make the teabag types go ballistic can only help. I just wish he would get with Tony Blair and keep the ME peace process going! That and, with Bill Gates, solve world poverty. 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] Teabaggers: A Demoncratic Plot?
>>CB: The vast majority of Black people never vote. Those who do vote understand exactly what Obama is going through. All of these Black people ,including me, are very observant earthly beings, know white people like the back of our hands. Oh you know them better than us ? uhhhuuuhu<< And back to my original point: the last presidential election, they did. As did some of that 10% of America who hate the imperium (black, white, whatever). And so black people understand Obama's need to give carte blanche to the warpigs and manage a health care plan that reflates the heathcare bubble while making 80 million Americans have no health care. The rest of your statement is just racialist metaphysics. But my African genes cry out so to communicate with you better. Someday we might break you of such sloppy thinking habits CB. CB ___ 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] Fidel Castro Blasts Ahmadinejad As Anti-Semitic
>>CB: Yeah right. Sort of like Deng Chou Ping. I bet he has no influence whatsoever over the Cuban society and state. He's a retired strongman (smile)<< I didn't know Fidel is a pile of ashes talking to your ancestors Charles. I do know when I go into my favorite Egyptian cafe in Kuala Lumpur (Arab ex-pat community is big there), they all talk about A. and Ch. but if you say Castro, they say, 'Who?' Another big difference is that these guys are plurastically leading large populated countries, while Castro was always at best, without the third world movement pretensions, the leader of a micro-state. I think I had a good point that the world Castro could relate to was Arafat and the PLO. Don't get me wrong, Arafat was one of my heroes, as is Castro. 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] Teabaggers: A Demoncratic Plot?
>>Like Obama has done anything that would make Black people stop voting for him. What planet are you on ?<< I don't know, dye his hair green? The point is to keep black voters voting in large numbers for a warpig demoncratic government that doesn't give a shit about them. Or haven't you noticed? What planet are you from? It isn't like they would vote mainstream Repugnican, they simply wouldn't vote. 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] Fidel Castro Blasts Ahmadinejad As Anti-Semitic
Maybe he simply needs to shut up and stop giving interviews to Atlantic bloggers? They are the very sort who have accused Castro of being anti-semitic too. I don't think we need to review Castro's credentials. But he is at the end of his life, and not really in power anymore. He can't really do much of anything. I'm not really sure this Atlantic piece is nothing more than a bunch of lies concocted by the Atlantic zionist, since it uses so little actual quoted material. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel-to-ahmadinejad-stop-slandering-the-jews/62566/ ___ 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] Teabaggers: A Demoncratic Plot?
Right now they seem to be the best way to mess up the Repugnican Party-- a sort of reverse George Will strategy, if you will (I think it was he who first put out the idea of a permanent, united Republican majority in power). I always said the Repugs were more fractious and class-divided than the Democrats. The warpig administration of Obama-Emanuel couldn't give a toss about the 10% of the US populace that is anti-war and hates both parties. If they vote at all, it will be during presidential elections for the least bad warpig. But look how useful the teabaggers are: they will keep black and Hispanic (non-Cuban) voters voting 100% plus for Obama and his warpig Demoncrats. And if the teabaggers split the Repugs (while attracting racist, xenophobic independents still searching for their lost Ross Perot), it will help keep a reasonably unpopular Obama in office for a second term. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the biggest supporters of the teabaggers in key races is Rahmbo E and his bagmen. 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] Fidel Castro Blasts Ahmadinejad As Anti-Semitic
More and more Fidel looks to be irrelevant on this particular issue. Perhaps he could relate better with the PLO under Arafat. Of course I would have to wade into the transcript of a long speech (translated of course) in order to see if he addresses Palestine or the fact that it's the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not Iran. A's repeated point has been to say that one can not use the Holocaust as an excuse for al Nakba or European Zionist Jews colonizing Palestine. And al Nakba denial is worse because the calamity is still unfolding. Israeli leadership treats for peace with the near-powerless PA while trying to consolidate greater Israel. For example: http://noticeable.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-full-text-speech-durban-review-conference-20-april-2009/ excerpt: After the Second World War, by exploiting the holocaust and under the pretext of protecting the Jews they made a nation homeless with military expeditions and invasion. They transferred various groups of people from America, Europe and other countries to this land. They established a completely racist government in the occupied Palestinian territories. And in fact, under the pretext of making up for damages resulting from racism in Europe, they established the most aggressive, racist country in another territory, i.e. Palestine. The Security Council endorsed this usurper regime and for 60 years constantly defended it and let it commit any kind of crime. Worse than this is that some Western governments and America are committed to support genocidal racists while others condemn the bombardment of innocent human beings, the occupation of their land and the disasters that took place in Gaza. Even before they kept silent, not responding to all the crimes of that regime, and supported it. Dear friends, ladies and gentlemen, what has been the source of recent wars such as the Americans’ attack on Iraq or the wide military expedition in Afghanistan? Has it been anything else than the selfishness of the American government of the time and the pressures by those in possession of wealth and power to expand influence and hegemony, support weapon manufacturers, destroy a great culture that is thousands of years old, destroying possible and potentials risks by the countries of the region against the occupying Quds regime, and looting the energy resources of the Iraqi people? In fact why were one million people dead and injured and a few million people forced to leave their homeland? Why were hundreds of billions of dollars worth of damage inflicted on the Iraqi people and hundreds of billions of dollars of costs for the military invasion imposed on the American people and America’s allies? Was attacking Iraq not orchestrated by the Zionists and their allies in the previous ruling government of America which was on the one hand in power and on the other the owner of arms manufacturing companies? ___ 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] Ahmadinejad to World: Capitalism, US's New World Order is DONE
Apparently the ziowarpiggies and their NATO cronies couldn't get out of bed early enough in order to walk out this time. Meanwhile, NATO cronie Merkel teaches developing world 'responsibility and accountability'. Can't wait for Hugo Chavez to weigh in. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100921/ap_on_re_us/un_un_world_summit;_ylt=AtEztBwzQfEFE2kA34FQJ2JvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJqZm45dW5uBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwOTIxL3VuX3VuX3dvcmxkX3N1bW1pdARjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDaXJhbnNhaG1hZGlu >>To spotlight the importance of this effort and the need for all countries to >>participate, Ahmadinejad proposed that the United Nations name the coming 10 >>years "the decade for the joint global governance." In his brief speech, intertwining philosophy and religion with the current state of the world, Ahmadinejad declared: "The undemocratic and unjust governance structures of the decision-making bodies in international economic and political fields are the reasons behind most of the plights today humanity is confronting." "It is my firm belief that in the new millennium, we need to revert to the divine mindset ... based on the justice-seeking nature of mankind, and on the monotheistic world view...," the Iranian leader said. "Now that the discriminatory order of capitalism and the hegemonic approaches are facing defeat and are getting close to their end, all-out participation in upholding justice and prosperous interrelations is essential." While Ahmadinejad blamed the world's problems on powerful capitalist nations, German Chancellor Angela Merkel laid much of the blame on developing nations. "It is in their hands whether aid can be effective," she said. "Therefore, support to good governance is as important as aid itself."<< ___ 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] Final U.S. combat brigade departs Iraq
This is just more propaganda. It's obvious the US military has been moving piecemeal out of Iraq and into Kuwait and onto compounds there for quite some time. It's funny because they went into Iraq at a division level, and now they make a big propaganda deal out of leaving at a brigade level. That is what occupying Iraq did to the US military--it destroyed division-level organization of combat arms, among other things. The Bradleys and M1 tanks are mostly junk and proved unusable in either Iraq or Afghanistan, as predicted by many when the things were first deployed. The US has plenty of combat troops in Iraq, but as they have for the past 6 years, they don't operate at a division or brigade level. As for the 50,000 on the base and embassy complexes, that is augmented by plenty of hired help, and the US military is waiting for 'developments' that will require them to stay--in good faith to the budding democracy of Iraq, etc. There is no way that they are planning on leaving and abandoning those bases in a year. Shit that was about the only thing they accomplished the whole time they were there; they got a multi-billion dollar base complex in the ME built for a couple trillion dollars. 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] US to Attend Hiroshima Memorial for First Time
Also, I should have said: it has been the official policy of the US government and military neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nukes (tactital nukes usually) on US ships or planes or overseas bases. When New Zealand tried to get them to stop taking nukes into NZ ports, the US actually set up sanctions that damaged the NZ economy. However, I was thinking that during the height of the Cold War, with Japan leaning towards the socialists and communists, they would have thought of something different. Besides, in the 1940s and 50s, I don't think it was so commonplace to take tactical nukes everywhere. I think this came about mostly during the Vietnam War and then intensified after, during the Reagan years. I could be wrong about that. Perhaps the US army stockpiled nuclear artillery (nuke rounds, nuke-tipped little john missiles, etc) for possible use in Korea. I have to research this more. If the people in Japan and S. Korea had known so many nukes were coming and going with the US military, they might have thought differently of the alliances set up by the US. To hear some Japan officials talk about all this after the Cold War, some claim they were assured the US had no nukes in Japan. Others say they knew the US had nukes and it was acknowledged. Perhaps it's a mix of both. I remember Time magazine reporting (int'l edition) in the late 80s and 90s how the Japanese were sensitive about US carriers putting into Yokohama because the ships are nuclear powered, but that never made sense at all because Japan has nuclear power plants all over the place--like dozens up and down the Japan Sea cost between here (Fukui) and southern Honshu. 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] 34 billionaires pledge half of their fortunes
>>Hope , faith and charity. The greatest of these is charity.<< More like PR, tax shelters and untaxed investment/finance capitalism, and the greatest of all these Bill and Melinda know more about than 100 Michael Hudsons. CJ --- ELT in Japan http://www.eltinjapan.com/ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] 34 billionaires pledge half of their fortunes
http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Protect-Your-Assets-With-a-Foundation-Just-Like-Billionaires-Gates-Buffet Starting Your Own Charitable Foundation Donating to a foundation is one legal way to protect wealth for descendants. Assets transferred into a foundation are immune to capital gains taxes, plus the donator still gets a tax deduction for the contribution. Additionally, the charity receives more money than if the donator sold assets, paid the taxes, and donated the remainder. This may come as a surprise to some—that anyone, not just the super rich like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet--can set up a trust and/or foundation very inexpensively by doing all the research and drafting their own documents. There are many sources that provide templates. If your situation is straightforward, all you have to do is fill in the blanks. For those with more involved situations an experienced attorney is recommended. Even if you do it yourself, it’s not a bad idea to have an attorney review it. The final step is transferring your assets into the foundation or trust, otherwise all your hard work is for naught. ___ 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] 34 billionaires pledge half of their fortunes
The most interesting thing about this is people fall for the line that they are 'giving it away'. Not the case at all. What they seem to seek is some way to keep their fortunes intact after their death and still have some say over how the money is invested and used, even as they lie mouldering in the cold cold ground. Pity the poor Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. They lost 150 million dollars because they owned too much BP stock! If I were worth a billion dollar now, greedy person that I am, I would keep 10 million and retire and give the rest to people who could actually use it and whether I was alive or dead I wouldn't try to assert say over how they use it. NOW THAT WOULD BE CHARITY. F- Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and T. Boone Pickens and their crappy charitable foundations. 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] US to Attend Hiroshima Memorial for First Time
>>CB: What would the US have done if Japan had not allowed same ?<< Most likely the US would have said it valued the US-Japan alliance more than an issue like that, and then lie and say it didn't have any nukes in Japan while bringing them here anyway. At least more Japanese would be aware that the US military was and still is armed with thousands of nukes, which they deploy all over the world. BTW, officailly the Japanese government didn't allow anything. They don't have the constitutional right to allow nuclear weapons in the country. Wait, you mean the leadership of Japan, US puppets that they are, are also a bunch of lying, unconstitutional criminals? 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] Kiss This War Goodbye
It's hard to say exactly why this crap was released when it was released, but it seems to amount to the same sort of bait and switch we got with the so-called 'Abu Graib' 'revelations'--let's entertain people with S&M porn to distract them from our real war atrocities. It could be that some in the 'security' community realize there is no strategic importance to Afghanistan because it is a landlocked country. Certainly deploying 100,000 light infantry with marine airwings isn't going to 'pacify' it. So no doubt some within the national security state are pushing for, at most, an airbase and proxy wars through Kabul and Pakistan puppets, especially if India agrees to it. Meanwhile, they seem to be digging in to rationalize keeping the base-embassy complex in Iraq and 50,000 'trainers' there. Also, the Bushwar Obamaites warpig Demoncrats (along with their Repugnican coalition partners) have to figure out how to keep NATO from falling apart while at the same time financing 1.5 trillion dollars a year on 'national security'. Afghanistan is now clearly not the mission to give NATO a new reason for being. Good luck to them, may they rot in the hell that is the world they create everyday. 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] US to Attend Hiroshima Memorial for First Time
> > Japan, the only country that has ever been attacked with > atomic bombs -- first on August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, and > three days later in Nagasaki -- has pushed for the abolition > of the weapons of mass destruction ever since. > Which is why the governments of Japan have knowingly allowed/acquiesced to the US storing, transhipping and deploying nukes in Japan, right? Which is why their government never protests the US deploying nukes on the Korean peninsula, right? 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] Labor aristocracy
In an interview with director of 'Fast Food Nation' (a fictionalized version of the book with the same name), we probably get closer to the 'truth' about labor and the impoverished in the US. Perhaps, btw, I'll have to give the PK Dick novel, A Scanner Darkly another try (and has anyone seen the rotoscoped animated version by this same director?): excerpt of interview only http://motherjones.com/media/2006/10/grazed-and-abused?page=4 MJ: The characters are so disparate—separated by circumstance and class and race and geography. You have the sense that if they could get together in some way, if they could join forces, then they could reach a solution. It feels like the film is as much about the effects of isolationism as it is about anything else. RL: Yeah. It’s a depiction of a divided and conquered kind of world, with people who don’t communicate or cross paths much. Everyone is in their own somewhat comfortable bubble—even the undocumented workers sort of find their own niche, they’re separated at the plant, their apartment complex is probably 95 percent poverty, undocumented workers. MJ: There’s so many causes of isolationism in America. But how do you measure it? Your two films this year are so sad. I mean that as the highest compliment. RL: Thanks, yeah. It’s a real question. I mean, A Scanner Darkly is the sadness of the alienated individual within the larger culture that’s kind of clamping down and Fast Food Nation is more of the systemic sadness—the idea that we’re all cogs in a machine that’s so much bigger than all of us, that one person can really have no effect whatsoever. The Kinnear character comes to that realization: I can do this or that, but so what? They’ll just get rid of me and find someone else. The system seems big and insurmountable, especially when coupled with the level of comfort that so many Americans enjoy. Even some of our poorest people, those without insurance, still have iPods and cable TV. There’s a high level of consumer goods around; people are kept from feeling desperately poor even if they are. MJ: I love that line in Fast Food Nation about how the cows don’t leave the fence because they like their genetically engineered food so much better than real grass. That’s why we stay: We’re placated. RL: It tastes better, yeah. Things are kind of okay. MJ: Stepping through this logically and philosophically, then, does that say to you that things have to get worse for people in order for things to get better? That hope lies in some kind of catastrophe? RL: I thought that for so long, but then it does get worse. Abu Ghraib. This ridiculous, horrific war in Iraq. Katrina. I mean, short of something happening directly on our shores, where tens of thousands of Americans were dying every week or something, I don’t know what it would take. Things have gotten worse and they haven’t gotten better yet. I don’t know what the next move is. Part of me is optimistic that people, whether they like it or not, are being kind of awakened. They realize that the world the United States is occupying is not the same world that we were in even 10 years ago. Everything is different. Maybe there’s more of a discontent and cynicism toward our current administration, but I don’t know. What would be an example of it getting worse? An economic collapse of some kind, maybe, a situation where everyone is scrambling, that would be worse. But then what? That would just mean that we’d switch regimes. All you can do is just vote in someone new. If “It’s the Economy, Stupid,” then you’re just switching business partners. It’s hard to imagine any true alternatives. I mean, the hope for so many people is the emergence of a really viable third party, one that represents 90 percent of the population and the issues that those people care about: healthcare, retirement, education, pensions. There’s so many things that we could all agree on outside of divisive issues. You’d think that if some force arose that was really speaking to those issues, then it could happen. But I don’t know what it’ll take. Things seem primed right now in some ways; if some charismatic person stepped up, someone who was against this current war and was in favor of things that people care about. But I don’t know if the Democrats can deliver even a hint of that. MJ: One more line from the film that I love: It’s when the kid says, “The most patriotic thing I can think of doing right now is to defy the Patriot Act.” RL: It got a round of applause in Cannes! But you know, when we screened the film down in Orange County, it kind of got a chill. [Laughs.] MJ: That’s a backhanded compliment. RL: Well, it’s funny because the line isn’t necessarily the movie talking—it’s just something that a hyped-up college kid would say. MJ: Do you hope the film will change people’s eating habits? Did it change yours? RL: My eating habits were already set. You think you know about fast food—I mean, I knew it wasn’t, like, one cow, one hamburger—but w
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Oil is its own master
Re: Oil is its own master A few comments: The piece says: >>Three weeks after the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, executives of the offshore drilling company Transocean celebrated in a luxury hotel in Zug, Switzerland, where the company is based. The owners of the Deepwater rig, which was valued at $650 million before the accident, were expecting the first installment of their insurance payout: $401 million. At a closed meeting they agreed to pay $1 billion in dividends to shareholders.<< Actually, Transocean is a US Texas company hq'd in Switzerland for tax evasion purposes only. I would bet it was a Houston bbq where they celebrated. And: >>The US system of self-regulation inherited by Mr Obama - who received the most BP funds given to a presidential candidate - was put in place under the administration of President George W Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force, formed only two weeks into Mr Bush's presidency, quickly approved Executive Order 13211, which, according to the National Resources Defence Council, was "nearly identical in structure and impact" to a document drafted by the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade group. The working sessions of the task force were held behind closed doors, with top oil executives, including BP's John Browne, present. Having obtained a copy of the 13,500 page document by order of a federal judge, the NRDC concluded: "Big energy companies all but held the pencil for the White House task force, as government officials wrote a plan calling for billions of dollars in corporate subsidies and the wholesale elimination of key health and environmental safeguards".<< If Iraq were producing on a level with Russia and Saudi Arabia, oil would be at 30 dollars a barrel, if, and it would take even more subsidies to get companies like BP and Shell to lead consortia to drill so deep in the Gulf of Mexico. As it is, though, Iraq oil production is largely sequestered by the 'war' and occupation, and Pres. Barrage Obushwar continues the subsidies that make such dangerous, experimental drilling so profitable--and they are tapping into some very huge resevoirs in the Gulf, to be sure. 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] why are white southerners so violent?
Yes, it's obviously a spillover from the LBO Talk list. See, if you have the stomach for it, http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100712/date.html It seems to be one of the more popular threads going there for the past week. CJ -- ELT in Japan http://www.eltinjapan.com/ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] why are white southerners so violent?
Not to worry. I think that, brave soul that he is, CB is trying to discuss something on the LBO-Talk list. I'll hold my breath, dip into the archives, and check out how it went. 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] Calhoun
I remember having to read a lot of Calhoun and a lot of Clay in US history courses (Jackson Era). Not sure if Calhoun was related to the Gibson super-family, but http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/gibsonfamily.html Gibson This page updated January 2004. The news that Senator Strom Thurmond had a mixed race daughter who had remained a secret to the outside world for several decades was not news for genealogists and historians. They've long known about the many great families of the South with mixed race histories. Arguably, the most notable among these is the great political "Ur" family of the South, the Gibsons. Why the early and rich history of this family has been so ignored would be amusing, if it were not such a clear cut example of how certain subjects can be too politically incorrect to handle. Gideon Gibson's family first appeared in the records when they applied for land in the Santee River area in South Carolina around 1730. Although some objected to their being "free colored men with their white wives," in the end they were given permission by Governor Robert Johnson. Soon after, they became part of a sociological phenomenon which the few scholars who have looked at it have still not satisfactorily explained. Probably due to the difficulty of working land without recourse to labour (whether from slavery or indentured servitude) there occured in early South Carolina beginning sometime in the late 1740s and ending just prior to the Revolution, a rather surprising number of fairly substantial land holders who sold their properties and for lack of a better description, simply went 'bush.' Living together in the woods in loose communities, they refused to work and existed by poaching, theft and as they grew more desperate, highway robbery and raids on the homes and farms of their law abiding, hard working neighbours. Besides the women they abducted who became just as criminally proficient, their ranks swelled with a great many Indians and runaway slaves. In the end, these 'banditi' were brought to heel by the Gibsons and other farming families. Located too far from the centres of British colonial administration, they took the law into their own hands and eventually caused greater concern to the British government than the troublesome element they had initially gone up against. For these morally upstanding and highly industrious pioneers with the Gideon Gibson as their leader, go down in history as the country's first vigilantes - or'regulators' as they were known then. It was their initiative that instigated those movements which, a few decades later, would erupt into the most violent of that kind of action - lynching. It should be pointed out here, however, that the most aggressive force employed by this group was a good whipping which at that time in history was the standard legal punishment for the behaviour they were attempting to curtail. Incidentally, and I cannot help but find some amusement in the fact, this is what they also meted out to the British soldiers who were sent out to quell them. In what was then the only monograph written on these events, Richard Maxwell Brown's "South Carolina Regulators," the author was aware of the colour of these ambitious and successful farmers such as the Gibsons, but he made no mention of it in his work. Obviously, he was not about to take responsibility for pointing out that the most terrifying sociological reaction to the black community in the early 1900s had been initiated by people of colour a century and a half earlier. Southern Families Other academics have skirted this history for another reason it seems. This group of mixed race plantation owners who finally subdued the 'bush' outlaws and whose descendants by the time of the Civil War had become some of the wealthiest and most politically influential figures of Georgia, the Carolinas, Kentucky and Tenesee - were of the same ethnic stock. The matrimonial alliances of one branch of the Gibson clan, for example, were contracted almost exclusively with congressional, senatorial and gubernatorial families of these southern states. Senator Gibson of Louisiana and the founder of Tulane University was a scion of this family. A subsequent observation Maxwell Brown made caused me almost as much excitement as my discovery of this deep dark secret surrounding the African strain in the genealogy of our Southern aristocracy. For in this episode of Southern history can be heard some of the earliest drumbeats of the oncoming American Revolution. As a part of the campaign the Gibsons mounted demanding the government restore law and order, they further alienated the British colonial office by witholding their taxes. Hardly a dozen years or so earlier than the Revolution, it was they who started the famous chant, "no taxation without representation," which would gather momentum through the rest of the states and finally culminate in this country's great War of Independence.
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Scope and Limits of Theory
For what it is worth, here is a credible metatheoretical statement of Chavismo. I think it errs in attributing too much to one person--not Chavez but JKG. Also, it's almost as if we were talking about some line of 'literary influence' instead of a real political and economic 'theory-in-action'. However, it it much less distorted than the pieces of journalism we are going to get through US or UK media, which are determined to portray Chavez only seriously enough in order to have 'serious' people dismiss him. They have hugely succeeded at that with Ahmadinejad. Now it might sound silly to say there is a theory called Chavismo, but as a 'theory in action' it is something to be given considerable weight in a discussion of theory. http://www.ncsu.edu/project/acontracorriente/spring_07/Grandin.pdf excerpt: The key to understanding Chavismo can be found in the writings of an author Chavez mentioned during his last visit to New York. Not Noam Chomsky, but John Kenneth Galbraith, whose 1952 American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power argued that the success of the US economy was largely due to the New Deal’s extension of labor rights, which balanced the power of monopoly capitalism to set wages and prices. A similar vision of development held great sway in Latin America in the years after WWII, as a wide array of reformers believed that the best way to weaken the oligarchy and stimulate domestic manufacturing was to empower society’s most marginal. In many ways, Chavismo represents a fusion of this older, state-directed vision of development and wealth redistribution with a “bottom-up” civil society model of social change that has been evolving throughout Latin America over the last two decades. Ultimately, what is happening in Venezuela is being judged through the prism of competing lessons drawn from the Cold War. Some look at the history, see the enormity of US power, along with the viciousness of domestic elites who have fought even the mildest efforts at reform, and conclude that any fulfillment of democracy’s promise will entail conflict and polarization. Others draw a different conclusion, that the intractability of power demands the hollowing out of the concept of democracy to its institutional carapace, emptied of its egalitarian and populist impulse. “Political democracy,” as Samuel Huntington put it in a book that sought to advise Latin America’s post-Cold War transition, “is clearly compatible with inequality in both wealth and income, and in some measure, it may be dependent upon such inequality.”5 But it is too much to ask Venezuela to bear the weight of this history. It should be judged on its own merits. Chavismo has its shortcomings, but its achievements have been impressive. ___ 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] Scope and Limits of Theory
CC>>Another way of putting this, is that they assumed there to be a direct relationship between theory and praactice: abstract theory could dictate detailed tactics in all situatios. (Assuming a direct relation of theory to practice is, I think, the most useful definition of "dogmatism.") That is probably true in the more rigorous physical sciences. It is true for _some_ cooking_: There are many items for which you can go to the cookbook (theory) and followiing it directly will come out with the same results everytime. But this is not true, for example, in kneading bread: there is no way theory (a manual) can dictate to you this process, since it has to be known in the fingers, so to speak, rather than merely in the brain. The ability to judge the relevance or irrelevance of theory (recipes) in various contects is as vital in politics as in cooking!<< It seems to me that the limit of 'abstract' theory is centered on this reality: that a theory is a representation, and a representation can never be the thing or process or action or set of actions it represents. Even when it is, like so many 'theories' we might discuss here, a representation of a representation. A different way of looking at this issue might be: there are the theories we espouse, state in high-blown language, and use to excoriate others with (this or that person is not a good Marxist, not a true revolutionary, a Stalinist, a Trot, etc.). And there are the theories-in-action that might be used to characterize and analyze the actions of a group running a government, possibly even a revolutionary one, or at least a political party with a potential path to power. Again, this too would be an abstract representation. However, we would hope that somehow our formulation of that theory-in-action would capture what makes these actions 'coherent'and conceivable as something coherent. This might be a metatheory, and the actual theory-in-action might be the ideology of the group actually wielding power and engaging in politics with access to power. The US is caught up in the middle of any theorizing, but alas it isn't because of a political process or societal transformation in any revolutionary sense that I would agree with. Rather, we find theories-in-action worth studying where there is RESISTANCE to the American center--that would be places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza. This is not to say that we are witnessing inevitably successful revolutions in these places or amongst these groups. And this is not to say theorizing these phenomena in a setting like this is anything other than a communication on the margins. Rather, in our marginal communications we might be able to gleem the potential for revolution in such places and admidst such movements as Hezbollah, Sadrists, Chavism, etc. Nor is this to say that within the US itself there is no potential for social and political revolution. I conjecture however that conditions and activities of the present make it very unlikely anytime soon. I could be completely wrong about that. I am just making that as an observation of how I perceive and interpret conditions in the US right now. 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] Thank You, Rand Paul (from a Historian)
The thing to remember about libertarians is that for the most part they are the Republicans who go to the nude beach. It isn't like , ultimately, the Huffington Demoncrats offer anything better for the mass of America. If anything, their incoherent brand of imperialist warpig federalism is a harder sell because it comes across as elitist. CJ -- ELT in Japan http://www.eltinjapan.com/ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.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] US 'reconstruction' of Iraq collapses
VP Biden seems to be in Iraq to try and prevent the collapse. The reason American military people aren't dying in large numbers is that the military is on its bases and not engaging in much combat against the Resistance--it lets it proxies do that, or relies on air forces. But one does have to wonder what the end game is here: is it permanent bases and 50,000 'support' troops and trainers or complete withdrawal. This piece of propaganda says that they will withdraw entirely by 2011, but what does that mean? Withdraw to their bases, as they already have done? That is the only withdraw the DoD is planning. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38079757/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/ excerpt: But some Iraqis have compared the current hurried reconstruction effort to the haphazard American withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975. United States officials acknowledge that the current effort to accelerate rebuilding projects in Iraq is based on plans to reduce the American military forces in the country to 50,000 by September from about 85,000 now, and to withdraw entirely by the end of 2011. Many reconstruction projects continue to require security provided by the American military. In Diyala Province, northeast of Baghdad, after American officials told local leaders that they intended to speed up projects because a nearby United States Army base was scheduled to close this summer, Iraqi officials said they found that construction standards had slipped so drastically that they ordered an immediate halt to all American-financed projects, even though American inspectors had deemed the work to be adequate. ___ 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] Recessionary American capitalism returns to the basics--Hayek and Rand
I still think a religious revival is next. If a hurricane gets the oil slick and spews it all over the New South, that ought to be interesting. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/friedrich-hayek-darling-of-the-right-is-reborn-in-the-usa-2017267.html excerpt: Gurus of Economics *When the financial crisis and the Great Recession presented challenges for politics and for economics unlike anything seen since the 1930s, sending people scurrying for the economic philosophers of more than half a century ago, the first they reached for was John Maynard Keynes. An economist who rose through the ranks of the British civil service, he was instrumental in restoring the UK after the Great Depression, and in reshaping the global financial order after the chaos of the Second World War. As well as providing the academic underpinning for government efforts to stimulate demand in the economy, he also had much to say about banking. "Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation." On the same Fox programme in which Glenn Beck proselytised Hayek's tome, he also waved a copy of 'Atlas Shrugged', the 1957 novel by Ayn Rand, the Russian-American philosopher who is another darling of the libertarian right. This book, too, has found its way back into the charts. In it, Rand fantasises a "strike" by America's most productive capitalists and creative scientists, driven away by government interventions that restrict their businesses and redistribute their wealth, a strike that leads to the collapse of society. Alan Greenspan, the deregulating chairman of the US Federal Reserve, was a Rand devotee. ___ 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] Ghandi rejected Zionism
JF:>>I suspect that Gandhi's position on that is by no means not unrelated to his own advocacy of a secular India. Although Gandhi was a very devout Hindu, he was emphatic in support of India being a secular state in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc. would all have equal rights. << The twist on a twist in the case of Israel is that they so repeatedly declare that Israel is a SECULAR state. And critics of Zionism point out it is mostly a secular political philosophy and nationalism. I usually counter with observations like, 1. Most religious Jews have been won over to Israel as a Jewish state, even if not the one of prophecy. 2. Zionism is self-contradictory in at least two senses: it was sold as a form of socialism that excludes people based on their religion and ethnicity (because it displaced upwards to 1 million Arab Palestinians to be created) , it is supposed to be a secular political philosophy that raises the idea and actions of the state to a national religion. 3. When Truman rushed ahead of his own cabinet and advisors in order to recognize Israel, he wasn't recognizing Israel, he was recognizing an entity known as something like 'the Jewish state in Palestine'. YC:>>although he did not understand at all what to be "a chosen race" meant for the religious jews - a terrible burden and a sacrifice << I'm not really sure I follow your point here. The Christian traditions we are most familiar with often emphasize the individual as chosen while Islam has a stronger sense of chosen community (which Christian radicals like Anabaptists also have). What makes Judaism different doesn't have much at all to do with the Old Testament Judaism but rather the late classical, early middle age development of Talmudic Rabbinical Judaism, which tried to impose separation from its largest schism, Christianity, by making conversion and inter-marriage so much more difficult than either Christianity or Islam. That is not to say that separation wasn't also a concern of the Christians, but you can easily see how these attitudes could become mutually re-inforcing. One could only be Jewish by 'blood', one would have to choose willingly to be a Christian. Which is an overstatement (conversion to Judaism was actually possible but very daunting by the time Christianity was completely distinct). If its strictures weren't so often violated, TRJ might have ended up like one of the other major schisms, the depopulated Samaritans. Islam seems to have been developed as a 'universal church' for the 'Abrahamic religions', possibly including Zorastrians. Its strong conversionary and assimilative powers were, contrary to popular modern western belief, due to its doctrinal expansiveness and flexibility, but then held back by the Arabic language and issues in the succession of power--that is until dominant forms of political Islam hit up against European Christianity, which, ironically enough, also harbored European Talmudic Rabbinical Judaism, the very element that would conquer Palestine in the name of a 'return to the promised land'. 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Ghandi rejected Zionism
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0815-GandhiZionism.html excerpt: Gandhi rejected the idea of a Jewish State in the Promised Land by pointing out that the "Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract." The Zionists, after embarking upon a policy of colonization of Palestine and after getting British recognition through the Balfour Declaration of 1917 for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jews," tried to elicit maximum international support. The Jewish leaders were keen to get an approval for Zionism from Gandhi as his international fame as the leader of a non-violent national struggle against imperialism would provide great impetus for the Jewish cause. But his position was one of total disapproval of the Zionist project both for political and religious reasons. He was against the attempts of the British mandatory Government in Palestine toeing the Zionist line of imposing itself on the Palestinians in the name of establishing a Jewish national home. Gandhi's Harijan editorial is an emphatic assertion of the rights of the Arabs in Palestine. The following oft-quoted lines exemplify his position: "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home." Gandhi's response to Zionism and the Palestine question contains different layers of meaning, ranging from an ethical position to political realism. What is interesting is that Gandhi, who firmly believed in the inseparability of religion and politics, had been consistently and vehemently rejecting the cultural and religious nationalism of the Zionists. What follows then is that he was not for religion functioning as a political ideology; rather, he wanted religion to provide an ethical dimension to nation-State politics. Such a difference was vital as far as Gandhi was concerned. A uni-religious justification for claiming a nation-State, as in the case of Zionism, did not appeal to him in any substantial sense. A few months before his assassination, Gandhi answered the question "What is the solution to the Palestine problem?" raised by Doon Campbell of Reuters: "It has become a problem which seems almost insoluble. If I were a Jew, I would tell them: 'Do not be so silly as to resort to terrorism...' The Jews should meet the Arabs, make friends with them and not depend on British aid or American aid, save what descends from Jehovah." ___ 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] American Jews Who Reject Zionism
RD:>>I can't say I keep up with Zionist arguments since 1967. There have been a number of arguments for over a century to bolster the obviously shaky arguments for the colonization of a patch of desert that had no live connection with the European Jews of the 19th century. << There are connections however. Religious Jews (radicals) moved to Palestine under Ottoman rule and helped in the development of this part of the Ottoman realm. I'm not an expert on these movements, but they most likely wanted to get away from Europe, not just its anti-Semitism but its secularism and assimilation to secular culture (which is still Christian--European Christian Secularism, a sort of worldview that reaches its post-mo apotheosis with people like Christopher Hitchens). So the fact that religious Jews were in Palestine and then Israel even if they weren't for Zionist Israel made it possible for all sorts of religious Jews to come to accept Zionist Israel (with some holdout groups in places like NYC). >>How much weight those arguments were given depended heavily on the actual >>situation of European Jews, and of course there were weighty counter-arguments as well. Now if there were no connection whatever between contemporaneous Jews of a century ago and ancient Judaea, meaning that ancient Judaea never existed, or that there was no component of its inhabitants that made its way to Europe ever, then I suppose the argument for Palestine as opposed to Uganda, Argentina, or Nevada may have never gotten anywhere, though you never know.<< I take a different tack. If we want arguments based on re-asserted property rights that are supposed to go back to where the bulk of Jewry was located in the classical world, then why not modern-day Iraq? The interesting shift over 2000 years was from Mesopotamia hosting the largest number of Jews to Poland, Russia and then the US being the population centers of world Jewry by the early 20th century. That would account for 90% plus of the population. >>However, for the sake of argument, suppose that modern day Jews could be connected to the ancient Israelites, and assume also that a huge percentage of moder Jews got that way via conversion rather than a bloodline to ancient Israel. So what difference does that make? I remember from 45-50 years the argument that Israel is the homeland of the Jews, but I never heard even once any argument for racial or ethnic purity and I can't see what damned difference it would make one way or the other, any more than I ever heard any arguments based on the Bible or the notion of the chosen people. Of course, people may well have harbored those ideas and I missed the memo. The point remains, the only argument I ever heard, at least one I can remember that stuck in my head, was the argument from the history of anti-semitism all over the world, and the argument from the Holocaust. As far as I know, these were the only arguments anyone cared about, but apparently I was wrong.<< That is the beauty of a discussion list over a personal blog or homepage. We are not circumscribed by the memos you missed over the years. You do have a point--that the strongest --most often made-- argument was some sort of emotional response to the Holocaust (German Nazis slaughtered the Jews, so the survivors should return to Palestine, and if God won't see to it, by goddamnitalltohell, the US and the UN will). The Zionists often harness contradictory arguments depending on which audience of rulers they wish to manipulate. We have seen all sorts of arguments: 1. Holocaust, never again. 2. Palestine the desert, the Jews made the desert bloom. 3. The Grand Mufti was a Nazi and perpetrator of the genocide against Jews. 4. Jews are the original inhabitants of Palestine, before it was Palestine. 5. Modern day Palestinians are the descendants of Muslims who conquered the place. 6. Genetic evidence shows that Jews never intermarried with N. Africans, Europeans or other ME people. 7. The Arabs are responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. RD>>would at least grant a more convincing perspective than the simple-minded propaganda of Stalinists and third world nationalists, which turns out to be a less effective ideological tool in combatting Israel's actions than they fancy.<< I'm not sure who the Stalinists are. You seem to use the term the way Zionists use the term 'anti-Semite'. Palestine resists, some of us will not forget al-Nakba, whether you miss the memo or not. 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] American Jews Who Reject Zionism
Wexler is the best on the ethnogenesis, Coffman is the best look at the genetics (another complicated area that is being misused both by the Zionists and the anti-semites--but we know who gets to place pieces with the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, misinterpreting genetic studies to show how linked the European Jews of Israel are to the Levant (never Mesopotamia! which is where much of the 'middle east genes' go back to). Coffman's work does show that Koestler and the scholars he draws on were on to something with the Khazar arguments. http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm selected excerpts: Ironically, however, many scholars believe the Ashkenazi population probably had its earliest roots in Rome, where Jews began to establish communities as early as the second century B.C. While some of these Jews were brought to Rome as slaves, others settled there voluntarily. There were as many as 50,000 Jews in and around Rome by the first century CE, most who were “poor, Greek-speaking foreigners” scorned for their poverty and slave status (Konner 2003, p. 86). Eventually, however, many of these slaves gained their freedom, continuing to live in and around Rome. By the first century, however, the Jewish Diaspora had already spread to a number of regions of the world, many of which may have contributed to the make-up of the early Ashkenazi Jewish community. These include the Aegean Island of Delos, Ostia (a main port of Rome), Alexandria, and other places in Macedonia and Asia Minor (Konner 2003, p. 83). Jews also began to migrate north of the Alps, probably from Italy (Ostrer 2001). By 600 CE, Jews were present in many parts of Europe, with small settlements in Germany, France and Spain. More to the east, there were also small Jewish settlements along the Black Sea, as well as larger communities in Greece and the Balkans (Konner 2003, p. 110). By the 12th-13th centuries CE, Jews were expelled from many countries of Western Europe, but were granted charters to settle in Poland and Lithuania (Ostrer 2001). The Ashkenazi Jewish population expanded rapidly in Eastern Europe, growing from an estimated 15,000-25,000 people in the 13th-15th centuries, to two million by 1800 and eight million in 1939 (Ostrer 2001, Behar 2004b). Thus, Jewish settlement in Eastern Europe became the dominant culture of the European Jews, and then of most Jews throughout the world. -- The misinterpretation of the Cohanim results was damaging in some ways to the wider understanding of Jewish genetic ancestry. For example, one widely published media quote went like this: “This genetic research has clearly refuted the once-current libel that Ashkenazi Jews are not related to the ancient Hebrews, but are descendants of the Kuzar (sic) tribe – a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire which reportedly converted en masse to Judaism.” Further, it was claimed that “[r]esearchers compared the DNA signature of the Ashkenazi Jews against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no correspondence” (Kleinman 1999). However, it would soon become very clear that Jewish DNA was much more complicated than was presented by the media in their reporting of the Cohanim data. And Jewish Khazarian ancestry would come to the public’s attention yet again when another DNA study was conducted, this time on the Jewish priestly group known as the Levites. -- Given that the Khazarian kingdom arose in the area of today’s Ukraine, it is likely that there was a significant amount of indigenous Eastern European ancestry among this group. And, in fact, the various descriptions of the Khazars provided by ancient writers attest to the probable heterogeneous ethnic mixture in this group. According to an 11th century Arab chronicler Ibn-al-Balkhi, the Khazars are . . . to the north of the inhabited earth towards the 7th clime, having over their heads the constellation of the Plough. Their land is cold and wet. Accordingly their complexions are white, their eyes blue, their hair flowing and predominately reddish, their bodies large and their natures cold. Their general aspect is wild” (Koestler 1976, p. 19). An Armenian writer described them as having “insolent, broad, lashless faces and long falling hair, like women. (Koestler 1976, p. 20). A slightly more flattering picture is provided by Arab geographer Istakhri: The Khazars do not resemble the Turks. They are black-haired, and are of two kinds, one called the Kara-Khazars [Black Khazars] who are swarthy verging on deep black as if they were kind of Indian, and a white kind [Ak-Khazars], who are strikingly handsome. (Koestler 1976, p. 20) However, Koestler (1976, p. 22) cautions the reader not to place too much weight on this description, since it was customary among Turkish peoples to refer to the ruling classes as “white” and the lower clans as “black.” It is clear that the Khazars were closely connected to the Huns, who themselves are
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] American Jews Who Reject Zionism
The reason I go to the JE is to show that this topic is not as obscure
or zany as the current post-
mo Zionists would have us believe. The zany arguments actually belongs
to the camps that say things like (1) Judaism never expanded through
conversion and/or inter-marriage and (2) Jews ought to be driven out
of Europe because they killed Jesus Christ.
So you can see what people knew or thought they knew about the Khazars
over a century ago:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=402&letter=C&search=Chazar
mo Zionist
excerpt:
CHAZARS: (print this article)
By : Herman Rosenthal
ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Early History.
Embrace Judaism.
Succession of Kings.
Internal Administration and Commercial Relations.
The Chazarian Letters.
The Capital of Chazaria.
Trade and Commerce.
Relations with Byzantium.
Chazarian Territories.
War with Goths.
Jewish Sympathies.
War with Russians.
Decline and Fall of the Chazars.
A people of Turkish origin whose life and history are interwoven with
the very beginnings of the history of the Jews of Russia. The kingdom
of the Chazars was firmly established in most of South Russia long
before the foundation of the Russian monarchy by the Varangians (855).
Jews have lived on the shores of the Black and Caspian seas since the
first centuries of the common era. Historical evidence points to the
region of the Ural as the home of the Chazars. Among the classical
writers of the Middle Ages they were known as the "Chozars,"
"Khazirs," "Akatzirs," and "Akatirs," and in the Russian chronicles as
"Khwalisses" and "Ugry Byelyye."
Early History.
The Armenian writers of the fifth and following centuries furnish
ample information concerning this people. Moses of Chorene refers to
the invasion by the "Khazirs" of Armenia and Iberia at the beginning
of the third century: "The chaghan was the king of the North, the
ruler of the Khazirs, and the queen was the chatoun" ("History of
Armenia," ii. 357). The Chazars first came to Armenia with the
Basileans in 198. Though at first repulsed, they subsequently became
important factors in Armenian history for a period of 800 years.
Driven onward by the nomadic tribes of the steppes and by their own
desire for plunder and revenge, they made frequent invasions into
Armenia. The latter country was made the battle-ground in the long
struggle between the Romans and the Persians. This struggle, which
finally resulted in the loss by Armenia of her independence, paved the
way for the political importance of the Chazars. The conquest of
eastern Armenia by the Persians in the fourth century rendered the
latter dangerous to the Chazars, who, for their own protection, formed
an alliance with the Byzantines. This alliance was renewed from time
to time until the final conquest of the Chazars by the Russians. Their
first aid was rendered to the Byzantine emperor Julian, in 363. About
434 they were for a time tributary to Attila—Sidonius Apollinaris
relates that the Chazars followed the banners of Attila—and in 452
fought on the Catalanian fields in company with the Black Huns and
Alans. The Persian king Kobad (488-531) undertook the construction of
a line of forts through the pass between Derbent and the Caucasus, in
order to guard against the invasion of the Chazars, Turks, and other
warlike tribes. His son Chosroes Anoshirvan (531-579) built the wall
of Derbent, repeatedly mentioned by the Oriental geographers and
historians as Bab al-Abwab (Justi, "Gesch. des Alton Persiens," p.
208).
In the second half of the sixth century the Chazars moved westward.
They established themselves in the territory bounded by the Sea of
Azov, the Don and the lower Volga, the Caspian Sea, and the northern
Caucasus. The Caucasian Goths (Tetraxites) were subjugated by the
Chazars, probably about the seventh century (Löwe, "Die Reste der
Germanen am Schwarzen Meere," p. 72, Halle, 1896). Early in that
century the kingdom of the Chazars had become powerful enough to
enable the chaghan to send to the Byzantine emperor Heraclius an army
of 40,000 men, by whose aid he conquered the Persians (626-627). The
Chazars had already occupied the northeastern part of the Black Sea
region. According to the historian Moses Kalonkataci, the Chazars,
under their leader Jebu Chaghan (called "Ziebel Chaghan" by the Greek
writers), penetrated into Persian territory as early as the second
campaign of Heraclius, on which occasion they devastated Albania ("Die
Persischen Feldzüge des Kaisers Herakleios," in "Byzantinische
Zeitschrift," iii. 364). Nicephorus testifies that Heraclius
repeatedly showed marks of esteem to his ally, the chaghan of the
Chazars, to whom he even promised his daughter in marriage. In the
great battle between the Chazars and the Arabs near Kizliar 4,000
Mohammedan soldiers and their leader were slain.
Embrace Judaism.
In the year 669 the Ugrians or Zabirs freed themselves from the rule
of the Obrians, settled between the Don and the Caucasus, and
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] American Jews Who Reject Zionism
>>Clearly, not having read it, you misunderstand it. Koestler was
arguing that the Ashkenazis originated from Khazar Jews who fled
Eastward when the Mongols destroyed the great Khazar Jewish Empire in
the Volga basin and northern Caucasus (the very name Ashkenazi derives
from a Biblical figure, Ashkenaz, who the 9th-century Babylonian
patriarch, Saadiah Gaon, identified as the ancestor of the Khazars).
It is generally held (including by Koestler) that the Khazars were
originally Turkic, but the territories that became the Khazar
heartland were those ("beyond the mountains of darkness") into which
Sargon II had deported the ten northern Israelite tribes more than a
millennium earlier and this is perhaps behind Saadiah's identification
of ther Khazars with Ashkenaz. Koestler, I think, was mainly
concerned with establishing his own ancestry among that Jewish Khazar
group which accompanied the Magyars (who were not Jews) in their
migration from Khazaria to the Pannonian plains.
Shane Mage<<
Tsk tsk. At most what I have done is either understood a wrong
argument made about
Koestler's controversial work or I have misunderstood a correct
paraphrase of it. Nor does reading something guarantee one depth of
understanding.
At any rate, Koestler is on record as having said one of his
motivations was to show
how irrational European anti-semitism was based on ethnic or racial arguments.
Maybe I overstated the European part of the argument, but perhaps what was meant
was "see the Jews of Europe are not afterall Semitic". I would have
started with the idea
that Yiddish is an Indo-European creole with a Semitic script and gone
from there.
The nation of Russia could be shown to have similar mixed origins on
its southern frontiers.
Koestler was a dabbler and imaginative, so most likely his work is of
little use to read and where
it was valid, most likely superceded. Still, Koestler deserves credit
for renewing
modern interest in the Khazars--and also seems to have revived
scholarly interest in the
real scholars that Koestler relied on in writing his book.
We don't know what the language(s) of the Khazars was (were), but most argue it
was Turkic or a mix of Persian and Turkic languages. The ethnogenesis of
modern Russia shows a similar mix and Russians are called 'Europeans'.
One issue is we are not really very clear on who the Magyars or
Bulgars were in the time
of Khazaria, and we are pretty hazy on Avars (not the Caucasus ones)
and Ugrians (the last of whom
seem to have the lasting linguistic impact on modern Hungarian).
The danger in Koestler's work is the Zionists say it is used by
anti-Semites and now they claim that Sand's new book is largely in
agreement with it (so that Sand's book can also be similarly
dismissed).
The more interesting work has been done by Wexler, highly recommended.
For a start, see:
http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Contributor17.htm
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] American Jews Who Reject Zionism
RD:>>There is also the argument of Shlomo Sand, that the concept of Jewry is a modern concept, that the Exile never happened, that there were mass conversions involved in the formation of the Jews in Europe (and elsewhere), and therefore that the actual ties of European Jews to ancient Judaea are spurious. Thus the founding Zionist myth is . . . a myth. To argue for anything on any of these bases, against Zionism as well as for, defies logic.<< As I understand it, the now infamous Koestler "13th Tribe" thesis was really an attempt of a non-religious Zionist to show that the Jews of Europe largely had a European ethnogenesis, in order to counter European anti-semitism. I haven't read the book, but I have seen how its arguments and evidence have been only of selective use to serious scholars of the topic. Now the sad sick joke is that the work is attacked as anti-semitic and is cited constantly by the Zionists so as to obscure the very real scholarship that is showing that the standard accounts of the ethnogenesis of European Jewry (W. European Jews moved to C. and E. Europe to escape Christian persecution) has far too many missing parts and implausiblities. Wexler has done considerable work on showing how Ladino-speaking Sephardim are of N. African origin and how C. and E. European Ashkenazim are of basically Turko-Slavic origin. Even those who have tried to dimss his discussions haven't, as far as I can see, shown them to be implausible (whereas one very large implausibility is E. Europe getting a very large Jewish population because of the migration of a few ten thousand Jews from what is now France--before foods like potatoes, European populations in most parts didn't increase rapidly). 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] American Jews Who Reject Zionism
I've been around and around on this topic on various discussion fora online, and must say that there is an awful lot complicating any discussion of Zionism that it almost always draws a lot of even self-contradictory responses without any conclusions. 1. Israel is a state that was founded as something super-imposed over Palestine, but also something super-imposed over other possible solutions to what world leaders post-WW II considered the 'Jewish question'. 2. The Yiddish-speaking cultures of European Jewry moved towards nationalistic awareness but did not achieve a nation (unlike, for example, Christian Slavs of various related but arguably distinct ethnicities). 3. The US got in on it and imposed an American-centric, simplistic 'Americo-Zionist' view on what could have been instead a more peaceful conclusion to a related but separate issue: what to do about independence for the former Ottoman holdings that the British and French had folded into their colonial systems between WWs I and II. Thus, a conclusion for Palestine could have been parallel to conclusions for Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, etc. However, those final waves of Yiddish-speaking Jews would have to have gone to the US, Canada and Australia. Instead they were forced into being a part of still yet another European landgrab in the ME. 4. One possible contradiction about Zionism and the fate of Palestine is simply that the very sort of Jews who helped lead a 'back to the Holy Lands' movement from Europe in the 19th century are also of the sort who might reject Israel as a Jewish state. 5. It's a sad aspect of so much of the American left side of the political spectrum that its Jewish parts have tended to see Zionism as progressive and liberational and have, over several generations, come to be indoctrinated that questioning the status of the Zionist state as unquestionable. This isn't to say that there aren't many non-religious, secular, assimilated 'Jews' who oppose Israel, but I often sense the position, if you explore it, comes down to: Militaristic Zionism and the landgrab of 1945-1948 weren't evil, that Zionism is reformable (a bit like talking with mixed race South Africans who considered themselves white and apartheidists to the end). 6. Also in the US, Israel has come to represent at least two complex things: One, it is a symbol or focus for many Jews who feel they have lost their ethnic identity (like so many Americans they probably have very little idea of what that identity actually was--their Yiddish-Slavic cultures, such as Sorbian, Polish and Russian Jewish have been lost). Before Israel, about the only way they knew they were in some sense 'Jewish' was that they knew of at least one grandparent who practiced some form of the religion, and certain relatives were victims of the Holocaust. Two, a constant part of American national identity seems to be of America as a chosen people engaged in the construction of a privileged nation. Yes, many will argue that there are many other forms of nationalism and these all tend to be exclusive. However, Americans have latched onto the idea that the US is the New Zion. And so the US's overwhelming support of Israel's militarism, belligerence, colonialism is actually an extension of what the US has got away with 1945-now. Combine that with a sense that Americans and Israelis are 'victims' and you get two very crazy, dangerous, paranoid, war-crazy countries, one the superpower, the other the client state. To conclude: The people who founded this modern Zionist state of Israel were and still are Europeans (Yiddish has largely been replaced by Yiddo-Hebraic, best called 'modern Israeli' but also American English). The single largest group falling under a single term would be the 'Ashkenazim' of C. and E. Europe. They spoke and produced a literate culture based on Yiddish, which could now be viewed as a broad dialect band that ranged from German-based to Sorbian-based. Most Europeans didn't understand much of anything at all about Yiddish because it was written in an alien script and used by a 'non-Christian people'. The other important group in the foundation of Israel were the so-called Sephardim, who were culturally speaking also Europeans. While the Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazim were formed from Italic, Balkan, Persian, Turkic and Slavic and possibly Caucasus sources, the Ladino-speaking Sephardim of Spain are largely of Arabic and N. African origins (their historical tragectory complicted by their exodus to the Ottoman realm when Spain was re-Catholicized). Even this sort of fairly recent development takes on near incomprehensible twists in the arguments about why European Jews deserve to take over Palestine. When Israelis refer to their mixed population and various ethnicities, they often include the Sephardim as 'ME Jews'--when they are as European as their more populous Ashkenazic counterparts (although this argument could still be complicated if people would start to admit just
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Austerity
What does he know if he thinks BIff Delong wrote a good book? First, what is the connection between fiscal austerity (now being imposed on UK and Japan) and interest rates? I'm sure there are connections, but I can think of a number of reasons why they ought to raise interest rates. Currently the long-term low-interest regimes just feed speculation bubbles controlled by the usual market-makers, like the big banks, private equity and hedge funds, who have a lock on markets and access to them (you need to be able to 'lever' or 'leverage' your money simply to get into the room where the decisions are made). It's also obvious that low interest rates don't necessarily make people and firms go out and borrow--the promise of good returns on investment do that. But if it's to expand a company or set up a small business, they don't borrow now because they don't see the economy as getting better and providing more profits for their investments. About the only thing that has happened in the US at the bottom of the economy is some home re-finance, as if the US didn't already have enough of that. However, many developed countries have been making their small-time savers pay for the recession. You have a lot of people who used to rely on interest income in savings accounts (which link to money markets and bond markets). And they are getting nothing now. I've said this for years about Japan. We have had 20 years of low interest and it didn't re-float the economy. If anything, it's made all those retired people have less and less money to spend year after year. If I never read another piece of Krugmanite shit in my life it will be too soon. Liberals have no conscience either. 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Greed Explains the Disasters and the Lying Afterwards
Of course it's not greed in the sense that BP is no more greedy than Exxon-Mobil or Halliburton or Transocean or McDonald's or Pres. Obama's tax accountant. It's capitalism. And capitalism will not be defeated by admonishment or appeal to less 'base' motivations. 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] The method in Israel's madness
Escobar is better than most--he was one of the few who went to Afghanistan when the US invaded and actually reported on some of what was going on, rather than relying on the Pentagon's e-war fake news feeds. However, one thing missing in the analysis is the fact that the US practices the same mad dog fear tactics in its own occupations. McCrystal is in Afghanisn to use the same terroristic 'anti-insurgency' methods he used in Iraq, much of which was derived from Israel's 'success' at dismantling the PLO and then Hamas (with Hamas clinging to its existence). Of course Israel and the IDF sought to strike a similar terroristic killer blow at Hezbollah and it backfired--Hezbollah and its key Sunni allies in S. Lebanon defeated the IDF in the field (when thousands of dollars of missiles are being used to destroy a billion dollars in equipment, that is a defeat) and nearly sunk the IDF's naval flag ship by firing a missile from the back of a pick up truck. That sent alarm bells off with the Pentagon because they realized that Iran had pursued relatively cheap but effective technologies that were designed to counter the US's and Israel's high tech weapons. More than some theoretical nuke that Iran would be years away from ever getting onto a missile, its the thousands of conventional missiles they have that scare the fuck out of the US and Israel. So the national security establishments in both countries are trying to figure out how to draw Iran into a conflict that they could control but would lead to Iran being rendered militarily ineffective--like what was done to Saddam Hussein and Iraq for over a decade. Back to the specific isssue of Hamas and Gaza. The IDF does have very concrete concerns there because if Hamas were to achieve even a fraction of Hezbollah's ability to defend itself, the IDF would be hardpressed to continue the military arm of zio-imperialist expansion and erasure of all of Palestine (as well as, if possible, some of Lebanon). Also, and this has to be part of Iran's plans, it's only a matter of time before Israel reaches the point where its much-subsidized political economy can not sustain all that spending on the IDF. The only reason why it can continue, for now, is US support. And that is looking very much like end-of-empire obliviousness right now. 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] UAW pays Wall Street
UAW pays Wall Street http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/treasury-hires-lazard-to-advise-on-a-g-m-i-p-o/ excerpt: A G.M. spokesman, Tom Wilkinson, declined to comment on the hiring. In an e-mailed statement, he added: We understand there is a lot of anticipation and speculation around the I.P.O. There a number of factors that will influence the timing, including the state of the economy, capital market conditions, the state of the auto business, G.M.’s performance and others. The bottom line is we will launch an IPO when the conditions are right and GM is ready. Lazard is no stranger to G.M.’s restructuring: it advised the United Auto Workers union last year in negotiations with the company and the federal government. And one of its restructuring bankers, James E. Millstein, joined the Treasury Department last year as its chief restructuring officer, although he does not work on the government’s auto matters. ___ 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] Rules are symbolic , built on symbols.
>>Speakers proficient in a language know what expressions are acceptable in their language and what expressions are unacceptable. The key puzzle is how speakers should come to know the restrictions of their language, since expressions that violate those restrictions are not present in the input, indicated as such.<< This is a chunk lifted from the piece I posted, I think. Or was it one CB posted? Anyway, speakers 'know' what is and is not acceptable, but actually what they say they know when asked to rate something consciously, meta-linguistically can contradict what they actually say and do when communicating in a language. Also, the sort of example sentences/clauses that Chomskian linguists use to have 'native speakers' rate something as acceptable are often so communicatively unmotivated and contextually insufficient, it is impossible to rate them. Also, if you take in dialects and sub-dialects and idiolects, you see what is and what is not acceptable is not necessarily in agreement under the umbrella term 'English' (or any other language--indeed, if sociolinguistics shows anything conclusively is that there are no languages like 'English' or 'German' or 'Chinese'). Finally, there is the example of pidgins, wich are used to communicate quite effectively in many situations, and yet lack something in terms of grammar as is usually defined by linguists. 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] Rules are symbolic , built on symbols.
RD:>>The issue is not coherence in the semantic sense, but syntactic > intelligibility. << The issue for proponents and opponents of a formalised grammar might be: Is it use of rules that decides syntactical well-formedness? Time and time again I have seen Chomskian grammarians use their 'intuition' that this or that chunk of language is not well-formed or not possible within a given language, and yet actual language use, such as the artefacts of a corpus (now completely searchable using computers and the internet) show the exact opposite. I think more and more it's that most people have no time for a type of linguistics that doesn't want to deal with real language. 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] Rightwing pundit: Helen Thomas voices world's view on Israel
>>Of course this is a pack of right wing lies. Re Helen Thomas: her remarks, if she has been quoted correctly, are repellent, but one should add that there is a logical distinction between Israel's right to exist as a state, Jewish or otherwise, and the right of Jewish people to live there, regardless of their proximate or distant origins. The right of all peoples to live a viable life in the modern nation-state on par with all other citizens (or perhaps i should say denizens) is a generally recognized if not practiced principle since the end of World War II. However anybody got to be where they are (that is, in a particular nation-state), it is too late to demand "they go back where they came from". << I didn't find HT's remarks repellant, I found them erroneous. Most of the Jews of Israel (Jewish being defined here by the religious confession of their grandparents) don't trace their roots back to Germany. They come from C. and E. Europe, mostly Slavic language and culture countries (and indeed more and more ethnolinguistsw are arguing that the best way to make sense of Yiddish cultures of Europe is to put them in the Slavic groups). HT is most likely of Lebanese Christian descent (I'm guessing but time and time again this is the case). I'm also guessing but she was probably for years one of UPI's few personnel who could understand Arabic, and could well have been placed there by the CIA, since the CIA makes heavy use of news services and journalists to gather intelligence (which is just information they think relevant to their tasks of securing the empire). I'm sure many in the establishment have wanted her to retire a long long time ago, and they finally found their excuse to make her a pariah in the eyes of the captive media and the zombies who let the media determine their world view (or reinforce it, feeding the fantasy that this or that person is, in part, in control because he or she embraces 'conservatism'). If all the people in Israel holding more than one passport went off to one of the other countries that provided these passports/dual citizenships/dual residence, off back to the UK, UK, and what is now Russia, I would bet the current warpig national security state of Israel would collapse. Finally, I have to say I draw a far different lesson from WW II. I thought the reason we ended up accomodating so many interests and ended up saying 'this was the good fight' was to keep European settler groups from doing anymore landgrabs, with the residents of a place being killed, forced to flee or kept under conditions like a police state. It was supposed to be the war that ended colonialism or made it ethically unviable. See for example Ghandi on the matter. As the case of South Africa would prove, it took far more than WW II to end it. And there is still Palestine and there is still Ireland, among others. Yes, Israel is a fact on the ground (a nuclear armed paranoid warpig state of New New Zion, sponsored by a Christian New Zion, the US). But so is the memory of Palestine and the people who have been so wronged. 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] Rules are symbolic , built on symbols.
>>CB: This is an interesting puzzle, although Language learners may have limited access to some such ungrammatical expressions when they mistakenly say them themselves. Perhaps it is a matter in part of a very high skill at learning from mistakes, trial and error and ability to generalize the lessons.<< In applied linguistics and foreign language teaching (most prominently in the world capitalist system, English), a distinction is made between mistakes (which appear to be random, no matter what Freud might think) and errors. Errors are supposed to be systematic, often thought to be the result of overgeneralization or applying aspects of the first language to the second/foreign one or being unable to take in a new feature of the second/foreign one because it is so unknown, different from, unprecedented in the first language. On the other hand, others second language acquisition theories say these 'marked' aspects of the foreign/second language are more easily and quickly mastered. But what is more interesting, if you ask me, about mistakes and errors in the language production of speakers is this: people who have acquired a native language/primary language from infancy typically catch themselves making their mistakes and will attempt to correct or clarify in the process of their production. Second language learners/foreign language learners most typically do not catch their errors. They often do not even pick up on clues from the person they are speaking to (such as a teacher) that there has been an error that is causing a problem in the communication. So foreign language learners have a much harder time monitoring their own output, discerning their errors or making corrections in the process of communicating, while native speakers do not (unless they are given an e-mail program and a mailing list!). Charles Jannuzi -- ELT in Japan http://www.eltinjapan.com/ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Rules are symbolic , built on symbols.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627621.000-language-lessons-you-are-what-you-speak.html?full=true Language lessons: You are what you speak excerpt: LANGUAGES are wonderfully idiosyncratic. English puts its subject before its verb. Finnish has lots of cases. Mandarin is highly tonal. Yet despite these differences, one of the most influential ideas in the study of language is that of universal grammar. Put forward by Noam Chomsky in the 1960s, it is widely interpreted as meaning that all languages are basically the same and that the human brain is born language-ready, with an in-built program that is able to decipher the common rules underpinning any mother tongue. For five decades this idea has dominated work in linguistics, psychology and cognitive science. To understand language, it implied, you must sweep aside the dazzling diversity of languages and find the common human core. But what if the very diversity of languages is the key to understanding human communication? This is the idea being put forward by linguists Nicholas Evans of the Australian National University in Canberra and Stephen Levinson of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. They believe that languages do not share a common set of rules. Instead, they say, their sheer variety is a defining feature of human communication - something not seen in other animals. And that's not all. Language diversity is the "crucial fact for understanding the place of language in human cognition", Levinson and Evans argue. In recent years, much has been made of the idea that humans possess a "language instinct": infants easily learn to speak because all languages follow a set of rules built into their brains. While there is no doubt that human thinking influences the form that language takes, if Evans and Levinson are correct, language in turn shapes our brains. This suggests that humans are more diverse than we thought, with our brains having differences depending on the language environment in which we grew up. And that leads to a disturbing conclusion: every time a language becomes extinct, humanity loses an important piece of diversity. Since the theory of universal grammar was proposed, linguists have identified many language rules. Although these are supposed to be universal, there are almost always exceptions. It was once believed, for example, that no language would have a syllable that begins with a vowel and ends with a consonant (VC), if it didn't also have syllables that begin with a consonant and end with a vowel (CV). This universal lasted until 1999, when linguists showed that Arrernte, spoken by Indigenous Australians from the area around Alice Springs in the Northern Territory, has VC syllables but no CV syllables. Other non-universal "universals" describe the basic rules of putting words together. Take the rule that every language contains four basic word classes: nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Work in the past two decades has shown that several languages lack an open adverb class, which means the number of adverbs available is limited, unlike in English where you can turn any word into an adverb, for example soft into softly. Others, such as Lao, spoken in Laos, have no adjectives at all. More controversially, some linguists argue that a few languages, such as Straits Salish, spoken by indigenous people from north-western regions of North America, do not even have distinct nouns or verbs. Instead they have a single class of words to encompass events, entities and qualities. Even apparently unassailable universals have been found wanting. This includes recursion, the ability to infinitely embed one item in a similar item, such as "Jack thinks that Mary thinks that... the bus will be on time". It is widely considered to be a characteristic that sets human language apart from the communications of other animals. Yet Dan Everett at Illinois State University recently published controversial work showing that Amazonian Pirahã does not have this recursive quality (Language, vol 85, p 405). The more we learn about languages, the more apparent the differences become (see "Tower of Babel"). While most linguists have somehow lived with these anomalies, Evans and Levinson believe they cannot be ignored. "The haul of clear and empirically impeccable universals, after decades of searching, is pitiful," Evans notes. He and Levinson argue that the idea of universal grammar has sent researchers down a blind alley. We should embrace linguistic diversity, they say, and try to explain the forms that languages actually take. To that end, they published a paper outlining their theory in Behavioral and Brain Sciences last year (vol 32, p 429). Everett has described it as "a watershed in the history of linguistic theory". If languages do not obey a single set of shared rules, then how are they created? "Instead of universals, you get standard engineering solutions that languages adopt again and agai
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Rules are symbolic , built on symbols.
>>CB: Yes. I'm trying to distinguish between the syntax of a specific human language like English, which I don't think you or Chomsky is inscribed in human genetics and the brain , and a ,what shall we call it, meta-syntax? or some more general genetically inscribed ability, faculty for learning any specific syntax such as that of English or Chinese or Choctaw. Clearly no one is born with knowledge of English syntax. But all humans are born with a much greater ability than chimps or other species to learn English or any other syntax, a specific faculty and genetically based part of the brain which all humans have, whether they are born in England or not. I human born in China has this special in born ability to learn English syntax. I'm sure we agree on this. But it is all I was getting at in what you quote of me above.<< Yes, it has been a long-running debate in post-Chomskian traditions/theoretical frameworks/approaches/programs/schools of thought/sub-schools of thought etc. If there is this universal grammar, then aren't all natural languages more alike than they are different? Chomsky's later 'minimalist program' moves away from 'representational' towards 'derivational'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar#Chomsky.27s_theory Chomsky's theory Further information: Language acquisition device, Generative grammar, X-bar theory, Government and Binding, Principles and parameters, and Minimalist Program Linguist Noam Chomsky made the argument that the human brain contains a limited set of rules for organizing language. In turn, there is an assumption that all languages have a common structural basis. This set of rules is known as universal grammar. Speakers proficient in a language know what expressions are acceptable in their language and what expressions are unacceptable. The key puzzle is how speakers should come to know the restrictions of their language, since expressions that violate those restrictions are not present in the input, indicated as such. This absence of negative evidence—that is, absence of evidence that an expression is part of a class of the ungrammatical sentences in one's language—is the core of the poverty of stimulus argument. For example, in English one cannot relate a question word like 'what' to a predicate within a relative clause (1): (1) *What did John meet a man who sold? Such expressions are not available to the language learners, because they are, by hypothesis, ungrammatical for speakers of the local language. Speakers of the local language do not utter such expressions and note that they are unacceptable to language learners. Universal grammar offers a solution to the poverty of the stimulus problem by making certain restrictions universal characteristics of human languages. Language learners are consequently never tempted to generalize in an illicit fashion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar#Criticism Sampson, Roediger, Elman and Hurford are hardly alone in suggesting that several of the basic assumptions of Universal Grammar are unfounded. Indeed, a growing number of language acquisition researchers argue that the very idea of a strict rule-based grammar in any language, flies in the face of what is known about how languages are spoken and how languages evolve over time. For instance, Morten Christiansen and Nick Chater have argued that the relatively fast-changing nature of language would prevent the slower-changing genetic structures from ever catching up, undermining the possibility of a genetically hard-wired universal grammar.[6] In addition, it has been suggested, that people learn about probabilistic patterns of word distributions in their language, rather than hard and fast rules (see the distributional hypothesis).[7] It has also been proposed that the poverty of the stimulus problem can be largely avoided, if we assume that children employ similarity-based generalization strategies in language learning, generalizing about the usage of new words from similar words that they already know how to use.[8] Another way of defusing the poverty of the stimulus argument, is to assume that if language learners notice the absence of classes of expressions in the input, they will hypothesize a restriction (a solution closely related to Bayesian reasoning). In a similar vein, language acquisition researcher Michael Ramscar has suggested that when children erroneously expect an ungrammatical form that then never occurs, the repeated failure of expectation serves as a form of implicit negative feedback that allows them to correct their errors over time.[9] This implies that word learning is a probabilistic, error-driven process, rather than a process of fast mapping, as many nativists assume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalist_program Chomsky presents MP as a program, and not as a theory, following Imre Lakatos's distinction.[2] The MP seeks to be a mode of inquiry, characterized also by the flexibility of the multiple directio
[Marxism-Thaxis] Nilotic peoples
>>The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions (Trigger 1978; Bard, Snowden, this volume). ”<< See the discussion here: http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/1383510/1/ Plus, Egyptian studies have been revised extensively because of the revelations about the advanced nature of 'Nubian' civilizations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubia#History Nubian–Egyptian relations Nubian–Egyptian relations are complex and extend across many centuries. Egypt conquered Nubian territory in various eras, and incorporated parts of the area into its provinces. The Nubians in turn were to conquer Egypt under its 25th Dynasty.[11] Relations between the two peoples however also show peaceful cultural interchange and cooperation, including mixed marriages. The Medjay –from mDA,[12] represents the name Ancient Egyptians gave to a region in northern Sudan–where an ancient people of Nubia inhabited. They became part of the Ancient Egyptian military as scouts and minor workers. Medjay temple relief During the Middle Kingdom "Medjay" no longer referred to the district of Medja, but to a tribe or clan of people. It is not known what happened to the district, but, after the First Intermediate Period, it and other districts in Nubia were no longer mentioned in the written record.[13] Written accounts detail the Medjay as nomadic desert people. Over time they were incorporated into the Egyptian army. In the army, the Medjay served as garrison troops in Egyptian fortifications in Nubia and patrolled the deserts as a kind of gendarmerie.[14] This was done in the hopes of preventing their fellow Medjay tribespeople from further attacking Egyptian assets in the region.[15] They were even later used during Kamose’s campaign against the Hyksos[16] and became instrumental in making the Egyptian state into a military power.[17] By the 18th Dynasty of the New Kingdom period the Medjay were an elite paramilitary police force.[18] No longer did the term refer to an ethnic group and over time the new meaning became synonymous with the policing occupation in general. Being an elite police force, the Medjay were often used to protect valuable areas, especially royal and religious complexes. Though they are most notable for their protection of the royal palaces and tombs in Thebes and the surrounding areas, the Medjay were known to have been used throughout Upper and Lower Egypt. Various pharaohs of Nubian origin are held by some Egyptologists to have played an important part towards the area in different eras of Egyptian history, particularly the 12th Dynasty. These rulers handled matters in typical Egyptian fashion, reflecting the close cultural influences between the two regions. ...the XIIth Dynasty (1991–1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region. As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne. Especially interesting, it was a member of this dynasty that decreed that no Nehsy (riverine Nubian of the principality of Kush), except such as came for trade or diplomatic reasons, should pass by the Egyptian fortress at the southern end of the Second Nile Cataract. Why would this royal family of Nubian ancestry ban other Nubians from coming into Egyptian territory? Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies. (Yurco 1989) [19] In the new Kingdom, Nubians and Egyptians were often so closely related that some scholars consider them virtually indistinguishable, as the two cultures melded and mixed together. It is an extremely difficult task to attempt to describe the Nubians during the course of Egypt's New Kingdom, because their presence appears to have virtually evaporated from the archaeological record.. The result has been described as a wholesale Nubian assimilation into Egyptian society. This assimilation was so complete that it masked all Nubian ethnic identities insofar as archaeological remains are concerned beneath the impenetrable veneer of Egypt's material; culture.. In the Kushite Period, when Nubians ruled as Pharaohs in their own right, the material culture of Dynasty XXV (about 750–655 B.C.E.) was decidedly Egyptian in character. Nubia's entire landscape up to the region of the Third Cataract was dotted with temples indistinguishable in style and decoration from contemporary temples erected in Egypt. The same observation obtains for the smaller number of typically Egyptian tombs in which these elite Nubian princes were interred.[20] [edit] Kush Main article: Kingdom of Kush N
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Rules are symbolic , built on symbols.
>>Linearity. This come first, then this second, then this third. That's order. The thought is a whole, but it is presented in parts; the parts are presented in an order dictated by rules. The rule is a convention, "arbitrary", cultural, based on a tradition. There is no natural order in which to present the whole thought in a linear sequence of its parts. The parts are conventionally/historically created too, lexical items, conventionally derived divisions ( representations/symbols) of objective reality. So, the syntactical and semantic rules are symbolic, they are conventions.<< But the linearity is not a simple sequence of units. Hence the need to account for embedding and recursion. But what it really comes down to is how your brain, cognition and linguistic competence conceive, plan for, and realize your performance so that others can understand you. What syntax seems to make possible is an ability to transcend a simple sequence of units to have 'in your head' already worked out the end of what you are going to say before you even begin to say it. The linearity is more experienced in expressing it or perceiving it (as a listener, reader). This works at a phonlogical level. It works at a lexical level. It works at a phrase and most importantly clause level. 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] Rules are symbolic , built on symbols.
>>CB: Is this that capacity to (readily and speedily)_ learn_ a given syntax is innate and genetically passed on ? I guess that's what you mean by "reflective".<< I'm following you on this CB, and am not necessarily in disagreement with you on the key points. I was, however, pointing out that how we might represent syntactical rules and operations in a formal grammar of natural language (not to be confused with a grammar of a formal language) might be very symbolic, but if we get down to the issue of 'just what is syntax' in human language, it might not be so straight forward clear cut symbolic. Alas, we are limited to exchanging symbols in order to talk about that thing 'language' (e.g., Saussure's langue, Chomsky's competence, etc.). Still, it seems fairly clear to me that Chomsky wanted to theorize that the syntax of a human language is somehow biologically inscribed in human genetics and the brain. As I said before, the controversy between him and Piaget might be more interesting than Chomsky vs. Skinner (for one thing, although Chomsky very influentially destroys in rhetoric behaviorism, he seems to adhere to many aspects of behaviorism that are inherent to the structuralist inheritance, such as behaviorist criteria for delimiting a phoneme). OTOH, Chomsky also hasn't really embraced psycholinguistics or cognitive linguistics or formalist linguistics. Now at the end of his career as linguist he might have the best-worked-out position there is while avoiding the dogmas and naive empiricism in some of these trends in linguistics. Often when someone has a disagreement with Chomsky, it is really a disagreement with something that followed a previous position Chomsky held but developed by someone else. Also, there are the usual 'straw man' arguments put forward to critique his linguistics. CJ -- ELT in Japan http://www.eltinjapan.com/ Japan Higher Education Outlook http://japanheo.blogspot.com/ We are Feral Cats http://wearechikineko.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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Rules are symbolic , built on symbols.
We have been over some of this before--that is, Quine, Chomsky, the phoneme--but one point to remember here would be that at least with early conceptions, syntax of natural language is reflective of an innate cognitive capacity and genetically passed on in humans. Chomsky though is a structuralist who rejects structuralism, a guy influenced by logical postivism but rejecting logical postivism, a linguist who early on incorporates 'formal' approaches but rejects strict formalist linguistics, talks of empiricism but seems to put forward ideas of empirical inquiry in linguistics that are more like a philosopher than a social or psychological scientist. When he dies about the only thing you could say with surety about his career as linguist was that he was the most prominent and best known Chomskian (also spelled Chomskyan) linguist. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/03/wildgen/ 4. The treatment of dynamic features in classical "cognitive semantics" The research line of cognitive linguistics in general since the 50s may be situated in an interdisciplinary but rather technically minded world: one of information theory (Shannon) and cybernetics (Wiener). This world was developed in the philosophical atmosphere of logical empiricism (Quine) and formal syntax (Carnap). Whereas Chomsky elaborated this field and created a compact mentalistic theory, Lakoff (since 1975) and with him Langacker and Talmy combined insights of gestalt-psychology and modern computer vision with ideas stemming from issues of generative semantics. It would be too lengthy to follow the development of both lines of research in detail. [10] Historically, dynamic and cognitive linguistics result from different endeavours. The commonality is given by a focus on interdisciplinary studies, in which biological/psychological questions provide the basic motivation. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6H-455750P-1&_user=1043454&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1357499817&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C50820&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1043454&md5=c9a06a681938d93ae89e5bbaa277a01d he formal origins of syntactic theory Marcus TomalinE-mail The Corresponding Author Downing College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Received 15 June 2001; revised 21 January 2002; accepted 21 January 2002. Available online 16 February 2002. Abstract This paper explores the influence of mathematics on the development of syntactic theory in the 20th century. In particular, Hilbertian Formalism is discussed, with specific reference to the use of formal proof-theoretical procedures, the annexation of recursive function theory and the assumption that mathematical form and meaning are separable. It is shown that certain of these pre-occupations began to influence the later work of the post-Bloomfieldians and that, ultimately, various techniques derived from the Formalist enterprise were directly incorporated into early versions of Transformational Generative Grammar. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/195503--.pdf Noam Chomsky, Logical Syntax and Semantics: Their Linguistic Relevance. The relation between linguistics and logic has been discussed in a, recent paper by Bar-Hillel} where it is argued that a disregard for working logical syntax and semantics has caused linguists to limit themselves too narrowly in their inquiries, and to fall into several errors. In particular, Bar-Hillel asserts, they have attempted to derive relations of synonymy and so-called ‘rules of transfOI`1'Il8.tiOH,, such as the active—passive relation, from distributional studies alone, and they have hesitated to rely on considerations of meaning in linguistic analysis. No one can quarrel with the suggestion that linguists interest themselves in meaning or transformation rules, but the relevance of logical syntax and semsmtics (at least as we now know them) to this study is very dubious. I think that a closer investigation of the assumptions and concems of logical syntax and semantics will show that the hope of applying the results which have been achieved in these fields to the solution of linguistic problems is illusory. http://www.filg.uj.edu.pl/StudiaLinguistica/pdf/12406-Pawelec.pdf The nativist hypothesis – syntax is inborn, genetically programmed – may strike one as outlandish, but it is prima facie justified as a fallback position by the inadequacy of empiricist accounts of language acquisition. Chomsky argues from the ‘poverty of the stimulus’: when conceived as stimuli, samples of speech available in childhood are not sufficient to explain the development of linguistic competence, hence nativism is the only position left. Even though this argument is wrong – speech samples are not ‘stimuli’ (cf. Deacon 1997: 84–92; Pawelec 2005: 166–169) – Chomsky is right in assuming that empiricist accounts of language (both ontogenetic and philogenetic) are inadequate. When Lakoff and J
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Rules are symbolic , built on symbols.
It always seemed to me--from the very time I was introduced to
Chomsky's work in a philosophy of language class in 1982--that he
basically took the ideas of people like Carnap and extended them to
natural languages. Indeed, has Chomsky's conceptualization of
'competence' (an abstract ideal) ever really been that far from
Carnap's Language II here?
http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate?view=body&id=pdf_1&handle=euclid.bams/1183500345
The logical syntax of a symbolic language is a study of the formal properties of
sentences of that language. It includes the formation rules which
determine how the
symbols of the language can be combined to form sentences, the
transformation rules
which specify when one sentence of the language can be deduced from
other sentences,
and the other properties of and relations between sentences which can
be defined on
the basis of these rules. Syntax is a combinatory analysis of
expressions, that is, of
finite ordered series of symbols. Hence syntax never refers to the
meaning of these
symbols. Hilbert showed that a clear, formal presentation of the foundations of
mathematics must use a metamathematics which is really a syntax of mathematics.
The notions of syntax are of central importance for the current growth
of mathematical
logic.
The present book systematically develops the concepts of syntax, first for two
specific Languages I and II, then for an arbitrary language. The
specific Language I
is a definite ("constructivist" or "finitist") language. It contains
the usual calculus
of propositions (not, and, implies, • • • ) and a Peano arithmetic,
with a symbol for 0
and for successor, and with the customary axioms. Variables representing numbers
are included, but the quantifiers like "there exists an xn occur only
in a limited form,
such as "( 3x)3(P(x))," meaning "there exists an x with x^S such that P(x)," and
"(Kx)5(Q(x))," denoting the smallest x^5 with the property Q.
Language II is a much richer language, and contains everything usually included
in a symbolic logic: all of Language I, plus variables for sentences
(that is, propositions),
variables for predicates, and variables for functors. Such "functors"
are functions
with any number of arguments of any type. Quantifiers "there exists an x" and
"for all x" a,re used with all these variables. The predicates, which
serve also as classes,
are classified by the usual (unbranched) type theory, so that a class
of numbers is of
lower type than a class of classes of numbers. The language so
obtained is of interest
because it strives for a maximum of flexibility and not, as is often
the case, for a minimum
of primitive ideas.
___
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
