Re: ethnic divisions
In a message dated 7/29/2004 2:02:24 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are the ethnic hostilities something that would naturally die out without being enflamed intentionally for political gains or are they inevitable? The Irish were regarded almost identically to the Blacks in the US. I gave some sources on this a few days ago, I believe. Yet, there is not a high level of anti-Irish feeling in the US. If my suspicion is correct, are there any models for people confronting those who try to whip up divisions? Comment We defeat the ideological advocates of ethnic hostility by winning turf in the social arena. We win at the dinner table and the electoral arena on the basis of the power of one . . . our individual bad ass self. And this works . . . really. As a general rule . . . I spend an inordinate amount of time making sure to NEVER discuss . . . other than in the most general sense . . . any question that deals with oppressed people any where on earth except in America. Then again . . . I have a fundamental distrust of any American Marxists who claims to have an analysis of the national factor anywhere on earth except the American Union. Anything we say about the national factor any where else on earth is going to automatically provoke the most intense disdain and contempt because we are the most imperial of all imperial peoples. Good intentions mean nothing. If you are standing at the dice table . . . rolling the dice and winning . . . with your doll on your arms looking like a million bucks . . . this is not the right time to lecture the guy who cannot get into the game. If you have any compassion in your heart you have to throw him a couple chips . . . which is proof of your imperial status . . . or set the house up (the drinks on me) . . . or be real cool and leave people alone. Ethnic tension that passes over into antagonism do so in an economic context and this is not meant in the sense of economic determinism . . . but the intractability of a historically evolved social position the oppressed occupy in relationship to the oppressing people. Some time ago I read about . . . in New York . . . the wages structure placed on the Irish worker and it was lower than that of the African American about a hundred years ago. A hundred years is not a very long time . . . really. The Slavic workers were "lower" than say the English immigrant. What is called the melting pot in America . . . from the lens of the social and economic position of the African American as a people . . . has meant a process of assimilation that produced what is called Anglo-American and not simply "white." The designation "white." . . . drives me up the wall . . . andis in itself a construct of the bourgeois ideological sphere that robs us of an understanding of the continuous formation and reconfiguration of a historically evolved people unique to America. What happens to the Irish in America . . . after a generation or two . . . is the assimilation of that which is specific to the evolving story called American history. This process of assimilation also happens to . . . not just to . . . so-calledwhite people but blacks . . . African Americans. One can be rewarded by tracing the historic immigration pattern . . . since say 1700 . . . and can chart the formation of the Anglo American people on the basis of successive waves of European immigrants. One can also trace the evolution of the African American people as a people and will discover that they evolved as a people ... Especially after roughly 1850 . . . not based on successive waves of immigration . . . but on an internal dynamic of growth that placesthemat the center of American history. It's DEEP. The point is that we are dealing with a national factor peculiar to our own history and nothing in the writings of Marx . . . Lenin . . . Stalin or even Trotsky (whose insights on the "Negro Question" was always more keen than his followers) is going to allow us to understand our own history. The historic antagonism between the Anglo American people and the African American . . . which has materially lessened since the shattering of the barrier of segregation . . . is fundamentally economic. This is a bourgeois property relations. Whose kids get to go to college . . . who becomes foreman . . . who is promoted on the job . . . what kind of house you can buy . . . what kind of neighborhood one lives in . . . whether or not one is stopped by the police and threatened with incarceration. It is not my intent to present an economic determinists picture of American society . . . but the last large "race riot" in Detroit - attacks of whites against blacks . . . was over housing and who could have access to government sponsored housing. There was no spontaneous ethnic conflict . . . but an attempt to enforce segregation and economic privilege. Left on our own so to speak .
Re: A Question for the Moderator
--- Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Kurds, Kashmiris, Chechens, etc. exercised the right to self-determination, would that necessarily result in the breakup of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, India, and Russia? Presumably, they could very well choose to remain part of the countries in which they currently reside -- especially if most of the armed militants in Kashmir and Chechnya were indeed foreigners as you and Chris have suggested (on this point I am myself agnostic). --- I don't think the _majority_ of fighters in Chechnya are foreigners. Most of them are 15- to 20-year-old Chechen men who have grown up thinking this way of life is normal. But the presence of the international mujaheedin and their ideology is foreign, and it is that ideology and international muj fighters themselves that were decisive in starting the current war. I think it should be pretty obvious that a secular region in an atheist country does not mutate into a fundamentalist Islamic state in four years without foreign influence. Actually the Islamic Code of Chechnya was copied from the Sudanese one. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Jonathan Schell on the DP's prowar stance
(Jonathan Schell, in the forthcoming issue of The Nation, argues that the Democratic party has locked itself into continuing the war in Iraq, even though its base is in denial and is hoping Kerry's pledge to do so is just rhetoric designed to win the election. In fact, the outcome of the US occupation, has little to do with what the Democrats or Republicans do or do not say, or what their intentions are. As in Vietnam and any occupation, it will be decided by the level and durability of Iraqi resistance. If the US is not able to provide adequate security for additional foreign troop contingents and contractors and there is continued interruption of the oil supply, the Americans will ultimately be required to withdraw their forces under UN cover, whichever party is governing. Moreover, after the Iraq debacle, it is very unlikely a second term Bush administration would again depart from the bipartisan consensus in other foreign policy areas. Both sides know this, but are required to debate the issue and try to gain electoral advantage because the public -- and many commentators, including Shell and others on the left -- do believe the outcome is dependent on which party governs. The more serious differences are over domestic policy, especially the level of taxation and public spending, owing to the different constituencies on which the parties are based.) Strong and Wrong by Jonathan Schell http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=xpid=1653 During the Vietnam War, many young men, including the current President, the Vice President and me, could have gone to Vietnam and didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background. He could have avoided going, too. But instead he said, 'Send me.' When they sent those Swift Boats up the river in Vietnam... John Kerry said, 'Send me.' And then when America needed to extricate itself from that misbegotten and disastrous war, Kerry donned his uniform once again, and said, 'Send me'; and he led veterans to an encampment on the Washington Mall, where, in defiance of the Nixon Justice Department, they conducted the most stirring and effective of the protests, that forced an end to the war. And then, on my watch, when it was time to heal the wounds of war and normalize relations with Vietnam...John Kerry said, 'Send me.' So spoke President Clinton at the Democratic Convention--except that he did not deliver the third paragraph about Kerry's protest; I made that up. The speech cries out for the inclusion of Kerry's glorious moment of antiwar leadership; and its absence is as palpable as one of those erasures from photographs of high Soviet officials after Stalin had sent them to the gulag. Clinton's message was plain. Military courage in war is honored; civil courage in opposing a disastrous war is not honored. Even thirty years later, it cannot be mentioned by a former President who himself opposed the Vietnam War. The political rule, as Clinton once put it in one of the few pithy things he has ever said, We [Democrats] have got to be strong When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right. And now the United States is engaged in a war fully as wrong as the one in Vietnam. The boiling core of American politics today is the war in Iraq and all its horrors: the continuing air strikes on populated cities; the dogs loosed by American guards on naked, bound Iraqi prisoners; the kidnappings and the beheadings; the American casualties nearing a thousand; the 10,000 or more Iraqi casualties; the occupation hidden behind the mask of an entirely fictitious Iraqi sovereignty; the growing scrapheap of discredited justifications for the war. But little of that is mentioned these days by the Democrats. The great majority of Democratic voters, according to polls, ardently oppose the war, yet by embracing the candidacy of John Kerry, who voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the war and now wants to increase the number of American troops in Iraq, the party has made what appears to be a tactical decision to hide its faith. The strong and wrong position won out in the Democratic Party when its voters chose Kerry over Howard Dean in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. An antiwar party rallied around a prowar candidate. The result has been one of the most peculiar political atmospheres within a party in recent memory. The Democrats are united but have concealed the cause that unites them. The party champions free speech that it does not practice. As a Dennis Kucinich delegate at the convention said to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, Peace is off-message. A haze of vagueness and generality hangs over party pronouncements. In his convention speech, President Carter, who is on record opposing the war, spoke against pre-emptive war but did not specify which pre-emptive war he had in mind. Al Gore, who has been wonderfully eloquent in his opposition to the war, was tame for the occasion.
Re: [Marxism] Jonathan Schell on the DP's prowar stance
Marvin Gandall wrote: (Jonathan Schell, in the forthcoming issue of The Nation, argues that the Democratic party has locked itself into continuing the war in Iraq, even though its base is in denial and is hoping Kerry's pledge to do so is just rhetoric designed to win the election. In fact, the outcome of the US occupation, has little to do with what the Democrats or Republicans do or do not say, or what their intentions are. As in Vietnam and any occupation, it will be decided by the level and durability of Iraqi resistance. What Schell leaves out is the organized antiwar movement. One of the main goals of the Democratic Party over the past year or so, besides ousting Bush so as to provide sinecures in Washington for their own loyalists, has been to disarm the antiwar movement. By creating fake antiwar outfits like Moveon.org, by unleashing hate campaigns against ANWER in the pages of Democratic Party outlets like the Nation, Salon and LA Weekly, by launching an Orwellian hate Nader campaign, it has forced politics to the center. If you want to oppose the war in Iraq, it is necessary to support a pro-war candidate. WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH . Jonathan Schell: What of the antiwar sentiment that is still in truth at the heart of most Democrats' anger? It has been displaced downward and outward, into the outlying precincts of American politics. The political class as a whole has proved incapable of taking responsibility for the future of the nation, and the education of the American public has been left to those without hope of office. Like a balloon that squeezed at the top expands at the base, opposition to the war increases the farther you get from John Kerry. Carter and Gore can express a little more of it. Howard Dean, who infused the party with its now-muffled antiwar passion, can express more still. Representative Kucinich, a full-throated peace candidate, has endorsed Kerry and has kind words to say about him but holds fast to his antiwar position. On the Internet, Tomdispatch.com, AlterNet.org, commondreams.org, antiwar.com, MoveOn.org and many others are buzzing and bubbling with honest and inspired reporting and commentary. Michael Moore is packing audiences into 2,000 theaters to see Fahrenheit 9/11. Except for antiwar.com, every one of these outlets has been beating the drums for Kerry. I feel like Winston Smyth. commented, may take the country over Niagara Falls. Then Kerry may wish that he and his admirers at this year's convention had thought to place a higher value on his service to his country when he opposed the Vietnam War. Today's John Kerry has about as much connection with that John Kerry as Christopher Hitchens or David Horowitz have with their 1973 personae. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: A Question for the Moderator
--- Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question, I thought, was whether Kurds, Kashmiris, and Chechens (as well as East Timorese, Albanians in Kosovo, etc. from recent history) have the right to self-determination. --- Yoshie, upon a little reflection, I think this is a pretty naive way of considering the situation. Who gets to determine Chechnya's status? People who live in Chechnya? In 1991, Grozny's population was about 50% non-Chechen. The Nautsky district in Chechnya was about 75% non-Chechen, mostly Russians, Ukrainians and Cossacks who lived there since the 15th century. Those people have almost entirely fled, been forced out, or killed. None of them would have voted for an independent Chechnya. Do their voices matter? If not that, then who? Ethnic Chechens? What about the Chechen Diaspora? There are more Chechens who live outside Chechnya than inside it, and most of them have family members, and certainly have tribal ties, in Chechnya. What about the 100,000 Chechen Akkins living in Dagestan? What will they say? What about the people who live around Chechnya, in Dagestan, Georgia and Ingushetia, who have their lives affected by Chechnya's status? Nobody there wants an independent Chechnya. The Dagestanis would rather see at atomic bomb dropped on Grozny than see it revert to its 1998 condition. The Chechen militants supported the Abkhaz in Georgia's civil war. What do you think Georgians have to say about this? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
JEP
[was RE: [PEN-L] Deeper Problems for Shleifer] Michael writes: Does anybody niotice the rapid decline in the Journal of Economic Perspectives? A right winger will take over the Journal of Economc Literature. I haven't been paying attention. Why do you think that the JEP is in decline? why do you think it went into that tailspin? who is the editor? is it still Brad deLong? who's taking over the JEL? replacing whom? jim d
Re: JEP
Shleifer is the editor; DeLong is gone. So the journal has become more technical, less topical. Its beauty, especially under Stiglitz, was that it could keep non-specialists informed about different fields and truly offer different, even dissident, perspectives. On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 08:47:51AM -0700, Devine, James wrote: [was RE: [PEN-L] Deeper Problems for Shleifer] Michael writes: Does anybody niotice the rapid decline in the Journal of Economic Perspectives? A right winger will take over the Journal of Economc Literature. I haven't been paying attention. Why do you think that the JEP is in decline? why do you think it went into that tailspin? who is the editor? is it still Brad deLong? who's taking over the JEL? replacing whom? jim d -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Socialism of fools
I recently quoted Fred Engels as referring to anti-semitism as the socialism of fools. Pen-l alumnus Jurriaan Bendien writes me that: From memory the socialism of fools remark was by August Bebel, circa 1873. I looked for the quote on the web. The following is part of what I found. James Heartfield, a person who Louis P. has a heart-felt dislike also cites Bebel: A century ago, the German socialist August Bebel exposed the limitations of another one-sided and illusory criticism of the market. In his day, the 'predatory' capitalists who were singled out for special treatment were Jews. Responding to the demotic attacks on 'Jewish capitalism', Bebel denounced this as 'the socialism of fools'. http://www.vanguardonline.f9.co.uk/0704.htm Jeremy Seabrook from the GUARDIAN: The German socialist August Bebel said anti-semitism is the socialism of fools. In northern British towns and elsewhere, it is widely believed the BNP [British National Party, often seen as fascist] are the new socialists. If racism is our socialism of fools, to what species of wisdom does the socialism of progressives belong, when it finally recognises its own long absence from the blighted landscapes of sometime industrial Britain? http://www.politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/comment/0,11026,1156556,00.html http://www.politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/comment/0,11026,1156556,00.html Another Louis P. favorite, Todd Gittlin says: The German socialist August Bebel once said that anti-Semitism was the socialism of fools. What we witness now is the progressivism of fools. It is a recrudescence of everything that costs the left its moral edge. And, appallingly, it is this contemptible message the anti-Semitic students at San Francisco State chose to parrot. http://www.mojones.com/commentary/columns/2002/06/gitlin_june.html http://www.mojones.com/commentary/columns/2002/06/gitlin_june.html I guess I sit corrected, though I couldn't find the quote from Bebel's mouth. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: [Marxism] Jonathan Schell on the DP's prowar stance
Louis P. writes: One of the main goals of the Democratic Party over the past year or so, besides ousting Bush so as to provide sinecures in Washington for their own loyalists, has been to disarm the antiwar movement. By creating fake antiwar outfits like Moveon.org, ... it has forced politics to the center. did the DP create Moveon.org? my impression is that its leaders created it and then moved into the DP orbit on their own. Also, it should be stressed that winner-take-all elections with a two-party system create a structural bias that forces all participants to the center. It's not just the cynical manipulation by the DP politburo. jim devine
Re: Socialism of fools
James Heartfield, a person who Louis P. has a heart-felt dislike also cites Bebel: A century ago, the German socialist August Bebel exposed the limitations of another one-sided and illusory criticism of the market. In his day, the 'predatory' capitalists who were singled out for special treatment were Jews. Responding to the demotic attacks on 'Jewish capitalism', Bebel denounced this as 'the socialism of fools'. http://www.vanguardonline.f9.co.uk/0704.htm COMMENT: How typical of Heartfield to deploy August Bebel on behalf of GM food. To connect anti-Semitism with attacks on Frankenfood requires a kind of dexterity and dishonesty that is breathtaking. Another Louis P. favorite, Todd Gittlin says: The German socialist August Bebel once said that anti-Semitism was the socialism of fools. What we witness now is the progressivism of fools. It is a recrudescence of everything that costs the left its moral edge. And, appallingly, it is this contemptible message the anti-Semitic students at San Francisco State chose to parrot. http://www.mojones.com/commentary/columns/2002/06/gitlin_june.html COMMENT: There is no anti-Semitism on American campuses to speak of. My thoughts on the subject are at: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/jewish/Botstein.htm -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: [Marxism] Jonathan Schell on the DP's prowar stance
Devine, James wrote: did the DP create Moveon.org? my impression is that its leaders created it and then moved into the DP orbit on their own. I wasn't clear enough. Moveon.org was created by people who wanted a respectable alternative to the antiwar movement. It then morphed into Howard Dean's collection agency and is now nothing but an arm of the Democratic Party. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: [Marxism] Jonathan Schell on the DP's prowar stance
Moveon began in protest of the Clinton impeachment. It began as a letter that took a life of its own. On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 12:29:41PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: Devine, James wrote: did the DP create Moveon.org? my impression is that its leaders created it and then moved into the DP orbit on their own. I wasn't clear enough. Moveon.org was created by people who wanted a respectable alternative to the antiwar movement. It then morphed into Howard Dean's collection agency and is now nothing but an arm of the Democratic Party. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: JEP
--- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shleifer is the editor; DeLong is gone. So the journal has become more technical, less topical. The same Shleifer that was investigated b/c of his work in Russia? __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: JEP
Whoops, obviously yes. I hadn't read that post yet. --- Chris Doss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shleifer is the editor; DeLong is gone. So the journal has become more technical, less topical. The same Shleifer that was investigated b/c of his work in Russia? __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
book review: Welfare and the Constitution
From the Law and Politics Book Review WELFARE AND THE CONSTITUTION, by Sotirios A. Barber. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2004. 184pp. Cloth $27.95 / £17.95. ISBN: 0-691-11448-X Reviewed By Ronald Kahn, Department of Politics, Oberlin College. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/barber704.htm -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: A Question for the Moderator
In a message dated 7/31/2004 8:22:28 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In 1991, Grozny's population was about 50% non-Chechen. The Nautsky district in Chechnya was about 75% non-Chechen, mostly Russians, Ukrainians and Cossacks who lived there since the 15th century. Those people have almost entirely fled, been forced out, or killed. None of them would have voted for an independent Chechnya. Do their voices matter? If not that, then who? Ethnic Chechens? What about the Chechen Diaspora? There are more Chechens who live outside Chechnya than inside it, and most of them have family members, and certainly have tribal ties, in Chechnya. What about the 100,000 Chechen Akkins living in Dagestan? What will they say? Comment In my estimate the American Marxists are the least qualified amongst world Marxists when dealing with the national factor. Between 1973 and I978 I had compiled much of the writings on the national factor in our history using a collection of roughly 30 years of Political Affairs as the core material. In terms of the Trotskyists position my base material had been the writings of CLR James. Members of his Facing Reality group had played a role in the formation of the old League of Revolutionary Black Workers . . . notably James Boggs. In our history the national factor has basically meant the color factor. Self determination of nations up to an including the formation of an independent state means exactly that. Self determination as a political slogan and policy meant . . . a nation . . . as opposed to a historically evolved people. For instance the African American people are a historically evolved people and not a nation. Nations are not something one can build. Nations evolve as the historical _expression_ of a community of people, culture, land and economic intercourse at a certain stage in development of commodity production. Self determination for nations mean exactly that . . . the political determination . . . will . . .of a nation not simply a people. Whether a group of people are a nation defines the form of resolution of the national question and national factor for the Bolsheviks. The various Indian nations are not nations in the modern Marxists sense of the word. In my estimate they are advanced national groups whose formation and gestation spans centuries. This is not the case with the African American peoples. The formation of the African American people is unique. Their consolidation was not based on common land or religion. The words "common land" is not simply a geographic description of the land mass called America for instance. Common land embraces a distinct economic center of gravity with a division between town and country and their economic intercourse that welds a nation together. In respects to the African American people there is no internal dynamic to hold them together as a people . . . yet they are a people . . . in transition. The current transition taking place is the result of the destruction of segregation - Jim Crow, and this stage of passing from the industrial system. The force that held them together and formed them as a people is not color or racism but the legal and extra legal pressure of the whites. The most brutal social and political oppression was necessary to carry out the extreme level of economic exploitation of the blacks. After the Civil War and the defeat of Reconstruction the sharecropping blacks were cheated by the landlords, brutalized by the legal authorities, terrorized by the extralegal forces and basically reduced to the level of peasants in India. The near total isolation of the blacks through segregation law and Southern custom was necessary for the level of exploitation they faced and institutionalized. The era of segregation, lasting about 95 years, isolated the mass of African Americans to a greater degree than did slavery. This isolation and oppression based on and institutionalized as the color factor was the condition for the final stage of their development as a people . . . not a nation . . . and self determination is a political solution involving nations. During the 1960s into the 1980s and even today one hears advocacy of self determination for African Americans and it makes no sense. Even a modern scheme for regional autonomy in respects to African Americans make no sense because of their dispersal throughout the American Union. These so-called modern national movements within the former Soviet Union are not national movements or colonial revolts. Very real grievances exist but applying Lenin's pre First Imperial World War slogan prevents the Marxists from understanding the economic logic of nations . . . not peoples . . . and dismiss the class content of these more than less reactionary bourgeois movements. The national factor is a factor operating on the basis of a fundamentally different realignment on earth today. The
Promoting paranoia
Our local police department wants to get some money from the Homeland Security Department. The only catch is that they have to prove that we have terrorists in our midst. I assume that as police departments throughout the country compete for this money, the feds will have convincing evidence that the terrorists have thoroughly infiltrated every nook and cranny of our great land. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
My Partner Had an Abortion
My Partner Had an Abortion (What about men owning up to abortions? How about My Partner Had an Abortion T-shirts for them?): http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/07/my-partner-had-abortion.html -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: A Question for the Moderator
This was the problem that I was referring to when I was trying to describe a progression of fragmentations. I first began to think about this sort of problem when Lebanon began to fall apart. At first, it seemed to be a religious division, but then I began to realize that there were divisions within each religion that were made each others throats. The situation seemed like a fractal to me. Chris Doss wrote: Who gets to determine Chechnya's status? People who live in Chechnya? In 1991, Grozny's population was about 50% non-Chechen. The Nautsky district in Chechnya was about 75% non-Chechen, mostly Russians, Ukrainians and Cossacks who lived there since the 15th century. Those people have almost entirely fled, been forced out, or killed. None of them would have voted for an independent Chechnya. Do their voices matter? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: A Question for the Moderator
Ours is a war for position and ideological and political statements are converted into policy . . . in real time. Who determines "what" is the great war of attribution and will. If we win over no we lose by default. We cannot win over any segment of our working class on the basis of ideological mental cavities and categories we learn from books. Don't get me wrong. . . I love books . . . but a segment of the so-called Marxist intellegincia have not asked people what they actually think and feel. Melvin P. This was the problem that I was referring to when I was trying todescribe a progression of fragmentations. I first began to think aboutthis sort of problem when Lebanon began to fall apart. At first, itseemed to be a religious division, but then I began to realize thatthere were divisions within each religion that were made each othersthroats. The situation seemed like a fractal to me.Chris Doss wrote:Who gets to determine Chechnya's status? People wholive in Chechnya? In 1991, Grozny's population wasabout 50% non-Chechen. The Nautsky district inChechnya was about 75% non-Chechen, mostly Russians,Ukrainians and Cossacks who lived there since the 15thcentury. Those people have almost entirely fled, beenforced out, or killed. None of them would have votedfor an independent Chechnya. Do their voices matter?
Re: My Partner Had an Abortion
I think My wife had an abortion or My life partner had an abortion makes more sense, since so many men have _business_ partners, who are often male. (How about a T-shirt saying I didn't treat every sperm as sacred?) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine My Partner Had an Abortion (What about men owning up to abortions? How about My Partner Had an Abortion T-shirts for them?): http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/07/my-partner-had-abortion.html -- Yoshie
Re: A Question for the Moderator
Melvyn posed posed one of the truly difficult challenges that the left faces: learning how to learn from the masses at the same time as we supply them with information. Listening is a very difficult skill. I remember trying to speak with the boyfriend of my first wife's mother. He worked in a gas station. He was not stupid, but he was angry. He directed much of this anger at Blacks, but I think he was racist. He just had this anger and he did not know where to direct it. Fortunately, I just read a wonderful book -- The Hidden Injuries of Class -- which helped me to translate some of his words into what he was really thinking rather than to come down on him as a stupid racist. I do not pretend to be entirely successful. Usually the discussion would get to a degree of rationality, but then would return to the same ugly spot the next time we would meet. In a way, Melvyn is at a great advantage, coming from his experience as an auto worker, an environment that has a long history militancy, both intellectual and practical. But he is absolutely correct in realizing that Bush is much more effective than speaking to the working-class family on the left. I wish it were otherwise. On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 04:36:05PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't get me wrong. . . I love books . . . but a segment of the so-called Marxist intellegincia have not asked people what they actually think and feel. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Ooh! Ooh!! Helen!!!
NY POST front-page headline: PARIS: MY LOVER BEAT ME La Guerre de Troie n'aura pas lieu
Re: Socialism of fools
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/31/04 12:10 PM I recently quoted Fred Engels as referring to anti-semitism as the socialism of fools. Pen-l alumnus Jurriaan Bendien writes me that: From memory the socialism of fools remark was by August Bebel, circa 1873. I guess I sit corrected, though I couldn't find the quote from Bebel's mouth. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] above is one of those quotes that floats around, that people cite and never indicate source, few folks probably have any idea its origins and many/most who reference it have probably never read it in english as i don't believe text has ever been translated from the german... phrase is from 10/27/1893 party congress speech that bebel made (think it appears in german as 'anti-semitism and social democracy'), what bebel termed 'socialism of fools' was specific reference to *anti-semitic populism*, bebel's speech is essentially about SPD having to make choice between urban working class and rural peasantry, he favored former and congress overwhelmingly voted that way, one consequence was that party would become increasingly detached from rural population, bebel's position is pretty conventional marxist interpretation of 'progressive tendency' of capitalist development... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: Socialism of fools
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/31/04 7:59 PM above is one of those quotes that floats around, that people cite and never indicate source, few folks probably have any idea its origins and many/most who reference it have probably never read it in english as i don't believe text has ever been translated from the german... phrase is from 10/27/1893 party congress speech that bebel made (think it appears in german as 'anti-semitism and social democracy'), what bebel termed 'socialism of fools' was specific reference to *anti-semitic populism*, bebel's speech is essentially about SPD having to make choice between urban working class and rural peasantry, he favored former and congress overwhelmingly voted that way, one consequence was that party would become increasingly detached from rural population, bebel's position is pretty conventional marxist interpretation of 'progressive tendency' of capitalist development... michael hoover oops, my source for above is nicholas stargardt's _the german idea of militarism : radical and socialist critics, 1866-1914_... mh -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: A Question for the Moderator
Waistline2 wrote: In my estimate the American Marxists are the least qualified amongst world Marxists when dealing with the national factor. Between 1973 and I978 I had compiled much of the writings on the national factor in our history using a collection of roughly 30 years of Political Affairs as the core material. I would be interested to learn which articles in PA you considered valuable and those which you found unhelpful on the subject of the national question. As I recall DuBois and James Jackson produced the best articles on the national question (especially as it regarded African Americans) for PA in the 1950s, all of which broke with the Black-belt thesis and the concept of regional autonomy, though they continued to argue for self-determination. In fact, about 10 years before he officially joined the CPUSA, DuBois, according to some, is said to have authored the Party's official position on the question in an article he wrote in 1951 -- the title of which escapes me and I can't find my copy of it. Joel Wendland _ Planning a family vacation? Check out the MSN Family Travel guide! http://dollar.msn.com
Re: My Partner Had an Abortion
Jim says: I think My wife had an abortion or My life partner had an abortion makes more sense, since so many men have _business_ partners, who are often male. Only a tiny minority of men have business partners. In any case, that sort of ambiguity makes it even more interesting. Jello Biafra goes around wearing a T-shirt that says Nobody Knows I'm a Lesbian: http://www.columbusalive.com/2004/20040623/062304/images/06230401.gif. (How about a T-shirt saying I didn't treat every sperm as sacred?) With a picture of used kleenex below the slogan? -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: A Question for the Moderator
At 6:22 AM -0700 7/31/04, Chris Doss wrote: --- Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question, I thought, was whether Kurds, Kashmiris, and Chechens (as well as East Timorese, Albanians in Kosovo, etc. from recent history) have the right to self-determination. --- Yoshie, upon a little reflection, I think this is a pretty naive way of considering the situation. Who gets to determine Chechnya's status? There is no a priori answer to the question. For instance, Palestinians are divided in several ways: those who live in Israel as its second-class citizens, those who live in Israel illegally, those who live in the occupied territories, those who live in refugee camps outside historic Palestine, those who are citizens or permanent residents of other nations. The levels of Palestinians' own struggle and international support for it will determine whether or not Palestinian refugees can return to their homeland, to take just one example. The same goes for every other national question: after all, what will be decisive is the levels of struggles on the ground and international support for them. Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: A Question for the Moderator
In a message dated 7/31/2004 7:33:32 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would be interested to learn which articles in PA you considered valuable and those which you found unhelpful on the subject of the national question. As I recall DuBois and James Jackson produced the best articles on the national question (especially as it regarded African Americans) for PA in the 1950s, all of which broke with the "Black-belt thesis" and the concept of regional autonomy, though they continued to argue for self-determination. In fact, about 10 years before he officially joined the CPUSA, DuBois, according to some, is said to have authored the Party's official position on the question in an article he wrote in 1951 -- the title of which escapes me and I can't find my copy of it. Joel Wendland Reply Perhaps my favorite author was sister Claudia Jones. Memory escapes me . . . but I had lifted the saying "behind the Cotton Curtain" an author who had wrote several articles on what was then called the Negro Question. Harry Haywood "Negro Liberation" is excellent as part of a series of historical documents. I seem to recall a couple articles by James Allen. It of course fell to the lot of William Z. Foster - a great trade union leader and syndicalist, to import within American Marxist the concept of a nation within a nation in respects to African American Liberation. Dr. James Jackson's "New Theoretical Aspects on the Negro Question" was always considered offensive to the communist in Detroit I was a part of. Dr. James Jackson as well as the beloved Dr. Dubios are in history militant representatives of a section of "Negro capital." Whereas Dubois was an authentic intellectual giant . . . . Dr. Jackson theoretical posturing is of no value whatsoever. The color factor and white chauvinism obscures the National Colonial Question in American history. The Mexican national factor . . . Puerto Rico . . . the various Indian nations . . . Appalachia . . . the Black Belt . . . the Aleutian and Hawaii peoples . . . and the list goes on. If the African American people are not a nation and have never been a nation then Dr. Jackson's thesis makes no sense. There is an element of confusion in history related to the original Comintern Documents on the Negro Question - 1928 and 1931 and even Lenin's writing on the Negro Question. Nevertheless, one has to deal with the body of literature as constituting distinct historical time frames and opposing political and ideological tendencies. That is to say Harry Haywood "Negro Liberation" - 1949 and Dr. Jackson's "New Theoretical Aspects" -- around 1951, are grouped together as opposed to simply comparing them with the 1928 Comintern document . . . because the period of the 1920's was the battle for a Leninist approach to the national and colonial question. The Comintern document was forced on the party under the threat of expulsion . . . as was the demand to dismantle the European language press. The African American people as a historically evolved people and the Black Belt of the South as a colonial nation are distinct but interconnected historically evolved entities. America was basically Southern in its inception and evolution up until the Civil War. Its core areas was Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia. America was Southern . . . especially in all its political institutions. The New England states were shipping and manufacturing appendages of the slave plantation system. By roughly the late 1840s, the political leaders of the South viewed the population and industrial growth of the North with apprehension. They realized that the shift from manufacturing to industry was creating a new nation in the North. This new evolving nation in the North was being formed as waves of European immigration created an industrial proletariat in what a few years earlier had been the North western frontier. The evolving culture of the African American slaves is in the final instance what had made the South Southern . . . as it existed in relationship to the evolving nation inNorth of the American Union. What made the North . . . Northern . . . was its working class formed on the basis of successive waves of European immigrants. That is to say the European immigrants did not remain Anglo-European but rather underwent a mechanical and chemical mixture that is the meaning of Anglo American. One can now understand the importance of dismantling the European language press in a country whose primary language is English and Spanish. Plus . . . the language of the South is a Southern form of English rooted in a different development than the North. We have really faced some harsh political dynamics related to our developmental process in the North. The Black Belt nation is called the Black Belt nation referring to its economic centers of gravity . . . not the color of the
