Re: M-TH: wouldabeen nice to talk about, eh?

1999-12-17 Thread Rob Schaap

A Philadelphia Medical School discovered the chain of damaged genes
complicit in breast cancer a little while ago, and set to developing a
breast cancer screening system.  Some mob called Myriad from Salt Lake City
then sent 'em a letter saying you can't do that coz we hold a twenty-year
patent on two of the involved genes.

And the WTO's brief is to spread TRIPS (trade-related intellectual property
something) around the world (at the moment you can only cop a patent in one
country at a time).

Sounds like another arrow for the anti-WTO quiver (if anyone's still having
to field queries of the "waddya got against free trade and better
conditions for third world workers, you looney left pillock" variety.


 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Re: M-TH: wouldabeen nice to talk about, eh?

1999-12-02 Thread r.i.p

Wouldn't it be nice if Hugh were right?

It's called an upsurge

In your dreams.

No cauldron about to explode- this is just a tempest in a teapot- the last 
fart of hippydom whinging about selected contradictions of capital and 
hoping that street theatre and letters to Clinton are going to change the 

The full measure of their real impotence is evinced by a spokesman of , viz:

“After the curfew went into effect, we found 20 new links added to our 
site,” Miles says. “I think people got off the streets and got online to set 
things up for the rest of the week.” (click on their sponsor's link to apply for a credit 

Wouldn't it be nice if we were older
Then we wouldn't have to wait so long
And wouldn't it be nice to live together
In the kind of world where we belong
I know it's going to make it that much better
When we can say goodnight and stay together

Wouldn't it be nice if we could wake up
In the morning when the day is new
And after having spent the day together
Hold each other close the whole night through
The happy times together we've been spending
I wish that every kiss was never ending

Oh, wouldn't it be nice..

Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray
It might come true
Maybe then there wouldn't be a single thing we couldn't do

We could be married
And then we'd be happy
Oh wouldn't it be nice..

You know it seems the more we talk about it
It only makes it worse to live without it
So let's talk about it...

Oh, wouldn't it be nice
Good night, sleep tight...

Get Your Private, Free Email at

 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Re: M-TH: wouldabeen nice to talk about, eh?

1999-12-02 Thread Rob Schaap

G'day Hugh,

What Rob is describing in Seattle is what Bob M and me have been describing
in Sweden, and what me and Bob and Dave have been going on about for years

You go on about it during the recess breaks between retreads of the ol'
'I'm a good bolshie, you're a bad pb menshie, and all we need is
leadership' refrain.  Or so it seems to me.

It's called an upsurge, and we have been very explicit about it as
being an expression of a worldwide tendency (mind you Dave thought it was
all a bit exceptional in a "reactionary" period, but that was then, maybe),
perhaps clearest in relation to Albania, the Congo and the Oz wharfies'

Er, we got creamed in the Wharfies' strike, Hugh!  And after that it was as
if nothing had ever happened.  Seems our elected betters are preparing to
pull the same stunt on our one remaining strong politically-aware union as
we speak (the CFMEU, check 'em out at: ).

I'll be putting up Marx's views on Free Trade and Protectionism from 1847
soon, again, for the umpteenth time, too, so we can all see that Free Trade
and Protectionism are not at all where it's at for the working class --
they're purely bourgeois concerns and always have been. We have other fish
to fry.

Fry fish when you have fish, I reckon.  I'm going with the 'whither
democracy' line on WTO just now.  Sorta furnishing the tacklebox, if you

And I think it's weird that Rob "generally" agrees with Simon on
unspecified issues,

I made it pretty clear just on which specific - and important - points
Simon and I seemed to agree, did I not?

while he agrees (tends to agree) with me on the
fundamental scientific issue of the character of the bourgeoisie and its
relation to the productive forces of society at the present time, surely
one of the most important matters in the class struggle -- like, know your
enemy...  I mean, it does sound as if Rob regards the imperialist
bourgeoisie as his enemy too, doesn't it?

Doesn't Simon?  You're disagreeing on other things, I reckon.  I tend to
your view on finance as decisive structure/engine of our day - and the role
of this development in highlighting to the suddenly resurgent populace its
role as functional object of exploitation.  But Simon is getting at
something important, though.  The attitude of a world in which the
financier's view of capitalism is replacing that of the
factory-owner-manager's view, IS an attitude of blissful consumption,
insofar as decisive price signals are ignoring the C that separates M1 from
M2.  That'd distort production in the short term and separate stock values
from assetts/price-earnings ratios/sustainable productivity projections to
such a degree as to make the system vulnerable to a credit crunch of
possibly unprecedented intensity and durability.  We can only guess at the
decisive kick-starter of such a crisis.  But it'll come.  Big finance has
proven itself very good at managing crises geographically (destroying
foreign brown capital/people), but a popped bubble on Wall St would demand
bailouts in the first instance - bailouts contingent on having lots of
precisely what a popped bubble would make scarce - public funds and lines
of credit.

Perhaps we should ask Rob to give us his definition of an enemy, him being
a sociologist and all, after a cold one on the porch of an evening has
subdued the fevered heat of yet another Oz summer's day...

It WAS bloody hot today (34 degrees and a cloudless sky, but I was sweating
in the shed with cups of tea, alas).  Another warm one tomorrow, but mebbe
something for the water tanks come evening.  No coldies until next week,
I'm afraid.

And I guess the socialist's enemy is the capitalist relation.  Right now,
the fight is about minimising creeping (charging?) commodification of
what's left of our human lives.  So that'd be the enemy du juour.  If all
goes well, capitalism shall have produced for itself an enemy worthy of it.
One which has proven to itself its ability to defend (Bill Woodfull-style),
thus coming to entertain the thought of some aggressive strokeplay - at
first pursuing the first-innings deficit with a few cuts and hooks (Stan
McCabe-style), and then ruining the enemy's line and length altogether, and
taking the lead with some flourishing drives (Don Bradman-style).  Jardine
(finance) would have Larwood (the state) charging in from the fence by
then, and it'd be on for young and old.  Sorry to go so far into the
archives for my summery metaphor, but I needed to invoke an English cricket
team worthy of the might of capital.

One place you and Simon do disagree is to do with how'd you handle
capitalism's bodyline tactics?  Do you emulate Jardine (as McCabe advised),
and emulate your enemy (grab the state and deploy its mechanisms) or do you
do a Woodfull (see the state as inimical to your raison d'etre and deploy
an unprecedented global integration in the context of unprecedented forces
of production to