[PEN-L:7547] Re: still counting
Michael writes: Clinton's bombs have landed in still another country: Albania. Quite a record! Nought new in that, Michael. His response to Monicagate, er, the embassy bombings, was (a) to guess the wrong country and kill seven Sudanese aspirin factory workers, and (b) to guess [arguably] the right country and then proceed miss it - Afghanistan is a big place, but he hit Pakistan. One newspaper report at the time reckoned it was better than that. They reckoned he'd managed to hit India! By the way, by refusing to live by the war powers act, could we say that Clinton is a war resister? Part of a tradition, no? The US never calls its wars 'wars'. Technically, it's been at peace since 1945, hasn't it? Any chance Bill is considering all-out, er, police action on the ground to pull the Repugs into complicity? Draped in the Stars'n'Stripes as they are, they'd find it hard to oppose a war in which hundreds of American lads are getting blown away. That way, the two sides would be even on the Yugoslav thing by the time New Hampshire comes around, and Al would have a chance. Risky, but perhaps the Dems' best shot? He'd have to go to the House for that though, wouldn't he? Or not? Cheers, Rob.
[PEN-L:7550] Re: totalitarianism
I stand corrected, Jim. Nice post. I'll opt for 'bureaucratic centralism' then, and stick with my 'contingent great man theory'. Rob. So the totalitarianism theory, along with Stalinism, belongs in the waste-basket of history, not only because it was a crude ideology justifying the Cold War but also because it is incoherent as a theory and doesn't fit the empirical facts. All societies with a ruling class (including bureaucratic socialism and capitalism) have contradictions, so that there are internal reasons to reject their immortality.
[PEN-L:7542] Re: DeLong Compares Mao to Hitler
G'day Chas,
It must seem like I follow you from list to list just to disagree with you
Conditions can be such, and usually have been just after insurrections, that
an ordinary man can become a'great' one in the historically influential
sense. Stalin, whom Zinoviev and Kamenev helped put in the chair at Leon's
expense, had it available to him to become what he was to become (and he was
already an experienced killer) - and he duly became an experienced killer
with Tsar-like powers. He became a mass murderer. Appeals to the murderous
excesses of the west and the tendentious exaggerations of western historians
don't cut it. People died, in their hundreds of thousands, who neither
needed nor deserved to die - not by accident, not as the collateral damage
('premature deaths') of imperfect policy, but as the victims of a 'great'
man - made 'great' by a system capable of making, indeed likely to make,
just such a man. They died because Stalin sat atop a totalitarian system.
*He* killed 'em, because a system many of his victims helped put there
(yeah, yeah, within particular historical constraints, an' all that) allowed
him to.
Never mind WW1 and imperialist conflicts between competing powers - never
mind that the bolsheviks under Lenin were constantly faced with ugly choices
that led to a political system amenable to gross and obscene distortions -
never mind SK's pro-Stalin machinations - mind only that socialists today
have to reckon with the history of socialist revolutions. It's a history
that teaches anything is possible - that the people can make anything happen
in the most inhospitable of circumstances - that socialism has proven itself
a cause that has moved and transformed people just as Marx said it would -
*and that hitherto it has evinced fundamental and tragic flaws that
absolutely must be reckoned with here and now*.
I don't know enough about China to say a dickie-bird on that (but I'm with
Lord Acton on absolute power and the individual), but I reckon we gotta look
at the future without (as Marx has it in the 18th Brumaire) 'the tradition
of all the dead generations weigh[ing] like a nightmare on the brain of the
living'. We're not in the business of defending Stalin, we're in the
business of promoting socialism - which, as Zinoviev realised too late,
ain't anywhere near the same thing. To think otherwise is to put all of us
back - again and #!* again.
Nuff said.
Rob.
[PEN-L:7681] Re: My New Chair Was Built by Child Labor
Peter Dorman wrote, I swear I didn't know it at the time. I heard that an Amish guy in central NY State made fantastic rockers for a low price (a little over $100). So I ordered a chair to be picked up in several months, my head filled with thoughts about supporting cultural diversity as well as the happy moments I would have reading in my new chair. When I got there, the chair-maker was behind the cash register, and behind him were a gaggle of kids, mostly pre-teen, operating woodworking equipment. And, yes, the chair was beautiful to look at, comfortable to sit in, and very, very cheap INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DELEGATES OF THE PROVISIONAL GENERAL COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL WORKING MEN'S ASSOCIATION THE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS by KARL MARX Written at the end of August 1866 4. JUVENILE AND CHILDREN'S LABOUR (BOTH SEXES) We consider the tendency of modern industry to make children and juvenile persons of both sexes co-operate in the great work of social production, as a progressive, sound and legitimate tendency, although under capital it was distorted into an abomination. In a rational state of society every child whatever, from the age of 9 years, ought to become a productive labourer in the same way that no able-bodied adult person ought to be exempted from the general law of nature, viz.: to work in order to be able to eat, and work not only with the brain but with the hands too. .. . . A gradual and progressive course of mental, gymnastic, and technological training ought to correspond to the classification of the juvenile labourers. The costs of the technological a schools ought to be partly met by the sale of their products. The combination of paid productive labour, mental education, bodily exercise and polytechnic training, will raise the working class far above the level of the higher and middle classes. It is self-understood that the employment of all persons from 9 and to 17 years (inclusively) in nightwork and all health-injuring trades must be strictly prohibited by law.
[PEN-L:7676] Russia test-fires ballistic missile
Russia test-fires ballistic missile Thursday, 3 June 1999 19:10 (GMT) (UPI Focus) Russia test-fires ballistic missile MOSCOW, June 3 (UPI) - Russia has test-fired a Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile from the Plisetsk missile range in northwest Russia, the Itar-Tass news agency reports. The missile, a new-generation weapon that will eventually replace Russia's older, heavier missiles, flew across northern Russia, hitting its designated target in a remote area of the Kamchatka peninsula in Russia's Far East. Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces said the flight was a success. Today's launch of the Topol-M is believed to be only the seventh in three years. -- Copyright 1999 by United Press International. All rights reserved. --
[PEN-L:7674] Re: Credibility
Max, Sounds like you could use one of those new model Lazy-Boy Rocker recliners like Tom Lehman's got. Maybe you could get a special deal on a hardly used one from the Pentagon.
[PEN-L:7672] Re: Re: racism on pen-l
Charles, a most insightful and touching article. Frankly, American Blacks are among the most victimized group in history and the most victimized today relatively. We Chinese have the same rage suppression reflex drummed into us by Confucian poison. We are conditioned to avoid confrontation, which Westerners interpret as weakness and acquiescence. Take the story of Lou Shide of the Tang dynasty (7th century) who would be well-known in history as a man of uncommon tolerance. In old age, when he would be destined to become a high minister at court some 2 decades after he first entered government, he would be reported as having advised his younger brother to act always with the utmost self-effacement to avoid provoking enemies at court. It would be recorded that his brother, allegedly having reassured Lou Shide not to worry, claiming that even if people should come up and expectorate directly on his face, he would only quietly wipe it off, whereby Lou Shide would be reported to have solemnly shaken his head with disapproval and said earnestly: "It is because you harbor this type of attitude that causes me worries. When someone spits in your face, it is because he is angry with you. If you wipe off the spit, it would be interpreted as a form of defiance, which will only bolster his anger. What you should do is to smile broadly and let the spit dry by itself. Do you understand?" The advice of Lou Shide makes "turning the other cheek" aggressively defiant by comparison. It is with the same obsequious attitude that Lou Shide approached diplomacy. The less-than-honorable truce Lou Shide negotiated in 679 with the advisors of 8-year-old Tufan zanpu (Tibetan king) Qinuxilong, with which Lou Shide earned his promotions at court and from which he emerged as leader of the appeasement faction, only served to encourage repeated escalation of bolder demands from emboldened Tufans. The appeasement-induced truce would collapse after the Tang court refused the 8-year-old zanpu's allegedly impertinent request, by name, for the hand in marriage of 16-year-old Peace Princess (Taiping Gongzu) of the Tang imperial family, a request that Confucians at court deemed impertinent for a minor Barbarian chieftain. In Shanghai, until Communist liberation, there was a park in the British Quarters, where a sign at the entrance read: "Dogs and Chinese not allowed". The more liberal British residents explained to their selected Chinese friends that it was not discrimination. It was that the majority of the Chinese were poor and dressed in dirty rags that the rich Chinese themselves would not let into their own homes. And if the rich Chinese were let into the park, then British law on equality would need to let all Chinese in. So it was common sense against poverty and the rule of law that necessitated the offensive sign. The Rich Chinese would than accuse the young revolutionaries of being consumed by blind hate and seeing racial discrimination where none existed. Between friends, the problem with us intellectuals is that when we see a sausage, we think of Picasso, instead of starving people. We keep deluding ourselves, with help from the oppressive culture, that if we associate with the more educated, we can protect ourselves from discrimination, whereas in reality, we only move into circles in which discrimination is more subtle and its expression more sophisticated. Unwittingly, we permit ourselves to be co-opted into the oppressors camp and comfort ourselves by claiming that at least we are still on the left. Henry
[PEN-L:7670] Greg Elich on the proposed settlement
(Greg Elich is a Serb-American freelance radical journalist based in the Columbus, Ohio area. He has an article that will appear in the next issue of Covert Action Quarterly.) I don't agree with acceptance of the "peace" plan, but it is difficult to see what alternative Yugoslavia had. Basically, Yugoslavia was faced with two choices: 1) Acceptance of this plan, which will lead to a hostile occupation of Kosovo, and the eventual secession of Kosovo. The partial but thorough destruction of Yugoslavia (bombing so far). 2) Continued resistance. Preferable from the standpoint of the dignity and sovereignty of the nation, but inevitably leading to an invasion by NATO. Consequently, due to the isolation of Yugoslavia, this would result in a hostile occupation by NATO not only of Kosovo but the entire nation, with the secession of Montenegro surely following. Also resulting would be the complete and total destruction of Yugoslavia as an industrial economy. Vietnam was able to hold out and eventually defeat a much stronger opponent, but then it had assistance from other nations. No nation is assisting Yugoslavia, it stands alone. The technological gap is just too pronounced for Yugoslavia to be able to successfully resist this monster. That said, even with this capitulation, don't be surprised if NATO bombing continues unabated. Rest assured, it is not merely Kosovo that the West is after. The West wants nothing less than the total subjugation of the entire nation of Yugoslavia. And they will not relinquish that goal, no matter what concessions Yugoslavia makes. One of the conditions for stopping bombing is the complete and rapid withdrawal of Yugoslav troops from Kosovo. Don't be surprised if, when Yugoslav troops start to withdraw, NATO escalates its bombing, and intentionally tries to massacre withdrawing troops. Indeed, we can count on it. I well remember the mass retreat of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Western planes savagely bombed retreating troops and vehicles on the road to Basra. One Navy pilot commented that, in regard to planes returning to reload bombs, that bombs couldn't be loaded fast enough. It was a frenzy of killing, an absolute massacre, over 50,000 Iraqi troops lost their lives. These were troops retreating from Kuwait, there was no point in massacring them except sheer savagery. Yugoslav troops can well expect the same. Not long ago, when Yugoslavia announced a partial withdrawal of troops from Kosovo, one Western official announced that NATO would make a point of bombing them when they came into the open to withdraw, that attacks on them would escalate during their withdrawal. It was no surprise that Yugoslavia had to cancel the partial withdrawal, it would have been suicidal. We can expect the same now. And if Yugoslav troops refuse a suicidal withdrawal, then it will be an "excuse" for NATO to continue bombing. Some of the terms of this plan are intentionally vague. We can expect that NATO will make a thousand demands, some of which will take advantage of vague conditions, and some of which will be completely in contravention of provisions of the plan. Each demand will be backed by threats, and bombing. Even if Yugoslavia completely carries out all of the plan's terms, new excuses will be invented, new demands will be made. Don't be surprised if bombing continues despite completion of all of the plan's stated provisions. Even if bombing stops eventually, it could resume with any new demand. Kosovo is lost already. NATO will make endless demands and threats until it finally has what it wants: the overthrow of the Yugoslav government, installation of a puppet government, an economy put completely at the service of Western corporate interests, resulting in Yugoslav workers having the privilege of joining the Third World, working for 50 cents an hour in Western-owned factories, the complete lack of democracy, as we see with NATO running Bosnia today, the lack of freedom of expression, again, as we see with NATO running Bosnia today. I knew we were in trouble when Yeltsin appointed Victor Chernomyrdin as the Russian negotiator. Chernomyrdin is one of the few who can claim a rare distinction: being more of a worm than Yeltsin himself. I knew we were completely alone and isolated at that moment, that no one would help us, even though, ultimately it is in the best interests of many other nations had they helped us. Because Yugoslavia is not the last target. Better for the world to defeat the monster now, before a precedent of international homicidal lawlessness is set. Yugoslavia has been defeated, but the battle is not over. Yugoslavia must struggle against titanic odds to maintain sovereignty over what remains of the nation. Kosovo is lost, its secession is guaranteed, as well as the future mass murder and exodus from Kosovo of all in the region who favor a united multi-ethnic nation: Serbs, Roma, pro-Yugoslav Albanians, Turks, Gorans, etc., there will be no place for these people in the
[PEN-L:7669] Credibility
03 June 1999 19:06 UTC Typical. I did not engage him. Max engaged me by posting a lampoon on my post which had not been addressed to him. As some one quoted Chomsky: In American, facts matter little. I had thought that since the last encounter with the incident of ridiculing my name, he would keep his direct off-list promise to me to keep his distance. But not keeping his word to unworthy people is standard procedure for him, apparently. Perhap this time I would be lucky and earn his benign neglect. Henry C.K. Liu * * * The post referred to is reproduced below, verbatim. I must confess my first two sentences were lies. MBS --- [May 2] Dear Henry, I think you ought to consider re-subbing to LBO and PEN-L. My impression is that your contributions are well-regarded by most. To me the lists are, among other things, a form of recreation that affords the opportunity to kid and be kidded in return. Sometimes the jibes are sharp, and sometimes one can misjudge the taste of others for this sort of exchange. My tendency is to gauge the sharpness by the extent to which I take exception to something I read, rather than by the disposition of the individual targeted by some of my remarks. My joke made no reference to any racial stereotype about Chinese people. Nor did it exploit any particularly Chinese aspect of your name. The sound of "lou" has no particular connotation to Americans. In any case, I certainly had no racist intent in punning on your name, and I regret any hurt that it caused. I am not a sadist. I do enjoy kidding people. I seldom kid people for whom I have no regard. There is little pleasure in trading insults with someone whom one genuinely dislikes. So do come back. As for myself, I've written more e-mail than is good for me and I'll be taking a vacation. Be well. Regards, Max Sawicky
[PEN-L:7666] Re: Re: Re: My New Chair
Maybe you and I can export it to China. On the other hand, we may not get an export permit, because rocking chairs can be dual use equiptment; the Pentagon has one in every office. ;o) Henry Tom Lehman wrote: Henry, up in Monroe, Michigan as far as I know. Of course there is always the possibility they may have stolen the technology from China. ;o) Your email pal, Tom L. "Henry C.K. Liu" wrote: Sounds good Tom, may I ask where was this chair made? Henry Tom Lehman wrote: Over this past weekend I traded my old 1991 model Lazy-boy Dynamo recliner in on a new 1999 model Lazy-boy Rocker recliner. It was delievered today and I can't wait to get home and try it out and see if it feels as good as it felt in the Lazy-boy showroom! These new Rocker recliner's are cool. You just lean back and the foot rest automatically comes out at the proper tension and height. No more side pull handles or sloppy movement as in earlier models. My wife refers to this chair and my previous chair as my Archie Bunker chair. It's nice to be married to a woman with a sense of humor. Meanwhile, go on down to your Lazy-boy showroom for this sale and have fun. Your email pal, Tom L.
[PEN-L:7664] Re: My New Chair
Sounds good Tom, may I ask where was this chair made? Henry Tom Lehman wrote: Over this past weekend I traded my old 1991 model Lazy-boy Dynamo recliner in on a new 1999 model Lazy-boy Rocker recliner. It was delievered today and I can't wait to get home and try it out and see if it feels as good as it felt in the Lazy-boy showroom! These new Rocker recliner's are cool. You just lean back and the foot rest automatically comes out at the proper tension and height. No more side pull handles or sloppy movement as in earlier models. My wife refers to this chair and my previous chair as my Archie Bunker chair. It's nice to be married to a woman with a sense of humor. Meanwhile, go on down to your Lazy-boy showroom for this sale and have fun. Your email pal, Tom L.
[PEN-L:7662] Re: Re: Re: social fascism
Charles writes: I disagree with getting rid of the word "fascism" itself, too, because there is still a danger that at some point the financial oligarchy will become desparate and try to institute wholesale, open terrorist rule again. This is one reason, the U.S. will not outlaw fascist groups, because it might need them at some point. "Fascism" is an important scienttific term we should continue to use to measure the U.S. political economy. (a) I wasn't advocating getting rid of the word "fascism" -- but I was "trying to avoid" the word. Like a lot of rhetoric, it loses value in overuse. (It's a classic case of diminishing returns.) This is especially so since the it has been applied to describe not only the social system of Italy in the 1920s and 1930s but also a kind of personality (the F-scale) and also anything we don't like. Looking at the way it's been used, it's hardly a scientific term. What does calling the Governor of Michigan (Engler?) a "fascist" say except that we don't like him? If I were to use the word "fascism" in a scientific way (linking up with the original fascism of Mussolini) I would use it to apply to Pat Buchanan, who combines a lot of the classic elements (fierce nationalism, rabid anti-communism, opportunism, use of "proletarian" rhetoric, racism, etc.) His personal history also links up with the old fascist movements. (b) Do you think that the "financial oligarchy" (which I think could be described in less hackneyed terms) is likely to become desperate in the near future? The anti-capitalist movement is very very weak. It's nothing like in the 1960s and 1970s. Then they did bring in COINTELPRO. By the way, CONINTELPRO was very bad (using agents provocateurs to break up the Panthers, etc.) but I don't think the word "fascist" adds much. It stretches the analogy with Mussolini to the breaking point. (c) I'll grant you this point: there is a kind of "fascism" (gross and violent social injustice) going on right now in the US, the war on drugs, which has led to massive incarceration rates, disproportionately falling on the backs of "minorities." However, to call it fascism again stretches the analogy. (BTW, the war on drugs doesn't seem to be due to the desperation of the financial oligarchy.) Also, to call it fascist distracts us from the point that heroin, cocaine, etc., should be legalized and medicalized. Calling it fascist simply says we hate it -- or that we need a revolution, which doesn't seem to be on the agenda at this point. (d) I _hope_ that the US doesn't outlaw fascist groups (which "they" might need some day -- sounds paranoid). The reason is that the kinds of laws which would ban fascist groups (militias, etc.) can and will be applied to ban leftist groups and parties, even labor unions. (W. Germany banned Nazis _and_ Communists.) My commitment to civil liberties tells me we shouldn't ban fascist groups, only fascist activities. And the word "fascist" doesn't add much if anything to clear thinking about this issue. My example of the assassination by the SD's pokes more of a hole in your notion that "social fascist" was inaccurate than you admit. I don't take an approach that communists and social dems were equally to blame for the failure to unite against the fascists in Germany. I didn't say that "social fascist" was an inaccurate term to describe the SDs in Germany during the 1920s. That's sort of an impossible argument, since the word "fascist" can be (and has been) stretched to fit almost any group or individual we don't like. (Wasn't it Susan Sontag who labeled the old COMECON countries "successful fascism"?) I was arguing against the _utility_ of that phrase. I also do _not_ say that the CP and the SDs were "equally to blame," since blame can't be quantified. Both of these groups had their problems, both contributing in different ways to a lack of unity against the Nazis. If I were a German leftist in the 1920s, I wouldn't join either of them. (Of course, I also wouldn't be communicating with you over the Internet if I were a German leftist in the 1920s.) Capitalism sure seems to be in big trouble on a global scale, but there's hardly enough of a movement to replace it. This seems especially so here in the "belly of the beast": the US left is in big trouble these days. We have to deal with this situation partly through serious theoretical debate and discussion, and of course, serious action. But crucial is reaching out and communicating with (not just talking to) the younger generation. I don't think this last is facilitated by talking or writing as if we lived in the 1930s or 1940s. Throwing around terms like "fascist" may be gratifying, but does it communicate with people who aren't already committed to the left? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. Ground troops make things worse. US/NATO out of Serbia!
[PEN-L:7660] Re: Re: China, WTO Excess Capacity
Although Michael's point about macro demand is well taken, the current pollution is China comes more from obsolete production systems rather than high consumption. That pollution can be cleaned up and reduced by buying control systems from the West. Capitalism has already figured out how to profit from environmental protection and if there is profit, the problem will be solved. The problem is that for capitalism to succeed, it need to concentrate profitability to achieve maximization. thus capitalism structurally will leave gaping holes in the economy and load them on society. Eonomists call the holes poverty. For decadesin the US, environment was a poverty area, and now public health is moving into a proverty area as is public education. China's attempt to have a mixed economy will fail, because capitalism will reduce the Chinese social sector into a proverty area. Tax revenue will decline in order to compete for global capital which put mixed economies at a competitive disadvantage with full market economies. WTO rules push every member economy into market economies. So China is at the cross road: capitalism or socialism. I am devoting my energy to move China back to the socialist road. A mixed economy only means a capitalist economy through torturous paths. I firmly believe that profit is not the only effective movtiving economic force and a profit motivation society cannot be good. That is why I think Mao is important and WTO is a bad vehicle. Henry C.K. Liu Michael Perelman wrote: Rob's interesting post raises the question of excess capacity with respect to China. On the other side, the U.S. with a tiny fraction of the worlds population consumes something like 1/4 of the resources. If China or India would raise its standard of living up to U.S. or European levels, the strains on the environment would be intolerable UNLESS the already affluent managed to consume in a fashion that made fewer demands on the environment. Already, the environmental strains in China seem quite intense: air pollution, dropping water tables, paving over of agricultural lands. Rob Schaap wrote: G'day Henry and Michael, Henry has some things to say about China and the WTO. I put a case here some time back (I'd pinched it from an article) that a salient cause of the East Asian crisis was a ten-year process whereby capitalism had to swallow the introduction of millions of poor workers from the erstwhile Euro-commie bloc into global markets. The commie bloc brought little effective demand into those markets, but lots of poor labour. Excess capacity and underconsumption propensities were duly exacerbated, and the finance sector was obliged to find a patsy. That patsy was to be East Asia, where 200 million have now had their lives wrecked, and where political fall-out might yet wreck a lot more (Indonesia is positively frightening right now). Anyway, it seems to me those propensities have not been alleviated. Should China hit global capitalism in all its glory, would we not be doing a whole lot more of the same? A few tens of millions of buyers, sure, but a few more hundreds of millions of producers without realistic chances of becoming useful consumers. The US's goldilocks economy still produces below capacity, South-East Asia is building inventories as I tap away, so is Australia, Europe doesn't seem to offer short-term hope of increased consumption, and Latin America has no real buying power either. In other words, would world capitalism be mad to have China? And would China be mad to have world capitalism? Cheers, Rob. The issue: the implications of China's entrance to the WTO. Looking at it from China's perspective, I stand firmly with those who are against the idea. Domestic opposition to WTO has increased since the Embassy bombing, which I may add seriously, is no longer just a matter of over-reaction for the Chinese. Serious domestic politics have been affected and the issue of WTO, which had been settled, was reopened and China trade officials will not even renew negotiations until China receives a "satisfactory" report on the investigation on the bombing Clinton promised as being in progress. The State Department is frantically trying to put together a special envoy team to deliver the finished report to Beijing in time for WTO negotiation to conclude to roll the NTR Congressional vote into one single package. Slim chance that could be done, but Clinton wants to give it the best effort try. Opening Chinese markets under WTO rules at this moment in time will forever foreclose the building of socialism in China. Even under market economy terms, the benefits to China are dubious at best. I expect DeLong to be in support of the idea if China is willing to make all the concessions the US demands, particularly in the financial and communication sectors. He may even argue it's good
[PEN-L:7658] Re: China, WTO Excess Capacity
Greenspan is pushing technology and creative destruction precisely because he sees the problems Rob is talking about. Greenspan is arguing that for an identical unit of consumption, less physical material is used now as compared to the past and will be even less gemoetrically in the future. He points out that much of the real growth in the US and global economy will be virtual rather than physical. Greenspan's error is that while on one level he is talking about growth, on another level he is promoting trade-offs. This is no possible in both economics and physics. The day is fast coming when the disposal of personal computers and cell phone batteries will cost more than their production. Already PC printers are wasting paper at an alarming high growth rate. This is why Gore is talking environment protection. Charlie Chaplan's new Modern Times will be a perpetual machine where 50% of of the energy is spent on production and distribution, and the other 50% is spent on collection and disposal of waste. People are caught in the middle to keep the machine running. This will be the capitalist vision for the new century. Henry C.K. Liu Rob Schaap wrote: G'day Henry and Michael, Henry has some things to say about China and the WTO. I put a case here some time back (I'd pinched it from an article) that a salient cause of the East Asian crisis was a ten-year process whereby capitalism had to swallow the introduction of millions of poor workers from the erstwhile Euro-commie bloc into global markets. The commie bloc brought little effective demand into those markets, but lots of poor labour. Excess capacity and underconsumption propensities were duly exacerbated, and the finance sector was obliged to find a patsy. That patsy was to be East Asia, where 200 million have now had their lives wrecked, and where political fall-out might yet wreck a lot more (Indonesia is positively frightening right now). Anyway, it seems to me those propensities have not been alleviated. Should China hit global capitalism in all its glory, would we not be doing a whole lot more of the same? A few tens of millions of buyers, sure, but a few more hundreds of millions of producers without realistic chances of becoming useful consumers. The US's goldilocks economy still produces below capacity, South-East Asia is building inventories as I tap away, so is Australia, Europe doesn't seem to offer short-term hope of increased consumption, and Latin America has no real buying power either. In other words, would world capitalism be mad to have China? And would China be mad to have world capitalism? Cheers, Rob. The issue: the implications of China's entrance to the WTO. Looking at it from China's perspective, I stand firmly with those who are against the idea. Domestic opposition to WTO has increased since the Embassy bombing, which I may add seriously, is no longer just a matter of over-reaction for the Chinese. Serious domestic politics have been affected and the issue of WTO, which had been settled, was reopened and China trade officials will not even renew negotiations until China receives a "satisfactory" report on the investigation on the bombing Clinton promised as being in progress. The State Department is frantically trying to put together a special envoy team to deliver the finished report to Beijing in time for WTO negotiation to conclude to roll the NTR Congressional vote into one single package. Slim chance that could be done, but Clinton wants to give it the best effort try. Opening Chinese markets under WTO rules at this moment in time will forever foreclose the building of socialism in China. Even under market economy terms, the benefits to China are dubious at best. I expect DeLong to be in support of the idea if China is willing to make all the concessions the US demands, particularly in the financial and communication sectors. He may even argue it's good for China. Of course, the prospect of this happening this year is practically nil, given the atmospherics. Clinton has practically thrown in the towel by giving up on trying to get permanent NTR (Normal Trading Relations- former Most Favored Nation) status and China-WTO membership as a package. He has announced that he will extend NTR status to China tomorrow (June 3) and Congress has 90 days to overturn the decision. The vote traditionally comes in late July just before Congress recesses in August. The immediate impact is, without NTR, tariff for Chinese imports will jump from less than 5% to 40%. The impact of this on US inflation and interest rates is obvious. So th failue of NTR even for one year has more serious impact of Wall Street than on trade per se. Gephardt normally a skeptic on trade liberalization, has signed on with the Administration on the China-WTO deal. Henry C.k. Liu Michael Perelman wrote: This whole debate is pointless. Who is worse, Jeffrey Daumer or
[PEN-L:7657] Re: new cold war?
I agree this piece by Kuttner sounds like sabre rattling. What was/is Kuttner's view on the bombing of the FRY? Doug Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [THIS KUTTNER COMMENTARY SOUNDS LIKE A CALL FOR WHAT AMOUNTS TO A NEW COLD WAR.] China policy needs toughening By Robert Kuttner, 05/30/99
[PEN-L:7655] Re: China, WTO Excess Capacity
Rob's interesting post raises the question of excess capacity with respect to China. On the other side, the U.S. with a tiny fraction of the worlds population consumes something like 1/4 of the resources. If China or India would raise its standard of living up to U.S. or European levels, the strains on the environment would be intolerable UNLESS the already affluent managed to consume in a fashion that made fewer demands on the environment. Already, the environmental strains in China seem quite intense: air pollution, dropping water tables, paving over of agricultural lands. Rob Schaap wrote: G'day Henry and Michael, Henry has some things to say about China and the WTO. I put a case here some time back (I'd pinched it from an article) that a salient cause of the East Asian crisis was a ten-year process whereby capitalism had to swallow the introduction of millions of poor workers from the erstwhile Euro-commie bloc into global markets. The commie bloc brought little effective demand into those markets, but lots of poor labour. Excess capacity and underconsumption propensities were duly exacerbated, and the finance sector was obliged to find a patsy. That patsy was to be East Asia, where 200 million have now had their lives wrecked, and where political fall-out might yet wreck a lot more (Indonesia is positively frightening right now). Anyway, it seems to me those propensities have not been alleviated. Should China hit global capitalism in all its glory, would we not be doing a whole lot more of the same? A few tens of millions of buyers, sure, but a few more hundreds of millions of producers without realistic chances of becoming useful consumers. The US's goldilocks economy still produces below capacity, South-East Asia is building inventories as I tap away, so is Australia, Europe doesn't seem to offer short-term hope of increased consumption, and Latin America has no real buying power either. In other words, would world capitalism be mad to have China? And would China be mad to have world capitalism? Cheers, Rob. The issue: the implications of China's entrance to the WTO. Looking at it from China's perspective, I stand firmly with those who are against the idea. Domestic opposition to WTO has increased since the Embassy bombing, which I may add seriously, is no longer just a matter of over-reaction for the Chinese. Serious domestic politics have been affected and the issue of WTO, which had been settled, was reopened and China trade officials will not even renew negotiations until China receives a "satisfactory" report on the investigation on the bombing Clinton promised as being in progress. The State Department is frantically trying to put together a special envoy team to deliver the finished report to Beijing in time for WTO negotiation to conclude to roll the NTR Congressional vote into one single package. Slim chance that could be done, but Clinton wants to give it the best effort try. Opening Chinese markets under WTO rules at this moment in time will forever foreclose the building of socialism in China. Even under market economy terms, the benefits to China are dubious at best. I expect DeLong to be in support of the idea if China is willing to make all the concessions the US demands, particularly in the financial and communication sectors. He may even argue it's good for China. Of course, the prospect of this happening this year is practically nil, given the atmospherics. Clinton has practically thrown in the towel by giving up on trying to get permanent NTR (Normal Trading Relations- former Most Favored Nation) status and China-WTO membership as a package. He has announced that he will extend NTR status to China tomorrow (June 3) and Congress has 90 days to overturn the decision. The vote traditionally comes in late July just before Congress recesses in August. The immediate impact is, without NTR, tariff for Chinese imports will jump from less than 5% to 40%. The impact of this on US inflation and interest rates is obvious. So th failue of NTR even for one year has more serious impact of Wall Street than on trade per se. Gephardt normally a skeptic on trade liberalization, has signed on with the Administration on the China-WTO deal. Henry C.k. Liu Michael Perelman wrote: This whole debate is pointless. Who is worse, Jeffrey Daumer or Jack the Ripper? Nonsense. JIm D. made an important point that seems to have passed unnoticed. You cannot evaluate politics without the context. Mao murdered people because of mass starvation. Do we apply the same standard to homeless people who freeze on the street? No one here has come out to proclaim themself as a Stalinist. We went through the same nonsense a few weeks ago when people opposing the bombing felt obliged to declare that they were not disciples of Milosovic. Can't we drop this nonsense? Stalin did some hard things
[PEN-L:7603] Re: Re: Re: Re: nationalism -was Re: Liquidated
Oh no, what a limiting thought. Leninism was a product of its time circumstances - could you tell me what it means to be a Leninist in the U.S. or Australia in 1999? Gee, this discussion makes me nostalgic. Nostalgic for a time when the political and military problems of the socialist transition seemed to be more urgent than they do now. As a former participant in the US party-building movement (Maoist for short) I'd like to say that Henry is wrong about M-L-MST. It is funny. At least many of us are laughing at ourselves not the Chinese (it strikes me British post-Trotskyism doesn't have the same resources of humor, though repeatedly chanting "combined and uneven development" is perhaps too dry to joke about). On the other hand, Henry is absolutely right that the casual dismissal of Mao as a revolutionary leader is insulting to the Chinese people's struggle and its history. This history and leadership deserves the careful Marxist study that Henry is advocating. His outlines of this history in recent posts strike me as convincing as lines of investigation at least up until the overthrow of the Gang of Four. To partially address Doug's question above, Lenin's crucial contributions to Marxism and revolutionary strategy are three fold: 1. The advent of monopoly capitalism represents a new stage of capitalism whose dynamics are in some ways qualitatively different than the preceding competitive stage. 2. The bourgeois character of the capitalist state is structurally embedded and the revolutionary appropriation of the state involves a root and branch restructuring beyond changing who is at the helm or even which class's representatives are at the helm. 3. In a revolutionary situation, only a vanguard party will have the theoretical and organizational resources to provide the needed leadership. Of these three propositions it seems to me only the last is seriously debatable, though it is hard to see how a purely mass based organization would survive a capitalist counterrevolution. The record of vanguard parties has not been good, but then where has social democracy ever led to socialism. Mao's contribution is: 1. Class struggle continues under socialism. This too is hardly debatable, especially in light of subsequent events in China itself. The real indictment of the Cultural Revolution is that it's conduct seemed to set the stage for a subsequent restoration of the capitalist road if not full fledged capitalism. I would hesitate, however, to see the restoration of capitalism in China as the result of tactical mistakes. I suspect that at a deeper level it has to do with fundamental problems in the context of the worker-peasant alliance. I would be interested to know Henry's views on the character of the current Chinese regime. By the way its the lower organs of the party which must penetrate the more backward parts of the proletariat, not the leading organs. This fundamental misunderstanding the relationship between the party and the masses must call into question the proletarian character of Max Sawicky's purported leadership of the socialist struggle. Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:7615] Re: Bwana Compares Mao to Hitler
"Michael Keaney" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/03/99 06:17AM Charles Brown wrote: Stalin did not launch a war as Hitler did. No he did not, although his annexations of the Baltic states bear some comparison with the reoccupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss with Austria and the annexation of the Sudetenland. Stalin also launched an attack against Finland, which had the happy effect of exposing how ill-prepared the Soviet military was for war, among many unhappy effects. There is also the matter of the massacre at Katyn, committed during the joint Soviet-Nazi carve-up of Poland. Then there are the assorted pogroms, purges and cleansings of kulaks, Jews, Left Opposition, Right Opposition, any opposition (real or imaginary). ( Charles: Without ignoring that some of these specific actions have another side to the story, they amount to much less than the imperialist wars of aggression launched by pretty much all American presidents. Even domestically ,Washington put down Shays rebellion. Andrew Jackson led mass murder of indigenous peoples usurping their homeland from them in the American southeast. Mexico was invaded by the U.S. in the early 1800's. The history of U.S. presidents in the twentieth century in Dominican Republic, Nicaragua (80's and 20's), Viet Nam, Panama, as a very small sample ( see list that has been circulating in response to the current war on Yugoslavia and Iraq for a more complete picture of the massive U.S. aggression through history) . With two bombs, Truman killed tens of thousands in minutes. The parade of U.S. president imperalist war horribles is mind boggling and evidence of murderous tyranny equalling and surpassing your description above. And domestically the U.S. had the secret police agency of the FBI under one dictator, Hoover for about 50 years. (( The totalitarian, mass murdering of the Western democracies (Britain, U.S., France, Australia) is invisible to most who want to portray socialism as worse than capitalism. Of course it is. Exporting it abroad helps enormously in the domestic legitimation of the status quo. (( Charles: There is also a lot of domestic political mass murder and oppression on the hands of American presidents and dictators (liker J. Edgar Hoover). The annihilation of indigenous peoples and herding them into concentration camps was carried out largely by American presidents , governors and generals. The enslavement and enforcement of slave laws against Africans was carried out by U.S. presidents , generals and police forces; then Jim Crow, which was a form of fascism for Black people, was enforced by presidents, governors and police agents (including secret police) and paramilitaries (KKK) for many decades. There is more. ((( This is a futile, if not facile, debate. Was the USSR a socialist country? Not in my book, but obviously in many others'. So what is socialism? I equate socialism with democracy. How democracy can be achieved via authoritarian means is a conundrum we might do well to consider. It would perhaps be useful to dispense with the separation of means and ends which has allowed demagogues of "Left" and "Right" masquerading as liberators and progressive revolutionaries to dispense summary justice to all those perceived (or portrayed) as obstacles to enlightenment. Figuring out whether Mao, Stalin or Jeane Kirkpatrick outperform each other in the cynical instrumentalism stakes won't get us very far. ((( Charles: I wouldn't say that the first historical effort to build socialism was a total failure. As in all of reality, trial and error plays an important part in actually building something new, as an important part as theory. Exaggerating the level of error to the total exclusion of success is the onesided game the tophats want us to play. There was full employment, free education and health care among other positive acheivements in the USSR and other European socialist countries. The first act of the Soviet government when the Bolsheviks took power was to declare peace and pull out of the holocaustic slaughter which was WW I. This was a world historic act of peace. WWI was the biggest war in history at that time. The idea that the USSR was completely not socialist is comparing it to a utopian , imaginary model or ideal. Such an ideal has some value, but real road to socialism must be more of a synthesis of the ideas and ideals of thinkers and intellectuals with the real transformation process of millions of people and social classes that have been exploited and oppressed for centuries. Thus, trial and error is inevitable. The transition from capitalism to socialism is an "epochal" process, meaning it is multi-generational. The next effort to build socialism must look at the first efforts critically, but not by absolutely disregarding that experience as a source of positive knowledge of what is to be done next time.
[PEN-L:7616] Re: World Bank Marshall Plan?
It is the equivalent of: "Here a dollar, go buy yourself a luxury yacht." The Third World needs a level playing field in globalization more than a token "Marshal Plan", the outcome of which is a predictable conclusion that even with "generous" aid, the Third World is hopeless. It reminds me of a story of a man pulling into a gas station in a Cadillac and asked to be filled up while leaving his engine running. After five minutes, the attendants apologetically asked the driver to please turn off the engine: "you are gaining on me". Turning off the draining exploitative regime is more important than token aid. Henry C.K. Liu Michael Hoover wrote: dig world bank web page header... as for below proposal, surely its architects won't impose kinds of strings attached to original Marshall Plan - demand for balanced budgets, stable currency, high profit margins, low wages, inegalitarian tax structures in order to assist capitalist class that benefits from exploitative policies. ..and they certainly won't try to stimulate economic recovery at expense of working people in conjunction with forms of repression intended to reduce the power of working class organizations... Michael Hoover THE WORLD BANK GROUP A World Free of Poverty [INLINE] May 30, 1999 This summary is prepared by the External Affairs Department of the World Bank. All material is taken directly from published and copyright wire service stories and newspaper articles. Subscribe | Unsubscribe | Archive | Feedback | Search | News Home x EUROPE READIES MARSHALL PLAN FOR BALKANS Western countries yesterday began discussions on the embryo of a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild southeastern Europe after the Kosovo conflict, Reuters reports. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer urged officials from some 30 countries and international organizations to work on "the ambitious project" of anchoring the Balkans in democracy and economic prosperity after the NATO bombing stops. Besides the EU, those represented at the meeting were NATO, the OSCE, the OECD, the EBRD, the Western European Union, the EIB, the World Bank, the IMF, Japan and Canada. Officials said the meeting was only a first step and that they were far from drawing up the details of a reconstruction plan along the lines of the US Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe after 1945. Fischer said he hoped the one-day meeting would prepare the ground in time for ministers to meet to begin work on a so-called Stability Pact before the end of Germany's six-month presidency of the EU on June 30. He also wanted to call a donor conference for the Balkans. "We have to end this absurdity where it is easier to collect money for war than peace," Fischer added. Meanwhile, diplomats are quietly complaining that the international community, because it is preoccupied with the Kosovo crisis, is paying too little attention to conflicts in Angola, Ethiopia and elsewhere. UN humanitarian coordinator for Angola Francesco Strippoli said $110 million in food and other assistance was desperately needed just to sustain the 1.6 million internally displaced Angolans. So far, says the Economist (p.45), the donors-rich countries' governments that are tired of pouring money into Angola-have come up with only $25 million. Even in the unlikely event of the donors responding [more] quickly, the situation will remain perilous, says the story.
[PEN-L:7617] RE: Who is worse
Response: I wonder how many on this list could have lasted even 10 miles on The Long March. I couldn't have. I wonder how many on this list could have watched his wife beheaded by the Kuominting and narrowly escape death himself and then go on to attempt to forge some kind of alliance with the Kuominting because dealing with the main enemy--the Japanese imperialists--was more fundamental than personal passions and sufferings. I couldn't have done it. I wonder how many on this list could put together coalitions of longstanding enemies in order to forge a new China surrounded by hostile imperialist powers with awsome instruments of destruction intent on returning China to the old order of repression, warlordism and barbarism. I couldn't have done it. I wonder how many on this list could have dealt with over 100,000 child sex slaves in Shanghai alone at the time of liberation; with a long history forforeign imposed drug addiction; with massive divisions throughout the new nation; with a destroyed infrastructure, crises in agriculture and food production, massive starvation and the largest population of any nation on earth. I couldn't have done it. Mao was a murderer? This is a debate like who was worse Jeffrey Dahmer or Jack the Ripper? This is incredible. For all of like this kind of detached "reasoning" please rethink what you are really saying and whose interests you are really serving. Not one person on this list will ever make the contributions to liberation from barbarism--even if those contributions are reversed--that Mao Zedong made to his people. Jim Craven -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 5:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:7593] Who is worse This whole debate is pointless. Who is worse, Jeffrey Daumer or Jack the Ripper? Nonsense. JIm D. made an important point that seems to have passed unnoticed. You cannot evaluate politics without the context. Mao murdered people because of mass starvation. Do we apply the same standard to homeless people who freeze on the street? No one here has come out to proclaim themself as a Stalinist. We went through the same nonsense a few weeks ago when people opposing the bombing felt obliged to declare that they were not disciples of Milosovic. Can't we drop this nonsense? Stalin did some hard things because Russia was under attack. Stalin did some cruel things because he was paranoid. Addressing such matters takes serious work. Not the journalism of R. Conquest. Not a simple e-mail post. What do we say of the sanatized cruelty of Clinton with regard to Ricky Ray Rector, the victims of welfare deform, or his serial bombing? He never had the courage to face his victims eye to eye. Instead, he makes a "hearfelt" speech about the deep morality of his position. Anyway, let's move on to something else? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7620] Wao
"It is oppressive to argue that a specific remark or action is technically benign and that the reative sensitivity itself is racist, rather than acknowledging the collective quilt of a pervasive social regime that give concrete meaning to that very sensitivity. It is the syndrome of blaming the victim rather than the crime." I was very pleased to see Mr. Henry C.K. Liu's latest pissing and moaning, since it proves definitively that he is incapable of or uninterested in distinguishing between racial slurs and comments directed at his own statements or statements of those he idolizes. This waving the bloody shirt of racism is an injustice to genuine claims and an obstacle to serious discussion. It bespeaks ignorance and reeks of self-righteousness. Reminds me of the old National Lampoon cover, which headlined, "Buy this magazine, or we'll shoot this dog." A comically transparent attempt at moral blackmail: take my incoherent ravings seriously or you're a racist. I am a little surprized to see CB echoing this; I expected better from him. (I'm also afraid his sense of humor is captive to his ideological prejudices.) This is an old trick on the left which may yet have some currency on campuses, but doesn't cut any ice with me. I would not be disinterested in moral preachments from those I would regard as exceptional moral examples to the rest of us, but Mr. Liu doesn't qualify. He's too busy trying to buttress his own dubious assertions by reference to the suffering of others, his own people in particular. He complains bitterly of someone making fun of his name, then turns around and does the same thing. The only racism in the posts is the inference from others that Mao's babbling is some kind of landmark in Chinese literature, or in some way examplary of Chinese intellectual faculties. As to Jim C., who's a serious guy, I'd just like to point out that the fate of imperialism's victims is one thing, and silly arguments regarding it, in which I take an admittedly perverse pleasure, are quite another. One mistaken notion is that serious and honest people cannot disagree on whether Mao was a hero or a beast (or perhaps some of both). This has less to do with bourgeois academia than might be apparent, since plenty of lefts, from soc-dems to super-Trots, have uncomplimentary views of Mao and Stalin. mbs
[PEN-L:7623] Re: Wao /Wax (joke or serious ?)
Max, the list jester, flips into serious mode, waxes afraid and indignant. Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/03/99 11:43AM I was very pleased to see Mr. Henry C.K. Liu's latest pissing and moaning, since it proves definitively that he is incapable of or uninterested in distinguishing between racial slurs and comments directed at his own statements or statements of those he idolizes. This waving the bloody shirt of racism is an injustice to genuine claims and an obstacle to serious discussion. It bespeaks ignorance and reeks of self-righteousness. Chas: Oh yes, that very important problem in the post-Reaganite white imagination: colored people confusing racism with genuine claims of ...???, injustice perpetrated on white commentators, playing the race card on Wax and others unfairly. I feel so sorry for you. This is known as blaming the victim. Max is the real victim here, and we keep blaming him. ( Reminds me of the old National Lampoon cover, which headlined, "Buy this magazine, or we'll shoot this dog." A comically transparent attempt at moral blackmail: take my incoherent ravings seriously or you're a racist. Charles: Reminds Bennie of it, but does not match what Henry is doing. Again post-Reaganite plausible denial of white supremacy is what this comment is really. Bennie has absolved himself of making prejudicial commentary. ((( I am a little surprized to see CB echoing this; I expected better from him. (I'm also afraid his sense of humor is captive to his ideological prejudices.) (( Charles: Is this Max or Bennie , who is now "surprized" and probably "appalled" to ? Interesting how comedy shades into tragedy , no ? :)/:( and he is "afraid" too. Boo hoo. poor thing. But don't worry, your ideological bias prevents you from seeing that my humor is better than yours. So things are still funny, not scary. ( Max: This is an old trick on the left which may yet have some currency on campuses, but doesn't cut any ice with me. I would not be disinterested in moral preachments from those I would regard as exceptional moral examples to the rest of us, but Mr. Liu doesn't qualify. He's too busy trying to buttress his own dubious assertions by reference to the suffering of others, his own people in particular. He complains bitterly of someone making fun of his name, then turns around and does the same thing. Charles: Is this a joke or serious ? ((( The only racism in the posts is the inference from others that Mao's babbling is some kind of landmark in Chinese literature, or in some way examplary of Chinese intellectual faculties. Charles: oops. Max sticks his foot in it again. Is this an accident or a mistake that Max keeps committing ? Beltway incompetence ? Barkeley would probably say it might be explained by chaos theory. How exactly is this the "only racism in the posts" , oh wise civil rights hero and philospher ? (( Max: As to Jim C., who's a serious guy, I'd just like to point out that the fate of imperialism's victims is one thing, and silly arguments regarding it, in which I take an admittedly perverse pleasure, are quite another. One mistaken notion is that serious and honest people cannot disagree on whether Mao was a hero or a beast (or perhaps some of both). This has less to do with bourgeois academia than might be apparent, since plenty of lefts, from soc-dems to super-Trots, have uncomplimentary views of Mao and Stalin. Charles: This Max thought does not sound smarter than Mao's thought. Charles Brown
[PEN-L:7624] shameless commercial notice
My new book, The Natural Instability of Markets (St Martin's), is now available. As Doug Henwood already mentioned, he gave the book a very flattering blurb. This Fall, Rick Holt will organize a seminar on the book. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:7626] Temporary departures, including mine
Between June 10 and the end of the month, I will be visiting the University of Newcastle in Australia, thanks to a generous invitation from Bill Mitchell. I will try to keep on top of the list from there as best as I can. For the rest of you who are moving about during the summer, please postpone your email from this list, so that it does not all bounce back to me. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:7628] Re: social fascism
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/03/99 11:33AM
At 10:01 AM 6/3/99 -0400, Charles wrote:
This is social fascism, brutalization through economic policy as deadly as
war in the long run.
Charles, please _don't_ use this terminology ("social fascism"). It has a
long and bad history: as far as I can tell, it was first used by the
Communist Party of Germany to describe the German Social Democratic Party
during the 1920s -- meaning that the latter were as bad as Mussolini. As
often pointed out, this rhetoric -- and similar "third period" nonsense --
when put into practice prevented an alliance that could have prevented or
at least slowed the rise of Hitler, who was much much worse than Mussolini
(who seems pretty respectable compared to many or most US allies outside of
rich countries today). (It is almost never pointed out that similar
rhetoric by the social democrats (i.e., the "totalitarian" theory that
conflates the Communist Party with the Nazis), when put into practice often
prevented similar alliances that could have strengthened the social
democrats' own program.)
(((
Charles: As far as I can tell, the term "democracy" has a long and worse history than
"social fascist", but I am not about to let some abusers of the term "democracy" make
me stop using it.
By your test of usage, I would have to ask you to stop using half the political words
in your vocabulary. Believe me, I can give you historical horror stories of many of
the words and phrases you use. So, lets not get into such a silencing semantic game.
"Social fascist" is a good way to describe this IMF policy and the policy of the
Governor of Michigan, Engler, for example, which is not openly brutal, but is covertly
and indirectly brutal.
(
We need some other phrase for the structural violence that is embodied in
the normal workings of capitalism, imposing poverty, starvation, and even
death on the masses (unless successfully they fight back). Fascism plays a
role, in creating the order needed to allow capitalism to flourish (with
Pinochet being the classic case). But typically, once order is restored,
this fascism fades into the backgroud to merge with the normal coercive
organization of the state. Once there, commodity fetishism (the illusions
created by capitalist competition) hides the normal coercion inherent in
capitalism. You don't need Mussolini to order a bunch of deaths (or Clinton
to order strategic bombing). Rather, a financial crisis or the central bank
hikes interest rates, raising the reserve army of labor, raising people's
debt loads, etc., driving many toward penury. Falling profit rates also
have this kind of result, as economic crises are "solved" on workers' backs.
(((
Charles: Yes, capitalism in non-fascist form does cause premature deaths on a
holocaustic scale.
As Lenin argued, the preferred form of rule of capital is the bourgeois
democratic-republic. Fascism arose as a specific desparate response to the emergency
crisis of capitalism in the early twentieth century. The current Reaganite regime is
not open terrorist rule, as with actual fascism, but it is an indirect terrorist
regime that is well captured in the phrase
"social fascist", as it is in the form of welfare cuts, suppression of labor rights ,
rights of the poorest and most oppressed sections of the working class, massive
expansion of the prison industrial complex so as to creep up on concentration camps
,all around SOCIAL rather than naked police/political terror. The term "social
fascism" fits this well, despite historical misuses. The danger of the social fascism
itself is much greater than some repetition of an obscure misuse by the German
Communist Party , the extent of which error I cannot sign onto your version of without
looking at that specific history. I know enough of Germany in the 20's and 30's to
know that many critiques of the German Communist Party, I don't fully agree with.
For example, Luxembourg and Liebkneckt were assasinated by SOCIAL DEMOCRATS. Thus,
there was some "social" fascism in the recent history of that party. As somebody
mentioned again, Mussolini had been in the Socialist Party. It was not at all clear
that "socialists" and "social democrats" could not transform into fascists in that
period. The Nazis were demogogically "Socialists" as Ron Hay mentioned recently on a
related thread. The point is hindsight on what the "social fascists" were in the
1920's misleads about the acuity of the German CP assessment of the situtation.
Thus, I don't sign on fully to as far as you can tell on this.
Charles Brown
[PEN-L:7633] Re: FW: Wao
Max Sawicky wrote: I was very pleased to see Mr. Henry C.K. Liu's latest pissing and moaning, since it proves definitively that he is incapable of or uninterested in distinguishing between racial slurs and comments directed at his own statements or statements of those he idolizes. This waving the bloody shirt of racism is an injustice to genuine claims and an obstacle to serious discussion. It bespeaks ignorance and reeks of self-righteousness. What genuine claims? You lampooned a style of writing because it did not sound like persuasive English just because it was literally translated from Chinese, a very formal language your ignorance of which did not prevent you from concluding the content to be intellectually inferior. That is language racism. You are the worst kind of racist, one who does not know he is one while going around pretending to be a progressive person. And you crude attempt to put a distance between CB and me is a classic racist tactic. You tried to exploit CB's born immersion in American culture to make me, a foreigner, look ridiculous and unreasonable. You forget that CB is not an uncle tom. He is from a Black American culture that has little in common with your white bourgeois oblivious insensitivity and that you never even bother to acknowledge its existence. Reminds me of the old National Lampoon cover, I would not be disinterested in moral preachments from those I would regard as exceptional moral examples to the rest of us, but Mr. Liu doesn't qualify. He's too busy trying to buttress his own dubious assertions by reference to the suffering of others, his own people in particular. He complains bitterly of someone making fun of his name, then turns around and does the same thing. An eye for an eye. I would not have done the Declaration of Independence piece were it not for your sophomoric first strike. Besides, I was just trying to figure out what the "R" in Jim Devine's message stand for. I was trying to understand the joke by JD, not make a joke. The only racism in the posts is the inference from others that Mao's babbling is some kind of landmark in Chinese literature, or in any way exemplary of Chinese intellectual faculties. First of all, that "Babbling" was Lin Biao's and not Mao's. Secondly, of course the above is not a racist sentence. That said it all. Note the "in which I take an admittedly perverse pleasure" self-admitting racism. Henry C.K. Liu
[PEN-L:7634] Re: Re: social fascism
I wrote:
Charles, please _don't_ use this terminology ("social fascism"). It has a
long and bad history:
Charles responds: As far as I can tell, the term "democracy" has a long
and worse
history than "social fascist", but I am not about to let some abusers of the
term "democracy" make me stop using it.
By your test of usage, I would have to ask you to stop using half the
political words in your vocabulary. Believe me, I can give you historical
horror stories of many of the words and phrases you use. So, lets not get
into such a silencing semantic game...
I was _not_ trying to silence you, just trying to avoid non-confusing
terminology.
The analogy with "democracy" is incomplete: "democracy" is a political
ideal that almost _everybody_ is in favor of. After all, Pol Pot called it
"Democratic Kampuchea." Because everyone (except strict conservatives)
favors democracy, they are always redefining it so that what they favor is
called "democracy." On the other hand, "social fascism" is no-one's ideal.
No-one has the incentive to drape themselves in the banner of social
fascism. So there is less abuse of the term for partisan purposes. It's
more of a descriptive term. I was simply saying I didn't think it was very
descriptive because it was confuseable with the old usage.
Actually, I try to avoid the use of the word "fascism" too, for another
reason: it's been highly overused. That's why I talk about the similarities
between X (US allies in the third world, for example) and Mussolini. At
least there's a concrete meaning to references to Mussolini. "Fascism" has
been so over-used that it includes both the mean cop (or a psyhological
type) and a specific kind of government and lots in-between.
... For example, Luxembourg and Liebkneckt were assasinated by SOCIAL
DEMOCRATS.
Thus, there was some "social" fascism in the recent history of that party.
As somebody mentioned again, Mussolini had been in the Socialist Party. It
was not at all clear that "socialists" and "social democrats" could not
transform into fascists in that period. The Nazis were demogogically
"Socialists" as Ron Hay mentioned recently on a related thread. The point is
hindsight on what the "social fascists" were in the 1920's misleads about
the acuity of the German CP assessment of the situtation.
Sure the SDs were wrong to kowtow to the capitalist status quo ante and to
participate in the killing of LL. But the CP's "social fascism" jargon
took that further, in a very sectarian direction. Also, you should remember
that the SD wasn't the only party with faults. During the 1920s, the CP
became increasingly subordinate to Russia's foreign policy, which seems a
bad idea from the point of view of German workers.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
Bombing DESTROYS human rights. Ground Troops make things worse! US/NATO out
of Serbia now!
[PEN-L:7635] UN Int'l Orgs in Yugoslavia
Wonder if any of below are worried about being US/NATO targets? And wouldn't be ok if IMF office got hit? Michael Hoover United Nations International Organizations Resident Offices in the FR of Yugoslavia _ [INLINE] * Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross * European Centre for Peace and Development * International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies * International Monetary Fund * International Organization for Migration * UNICEF * United Nations Development Programme * United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees * United Nations International Tribunal Liaison Office * United Nations World Food Programme DELEGATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS Ruzveltova 61 11000 Beograd Phone: 761-063; 762-895 Telefax: 752-055 EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT Terazije 41/I 11000 Beograd Phone: 627-291; 625-878; 633-551; 633-060; 634-277 Telefax: 632-169 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT SOCIETIES Simina 21 11000 Beograd Phone: 3282-202; 3281-376; 3282-253; 3281-582 Telefax: 3281-791 SUB-DELEGATION PODGORICA Jovana Tomasevica 6 81000 Podgorica Phone: (381-81) 24-358; 42-896 Telefax: (381-81) 52-550 PRISTINA Mostarska 8 38000 Pristina Phone: (381-38) 28-369 INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND National Bank of Yugoslavia Bulevar revolucije 15 11000 Beograd Phone: 3245-527 Telefax: 334-172 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION Voje Sekulica 52 11000 Beograd Phone: 459-859 Telefax: 4442-960 UNICEF Svetozara Markovica 58 11000 Beograd Phone: 644-441 Telefax: 682-800 UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME Svetozara Markovica 58 11000 Beograd Phone: 683-666 UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES Proleterskih brigada 58 11000 Beograd Phone: -244; 4443-746 Telefax: 4449-707 UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL LIAISON OFFICE Omladinskih brigada 1 - SIV III 11070 Novi Beograd Phone: 199-811;199-353 Telefax: 199-193 UNITED NATIONS WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME Koste Glavinica 8a 11000 Beograd Phone: 653-355; 653-759 Telefax: 647-345
[PEN-L:7636] Re: Re: social fascism
Comrade,
Of course all analogies are incomplete. A better, more up to date, analogy would be
the word "racist". Because of some minor abuses of that term, a main political current
in the U.S. today vigorously discourages usage of the term "racist" and poses the
"false" accusations of racism as a worse problem than racism itself. The abuses of the
term "racism" do not amount to a reason to stop using the term. Similarly, the
specific history of "social fascist" in Germany in the 1920's, about which we do not
see entirely eye-to-eye, does not cause an important confusion of the use of the term
today. In fact most people today, don't know about that history.
I disagree with getting rid of the word "fascism" itself, too, because there is still
a danger that at some point the financial oligarchy will become desparate and try to
institute wholesale, open terrorist rule again. This is one reason, the U.S. will not
outlaw fascist groups, because it might need them at some point. "Fascism" is an
important scienttific term we should continue to use to measure the U.S. political
economy.
My example of the assassination by the SD's pokes more of a hole in your notion that
"social fascist" was inaccurate than you admit. I don't take an approach that
communists and social dems were equally to blame for the failure to unite against the
fascists in Germany.
Comrade
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/03/99 01:21PM
I wrote:
Charles, please _don't_ use this terminology ("social fascism"). It has a
long and bad history:
Charles responds: As far as I can tell, the term "democracy" has a long
and worse
history than "social fascist", but I am not about to let some abusers of the
term "democracy" make me stop using it.
By your test of usage, I would have to ask you to stop using half the
political words in your vocabulary. Believe me, I can give you historical
horror stories of many of the words and phrases you use. So, lets not get
into such a silencing semantic game...
I was _not_ trying to silence you, just trying to avoid non-confusing
terminology.
The analogy with "democracy" is incomplete: "democracy" is a political
ideal that almost _everybody_ is in favor of. After all, Pol Pot called it
"Democratic Kampuchea." Because everyone (except strict conservatives)
favors democracy, they are always redefining it so that what they favor is
called "democracy." On the other hand, "social fascism" is no-one's ideal.
No-one has the incentive to drape themselves in the banner of social
fascism. So there is less abuse of the term for partisan purposes. It's
more of a descriptive term. I was simply saying I didn't think it was very
descriptive because it was confuseable with the old usage.
Actually, I try to avoid the use of the word "fascism" too, for another
reason: it's been highly overused. That's why I talk about the similarities
between X (US allies in the third world, for example) and Mussolini. At
least there's a concrete meaning to references to Mussolini. "Fascism" has
been so over-used that it includes both the mean cop (or a psyhological
type) and a specific kind of government and lots in-between.
... For example, Luxembourg and Liebkneckt were assasinated by SOCIAL
DEMOCRATS.
Thus, there was some "social" fascism in the recent history of that party.
As somebody mentioned again, Mussolini had been in the Socialist Party. It
was not at all clear that "socialists" and "social democrats" could not
transform into fascists in that period. The Nazis were demogogically
"Socialists" as Ron Hay mentioned recently on a related thread. The point is
hindsight on what the "social fascists" were in the 1920's misleads about
the acuity of the German CP assessment of the situtation.
Sure the SDs were wrong to kowtow to the capitalist status quo ante and to
participate in the killing of LL. But the CP's "social fascism" jargon
took that further, in a very sectarian direction. Also, you should remember
that the SD wasn't the only party with faults. During the 1920s, the CP
became increasingly subordinate to Russia's foreign policy, which seems a
bad idea from the point of view of German workers.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
Bombing DESTROYS human rights. Ground Troops make things worse! US/NATO out
of Serbia now!
[PEN-L:7639] Re: spinning the war
If one of the resident cut-and-paste artists who seem to be able to find the texts of these sorts of things on the web might fwd Michael Parenti's talk on public radio on the War just broadcast for those who didn't catch it, it was a real goodie. Mat Michael Perelman wrote: If this "peace treaty" goes through, will Clinton be able to spin this disaster as a success? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:7641] Forward
From another list: ((( by Sharon Jones which from issue #2 of the New Zealand-based journal, 'Revolutionary Marxist' (Winter 1999). RM is put out by some of the people who produce the magazine 'revolution'. A shorter, earlier draft of the paper appeared in issue #8 of 'revolution' (Dec 1998/Feb 1999). Reformulating the politics of human liberation today At the end of the 1980s, as the Soviet bloc imploded, Francis Fukuyama penned The End of History and the Last Man. Fukuyama, to the initial delight of much of the Western elite, took the implosion of the Soviet bloc to represent the demise of all alternatives to liberal capitalism. However the celebrations were shortlived. These days the mood in the West is decidedly pessimistic. Thus Fukuyama's follow-up book, Trust, dealt with the downside of the triumph of the market: the fragmentation of society. Things falling apart Two key factors have driven this fragmentation - the collapse of 'communism' (and, with it, collective solutions generally )and the protracted economic problems of the past 25 years. The collapse of Stalinism removed the external factor cohering the capitalist world. Both 'the West' and much of the national identity of individual Western capitalist states was shaped by their rulers' ability to present the Soviet bloc as a threat. Many of the core institutions of Western capitalist societies were essentially products of the cold war. At the same time as this external cohering factor was removed, the internal economic dynamic of Western societies was grinding to a halt. Slump conditions, which returned with a vengeance to the metropolitan capitalist countries in the early 1970s, have worn away at the economic foundations of the West and its sense of security. Twenty years of both Keynesian and free market attempts to regenerate capitalism have failed to overcome the central problem for the capitalists - falling profitability. There have been mass unemployment, anti-trade union laws and the breaking of the power of the old trade union movement, and decreases in working class conditions of life - essential measures for increasing the rate of exploitation and overcoming the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Yet they have failed to restore levels of profitability sufficient to make it possible or worthwhile for the capitalists to carry out the massive new rounds of investment needed to regenerate industrial and manufacturing production. Capitalists have therefore continued to compensate by exporting capital; speculating in foreign exchange, property, shares and futures; and engaging in any other unproductive activity where profit rates are higher than in productive enterprise. These in turn have led to volatility in global financial markets and to the bubble effect in a string of Third World countries - from Mexico to Thailand. Most of the 'tiger' economies of Asia have turned out to be paper tigers rather than real ones. There and in Mexico - the great showpieces of Third World capitalism - the bubble has burst. Even in those Asian countries where substantial real industrialisation and capital accumulation took place, such as Japan and South Korea, falling profitability has had a devastating effect. While workers' wages in South Korea reached British levels earlier this decade, the economy is now riddled with crisis. According to an item on the country screened on TV3's Nightline on September 29, output levels there have dropped to their lowest in decades and 2000 South Koreans committed suicide in the previous three months. Japan, which was crucial to keeping the world economy afloat in the 1980s, as the recession-plagued US economy could not play this role, has been hit by economic malaise for a decade. Recently Japanese officialdom finally admitted the country was in recession. The economic problems there are mirrored by a political impasse. Political parties have fragmented and even a bourgeois regime with a plan to solve the crisis at the expense of the working class has not emerged. The exhaustion of capitalism The long campaign to defeat the Soviet bloc, 'communism', national liberation struggles and the enemy within (militant trade unionism) and to overcome the slump, appears to have exhausted the resources of Western 'democratic' capitalism. In defeating its human enemies abroad and at home it has undermined its own intellectual foundations. Moreover its failure to overcome the slump has undermined its material foundations. In this situation the certainties of the old postwar world - economic progress, social reform, national identity - have virtually disintegrated. The capitalists, like their system, now appear exhausted. It is certainly difficult today to find any really upbeat, optimistic intellectual advocates of the system. Positive visions of a brave new capitalist world have been replaced by a culture of pessimism and limitations among bourgeois intellectuals. In
[PEN-L:7642] Re: FW: Imagine...
At 11:00 AM 6/3/99 -0700, Jim Craven wrote: You say it could not happen to Jews in America or Canada what was done in Nazi Germany? You say that especially after Nuremberg and the horrors that were revealed there "Never Again" anywhere? With respect to Jews in America and Canada, perhaps all of the above and more could happen and perhaps not. But there is no "perhaps" that all of the above and much more was done--and is being done--in America and in Canada and elsewhere in the world to Indigenous Peoples. Jim, you do not understand. As Noam Chomsky aptly observed, "in the special case of the United States, facts are irrelevant." No matter what happens here, it is always for the greater good of democracy. How could you doubt that? Besides, there is no comparison between jews and indians, the former are white. wojtek
[PEN-L:7643] Re: Wao
MP: My point must not have been clear at all. This kind of shouting is pointless. I happen to believe the Boshevik and the Chinese revolutions were wonderful events. Max and Brad disagree. So what? This is a good example of some combination of failure to communicate on my part, and inclination to project and extrapolate erroneously on yours. Speaking for myself, I was not aware of broadcasting any focused judgement on the Chinese or Bolshevik revolutions. If anything, I referred to some of what came after, and mostly, to how certain persons understand the aftermath. . . . Don't we have more important uses for our time? Indeed I do. I'm done with those two dudes. They may test my fortitude with further idiocies, but I will be trying to direct my energies elsewhere. W said: Max, I think we should distinguish between the man's personality (of which I have no direct knowledge) and the point he is trying to make. By this time, I don't care what point he is trying to make. Anyone who insists on reacting to negative comments on their posts or thinking with accusations of racism is not worth taking seriously. I'm not going to engage someone who takes as given and resorts in argument to the premise that I am racist. It would be self-abuse. Let white liberals agonize over this nonsense. I'm not going to. The rest of your post is well-taken in general, but irrelevant in this context. mbs
[PEN-L:7647] Re: Wao/Wax
Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/03/99 02:29PM By this time, I don't care what point he is trying to make. Anyone who insists on reacting to negative comments on their posts or thinking with accusations of racism is not worth taking seriously. I'm not going to engage someone who takes as given and resorts in argument to the premise that I am racist. It would be self-abuse. Let white liberals agonize over this nonsense. I'm not going to. (( Charles: This is "classic" 80's/90's blaming the victim. He accused of racism claims to be victimized by such accusation. This is part of the pernicious "reverse discrimination" doctrine. This tactic is rife in American political life today. Winning acceptance of it among the masses of white people was critical in reversing the trend toward ending racism, which was resulting in part from the sharp anti-racist rhetoric and ideology of the 1960's/70's. Making the use of the terms "racism" and "racist" "unfair" debating tactics was an enormous accomplishment of Reagnism. It is part of the "anti-political correct" doctrine of the rightwing.
[PEN-L:7650] racism on pen-l
Max's last post mentioned an important point. I don't think that Max is racist -- insensitive, yes, but so are many of us -- but not racist. Also, I was wrong to have attributed any particular view to him. The whole Mao/Stalin affair thread to have died a merciful thread. On an unrelated point, I see where Clinton is expecting Europe to pay for his Balkan fiasco. Have the Europeans commneted on his expectations? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7651] Re: Re: Wao
Typical. I did not engage him. Max engaged me by posting a lampoon on my post which had not been addressed to him. As some one quoted Chomsky: In American, facts matter little. I had thought that since the last encounter with the incident of ridiculing my name, he would keep his direct off-list promise to me to keep his distance. But not keeping his word to unworthy people is standard procedure for him, apparently. Perhap this time I would be lucky and earn his benign neglect. Henry C.K. Liu Max Sawicky wrote: MP: My point must not have been clear at all. This kind of shouting is pointless. I happen to believe the Boshevik and the Chinese revolutions were wonderful events. Max and Brad disagree. So what? This is a good example of some combination of failure to communicate on my part, and inclination to project and extrapolate erroneously on yours. Speaking for myself, I was not aware of broadcasting any focused judgement on the Chinese or Bolshevik revolutions. If anything, I referred to some of what came after, and mostly, to how certain persons understand the aftermath. . . . Don't we have more important uses for our time? Indeed I do. I'm done with those two dudes. They may test my fortitude with further idiocies, but I will be trying to direct my energies elsewhere. W said: Max, I think we should distinguish between the man's personality (of which I have no direct knowledge) and the point he is trying to make. By this time, I don't care what point he is trying to make. Anyone who insists on reacting to negative comments on their posts or thinking with accusations of racism is not worth taking seriously. I'm not going to engage someone who takes as given and resorts in argument to the premise that I am racist. It would be self-abuse. Let white liberals agonize over this nonsense. I'm not going to. The rest of your post is well-taken in general, but irrelevant in this context. mbs
[PEN-L:7652] Re: racism on pen-l
http://www.c-span.org/guide/books/booknotes/chapter/fc111995.htm KILLING RAGE: ENDING RACISM Henry Holt and Company (First Chapter Excerpt--Killing Rage: Militant Resistance) By bell hooks CHAPTER ONE KILLING RAGE MILITANT RESISTANCE I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder. We have just been involved in an incident on an airplane where K, my friend and traveling companion, has been called to the front of the plane and publicly attacked by white female stewardesses who accuse her of trying to occupy a seat in first class that is not assigned to her. Although she had been assigned the seat, she was not given the appropriate boarding pass. When she tries to explain they ignore her. They keep explaining to her in loud voices as though she is a child, as though she is a foreigner who does not speak airline English, that she must take another seat. They do not want to know that the airline has made a mistake. They want only to ensure that the white male who has the appropriate boarding card will have a seat in first class. Realizing our powerlessness to alter the moment we take our seats. K moves to coach. And I take my seat next to the anonymous white man who quickly apologizes to K as she moves her bag from the seat he has comfortably settled in. I stare him down with rage, tell him that I do not want to hear his liberal apologies, his repeated insistence that "it was not his fault." I am shouting at him that it is not question of blame, that the mistake was understandable, but that the way K was treated was completely unacceptable, that it reflected both racism and sexism. He let me know in no uncertain terms that he felt his apology was enough, that I should leave him be to sit back and enjoy his flight. In no uncertain terms I let him know that he had an opportunity to not be complicit with the racism and sexism that is so all-pervasive in this society (that he knew no white man would have been called on the loudspeaker to come to the front of the plane while another white male took his seat - a fact that he never disputed). Yelling at him I said, "It was not a question of your giving up the seat, it was an occasion for you to intervene in the harassment of a black woman and you chose your own comfort and tried to deflect away from your complicity in that choice by offering an insincere, face-saving apology." From the moment K and I had hailed a cab on the New York City street that afternoon we were confronting racism. The cabbie wanted us to leave his taxi and take another; he did not want to drive to the airport. When I said that I would willingly leave but also report him, he agreed to take us. K suggested we just get another cab. We faced similar hostility when we stood in the first-class line at the airport. Ready with our coupon upgrades, we were greeted by two young white airline employees who continued their personal conversation and acted as though it were a great interruption serve us. When I tried to explain that we had upgrade coupons, I was told by the white male that "he was not to me." It was not clear why they were so hostile. When I suggested to K that I never see white males receiving such treatment in the first-class line, the white female insisted that "race" had nothing to do with it, that she was just trying to serve us as quickly as possible. I noted that as a line of white men stood behind us they were indeed eager to complete our transaction even if it meant showing no courtesy. Even when I requested to speak with a supervisor, shutting down that inner voice which urged me not to make a fuss, not to complain and possibly make life more difficult for the other black folks who would have to seek service from these two, the white attendants discussed together whether they would honor that request. Finally, the white male called a supervisor. He listened, apologized, stood quietly by as the white female gave us the appropriate service. When she handed me the tickets, I took a cursory look at them to see if all was in order. Everything seemed fine. Yet she looked at me vath a gleam of hatred in her eye that startled, it was so intense. After we reached our gate, I shared vath K that I should look at the tickets again because I kept seeing that gleam of hatred. Indeed, they had not been done properly. I went back to the counter and asked a helpful black skycap to find the supervisor. Even though he was black, I did not suggest that we had been the victims of racial harassment. I asked him instead if he could think of any reason why these two young white folks were so hostile. Though I have always been concerned about class elitism and hesitate to make complaints about individuals who work long hours at often unrewarding jobs that require them to serve the public, I felt our complaint was justified. It was a case of racial harassment. And I was compelled to complain because I feel that the vast majority of black folks who
[PEN-L:7656] Re: Comparing Mao to Hitler
There would have been no deaths if not for the US embargo. Reports of severe natural disasters in isolated places and of bad weather conditions in larger areas appeared in the Chinese press in the Spring of 1959, after the Wuhan Plenum in December 1958 already made policy adjustments based on the technical criticism of Peng Dehuai on the Peoples Communes initiative. In March, 1959, the entire Hunan region was under flood and soon after that the spring harvest in South-west China was lost through drought. The 1958 grain production yielded 250 million tons instead the projected 375 million tons, and 1.2 million tons of peanuts instead of the projected 4 million tons. In 1959, the harvest came to 175 million tons. In 1960, the situation deteriated further Damaged by drought and other bad weather affected 55% of the cukltivated area. Some 60% of the agricultural land in the North received no rain at all. The yield for 1960 was 142 million tons. In 1961, the weather situation improved only slightly. In 1963, the Chinese press called the famine of 1961-62 the most severe since 1879. In 1961, a food storage program oblidged China to import 6.2 million tons of grain from Canada and Australia. In 1962, import decreased to 5.32 million tons. Between 1961 to 1965 China imported a total of 30 million tons of grain at a cost of US$2 billion. (Robert Price, 'International Trade of Communist China' Vol II, pp 600-1). More would have imported except US pressure of Canada and Austrailia to limit sales to China and US interference with shipping prevented China from importing more. Canada and Australia were both anxious to provide unlimited credit to China for grain purchas, but alas, US policy prevailed and millions starved in China. Henry C.K. Liu Henry C.K. Liu Brad De Long wrote: At 16:14 01/06/99 -0400, you wrote: large snip But on the question of Mao's alleged murder of 30 million of his fellow citizens, the problem is a matter of logic rather than the mere absence of evidence. Henry C.K. Liu It is problematic copying material from discussion on one list to another, and I cannot remember whether Brad de Long is on this list, and he may not consider it appropriate to pursue the question here, which certainly looks ahistorical to me. I recollect a book was published in about '97 presenting the case apparently pretty authoritatively, and I spent 10 minutes fingering it before deciding not to buy. It seemed to me inevitable that these ideas would circulate into academia and be regarded as received wisdom until they could be refuted. I have not read the extracts that Henry has posted in detail but I do agree it is a question of logic and approach as well as of clarifying facts. There have been famines in Cuba and in North Korea. Famines are actually a normal phenomenon of history in many human societies, depending also on climate. Chris Burford Not in the twentieth century they aren't. Go read Amartya Sen's "Poverty and Famines : An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation." Then come back and talk...
[PEN-L:7663] My New Chair
Over this past weekend I traded my old 1991 model Lazy-boy Dynamo recliner in on a new 1999 model Lazy-boy Rocker recliner. It was delievered today and I can't wait to get home and try it out and see if it feels as good as it felt in the Lazy-boy showroom! These new Rocker recliner's are cool. You just lean back and the foot rest automatically comes out at the proper tension and height. No more side pull handles or sloppy movement as in earlier models. My wife refers to this chair and my previous chair as my Archie Bunker chair. It's nice to be married to a woman with a sense of humor. Meanwhile, go on down to your Lazy-boy showroom for this sale and have fun. Your email pal, Tom L.
[PEN-L:7671] Leninism
Doug: On point (1) - we're a long way from the Hilferdingesque world that Lenin wrote and thought about. Competition has intensified, finance and industry haven't joined into a single unit (bank-supervised cartels), etc. So while 1917 was different from 1817, 1999 is pretty different from 1917, too. On point (2) - I think Soviet history confirmed that changing the folks at the helm is not without its problems, and that there was substantial continuity between Tsarist and Soviet Russia. If anything, that's an argument against Leninism's relevance today. And (3), well, any nominees for the vanugard party today? The Spartacist League? Again, I think you've got to confront the fact that organizations and strategies appropriate for a Tsarist police state don't have much relevance to an OECD country today. Lenin wrote: "The revolutionary parties must complete their education. They have learned to attack. Now they have to realize that this knowledge must be supplemented with the knowledge how to retreat properly. They have to realize -- and the revolutionary class is taught to realize it by its own bitter experience -- that victory is impossible unless they have learned both how to attack and how to retreat properly. Of all the defeated opposition and revolutionary parties, the Bolsheviks effected the most orderly retreat, with the least loss to their "army," with its core best preserved, with the least (in respect to profundity and irremediability) splits, with the least demoralization, and in the best condition to resume the work on the broadest scale and in the most correct and energetic manner." Of all Lenin's writings, this bit is what I have taken to my heart--especially the part about retreating "with the least demoralization." A lesson still relevant for (post-60s, post-USSR) leftists without mass movements, I think, though sadly neglected. Yoshie
[PEN-L:7673] Re: Credibility
For someone who volunatarily admits: "I must confess my first two sentences were lies" to accuse another person of a lack of credibility is typical Max style. Of course, he produced the misleading e-mail. There was another in which he made a promise to the effect that he will not engage me anymore. Unlike him, I did not keep copies of these idotic exchanges because they are not worth the hard disk space, but I have not admitted that I lie, then, now or in the future. I vaguely remember that a copy of the e-mail was also copied by him to someone else on one of the two lists, That person will know who is lying. At any rate, this is getting boring, and I wish he will stop. I told Michael off line that I will stop, but this pitbull just won't let go. Go do something useful, Max and pick on somebody white. Henry Max Sawicky wrote: 03 June 1999 19:06 UTC Typical. I did not engage him. Max engaged me by posting a lampoon on my post which had not been addressed to him. As some one quoted Chomsky: In American, facts matter little. I had thought that since the last encounter with the incident of ridiculing my name, he would keep his direct off-list promise to me to keep his distance. But not keeping his word to unworthy people is standard procedure for him, apparently. Perhap this time I would be lucky and earn his benign neglect. Henry C.K. Liu * * * The post referred to is reproduced below, verbatim. I must confess my first two sentences were lies. MBS --- [May 2] Dear Henry, I think you ought to consider re-subbing to LBO and PEN-L. My impression is that your contributions are well-regarded by most. To me the lists are, among other things, a form of recreation that affords the opportunity to kid and be kidded in return. Sometimes the jibes are sharp, and sometimes one can misjudge the taste of others for this sort of exchange. My tendency is to gauge the sharpness by the extent to which I take exception to something I read, rather than by the disposition of the individual targeted by some of my remarks. My joke made no reference to any racial stereotype about Chinese people. Nor did it exploit any particularly Chinese aspect of your name. The sound of "lou" has no particular connotation to Americans. In any case, I certainly had no racist intent in punning on your name, and I regret any hurt that it caused. I am not a sadist. I do enjoy kidding people. I seldom kid people for whom I have no regard. There is little pleasure in trading insults with someone whom one genuinely dislikes. So do come back. As for myself, I've written more e-mail than is good for me and I'll be taking a vacation. Be well. Regards, Max Sawicky
[PEN-L:7675] My New Chair Was Built by Child Labor
I swear I didn't know it at the time. I heard that an Amish guy in central NY State made fantastic rockers for a low price (a little over $100). So I ordered a chair to be picked up in several months, my head filled with thoughts about supporting cultural diversity as well as the happy moments I would have reading in my new chair. When I got there, the chair-maker was behind the cash register, and behind him were a gaggle of kids, mostly pre-teen, operating woodworking equipment. And, yes, the chair was beautiful to look at, comfortable to sit in, and very, very cheap Peter
[PEN-L:7665] Re: Re: My New Chair
Henry, up in Monroe, Michigan as far as I know. Of course there is always the possibility they may have stolen the technology from China. ;o) Your email pal, Tom L. "Henry C.K. Liu" wrote: Sounds good Tom, may I ask where was this chair made? Henry Tom Lehman wrote: Over this past weekend I traded my old 1991 model Lazy-boy Dynamo recliner in on a new 1999 model Lazy-boy Rocker recliner. It was delievered today and I can't wait to get home and try it out and see if it feels as good as it felt in the Lazy-boy showroom! These new Rocker recliner's are cool. You just lean back and the foot rest automatically comes out at the proper tension and height. No more side pull handles or sloppy movement as in earlier models. My wife refers to this chair and my previous chair as my Archie Bunker chair. It's nice to be married to a woman with a sense of humor. Meanwhile, go on down to your Lazy-boy showroom for this sale and have fun. Your email pal, Tom L.
[PEN-L:7667] Re:...MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY
Angela: what is disputed is whether the left should rely so easily on some right wing sources whilst denouncing others, simply according to whether or not they already fit with one's chosen cartoon-politics of denouncing the KLA whilst stripping one's narrative of any criticism of the Belgrade Govt, which at times veers into open support. there are ostensible leftists who think that simply because NATO is waging war on Yugoslavia this means that the Belgrade Govt should not be criticized, and at times that the Belgrade govt is the new-found repository of resistance to global capital. Nobody is stopping Harald (or you for that matter) from organizing anti-war activists according to the principles that he thinks (or you think) are correct. It's not as though he and Chossudovsky belonged to the same political party and the party adopted Chossudovsky's view. I don't know about Australia, but the field of anti-war activism is _wide open_ here. Those who disagree with Chossudovsky should simply offer their own analyses that other activists can use in organizing, preferably rich in information. If Harald does so, I do not doubt that there will be many takers. Yoshie
[PEN-L:7661] Western Left Yugoslavia; Belgrade's Bunker Mentality
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:26:17 + From: "S. P. Udayakumar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Western Left Yugoslavia From: "Jayati Ghosh" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date sent:Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:55:11 +0530 This is a very important article that was recently published in people's Democracy. I believe it should get the widest possible circulation. -Jayati THE WESTERN LEFT AND THE BOMBING OF YUGOSLAVIA There have no doubt been demonstrations against the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in most advanced capitalist countries. There have also been significant voices of protest from the Left: from Tony Benn in Britain, a sizeable section of the Greens and even Social Democrats in Germany, and from the Communist Parties. The protest has been particularly strong in countries close to Yugoslavia, such as Greece and Italy. Yet, notwithstanding all this, the fact remains that the opposition from the Left in Europe and the U.S. to the bombing of Yugoslavia has been rather muted; and such opposition as exists has more often been based on arguments which are themselves rather disturbing. The muted opposition from the Left is undeniable. After all, in most of Europe, at the moment, forces owing allegiance to the Left are a part of the ruling governments. I am not talking about the hardcore Social Democrats or counting Tony Blair, Robin Cook or Gerhard Schroeder as part of the Left; but within the Social Democratic Parties in each of these countries there are undoubtedly significant sections who would count as Left, and who, by implication, are also a part of the ruling governments. But these are the very governments which are participating in the bombing. Even the German Greens who were committed pacifists a few years ago are now supporters of NATO bombing; the group within the Greens that opposed bombing was easily defeated at the Party convention recently. The reasons for this muted opposition are many. But one of these no doubt is the perception quite widely shared in European Left circles that the Yugoslav government was guilty of "ethnic cleansing" (a euphemism for genocide) against the Kosovars, that it is a "fascist" government, and that when the conflict is between "fascism" and imperialism, the Left has to willy-nilly support imperialism. Indeed many of those opposing the bombing of Yugoslavia do so not because they are opposed to imperialist intervention per se but because they feel that this bombing only strengthens "fascism" both by making the plight of the Kosovars even more pitiable and by rallying popular support within Yugoslavia behind the "fascist regime". This argument is so completely wrong that the immediate temptation is to ignore it. But wrong arguments, if ignored, only come back to haunt us later. It is necessary therefore to take explicit note of it and to confront it, which is what I propose to do. This argument is wrong on at least three counts. First, it is wrong empirically. It presumes that the developments in Yugoslavia prior to the bombing had nothing to do with imperialism, that a "fascist" regime happened to come along and start "ethnic cleansing", and that imperialism only entered the picture at that stage and was confronted with the question of what to do. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yugoslavia not very long ago was a single country encompassing not only Serbia and Montenegro (as it does today) but also Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovena, Macedonia, and Slovenia. It was a founding member of the non-aligned movement, an important and respected member of the comity of nations, and a "model of socialism" according to some of the very people who are currently engaged in bombing what remains of it. It had evolved a federal structure that had successfully and peacefully held together the diverse Balkan nationalities for over four decades. True, there was always an undercurrent of tension among the nationalities but the reason for the break-up of Yugoslavia was not this tension as such; it was the exploitation of this tension by German imperialism. Under the policy of "economic liberalization" several of the federating units of Yugoslavia vied with one another to attract German capital by getting on to the bandwagon of German imperialism, and the latter gave every encouragement to these units to break away from the federation. Prompt European Community recognition was accorded, under German pressure, to whoever broke away from Yugoslavia, and, not surprisingly, the richest of the units, Slovenia and Croatia, were the first to break away. German inperialism therefore was to a very large extent responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia. But that was not all. Even in the truncated Yugoslavia which remained, imperialism aided and abetted the Kosovo Liberation Army which was fighting for the secession of Kosovo. It is a tragic fact that wars of secession are always bloody; the protagonists on either side perpetrate acts
[PEN-L:7659] Re: Re: query
On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Peter Dorman wrote: One obvious thought: the ISP (all Yugo ISPs?) is without power. Peter It'd be just as hard to bounce the mail w/o power as it would be to deliver it, doncha think? That "550 user unknown" is coming the sendmail on the machine that is trying to accept the mail. If the power was out (and there were no backup MX'ers up and running, or if there was some sort of connectivity blockade, you'd get a quite different message and it would not have come from a .yu machine. -- Joseph Noonan [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution. -Emma Goldman
[PEN-L:7646] Re: Re: Liquidated damages for slavery
should be: "...should not be an excuse for *not* promoting social justice..." Mathew Forstater wrote: granted most were) should not be an excuse for promoting social justice.
[PEN-L:7649] RE: Re: FW: Imagine...
-Original Message- From: Wojtek Sokolowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 1999 11:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:7642] Re: FW: Imagine... At 11:00 AM 6/3/99 -0700, Jim Craven wrote: You say it could not happen to Jews in America or Canada what was done in Nazi Germany? You say that especially after Nuremberg and the horrors that were revealed there "Never Again" anywhere? With respect to Jews in America and Canada, perhaps all of the above and more could happen and perhaps not. But there is no "perhaps" that all of the above and much more was done--and is being done--in America and in Canada and elsewhere in the world to Indigenous Peoples. Jim, you do not understand. As Noam Chomsky aptly observed, "in the special case of the United States, facts are irrelevant." No matter what happens here, it is always for the greater good of democracy. How could you doubt that? Besides, there is no comparison between jews and indians, the former are white. wojtek Wojtek, Sorry, I lost my head. BTW, not all Jews are white, and not all Indians are non-white in skin color. But I take your point. I was just trying to show the parallels with reference to one of the most recognized of the Holocausts, the nazi Holocaust, which of course should never be forgotten and which only the really hard-core anti-Semites would deny occurred. I was taking a page out of the manual for social systems engineering that the imperialists use: do not try to create/indoctrinate new concepts and symbols but rather appropriate and re-define existing sacreds, institutions, symbols, etc. Thanks. Jim
[PEN-L:7648] (Fwd) one to read and circulate:STATEMENT FROM CUBAN GOVT --EN
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 11:39:41 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Martin A. Andresen" [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Bohmer [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Colleen Fuller" [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fred Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gunder Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "michael a. lebowitz" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:one to read and circulate:STATEMENT FROM CUBAN GOVT --ENGLISH Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:21:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Jill Hamberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: STATEMENT FROM CUBAN GOVT --ENGLISH /* Written 6:23 PM Jun 2, 1999 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] in igc:reg.cuba */ /* -- "STATEMENT FROM CUBAN GOVT --ENGLISH" -- */ DECLARATION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA On March 5, NATO Secretary General Javier Solana said that the presence of Allied troops in Kosovo was necessary so that the political agreement on that Yugoslav province "does not become a dead letter". On March 14, he said that the resumption of peace talks in Paris on Kosovo were "the last opportunity" for the Serbs if they wanted to avoid the NATO air strikes. On March 16, he stated that "we are at a very critical moment" and that negotiations were progressing "with great difficulty". He warned that "NATO will do whatever it needs to in case this situation evolves in the wrong direction" and added that "the [Paris] talks are not going to last forever". On March 18, the U.S. Defense Department stated that the NATO aircraft and the warships equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles were "in place and ready" to attack Serb positions were such a decision taken. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said that "those troops are in place and ready" to go into action. He added that "this is a significant force and, if they receive the order to take action from the NATO Secretary General [Javier Solana], they could do so very quickly." On March 22, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said, on the situation in Kosovo: "It is never too late to settle disputes or conflicts through diplomatic channels." After so many and such overwhelming and undiplomatic ultimatums, the NATO Secretary General stated on March 23: "The last diplomatic effort has failed." He further added: "There is no other alternative but military action." On that same day, he announced very clearly and in an unusually belligerent tone for a European former Minister of Culture, his only experience as an expert in matters of war: "I have just given the order to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, United States General Wesley Clark, to begin air operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." Since the Secretary General issued that order, NATO attacks have not stopped, not even for a single day. On that first night, 371 planes took part in the assaults, taking off from ground bases. Warships in the Adriatic launched cruise missiles. Significant and painful events immediately followed throughout 70 days until today. We shall limit ourselves to pointing out those incidents that are essential to show how, and against whom, this war is being waged and the perils that it could entail. March 25 Russian President Boris Yeltsin called the military action an open aggression and recalled his military envoy in NATO. Russia suspended its co-operation with NATO. Solana stated: "The operation will last for several more days." March 26 Six warships and 400 planes launched missiles and bombs on Yugoslavia. March 29 Five days after the bombing began, 15,000 Albanian Kosovars had crossed the border. A mass exodus had begun. April 2 NATO planes destroyed a bridge over the Danube in Novi Sad, blocking the main freight route to the Black Sea. April 7 The Yugoslav capital, Belgrade, was attacked for the first time. The Interior Ministries of Serbia and Yugoslavia were destroyed, and houses and all their surroundings severely damaged. The emergency ward of a mother-and-child hospital, where 74 children had been born that day, suffered the consequences of a direct impact and was put out of service. The United Nations estimated that 310,885 refugees and displaced persons had entered Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia and Turkey. The mass exodus was already full steam ahead. Fuel stores, highways and bridges were attacked throughout Yugoslavia. A missile made a direct impact on the town of Aleksinac, causing dozens of civilian deaths and injuries. By that date, 190 buildings devoted to education had been destroyed. The majority of these were primary and secondary schools but they also included universities and student residences. The natural parks of Fruska Gora,
[PEN-L:7645] Psychology? (was Liquidated damages for slavery)
Yoshie, you replied to the objections to the concept of "racial guilt" raised by Rod Hay by implying that such guilt is based in facts like seggregation, war on crime, etc. It is thus quite resonable to conclude that you believe that the concept of "racial guilt" is real, no? wojtek My reply was not in response to the concept of "racial guilt" (or arguments for it or against it). It was a response to this part of Rod Hay's comment: "I think the work of William Julius Williams is instructive on this question. It is a class issue not a race issue." Please note there was no mention of "guilt," racial or otherwise, or of psychology for that matter, in my post. On the other hand, your reply to me had plenty of references to "psychology" in it, which is itself an interesting fact, but it is probably not worth pursuing further discussion on the subject. Yoshie
[PEN-L:7644] Re: Liquidated damages for slavery
I like some of Bill Wilson's stuff, and he certainly is no Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams, but it would do us well to also read some of the very good, and Marx-informed. critiques of Wilson, by people who are experts on these questions, e.g., Sandy Darity, Rhonda Williams, and others. For those with enough interest in and humility concerning these very important questions to take the time to look at some of this stuff, let me recommend: _The Black underclass : critical essays on race and unwantedness_, by William A. Darity, Jr., and Samuel L. Myers, Jr., with Emmett D. Carson and William Sabol, New York : Garland Pub., 1994. _Race, Class, and Conservatism_ by Thomas Boston, Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1988. and the really excellent special issue symposium on Black Neoconservatism from July, 1987 in _Praxis International_ with contributions by Rhonda Williams, Robert Gooding-Williams, Sandy Darity, Cornel West, Lorenzo Simpson. Also some of the contributions in the recent two volume collection _A Different Vision_ edited by Thomas Boston, London and New York: Routledge, 1997. and recent good work on reparations/restitution in two collections edited by Richard America: America, Richard F.(ed.): _Paying the Social Debt: What White America Owes Black America, Westport : Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated, 1993. America, Richard F. (ed.): _The Wealth of Races: The Present Value of Benefits from Past Injustices, Westport : Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated, 1990. One of these hopefully contains a very good piece by George DeMartino where he outlines three different ethical perpectives on the issue, including one based on the work of A. Sen, that should be required reading for any discussion of these issues. The question of who benefits from racism and sexism is a complicated (and very politicized) one, but there is some very good work on these difficult issues that goes beyond the simplistic story that one gets in, e.g., Michael Reich's _Racial Inequality_, 1981, Princeton U. Press. In addition to the work of Sandy Darity and Rhonda Williams already mentioned, the work of Patrick Mason, Howard Botwinick, Steven Shulman is also of note. Believe it or not, even people who did not actively promote racism and sexism, or who don't seem all that well off, nevertheless benefitted from the existence of institutionalized racism and sexism. Believe it or not, it could have been even worse (it *was* worse, e.g., for most African Americans and women, Indians, etc). And the fact that every mode of production was exploitative (in fact I don't believe that is true, but granted most were) should not be an excuse for promoting social justice. Some social justice is better than none. And it is not about "racial guilt" like let's feel bad, it is about real material reparations/restitution, so some people's children don't have to suffer as much because they happen to be "unlucky" enough to have the wrong color skin. Also, one doesn't have to have a monopoly on virtue to deserve justice. The remark about sounding like Rush Limbaugh, if not directed to this post, would apply here pretty much. And let's not forget the two very good, old, special issues of RRPE, with contributions by Shulman, Harry Chang, Boston, Albelda, Nakano Glenn and others, one from Fall, 1985 (vol. 17, no. 3) and the other from 1984 (vol. 16, no. 4). Finally: Robert Gooding-Williams (ed): _Reading Rodney King Reading Urban Uprising_, London and New York: Routledge, 1993. has some very good pieces. Mat Rod Hay wrote: I don't believe in racial guilt. And I don't believe that any social group has a monopoly on virtue. My ancestors were poor scotish crofters. If they received any benefit from slavery, it was not apparent in their income. The point is that all past modes of production were based on exploitation. Are all descendants of the exploited (the large majority of the population in most modes of production) to be compensated. A much more reasonable political goal would be to design programs that create opportunities for those that don't have them now regardless of their background. I think the work of William Julius Williams is instructive on this question. It is a class issue not a race issue. Original Message Follows From: "Charles Brown" The point is the living descendants' lives are impacted by history. Today's inequality is caused by the wrongs and inequalities of the past. Each generation's equality does not arise anew upon each generation. Calling the idea of such compensation ludicrous is an unsupported conclusory remark. Whatever the rationale, "equality (material equality)for African Americans NOW !" is the demand. Without recognizing that today's inequality is caused by events in the past , one ends up having to blame the victims or blame that inequality on the current generation. That is ludicrous. The inequalities in quantity and quality of life between different races in the
[PEN-L:7640] FW: Imagine...
Reprinted from The Eastern Door, newspaper of the Kahnawake, Mohawks Territory (http:..www.easterndoor.com/Archivesx/8-16-editorial.htm) and The Pikanii Sun, vol 1 No. 2 newspaper of the Blackfoot Confederacy. The US Government has no business talking/lecturing to anyone about human rights anywhere. Imagine James M. S. Craven (Blackfoot Confederacy) There is a great deal of sensitivity to one of the most notorious of the many Holocausts humankind has suffered: the Nazi Holocaust against Jews, Gypsies and others. Movies like Schindler's List are a constant reminder of massive suffering that must never be forgotten and historical lessons that must be learned. Most believe that something like the Holocaust of the Nazis against Jews or Gypsies or other victims tageted by the Nazis could never happen here in America or in Canada. Imagine that something like what happened to Jews in Germany happened in America or Canada. Imagine that Jewish children were forced to repeat Christian prayers and were beaten or even murdered if they spoke or prayed in Hebrew or Yiddish and spoke or prayed Jewish prayers. Imagine if Jewish children were forced to eat pork that was not only forbidden for religious reasons but was also rotten, insect-infested and of the lowest quality so that many children could be "fed" cheaply and very profitably. Imagine if vulnerable and trusting Jewish children were routinely sexually and physically abused by clergy and when the sexual and physical abuse was discovered, those who reported it were beaten or murdered while those who committed the ugly deeds were protected by powerful and rich churches and sent elsewhere to do more crimes to other Jewish children. Imagine that Jewish children were used for medical experiments or used to test new drugs or surgical procedures. Imagine if Jewish children were used as sexual objects for powerful pedophiles when visiting the isolated institutions in which the Jewish children were kept away from their families and communities. Imagine if Jewish children were sterilized through coercion or decption. Imagine if Jewish children were registered and controlled by a BJA (Bureau of Jewish Affairs) that had a long history of fraud, theft, abuse and dereliction of trust responsibilities with respect to traditional Jewish lands and resources. Imagine if throughout the Jewish Ghettos, corrupt and sell-out Jews were selected or elected through fraudulent elections to control other Jews in the interests of non-Jews bent on the eventual elimination--through murder, intermarriage, redefinition, assimilation or sterilization--of all Jews.Imagine if Jewish children were forced into special Boarding/Residential Schools designed to beat, torture, intimidate and brainwash the "Jewishness" out of them. Imagine if there were football teams with names like the "Kansas City Kikes", the "San Francisco Sheenies" or the Jersey City Jew Boys" and at half-time some caricature of what the bigoted and ignorant consider to be a "typical Jew" came out to do the "money-grubbing tango". Imagine if Jews were forbidden to celebrate Jewish holidays or to wear traditional Jewish yamulkas or prayer shawls. Imagine if all the precedents of Nuremberg and International Law (Treaties) were routinely broken by non-Jews while Jews were expected to keep all promises and responsibilities under those laws. You say it could not happen to Jews in America or Canada what was done in Nazi Germany? You say that especially after Nuremberg and the horrors that were revealed there "Never Again" anywhere? With respect to Jews in America and Canada, perhaps all of the above and more could happen and perhaps not. But there is no "perhaps" that all of the above and much more was done--and is being done--in America and in Canada and elsewhere in the world to Indigenous Peoples. When do Indians and first Nations Peoples get movies like "Schlinder's List" that expose the past and present of the American and Canadian Holocausts? When do non-Indians care about the American and Canadian Holocausts against Indigenous Peoples as much as many non-Jews do --and should--care about the Nazi Holocaust? When do Indians get the precedents, legal protections and demands for justice of Nuremberg applied in and to the very Nations that so piously and hypocritically sat in judgment at Nuremberg? Jim Craven
[PEN-L:7638] More on Racism
I have been asked both on and off list how Max's making fun of my name is racist. What makes any remark racist is its social context. Calling an Englishman an Englishman is not racist, calling a Chinese a Chinaman is. Making fun of an American name may not be racist in some context, but making fun of a Chinese name is always racist, because in the American cultural context, making fun of Chinese phonetics is a racist act. Calling a American "shorty" may not be racist, but calling a Japanese "shorty" is racist. Calling a Chinese "Charlie" (unless that is his real name) is racist. In the Vietnam War, "I am going get me a Charlie" is a racist remark. Making a joke about watermelon and the Chinese is not racist, make the same joke in relation to America Blacks is racist. To deny that American society is afflicted with racism is a racist attitude. To accuse any minority member of being too sensitive about racism is a racist act. The fact that criticism is couched in racist terms or attitude, does not make it less racist, even if the criticism itself may be valid. It is necessary, in order to communicate, to preface any statement or act which would be perceived as racist, with a caustionary remark, such as "please don't take this wrong... " or something to that effect, rather than putting the burden of proof on the victim. As I have said, the challenge to prove why the remark is racist is more damaging than the remark itself. What a person says does not always have a congruent relationship to how what he said is received. If this is too difficult to understand, or too demanding for the dominant culture, then at least admit that racism is convenience or natural, but don't deny its exsitence. The fact that racism is common sense in America do not excuse it existence. I am not "pissing and groaning" about being a victim of racism as Max claimed in his racist characterization. Henry
[PEN-L:7637] Re: spinning the war
At 10:11 AM 6/3/99 -0700, Michael Perelman wrote: If this "peace treaty" goes through, will Clinton be able to spin this disaster as a success? A good question, indeed. I do not think that the actual terms of the agreement matter that much as the willingness of the Repugs to exploit the whole incident to their advantage. I think they can muster pretty strong arguments (such as the violation of the war powers act which is an impeacheable offence) - but i am not sure if they are willing to do so. it seems that "national security" is too serious an issue to become the subject to partisan politics (translation: the ruling elite cannot risk jeopardizing its capability of using force whenever it sees it fit by exposinng it to criticism during the electoral farce). see for example the outcome of the persian gulf war that never became a campaign issue, even if it cost bush the election. methinks that if "peace breaks out" - the most likely scenario is a bipartisan spin proclaiming the mission a success, followed by relatively moderate and proforma criticism of clinton administration from the repug side, followed in turn by relatively muted rebuttals and mostly symbolic appeasement gestures, such as sacking some policy advisors or perhaps cabinet members (albright?). wojtek
[PEN-L:7631] Re: Re: Bwana Compares Mao to Hitler
At 11:07 AM 6/3/99 -0400, Charles Brown wrote: "Michael Keaney" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/03/99 06:17AM Charles Brown wrote: Stalin did not launch a war as Hitler did. No he did not, although his annexations of the Baltic states bear some comparison with the reoccupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss with Austria and the annexation of the Sudetenland. Stalin also launched an attack against Finland, which had the happy effect of exposing how ill-prepared the Soviet military was for war, among many unhappy effects. There is also the matter of the massacre at Katyn, committed during the joint Soviet-Nazi carve-up of Poland. Then there are the assorted pogroms, purges and cleansings of kulaks, Jews, Left Opposition, Right Opposition, any opposition (real or imaginary). ( Charles: Without ignoring that some of these specific actions have another side to the story, they amount to much less than the imperialist wars of aggression launched by pretty much all American presidents. Even domestically ,Washington put down Shays rebellion. Andrew Jackson led mass murder of indigenous peoples usurping their homeland from them in the American southeast. Mexico was invaded by the U.S. in the early 1800's. The history of U.S. presidents in the twentieth century in Dominican Republic, Nicaragua (80's and 20's), Viet Nam, Panama, as a very small sample ( see list that has been circulating in response to the current war on Yugoslavia and Iraq for a more complete picture of the massive U.S. aggression through history) . With two bombs, Truman killed tens of thousands in minutes. The parade of U.S. president imperalist war horribles is mind boggling and evidence of murderous tyranny equalling and surpassing your description above. --snip That further confirms my long held suspicion that the US is basically a USSR without S(ocial) R(esponsibility) but with much more money instead. More seriously, because those two countries are comparable in that both were established largely though colonisation of indigenous peoples (equally brutal, I may add) and both used universalisitc ideologies to legitimate their hegemonic positions (for example, the Russian tsar abolished serfdom in Poland (then a part of Russia) in 1864 to undercut peasant support to a nationalistic uprising in almost exact same fashion as Lincoln abolished slavery to undercut the Southern rebellion). I think a more constructive discussion would be a comparison of these two states to learn something about imperialism, instead trying to exonerate one by pointing out the misdeeds of the other. wojtek
[PEN-L:7630] Jeffrey Daumer and Jack the Ripper: one more try
My point must not have been clear at all. This kind of shouting is pointless. I happen to believe the Boshevik and the Chinese revolutions were wonderful events. Max and Brad disagree. So what? I could not convince them even if I could force them to read a whole library of email posts. Why even try? They begin with an entirely different set of premises, because they look at events in a different context. Don't we have more important uses for our time? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:7627] Re: Wao
At 11:43 AM 6/3/99 -0400, Max Sawicky wrote: I would not be disinterested in moral preachments from those I would regard as exceptional moral examples to the rest of us, but Mr. Liu doesn't qualify. He's too busy trying to buttress his own dubious assertions by reference to the suffering of others, his own people in particular. He complains bitterly of someone making fun of his name, then turns around and does the same thing. Max, I think we should distinguish between the man's personality (of which I have no direct knowledge) and the point he is trying to make. And I must admit I agree with most of what he is saying about condescending treatment of ethnic minorities by many US-ers (I will not comment on Mao beyond what i've already said on the subject, though). Just a few examples - look at the demeanor of US media people (even on such "liberal" outlets like PBS) interviewing officials. There is a marked difference if the interviewed official is a US-er and if he or she represents some developing contry. I sometimes cannot belive how those people can put up with the condescending treatment they receive from the media people. I can also cite tons of observations from my own environment. Suffice it to say that we have a quite large foreign exchange program at Hopkins - and paternalism on the part of the US staff is an often voiced complaint by our visitors. Again, let's separate the personal from valid criticism - even if these two appear to be mixed up. wojtek
[PEN-L:7625] Re: Re: Re: What I would love to see...
J. Devine: I know very well they were by Jim Craven. I miss your point Frank
[PEN-L:7622] Buchanan on the Balkans
From Johnson russian list Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 From: "Wladislaw George Krasnow, PhD" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Russian American Goodwill Associates Subject: Buchanan on Russia at National Press Club in Washington Patrick Buchanan became the first U.S. presidential candidate to declare the war in the Balkans the greatest obstacle to better relations with Russia which, he said, would be "priority number one" if he is elected to the White House. During a luncheon presentation at the national Press Club on Tuesday June 1, Buchanan criticised the four other Republican presidential candidates, George W. Bush, Elisabeth Dole, Steve Forbes and Sen. John McCain for failing to distance themselves from "Clinton's war." Buchanan disputed McCain's suggestion that "we must do whatever is necessary to win lest we be perceived by our enemies as an uncertain foe and by our friends as an unreliable ally." "If a war is unwise, unjust, or unwinnable except at exorbitant cost," argued Buchanan, "a statesman's duty is to end it on the best terms attainable, as Eisenhower did in Korea, DeGaulle in Algeria, and Gorbachev in Afghanistan." According to Buchanan, "the only winner thus far has been Milosevic who has earned a niche in Serb mythology for defying 'the most successful alliance in history' rather than surrender Kosovo, the sacred cradle of the Serb nation." Concluded Buchanan: "Let us cut a deal and end this wretched war now." When asked about his vision of the U.S.-Russia relations in the 21st century, Buchanan said that "the greatest achievement of Ronald Reagan was not only ending the Cold War but also turning the millions of ordinary Russians to our friends. Under Clinton, anti-Americanism in Russia became rampant and reached the lowest pointly after the expansion of NATO and the start of the war in Yugoslavia." "If elected, I'd make the reparing of U.S.-Russian relation the number one priority of my foreign policy to keep Russia from moving closer to Red China," promised Buchanan.
[PEN-L:7619] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: DeLong Compares Mao to Hitler
Eugene Coyle wrote: If Suharto is a bad person, what does that make the President(s) of the USA that backed him? (List as many others here as you like.) Clearly you don't understand. Deaths under Communist regimes are proof of the system's intrinsic and inevitable barbarism. Deaths under capitalist regimes are excesses, errors, the products of rogue elements, growing pains, etc. etc. Stunning factoid: according to an article in Foreign Affairs, aerial bombardment has killed some 2 million people in this century. The death toll from sanctions against Iraq is over 1 million. Excess? Error? Rogue elements? Growing pains? Doug
[PEN-L:7618] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Mao
At 02:50 PM 6/2/99 -0700, Jim C. wrote: As ugly and ruthless as capitalism is, as horrible as its consequences on the many innocents, as horrible as the means employed by the capitalists to rule, so as horrible the means may be necessary to stop it. But the Jew of the Warsaw Ghetto who uses violence to attempt to stop genocide and defend his/her People can never be on the same moral plane as the nazi who uses violence to put the Jew into the gas chambers; only in the abstract "morality" of the detached from the actual struggles and their consequences. Jim, I agree with that point and made that clear in my response to Brad DeLong in the related thread. We need to evaluate things in their proper historical context - something that neoliberal and neoclassical narratives purposefully resist. But that also means looking at the capitalist development in a proper historical perspective. That will tell us that, undoubtedly sundry social-historical reasons, capitalism brought relative prosperity, unioversal suffrage and freedom from traditional oppression - just ask Eastern European (and I presume Chinese) women about the dubious benefits of "state-socialist" sanctioned patriarchy - not to mention freedom from backbreaking physical labor etc. And these are good things, regardless of one's political orientation. Of course that does not mean that all benefited equally from those good things, au contraire - the unequal access to the most fundamental resources amidst plenty is probably the strongest indictment of the capitalist system, especially the US-style. Nor does it mean that capitalism will keep bringing these goods forever. In fact, I have a good reason to belive that under the current historical conditions capitalism is slowly turning into business fascism, and systematically dismantling the civil libertarian superstructure it created in the past. But that is much different form the position taken by some developing countries (including China) that portrays civil rights as a mere capitalist graft to undermine their national sovereignty.Again, it is one thing of the US using civil and human rights as a trojan horse of its fundamentally imperialist policies (that is why I opposed the Yugoslavia adventure from the start) - and I must add that racist imperialism is as American as baseball, star-spangled banner and apple pie - and quite another thing of using social institutions created by capitalism to built a better and more humane society. Let us not throw the baby with bath water as Brad DeLong does. wojtek
[PEN-L:7612] World Bank Marshall Plan?
dig world bank web page header... as for below proposal, surely its architects won't impose kinds of strings attached to original Marshall Plan - demand for balanced budgets, stable currency, high profit margins, low wages, inegalitarian tax structures in order to assist capitalist class that benefits from exploitative policies. ...and they certainly won't try to stimulate economic recovery at expense of working people in conjunction with forms of repression intended to reduce the power of working class organizations... Michael Hoover THE WORLD BANK GROUP A World Free of Poverty [INLINE] May 30, 1999 This summary is prepared by the External Affairs Department of the World Bank. All material is taken directly from published and copyright wire service stories and newspaper articles. Subscribe | Unsubscribe | Archive | Feedback | Search | News Home x EUROPE READIES MARSHALL PLAN FOR BALKANS Western countries yesterday began discussions on the embryo of a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild southeastern Europe after the Kosovo conflict, Reuters reports. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer urged officials from some 30 countries and international organizations to work on "the ambitious project" of anchoring the Balkans in democracy and economic prosperity after the NATO bombing stops. Besides the EU, those represented at the meeting were NATO, the OSCE, the OECD, the EBRD, the Western European Union, the EIB, the World Bank, the IMF, Japan and Canada. Officials said the meeting was only a first step and that they were far from drawing up the details of a reconstruction plan along the lines of the US Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe after 1945. Fischer said he hoped the one-day meeting would prepare the ground in time for ministers to meet to begin work on a so-called Stability Pact before the end of Germany's six-month presidency of the EU on June 30. He also wanted to call a donor conference for the Balkans. "We have to end this absurdity where it is easier to collect money for war than peace," Fischer added. Meanwhile, diplomats are quietly complaining that the international community, because it is preoccupied with the Kosovo crisis, is paying too little attention to conflicts in Angola, Ethiopia and elsewhere. UN humanitarian coordinator for Angola Francesco Strippoli said $110 million in food and other assistance was desperately needed just to sustain the 1.6 million internally displaced Angolans. So far, says the Economist (p.45), the donors-rich countries' governments that are tired of pouring money into Angola-have come up with only $25 million. Even in the unlikely event of the donors responding [more] quickly, the situation will remain perilous, says the story.
[PEN-L:7611] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: DeLong Compares Mao to Hitler
This is social fascism, brutalization through economic policy as deadly as war in the long run. Charles Brown "Henry C.K. Liu" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/03/99 08:25AM 200 million "newly poor" created by neo-liberal globalization. Lets see if DeLong and Sawacky can find humor in that. DeLong was part of the Administration whose policy casued this to happen. He can't blame this one on Mao Zedong. Henry C.K. Liu Thursday June 3 1999 World Bank estimates 200 million 'newly poor' ASSOCIATED PRESS Updated at 6.10pm: In its first detailed look at the impact of the Asian financial crisis on global poverty, the World Bank estimates the world has 200 million ''newly poor'' and recommends urgent changes in financial rescue programmes to protect people, not just economies. ''Countries that until recently believed they were turning the tide in the fight against poverty are witnessing its reemergence,'' said bank President James D. Wolfensohn. ''We must now draw on the lessons of recent experience to help us reshape our strategies for the future.'' Programmes to avoid and deal with financial crises in all countries must now boost social protections, often called ''safety nets,'' the bank said. They include unemployment insurance, subsidised school fees, job creation, food subsides and other programs directly affecting the poor. The bank is responding to data showing poverty rising again in India, continuing to go up in Africa and sharply worsening across eastern Europe and central Asia. Indonesia, hit early in the crisis, is among the worst off, with 30 million more people earning less than HK$8 a day than it had before the financial collapse. Worldwide, the number of people below that income, considered the benchmark for abject poverty, is estimated at 1.5 billion - up 200 million from 1993. Final figures for 1999 will not be available for several years, but the estimate is based on trends since 1.2 billion poor were counted in 1987. Despite the gloomy outlook, the report said there has been widespread progress in health and education. And an exception to the increase is China, where the number of poor is believed to have declined from 280 million in 1990 to 125 million in 1997. The bank, in a report last week based on a survey of Asian companies, concluded that Asian economies are recovering more quickly than expected from the Asian crisis. The new report points to the lasting impact of the crisis on some of the world's poorest, diminishing hope of cutting worldwide poverty in half by 2020 - a goal many experts had thought could be achieved. ''The East Asia crisis and its spillover into other emerging markets offers the world an opportunity to devise a new approach to crisis, one that rightly puts concern for the poor and the vulnerable right at the centre of its response,'' said World Bank economist Giovanna Prennushi, who wrote the report. ''By helping countries establish stronger social protections, the international community may be able to prevent the sudden impoverishment of millions of people when crisis strikes.'' The bank has distributed to world policymakers a working paper that lays out plans for safeguarding the needy before and during financial crises. The paper gauges the impact of recent developments on the poor in East Asia, Latin America and Africa. Wage cuts, job reductions, lower rates of return on savings, reduced government benefits and drops in services such as health care and safety can all affect people directly and immediately, the paper says, recommending guidelines for programs that head off such problems. A ''pro-poor response'' to all crises could add up to 5 per cent to governments costs, but could be cheaper, in the long run, than
[PEN-L:7605] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: DeLong Compares Mao to Hitler
200 million "newly poor" created by neo-liberal globalization. Lets see if DeLong and Sawacky can find humor in that. DeLong was part of the Administration whose policy casued this to happen. He can't blame this one on Mao Zedong. Henry C.K. Liu Thursday June 3 1999 World Bank estimates 200 million 'newly poor' ASSOCIATED PRESS Updated at 6.10pm: In its first detailed look at the impact of the Asian financial crisis on global poverty, the World Bank estimates the world has 200 million ''newly poor'' and recommends urgent changes in financial rescue programmes to protect people, not just economies. ''Countries that until recently believed they were turning the tide in the fight against poverty are witnessing its reemergence,'' said bank President James D. Wolfensohn. ''We must now draw on the lessons of recent experience to help us reshape our strategies for the future.'' Programmes to avoid and deal with financial crises in all countries must now boost social protections, often called ''safety nets,'' the bank said. They include unemployment insurance, subsidised school fees, job creation, food subsides and other programs directly affecting the poor. The bank is responding to data showing poverty rising again in India, continuing to go up in Africa and sharply worsening across eastern Europe and central Asia. Indonesia, hit early in the crisis, is among the worst off, with 30 million more people earning less than HK$8 a day than it had before the financial collapse. Worldwide, the number of people below that income, considered the benchmark for abject poverty, is estimated at 1.5 billion - up 200 million from 1993. Final figures for 1999 will not be available for several years, but the estimate is based on trends since 1.2 billion poor were counted in 1987. Despite the gloomy outlook, the report said there has been widespread progress in health and education. And an exception to the increase is China, where the number of poor is believed to have declined from 280 million in 1990 to 125 million in 1997. The bank, in a report last week based on a survey of Asian companies, concluded that Asian economies are recovering more quickly than expected from the Asian crisis. The new report points to the lasting impact of the crisis on some of the world's poorest, diminishing hope of cutting worldwide poverty in half by 2020 - a goal many experts had thought could be achieved. ''The East Asia crisis and its spillover into other emerging markets offers the world an opportunity to devise a new approach to crisis, one that rightly puts concern for the poor and the vulnerable right at the centre of its response,'' said World Bank economist Giovanna Prennushi, who wrote the report. ''By helping countries establish stronger social protections, the international community may be able to prevent the sudden impoverishment of millions of people when crisis strikes.'' The bank has distributed to world policymakers a working paper that lays out plans for safeguarding the needy before and during financial crises. The paper gauges the impact of recent developments on the poor in East Asia, Latin America and Africa. Wage cuts, job reductions, lower rates of return on savings, reduced government benefits and drops in services such as health care and safety can all affect people directly and immediately, the paper says, recommending guidelines for programs that head off such problems. A ''pro-poor response'' to all crises could add up to 5 per cent to governments costs, but could be cheaper, in the long run, than hastily prepared relief operations that have no lasting impact, it says.
[PEN-L:7604] Re: Re: DeLong Compares Mao to Hitler
Michael Keaney wrote: Charles Brown wrote: This is a futile, if not facile, debate. Was the USSR a socialist country? Not in my book, but obviously in many others'. So what is socialism? I equate socialism with democracy. How democracy can be achieved via authoritarian means is a conundrum we might do well to consider. It would perhaps be useful to dispense with the separation of means and ends which has allowed demagogues of "Left" and "Right" masquerading as liberators and progressive revolutionaries to dispense summary justice to all those perceived (or portrayed) as obstacles to enlightenment. Figuring out whether Mao, Stalin or Jeane Kirkpatrick outperform each other in the cynical instrumentalism stakes won't get us very far. There are several problems of definition with the above statement. Yet as a personal statement, it is legitimate. The thrust of the debate on this thread was with regard to DeLong's contention that it was not objective search for the proper solution in the specific context of national development, but evil intent that motivated Mao and Stalin to murder millions, as the Western World have generally accepted to be the case with Hitler. So the issue was not even whether one agrees that what Stalin or Mao was struggling to build soicialism and democracy (with a small d, not Western Democracy), but the whether Mao and Stalin were using that struggle to achieving some personal evil aim. At least with Mao, whose effort I am very familiar, cannot be equate to Hitler on that level. As for Kilpatrick, she is merely an ideologue opportunist. Comparing her to Hitler would flatter her by elevating her name recognition. Henry C.K. Liu
[PEN-L:7610] Leninism '99 is Peace, Bread and Land
savings = investment. Well that's a first approximation. It is both simple and complex... .elegant , yet profound For June 3, 1999 and for the next several years, Leninism means get the god damned U.S. out of everywhere or peace. Not that different from Leninism 1917. Charles Brown Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/02/99 08:18PM Carrol Cox wrote: Marxism = Leninism Oh no, what a limiting thought. Leninism was a product of its time circumstances - could you tell me what it means to be a Leninist in the U.S. or Australia in 1999? Doug
[PEN-L:7609] Henry has a better joke than Max
Henry, I think you have topped Brad and the house comedian, Max. Max, you are going to have to really go some to top this. Your comedic honor is on the line. Benny II from Lenox Avenue "Henry C.K. Liu" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/02/99 07:19PM When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to interfere with the political affairs which have never connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the superior station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a willful disrespect to the opinions of mankind entitles them to declare the causes which impel them to aggression. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Americans are created superior, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are to take other's Life, Liberty, and Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from capital and the debts of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the US to alter or to abolish it through assassinations, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to effect their permanent subservience. Funny, no? Brad De Long wrote: Comrade Max Sawicky is the greatest Marxist-Leninist of our era! He has inherited, defended, and developed Marxism-Leninism with genius, creatively and comprehensively, and has brought it to a higher and completely new stage! Max Sawicky's thought is Marxism-Leninism of the era in which imperialism is headed for total collapse and socialism is advancing to world-wide victory! It is a powerful ideological weapon for opposing imperialism and for opposing revisionism and dogmatism! Mao Tse-tung's thought is the guiding principle for all the work of the party, the army, and the country!
[PEN-L:7601] Re: Re: nationalism
Carrol wrote, replying to my insistence that there is are important distinctions between Marx and Lenin: If all you want to do is to spin academic reveries I suppose this opposition works. on the issue of nationalism, there is an indeed an opposition between Marx and Lenin. this is not an 'academic reverie' (see below for some further comments on this tired accusation.)this difference is founded on the different circumstances that Marx and Lenin found themselves in and had to deal with, esp over the question of their relation to state power, as I said in the previous post - it is not a secret difference, but it is one publicly elided by some Leninists who want to close off any discussion about the irreducible relation between Lenin and Marx - a bit like the papacy really. to accept Lenin as the pre-eminent communist strategist for all time and places is like going to sleep for a hundred years, only to wake up and think that the same slogans should be mouthed, the same issues prevail and that the working class is similarly composed as it was in Russia when you drifted off. I've posted much on this on the various lists, but repeated myself here on the issue of nationalism because I think that the leninist spin on nationalism has slid dangerously into racist and ethnicist perspectives on the war, or at the very least, has become the guarantor that such perspectives can present themselves as radical and oppositional when they are anything but. when Leninists forcefully denounce the racists in their midst who justify this by recourse to Lenin, then I will gladly retract the accusation. * re: academics: there is a lot to be said on this, but for now - all this slur does is work at reinforcing the distinction between 'academic' and 'activist', as if activism is brainless and academics are bodiless. a distinction I might add that is reproduced in the leninist distinction between party and masses. it isn't really a slur on academics, though it jauntily parades as such, and clearly has the desired effect of making academics feel guilty on these lists; it's a slur on the other side of the binary. being 'academic' means in this context simply that you've read Marx and Lenin and noticed the differences. Angela --- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7606] SISTEMA ELECTRÓNICO PARA LA TRANSFERENCIA DE LA POTENCIA ECONÓMICA Y POLÍTICA A LAGENTEHelp - AltaVista HomeEn Español:SISTEMA ELECTRÓNICO PARA LA TRANSFERENCIA DE LA POTENCIA ECONÓMICA Y POLÍTICA A LAGENTETo translate, type plain text or the address (URL) of a Web page here:Translate from:Put the power of Babel Fish into your browser from the Babel Fish Tool page.Download SYSTRAN Personal and translate your private documents in seconds.AltaVista Home | Help | Feedback©1995-98 | Disclaimer | Privacy | Advertising InfoHelp - AltaVista Home
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit CONSUMIDORES DE TODOS LOS PAÍSES, UNEN! La gente no tiene ninguna influencia. Toda la potencia económica y política se concentra en las corporaciones transnacionales, su monopolio de los medios de masas y sus políticos. Y desde su punto de vista la gente está solamente de interés 1. - como trabajo auxiliar, solamente ser mantenido descubierto vivo en el nivel mínimo de la existencia, - esto que da lugar a la lucha general de la clase - pero en el mismo tiempo también 2. - como consumidores para guardar la maquinaria del beneficio el ejecutarse en la velocidad máxima. El gran potencial de este otro papel más agradable el nuestros se ha explotado hasta ahora solamente a un fragmento muy limitado y solamente para los propósitos defensivos. Déjenos tan amplían la lucha de la clase con explotar este potencial en una estrategia OFENSIVA: Utilicemos las contradicciones que existen dentro de los barones de ladrón para escudarse a nuestra ventaja y para desarmar su lucha imperialista concluído mercados y recursos antes de que ahora conduzca de nuevo a la guerra mundial. Utilicemos el hecho de que es nuestro dinero que los ladrones están luchando encima, y jugar los depredadores hacia fuera contra eachother, antes de que tengan éxito en terminar el proceso del monopolization. Porqué si permanecemos siempre en la defensiva aunque los vendedores son totalmente dependientes en nuestra buena voluntad de comprar sus productos! GLOBAL la potencia de los consumidores se puede utilizar para la internacionalización de las corporaciones. Esta estrategia del parlamento formativo del mundo DE LA GENTE UNIDA para salvar nuestro planeta tiene direccionamiento http://www.unitedpeoples.net del Web site (bajo construcción). REGIONALMENTE y NACIONALMENTE la potencia de los consumidores se puede utilizar para la toma de posesión de la gente de la propiedad o de la parte de los beneficios de compañías nacionales o de empresas corporativas locales de la producción o de la distribución. En cada país forman un partido unido de la gente o, al comienzo con, a un comité de la potencia de los consumidores, un " CPC ", abarcando organizaciones, los movimientos y a individuos progresivos y aprobado por el parlamento del mundo. El CPC puede abarcar a un grupo de países vecinos. El análisis del mercado y de la identificación de los productos y de las empresas que se apuntarán es realizado por el profesional progresivo economistas/NGOs/estudiantes bajo dirección del CPC. Las tareas de los miembros serán, pues los consumidores, comprar, boicotean respectivamente continuamente o por un período del tiempo especificado los productos precisaron por el CPC, y motivarán el resto de la población para hacer igual. EJEMPLO: Tres empresas, A, B y C, están vendiendo productos casi idénticos y comparten el mercado como sigue: A B C Partes del mercado: xx A B C Beneficios: xx Dependiendo del mercado, de la fuerza del CPC, del etc., cada de las empresas se pide cualquiera A) - si está dispuesto a volcar la propiedad a la gente, si se elige como la única para sobrevivir, el dinero invertido de los accionistas que se pagará detrás concluído un período del tiempo especificado, o B) - cómo la gran parte de sus beneficios adicionales él asignará a la gente, si se elige como la única o una de las pocas empresas que productos no serán boicoteados. Si, por ejemplo, A y B hacen una oferta lo más arriba posible, el CPC puede elegir dejó mercado de la parte c de A y de B y beneficio de la parte c con la gente, más bien que dejó A o B conseguir monopolio completo: A B Partes del mercado: xx A B CPC Beneficios: x xxx xx Todo por supuesto será basado en un acuerdo escrito de antemano. SISTEMA ELECTRÓNICO PARA MOVILIZAR A LOS CONSUMIDORES Y DOCUMENTAR EL NÚMERO DE PARTICIPANTES 1. Una base de datos administrada por el parlamento del mundo de la gente unida, http://www.unitedpeoples.net Hasta que han elegido al primer parlamento, los organizadores funcionarán como un parlamento provisional. La base de datos salva las huellas digitales biométricas digitalizadas de todos los consumidores que participan por todo el mundo. La documentación de los consumidores activos del af del número extenso permite al parlamento del mundo poner la presión en las corporaciones transnacionales para los propósitos ecológicos, económicos y políticos. 2. El
[PEN-L:7608] US-China Friendship
Lets hope Washington does not interprete this as a sugn of weakness. Henry C.K. Liu China Changes Tack, Urges U.S. Friendship BEIJING, Jun 3, 1999 -- (Agence France Presse) After weeks of anti-U.S. invective, China's top newspaper urged "friendly cooperation" with Washington on Thursday and offered kind words for ordinary Americans. The change of tone in an editorial published on the front page of the Communist Party newspaper was particularly significant since it came on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the crackdown on the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement. On Sunday, state media lashed out at Washington for stirring up the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations. But the editorial in the People's Daily appeared to indicate China wanted to limit the damage to U.S. ties following the NATO bombing of its embassy in Belgrade, which killed three Chinese journalists and ignited a national wave of anti-American fury. One Western diplomat in Beijing described the comments as "positive and encouraging". But "there is a lot of water yet to flow under the bridge", he said. "Upholding the independent foreign policy of peace also covers promoting friendly cooperation with Western countries, including the United States," the editorial said. "Though the improvement and development of the Sino-U.S. ties has experienced ups and downs, and there are anti-China forces in the United States, the vast number of the American people believe in having friendly ties with China." Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao echoed the positive tone, calling for an end to the contentious annual congressional review for normal trade relations. "We hope the U.S. can create favorable conditions for long-term, stable and mutually beneficial trade and economic cooperation," he told reporters. The editorial carried familiar blasts against the United States for what China said was a deliberate strike against its embassy. And it attacked "hegemonism" and "power politics", Chinese codewords for U.S. foreign policy. But despite this, Beijing wanted better ties, indicating its "flexibility in handling foreign affairs as well as its maturity and confidence in its relations with other countries", the editorial said. The article raised hopes that China did not intend to let anger over the embassy bombing poison relations with Washington across the board. That would be good news for U.S. trade negotiators, who are waiting for a signal from Beijing to resume talks on China's entry to the World Trade Organization. In response to the May 7 bombing of the embassy, China put WTO talks on ice. It also cut off a human rights dialogue with Washington and suspended military exchanges, including talks on missile non-proliferation. Incensed Chinese poured out on to the streets of major cities in the tens of thousands to demonstrate outside NATO missions, especially the U.S. and British embassies. Both missions were stoned for three days and Washington signaled that it was upset by considerable evidence that the demonstrations had been organized by the Chinese authorities. China has demanded a formal apology for the bombing, a thorough investigation, the publication of the results and punishment of those responsible. A U.S. mission was expected in Beijing to explain the U.S. position, although there was no timetable. "Discussions on this are under way," the foreign ministry's Zhu said. He did not elaborate. ((c) 1999 Agence France Presse)
[PEN-L:7613] Racism and Humor
I have been accused on these lists of being at times unduly sensitive to racist remarks and attitudes, and in fact of being guilty of reverse racist offenses. If I am guilty of that, and it may well be so, a question can be put as why I, an otherwise reasonable person, should be so excessively sensitive on this issue. The answer may be that I live in America, a society in which racism is rampant and pervasive and in fact structural to its very core. Perceptions are conditioned by past experience. Anticipatory expectation is reflexive. When one see a paper-marche version of a solid brick throw at one's head, one ducks. So when members of racial and ethnic minorities are hyper-sensitive about racist remarks, attitudes or intentions, they are not merely being duly paranoid, they are being reasonably self protective based on direct personal experience and Lamarkian conditioning. It is oppressive to argue that a specific remark or action is technically benign and that the reative sensitivity itself is racist, rather than acknowledging the collective quilt of a pervasive social regime that give concrete meaning to that very sensitivity. It is the syndrome of blaming the victim rather than the crime. Racism is so pervasive in American society that only the blatantly racist acts are recognized. Much racism is accepted in America as normal and racial or ethnic profiling is generally considered as common sense. Third World ambassadors have routinely been mistakenly redirected to the employee entrance on their way to exclusive dinners at fancy restaurants and private clubs (it would be funny if a black temporary employee is mistakenly directed to the guest entrance), while a black person driving an expensive car must be a car thieve or a drug dealer or both. Chinese rhetoric is more readily ridiculed than Soviet rhetoric and appeared funnier to Americans. Of course, this cannot be racism, but please tell me what it is. In many cultures, humors involves realizing a senseless situation or one's own senseless errors. American culture places humor more directly at the expense of the victim. One can see this in American cartoons where violence and victimization are the main sources of humor. America also has an admirable tradition of standing up for the underdog. In one Western cowboy movie, I remember a scene in which John Wayne defended the Chinese laundryman by declaring: "Don't pick on the Chinaman!" The same term was used publicly by President Truman in defending civil liberty during the McCarthy era when he said on television about those being investigated as "not having a Chinaman's chance". Frnk Sinatra, who was very active on the Anti-infamitory League, testified in a televised Congressional hearing about his alleged ties to organized crime that he routinely had his picture taken at casinos with would be gansters and "Chinamen" from Hong Kong. Only a few months ago, the American Ambassador to the UN, Richardson, used the term "Chinaman" in public, for which he later apologised in a public statement explaining he did not realize the term as being offensive to Chinese people. That apology hurts more than the term itself. And Richarson is of Mexican descent. Of course, no culture is perfect. But very few other than America goes around the globe setting itself up as the standard of decent behavior. Henry C.K. Liu
[PEN-L:7602] Re: DeLong Compares Mao to Hitler
Charles Brown wrote: Stalin did not launch a war as Hitler did. No he did not, although his annexations of the Baltic states bear some comparison with the reoccupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss with Austria and the annexation of the Sudetenland. Stalin also launched an attack against Finland, which had the happy effect of exposing how ill-prepared the Soviet military was for war, among many unhappy effects. There is also the matter of the massacre at Katyn, committed during the joint Soviet-Nazi carve-up of Poland. Then there are the assorted pogroms, purges and cleansings of kulaks, Jews, Left Opposition, Right Opposition, any opposition (real or imaginary). The totalitarian, mass murdering of the Western democracies (Britain, U.S., France, Australia) is invisible to most who want to portray socialism as worse than capitalism. Of course it is. Exporting it abroad helps enormously in the domestic legitimation of the status quo. This is a futile, if not facile, debate. Was the USSR a socialist country? Not in my book, but obviously in many others'. So what is socialism? I equate socialism with democracy. How democracy can be achieved via authoritarian means is a conundrum we might do well to consider. It would perhaps be useful to dispense with the separation of means and ends which has allowed demagogues of "Left" and "Right" masquerading as liberators and progressive revolutionaries to dispense summary justice to all those perceived (or portrayed) as obstacles to enlightenment. Figuring out whether Mao, Stalin or Jeane Kirkpatrick outperform each other in the cynical instrumentalism stakes won't get us very far. Michael Michael Keaney Department of Economics Glasgow Caledonian University 70 Cowcaddens Road Glasgow G4 0BA Scotland, U.K.
[PEN-L:7629] Leninism
Terrence Mc Donough wrote: To partially address Doug's question above, Lenin's crucial contributions to Marxism and revolutionary strategy are three fold: 1. The advent of monopoly capitalism represents a new stage of capitalism whose dynamics are in some ways qualitatively different than the preceding competitive stage. 2. The bourgeois character of the capitalist state is structurally embedded and the revolutionary appropriation of the state involves a root and branch restructuring beyond changing who is at the helm or even which class's representatives are at the helm. 3. In a revolutionary situation, only a vanguard party will have the theoretical and organizational resources to provide the needed leadership. Of these three propositions it seems to me only the last is seriously debatable, though it is hard to see how a purely mass based organization would survive a capitalist counterrevolution. The record of vanguard parties has not been good, but then where has social democracy ever led to socialism. On point (1) - we're a long way from the Hilferdingesque world that Lenin wrote and thought about. Competition has intensified, finance and industry haven't joined into a single unit (bank-supervised cartels), etc. So while 1917 was different from 1817, 1999 is pretty different from 1917, too. On point (2) - I think Soviet history confirmed that changing the folks at the helm is not without its problems, and that there was substantial continuity between Tsarist and Soviet Russia. If anything, that's an argument against Leninism's relevance today. And (3), well, any nominees for the vanugard party today? The Spartacist League? Again, I think you've got to confront the fact that organizations and strategies appropriate for a Tsarist police state don't have much relevance to an OECD country today. Doug
[PEN-L:7557] Re: nationalism -was Re: Liquidated
Chaz wrote: One must first determine whether it is nationalism of an oppressed or oppressor nation. perhaps one must first decide whether one is a marxist or a leninist? Marx wrote about the conflicts between nations and states as a reflection and response to class struggles within those nation-states, he did not write from the perspective of one nation-state against another as a proxy for class struggles. it was Lenin, and subsequent leaders of nation-states who reconfigured their narratives of class struggles as something played out _between_ nationalisms and nation-states. this change in perspective was understandable - not always best for the class struggles around the world, nor indeed for those within those countries, but certainly understandable. however, continuing this perspective at a time when there are no (even nominally) socialist (let alone communist) states, seems nostalgic at best, and at worst, has resulted in the kind of substitution of ethnicist and racist discourses for a class struggle perspective that marxism can and should provide. Angela --- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7632] spinning the war
If this "peace treaty" goes through, will Clinton be able to spin this disaster as a success? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:7621] social fascism
At 10:01 AM 6/3/99 -0400, Charles wrote:
This is social fascism, brutalization through economic policy as deadly as
war in the long run.
Charles, please _don't_ use this terminology ("social fascism"). It has a
long and bad history: as far as I can tell, it was first used by the
Communist Party of Germany to describe the German Social Democratic Party
during the 1920s -- meaning that the latter were as bad as Mussolini. As
often pointed out, this rhetoric -- and similar "third period" nonsense --
when put into practice prevented an alliance that could have prevented or
at least slowed the rise of Hitler, who was much much worse than Mussolini
(who seems pretty respectable compared to many or most US allies outside of
rich countries today). (It is almost never pointed out that similar
rhetoric by the social democrats (i.e., the "totalitarian" theory that
conflates the Communist Party with the Nazis), when put into practice often
prevented similar alliances that could have strengthened the social
democrats' own program.)
We need some other phrase for the structural violence that is embodied in
the normal workings of capitalism, imposing poverty, starvation, and even
death on the masses (unless successfully they fight back). Fascism plays a
role, in creating the order needed to allow capitalism to flourish (with
Pinochet being the classic case). But typically, once order is restored,
this fascism fades into the backgroud to merge with the normal coercive
organization of the state. Once there, commodity fetishism (the illusions
created by capitalist competition) hides the normal coercion inherent in
capitalism. You don't need Mussolini to order a bunch of deaths (or Clinton
to order strategic bombing). Rather, a financial crisis or the central bank
hikes interest rates, raising the reserve army of labor, raising people's
debt loads, etc., driving many toward penury. Falling profit rates also
have this kind of result, as economic crises are "solved" on workers' backs.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
Bombing DESTROYS human rights. Ground Troops make things worse! US/NATO out
of Serbia now!
