Re: leaked British intelligence report
The US British intelligence split is also a reflection of the split within US intelligence. The CIA was not enthusiastic about Powell throwing in a lot of dubious evidence to try to win by the quantity of the evidence rather than the quality. Bianca Jagger, who is quite a sophisticated peace campaigner, pointed out on BBC tv this morning that the split between the CIA and the Pentagon has already been reported in (?) New York Times. Unfortunately to the best of my understanding US television does not have a lead investigative tv programme like BBC2 newsnight, which dissects all positions minutely. There may be little momentum in US civil society to dissect the evidence into shreds. By contrast I see that the mass and skill of Powell's presentation has overwhelmed people like Dianne Feinstein and CNN poll, which presumably attracts US citizens abroad, is standing at 70% convinced by Powell at 136,000 call votes. http://europe.cnn.com/ Chris Burford At 06/02/03 02:03 +, Carl wrote: [ABC News had a story about this too. ABC said that Ansar al-Islam, Saddam's supposed sinister nexus with Al Qaeda, is in fact Saddam's sworn enemy.] Weak Link? Radical Islamic Leader Denies Powell's Link Between Al Qaeda and Iraq By Brian Ross and Jill Rackmill Feb. 5 As part of Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council today, he said there was a sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network the nexus being a small, little known terrorist group called Ansar al-Islam, which is now at the center of the U.S. case. Powell showed a satellite photograph of what he said was a chemical weapons training center in Northern Iraq, used by al Qaeda and protected by Ansar al-Islam. Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq, said Powell. The group, whose name means Supporters of Islam, rules a remote portion of the autonomous northern Kurdish territories in Iraq near the Iran border, which is not controlled by Saddam Hussein. In fact, their leaders say they seek to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his government. ... http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/ansar030205_krekar.html
Ted the spanker and his lost $8billion
How I lost $8bn, by Ted Turner Mouth of the south goes public on the merger that wiped out a fortune, the day he spanked his father and his most embarrassing gaffe David Teather in New York Thursday February 6, 2003 The Guardian Ted Turner, the maverick media tycoon, last night suggested an epitaph for his tombstone. I have nothing more to say. Until then, he clearly still has plenty. The founder of CNN, who last week resigned as vice chairman of AOL Time Warner, the world's largest media company, gave an interview to the CBS television programme 60 Minutes II, that would have rattled the nerves of his former colleagues. In comments that occasionally touched on the bizarre, he complained of losing up to $8bn because of the disastrous merger of America Online with Time Warner, opposed the merger of CNN and ABC News, and spoke of the time he spanked his father. He also attempted to explain away the gaffe that caused uproar in the US when he described the hijackers of September 11 as brave. The interview was taped in mid-December but updated to take account of Mr Turner's decision to quit last week. Mr Turner has been described variously as a loose cannon and the mouth of the south - politely as unpredictable. His departure as vice chairman triggered justifiable fears among senior AOL Time Warner executives that he would now be free to say whatever he likes. Bitter at his treatment in the post merger of AOL Time Warner and the devastation to his fortune, Mr Turner could prove to be a thorn in the side of chief executive Richard Parsons. As the company's biggest individual shareholder and one of the most colourful figures in the industry his comments are guaranteed publicity. Downside In the interview Mr Turner marks his first public opposition to the proposals first announced last year to merge CNN with the news operation of Disney-owned ABC. He said he could see some benefits from the deal but suggested the potential for downside was too great. Just merging the two organisations has a lot of challenges, he said. The potential pitfalls and opportunities for disagreements exceed whatever benefits would be gained. The comments appear another nail in the coffin for the deal, which AOL Time Warner chief executive Richard Parsons said in December had hit a pause because of the complexity of merging the operations. With other more pressing problems facing the group, the deal has been put on the back burner. There has been some speculation that Mr Turner could make an attempt to buy CNN back from AOL Time Warner, at a time when the media operation is eager to realise cash and pay down some of its debts. CNN has not of late been a star in the AOL Time Warner portfolio and is losing viewers to Rupert Murdoch's Fox News. Mr Turner said his fortune had been destroyed by the poor performance of the AOL Time Warner share price and that he simply couldn't afford it. From the [share price] high to the low, [I lost] seven or eight billion [dollars]. Mr Turner admitted that he had not chosen his words wisely when he described the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Centre in New York as brave during a speech to students in Rhode Island. Brave was a bad word, he said. In an attempt to explain the comments he delved into his own personal history. My father committed suicide and he was not a coward. He was very brave when he shot himself, in my opinion, so that's why, to a degree, I said that. Spanking He went on to describe the relationship he had with his father: I don't think my father was abusive - my father was a strict disciplinarian but he and I were extremely close. But his father used to beat him with a wire coat hanger. He made me spank him one night and that was very, very hard. It was much easier to be spanked than to spank your father. Mr Turner, 64, said he was quitting AOL Time Warner to devote more time to his charitable pursuits. He is a philanthropist on a huge scale. Although admitting that he had been crushed by the change in his financial fortunes, he recently insisted that he will see through his promise to donate $1bn to the United Nations. He has already released $500m and aims to give the balance over the next decade. His departure followed a tumultuous couple of years in his business and private lives. He has complained of being marginalised after the merger of America Online and Time Warner that was completed a little more than two years ago and said that he had been effectively fired by fax. He called the vice-chairman's job a title without a portfolio, like the emperor of Japan. During the same period his marriage to the actress Jane Fonda ended in divorce. Still, the departure of AOL Time Warner chairman Steve Case, the last vestige of the old America Online management, had been seen as a sign that the climate at the company might suit Mr Turner better. It remains unclear whether Mr Turner will stay on the group's board as a non-executive director - he said he will make a
tax free property rights
[speaking of redistributing wealth..] [New York Times] February 6, 2003 Bush's Plan Would Scrap Many Investor Taxes By EDMUND L. ANDREWS WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 - Piece by piece, President Bush's new tax proposals would go a long way toward achieving a goal cherished by many of his top advisers: eliminating taxes on investment income. White House officials insist that their proposals are not part of a comprehensive plan to push through a fundamental overhaul of the tax system. The goal, they say, is simply to encourage savings and eliminate obstacles to investment. The intent of the proposed tax-free savings accounts, Pamela F. Olson, the assistant secretary of the Treasury in charge of tax policy, said when the plans were presented last week is to make saving simple for everyone and for every purpose. But experts say the myriad changes would do much more by shielding the vast bulk of most individuals' investment income. It's a comprehensive tax shelter, said Alan J. Auerbach, a tax expert at the University of California at Berkeley. It's huge, but the costs don't show up in the budget as being huge. President Bush personally unveiled the White House proposal to eliminate taxes on most corporate dividends, a move that would cost the Treasury $300 billion over 10 years. That would be the first big step in making investment income tax-free. But more important, in the view of many experts, is Mr. Bush's even newer but much less trumpeted proposal to revamp and expand the nation's laws on tax-advantaged individual retirement accounts. Under that proposal, a married couple with two children would be able to put up to $45,000 a year into a class of individual retirement and savings accounts. They would still have to pay taxes when they earned the income, but they would never have to pay taxes on any of the money that accumulated in their accounts after that. The new retirement plans would shield much more than income from stock dividends. They would also shelter interest from bank certificates of deposit and corporate bonds, and they would eliminate taxes on profits from all kinds of investments held in the new accounts. This proposal is simply a Trojan horse to get us to the point where we don't tax investment income, said Representative Earl Pomeroy, Democrat of North Dakota, who has studied retirement issues for years. At least as envisioned thus far, people would even be able to take home-equity loans on their houses, deduct their payments of mortgage interest and put the money in a retirement savings account or a lifetime savings account, where it could earn tax-free profits indefinitely. The costs to the Treasury would be minimal for the next few years, but they could be huge over the long run as investment income built up and remained tax-free forever. Administration officials have not provided any long-term price tag for the new retirement proposals. Because people will be encouraged to move money from the current individual retirement accounts to the newer plans, the Bush administration estimates that the measure will actually generate an additional $15 billion in tax revenue over the next five years. But after 15 or 20 years, experts say, the new plans would reduce tax revenues by many times that much money every year. The political prospects for the administration's plans remain far from clear. Congressional Democrats are adamantly opposed to the dividend tax proposal, and many Republicans are uncomfortable with it as well. The retirement plan, announced late last week, is so new that Republicans are just beginning to digest the ideas. Representative Bill Thomas, Republican of California and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said on Tuesday that he would take up the retirement proposals only after dealing with Mr. Bush's original economic package, which includes the dividend tax cut. The retirement plan has already received support from lobbyists for the securities industry, which sees rich new opportunities for marketing new individual retirement plans and selling the securities to go in them. But insurance companies are expected to fight the idea because the new plans would undermine the tax advantages that many life insurance policies offer in sheltering the investment income that builds up from premium payments. States and city governments may fight both the dividend and the retirement proposals because both measures would diminish the tax advantage that municipal bonds have long enjoyed over corporate bonds and stocks. On the other hand, the popular appeal of Mr. Bush's proposals could trump much of the resistance. Though only a tiny percentage of taxpayers receive more than a few hundred dollars a year in taxable stock dividends, millions of people could be attracted to the saving and retirement plans. Each individual would be allowed to contribute up to $7,500 a year from earnings, and each couple could contribute $15,000, into a retirement savings
Re: PEN-L equals redistributionist LIBERALS
At 06/02/03 01:12 +, Alois wrote: I look at PEN-L and all I see are a bunch of LIBERALS from universities whose economic schemes all seem to involve big government coming in to enact their redistributionist schemes. I see a lot of talk about economics, including the discredited Marx. Clearly you do not get the impression of much of a shared perspective with your own views, and perhaps lack the patience to stay. Briefly, the point is often made, but for the record, some people might acknowledge that there were problems (as well as successes) for the centralised state economies run in the 20th century by communists who honoured the name of Marx. However others recognise that Marx remains as a trenchant critic of capitalism, and did not specifically endorse those regimes that arose after his death. You put your finger on the question of redistribution, which is a common feature of socialist economic perspectives. However Marx criticised a distributionist perspective heavily in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. The whole argument is important to a marxist perspective, and in that some of us could agree with you. Briefly one quote: Vulgar socialism(and from it in turn a section of the democracy) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. Well here are some things that you seem to have left out of your socialist redistributionist plans: #1 For all your carping about business, businesses CREATE JOBS. People would be out of work if business did not create jobs for them. Yes in a sense that it true, but looking at economic systems as a whole. Can you cite a single human society that ever existed which had mass unemployment as a regular feature (I do not mean as a result of a famine or some dreadful social catastrophe). Because global economists sensibly sketch the present economy of the world as one in which 1/3 of the labour force is unemployed or under-employed? Worth staying? Pehaps not for you as you sound in haste, but I thought I would briefly make at least the two points above, lest people who would naturally assume they are opponents of yours unthinkingly accept some of the premises of your polarised criticisms. For those who do stay, (and there is no reason to assume a mass exodus from PEN-L) I suggest one of the interesting questions provoked by Alois is whether left wing political economy should primarily be about fairer distribution? Chris Burford London
Re: PEN-L equals redistributionist LIBERALS
so, what kind of business is the catholic church? hmmm! webster's unabridged dictionary says: Liberal \Liber*al\: - Free by birth; refined; noble; independent; free; not servile or mean; - Bestowing in a large and noble way, as a freeman; generous; bounteous; open-handed; - Not narrow or contracted in mind; not selfish; enlarged in spirit; catholic. catholic? well, i guess you do belong here, amongst us liberals, after all! wait, there's more: - Not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms in political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion; not conservative; friendly to great freedom in the constitution or administration of government; having tendency toward democratic or republican, as distinguished from monarchical or aristocratic, forms; as, liberal thinkers; liberal Christians; the Liberal party. - One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters; an opponent of the established systems; a reformer; seems like you are in good company, --ravi
Hitchens
Title: Hitchens Richard M writes: I'm sure you guys and gyns have discussed this already, but is Christopher Hitchens on some kind of medication? He sounds not so much reactionary as to my ears as incoherent, like the people who used to wander up and down Telegraph Avenue. - Hitchens seems to have a drinking problem -- and hasn't made as much sense as he used to since he finked on another journalist during the Clinton impeachment events. Since that point, the nonsense-to-sense ratio has been rising steadily. On the other hand, in some ways he fits a standard model of a pundit who has a fixed idea (i.e., that opponents of the war actually like Hussein). Jim
RE: PEN-L equals redistributionist LIBERALS
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34374] PEN-L equals redistributionist LIBERALS Alois writes: #1 For all your carping about business, businesses CREATE JOBS. People would be out of work if business did not create jobs for them. -- why is it that JOBS are so important? why is it that people want THEM so much that they're willing to put up with the petty tyrannies of businesses, the mediocrity of managers and supervisors, unsafe or unhealthy job conditions, and/or simple misery on the job? Because capitalism as a social system says that the vast majority of people have no source of livelihood -- survival -- besides working for the capitalists, except sources such as government employment (which typically pays less) and the dole (which pays much less and is subject to paternalistic controls and bureaucratic meddling). of course, if too many jobs are created by businesses, it leads to wages that are seen as TOO HIGH, so that the businesses cut back and unemployment rises again. Absent forced-labor camps, unemployment is needed to motivate workers. #2 People who invest in business are RISKING THEIR MONEY on their investment. They deserve to be rewarded for this risk, not taxed by the nanny state. I have never seen any logic in this argument. Rich people have a lot of wealth, held in a diversified way, and can afford to RISK a small fraction of it without any real risk. If all else fails, the government or relatives bail them out. Look at George W. who rose to the pinnacle of power without ever taking a risk. On the other hand, if you work with your hands, you're taking the risk of losing your thumb. In a coal mine, you risk losing your life or lung. If risk-taking were the justification for capitalists' exalted incomes, coalminers would be paid millions. #3 People who don't like working for a company should START THEIR OWN BUSINESS. can you lend me the money? I was trying to will myself to START MY OWN BUSINESS and just couldn't find the finance. Unlike many capitalists, I didn't inherit any real wealth from my parents or grandparents. JD
Re: Re: leaked British intelligence report
Dianne F* indeed [that full name should not be uttered on this list]. Outside of the US, you may not realize how awful that thing is. It makes Bill Clinton appear as a tower of courage. On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 08:05:53AM +, Chris Burford wrote: By contrast I see that the mass and skill of Powell's presentation has overwhelmed people like Dianne Feinstein and CNN poll, which presumably attracts US citizens abroad, is standing at 70% convinced by Powell at 136,000 call votes. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
redistributionist liberals
Well, thank god someone -- Chris Burford -- got to the point: whether left wing political economy should primarily be about fairer distribution. In emphasizing liberalism with his caps -- redistributionist LIBERALS -- Alois was right. Andrew Kliman
Boot on the Table
Recalling the Brest-Litovsk negotiations, Trotsky recalled that he felt a measure of relief when, after all the Germano-Austrian diplomatic circumlocutions about self-determination for Ukraine etc., General Hoffman put his soldier's boot on the table and announced what the German Empire wanted and would take, agreement or not. In this public mailing, the ex-CIA Stratfor puts the US Empire's boot down: Here is your complimentary Stratfor Weekly, written by our Chairman and Founder, Dr. George Friedman. Please feel free to email this analysis to a friend. The Region After Iraq Summary Desert Storm was about restoring the status quo ante. The 2003 war with Iraq will be about redefining the status quo in the region. Geopolitically, it will leave countries like Syria and Saudi Arabia completely surrounded by U.S. military forces and Iran partially surrounded. It is therefore no surprise that the regional powers, regardless of their hostility to Saddam Hussein, oppose the war: They do not want to live in a post-war world in which their own power is diluted. Nor is it a surprise, after last week's events in Europe indicating that war is coming, that the regional powers -- and particularly Saudi Arabia -- are now redefining their private and public positions to the war. If the United States cannot be stopped from redefining the region, an accommodation will have to be reached. Analysis Last week, the focus was on Europe -- where heavy U.S. pressure, coupled with the internal dynamics, generated a deep division. From the U.S. point of view, regardless of what France and Germany ultimately say about the war, these two countries no longer can claim to speak for Europe. Ultimately, for the Americans, that is sufficient. This week, U.S. attention must shift to a much more difficult target -- the Islamic world. More precisely, it must shift to the countries bordering Iraq and others in the region as well. In many ways, this is a far more important issue than Europe. The Europeans, via multinational organizations, can provide diplomatic sanction for the invasion of Iraq. The countries around Iraq constitute an essential part of the theater of operations, potentially influencing the course of the war and even more certainly, the course of history after the war. What they have to say and, more important, what they will do, is of direct significance to the war. As it stands at this moment, the U.S. position in the region, at the most obvious level, is tenuous at best. Six nations border Iraq: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran. Of the six, only one -- Kuwait -- is unambiguously allied with the United States. The rest continue to behave ambiguously. All have flirted with the United States and provided varying degrees of overt and covert cooperation, but they have not made peace with the idea of invasion and U.S. occupation. Of the remaining five, Turkey is by far the most cooperative. It will permit U.S. forces to continue to fly combat missions against Iraq from bases in Turkey as well as allow them to pass through Turkey and maintain some bases there. However, there is a split between the relatively new Islamist government of Turkey, which continues to be uneasy about the war, and the secular Turkish military, which is committed to extensive cooperation. And apart from Kuwait, Turkey is the best case. Each of the other countries is even more conflicted and negative toward an invasion. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran are very different countries and have different reasons for arriving at their positions. They each have had very different experiences with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Iran fought a brutal war with Iraq during the 1980s -- a war initiated by the Iraqis and ruinous to Iran. Hussein is despised by Iranians, who continue to support anti-Hussein exiles. Tehran certainly is tempted by the idea of a defeated Iraq. It also is tempted by the idea of a dismembered Iraq that never again could threaten Iran, and where Iran could gain dominance over its Shiite regions. Tehran certainly has flirted with Washington and particularly with London on various levels of cooperation, and clearly has provided some covert intelligence cooperation to the United States and Britain. In the end, though -- however attractive the collapse of Iraq might be -- internal politics and strategic calculations have caused Iranian leaders to refuse to sanction the war or to fully participate. Iran might be prepared to pick up some of the spoils, but only after the war is fought. Syria stands in a similar relation to Iraq. The Assad family despises the Husseins, ideologically, politically and personally. Syria sided openly with the United States in 1991. Hussein's demise would cause no grief in Damascus. Yet, in spite of a flirtation with Britain in particular -- including a visit with both Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles for Syrian President Assad -- Syria has not opted in for the war. Nor have the
Re: redistributionist liberals
I am not sure that distribution should be at the center. An auto worker with 30 hours of overtime makes a good wage, but probably does not lead a good life. Marx said that all economics comes down to the economics of time. On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 10:21:50AM -0500, Drewk wrote: Well, thank god someone -- Chris Burford -- got to the point: whether left wing political economy should primarily be about fairer distribution. In emphasizing liberalism with his caps -- redistributionist LIBERALS -- Alois was right. Andrew Kliman -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: redistributionist liberals
On Thursday, February 6, 2003 at 07:49:04 (-0800) Michael Perelman writes: I am not sure that distribution should be at the center. An auto worker with 30 hours of overtime makes a good wage, but probably does not lead a good life. Marx said that all economics comes down to the economics of time. Actually, mostly what all so-called liberals (and we might as well just get it over with and use the imprecation fuckheads or some other equivalent) want is to repair the forced mal-distribution that has come about through massive, non-market state intervention that gives privileges away to the powerful, helping them to avoid competition and allowing them to amass fortunes that they otherwise could not have obtained without the shield of the corporate form. The more radical want to convert economic institutions from the current self-centered form to a public form, but of course such an avowal will likely incur more imprecations and childish, irrelevant whining. Harry Glasbeek has made a very firm contribution to economic justice in his book *Wealth by Stealth: Corporate Crime, Corporate Law, and the Perversion of Democracy* (Between the Lines, 2003). The corporate form, granted by and propped up by the state, bestows enormous advantages upon those shielded by it. It's basically a right to exercise totalitarian rule and to avoid personal responsibility, an arbitrary convention that is solely designed to aid in unequal wealth accumulation. Other forms are available, but have not been chosen solely for political reasons. Bill
RE: redistributionist liberals
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34395] redistributionist liberals I worry about how a big chunk of workers' effort (surplus-labor) is redistributed to another part of the population simply because the latter (with the blessing protection of the state) control the means of production and the ability to provide JOBS while workers have little choice but to seel jobs from them. What we need to do is give workers the power to decide how any redistribution of their effort occurs. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Drewk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34395] redistributionist liberals Well, thank god someone -- Chris Burford -- got to the point: whether left wing political economy should primarily be about fairer distribution. In emphasizing liberalism with his caps -- redistributionist LIBERALS -- Alois was right. Andrew Kliman
RE: PEN-L equals redistributionist LIBERALS
Alois wrote: I look at PEN-L and all I see are a bunch of LIBERALS from universities whose economic schemes all seem to involve big government coming in to enact their redistributionist schemes. At this point I was sure we were going to be told we should stop being so reformist.
Re: Re: Re: redistributionist liberals
Carrol Cox wrote: blunting working-class power in the imperialist center. I don't think Lenin was right about super-profits providing a bribe for imperialist workers, but that is quite secondary to his core perception that imperialism, _in some way_, underwrites opportunism in the working class. This seems to me to point in the right direction. Vulgarized theories of a redistribution of surplus from third-world workers to the workers of the core simply distract from the serious business of analyzing imperialism as a whole. Over on Marxmail we've been having a very interesting discussion on the notion of a labor aristocracy. Here's a contribution from Anthony, a subscriber in Colombia and a long-time Marxist. I invite PEN-L'ers to look at the Marxmail archives for other interesting contributions. --- A few notes on the social conscious, historical formation, relation to imperialism, etc. - of labor aristocracies. I think the recurring discussion on labor aristocracies is very important, especially in light of the impending war by the USA against Iraq and the world. The fact that privileged layers of workers exist, and have strong short term material interest in maintaining the status quo, is unassailable. If you have a three bedroom house, a car - or two, electricity and the appliances that go with it, a university education for your children, a high probability of a pension, affordable medical care and dental care - you can not think of yourself as a person, or a member of a class, with nothing to sell but your labor. You have strong reasons to fight to keep things as they are. The fact that many, possibly the majority of, workers in imperialist countries have most or all of these things makes them a labor aristocracy - compared to the workers in their own countries who do not have these things, and compared to the vast majority of the workers of the world who do not have these things. The fact that in the rest of the world important privileged minorities of the working class have some or all of these things - the house, the car, the electric appliances - makes those minorities into labor aristocracies also. However, the fact that these privileged layers exist, and that they have a conservative stake in the status quo, does not determine directly the role they will play in the class struggle, nor the social and class consciousness they acquire. To see my point, you only have to look at the labor aristocracies of Colombia and Venezuela, and the very different roles they are now playing in the class struggle in these two countries, and the very different social consciousness expressed by their different roles in struggle. In Venezuela and Colombia the oil workers, teachers, and bank workers are well organized into strong unions. They constitute labor aristocracies if any sectors ever did: much higher pay than other workers, much better benefits, much higher standards of living, etc. However, in Colombia these unions are the backbone of the left and of the opposition to the right wing government of Alvaro Uribe Velez. They have suffered more than anyone else from the governments neo-liberal program of privatization, tax increases, and cuts in pensions, benefits and social programs. They have suffered the most from the paramilitary death squads. However, in Venezuela those unions actively support the business strike organized and led by the reactionary cabal of the Cisneros family and their friends and allies against the leftist government of Hugo Chaves. The very different social consciousness expressed by these two very similar labor aristocracies (in terms of wages, living conditions, and social relations with other sectors of society), have been historically determined. Social consciousness is not directly determined by economic relations, but social consciousness directly determines a person or group, or social layer, or social classs role in the class struggle. Whether or not a particular labor aristocracy sides with the capitalist class, or with the oppressed masses of their own country, or of the world, is a key question in the modern class struggle. The most important labor aristocracy of the world in terms of numbers, economic power, and potential political power is the labor aristocracy of the United States. What it does in relation to the oppressed of the world - especially and most immediately in relation to those in the Middle East and the coming war in Iraq, is one of the most important political issues facing the world today. If the labor aristocracy of US imperialism supports the war, it will happen. If the labor aristocracy of the United States opposes the war, it will not happen. At least for the moment the labor aristocracy of the United States supports the war - passively. On the one hand, they are not lining up to join the army. On the other hand, they are not planning a nationwide general strike to stop the
Re: Re: redistributionist liberals
Michael Perelman wrote: I am not sure that distribution should be at the center. An auto worker with 30 hours of overtime makes a good wage, but probably does not lead a good life. Marx said that all economics comes down to the economics of time. It has always seemed to me that what demarcates marxism from other working-class trends, liberal, social democrat, anarchism, etc., is its focus on the social relations humans enter into in the production and reproduction of the conditions of their existence. That is what makes sense of the passages in the Manifesto in which ME discuss the relationship of the communists to other working-class parties. And that is also what makes sense on Lenin's focus on the role of imperialism in blunting working-class power in the imperialist center. I don't think Lenin was right about super-profits providing a bribe for imperialist workers, but that is quite secondary to his core perception that imperialism, _in some way_, underwrites opportunism in the working class. Yoshie posted recently on the Socialist-Register list as follows: Subject: Burdens of Empire on the Working Class Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 15:58:39 -0500 From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've been looking for theories, conjunctural analyses, and/or empirical studies of the burdens of imperialism on the working class _of imperialist nations_ (especially of the United States but not limited to it). Could you suggest readings relevant for my research? Please e-mail me your suggestions offlist or share your thoughts on the list. Thanks in advance. Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] This seems to me to point in the right direction. Vulgarized theories of a redistribution of surplus from third-world workers to the workers of the core simply distract from the serious business of analyzing imperialism as a whole. And of course Lenin differed from social-democratic theorists -- and differs from the contemporary theorists of Empire -- precisely in arguing (a) that imperialism was NOT a policy of imperialist nations but the very mode of existence of developed capitalism and (b) the capitalist system remained fundamentally contradictory (no super-imperialism). A concern with redistribution or with imperialism as theft implicitly accepts the naturalness of capitalism: it takes us back to Smith and the natural tendency of humans to trade and barter. Carrol
RE: Re: redistributionist liberals
I thot it was surplus value that was redistributed in the first place. love me, love me, love me, I'm a RD liberal . . . mbs On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 10:21:50AM -0500, Drewk wrote: Well, thank god someone -- Chris Burford -- got to the point: whether left wing political economy should primarily be about fairer distribution. In emphasizing liberalism with his caps -- redistributionist LIBERALS -- Alois was right. Andrew Kliman -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
redistributionism and imperialism
[was: [PEN-L:34400] Re: Re: redistributionist liberals] Carrol writes: It has always seemed to me that what demarcates marxism from other working-class trends, liberal, social democrat, anarchism, etc., is its focus on the social relations humans enter into in the production and reproduction of the conditions of their existence. That is what makes sense of the passages in the Manifesto in which ME discuss the relationship of the communists to other working-classparties. And that is also what makes sense on Lenin's focus on the role ofimperialism in blunting working-class power in the imperialist center. I don't think Lenin was right about super-profits providing a bribe for imperialist workers, but that is quite secondary to his core perception that imperialism, _in some way_, underwrites opportunism in the working class Vulgarizedtheories ofa "redistribution" of surplus from third-world workers to the workers ofthe core simply distract from the serious business of analyzing imperialism as a whole. And of course Lenin differed from social-democratic theorists -- and differs from the contemporary theorists of "Empire" -- precisely in arguing (a) that imperialism was NOT a policy of imperialist nations but the very mode of existence of developed capitalism and (b) the capitalist system remained fundamentally contradictory (no "super-imperialism").There are many benefits for workers that arise from living in the imperialist countries, such as a greater ability to win real wage increases. Since that leads to increased costs of the products sold to the dominated countries, you could say that there's a redistribution going on. (We could go into a full analysis of "unequal exchange" here, but I won't.) The problem, of course, is thatmy analysis in the previous paragraph is partial and static. There are also costs: US workers (and not just "minority" members of the working class) bore the brunt of the costs of the US war against Vietnam (a war that was, in effect, aimed at preserving the imperialist system). Further, capitalists don't want to pay US workers more and take advantage of the system's provision of low wages (and tax subsidies, etc.) in the dominated world. So over time, the advantages of living in an imperialist country go away as the living style of workers in the rich countries sink toward that of the workers in dominated countries and the rich countries look more and more like "dependent" ones. Above, I'm not disagreeing with Carrol or Lenin as far as I know. But I want to quibble about "super-imperialism" (meaning a unified rich-capitalist imperialist bloc). Lenin may have been wrong (vis-a-vis Kautsky) about the possibility of ultra- or super-imperialism. The unity of the imperialist powers is not only what George W. is striving for (under US hegemony, natch) but was in effect attained during most of the Cold War. (That's what NATO was about.) Since WW2, the contradictions amongst the imperialist countries ahve been much more muted than they were at the time of World War I, when Lenin wrote, or at the time of World War II. No violent confrontations have arisen even though the external threat of the USSR has disappeared. Ultra- or Super-imperialism has its contradictions, of course. The resistance of the dominated countries and the tendency for imperialist policies (such as neo-liberalism) to sink the world economy are two of these. JD
Oprah's POLL ON THE WAR
at http://64.27.164.103/tows/pastshows/200302/tows_past_20030206_plug.jhtml Participation seems worthwhile. Paul Z. *** Confronting 9-11, Ideologies of Race, and Eminent Economists, Vol. 20 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
Re: redistributionism and imperialism
Devine, James wrote: [clip] Above, I'm not disagreeing with Carrol or Lenin as far as I know. Agreed. Part of the process of moving Lenin's analysis out of the handbook into the world. But I want to quibble about super-imperialism (meaning a unified rich-capitalist imperialist bloc). Lenin may have been wrong (vis-a-vis Kautsky) about the possibility of ultra- or super-imperialism. The unity of the imperialist powers is not only what George W. is striving for (under US hegemony, natch) but was in effect attained during most of the Cold War. (That's what NATO was about.) Since WW2, the contradictions amongst the imperialist countries ahve been much more muted than they were at the time of World War I, when Lenin wrote, or at the time of World War II. No violent confrontations have arisen even though the external threat of the USSR has disappeared. I don't think this fundamentally affirms the possibility of super-imperialism. What Kautsky saw coming was not just a protracted period of imperialist unity against a serious working-class challenge (such as the cold-war unity of imperialists). The question is, rather, whether in the era of imperialism capitalism has, can, or will undergo a fundamental change, resolving its contradictions. Another way of putting this would be to say that K's theory affirms that under super-imperialism, all contradictions will be non-antagonistic. That _would_ constitute an end to history. (Orwell was close to Kautsky in _1984_; he merely envisioned a permanent freezing of antagonistic contradictions, the perfect evil embodied in O'Brien (name?) being as wild a fantasy as any utopia grounded in the expectation of humans achieving perfect goodness. And so your next statement is, I think, a rejection of Kautsky's core thesis: Ultra- or Super-imperialism has its contradictions, of course. The resistance of the dominated countries and the tendency for imperialist policies (such as neo-liberalism) to sink the world economy are two of these. I think that resistance of the dominated is, among other things, a source of ultimate antagonistic contradictions developing within the imperialist 'camp.' And in a sinking world economy, various capitalist blocs not only can, but will, in fact will necessarily, attempt to exploit that 'third-world' resistance for their own advantage vis-a-vis _other_ imperialist powers. We saw that _almost_ happen in Yugoslavia; whether the U.S. intervention has permanently repelled German adventurism there is still not certain. And others than I have argued, with substantial empircal evidence, that the present war against Iraq represents a jockeying on the part of the u.s. to extend and firm up its hegemony over Europe, China, Japan. France Germany at least seem to be seriously testing the waters of resistance. Marx in his writings on the Franco-Prussian war very nearly predicted WW 1 -- could the planned U.S. invasion of Iraq bear any resemblance to the German seizure of Alsace-Loraine? Carrol JD
RE: Re: redistributionism and imperialism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34406] Re: redistributionism and imperialism Carrol writes: I don't think this fundamentally affirms the possibility of super-imperialism. What Kautsky saw coming was not just a protracted period of imperialist unity against a serious working-class challenge (such as the cold-war unity of imperialists). The question is, rather, whether in the era of imperialism capitalism has, can, or will undergo a fundamental change, resolving its contradictions. Another way of putting this would be to say that K's theory affirms that under super-imperialism, all contradictions will be non-antagonistic. I'd reject the K theory, too. That _would_ constitute an end to history. (Orwell was close to Kautsky in _1984_; he merely envisioned a permanent freezing of antagonistic contradictions, the perfect evil embodied in O'Brien (name?) being as wild a fantasy as any utopia grounded in the expectation of humans achieving perfect goodness. The bad guy in Orwell's dystopia wasn't O'Brian as much as the Party of Big Brother and the system they helped create. _1984_ is an amazing book that presages a lot that the Frankfurt school wrote: the international contradictions are stablized in a permanent Cold War (with a third power added) while the domestic working class is atomized and left with zero hope. Of course, about the time when Marcuse published his Frankfurter book about the system being stabilized, the 1968 rebellions against the system -- both in the West and in the East (Czechoslovakia) -- showed that the Orwell/Frankfurter view was severely flawed. ... And others than I have argued, with substantial empircal evidence, that the present war against Iraq represents a jockeying on the part of the u.s. to extend and firm up its hegemony over Europe, China, Japan. France Germany at least seem to be seriously testing the waters of resistance. I don't disagree. But the conflicts amongst the imperialist powers are qualitatively more muted than they were from 1900 to 1945 or so. They don't involve the actual application of military force or an arms race. Of course, things could change... BTW, on the level of theory, how would you distinguish antagonistic from non-antagonistic contradictions? (The distinction is from Mao, no?) Jim
Re: redistributionist liberals
Holy Nassau Senior, Perelman! What will become of the morals of our children and young people if those auto workers are turned out of the warm, pure atmosphere of the factory into the heartless and frivolous outer world? Michael Perelman wrote, I am not sure that distribution should be at the center. An auto worker with 30 hours of overtime makes a good wage, but probably does not lead a good life. Marx said that all economics comes down to the economics of time. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: Re: redistributionist liberals
Tom Walker wrote: Holy Nassau Senior, Perelman! What will become of the morals of our children and young people if those auto workers are turned out of the warm, pure atmosphere of the factory into the heartless and frivolous outer world? What constitutes the alienation of labour? Firstly, the fact that labour is external to the worker i.e., does not belong to his essential being; that he, therefore, does not confirm himself in his work, but denies himself, feels miserable and not happy, does not develop free mental and physical energy, but mortifies his flesh and ruins his mind. Hence, the worker feels himself only when he is not working; when he is working, he does not feel himself. He is at home when he is not working, and not at home when he is working. Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: redistributionist liberals
- Original Message - From: Bill Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harry Glasbeek has made a very firm contribution to economic justice in his book *Wealth by Stealth: Corporate Crime, Corporate Law, and the Perversion of Democracy* (Between the Lines, 2003). = An excellent book Ian
Re: RE: Re: redistributionist liberals
- Original Message - From: Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] I thot it was surplus value that was redistributed in the first place. love me, love me, love me, I'm a RD liberal . . . mbs = Appropriated.. Quite apart from this crude tearing-apart of production and distribution and of their real relationship, it must be apparent from the outset that, no matter how differently distribution may have been arranged in different stages of social development, it must be possible here also, just as with production, to single out common characteristics, and just as possible to confound or to extinguish all historic differences under general human laws. For example, the slave, the serf and the wage labourer all receive a quantity of food which makes it possible for them to exist as slaves, as serfs, as wage labourers. The conqueror who lives from tribute, or the official who lives from taxes, or the landed proprietor and his rent, or the monk and his alms, or the Levite and his tithe, all receive a quota of social production, which is determined by other laws than that of the slave's, etc. The two main points which all economists cite under this rubric are: (1) property; (2) its protection by courts, police, etc. To this a very short answer may be given: to 1. All production is appropriation of nature on the part of an individual within and through a specific form of society. In this sense it is a tautology to say that property (appropriation) is a precondition of production. But it is altogether ridiculous to leap from that to a specific form of property, e.g. private property. (Which further and equally presupposes an antithetical form, non-property.) History rather shows common property (e.g. in lndia, among the Slavs, the early Celts, etc.) to be the more [8] original form, a form which long continues to play a significant role in the shape of communal property. The question whether wealth develops better in this or another form of property is still quite beside the point here. But that there can be no production and hence no society where some form of property does not exist is a tautology. An appropriation which does not make something into property is a contradictio in subjecto. to 2. Protection of acquisitions etc. When these trivialities are reduced to their real content, they tell more than their preachers know. Namely that every form of production creates its own legal relations, form of government, etc. In bringing things which are organically related into an accidental relation, into a merely reflective connection, they display their crudity and lack of conceptual understanding. All the bourgeois economists are aware of is that production can be carried on better under the modern police than e.g. on the principle of might makes right. They forget only that this principle is also a legal relation, and that the right of the stronger prevails in their 'constitutional republics' as well, only in another form. When the social conditions corresponding to a specific stage of production are only just arising, or when they are already dying out, there are, naturally, disturbances in production, although to different degrees and with different effects. more: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm Ian
Re: the alienation of labor
Not to romanticize peasant life or traditional popular culture, but it seems to me that in 1844 non-working time had a distinctive character that marked it off as something other than merely not being at work. The development of capitalism has included the manufacture of a leisure time and entertainment industry that pathologically complements working time in a such a way that the worker no longer feels himself only when he is not working. Shopping is the core of this entertainment and is suspended from both production and consumption. That is, one is not _using_ the commodity as per its ostensive use value at the time when one is shopping for it. Presumably the purchase is a symbolic prelude to the enjoyment of the utility. But not necessarily and probably a lot less than one would naively expect. I suspect what I am trying to say is probably better explained in Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray. I'd better read it first, though, to be sure. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Partying on the Right
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030217s=henwood Partying on the Right by Doug Henwood We all had our youthful indiscretions that haunt us for the rest of our lives. Mine was conservatism. Sometime late in high school, I fell under the spell of Milton Friedman and Bill Buckley, and about the first thing I did when I got to college was join the Party of the Right (POR). I didn't last long in the party, only about a year. I got tired of all the pompous rituals, and political sanity returned, bringing me back to the left from which I'd started. Looking back, I can only explain it as a perverse form of adolescent rebellion. But since membership is for life at least, I'm still on their mailing list. For years, I'd been meaning to check out their annual banquet. When I joined in 1971, movement conservatism was marginal everywhere, especially on campuses. Now things are very different, with laissez-faire economics revered around the world and the United States run in a fashion that a National Review editorialist could only have dreamed of a generation ago. And since this was the POR'S fiftieth-anniversary banquet, it promised to be an exuberant affair. So last December I sent for a pair of tickets at $75 apiece, and circled February 1 on my calendar. The POR is one of the parties within the Yale Political Union, a debating society modeled on its Oxford namesake. Most Political Union members are perceived by outsiders as earnest and even dorky, but the POR is the only party that achieves serious levels of weirdness. Not the kind of weirdness famously catalogued by Orwell, who lamented socialism's appeal to every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal wearer and the rest. Members of the POR wear black tie, not sandals, and the surroundings are posher than Orwell had in mind. But a POR meeting is something truly extraplanetary. I'm getting ahead of myself a bit. The site of the festivities was the Quinnipiack Club, an establishment whose taste for oil paintings of hunting dogs was evidence of its Anglophile aspirations (despite its location in downtown New Haven). Pre-dinner drinks were unremarkable; I chatted up a few student members and some alums, who seemed quite happy with the Bush Administration (despite some reservations about civil liberties). But for a gathering of presumed political junkies, the conversations (even the overheard ones) were remarkably apolitical. Even when we were seated at our assigned tables, politics still took a back seat to the awkward chitchat one makes with strangers. I spent much of the dinner speaking with the neighbor to my right (of course), an engaging painter whose favorite artistic subjects are bruised limbs and severed heads. But things really livened up once the mediocre food was cleared away and the toasting session began. A POR toasting ritual is organized around a green cup--a large silver cup filled with a vile green punch. The first toaster is always the current chairman (so called even though the current officeholder is a woman), who began with the traditional reading of the speech given in 1649 by the party's hero, King Charles I of England, just before his head was lopped off by an executioner. It's strange enough that American conservatives would support a monarch against the claims of Parliament, but the speech is even stranger: I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in Government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things. Having performed her task, the chairman passed the cup to her right (of course), to another officer, who performed the ritual recitation of the British monarchs, starting with Egbert. So much for the Declaration of Independence. Rightward passage of the green cup continued, and the content of the toasts evolved from the odd to the repulsive. There were toasts to: the Catholic Church (inspiring some hisses from the Episcopalians); the brotherhood of the POR; the possession of absolute truth, which is one of the incidental perquisites of party membership; to the murder of Ben Linder, the American Sandinista sympathizer who was killed by the Nicaraguan contras in 1987. The toasting was interrupted to sing an apparently well-known song, Stomping Out the Reds. Toasts resumed: to the Crusades; to the British empire and its American successor; and to the prospect of building a Basilica in Riyadh, and a cathedral in Mecca. The last prompted a call from the audience, What about Jerusalem? Which brings up another issue about the POR--its indulgent affection for some of the worst regimes ever. One toaster joked that the POR chairman when he first joined really looked like a Nazi, which provoked chortles. But the Nazi question is never far from the surface. During my time in
RE: Partying on the Right
Title: RE: [PEN-L:34413] Partying on the Right was Dubya a member of the POR? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 12:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:34413] Partying on the Right http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030217=henwood Partying on the Right by Doug Henwood We all had our youthful indiscretions that haunt us for the rest of our lives. Mine was conservatism. Sometime late in high school, I fell under the spell of Milton Friedman and Bill Buckley, and about the first thing I did when I got to college was join the Party of the Right (POR). I didn't last long in the party, only about a year. I got tired of all the pompous rituals, and political sanity returned, bringing me back to the left from which I'd started.
Re: Re: redistributionist liberals
I am not sure that distribution should be at the center. An autoworker with 30 hours of overtime makes a good wage, but probably does not lead a good life. Marx said that all economics comes down to the economics of time. The "economics of time" provides an entry point into the logic of the era we have entered. A growing section of the American workforce has lots of time on their hands because they are unemployed, semi-employed and marginal. A larger section of the working class have less time from work on their hands because of the universal fall in the value of commodities and the price form of wages. One simply must work longer hours to maintain yesteryears existence. Actually, the whole damn family has to work longer and harder. In the last era of history, the worker owned his labor power - innate biological ability, and it was sold - be it to capitalist or the state power/authority as under the old socialist societies, to an external "power." That is the labor power is sold to someone outside the worker, in order to enter the world of the exchange of products or as we say today "to consume." Once this labor power is sold and put to work it is called labor or the laboring process. I believe - if memory serves me correct, that it was the Stalin Constitution of 1936 that gave the Soviet peoples the right to work and coined the motto, "he who does not work shall not eat." "He who does not work shall not eat," is extremely revealing because it defines the basis of distribution of the social products. What is being stated is that industrial society is driven by "certain logic" no matter who owns the means of production. There is no qualitative difference between any industrial society as production relations, and the term "capitalism" and "socialism" confuses the issue of distribution. "Ism" means belief system or a certain political and societal mode of organization that expresses belief system. The (political) mode of organization is not the actual technological infrastructure that drives production. Under industrial socialism of the Soviet era, the workers sold their labor power to themselves by way of the state authority. This means that labor-power was sold and purchased. It also means you were subject to the control of an external power that owned the things that dominates the individual. No one in his or her right mind would want to go back to the industrial period of history and this includes industrial socialism. What do production relations or social relations of production mean? Production relations mean how people are organized to engage the productivity infrastructure. The productivity infrastructure is the sum total of tools, machines and technology that rivets society to a way of life. What organizes people is a historically distinct level of development of the productive forces and the energy source that underlie the infrastructure grid. All societies that use a plow, as the fundamental device for the maintenance of life, will be organized on the same qualitative basis. All societies using steam power will be organized on the same qualitative basis. Variations occur but the fundamentality remains the same. The economy of time is real and measurable. This economy of time is being stood on its head, since the time of Marx. What alters the value system - the measure of time increments in the process of production, is the injection into the productivity infrastructure of a new ingredient that cannot consume but can produce. The bottom line is that the economy of time means the duration one must labor to consume a magnitude of products. The worker as a biological being must by definition possess the capacity to produce and consume or buying and selling cannot take place and consequently distribution cannot take place. What alters the value system is the injection into the production process of a new technology that cannot consume and disrupts the time equation by driving the amount of labor congealed in products towards zero as opposed to more labor magnitude. I am referring to advanced robotics, computerized production process and digitalization. This new development polarizes distribution and production and make them appears as independent entities unconnected to one another or in Marx speak, to exist in an external relationship to one another. This alters the economy of time and stand it on its head because a mass of people have appeared who need products and services but are no longer needed to engage the productivity infrastructure to produce cups, vegetables and an assortment of things. The reason 47 million people cannot secure consistent health care is because they do not have money or an avenue to work an amount of time to make the money to get the medical care. It's only 24/7 in a week. The value system means a system of buying and selling all services period. It takes money to live and even drink water in America today. Pretty soon the bourgeoisie is going to try
Re: Re: PEN-L equals redistributionist LIBERALS
At 06/02/03 01:12 +, Alois wrote: I look at PEN-L and all I see are a bunch of LIBERALS from universities whose economic schemes all seem to involve big government coming in to enact their redistributionist schemes. I see a lot of talk about economics, including the discredited Marx. reply Clearly you do not get the impression of much of a shared perspective with your own views, and perhaps lack the patience to stay. Briefly, the point is often made, but for the record, some people might acknowledge that there were problems (as well as successes) for the centralized state economies run in the 20th century by communists who honored the name of Marx. However others recognize that Marx remains as a trenchant critic of capitalism, and did not specifically endorse those regimes that arose after his death. You put your finger on the question of redistribution, which is a common feature of socialist economic perspectives. However Marx criticized a distributionist perspective heavily in his "Critique of the Gotha Programme". The whole argument is important to a Marxist perspective, and in that some of us could agree with you. C Burford Comment I most certainly agree that there are liberals in Universities and many may have redistributionist schemes. There has always been a constant thread in the economic life of America that has demanded that the consuming capacity of the masses - "the people," be raised as the basis for expanding reproduction along side of the argument that the key to economic prosperity is to raise productivity and free up capital for expanded production and distribution. The words "using big government" to redistribute means several things in my mind, which reduce themselves to "giving people something for nothing" or as the conservatives say giving one money for not working. I believe this is a narrow perspective because money is always transferred to various sections of the economy and the infrastructure or there would be no highway system in America or a huge military infrastructure. Let us take the so-called Welfare bureaucracy. One must admit that the bureaucracy that organizes, manage and administers welfare consumes more of the money than the infamous Welfare Queen, who allegedly fucks everyone, have babies and contributes nothing to society. Perhaps you are old enough to remember the political battle to abolish food stamps given to our infamous Welfare Queen whose alleged sexual exploits have always escaped me. Foods Stamps were not abolished because it entails collapsing the agricultural sector of the economy and at the time food chains like AP or today's "Farmer Jack." The capitalist have always looted the public wealth. My point is that redistributionist plans are as American as apple pie and have nothing to do with the writings of Karl Marx. I must caution you because I have read the writings of Karl Marx, including his "Critique of the Gotha Program," - at least 50 times over the course of 25 years. It is very obvious that you have not read Marx but rather critiques of Marx by others. Is not George Bush asking for a redistribution of wealth to achieve his programs? The real issue has always been what one thinks is worthy of being redirected. "Worthy" - the impact of human agency on economic affairs, is a valid economic category. I desire to dispense with this political equation called "left" and "right" wing because it grew out of the French Revolution and times have changed. Actually America evolved somewhat different than most of the world in its transition from manufacture to industry. I ask what are you stating and if you make sense then the truth is going to side with you. Facts will also help your case. Melvin P.
Blair on a rack
Blair was interviewed for 50 minutes tonight by Jeremy Paxman and an audience of of people almost universally opposed to the war. It was the most stringent test he could have submitted himself to. The choice of a Tyneside audience was particularly clever. It is near his constituency so he knows the people there. The accent is obscure but regarded as attractive in the rest of the UK. The people have a reputation for being straighforward and unpretentious. They are good representatives of sceptical British opinion. Their questions were well informed and searching. He treated them with studious respect, including those who got in digs about the Honourable Member for Texas North, and Mr Vice President. Paxman followed up with questions designed to make him squirm - that Mandela had described him as the US foreign minister, and does he pray with Bush? It will get analysed and reanalysed, but my guess is that Blair did himself well. He appeared to clarify that the only basis on which he would defy the UN Security Council would be a veto. He appeared to accept that there must be a majority vote, but he also appeared to assume that he would get that. None of his questioners alleged that Iraq had no chemical or biological weapons, just there was no urgency. Probed repeatedly about the illogicality of the link between Iraq and terrorism, Blair stuck to a radical view that after Sept 2001 no unstable state could be allowed to have weapons that could fall into the hands of terrorists. He supported the view that the Palestine question was important but claimed that was a separate issue on its own terms. He referred to the fact that some people had wanted to go to war against Iraq last summer. He also pointed out that Bush accepted that the US should attempt to go through the Security Council, even though that iould allow Saddam to give up the weapons without regime change. Blair is recognised by his enemies as a phenomenon. It is not just that he is extremely clever. It is that he is a sincere and scientific opportunist. In him we see once of the central nodal points in the matrix of global forces. His ability to appear to be able to float with no visible means of support, is because he calculates a balance of forces and direction of movement that come the end of March, he will have visible means of support. Blair has been a catalyst for the war, because as Tony Benn points out, he has a virtual veto. Without his support Bush would have to attack wildly on his own. Without his support the USA would have thrashed about, terrorists would have counterattacked even more, and the world would have been destabilised. We would have been nearer revolutionary change in at least some countries. The rights of the Palestinians would have been higher up the international agenda. The politics of global justice and environmental sanity, would have had higher priority. Blair's eyes are fixed on a rapidly developing world scenario where no country can afford to resist the armed forces of US imperialism and its allies, and no country can afford any suspicion of tolerating anti US terrorism. We will be closer to a global empire. Chris Burford London
Dr. Suess, 2003
Dr. Seuss style AMERICA, 2003 The Whos down in Whoville liked this country a lot, But the Grinch in the White House most certainly did not. He didn't arrive there by the will of the Whos, But stole the election that he really did lose. Vowed to rule from the middle, then installed his regime. (Did this really happen, or is it just a bad dream?) He didn't listen to voters, just his friends he was pleasin' Now, please don't ask why, who knows what's the reason. It could be his heart wasn't working just right. It could be, perhaps, that he wasn't too bright. But I think that the most likely reason of all, Is that both brain and heart were two sizes too small. In times of great turmoil, this was bad news, To have a government that ignores its Whos. But the Whos shrugged their shoulders, went on with their work, Their duties as citizens so casually did shirk. They shopped at the mall and watched their T.V. They drove their gas guzzling big S.U.V., Oblivious to what was going on in D.C., Ignoring the threats to democracy. They read the same papers that ran the same leads, Reporting what only served corporate needs. (For the policies affecting the lives of all nations Were made by the giant U.S. Corporations.) Big business grew fatter, fed by its own greed, And by people who shopped for the things they didn't need. But amidst all the apathy came signs of unrest, The Whos came to see we were fouling our nest. And the people who cared for the ideals of this nation Began to discuss and exchange information: The things they couldn't read, in the corporate-owned news, Of FTAA meetings and CIA coups, Of drilling for oil and restricting rights. They published some books, created Websites, Began to write letters, and use their e-mail (Though Homeland Security might send them to jail!) What began as a whisper soon grew to a roar, These things going on they could no longer ignore. They started to rise up and fight City Hall Let their voices be heard, they rose to the call, To vote, to petition, to gather, dissent, To question the policies of the President. As greed gained in power and power knew no shame The Whos came together, sang Not in our name! One by one from their sleep and their slumber they woke The old and the young, all kinds of folk, The black, brown and white, the gay, bi- and straight, All united to sing, Feed our hope, not our hate! Stop stockpiling weapons and aiming for war! Stop feeding the rich, start feeding the poor! Stop storming the deserts to fuel SUV's! Stop telling us lies on the mainstream T.V.'s! Stop treating our children as a market to sack! Stop feeding them Barney, Barbie and Big Mac! Stop trying to addict them to lifelong consuming, In a time when severe global warming is looming! Stop sanctions that are killing the kids in Iraq! Start dealing with ours that are strung out on crack! A mighty sound started to rise and to grow, The old way of thinking simply must go! Enough of God versus Allah, Muslim vs. Jew With what lies ahead, it simply won't do. No American dream that cares only for wealth Ignoring the need for community health. The rivers and forests are demanding their pay, If we're to survive, we must walk a new way. No more excessive and mindless consumption Let's sharpen our minds and garner our gumption. For the ideas are simple, but the practice is hard, And not to be won by a poem on a card. It needs the ideas and the acts of each Who, So let's get together and plan what to do! And so they all gathered from all 'round the Earth And from it all came a miraculous birth. The hearts and the minds of the Whos they did grow, Three sizes to fit what they felt and they know. While the Grinches they shrank from their hate and their greed, Bearing the weight of their every foul deed. From that day onward the standard of wealth, Was whatever fed the Whos spiritual health. They gathered together to revel and feast, And thanked all who worked to conquer their beast. For although our story pits Grinches 'gainst Whos, The true battle lies in what we daily choose. For inside each Grinch is a tiny small Who, And inside each Who is a tiny Grinch too. One thrives on love and one thrives on greed. Who will win out? It depends who you feed! Author: Unknown
Re: RE: Partying on the Right
Devine, James wrote: was Dubya a member of the POR? Nope. Just SB. Doug
Re:: RE: Partying on the Right
So, like, what kind of women to these right-wing parties attract? Gold diggers? Religious types? The closest I made it to a right-wing party was to join a sorority in high school for about ten minutes. (I gave it up cause I didn't have much leisure time and the little I did have I decided to devote to bridge and sex.) Joanna
Dubious evidence
On Newsnight, discussing the Blair interview, Menzies Campbell, the foreign affairs spokesperson of the Liberal Democrats, the only major party in the UK opposed to the Iraq war, set the standard firmly as proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that all diplomatic and other alternatives should have been exhausted before a decision to go to war. Shortly afterwards Newsnight reported the story that large chunks (10 of 19 pages?) of the UK's apparently authoritative intelligence report on Saddam Hussein, published just before, and praised in Powell's speech, were old and plagiarised. Connectivity poor at this moment, so I am taking the liberty in the circumstances of quoting from Mark Jones's A list where more detail and the URL link is published. http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z/stories/20030206/dossier.html The original author of crucial parts is shown by typographical errors to be Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student from Monterey in California. In several places Downing Street edits the originals to make more sinister reading. Number 10 says the Mukhabarat - the main intelligence agency - is spying on foreign embassies in Iraq. The original reads: monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq. And the provocative role of supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes has a weaker, political context in the original: aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes. Chris Burford London
Ramsey Clark's site: Approach House members to Impeach Bush [fwd]
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:15:16 -0800 From: Richard Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Impeach Bush To Stop The War Greetings, Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark is spearheading an effort to avert the coming war with Iraq by urging the Congress to impeach the president and his highest officials for high crimes against the Constitution and people of the United States. He has a web site that details the basis for the charges as well as the legal basis for pursuing impeachment. The web site also solicites signatures which can be delivered to Congressional authorities. Bringing down Nixon started with small steps and eventually succeeded, this might also. Please give this some thought and check out: http://www.votetoimpeach.org/ (Sorry that I am unable to paste a link, you can copy and paste the web address into your web browser.) Richard
US/Turkey: Nato troubles
The International Herald Tribune 3 countries delay NATO's decision over Iraq measures Thomas Fuller International Herald Tribune Friday, February 7, 2003 BRUSSELS France, Germany and Belgium were told Thursday that they have until Monday to decide if they want to continue blocking the deployment of NATO equipment to Turkey. George Robertson, the secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, set in motion a special procedure that would require the three countries to state their objections publicly in order for the assistance package to be blocked. The other 16 members of NATO are in favor of giving Turkey access to the equipment, including Patriot missile batteries and intelligence gathering aircraft. If none of the three countries objects by Monday, the package will be considered approved. Does that mean that there is continuing disagreement on the timing issue in NATO? Yes, it does, Robertson said Thursday after what one official called an impassioned debate at the headquarters of military alliance here. But I am confident that we will reach a decision early next week. Turkey requested the assistance from its NATO allies last month in light of the threat of a war in Iraq. If the assistance package is approved, Patriot missiles will be sent from the Netherlands and AWACS surveillance planes, operated collectively by the alliance, would be dispatched to the Iraqi-Turkish border. Military units trained to deal with the effects of chemical and biological weapons could be dispatched to Turkey. And NATO allies would be called upon to defend U.S. bases in Europe and replace troops sent to the Gulf from NATO's peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo. Diplomats said the equipment would be used for defensive purposes only and that a provision that would have allowed for NATO assets to send troops into combat into Iraq were removed from the package as a concession to the dissenting countries. Separately, diplomats said the alliance had agreed this week to collectively patrol the Western Mediterranean because we now perceive a terrorist threat in that area, according to a senior NATO official. There was no immediate comment from Germany or France on whether they would drop their objections to the Turkish assistance package. Foreign Minister Louis Michel of Belgium said in a statement immediately before the start of the meeting that it was premature to take a decision now already about the possible involvement of NATO in the Iraq crisis. Michel, added, however, that Belgium did not reject that possibility out of hand. The issue is particularly sensitive in Belgium, where national elections are scheduled for May. At least two parties in the current governing coalition have taken strong pacifist stands. http://www.iht.com/articles/85958.html
US: UN troubles
Bush Weighs U.N. Resolution on Iraq By Barry Schweid AP Diplomatic Writer Thursday, February 6, 2003; 6:06 PM In the face of stiff opposition from allies, President Bush Thursday said he would be open to a second U.N. resolution on disarmament, following up one approved last November, but only if it led to prompt action. He also declared that the game is over for Saddam Hussein and urged the United Nations to join in disarming Iraq. The Security Council must not back down when those demands are defied and mocked by a dictator, Bush said. If the U.N. fails to act, The United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime, he said. Aides said the next few days would be dedicated to turning up pressure on reluctant allies such as France and Germany as well as other U.N. members. Bush was silent on a timetable. Earlier in the day, Powell stuck to the phrase the administration has been using concerning a final decision on possible war -- weeks, not months -- but White House officials noted that Bush was no longer saying consultations would last that long. Saddam Hussein was given a final chance, he is throwing that chance away. The dictator of Iraq is making his choice, Bush said. He spoke after meeting with privately with Powell to discuss efforts to win U.N. approval of a resolution specifically authorizing use of force. Powell, who laid out the U.S. case to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, told lawmakers Thursday that the Iraqi situation would be brought to a conclusion one way or another in a matter of weeks. Sticking largely to the case outlined by Powell on Wednesday, Bush said there is no doubt Hussein is not complying with the earlier U.N. order to disarm. Saddam Hussein has the motive and the means and the recklessness and the hatred to threaten the American people. Saddam Hussein has to be stopped, Bush said. He suggested anew that there is a link between Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda. The same terrorist network operating out of Iraq is responsible for the murder - the recent murder - of an American diplomat, Lawrence Foley, Bush said. Foley, a U.S. Agency for International Development official, was killed last November outside his home in Amman, Jordan. Foreign ministers responded mostly with calls for more weapons inspections after Powell's U.N. presentation, in which he asserted that Iraq was shifting and hiding weapons and missile programs from the current inspectors. Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that most of the statements read by foreign ministers after his speech had been prepared beforehand. He said he detected a shift in attitude when he talked to 13 of the ministers in private afterward. Still, President Jacques Chirac said Thursday France's position on war with Iraq was unchanged by Powell's presentation. We refuse to think that war is inevitable, Chirac said. Powell told the senators Bush would welcome a second resolution and many members of the Council would not only welcome it, some of them would say we require one for participation in whatever might come. A resolution approved unanimously by the Council in November authorized a new round of U.N. weapons inspections and warned Iraq of serious consequences if it defied earlier resolutions requiring it to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration has taken the position that the November resolution was sufficient backing for the use of force. But France, among other nations, does not agree. Bush spoke to reporters without taking questions. Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons, the very weapons the dictator tells the world he does not have, Bush said. The president said Hussein has not accounted for a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. This deception is directed from the highest levels of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, his son, the vice president and the very official responsible for cooperating with inspectors, Bush said. Powell told the senators he had told Council members at the time of the November resolution that Iraq would be subjected to military action if it failed to comply. In fact, he said, he told ministers they should not vote for the resolution if they would not support a second resolution when serious consequences are called for. Don't play that double game, he said he told the ministers. Powell said Thursday a key to winning Security Council support would be a two-day visit to Baghdad this weekend by chief weapon inspectors Mohamed ElBaradei and Hans Blix. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37301-2003Feb6.htm l
US: Mideast to be Reshaped After Iraq War
What was the name of that book by HardtNegri, does anyone remember? These fellows better take a look at what is below and think about a second edition with major revisions: I think there is also the possibility that success could fundamentally reshape that region in a powerful, positive way that will enhance U.S. interests, especially if in the aftermath of such a conflict, we are also able to achieve progress on the Middle East peace. Best, Sabri Powell Sees Mideast Reshaped After Iraq War Thu Feb 6, 3:12 PM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo! By Jonathan Wright and Vicki Allen WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said on Thursday overthrowing the Iraqi government could reshape the Middle East in ways that enhance U.S. interests, and that the confrontation with Iraq should start to come to a head in a matter of days. Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that attacking Iraq could cause some difficulties for the United States in other areas in the Middle East during the conflict and in the months immediately after a war. But he added, I think there is also the possibility that success could fundamentally reshape that region in a powerful, positive way that will enhance U.S. interests, especially if in the aftermath of such a conflict, we are also able to achieve progress on the Middle East peace. The Bush administration has usually confined its argument for attacking Iraq to the alleged threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government could pass them on to extremists hostile to the United States. But Powell said Washington's problem with Iraq was not just over Iraqi cooperation with the United Nations (news - web sites) in giving up any weapons of mass destruction it might have, but also with threats it poses to its neighbors. Appearing before the committee the day after his dramatic presentation to the United Nations on alleged Iraqi weapons violations, Powell said he thought the showdown with Iraq will start to come to a head when top U.N. weapons inspectors return next week from a trip to Baghdad and report to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 14. From that, he said it should be apparent if there's any chance of serious progress, and not just progress on process, but a serious change of attitude, in Baghdad on the inspections. I think we are reaching an endgame in a matter of weeks, not a matter of months, he added. While France continued to signal it would not be easily moved into backing a war with Iraq, Powell insisted to the committee that his U.N. presentation was starting to sway allies. Later in the day when I spoke to each and every one of them and they heard what I said there was some shift in attitude ... that suggested more and more nations are realizing that this cannot continue indefinitely, he said. President Bush (news - web sites) has threatened a war against Iraq if it does not give up suspected weapons of mass destruction, promising action with or without U.N. Security Council backing. Powell said he thought there may be more support than some might think for a second U.N. resolution to disarm Iraq by force if necessary. Bush has said he is open to seeking the second resolution to provide firmer backing, although he said the earlier resolution provides the authority to attack Iraq. France, Russia and China, who with the United States and Britain represent the five permanent members of the Security Council, have said they would prefer U.N. weapons inspections continue rather than to see war. Committee members generally praised Powell for the U.N. presentation that most said showed convincing evidence that Iraq was thwarting the inspections and had banned weapons. But Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, complained that he appeared to have given up on inspections prematurely. PRAYERS OFFERED Earlier on Thursday, Bush said the United States faced a decisive period with U.S. troops building up in the Gulf against Iraq. This is a testing time for our country, Bush said at the 51st annual National Prayer Breakfast, which brings together lawmakers, foreign leaders and spiritual leaders in prayer. Bush referred to the confrontation with Iraq, the war on terrorism, apparently the challenge offered by North Korea (news - web sites)'s nuclear weapons program, and the tragedy of the space shuttle Columbia crash as he offered prayers for the country. At this hour we have troops that are assembling in the Middle East. There's oppressive regimes that seek terrible weapons. We face an ongoing threat of terror. One thing is for certain, we didn't ask for these challenges. But we will meet them, Bush said. CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet told the breakfast, God teaches us to be resolute in the face of evil, using all of the weapons and armor that the word of God supplies. Article at:
currency pegging redux
Venezuela pegs bolivar to dollar The Guardian Staff and agencies Thursday February 6, 2003 Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, today pegged the country's embattled currency to the dollar in an effort to ease the economic damage from a two-month long general strike that failed to oust him. The fixed exchange rate policy was announced yesterday, alongside a series of new foreign currency and price controls, two weeks after the leftwing president suspended the sale of foreign currencies as the Venezuelan bolivar sank to record lows. Trading in dollars and other currencies will resume when the fixed exchange rate goes into effect today. The controls fix the bolivar's value at 1,596 a dollar for sales and 1,600 for purchases, but the government can adjust the rates as it sees fit. Maximum prices will also be set for essential goods and services, such as basic foods, medicines and rents. The bolivar closed at 1,853 on January 21, the last day of trading, but on the black market it traded at 2,500 to the dollar. Sales of local government bonds, which are sold overseas for foreign currency, will also be restricted, President Chavez said. We've made the ideal decision for defending the Venezuelan economy and to defend the international reserves, he said in a television address yesterday, adding that exchange controls would help Venezuela to pay its foreign debt. Business leaders accused Mr Chavez of imposing measures designed to punish them for their support of the strike and warned that restricting access to foreign currency would bury Venezuela's import-dependent economy. The country imports roughly half of its food. Carlos Fernandez, the leader of the strike and head of the Fedecamaras business federation, said Mr Chavez was trying to impose control over the struggling private sector, which buys 60% of its supplies and raw materials abroad. Lope Mendoza, president of the Conindustria business chamber, urged citizens to buy Venezuelan products to keep the economy afloat. The industrial sector isn't going to please the president, who wants to see a cemetery of businesses, he said. The decision is a consolidating move by the president, who appears to have survived the opposition strike that paralysed much of the country and led to violent street protests. In April 2002 Mr Chavez thwarted a short-lived coup after receiving advanced warning that military leaders advised by the US were attempting to overthrow him. The national strike, which began on December 2, ended in all sectors but the oil industry this week. It has choked off Venezuela's overseas income by restricting the state oil company, by far the nation's biggest exporter. Roughly half of government income comes from oil exports. Mr Chavez said oil production was rapidly recovering, claiming yesterday that it had reached 1.9m barrels a day. Pre-strike production was around 3.2m barrels. The president said that Venezuela - the world's fifth largest oil exporter - had been forced to import $504m (£308m) worth of fuel since the strike began. Foreign reserves dropped by $2bn during the strike, partially because the government was spending $60m a day to prop up the bolivar. The decline in the value of the bolivar, in turn, sent inflation soaring to above 30%. The president's critics say he has mismanaged the economy, sought to grab authoritarian powers and split the nation along class lines. But supporters of Mr Chavez say that the democratically elected president is the victim of opposition attempts to cripple the oil-based economy and spark a coup amid national unrest. On Tuesday, Mr Chavez lashed out at business leaders who had led the strike, saying the coup plotters were stashing billions of dollars abroad.
the new imperial suck-ups
The new vassals Iraq has exposed both the splits in western Europe and the ease with which former eastern bloc states have been drawn into the US orbit Jonathan Steele Friday February 7, 2003 The Guardian Donald Rumsfeld's division of Europe into new and old and the letter of solidarity with the US signed by Tony Blair and seven other European leaders have caused widespread irritation - as Washington and Downing Street hoped. Feathers were especially ruffled in France and Germany, which were the intended targets. In Brussels, which was not consulted over the letter, there was also deep anger. The crisis showed the EU not only has no common foreign policy among today's 15 members, but its chances of ever getting one when it is enlarged to 25 are virtually nil. The pursuit of a common foreign policy was always an illusion, and if the Rumsfeld/gang of eight double whammy have brought a dose of realism, so much the better. As long as there is no United States of Europe or a European Federation foreign policy, Europe will never be more than a series of coalitions of the willing on whatever is the major issue of the day. Trying to forge an artificial unity only leads to the kind of lowest common denominator contortions which are currently going on at the European convention over creating the post of a European president. Ironically, the notion goes back to Henry Kissinger, the former US secretary of state. If ever there was a hard-nosed American unilateralist it was he, though he used his childhood in Germany to flatter European leaders that he was on their side. His famous comment that he could not consult Europe because Europe has no phone number was predicated on the same instincts as Rumsfeld's. Many European leaders have accepted the argument. They believe Europe will only be relevant if it has a common foreign policy. It is a false notion which is bound to lead to constant disappointment and a continual sense of impotence. No other continent has a common policy, or expects to. The US certainly does not want Europe to get a phone number if the voice at the end of the line answers no. If Washington sees even the beginnings of a united foreign policy in Europe which might be defiant, it will do all it can to undermine it either directly, as Rumsfeld did, or via allies of Washington such as Tony Blair or Jose Maria Aznar. One day it is the eternal Anglo-French-German triangle which is manipulated, with France being teased when Britain and Ger many seem to be getting together or, more often, Britain being wooed when France and Germany agree. On occasion, the next ring of nations - Italy, Spain and Portugal - are drawn into the game. The divisions that matter are those of size and power. Not old and new but strong Europe and weak Europe. Relevance is not measured by how friendly a country is to the US but how independent it is of the US. Independence need not mean hostility, merely forging a different line when necessary, and then holding to it by resisting the pressure which is bound to follow if it affects what the US defines as one of its vital interests. The crisis over Iraq shows how the US will attempt to manipulate the latest adherents to the EU, the countries of central and south-eastern Europe. Nations that were once the vassals of the Soviet Union are now in danger of becoming vassals of the US. In addition to the three former members of the Warsaw pact which signed the gang of eight letter, on Wednesday a new group, a gang of 10 - consisting of the three Baltic states, plus Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia - issued a strong statement of support for the US over Iraq. In 1989 there were those who thought these newly liberated countries would be bastions of new thinking. But the west was an attractive-looking club and they were anxious to join the winning side in the cold war. While the EU insisted on a slow and complex process of economically painful adjustment, joining Nato was relatively easy and the US used a mix of fear, flattery and economic incentives to get them to sign up. After 1989 the public perception was that eastern Europe had always had a fierce desire for independence, but Ernest Gellner, the great scholar of European nationalism, was right when he wrote in 1992: Communism was not destroyed by society or honesty. It was destroyed by consumerism and western militarism plus an outburst of decency and naivety in the Kremlin. After all, eastern Europe's elites had spent 40 years accommodating themselves to superior power. Neither the reform movement in Czechoslovakia in 1968 nor Solidarity in Poland in 1981 challenged their countries' links with Moscow. It was only when Mikhail Gorbachev told them in 1987 that they need not follow the Soviet lead that they began to break loose. It was therefore inevitable that after the USSR collapsed these countries would sense the new reality that Europe belongs to the US. The fact that ex-communist leaders
Germany, education and comparative advantage
The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com Low education rating stuns Germany John Schmid/IHT International Herald Tribune Friday, February 7, 2003 FRANKFURT Treasured stereotypes are dying in Germany. That the country's finances are solid, its workers productive and its economy a powerhouse are all broken myths. Even Mercedes-Benz sedans have fallen in quality ratings. And now the nation has awakened in disbelief to findings that its prized education system has fallen to the bottom third of the industrial nations, panicking a generation of parents and posing an unexpected competitive threat as societies push further into the brave new world of the information age, education experts concur. It is a question of the future of individuals but really also of the future of the whole society, said Hans-Konrad Koch, a planner in the Ministry of Education. Education Ministry staffers in Berlin say they are working day and night on a spectrum of reforms of kindergartens, grade schools and universities, even as they concede that the cash-strapped nation lacks funding for an aggressive overhaul. The education minister, Edelgard Bulmahn, warns that it will take a full decade to restore the nation's schools to the level of the top five or six advanced countries. Germany has emerged as an academic underachiever in a succession of studies released over the last 14 months by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, showed that German 15-year-olds came in 21st among those in the 32 leading industrial nations, well behind Britain, Japan, South Korea and much of Continental Europe. Worse, German students scored significantly below the OECD average in all three of the disciplines studied: reading literacy, mathematics and science. American teenagers rank higher than the Germans in all three subjects despite studies that found one in 10 young Americans cannot find his country on a blank map of the world. Nobody knew about Germany's slippage, explained Andreas Schleicher, who carried out the study. There is no central examination system, there is no way of knowing what the system actually delivers and so no one really worried. Schleicher, himself a German who attended a private grade school in Hamburg, said the lack of uniform standards and an oversight agency to monitor performance were among the shortcomings laid bare by the study. It is a scandal that the system lacks monitors, Koch said. As one of many planned reforms, the Education Ministry this month will hold a national conference for a debate on nationwide standards and evaluation. The PISA shock, as the Education Ministry calls the stunned sense of disillusion, is a common topic among parents during morning school drop-offs. The Allensbach polling institute found that 60 percent of Germans were alarmed at the results and that 25 percent did not want to accept them. While the OECD study focuses on grade schools, universities have come under fire during the economic downturn as corporate leaders have issued a chorus of protests that German university graduates fail to meet the criteria of the modern work force. The prospect of a looming skill shortage highlighted shortcomings in higher education, said Klaus Landfried, president of the Association of German Universities. In fact, the skills shortage is already glaring. The government actively recruits foreigners with skills in biotechnology and computers, even enduring an emotional backlash against immigration that the effort has triggered. A nation of engineering icons like Mercedes-Benz and Porsche has seen the number of homegrown graduates with engineering and mathematics degrees shrink by a fifth from 1993 to 1998, said a spokesman for the ministry, Florian Frank. The Education Ministry will release a study next month that attempts to explain why up to 30 percent of university students drop out before they get their degree, a ministry spokesman said. That compares to a 19 percent dropout rate in Britain. According to the OECD, only 16 percent of Germans hold a university degree, roughly the same proportion as Turkey and Mexico, and well below 35 percent in the United Kingdom and 33 percent in the United States. The average German earns his university degree at age 28, with anecdotes abounding of those who stay on far longer. Germans on average study at a university for more than six years, compared to four in the United States and 3.5 in Britain, OECD figures show. Students commonly complain of aloof professors whom they seldom meet outside crowded lecture halls. German universities are underfunded compared with those in Finland, Sweden, Japan or the United States, Landfried said. The ratio of faculty to students in German is three to four times worse in Germany than in the United States or Britain, he said. None of this sits well in a nation proud of its learning centers that excelled in humanities and
[Fwd: Fw: Urgent call for aid to Feb 15 actions]
Original Message Subject: Fw: Urgent call for aid to Feb 15 actions Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:22:43 -0500 From: George Snedeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: mlg [EMAIL PROTECTED] The February 15 and 16 rallies in New York and San Francisco are taking on historic proportions. In combination with dozens of national mobilizations in cities from London to Bangkok on February 15, these will be the largest demonstrations for peace and justice in world history. In New York, our confirmed speakers include Archbishop Desmond Tutu, playwright Tony Kushner, NAACP Board Chair Julian Bond, leaders of the September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, Angela Davis, performance artist Sarah Jones and poets from Def Poetry Jam, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, Rosie Perez, Pete Seeger, Holly Near, and more. [Visit http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=subsub=30 for lots more detail.] WE NEED YOUR HELP! The scale of this demonstration is swamping our resources and budget. Even though we have hundreds of volunteers, and have distributed hundreds of thousands of leaflets (in five languages), we need to do much more. Please go to http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=160 and make an on-line donation today. Whatever you can afford--$10 or $100, it's all needed. And forward this to your friends. We have one last chance to send a global message-The World Says No toWar. We're counting on you. Andrea Buffa Leslie Cagan Bill Fletcher, Jr. Co-Chairs, United for Peace and Justice
Krugman contra Greenspan
[New York Times] February 7, 2003 Is the Maestro a Hack? By PAUL KRUGMAN It's probably wishful thinking, but some people hope that the old Alan Greenspan - the man we used to respect - will make a return appearance next week. During the Clinton years Mr. Greenspan became an icon of fiscal probity, constantly lecturing politicians on the importance of eliminating deficits and paying off debt. Then George W. Bush took office, and Mr. Greenspan became - or was revealed as - a different man. First the Fed chairman lent decisive support to the Bush tax cut, urging Congress to reduce taxes lest the country run too large a budget surplus and pay off its debt too quickly. No, really. Then when the budget plunged into deficit, Mr. Greenspan not only refused to reconsider, he supported plans to make the tax cut permanent. The stern headmaster had become an indulgent uncle. But now the fiscal deterioration has reached catastrophic proportions. In its first budget, the Bush administration projected a 2004 surplus of $262 billion. In its second budget, released a year ago, it projected a $14 billion deficit for the same year. Now it projects a deficit of $307 billion. That's a deterioration of $570 billion, just for next year - matched by comparable deterioration in each following year. You know, $570 billion here and $570 billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money. Not my fault, says Mr. Bush. A recession and a war we did not choose have led to a return of deficits, he declared. Really? Will the recession and war cost $570 billion per year, every year? Besides, Mr. Bush knew all about the recession and Osama bin Laden (remember him?) a year ago, when his projections showed a return to surpluses by 2005. Now they show deficits forever - even though they don't include the costs of an Iraq war. Anyway, isn't a leader supposed to solve problems, not look for excuses? But Mr. Bush proposes to make the problem worse. Contrary to all previous practice, he wants to cut taxes even further in the face of wartime deficits. Although financial reporters have started to realize that Mr. Bush is out of control - he has lost his marbles, says CBS Market Watch - the sheer banana-republic irresponsibility of his plans hasn't been widely appreciated. That $674 billion tax cut you've heard about literally isn't the half of it. Even according to its own lowball estimates, the administration wants $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade - more than it pushed through in 2001. Another $575 billion or so will be needed to fix the alternative minimum tax - something officials have said they'll do, but haven't put in the budget. The administration has used gimmicks to postpone most of the cost of these tax cuts until after 2008 - and whaddya know, the Office of Management and Budget has suddenly stopped talking about 10-year projections and now officially looks only five years ahead. But there are long-term projections tucked away in the back of the budget; they're overoptimistic, but even so they suggest a fiscal disaster once the baby boomers start collecting benefits from Social Security and Medicare. (We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, other presidents, other generations, declared Mr. Bush in the State of the Union. And with a straight face, too.) So where does Mr. Greenspan come in? Next week he will testify before the Senate Banking Committee. Will he, at long last, acknowledge the administration's fecklessness? Mr. Greenspan must know that many people, whatever they say in public, now regard him as a partisan hack. That very much includes Republicans, who assume that he will support anything Mr. Bush proposes. What he does next week will determine whether that perception sticks. He has certainly run out of excuses. As a famous fiscal scold, he can't adopt the administration's deficits, schmeficits approach. And he can't make the supply-side claim that tax cuts actually increase revenues, when just two years ago he argued for a tax cut to reduce the surplus. If Mr. Greenspan nonetheless finds ways to rationalize Mr. Bush's irresponsibility, or if he takes refuge in Delphic utterances that could mean anything or nothing, history will remember him as a man who urged hard choices on others, but refused to make hard choices himself. This may be Alan Greenspan's last chance to save his reputation - and the country's solvency.
jobless youth
[I tried to find the report on Northeastern's website but had no luck. Anyone on the list know Andrew Sum?] [New York Times] February 6, 2003 Young, Jobless, Hopeless By BOB HERBERT CHICAGO - You see them in many parts of the city, hanging out on frigid street corners, skylarking at the malls or bowling alleys, hustling for money wherever they can, drifting in some cases into the devastating clutches of drug-selling, gang membership, prostitution and worse. In Chicago there are nearly 100,000 young people, ages 16 to 24, who are out of work, out of school and all but out of hope. In New York City there are more than 200,000. Nationwide, according to a new study by a team from Northeastern University in Boston, the figure is a staggering 5.5 million and growing. This army of undereducated, jobless young people, disconnected in most instances from society's mainstream, is restless and unhappy, and poses a severe long-term threat to the nation's well-being on many fronts. Audrey Roberts, a 17-year-old who just recently landed a job at a fast-food restaurant on Chicago's West Side, talked to me about some of the experiences she and her out-of-work friends have had to endure. The stuff you hear about on the news, she said, that's our everyday life. I've seen girls get raped, beaten up. I saw a boy get his head blown away. That happened right in front of me. I said, 'Oh my God!' I just stood there. The shooting was over a dice game that was being played one afternoon by boys who had nothing better to do with their time, she said. It's an article of faith among politicians and members of the media that the recession we continue to experience is a mild one. But it has hit broad sections of the nation's young people with a ferocity that has left many of them stunned. I don't think I can take it much longer, said Angjell Brackins, a 19-year-old South Side resident. I get up in the morning. I take a bath. I put on my clothes. I go outside. She has tried for months to find a job, she said, filling out application after application, to no avail. I'll do any kind of work if they'll just hire me. It doesn't matter, as long as it's a job. The report from Northeastern, titled Left Behind in the Labor Market, found that joblessness among out-of-school youths between 16 and 24 had surged by 12 percent since the year 2000. Washington's mindless response to this burgeoning crisis has been to slash - and in some cases eliminate - the few struggling programs aimed at bolstering youth employment and training. Education and career decisions made during the late teens and early 20's are crucial to the lifetime employment and earnings prospects of an individual. Those who do not do well during this period seldom catch up to the rest of the population. Our ability to generate family stability and safe communities is strongly influenced by this, said Dr. Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern and the lead author of the study. When you have 5 1/2 million young people wandering around without diplomas, without jobs and without prospects, you might as well hand them T-shirts to wear that say We're Trouble. Without help, they will not become part of a skilled work force. And they will become a drain on the nation's resources. One way or another, the rest of us will end up supporting them. It's just heartbreaking, said Jack Wuest, who runs the Alternative Schools Network in Chicago, which commissioned the study. These kids need a fair shake and they're not getting it. The Bush administration, committed to a war with Iraq and obsessed with tax cuts for the wealthy, has no interest in these youngsters. And very few others in a position to help are willing to go to bat for them. In a long series of conversations with young unemployed and undereducated Chicagoans, I did not hear much of anything in the way of aspirations. Whether boys or girls, men or women, those who were interviewed seemed for the most part already defeated. They did not talk about finding the perfect job. They did not talk about being in love and eventually marrying and raising a family. They did not express a desire to someday own their own home. There was, to tell the truth, a remarkable absence of positive comments and emotions of any kind. There was a widespread sense of frustration, and some anger. But mostly there was just sadness.
Re: jobless youth
www.dac.neu.edu/economics/facstaff/andrew.htm - Original Message - From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pen-l [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:12 PM Subject: [PEN-L:34432] jobless youth [I tried to find the report on Northeastern's website but had no luck. Anyone on the list know Andrew Sum?] [New York Times] February 6, 2003 Young, Jobless, Hopeless By BOB HERBERT CHICAGO - You see them in many parts of the city, hanging out on frigid street corners, skylarking at the malls or bowling alleys, hustling for money wherever they can, drifting in some cases into the devastating clutches of drug-selling, gang membership, prostitution and worse. In Chicago there are nearly 100,000 young people, ages 16 to 24, who are out of work, out of school and all but out of hope. In New York City there are more than 200,000. Nationwide, according to a new study by a team from Northeastern University in Boston, the figure is a staggering 5.5 million and growing. clip
Turkey: Parliament approves upgrade of U.S. bases
The vote was taken behind closed doors and the motion was carried 308-193 with 9 abstentions. That they had to take the vote behind closed doors is a clear indication that they are afraid from their citizens. There is clearly a divide between the members of the National Assembly and there is no reason not to expect that the balance may change in favor of the opponents. The pressure of the anti-war forces, which is basically 94% of the population, on the MPs, some of whom are already actively participating in the anti-war efforts, is growing like an avalanche. Even some well-known sitcom actors are issuing statements and playing an active role in the anti-war movement. The next vote will be at the end of the coming holiday, on Feb 18, and on whether to allow U.S. soldiers to be based in Turkey and Turkish soldiers to move into Iraq if there was a war or not. Next time, it will not be this easy. The rulers of Turkey are losing their legitimacy in the eyes of their subjects. A friend publicly likened the leaders of AKP, Erdogan and Gul to Blair and some others argue that this is a suicide for AKP. What I am wondering is whether there are any changes in the feelings/attitude of the people towards the military, as the military seems to back the US, too. Indeed, some AKP deputies imply that they were following orders from the military but of course open discussion of such matters in Turkey is a dangerous thing for all. Best, Sabri This is the decription of the session from the Turkish site of MSNBC: Meeting behind closed doors, the parliament held what was described as a somewhat heated session, though with its large majority the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) was able to carry the vote. The final tally was 308 deputies in favour of the motion and 193 opposed. Some AKP deputies crossed the floor to vote with the opposition Republican Peoples Party (CHP) against the government motion. Also see: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030206-113335-9871r http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35642-2003Feb6.htm l
