Re: Economics and law
David: Cop out. In my experience, there was one example of a socialist inspired car in the capitalist market: the Yugo. Case closed. --- This is totally untrue. The USSR exported automobiles to Latin America and elsewhere. Russia and Belarus export tractors to Australia to this day, where Ladas, I am told, have a cult following. Those vehicles break down a lot, but then again they are easy to repair. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law
--- Kenneth Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just this eve, I was spending some time talking about history with a friend. She brought out a book with a variety of graphs. The most salient one, in this regard (thread), was the shift of population from agricultural workers to industrial workers. The graph only measure 100 years, starting from 1860. The curves that the UK and US generated with meagre slopes in that time frame. Those units had made that relocation much earlier. Japan's curve started around the 1880s. The USSR was around 1930. (There were others, like Turkey, with similar steep relocation curves.) I mentioned to her, in talking about that, that the one thing that I found the most knee-jerk and unreflective about the right is that they make unsophisticated comparisons, usually assuming from some mythical ground zero that the US and Russia started on a level playing field and only socialism crippled Russia. Ken. --- Yeah. Look at communal apartments, which were always adduced in anti-Soviet propaganda as evidence of the evils of the latter system. In fact, communal apartments were a response to massive and rapid urbanization. People have to live somewhere. When England industrialized, what happened to the people who flooded into the cities -- they lived in workhouses? Anyway I think both sides of this debate are missing the point of the Soviet experience (limiting the discussion to the USSR). Soviet Union policy was really not about socialism. The Soviet Union was about modernizing an agrarian country in lickety-split time. It succeeded. ___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
electricity/water comparisons
Nice to be back with y'all again. - Original Message - From: Chris Doss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Even with the recent price hikes, my monthly electricity bill in Moscow (pretty large Stalin-era apartment, with two big rooms, kitchen, bathroom, water closet) is a whopping $8. Come to Zimbabwe: for 280 kWh of consumption in July, my bill was US$1. In Johannesburg, where I normally live, it's about 15 times as expensive per unit. (At ZNet, my commentary last month explains Mugabe's 'power to the people' gimmick.) BTW even if an apartment dweller simply refuses to pay the bill, there is no effective way to disconnect him or her, since Soviet apartment blocks are constructed in such a way that you either shut power off to the whole block or not at all. Ditto for water. In SA, they've finally stopped the practice of shutting off whole sections of (black) townships when a large proportion of residents don't pay bills, but they still do for apartment houses. And that's in a country with a centre-left regime and a constitutional right to water. Last year, 1.3 million people were disconnected from water because of non-payment, even the state's chief water bureaucrat recently admitted.
Re: electricity/water comparisons
Hi Patrick. --- Patrick Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In SA, they've finally stopped the practice of shutting off whole sections of (black) townships when a large proportion of residents don't pay bills, but they still do for apartment houses. And that's in a country with a centre-left regime and a constitutional right to water. Last year, 1.3 million people were disconnected from water because of non-payment, even the state's chief water bureaucrat recently admitted. --- Wow. A water Chubais. If they did that in Russia, they would have mass opposition rallies. The very idea of paying bills is a novelty here. What are water costs like in South Africa? Water is free here (two things Russia is not short off -- water and land). __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
One Vote, One Party, NO Choice
One Vote, One Party, NO Choice: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/08/one-vote-one-party-no-choice.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/
Economics and law
by David B. Shemano I knew my statement would cause a problem, but I think the point is valid. You, Charles Brown, subjectively value safety in such a manner that you think the speed limit should be 40 and not 70. I am not sure why your entirely subjective opinion translates into a rule for everybody else. It seems to me that cost/benefit analysis rule-making should ultimately be determined by something other than one person's subjective opinion. CB: What problem did your statement cause ? I can't see where my subjective opinion has translated into a rule for everybody else. The only way it would become a rule would be if a lot of other people had the same opinion. You don't seem to be very much in touch with reality if you think my subjective opinions are being translated into rules for everybody else. Did you think I was on the supreme court or something ? ^^ Why do you assume such facts for a socialist society? We have 75 years of experience with socialist inspired economies. Did they place a higher value on safety compared to comparable capitalist societies? ^ CB: Well, yea for automobile safety. The Soviet cars were like tanks, which , Justin mentioned, would be the direction that you would go to have safer cars. They had more mass transportation in the form of omnibuses, trains, trolleys than individualized units, as Melvin alluded to as a safer form, generally. Obviously, there can be train accidents too. Has anybody ever done a comparison of transportation deaths among countries? It might be interesting. ^^^ CB: Agree Were they able to implement safety concerns more economically than comparable capitalist societies? ^ CB: Good question. I'm not sure how you would get a comparable capitalist society , but if you think my opinion on it is relevant, I'd say a comparable capitalist economy for the SU would be someplace like Brazil in some senses at some periods. It's hard because the Soviet Union (and all socialist inspired economies) had to put so much economic emphasis on military defense because capitalism was constantly invading them or threatening to nuke 'em. This throws off all ability to measure from Soviet and socialist inspired history what might be the benefits of a peaceful socialist development of a regime of safety from our own machines. Cop out. In my experience, there was one example of a socialist inspired car in the capitalist market: the Yugo. Case closed. ^^ CB: No, profound truth. Yugo was produced _for_ the capitalist market( a sort of redundancy). Case closed. ^^^ It seems to me that safety increases in value as a society becomes wealthier, and the value is not correlated to the economic system itself. ^ CB What do you mean by safety increases in value ? I'm not sure human life is valued more highly as society gets wealthier. Death and injury by automobile accidents is the main cause of premature death in the U.S., isn't it ? Unless we live in Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average, something has to be the main cause of premature deaths, right? What would you propose to be the main cause of premature deaths in lieu of auto accidents? ^ CB: Of course ,in the long run, we are all dead, but what a prima facie anti-human attitude that says don't try to figure out a way to reduce auto accident morbidity and mortality. I'd like to see execution for leading imperialist wars, crimes against peace, (as Goerring was executed) be the main cause of premature deaths.
Economics and law
by Chris Doss --- Yeah. Look at communal apartments, which were always adduced in anti-Soviet propaganda as evidence of the evils of the latter system. In fact, communal apartments were a response to massive and rapid urbanization. People have to live somewhere. When England industrialized, what happened to the people who flooded into the cities -- they lived in workhouses? Anyway I think both sides of this debate are missing the point of the Soviet experience (limiting the discussion to the USSR). Soviet Union policy was really not about socialism. The Soviet Union was about modernizing an agrarian country in lickety-split time. It succeeded. ^^ CB: Are you saying the Soviet people did not think their policy was about socialism or that they didn't know what they were really doing ?
Re: Economics and law
--- Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ^^ CB: Are you saying the Soviet people did not think their policy was about socialism or that they didn't know what they were really doing ? --- Mainly that was me writing off the cuff while trying to meet a deadline and working through a hangover. It wiould be better to say something like the shape of Soviet society was determined first and foremost by the need to develop an agrarian country. It succeeded. The rest of teh stuff is fluff. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law
Mainly that was me writing off the cuff while trying to meet a deadline and working through a hangover. It would be better to say something like "the shape of Soviet society was determined first and foremost by the need to develop an agrarian country. It succeeded. The rest of the stuff is fluff." Comment Soviet housing pattern - communal apartments, and the need to provide living quarters in the context of this massive and rapid industrialization of the country - the shift from agriculture to industry . . . has a roughequivalent to aspects of the housing pattern in America. I believe it was in Detroit that the large government sponsored housing project called the Jefferson Projects . . . was created to meet the demand for housing under the Roosevelt administration. Eleanor Roosevelt officiated at the opening of this housing complex. The Jefferson Project contained 14 story high rises - 6 stories and 3 stories, and met the demands for housing of a population shifting on the basis of the mechanization of agricultural and servicing the boom bust cycles of the auto industry. There were several such housing projects in Detroit, although not as massive as the Jefferies Project. In fact Cabrina Green in Chicago is such a projects and one can find such communal quarters in perhaps every major city in America. In general housing pattern shapes itself on the basis of industrial centers and the working people providing the labor. A certain dispersal of industry and downsizing affects housing pattern under capitalism and socialism. The specific character of the housing pattern . . . meaning the pecking order . . . is another matter. The last "race riot" in Detroit during the Second Imperial World War era was actually ignited over housing . . . back in 1943 . . . if memory serves me correct. Dad took us out of the Jefferies Project in the early 1960s when his employment with the Ford Motor Company stabilized. Interestingly . . . this same Project is being looked at today as luxury apartments for the wealthy. I would pose the question as the housing pattern during the industrial era and the curve of its ascendency and decay . . . under capitalism and socialism. There is a growing and serious problem of homelessness in America but not a housing shortage as such with hundred of thousands on the waiting list for section 8 housing - welfare. Oh . . . paying for water in America is the height of American bourgeois criminality. When the bourgeois mentality learns to effectively bottle fresh air and offer it for sell to the masses . . . in an affordable manner our ass is out. Did not a movie star . . . Woody Harrelson . . . open a fresh air bar . . . yep . . . you could come in and buy fresh air . . . a few years ago? Melvin P.
Opinion poll query
PEN-L: I am reviewing From Oslo to Iraq and the Road Map, a collection of essays by the late Edward W. Said, for the Sacramento News Review. I seem to recall a recent opinion poll referenced on PEN-L concerning Americans who wrongly thought that Palestinians occupied Israel. Does this poll ring a bell? If so, please let me know off-list. Thanks, Seth Sandronsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: electricity/water comparisons
Hi Patrick. --- Patrick Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In SA, they've finally stopped the practice of shutting off whole sections of (black) townships when a large proportion of residents don't pay bills, but they still do for apartment houses. And that's in a country with a centre-left regime and a constitutional right to water. Last year, 1.3 million people were disconnected from water because of non-payment, even the state's chief water bureaucrat recently admitted. --- Wow. A water Chubais. If they did that in Russia, they would have mass opposition rallies. The very idea of paying bills is a novelty here. What are water costs like in South Africa? Water is free here (two things Russia is not short off -- ater and land). __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Stan Goff article
http://www.counterpunch.org/goff08132004.html This is a long, well-researched article that takes on John Kerry's environmentalist platform but goes much deeper into broader questions of oil depletion, global warming, etc. It cites Mark Jones extensively as well as Henry Liu. Highly recommended. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Economics and law
by Chris Doss Mainly that was me writing off the cuff while trying to meet a deadline and working through a hangover. It wiould be better to say something like the shape of Soviet society was determined first and foremost by the need to develop an agrarian country. It succeeded. The rest of teh stuff is fluff. ^^ CB: Why was there a need to develop the agrarian country ? People had been surviving in agrarian societies for millenia.
Re: Economics and law
David wrote: I was never good at geography. That's apparent. The argument was made that a socialist economy would put more emphasis on transportation safety than a capitalist economy. Seems plausible. Silly me, I though one way to test that thesis was to examine and compare the actual products produced by the respective systems. Yes, I like comparisons, too. You seem to be saying you are also one of those people. Comparing things also involves the backstory and not merely the object (and its immediate tools of creations -- themselves being things). How about West and East Germany? Can't complain about different historical development. I think most might agree that there is a very different historical development between the parts of Germany that were east and west. Check it out. Pretty main stream. And, after the war, the east had a different trajectory, as well, based on need of the conquering powers. You seem to know history... help me out here... Which one of the two countries that has US in its acronym... which one lost about 25 million people in the war... and had cities bombed, occupied, dismantled, bombed again... I stand by the position that if you refuse to consider historical evidence and insist on speculating about what could happen in utopia: cop out. I say the same thing! Brother, we've found each other at last! Ken. -- To be wronged is nothing unless you continue to remember it. -- Cicero (doing his Zen thing)
Re: Economics and law
Charles Brown wrote: CB: Why was there a need to develop the agrarian country ? People had been surviving in agrarian societies for millenia. For one thing, the USSR existed in a capitalist sea, as Stalin said in 1930, they had 10 years to catch up with the west industrially, culturally, etc or they would be overrun. (This speech by Stalin was quoted by Carl Oglesby in a book the title of which I now forget, and I have never been able to run down the text in any of Stalin's works that I possess.) Secondly, the primary Marxist point about capitalism was that, destructive of human life as capitalism had been from its very beginning (the advances for the few from the beginning disguising the greater horror for the many), it _had_ opened up the possibility of _real_ improvement of human life, a possibility that did not exist within agrarian society (as superior as such societies had been for the the vast majority in comparison with capitalism). Carrol
paradox of texas republican party
according to texas am political scientist harvey tucker, there is strong positive relationship between voter turnout and democratic party vote for governor, since 1970 when republicans began running competitive elections for governor, dems have won all but one election when turnout was at least 30% and reps have won all but one elections when turnout was less than 30%... rep gubernatorial candidates when big when turnout is small, bush was elected in '94 with 53.5% of vote and he was re-elected in '98 with 68% of vote, however, in each election he was only supported by 18% of age-eligible voters in state, his large majority in latter instance was result of keeping turnout low rather... accordingly, greater number of votes texas rep gubernatorial candidate receives, greater the probability dem candidate will win... 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.
yes
Title: yes Federal Court Rules That Commission on Presidential Debates is a Partisan Organization CPD not credible to run non-partisan debates Nader urges support of Citizens' Debate Commission Washington, DC: Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader today applauded a federal court decision that found the FEC acted contrary to the Federal Elections Act by ignoring evidence that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a partisan political organization. "This decision is the first step toward getting real presidential debates this Fall. A federal court, looking at all the evidence, found that the FEC has been ignoring evidence that the Commission on Presidential Debates is a partisan organization," said Nader. "How can a partisan organization sponsor impartial debates? How can they set up fair rules to determine who should be allowed to participate? They can't. And, they shouldn't. The CPD should be prevented from sponsoring these debates under their partisan auspices." The decision was the result of a case filed by Ralph Nader, John Hagelin, Pat Buchanan, Howard Phillips, Winona LaDuke, the Natural Law Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party. In an 18-page decision, US District Court Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. ruled that a dismissal of a complaint filed by Nader with the FEC was wrong because the FEC was incorrect in finding the CPD was non-partisan. He sent the case back to the FEC, ordering the FEC to remedy the situation. In reaching its decision that the evidence does not justify the FEC's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint of CPD partisanship, the court relied on plaintiffs' allegations, namely: * CPD was founded by the two major parties * CPD has been co-chaired by the two former DNC and RNC chairmen since its founding in 1987 * Nine of eleven CPD directors are prominent Republicans and Democrats * No third-party member is a CPD director * CPD's current conduct shows it to be a partisan organization (PDF of Decision) The court found persuasive that CPD decided to exclude all third-party candidates from entering the 2000 presidential debates (even as ticket-holding audience members), absent any evidence that the third-party candidates would cause disruption. The CPD used a facebook of all third-party candidates to instruct security to bar their entry into the debates. Nader noted: "There is a new presidential debate commission, the Citizens' Debate Commission, which is clearly non-partisan. It should be responsible for this fall's debates, so that the corporate political duopoly does not control the information highway to tens of millions of Americans. With a prestigious board of directors from across the political spectrum, the Citizens' Debate Commission is clearly non-partisan, free from the the control of any candidate or any party. The FEC and the media should work with the Citizens' Debate Commission in planning the 2004 presidential debates." Polls have consistently shown that voters want more voices and choices in the debates. Among other similar polls, a FOX News poll showed that, in 2000, 64% of the public wanted Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan included in the debates. "The media, and especially the television networks, should now look away from this two-party-dominated debate commission-funded by beer, tobacco, auto, and other corporate interests-and look toward the Citizens' Debate Commission as a much more democratically representative institution to sponsor these debates. Otherwise, the networks will be producing ever-lower ratings while relaying parallel interviews, passed off as debates, by a very partisan and exclusionary CPD," said Nader. The case was Hagelin et al v. the Federal Election Commission, Civ. Act. No. 0400731 (August 12, 2004). The Citizens' Debate Commission is at www.opendebates.org.
Re: Economics and law
Carrol Cox wrote: Secondly, the primary Marxist point about capitalism was that, destructive of human life as capitalism had been from its very beginning (the advances for the few from the beginning disguising the greater horror for the many), it _had_ opened up the possibility of _real_ improvement of human life, a possibility that did not exist within agrarian society (as superior as such societies had been for the the vast majority in comparison with capitalism). The antithesis of capitalism is not agrarian society; it is socialism (looking forward), or feudalism and some variety of primitive communism (looking backwards). Capitalism is an advance over feudalism solely on the basis of productivity of labor, etc. It might not even lead to a higher standard of living if capitalist property relations go hand in hand with colonialism. Primitive communism is another story altogether, as should be obvious from my citations from Melville's Typee. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
Economics and law by Charles Brown 13 August 2004 17:09 UTC by Chris Doss Mainly that was me writing off the cuff while trying to meet a deadline and working through a hangover. It wiould be better to say something like the shape of Soviet society was determined first and foremost by the need to develop an agrarian country. It succeeded. The rest of teh stuff is fluff. ^^ CB: Why was there a need to develop the agrarian country ? People had been surviving in agrarian societies for millenia. I'm without notes but roughly, as comrade Stalin correctly stated in 1931, we have 10 years in which to catch up or we will be defeated again.In support of Chris' point, I don't recall this statement as having anything to do with building socialism as such. michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Re: Economics and law
--- Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CB: Why was there a need to develop the agrarian country ? People had been surviving in agrarian societies for millenia. Fend off the West? Russia's been doing this since Peter the Great. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
stalin quote
Re: Economics and law by Carrol Cox 13 August 2004 17:38 UTC Charles Brown wrote: CB: Why was there a need to develop the agrarian country ? People had been surviving in agrarian societies for millenia. For one thing, the USSR existed in a capitalist sea, as Stalin said in 1930, they had 10 years to catch up with the west industrially, culturally, etc or they would be overrun. (This speech by Stalin was quoted by Carl Oglesby in a book the title of which I now forget, and I have never been able to run down the text in any of Stalin's works that I possess.) Vaguely from memory, it may have been 'Speech to Business Executives' from 1931. michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
Oh, I think a lot of Soviet policy was simply a utilitarian, how do we build up the country as quickly as possible to overtake our enemoies? thing. Russia engages in these grandiose catching up with the West adventures every couple of centuries or so. It has succeeded twice, under Peter the Great and Joseph the Steel, two historical figures I think have a lot in common, except that the Stalin had tanks instead of musketry. There's no way he could beat Peter's Drunken Synods, though. :) -- I'm without notes but roughly, as comrade Stalin correctly stated in 1931, we have 10 years in which to catch up or we will be defeated again.In support of Chris' point, I don't recall this statement as having anything to do with building socialism as such. michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724 __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
William F. Buckley praises the new war hawk
Op/Ed - William F. Buckley THE NEW WAR HAWK Tue Aug 10, 8:00 PM ET By William F. Buckley Jr. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=indexcid=742 Six months ago I ventured in this space that the Democratic position on the war in Iraq (news - web sites) was the single most critical question in U.S. politics. The statement made on Monday by John Kerry (news - web sites) is the climactic event in this matter. Senator Kerry said that notwithstanding all that is known now, whatever have been the developments in the past year, if he had it to do again, he'd vote as he did: in favor of giving the president the power he requested, before going on to wage war in Iraq. Kerry made this faintly more tolerable to the anti-war segment by saying that he was pleading, after all, a point of constitutional rectitude: The president should have the power inherent in his role as commander in chief. Kerry did not trouble to ponder what it is the Constitution was talking about when it said that only Congress could declare war. Never mind; we don't declare wars any more, we just fight. But outstanding in political meaning was less what Kerry said about standing by his vote than what he said about the long-term commitment we have undertaken. Surely he would pledge to reduce our troops in Iraq by next summer, even if he wasn't prepared to simply call them home, as Democratic contender Howard Dean (news - web sites) had demanded. Well, here is how Kerry put it: I believe if you do the kind of alliance-building that is available to us, that it is appropriate to have a goal of reducing our troops over that period of time. Obviously we have to see how events unfold. Indeed. How events unfold. What events? Here is where Kerry underwrote the Iraq venture in terms extraordinarily comprehensive. The measurement has to be, as I've said all along, the stability of Iraq, the ability to have the elections, and the training and transformation of the Iraqi security force itself. Get from your paper supplier the thinnest sheet in the inventory, and you won't succeed in wedging it between the Republican and the Democratic position on the nature of our strategic objectives in Iraq. This is reassuring, by most lights. The nation is at war; it is comforting that both political parties support the war. What is astonishing is that the entire vector of U.S. politics is here affected. The Democratic Party, through its leaders, has expressed itself with progressive force against the Iraq war. It was certainly expected that Democratic challenger John Kerry would pound home his criticisms of President Bush (news - web sites)'s policies. Public support for the war has diminished in the 17 months since we went in. This reflects the absence of the weapons of mass destruction, the disaffection of some of our allies, the intransigence of the insurgents, and the mounting fatalities. The approval of the war has reduced from 73 percent early on to about 49 percent, and the dynamics of democratic government would suggest that the Democratic challenger would proceed, if not to deconstruct the war, at least to criticize the conduct of it and the assumptions associated with it. Mr. Kerry is saying that our commitments continue until democratic elections in Iraq are held. This is a dream, though not, we like to think, extravagant. The New York Times has published an update on concrete questions, from which we learn that there is bad news (the insurgents have risen from 5,000 in April to 20,000 today), but that estimates of support for the new Iraqi government are at 68 percent, and 80 percent of Iraqis believe that life will improve under the new government. Already there is an increase in oil production and in electricity. It is an honorable thing for John Kerry to do, to associate himself so fully with the whole Iraq enterprise. Mr. Bush can take satisfaction from that endorsement, and critics of the war will have to exert themselves in other ways than merely to support the election of John Kerry. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
Chris wrote: Russia engages in these grandiose catching up with the West adventures every couple of centuries or so. What I have always enjoyed about Chris's posts about Russia is his love of the populace... Likewise, I do with North Americans... Ken. -- Since the whole affair had become one of religion, the vanquished were, of course, exterminated. -- Voltaire
economics, law and the old soviet economy
by michael a. lebowitz I'm without notes but roughly, as comrade Stalin correctly stated in 1931, we have 10 years in which to catch up or we will be defeated again.In support of Chris' point, I don't recall this statement as having anything to do with building socialism as such. michael ^^^ CB: If they hadn't been doing something that was building socialism some kind of threat to capitalism , they wouldn't have been in such imminent danger of being defeated again. The reason imperialism was especially focussed on invading and conquering the SU is that they were building socialism, however flawed.
Re: Economics and law
Kenneth Campbell writes: How about West and East Germany? Can't complain about different historical development. I think most might agree that there is a very different historical development between the parts of Germany that were east and west. Check it out. Pretty main stream. And, after the war, the east had a different trajectory, as well, based on need of the conquering powers. You seem to know history... help me out here... Which one of the two countries that has US in its acronym... which one lost about 25 million people in the war... and had cities bombed, occupied, dismantled, bombed again... I stand by the position that if you refuse to consider historical evidence and insist on speculating about what could happen in utopia: cop out. I say the same thing! Brother, we've found each other at last! Let's try one last time. The suggestion was made that a socialist economy will more highly value transportation safety than a capitalist economy. Every historical example I come up with to try and test the suggestion, you say is not an appropriate comparison. For example, you imply there is apparently something in the historical development of East Germany, as compared to West Germany, that would cause East Germany auto manufacturers not to value safety as much as their West German counterparts, even though the East Germans had a socialist economy and West Germany had a capitalist economy, but such fact has no relevance for the validity of the suggestion that socialist economies value safety more than capitalist economies. I am at a loss how to respond. How do you propose to test the hypothesis? Is there nothing relevant from 75 years of historical experience that will satisfy you? David Shemano
Re: Economics and law
David the Savior is back and writes: Let's try one last time. Please do. We appreciate your altruism. The suggestion was made that a socialist economy will more highly value transportation safety than a capitalist economy. If you are trying to cite thread precedent, I applaud you. Economics and law was my thread about space heaters. If you have a new one about Yugos, try starting it under that thread name (sorry, process is important to me, as a would-be lawyer, you understand that). Nonetheless, you write (and you write well): Every historical example I come up with to try and test the suggestion, you say is not an appropriate comparison. For example, you imply there is apparently something in the historical development of East Germany, as compared to West Germany, that would cause East Germany auto manufacturers not to value safety as much as their West German counterparts, even though the East Germans had a socialist economy and West Germany had a capitalist economy, but such fact has no relevance for the validity of the suggestion that socialist economies value safety more than capitalist economies. I am at a loss how to respond. You are narrowing the issue. That is why you are at as loss. But I will take the bait. Show me what you have learned about eastern Germany and why that section of that country would be a tad less able to produce cars. (You can do it!) How do you propose to test the hypothesis? Is there nothing relevant from 75 years of historical experience that will satisfy you? Sure. You are a kind of proof yourself. Grin. Ken. -- When I look back on all the worries I remember the story of he old man who said on his deathbed that he had a lot of trouble in his life, most of which never happened. -- Winston Churchill
economics, law and the old soviet economy
by Chris Doss Oh, I think a lot of Soviet policy was simply a utilitarian, how do we build up the country as quickly as possible to overtake our enemoies? thing. Russia engages in these grandiose catching up with the West adventures every couple of centuries or so. It has succeeded twice, under Peter the Great and Joseph the Steel, two historical figures I think have a lot in common, except that the Stalin had tanks instead of musketry. There's no way he could beat Peter's Drunken Synods, though. :) ^ CB: Are you saying that the Soviet people knew they were really just trying to catch up with the West again ,and just used the Communist terminology to cover it up or that they didn't realize what they were really, pragmatically doing ( simply trying to catch up with the West) ? Basically the best argument against what you are saying is what the Soviet people said.
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
Charles Brown wrote: CB: If they hadn't been doing something that was building socialism some kind of threat to capitalism , they wouldn't have been in such imminent danger of being defeated again. The reason imperialism was especially focussed on invading and conquering the SU is that they were building socialism, however flawed. Agreed, but that wasn't what Stalin said. (I'm going by memory here: I hope someone can find the exact quotation.) He talked about how the West had beaten us repeatedly through Russian history: i.e., the whole was in nationalist, not socialist, terms. The earlier defeats (and he names several) were not of socialist regimes but of Czarist regimes. And he speaks of _Russia_ being behind militarily, culturally, economically, and several other adverbs. He undoubtedly _could_ have written what Charles writes above, but he didn't. Carrol
vote count
Title: vote count On October 28 in 2003 I suggested a strategy on this list for Dennis Kucinich in his quest to be President. I had strong hopes for Kucinich, hopes that only faded when he announced that he would support the Democratic candidate whoever it turned out to be. To my mind, he became part of the problem, not part of the solution -- the greatest problem on this globe is unfettered corporatism, fueled by capital greed, directed by callous rich white men. The only candidate who shares this view with me is Ralph Nader. I have taken some curious delight lately in watching Nader actually doing some of the the things I suggested to Kucinich -- I called it the Committee of the Vote count; he calls it the Democracy Activist Corps. He has used the third parties to get on various ballots, and rallied the resources of Republicans who can't bring themselves to vote for the sophmoronic Bush or the elitist, get-in-front-of-the-parade Kerry. Here's my posting of October 28, 2003, followed by a Nader release yesterday. Dan Scanlan -- Here's the strategy: 1) Dennis Kucinich seeks (and wins) the Democratic nomination by convincing Democrats to vote for him in the primary election. During the campaign, he chastises the Democratic Party for its numerous sins and works to improve it by speaking strongly against its dependence on corrupt corporate cash, its penchant for war and its failure to tend to, or remember, its own progressive vision, and its failure to keep the nation's airwaves unfettered by corporate constraints. 2) The Green Party nominates Dennis Kucinich, even though he is a Democrat. There is precedence for this -- Ralph Nader was not a Green Party member. By so doing, the Green Party says that it values the end result -- the taking back of the country from the international corporate cartels -- and is not mired in knee-jerk party politics at any expense. 3) Renegade Republicans nominate Dennis Kucinich for the Republican ticket, and introduce a proposal to allow non-Republicans to vie for the nomination. The nation has a history of this. It is only unusual in our time. 4) Dennis Kucinich seeks the nominations of the American Independence Party, the Natural Law Party, the Peace and Freedom Party and other small parties. 5) Kucinich, individuals and groups develop and use a vocabulary that highlights the fact that the nation is at a crossroads that demands quick, exciting, unusual and strong moves to save it for the benefit of all and for our posterity, and by extension, the well-being of the planet itself. This vocabulary gives voice to the fact that there is room for all in the tug toward survival. Greens and Democrats pulling in concert, for starters, followed by other parties and organizations. The vocabulary becomes its own media and causes the corporate news industry to scramble for new relevance. 6) Dennis Kucinich creates a Committee of the Vote Count which is comprised of a wide variety of citizens, from high school age to elders, who are skilled in law and computer technology and who donate their time and skills to correct the flawed vote count in this country. The vocabulary makes it clear that counting is the first and simplest of computer functions and that secret and proprietary vote-counting software is fundamentally corrosive to American democracy and an affront to common sense. The verifiability of the vote count becomes a major campaign issue. The Kucinich campaign will be -- and will be seen and celebrated as -- a multi-pronged, multi-party, unifying American experience that is actually capable of returning the country to the folk. This enumeration of a strategy leaves out hot-button and other issues since it is aimed at roots. Nader For President 2004 P.O. Box 18002 - Washington, DC 20036 - www.votenader.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For Further Information: August 12, 2004 Kevin Zeese 202.265.4000 Nader Urges Florida: Protect Voters from Paperless Electronic Voting and Stop Abusing Voter Registration Washington, DC: Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader visited Tampa, Florida today to address two issues of importance in the upcoming election - paperless electronic voting, which limits the confidence voters will have that their vote is counted correctly; and efforts to limit the number of African-American voters through manipulation of registration rolls. Regarding electronic voting, Nader noted that some of the most populous counties in Florida will be voting with paperless electronic voting machines this November. Nader noted that the Miami-Dade County Republican Party sent out a mailer this month urging Republicans to vote by absentee ballot in order to avoid the paperless voting machines, warning that the machines do not have a paper ballot in case a recount is necessary. Nader announced two actions on electronic voting: 1. "I am offering my campaign as a vehicle for individual democracy activists who want to
Re: Economics and law
I drove a Lada for five years. It was fourteen years old when I got it and was still going just fine when I gave it away last month. They were built off the plans of old Fiats. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chris Doss Sent: 13 August 2004 07:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Economics and law David: Cop out. In my experience, there was one example of a socialist inspired car in the capitalist market: the Yugo. Case closed. --- This is totally untrue. The USSR exported automobiles to Latin America and elsewhere. Russia and Belarus export tractors to Australia to this day, where Ladas, I am told, have a cult following. Those vehicles break down a lot, but then again they are easy to repair. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Stan Goff article
http://www.counterpunch.org/goff08132004.html This is a long, well-researched article that takes on John Kerry's environmentalist platform but goes much deeper into broader questions of oil depletion, global warming, etc. It cites Mark Jones extensively as well as Henry Liu. Highly recommended. This article is a keeper. Thanks, Louis, for pointing to it. Dan
economics, law and the old soviet economy
by Carrol Cox Agreed, but that wasn't what Stalin said. (I'm going by memory here: I hope someone can find the exact quotation.) He talked about how the West had beaten us repeatedly through Russian history: i.e., the whole was in nationalist, not socialist, terms. The earlier defeats (and he names several) were not of socialist regimes but of Czarist regimes. And he speaks of _Russia_ being behind militarily, culturally, economically, and several other adverbs. He undoubtedly _could_ have written what Charles writes above, but he didn't. Carrol ^^^ CB: Oh I missed that in what you said. What you say here supports Chris's position , I think. My thought is that he was using Russian national liberation sentiment to rally the people, in the way Fidel Castro refers to Jose Marti, or the Viet Namese were carrying out a national liberation struggle too, harking back to Chinese invasions for centuries.
economics, law and the old soviet economy
Carrol: Agreed, but that wasn't what Stalin said. (I'm going by memory here: I hope someone can find the exact quotation.) ... ^^ CB: Wait a minute, what you said was Stalin said that the USSR existed in a capitalist sea. The reference to capitalists seems to imply he was getting at the fact that the capitalists were invading them because the capitalists didn't like them building socialism. You had said: For one thing, the USSR existed in a capitalist sea, as Stalin said in 1930, they had 10 years to catch up with the west industrially, culturally, etc or they would be overrun. (This speech by Stalin was quoted by Carl Oglesby in a book the title of which I now forget, and I have never been able to run down the text in any of Stalin's works that I possess.) ^ CB: Why not appeal to socialist vision _and_ national liberation hopes ?
Re: Economics and law
Kenneth Campbell writes But I will take the bait. Show me what you have learned about eastern Germany and why that section of that country would be a tad less able to produce cars. (You can do it!) The issue is not whether East Germany, or any other socialist economy, was less able to produce a safe car. The issue is whether a socialist economy would value safety more so than a capitalist economy and implement those values. If true, I would assume that, at any level of development, there would be evidence that the finished product evidenced a relative level of safety concerns compared to other factors (style, cost, functionality, efficiency, etc.), and that relative importance compared to other factors could be compared to relative level of importance in a capitalist product. In the United States, Volvos have excellent reputations for safety. Let's assume that Volvos do reflect an increased importance of safety compared to other factors, as compared to other automobiles. Would that be because of the social relations and means of production in Sweden? Would that be because of a Swedish personality trait going back centuries? Would that be because of a random occurrence? If the former, it might support the argument. However, I don't see how, for instance, the Yugo or the Trabant, support the argument. I mean, is there any evidence that when the Trabants were being designed, the designers decided, based upon available resources, to sacrifice a certain level of functionality for safety, as compared to designers of a comparable car in a capitalist economy? I am no expert, but I think the opposite was probably true. And if so, why does that not refute the original hypothesis? David Shemano
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
1928 - At the same time we have around us a number of capitalist countries whose industrial technique is far more developed and up-to-date than that of our country. Look at the capitalist countries and you will see that their technology is not only advancing, but advancing by leaps and bounds, outstripping the old forms of industrial technique. And so we find that, on the one hand, we in our country have the most advanced system, the Soviet system, and the most advanced type of state power in the world, Soviet power, while, on the other hand, our industry, which should be the basis of socialism and of Soviet power, is extremely backward technically. Do you think that we can achieve the final victory of page 258 socialism in our country so long as this contradiction exists? What has to be done to end this contradiction? To end it, we must overtake and outstrip the advanced technology of the developed capitalist countries. We have overtaken and outstripped the advanced capitalist countries in the sense of establishing a new political system, the Soviet system. That is good. But it is not enough. In order to secure the final victory of socialism in our country, we must also overtake and outstrip these countries technically and economically. Either we do this, or we shall be forced to the wall. This applies not only to the building of socialism. It applies also to upholding the independence of our country in the circumstances of the capitalist encirclement. The independence of our country cannot be up held unless we have an adequate industrial basis for defence. And such an industrial basis cannot be created if our industry is not more highly developed technically. http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/ICRD28.html 1930 - It is a contradiction between capitalism as a whole and the country that is building socialism. This, however, does not prevent it from corroding and shaking the very foundations of capitalism. More than that, it lays bare all the contradictions of capitalism to the roots and gathers them into a single knot, transforming them into an issue of the life and death of the capitalist order itself. That is why, every time the contradictions of capitalism become acute, the bourgeoisie turns its gaze towards the U.S.S.R., wondering whether it would not be possible to solve this or that contradiction of capitalism, or all the contradictions together, at the expense of the U.S.S.R., of that Land of Soviets, that citadel of revolution which, by its very existence, page 263 is revolutionising the working class and the colonies, which is hindering the organisation of a new war, hindering a new redivision of the world, hindering the capitalists from lording it in its extensive home market which they need so much, especially now, in view of the economic crisis. Hence the tendency towards adventurist attacks on the U.S.S.R. and towards intervention, a tendency which will certainly grow owing to the development of the economic crisis. http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/SC30.html
Re: Economics and law
Obviously, someone who is very poor needs transportation will be unlikely to purchase a Volvo would be more likely to settle for a Yugo. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy/the big quote
(M.Hoover wins the door prize . . . The Task of Economic Executives 1931.) 1931 - It is sometimes asked whether it is not possible to slow down the tempo somewhat, to put a check on the movement. No, comrades, it is not possible ! The tempo must not be reduced! On the contrary, we must increase it as much as is within our powers and possibilities. This is dictated to us by our obligations to the workers and peasants of the U.S.S.R. This is dictated to us by our obligations to the working class of the whole world. page 528 To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind get beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten! One feature of the history of old Russia was the continual beatings she suffered because of her backwardness. She was beaten by the Mongol khans. She was beaten by the Turkish beys. She was beaten by the Swedish feudal lords. She was beaten by the Polish and Lithuanian gentry. She was beaten by the British and French capitalists. She was beaten by the Japanese barons. All beat her -- because of her backwardness, because of her military backwardness, cultural backwardness, political backwardness, industrial backwardness, agricultural backwardness. They beat her because it was profitable and could be done with impunity. You remember the words of the pre-revolutionary poet: "You are poor and abundant, mighty and impotent, Mother Russia."[93] Those gentlemen were quite familiar with the verses of the old poet. They beat her, saying: "You are abundant," so one can enrich oneself at your expense. They beat her, saying: "You are poor and impotent," so you can be beaten and plundered with impunity. Such is the law of the exploiters -- to beat the backward and the weak. It is the jungle law of capitalism. You are backward, you are weak -- therefore you are wrong; hence you can be beaten and enslaved. You are mighty -- therefore you are right; hence we must be wary of you. That is why we must no longer lag behind. In the past we had no fatherland, nor could we have had one. But now that we have overthrown capitalism and power is in our hands, in the hands of the people, we have a fatherland, and we will uphold its independence. Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose its independence? If you do not want this, you must put an end to its backward- page 529 ness in the shortest possible time and develop a genuine Bolshevik tempo in building up its socialist economy. There is no other way. That is why Lenin said on the eve of the October Revolution-"Either perish, or overtake and outstrip the advanced capitalist countries." We are 50 or 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in 10 years. Either we do it, or we shall go under. http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/TEE31.html
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy/the big quote
In the past we had no fatherland, nor could we have had one. But now that we have overthrown capitalism and power is in our hands, in the hands of the people, we have a fatherland, and we will uphold its independence. Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose its independence? If you do not want this, you must put an end to its backward- page 529 ness in the shortest possible time and develop a genuine Bolshevik tempo in building up its socialist economy. There is no other way. That is why Lenin said on the eve of the October Revolution - "Either perish, or overtake and outstrip the advanced capitalist countries." We are 50 or 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in 10 years. Either we do it, or we shall go under. http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/Stalin/TEE31.html end of quote. I would not call this a nationalist's utterance by any stretch of the imagination. Whether one agrees of not all of Stalin's major writings are worth knowing as source material. Industrialization of the Country and the Right Deviation - 1928 is brilliant. His 1930 speech at the 15th Party Congress stands the test of time. What is fundamental in all his speeches and major addresses is the need to industrialize because they were already Sovietized and industrialization was on the historical agenda for who ever won the political contest. Yes, they understood they were building the foundations of socialism and then socialist industry. "We are 50 or 100 years behind the advanced countries." Something to think about . . . ain't it . . . especially when one wants to understand how a particular leader thought and envisioned the world. No one magically jumps to the communist future on the basis of industrial society. It is simply not possible. What is required is an additional revolution in the mode ofproduction that places the abolition of property on the immediate historical agenda. Not unlike the real revolution in production that abolished the sharecropper as a class . . . which today is understood as the material prelude that abolishes the agricultural worker as agricultural laboring class ... as a primary social force in history. Thousands of years of the transitions in the form of this class of agricultural workers is being abolished from human history. Collectivism was not the answer but a practical solution to a practical problem of scattered production in agriculture. Pardon my economic determinism. I choose to error on this side of the equation. We have arrived at the very beginning of this process that abolishes property . . . and not simply allows for a change in the form of property . . . based on the revolution in the technological regime. Consciousness . . . the masses slowly gaining an awareness of the moment . . . determines everything from here out. Let's see what happens under our impact in the next fifty years. Proletarians Unite! Melvin P.
James E. McGreevey and the Political Closet of the Democratic Party
James E. McGreevey and the Political Closet of the Democratic Party (Embodied within McGreevey's career are contradictions of the Democratic Party): http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/08/james-e-mcgreevey-and-political-closet.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: Stan Goff article
http://www.counterpunch.org/goff08132004.html This is a long, well-researched article that takes on John Kerry's environmentalist platform but goes much deeper into broader questions of oil depletion, global warming, etc. It cites Mark Jones extensively as well as Henry Liu. Highly recommended. Comment Any blow against Kerry and Company as the solution to the Bush Jr. administration has my unqualified support . . . period. I write very little on the Kerry controversy and what is called the "3rd Party Movement" . . . because I personally will write in Lenin's name on the ballot . . . if I decide to vote. The majority of Americans do not vote and because someone says that they should or how they should vote . . . does not move me in interesting places. Then . . . I might decide to vote for Nader. I voted for Gus Hall before and did not agree with his Marxism. Brother Goff begins his article with the following: "Imperialism is the political _expression_ of the accumulation of capital in its competitive struggle for what remains still open of the non-capitalist environment" -Rosa Luxemburg, "The accumulation of capital," 1913 In my opinion this is not true and was never true as a theoretical proposition and most certainly was not true in 1913 and . . . the truth was verified in the outbreak of the First Imperial World War . . . which was over a re division of a world divided into sphere of influence and domination. Re division of the world is an important concept . . . as a theory concept . . . because all the world was already being drawn forward in the orbit of capitalist imperialism . . . before 1913. The domination of the world market and its economic structure . . . based primarily on the closes colonial system . . . as opposed to what Lenin tagged financial industrial imperialism . . . meant that capitalist imperialism had already fundamental triumphed as a colonizing force. An attribute of Lenini's imperialism is the distinction between the export of financial capital as a social power versus the export of raw materials and human capital . . . sorry . . . Organizations of human beings on behalf of the capitalist imperialist. Michael Hudson in his Super Imperialism unravels this export of finance and updates this process in his preface to the 2002 edition. (I have both . . . the original and the update). That is to say the issue was not capitalist imperialism filling in all the non-capitalist space with capitalism . . . a horrible abstraction . . . because at each distinct juncture in the development of the industrial system . . . its colonial adjuncts provide a material function to the imperial centers. We are not talking about a world of 1910 -1913 dominated by fedual imperialism. OK . . . the question is the meaning of "what remains still open of the non-capitalist environment." Then . . . yep . . . then . . . "capital in its competitive struggle" is through in to mean something . . . but imperialism by definition is the export of a more developed means of production . . . as the curve of history . . . to a backwards people . . . or what is politically correct to say today . . . a less economically developed people. What was exported if not bourgeois relations? Filling in the non capitalist environment means filing in the "space" as in putting together a puzzle. Let me guess . . . I miss the dialectic. This is a crappie argument that was solved almost 90 years ago by Lenin and others. I am not arguing the energy question because running out of oil might be the best thing to happen to humanity . .. in the short and long run. I am not arguing entropy . . . but ask the reading to delve into who obesity can be the primary cause of premature death in America today? I have had enough of this for now and disagree with the description of the evolution of the industrial revolution . . . on the basis of quotes for the late Mark Jones. The industrial revolution or what became heavy industry as the pivot evolved from manufacture of heavy manufacture as opposed to the manufacture of consumer goods . . . and this is old hat. As if saying somthing a thousand times makes it right. Well . . . until one unravels the evolution of what is called "needs" and how "need" are restructure and created on the basis of distinct modes of production the energy question remains un resolvable. And reduces communist to asking people not to eat a tuna fish sandwich . . . something I will not do. Why did industrial capitalism develop on a curve of history where the automobile achieve prime important? Here is the energy question in the flesh and the way to take it too our working class. To each his own. And it is good to argue in the same circle. Melvin P.
