Najaf
(The US says the talks have broken down, and are again threatening an assault on the Imam Ali mosque. Why the assault has been repeatedly delayed is outlined below. The Sadrists have used the ceasefire during the past 24 hours to encourage and welcome supporters to Najaf, strengthening their position and raising the stakes even higher for the US and its client Allawi administration. The reason the talks have collapsed is the insistence by US forces that the Sadrist militia disarm -- effectively a call to surrender in exchange for amnesty -- and fears that any resolution short of that will be widely interpreted as a victory for the Sadrists, inspiring wider resistance. A spokesman for Al Sadr meanwhile told Agence France Presse early today that UN troops should be brought into Iraq to replace US forces, an unrealizable demand indicating the Mehdi Army is anticipating a fight. Karon suggests below that the balance of forces is daily shifting in favour of the Sadrists, as the mounting number of National Guard and police defections and resignations of local government officials attests, and that their military suppression by US/Allawi forces at Najaf will accelerate rather than retard the development of the national uprising.) MG Why the Najaf Offensive is on Hold By Tony Karon Time Friday, Aug. 13, 2004 The latest cease-fire in Najaf may be a telling measure of the political balance of forces in the new Iraq. Having launched an armored offensive into the Shiite holy city after vowing to destroy Moqtada Sadr's Mehdi militia, U.S. commanders abruptly called a halt to offensive operations on Friday as truce negotiations between Sadr and the interim government of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi continued. But a new truce wasn't exactly what Allawi and the Americans had in mind when they vowed earlier in the week to finish the fight and break the back of Sadr's forces. The new pause in hostilities to seek a negotiated solution and the urgency with which the new government and U.S. commanders sought to deny claims by Sadr aides that the cleric had been wounded in battle on Friday signal a growing awareness on the part of Allawi's government that winning the battle at Najaf could cost them the wider political war. Even in the face of Sadr's provocations, going on the offensive in Najaf was always a fateful gamble for Allawi. While the estimated 1,000 lightly armed Mehdi militiamen were no match for more than 3,000 U.S. troops and an undisclosed number of Iraqi personnel deployed there, the political circumstances in which the battle was waged forced the Marines to fight with one hand tied behind their backs: Sadr's men were holed up in and around the Imam Ali Mosque, the holiest shrine in the Shiite Muslim tradition, and any damage to the mosque could provoke a massive Shiite uprising that might imperil the entire project of remaking Iraq. If anything, Sadr's decision to confront Allawi and the Americans from inside the holy city reflects a canny, and often underestimated political instinct on the part of the populist cleric. Ever since Baghdad fell to U.S. forces in April 2003, Sadr has parlayed his strong following among the Shiite urban poor and the growing resentment toward the U.S. to his own advantage. And his previous showdown with the U.S. last April, when they tried to arrest him in connection with a warrant issued by an Iraqi judge had showed that tangling with the Americans actually boosted, rather than undermined his political standing in Iraq. The problem facing Allawi and the U.S. in waging war in Najaf has been that while Sadr may be unpopular among many of the townsfolk and viewed somewhat ambiguously by a wider Shiite audience, the U.S. is considerably more unpopular, a trend that the fact of handing authority to the new government last June does not yet appear to have reversed. Allawi appears to have recognized Sadr's influence, because he has strenuously attempted to woo the cleric to join the political process under the interim government. He reiterated his offer on Thursday. This government calls upon all the armed groups to drop their weapons and rejoin society, Allawi said in a statement. The political process is open to all, and everyone is invited to take part in it. But Sadr has rejected the terms, refusing to be recognized simply as one among hundreds of leaders, many of whom have no proven constituency. And his refusal to withdraw his forces from around the holy sites in Najaf, instead stockpiling weapons there, eventually prompted the government to act. Even if Sadr himself was to be brought into the political process, they reasoned, he could not be allowed to maintain an independent military capability. Destroying the Mehdi army would show Allawi's resolve to brook no insurgent challenges. The logic of the confrontation, however, demanded a clear victory. But the risks of a direct assault on militiamen holed up in the mosque quickly became apparent as the showdown at Najaf
Re: Najaf
Unrealizable in the present circumstances, for sure, Carrol, so long as the US thinks it stll has a chance of building an effective puppet army to help it crush the resistance, and knows that an invitation to have the UN come in would be interpreted worldwide as a serious defeat. But if things continue to deteriorate and US casualties rise, it's not inconceivable that the US would quietly admit defeat and publicly support a UN interim peacekeeping force to enable it to withdraw its forces, while trying to save face by claiming victory at the same time. More likely in this situation, though, it would simply help cobble together a broad national unity government incorporating the dissident Islamist and nationalist resistance forces, and accept the new goverment's request that it withdraw, without any need for UN troops, which would only draw further attention to the US humiliation. The anti-occupation forces would enter the government on condition of a US withdrawal and in the confidence they would quickly come to dominate the state after elections. Both the resistance forces and the Americans, each in their own way, know this stage hasn't yet been reached. It doesn't matter, IMO, whether Kerry or Bush is in the White House to preside over this withdrawal if it comes to that. But I do think Kerry, if he wins, will probably be more inclined to move faster because he'll think his election will have given him that mandate. All this is predicated, of course, on the US being unable to crush the resistance, and fairly quickly, which is by no means a settled matter. I wouldn't presume to involve myself in your internal antiwar movement debate, of which I know very little. Whether the demand for UN troops is a politically more acceptable way of calling for US withdrawal -- or whether it is a unrealistic perspective which obscures and weakens the effort to bring the troops home now -- is something for you to hash out. I know a UN force was never a serious option for Vietnam, though you probably recall that some - I think SANE and others -- called for it at the time. Ultimately it will be for the anti-occupation Iraqis to decide what form a US retreat should take, and for us to respect their choice. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Najaf Marvin Gandall wrote: A spokesman for Al Sadr meanwhile told Agence France Presse early today that UN troops should be brought into Iraq to replace US forces, an unrealizable demand indicating the Mehdi Army is anticipating a fight. Debate on demands of the anti-war movement has been frequently disrupted by the inability of too many leftists to acknowledge that UN involvement is an _unrealizable_ demand. The _only_ rational demand is immediate US withdrawal without conditions. Al Sadr has, I believe, made this suggestion before, but it has always been obvious that it could not be a serious proposal. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the only military strategy which could maintain the U.S. in Iraq is that of We had to destroy the [village/city/nation] to save it. And as the account Marvin attaches note, that is not a politically possible strategy in Iraq. Leftists who look for complicated solutions to propose will look increasingly foolish over the next several years. Bring the troops home now! Demand that now, and then we can boast in a few years of how prescient we were, after all the complicated solutions turn out to be only face-saving methods of disguising a u.s. retreat in disgrace. Carrol
Let the Empire vote, eh?
An apparently only half tongue-in-cheek argument in yesterday's Globe and Mail for why Canadians and others should be allowed to vote for the US President. The Kerry Democrats, you would think, would have a real interest in taking the issue a step further. Rather than lamely trailing after Bush in Iraq, they could dispel any lingering swing voter doubts about their own imperialist bona fides by agitating for a quick and easy US invasion and annexation of Canada, which would also, incidentally, give them effective control of both the White House and Congress in perpetuity -- a real Democratic Dictatorship beyond anything imagined by Lenin. The political culture of Canada strongly resembles that of the US Northeast and Northwest. Polls taken in Canada during the 2000 election showed very strong support for Al Gore over George Bush. Even members of the former right-wing Reform party, based in Alberta, Canadas Texas, surprisingly favoured Gore by a slim margin. Bushs Canadian support in 2004 is probably less than Ralph Naders in the US. On second thought, faced with the loss of medicare and hockey's Team Canada, its not out to be ruled out that Canadians could mount a stiff resistance to an invasion. A more peaceable solution would simply be for the Northern states to secede from the Union and form a more perfect one with the Canadian provinces. MG --- My Canada includes the White House By Larry Krotz Globe and Mail August 10, 2004 On Nov. 2, in the election to decide the world's most important office, I won't get to vote. Nor, you might say, should I be able to cast a ballot in the American presidential election, since I'm a Canadian. Not so fast: Opening the White House ballot to anybody who lives in the spreading shadow of U.S. empire (which would be at least half the world) ought to become the political-reform cause of the 21st century. This isn't just a matter of how I might feel about another four years of George W. Bush; the idea first came when Bill Clinton occupied the White House. Even though I was not an American, I could no more avoid the Clintons than fly to the moon. The multiplying powers of the media made sure we who dwelt outside U.S. borders were as intimate with Hillary, Bill, Chelsea and, yes, Monica, as anybody residing in the 50 states. The White House was the lightning rod, not just of politics -- the global economy, diplomacy, war and peace -- but of popular culture. In comparison to the attention we directed toward Washington, our own Prime Minister enjoyed about as much status as the governor of Ohio. Which raises the point: The appeal of democracy is the power to accept or reject, on every level. You must be able to influence whatever it is you're going to have to put up with. Wasn't my time and attention (though admittedly not my dollars) being taxed without proper representation? With the presidency of George W. Bush, everything has become more urgent. In November of 2000, when the strange election that brought the current administration to power took place, I was in Russia. Night after night, on the television in my St. Petersburg hotel room, the drama of the hanging chads played itself out. Not one person I encountered, Russian or foreign, lacked an opinion about who should win; little did we realize how, just 10 months later, it would be critical to all of us. As this administration has polarized not only America but the world, the decision about who occupies the White House has become one of life and death. The Oval Office is a Global Office. No president since Herbert Hoover has been able to function on a predominantly domestic agenda. Things, like the rest of the world, get in the way. So what about that rest of the world? The Bush presidency has driven home the ease with which the superpower can make its own rules. The exceptionalism under which it has approached not only military actions but such matters as the Kyoto Protocol, International Criminal Court and various arms-control conventions, has disabused us of illusions the world was naturally multilateral. Even that much-used term coalition is really just a piece of the rhetoric. Terminology aside, what can't be denied is the huge investment we all have in how America is run and, in particular, how it operates in the world. As a citizen of that world, I want some right (and rite) of participation. In vassal states of empires past, certain rights always accrued. The biblical Saint Paul got great mileage out of being a Roman citizen, even though he lived in Greece and Asia Minor. Voting, of course, was not one of those rights, but then most people inside the empires didn't vote either. That had to wait until the 18th century, with the French and American revolutions, to gain place as a cherished measure of citizenship. The ideas of representative government followed quickly, pushing relentlessly forward until women, as well as men, held the right to vote. Now it is the universal
Re: Kerry would have gone to war
Louis Proyect wrote: (A frequent argument on behalf of Kerry is that he would have not invaded Iraq after 9/11. He might be an imperialist but is not a rash, adventuristic unilateralist. Guess what, folks. He is a rash, adventuristic unilateralist. He might not be a born-again Christian and might favor stem-cell research, but on the burning question of the day, he and Bush are agreed.) Kerry Defends Position on Iraq Democrat Says He Would Reduce U.S. Troops Within 6 Months (snip) -- I don't attach much credibility to what opportunistic politicians say in election campaigns -- particularly in Kerry's case, where he perceives his electoral fortunes, rightly or wrongly, to be dependent on adaptation to a segment of the voting population infected with a high degree of chauvinism. But there's no evidence whatever that the Democratic leadership saw an invasion of Iraq as a pressing necessity, much less that they were prepared to break with their closest allies and the UN to initiate one. Either you're much too taken by what politicians running for office (or their aides) say, which I doubt, or you're grasping at straws in your effort to persuade us that there aren't any distinctions, tactical or otherwise, we need to draw between the economic and foreign policies of the two parties. MG
Corporate Democrats
One of the 200 business executives who came out for Kerry last week was Leo Hindery, a former CEO of Global Crossing and AT T Broadband. In todays Financial Times, Hindery identifies the major reasons why a small segment of the corporate sector - what the left has traditionally called the enlightened bourgeoisie prefers the Democrats to the Republicans. These Keynesian-minded corporate heads are concerned about slow job and income growth and its effect on mass purchasing power; want a national healthcare program to relieve employers of private health care costs; and are alarmed by runaway budget and trade deficits which threaten a financial crisis. Hindery, in effect, accuses members of the US business elite of placing their narrow personal and company interests ahead of their class interests, and the Bush administration of pandering to their selfish needs rather than acting in line with its broader responsibility as the executive committee of the ruling class. As Hindery puts it, we need a team who will, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, 'save capitalism from the capitalists'. In this instance, however, unlike the 30s, America is not experiencing a deep depression, there is no left wing political challenge from which capitalism needs rescuing, and his is a distinctly minority voice within elite circles. He and his 200 pro-Kerry colleagues are, however, a measure of growing US and international business anxiety about the direction of American economic and foreign policy. Marv Gandall - Bush's economy is for the elite few By Leo Hindery Financial Times August 10 2004 Within an hour of John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as his running mate, the US Chamber of Commerce said it was forced to abandon its position of neutrality because Mr Edwards was hostile to business. I could almost hear the laughter in corporate boardrooms across the country. To argue that the Chamber intended to be, or has ever been, politically neutral reminds me of the film Casablanca when Claude Rains expresses shock that gambling was taking place in Rick's Caf. The line revealed the dirty little secret of the US Chamber of Commerce. It is run by the wealthy chief executives of the nation's biggest companies. It is easy to see why enormously rich businessmen believe more personal income and lower taxes are good for them. But what is good for an individual chief executive's wallet does not translate into being good for business or for the nation's economy. What businesses and the economy need are full employment, or as full as possible, and strong consumer demand, generated by a combination of consumer confidence and fair compensation. The Bush-Cheney ticket is failing that test. They adopt anything-goes-for-big-business policies, continue to push for ever-lower tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, defend self-serving executive compensation packages and condone benign regulation of corrupt practices. The latest sign of how what is really good for ordinary citizens and the economy is being flipped on its head is George W. Bush's spin on sluggish job-growth numbers. Now, he contends, that bad is good. In response to the far lower than expected employment numbers for June, he said: Steady growth. That's important. We don't need boom-or-bust-type growth. But when the number of new jobs created this year fails to keep up with the growth in the adult population - a trend confirmed by last Friday's job numbers for July - a little more boom and a little less steady stagnation would certainly be helpful. Certainly the unemployed and businesses that need to sell products and services to people with incomes are getting weary of the disappointing growth. For the first time in more than seven decades, there are fewer jobs at this point in an election year than there were when the current president was inaugurated. A net 2.6m manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2001. And anyone whose job has been outsourced to other countries should appreciate Mr Kerry's call to end tax loopholes and benefits that provide an incentive for shipping jobs overseas and keeping the profits there. Compounding the problem, far too many of the jobs being created are low-wage positions with few benefits. Overall, wages for non-supervisory workers have failed to keep up with inflation over the past year. But jobs and wages are not all that matters. Instead of Mr Bush's big tax cuts for the top 2 per cent of Americans, the Kerry-Edwards ticket would reform healthcare. That would make health insurance more available and affordable for millions of Americans and cheaper for businesses. The other 98 per cent of Americans and the businesses whose healthcare costs would be lower should welcome the choice between better healthcare and tax cuts for the wealthy. The business community has also traditionally, and rightly, been concerned about massive government borrowing. But under the Bush administration, we have seen huge
Re: Corporate Democrats
Yoshie wrote: I've seen folks here and elsewhere contemptuously dismiss an independent electoral challenge to the Democratic Party from the left (Nader/Camejo and Greens who support them), an attempt to make voices for peace heard inside the Democratic Party (Kucinich and those who supported him), and now even protests (militant or theatrical) in the streets. I've yet hear them present what they believe to be worth doing, let alone see them actually doing it. -- That's not entirely fair comment. My impression is that most of the criticisms on the list of the Nader/Camejo ticket haven't been contemptuous -- certainly not any more so than some of the opposing comments directed at them -- but, in any event, we can agree that this kind of tone from both quarters isn't constructive. I think the great majority of contributors to left-wing lists also support strikes and demonstrations, and many participate in them as the opportunity presents itself, although the general level of activity is almost certainly less than your own. This may reflect a sense, which I share, that there has to be evidence of mass sentiment for strikes and demonstrations, and this sentiment almost always surfaces in response to objective threats -- to economic security, in the form of a sharp deterioration in living and working conditions, or from fear of war and other threats to physical security. Unless and until such conditions are present, attempts to conjure up street protests through tireless propaganda by radical intellectuals often only appear frenetic and incomprehensible to those they're aimed at. I'm referring here not only to other progressive intellectuals, but also and perhaps especially to skilled workers, who have a good grasp of their own circumstances and how to deal with them, despite the patronizing way they are often dismissed as having false consciousness. In other words, where mass concern is evident, as it was, for example, in last year's leadup to the war in Iraq, people will turn out to demonstrate. But to imagine you can create strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of mass activity in the streets through the sheer power of ideas, where the conditions for those ideas to take root are largely absent, strikes me as -- well, idealism. I suspect most other people feel this way also, even if they haven't articulated it that way to themselves. I can't speak for others, but I've indicated previously that I think the most meaningful mass political activity which is currently taking place in the US is among rank-and-file Democrats and others you (contemptuously?) refer to as ABB'ers. The current election has the character of a referendum on US economic and foreign policy, which distinguishes it from the usual run-of-the-mill electoral entertainment in liberal democracies, and the unusual intensity of feeling between the Democratic and Republican ranks, and within the left, testifies to the importance attached to it. You may not accept this, but I would welcome it if anti-Bush hostility were expressed in a mass movement towards the more progressive Nader/Camejo ticket. But the objective conditions clearly don't exist for that, and your efforts to build support for such a movement through tireless propaganda do, alas, appear mostly frenetic and incomprehensible -- and antagonistic -- to the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned intellectuals and workers who have consciously determined that a repudiation of the economic and foreign policies of their government requires throwing out the Bush administration. I don't think you'll ever persuade them that goal can be realized by voting Green as opposed to Democratic. As Tariq Ali has noted, a Bush defeat will be interpreted as a repudiation of current US policies by the rest of the world, which is why we outside the States are also watching the election so closely. Finally, I don't think participation in this process is in contradiction to organizing parallel antiwar actions among antiwar Democrats and ABB'ers, as you suggest. It would, in fact, complement such efforts. On the other hand, your preoccupation with the Greens' electoral fortunes goes in the other direction. It is in contradiction to building bridges to, and mobilizing, this massive constituency for more radical action. I hope, respectfully, this helps answer your question about what some of think is worth doing, and not doing. Marv Gandall
Continuing China fever
Today's Financial Times offers more dramatic evidence of how China has become the new beacon for Western-based multinationals. It describes the fierce struggle for dominance being waged over control of the lucrative China-US air cargo trade by FedEx, UPS, and European carriers like DHL --somewhat reminiscent of earlier competition over the sea trade lanes. The air cargo battle is being waged at both ends - in China, for customers and distribution hubs, and in the US, for landing rights. The article is another illustration of how from iconic multinationals such as General Motors, General Electric and Goldman Sachs, to specialists such as Home Depot or Avon, almost every significant chief executive has Chinese expansion plans at the top of his or her to-do list...lately the level of interest has begun to feel more like an obsession. The looming cloud on the horizon, of course, is the potential collapse of the US dollar, on which this booming export trade depends. But the parallel rapid development of the Chinese domestic market lends support to the view that if the 19th century belonged to Britain and the 20th century to the US, the 21st may well belong to China. Marv Gandall --- Midnight in Memphis, new dawn in China By Dan Roberts Financial Times August 9 2004 High over the Pacific Ocean, flight FX 24 from Shanghai to Memphis is one of the most closely monitored aircraft entering US airspace. Every night the Federal Express cargo jet is packed with 77 tonnes of digital cameras, mobile phones and other high-value electronics that make it the company's single largest source of revenue and a significant contributor to America's ballooning trade deficit. Until recently the top priority route for FedEx was its daily flight from Tokyo, which carries express packages from all over Asia. But as with most big US companies, FedEx's attention is increasingly focused on one market: China. Corporate America's interest in the world's most populous nation is nothing new - China's dramatic economic boom has aroused growing curiosity from US boardrooms for several years. But lately the level of interest has begun to feel more like an obsession. During Wall Street's last round of quarterly earnings announcements, few large companies got very far into their conference calls with analysts before the subject of China came up. From iconic multinationals such as General Motors, General Electric and Goldman Sachs, to specialists such as Home Depot or Avon, almost every significant chief executive has Chinese expansion plans at the top of his or her to-do list. As domestic US growth shows signs of slowing and Europe's recovery remains relatively subdued, business leaders in the world's largest economy are determined not to miss China's potential contribution to the bottom line. Rising profits from China play an essential part in many analysts' financial modelling for this year and next. There are plenty of potential problems. Many smaller companies still view China predominantly as a threat. European and Japanese multinationals are queueing to claim their share of the prize. And it is not yet clear how far Beijing may be prepared to welcome foreign competition for Chinese companies in some sectors. One way to take the pulse of corporate America's love affair with all things Chinese is to watch the elaborate mating game being played out by companies such as FedEx. Express cargo aircraft are the clipper ships of the modern age, carrying 2 per cent of international trade measured by volume but 50 per cent measured by value. In the early hours of a sticky Tennessee night more than 80 of these aircraft an hour descend into FedEx's global hub at Memphis, making it the busiest cargo airport in the world. A military-style command and control centre ensures that, no matter how bad the thunderstorms get over the Midwest, the valuable flights from Asia are always the last to be diverted or cancelled. But the express logistics industry is about more than just ferrying cargo back and forth. A global hub-and-spoke network is designed to link hundreds of towns and cities with an overnight communications infrastructure that keeps the world's just-in-time supply chain taut. In developed markets such as the US, the ability to guarantee overnight shipment of parts and finished goods has allowed companies to reduce average inventory levels by a fifth over the last decade and is thought to have played a significant role in improving productivity across the economy (see charts). It is for this reason, above all else, that FedEx and rivals such as United Parcel Service and DHL are paying so much attention to China. As it becomes the workshop of the world, teeming factories along the Pearl and Yangtze river deltas represent both the start of the world's supply chain and the source of some its biggest transport bottlenecks. Growing recognition of this fact has also helped to spark interest among Chinese government officials.
Re: Al Gore for overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2000
Louis Proyect quoting the New Yorker article: The idea of overthrowing Saddam is not an idle fantasy-or, if it is, it's one that has lately occupied the minds of many American officials, including people close to George W. Bush. In 1998, during the period when Saddam was resisting the international inspection team that was trying to make sure he wasn't manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act, which made available ninety-seven million dollars in government aid to organizations dedicated to the overthrow of Saddam. Two of the act's co-sponsors were Senators Trent Lott and Joseph Lieberman-not peripheral figures on Capitol Hill. Clinton was unenthusiastic about the Iraq Liberation Act and has spent almost none of the money it provides, but Al Gore, during the Presidential campaign, put some distance between himself and Clinton on the issue of removing Saddam. In the second Presidential debate, after defending his Administration's Iraq record, he said, I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. --- But this -- the Iraq Liberation Act -- is old news. It's well established that it was under the Clinton admin that the Iraq policy shifted from containment to the overthrow of Saddam. But this was to be accomplished via an internal military coup using Iraqi exile groups as a conduit, with the conditions for such to be created by economic sanctions, acting in conjunction with the UN and the Europeans. It was also, as the article notes, a back burner issue for the Democrats. As we know, the Republicans made overthrowing the Baathist regime a foreign policy priority. They decided to invade and occupy Iraq with US forces, forcefully breaking with the US foreign policy establishment, the UN, and the Europeans over this matter. Gore, again as the article notes, continued with the Clinton line of support to groups inside Iraq. Whether you think invasion/occupation versus sanctions/subversion represents only a nuance of difference or is more significant than that is a matter of judgment, of course. Certainly, you can make a case that the sanctions cost many lives -- perhaps as many or more than the invasion and subsequent occupation. But I think, if forced to choose, the Iraqis would still have preferred to continue contesting and evading the sanctions rather than face occupation by an invading American army. To be sure, I haven't seen any evidence of Iraqis shrugging their shoulders and dismissing the US invasion as being really no different than the UN sanctions. I've only seen this view expressed by a minority of the US left which appears to dismiss that there are any differences within the American ruling class and between states which can and should be exploited in the interest of the world's peoples. Marv Gandall
Re: Al Gore for overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2000
Louis Proyect wrote: Marvin Gandall wrote: Whether you think invasion/occupation versus sanctions/subversion represents only a nuance of difference or is more significant than that is a matter of judgment, of course. Certainly, you can make a case that the sanctions cost many lives -- perhaps as many or more than the invasion and subsequent occupation. But I think, if forced to choose, the Iraqis would still have preferred to continue contesting and evading the sanctions rather than face occupation by an invading American army. Of course. That is why the US ruling class opted for war rather than sanctions. They were becoming ineffective. Wars are made by a class, not individuals by the way. - You seriously misunderstand the nature of the conflict when you state that the US ruling class opted for war. The US ruling class was and remains very divided over the invasion of Iraq, over whether it served or hurt US strategic interests. I think its closer to the truth to characterize the Iraq invasion as a hubristic adventure by the Bush administration, acting in maverick fashion against the wishes of a large, probably major, part of its own ruling class and the international bourgeoisie. That operation, as anticipated, turned into a debacle, and the Bushites have since been reined in and their early foreign policy doctrines discredited. I don't think you would argue the sanctions were becoming ineffective in terms of the harm they were inflicting on the Iraqi population. It's true that they had been ineffective in fostering the hoped-for coup, and were being evaded and loosened in negotations through the UN. Nevertheless, it doesn't follow from this (and there is no evidence to indicate) that a Gore administration would have launched an invasion, especially when this would have precipitated a rupture with its traditional and would-be allies and weakened the authority of the UN, which the Democrats and many Republican leaders properly view as a useful instrument of US foreign policy. As Clinton has noted, and I believe this to be so, the Democrats would have continued to work through the UN, prodding Blix and the inspectors to disarm, humiliate, and neuter Saddam -- accepting this as a less certain, but less risky, means of regime change than an invasion. They didn't have the peculiar Saddam obsession of the Bushites, nor did they think it would be easy to secure Iraq. Like you and I, the bipartisan foreign policy establishment thinks more in terms of its overall class interests than individuals. Marv Gandall
Tariq Ali on the US election
(The following is from Doug Henwood's LBO-list. I may have missed Doug also posting it here. If so, my apologies for duplicating it. But a case can be made for reading Tariq Ali's comments twice. Ali, the radical British political commentator and playwright, has IMO succinctly grasped what is essential from the POV of the left in this particular US election -- what the so-called Anybody but Bush sentiment represents in the popular consciousness. Ali describes it as positive -- a point of some contention on this and other left lists -- and that it offers the potential for further advance if it is embraced. Note too his understanding that despite Kerry's electoral opportunism on Iraq, a Democratic administration would not have invaded Iraq. TA was interviewed on Doug's radio show.) Marv Gandall DH: You've said that a defeat of Bush would be regarded globally as a victory. What did you mean? TA: As you know, I travel a great deal, and everywhere I go there is growing anger and if one can be totally blunt real hatred of this administration because of what it did in Iraq - the war it waged, the civilians it killed, the mess it's made, and its inability to understand the scale of what it's done. And from that point of view, if the American population were to vote Bush out of office, the impact globally would be tremendous. People would say this guy took his country to war, surrounded by neocons who developed bogus arguments and lies, he lied to his people, he misused intelilgence information, and the American people have voted him out. That in itself could have a tremendous impact on world public opinion A defeat for a warmonger regime in Washington would be seen as a step forward. I don't go beyond that, but it would have an impact globally. DH: A lot of people on the American left are saying Kerry's not much better, and that Bush not all that much out of the ordinary. Kerry opened his acceptance speech with a military salute. He'd be pretty much more of the same. What do you say to that? TA: We're talking about the government which took the United States to war. Had Gore been elected, he would have gone to war in Afghanistan, but I doubt he would have gone to war in Iraq. This is very much a neocon agenda, dominated by the need to get the oil and appease the Israelis. This war in Iraq is very much something this administration went for. The defeat of this administration would be a defeat of the war party. What would Kerry do? He wouldn't do good things immediately, but everything is to be gained from changing the regime, and then putting massive pressure on Kerry to pull the troops out. It's not going to be easy, but it would be a much better relationship of forces if Bush is voted out. Let's assume that Kerry is the most opportunistic, foolish, weak, etc., then he will know that the reason Bush was voted out was because of this war. There is an argument doing the rounds on the American left that says that Bush has united the world against the American empire, but I do not like arguments like that. This is an argument you can have from the luxury from your sitting room or kitchen in the United States, but this particular regime has taken the lives of at least 37,000 civilians in Iraq, not counting the old army. For them it's not an abstract question. So a defeat of Bush would be regarded in many parts of the world as a small victory. This doesn't mean one has any illusions about Kerry. I certainly don't. I'm pretty disgusted by the militarism at the Democratic convention But despite all that - and we know what the Democrats are, we know the wars they've waged - our options at the moment are limited. Do we try to defeat a warmonger government or not? Do we do our best to do it? If Kerry goes on in the same way, we just have to fight him. So what? We've been doing this for a long time. DH: There are a lot of people who argue that personnel don't matter - that the war emerged from the inner needs of American capitalism, American imperialism. That it was the rate of profit, the oil price, that forced the hand, and whoever is sitting in the Oval Office is just a pawn of larger forces. Do you buy that? TA: I don't buy that. If you believe that's all there is to it, then you can give up politics. Just wait at home for the big catastrophe. This is not the way you mobilize public opinion, or engage in debates to win people over. For me, that's a dead argument, because it means you don't have to win people over. The only way you win people to your side is to go out in the streets, you argue, you talk. There is a lot to be done at the present time. A defeat for Bush would create a different atmosphere in American political culture, to show it can be done. It will make people much more critical. The honeymoon period with Kerry would be much shorter than with Clinton. Whatever Kerry says, most people who vote for him, will do so because they don't like what Bush
Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs
Speaking of autism, read -- if you haven't already -- Mark Haddon's The Serious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, an outstanding first novel by a British writer with a background in working with autistic kids. Very funny and empathetic, about one such terrifically engaging 15 year old. MG - Original Message - From: Devine, James To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs I agree: as I've said before, people such as Castro and Noriega are dismissed as "crazy" by establishmentarian figures. As someone who deals with the community of parents of kids on the autistic spectrum, I'm always fighting the urge (not just by others) to diagnose various people as autistic, Asperger's, etc. without actually knowing them personally and therapeutically. (These people include Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, the fictional Napoleon Dynamite, etc.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message-From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Brian McKennaSent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:18 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugsHi all,I disagree strongly with this view. . .Mental health tags are continually used to discredit whistleblowers, Marxists, and others who challenge orthodoxy. This reproduces the dominant view that mental health questions only pertain to individuals, particularly those individuals who are not conformist in a pernicious hierarchical social order. It also reproduces the Western view that mental health applies to isolated individuals, not societies and their leaders. . .Bush on the Couch is a very important work that brings bourgeois psychoanalysts and phsycologists beyond the clinic and applies their insights to the true sources of perversion in the land.Yes, there is a danger in this. . .but the prevailing ideology of individual causation of disease and illness, captured in the dominant ideology of biomedicine is far, far worse. . .Marx and others are fair game for this analysis as well. . .Brian McKenna
Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs
Sorry. The title is The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. - Original Message - From: Devine, James To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs I agree: as I've said before, people such as Castro and Noriega are dismissed as "crazy" by establishmentarian figures. As someone who deals with the community of parents of kids on the autistic spectrum, I'm always fighting the urge (not just by others) to diagnose various people as autistic, Asperger's, etc. without actually knowing them personally and therapeutically. (These people include Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, the fictional Napoleon Dynamite, etc.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message-From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Brian McKennaSent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:18 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugsHi all,I disagree strongly with this view. . .Mental health tags are continually used to discredit whistleblowers, Marxists, and others who challenge orthodoxy. This reproduces the dominant view that mental health questions only pertain to individuals, particularly those individuals who are not conformist in a pernicious hierarchical social order. It also reproduces the Western view that mental health applies to isolated individuals, not societies and their leaders. . .Bush on the Couch is a very important work that brings bourgeois psychoanalysts and phsycologists beyond the clinic and applies their insights to the true sources of perversion in the land.Yes, there is a danger in this. . .but the prevailing ideology of individual causation of disease and illness, captured in the dominant ideology of biomedicine is far, far worse. . .Marx and others are fair game for this analysis as well. . .Brian McKenna
Re: China and socialism
The problem, unfortunately, is there has never been anything other than a scorched earth march to fully developed capitalist property relations --anywhere, ever. Therefore, the issue becomes: is such a march historically progressive, despite the human toll? Marx, of course, answered in the affirmative in relation to pre-existing modes of development. You know all this. Marx wasn't around to witness the failed experiments to leap over the capitalist stage in both China and the USSR in the 20th century. I now think he may well have repudiated these efforts, especially on seeing the outcome, and interpreted the reversion to capitalism in each instance as consistent with his theory. He was not ammoral and would have condemned the massive social cost, but the moral dimension would have been subordinate to his analysis, and I expect also that he would have seen the Stalinist interlude as an effect rather than cause of these historical developments. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] China and socialism Chris Doss wrote: For the NYT or WP, everything bad that happens in China or Russia is the result of a nefarious plot hatched in Beijing or Moscow. For the life of me I can't understand why people who would be hypersceptical over these papers' coverage of, say, Venezuela cite them as impeachable sources on other parts of the world. This comes as no surprise. You have stated publicly on LBO-Talk that censorship was not a problem in the USSR and that people could read whatever they want. You also quote liberally from the Putinite press, which fails to meet Rupert Murdoch's standards by all accounts. In fact, the Monthly Review article I was reviewing includes a bunch of tables in the appendix that confirms the NY Times report. Those tables are from reliable sources. Finally, it does not surprise me that you would take the side of the Chinese government against an investigative piece that ran in the NY Times. This appears to be part of a pattern of defending whatever Russia, India and China deem necessary in their scorched earth march to fully developed capitalist property relations. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: China and socialism
Louis Proyect wrote: I recommend that you read Theodor Shanin's Late Marx, which makes a convincing case that Marx rejected the notion of universal models of development. I haven't read Shanin's book. But reinterpreting Marx has been the fashion ever since the socialist revolution he foresaw in the heavily proletarianized industrial West did not occur, but broke out instead in primarily peasant societies outside the advanced capitalist heartlands. The claim that Marx never developed a schema whereby societies necessarily progressed from feudalism to capitalism to socialism was invoked to lend his authority to the revolutions which were carried out in the name of socialism and the working class in Russia, China and other predominantly peasant societies. For Western Marxists like Louis who still see their societies as rotten ripe for socialism -- and predicate their political behaviour on that assumption -- it can be demoralizing to acknowedge that Marx may have been a good analyst of capitalism, but wrong about its staying power. I suspect Shanin's book may belong to this genre. Lenin returned to the late Marx when he drafted the April Theses, which rejected the notion of a capitalist stage for Russia. Contemporary Russia indicates Lenin was wrong to dismiss this possibility. In fact, he was more prescient about the long term movement of Russian history before the April theses. Prior to 1917, he foresaw an extended period of capitalist development in a parliamentary democracy dominated by the workers' and peasants' parties -- encapsulated in his formula of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. Kautsky, whom Lenin admired until the former became a renegade supporter of the German war effort and critic of the Bolshevik Revolution, held a similar view. In 1917, understandably excited by the prospects of a socialist revolution in Russia and the West, Lenin called for a government based on soviets of workers and peasants rather than on a multi-class parliament, and effectively embraced Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, which called on it to construct socialism. The 70 year experiment with public ownership and a planned economy followed. What would the classical Marxists say today with the power of hindsight? Even Trotsky admitted he would be forced to revise his views if WWII did not result in the long-delayed socialist revolution in the West and the overthrow of Stalinism in the USSR. Neither Marx nor Lenin nor Trotsky ever anticipated that post-capitalist societies would revert back to capitalism, the central political development of our time. I see that you omit Cuba in this...panorama of the last 100 years. Highly revealing. Revealing of what? I still regard the Cuban Revolution as one of the most heroic episodes of our lifetime and respect and admire Fidel as much as I ever did, but to suggest that the socialist characteristics of this small island are more significant to our understanding of historical trends and Marxism than the collapse of the USSR and China and the absence of socialist revolution in the West is ridiculous. Moreover, it doesn't take into account the increasing concessions which the Cubans have reluctantly had to make to markets, petty enterprise, and the dollar. I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the next generation of Cuban leaders may take the same measures with respect to the nationalized economy, the monopoly of foreign trade, the constraints on capital flows and labour mobility etc. that have been taken in the past 15 years by their former ideological allies. Such is the pressure of the ever-widening global capitalist economy. Might I suggest that instead of referring me to academic works by others and implying I am a Kautskyite enemy of Cuba, it would be better to identify the precise formulations of mine to which you object, and for what reasons. Marv Gandall
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: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
Louis Proyect wrote: Unfortunately, knowing that Kerry is inimical to the interests of working people does not stop the bureaucracy from backing the DP. --- This raises the question of the relationship between the labour base and the labour bureaucracy. The conventional wisdom on the left, expressed by Proyect, is that there is a sharp separation between the two, with the bureacracy seen as an alien force which has imposed an alien program on the unions. In fact, the local and national labour full-timers I've met have seemed a lot less alien to the working class than left-wing intellectuals who regularly denounce them. For the most part, with the exception perhaps of the research, legal, and communications departments, they've risen organically from within the working class -- elected or appointed to union positions after having been rank-and-file activists and strike leaders. Sure, some have been corrupted and have literally sold out their members in exhange for a few perks from management and many betray the same social prejudices as their members, but in most cases the conservatism of union leaders usually stems from an often quite realistic assessment of the balance of forces between their organizations and the employers, rather than any inherent venality or spinelessness. Their compromises and retreats are not infrequently reluctant and in contradiction to their original intent to engage in confrontation. In most cases, they are able to win the support of their members at ratification and other meetings because they reflect the cautious mood and instincts of their base, and they often do this in debate with more militant oppositionists who are present in every major local. Kerry and the DP and labour leaderships are inimical to the interests of working people, if you solely define their interests, as Proyect and other disaffected intellectuals seem to, in terms of the overthrow of capitalism, and see the workers' continued support for the system and the pro-capitalist parties as a product of false consciousness rather than the (historically unexpected) material improvement in their working and living conditions. Within this context, the workers, especially those in trade unions, perceive the Democrats, with some reason, as more sympathetic to the Republicans in terms of collective bargaining rights, minimum wage and employment standards, unemployment relief, social programs, and other economic and social issues of concern to them. Left intellectuals, whose living conditions and interests may be very different, may not think this counts for much and that the Democrats are only only marginally better than the Republicans in terms of the big picture, but to workers struggling to maintain their living standards, these issues are of more than marginal importance, and it is their own experience of the two parties -- as much as the exhortations of the union leaders -- which explains their stubborn refusal to buy the argument that the Democrats are inimical to the interests of working people. I think there will first have to be a major change in the way most people, especially in the cities, experience the system and the two parties for them to even begin to entertain that notion. Marv Gandall
Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
Charles Brown wrote: by Marvin Gandall -clip- -- which explains their stubborn refusal to buy the argument that the Democrats are inimical to the interests of working people. I think there will first have to be a major change in the way most people, especially in the cities, experience the system and the two parties for them to even begin to entertain that notion. ^ This might be true, but how would we explain so many working people voting for Republicans ? Charles --- The US consists mostly of working people, and the two parties are almost equally divided within the voting electorate. So one would expect to see working people forming the base of the major parties. I think this is now true of all capitalist democracies. Most union households are for the Democrats as they are for the social-democrats abroad. But union density in the US is smaller and has been declining steadily. That would explain the lesser weight of the unions in the DP than in the social democratic parties, although this gap can be exaggerated. Women and minorities are the other pillars on which the DP is built. I'm not surprised so many white male workers have crossed to the Republicans in the past three decades, in reaction to the rise of the black, women's, anti(Vietnam)war, and gay movements. The Republicans, as the natural repository for these racist, sexist, chauvinist, and homophobic sentiments were quick to exploit this reactionary fear and insecurity. Workers in the more rural and largely non-union Southern and Midwestern parts of the country increasingly came to identify the cities with these movements, with decadence, liberalism, unions, and the Democratic party. It may be also that, in a long period of stagnating or falling real wages, the Republican mantra of lower taxes also resonated with the least union-conscious and educated part of the American working class, the part most vulnerable to Republican demagogey that most government spending was being directed at black and Hispanic welfare cheats in the inner cities. Finally, I think there is some validity to the criticism that the Democrats have failed to sufficiently differentiate themselves from the Republicans, but I don't think this is the primary reason for the political division in the US working class. I think the underlying social and economic developments alluded to above have been more decisive, and the Democratic leadership has been adapting to rather than leading the corresponding shift to the right of white male workers. Marv Gandall
Re: An emerging labor-led left in the DP?
I appreciate Michael's intent to keep order, although I didn't especially mind your barb; I've seen you much less restrained. But I don't understand your angry reply. Why is it ok for you to call me a trade union functionary for 25 years (actually 20, I was previously a steward in the Steelworkers and an SEIU organizer) and then take umbrage at my including you within the intelligensia? I didn't mean this latter to be insulting but descriptive, incidentally; I was a doctoral student before going into industry, so that could describe my background equally well. For certain, my experience negotiating and administering contracts and contact with trade unionists at all levels has been critical in shaping my views. Why do you suppose your immersion in the New York left intellectual milieu has not had a similar effect on your own, but so what? I take that into account in weighing your contributions, but still think your arguments have to be dealt with on their merits. I trust you feel the same way. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] An emerging labor-led left in the DP? Michael Perelman wrote: There is no need to get personal! Well, I was highly insulted by all that stuff about intellectuals. How dare anybody refer to me in those terms. If he was not referring to me, then all is forgiven. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Yoshie wrote: Unions as organized entities (as opposed to factions of activists in them) will be *the last* to join any third-party movement on the left that has an actual potential to grow powerful (that is, if they will ever join any such thing en masse at all -- very improbable), for most union leaders have so many things to lose and a precious few things to gain from such a movement's challenge to the Democratic Party. - I think mass disastifaction with the Democrats and interest in the Greens or another third party, if it were to occur, would be a more uneven and unpredictable process than you suggest. Political divisions would concurrently appear in all organizations, and it is impossible to predict which sectors would move faster than others, or that the unions are fated to be last. The political differences at the activist level which you identity would also be reflected at the top, as was the case when Marxists were battling social democrats for leadership of the industrial unions in the 30's and 40' s, and you and your colleagues would, I'm sure, be concentrated on wooing Green-minded local and national union leaders. Your frustration with the unions is characteristic of the US left, and is a product of the AFL-CIO's conservative cast and political immobility relative to the history of other labour organizations around the world. However, I think you'd agree that this in turn is related to the relative stability of US capitalism, and that if that changed, so too would the American labour movement from bottom to top. Finally, it seems Carrol has gone anarchist on us: I think Yoshie has gotten a bit too wrapped up in the Greens (in the 2004 election). We cannot know the form that socialist activity will take in the future, but we can be fairly certain that it will not be electoral and will involve mass resistance to imperialist policies. Arguments against the Greens are equally arguments against paying any attention at all to elections at any level. Marv Gandall
Re: Housing prices
It may be the case that nominal house prices have rarely if ever fallen since WW II, but I would doubt their annual average percentage increase over this period exceeds the capital gain on stocks and certain classes of bonds, particularly when the carrying cost of this type of investment is factored in. We bought our house in Ottawa 20 years ago, and its value has risen steadily in tandem with the city's growth as a high-tech centre, but I still calculate the average annual price increase in our home at about 5-6% over that period, excluding maintenance, taxes, and interest charges. This includes the sharp increase in house values over the past few years when the stock market turned down from its peak in 2000. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Daniel Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 6:47 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Housing prices it's only happened once in the UK since the war. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Pollak Sent: 23 July 2004 03:12 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Housing prices I recently read that nominal housing prices have never declined in the US since WWII. Real prices have declined three times, durind the mid and late seventies and the early 90s, but nominal prices never. Is that really true? It makes it look as if people who think they're ever-rising, rather than being delusive, have quite a track record -- you have to be a wonk to have noticed any falls ever, and even those have been short and fleeting. If it is true, is there any non-bubble-headed explanation for it? And how come it's true here but not in the UK? Michael
Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece
Don't you think it will be necessary for the Greens to win a number of congressional seats before they can be seen as a potential alternative to the Democrats by the unions and social movements, and a durable third party in the country as a whole? After all, electoral politics in a capitalist democracy, whether of the presidential or parliamentary kind, ultimately turns on which parties of the left and right can respectively advance the competing agendas of the social movements and business lobbies, and the legislative arena is where this contest centrally unfolds. So you have to have representatives there who can work with the leaders of the mass organizations to help them implement their legislative programs so far as political circumstances permit. This was the route followed by the early labour and socialist parties in continental Europe and the English-speaking countries. The Democrats, of course, currently have a monopoly on this kind of contact in the US. It seems to me Nader's campaigns draw a lot of national attention, but are ephemeral propaganda exercises which don't sink lasting political roots. Green mayoralty campaigns can build local party organizations, but their influence by definition is limited. What kind of emphasis do the US Greens give to winning seats in state legislatures and Congress, and what kind of results have they had to date at this level? Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Frank op-ed piece Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Even if the Green Party were to succeed in electing Green mayors in all cities in the United States, for instance, an impact of such a dramatic change in local politics on US foreign policy won't be even minimalist -- it will be practically zero. Not necessarily. One can't judge that _If_ as though in a laboratory where one element changes while all other elements remain constant. The conditions under which the GP could elect mayors in several hundred substantial (150k+ population) cities around the u.s. would be conditions which could not occur without profound reverberations elsewhere from the activities which brought about the electoral victories. You and I have both complained about those comments on revolution which presuppose that revolutionary action would occur with all other conditions (as now experienced) remaining constant. (E.g. someone once asked the silly question of how we could ask the working class to risk everything for overthrow of capitalism, when of course we would never ask that but conditions, now unpredictable and undescribable -- perhaps of rising expectations, perhaps of utter chaos, perhaps of something we cannot describe now--would do the asking.) I tend to agree that the local politics route to national power is illusional, but in considering it we can't consider it in a vacuum. The mass assault on u.s. foreign policy which is needed can't demonstrate in D.C. every week (this is a caricature but take it as a gesture towards a more complex reality), and the energies recruited and ultimately aimed towards national impact could well be (partly) nourished and enhanced through local political initiatives, including perhaps the election of mayors or (perhaps though I doubt it) even through contesting for power in local DP organizations. Carrol
Re: Of Rumps and Dumps
Sartesian wrote: Somebody out there thinks the ruling class has dumped George Bush? Check out: http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/documents/RP_Ind_060204.pdf Check the whole site at: http://www.whitehouseforsale.org And this: Wall Street firms funnel millions to Bush By Thomas B. Edsall and Jonathan Weisman Washington Post May 24 2004 At Merrill Lynch Co. Inc., a suggestion from chief executive E. Stanley O'Neal is not to be taken lightly. O'Neal eliminated 24,000 jobs, froze pay and steadily pushed out competitors for executive power, including colleagues who had championed his rise up the corporate ladder. Ruthless, O'Neal has reportedly told colleagues, isn't always bad. So it came as no surprise that when O'Neal sent letters to senior executives at Merrill Lynch in early June asking them to contribute to President Bush's reelection campaign, the response was prompt and generous. Between June 12 and June 30 of last year, the Bush-Cheney campaign was inundated with 157 checks from Merrill Lynch executives and at least 20 from their spouses; 140 checks were for the maximum allowed by law: $2,000. Total take generated by the O'Neal letter: $279,750 in less than three weeks. When that total is combined with the rest of the money contributed to Bush by employees during the current election cycle, Merrill Lynch personnel have given $459,050, according to Dwight Morris Associates, which studies political money. The money flowing from Merrill Lynch employees is part of a $12.14 million tidal wave of cash to the Bush campaign from the finance and insurance sectors. Wall Street has stepped up to the plate in support of Bush, and Bush has sponsored legislation producing billions of dollars in revenue on Wall Street. Capital gains and dividend tax cuts have encouraged substantial asset shifting by investors -- transactions producing commissions for securities firms. In addition, in 2001, Bush secured a gradual repeal of the estate tax, allowing the accumulation of investment wealth without fear of large tax liability for heirs. The 10-year revenue loss from the elimination of the estate tax will be $133.2 billion, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. The revenue losses from the dividend and capital gains cuts will be $125.3 billion through 2010, according to the committee. In addition, the administration has proposed creation of tax-free Lifetime Savings Accounts that, if approved, would result in a major shift from savings accounts to investment accounts managed by Wall Street companies. O'Neal is one of nine Wall Street Rangers -- each one has raised at least $200,000 for the Bush campaign. In addition, five other executives of prominent securities firms have raised at least $100,000 each to qualify as Bush Pioneers. The O'Neal-generated cash is a record for such a short time period, according to Morris and other campaign finance experts. O'Neal's success, however, represents only a small fraction of an unprecedented drive by top Wall Street firms in support of the president. When employers of contributors to the Bush campaign are ranked, seven out of the top 10 are major securities firms. Employees of Morgan Stanley Co. Inc. have contributed the most of any single company to Bush: $505,675. Asked why so many of the top 10 employers of contributors are Wall Street securities firms, Scott Stanzel, spokesman for the Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign, said, We are proud that we have over 1 million donors to the Bush-Cheney campaign representing every county in every state in this nation. Altogether, personnel at these seven top 10 firms have given Bush $2.33 million, or a fifth of the $12.14 million from employees of the finance and insurance sector that has flowed to Bush this election cycle. By comparison, the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), has raised $472,564 from employees of the same seven firms, and the entire finance and insurance sector has given Kerry $2.7 million. Many of the Wall Street Rangers and Pioneers are, like O'Neal, chairmen and CEOs -- top executives who rarely engage in the mundane work of political fundraising. This year, the Wall Street Rangers include Philip J. Purcell, CEO of Morgan Stanley; Joseph J. Grano Jr., chairman of UBS Financial Services Inc.; Henry M. Paulson Jr., chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs Co.; and John J. Mack, CEO of Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. None of them tried to become a Pioneer for the Bush campaign in 2000. Spokesmen for the firms that replied to inquiries about the contribution patterns denied that the money was related to Bush tax policies. Mark Herr, of Merrill Lynch, said, The simple facts are these: Mr. O'Neal wrote a letter to executives and asked them if they wanted to contribute to the president. He also made it clear that no one was obliged to do so. In a prepared statement, UBS Financial Services said employee contributions
Re: Of Rumps and Dumps
I largely agree with you, although I think you can find historical instances where the ruling class adjudges some degree of change necessary to act as a safety valve releasing mass pressures which threaten to overwhelm the system. The New Deal comes to mind in a period which saw the rapid growth internationally of the left. Of course, where a ruling class feels it has no room for concessions, as in tapped-out Italy, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe at the time, the move is mostly in the other direction. As you note, there's never perfect unanimity, and the reform/repression options are always up for debate. Some on the left, including on this list, imagine that the US corporate and political establishment is currently faced with this choice -- ie. either a move towards greater repression under the Republicans, or a prophylactic move to dump them in favour of the Democrats to siphon off popular discontent. Bit what popular unrest do they see which would provoke this kind of reaction? There's a good deal of disillusionment about Iraq and the persistent disgruntlement about capitalist inequality and hardships, but there is no organized left of any consequence in the US -- inside or outside the DP -- which would have the ruling class contemplating extraordinary measures. If the Nader/Camejo ticket were to surprise, it would sit up and register the change in temperature, but I doubt it would start to panic just yet. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Of Rumps and Dumps I haven't read this thread carefully, so I hope I'm not repeating anything. The ruling class almost never acts as a unified force that dumps someonw. However, I can imagine that sections of the ruling calss could turn against Bush. More importantly, the whole election process is set up in a way that filters out the anti-capitalist candidates. In the end, the differences within the ruling class can be settled by letting the people decide, where of course the people don't have much choice and are highly influenced by campaign ads, the media, etc. The election then has the side-effect of helping to legitimate the system.
BW: Pleading poverty over pensions
The cover story of the same issue of Business Week describes the massive effort being undertaken by US corporations to divest themselves of their pension obligations to their employees and retirees. Most of the attacks are aimed at the defined-benefit plans negotiated by once-strong unions in the auto, steel, rubber, textile, and airline industries. Unionized employers everywhere are demanding concessions from their workers on grounds they can t compete with new entrants whose unorganized workforces are covered by inferior defined-contribution plans like the 401ks. Insolvent firms like United Airlines and Bethlehem Steel have dumped their pension obligations onto the governments Pension Benefits Guaranty Corp, which then savagely marks down the future payout to employees. Profitable companies like IBM and General Motors have used the threat of lower-cost competition to cap defined benefits for workers, eliminate them for new hires, and roll back health coverage for retirees. The article also describes Congressional assent for the habitual manipulation of interest rate and other economic projections by companies to demonstrate actuarial shortfalls in their plans. -- The Benefits Trap By Nanette Byrnes Business Week JULY 19, 2004 Old-line companies have pledged a trillion dollars to retirees. Now they're struggling to compete with new rivals, and many can't pay the bill. June 28 was the day hope ran out for United Airlines' 35,000 retirees. That was the day the government announced it would not guarantee the bankrupt airline's loans -- virtually assuring that if UAL Corp., (UALAQ ) the airline's parent, is to remain in business it will have to chop away at expensive pension and retiree medical benefits. The numbers are daunting. UAL owes $598 million in pension payments between now and Oct. 15, and a total of $4.1 billion by the end of 2008, plus an additional $1 billion for retiree health-care benefits, obligations the ailing airline can't begin to meet. And if United finds a way to get out of its promises, competitors American Airlines (AMR ), Delta Air Lines (DAL ), and Northwest Airlines (NWAC ) are sure to try to as well. UAL workers are about to find out what other airline employees already know: The cost of broken retirement promises can be steep. Captain Tim Baker, a 19-year veteran of US Airways Inc. (UAIR ), was one of several union representatives sorting through that airline's complicated bankruptcy negotiations in March, 2003. Of the airline's many crises, the biggest was the pilots' pension plan, a sinkhole of unfunded liabilities. Baker reluctantly agreed to back US Airways' proposal to dump the pension plan on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC), the government agency that is the insurer of last resort for hopelessly broken plans. It's a move that practically guarantees that retirees will receive less than they were promised, in some cases less than 50 cents on the dollar. But of a raft of bad options, it seemed the only one that could keep the company afloat. It was the pension underfunding and its future requirements that were going to put in jeopardy the airline's ability to get out of bankruptcy, says Baker. At some point you have to look around and say that is all there is. Baker has paid dearly for that decision. He was voted out of his union position by angry fellow pilots and instead of the six-figure annual pension he was promised, when he retires in 15 years he'll get just $28,585 a year from the PBGC, plus whatever he can save in his 401(k). Stories like Baker's are becoming dreadfully common as employers faced with mounting retiree costs look to get out from under. It's not just troubled industries like airlines that are abandoning their role as retirement sponsors to America's workers, either. The escalating cost of retirement plans is a critical issue at a range of long-established companies from Boeing (BA ) to Ford Motor (F ) to IBM (IBM ), many of which compete against younger companies with little or nothing in retiree costs. As employers abandon ever-more-costly traditional retirement plans, the burden is falling on individuals and taxpayers. Why are retirees being left out in the cold? An unsavory brew of factors have come together to put stress on the retirement system like never before. First, there's the simple fact that Americans are living longer in retirement, and that costs more. Next come internal corporate issues, including soaring health-care costs and long-term underfunding of pension promises. Perhaps most important, in the global economy, long-established U.S. companies are competing against younger rivals here and abroad that pay little or nothing toward their workers' retirement, giving the older companies a huge incentive to dump their plans. The house isn't burning now, but we will have a crisis soon if some of these issues aren't fixed, says Steven A. Kandarian, who ended a two-year stint as
BW: Timid fat cats
The July 19th issue of Business Week reports that US corporations, stuffed with record profits, remain reluctant to invest their mountains of cash, which might be interpreted as a vote of non-confidence in the durability of the current recovery. Inventories are at a record low and the pace of capital spending hasnt lagged this far behind economic growth since the mid-70s. Instead, the magazine reports corporations are parking their cash in the equivalent of money-market funds, suggesting they remain traumatized by memories of the last recession, terrorist attacks, and financial scandals. Corporate hesitance, however. is owing more to economics than psychology. The massive buildup of cash reserves points to the lack of opportunities in an economy still plagued by overcapacity following the investment binge of the 90s, Balance sheets have been restored to profitability by deep cuts in labour and capital costs rather than through expansion. Wall Street is becoming concerned about the effect of anemic corporate spending on economic growth, but is meantime pressing for a slice of the profits to be passed on to investors through share buybacks and dividends. Corporate Coffers Are Stuffed With Dough By William C. Symonds Business Week JULY 19, 2004 Profits are up, but battle-scarred companies keep loading up on cash. Will their caution hurt the economy? Blessed with a lock on its markets, Microsoft Corp. (MSFT ) is one of the greatest cash machines ever created. At the end of March, it had $56.4 billion of cash on its books. And that figure could swell to nearly $60 billion when it reports its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings on July 22. That may be too much for even Microsoft's conservative chairman, William H. Gates III. With its long-running antitrust troubles finally winding down, Microsoft is expected to announce by the end of July a share buyback that some suspect could be as high as $40 billion. When it comes to its corporate piggy bank, Microsoft is in a league of its own. But many other companies, flush with soaring profits, are also facing an embarrassment of riches. At the end of the first quarter, the 374 industrial companies in the Standard Poor's (MHP ) 500-stock index collectively were sitting on $555.6 billion of cash and short-term investments. That's up some $56 billion, or 11%, since the end of 2003, and more than double what they had at the end of 1999. This growing money pile could spell either opportunity or trouble for the economy and investors, depending on what companies decide to do. With the rise in consumer spending slowing, the economy needs companies to start tossing some of those big bucks around to keep momentum from flagging. That could happen as CEOs' moods brighten. The Conference Board reported July 7 that more than 90% of chief executives in its latest quarterly poll say the economy has improved. If the corporate dollars start flowing, there is yet another shoe to drop in the expansion, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently told the Senate Banking Committee. But, so far at least, instead of putting all this firepower to work -- by pumping up capital budgets, upping the pace of hiring, restocking inventories, or passing out bigger dividends -- companies are keeping much of their powder dry. Rather than taking a risk, many would rather park their cash in the equivalent of money-market funds -- never mind that they're often earning a puny 1% return. The mood is one of continued caution and disciplined spending in the business sector, concluded a number of members of the Fed's policymaking Open Market Committee at its May 4 meeting. That caution, adds Sung Won Sohn, Wells Fargo Co.'s (WFC ) chief economist, is holding back economic growth. Why aren't companies spending more? Blame it on the series of events that knocked them for a loop over the past few years: recession, terrorist attacks, financial scandals. After getting pummeled, companies slashed expenditures and set out to boost their reserves. Now, with the economy rebounding, this budgetary discipline is generating a huge surge in earnings. Collective earnings for the SP 500 reached a record annual pace of $481.7 billion in the first quarter, and equity analysts predict the record will be smashed as second-quarter earnings are reported in the coming weeks. So far, though, companies have been unusually tightfisted with their new-won wealth. Take capital spending. To be sure, it is rising. But since the start of 2003, it has lagged far behind surging cash flows, something that hasn't happened since the mid-'70s. Similarly, companies aren't restocking their shelves anywhere near fast enough to keep pace with sales. That drove the ratio of inventories to sales to a record low of 1.3 in April. And after a hiring binge in early spring, employers pulled back and added just 112,000 jobs in June, less than half the 250,000 that had been
The different domestic agendas of Tweedledum and Tweedledee
(An interesting recent piece by the NYTs Louis Uchitelle on the differing domestic programmes of the Republicans and Democrats. Their respective positions on health care, labour rights, tax policy, trade, and pensions mirror the same differences which divide social democratic and conservative parties in the English-speaking world, continental Europe, and elsewhere. Of course, we've learned to take the promises of the centre-left Democrats and their companion social democratic parties with a large bucket of salt because they are mostly unable to deliver on them. This is primarily because the conservative party, as at present in the US, either controls the legislature or, ultimately and more decisively, because there always looms beyond that the threat of a capital strike by the markets if there is a serious effort at reform. That's the likely fate of Kerry's health care promise -- the jewel of his economic plan -- as was the case earlier under Clinton. It's only when there there is countervailing pressure from below during periods of systemic instability that the possibility of a different outcome presents itself, and the subjective factors presently much emphasized by the left, like the quality of leadership, come into play.) --- It's the Economy, Right? Guess Again By Louis Uchitelle New York Times July 4, 2004 Through months of campaigning, Senator John Kerry has presented himself as a centrist on economic policy, a New Democrat directly out of the Clinton mold. He has pledged to cut the deficit, move the country toward budget surpluses and recreate the booming economy of the Clinton years. As if to underscore the point, he has recruited most of his economic advisers from the former president's administration. But centrism is an easier position to maintain when the economy is in trouble, as it seemed to be in the early days of the campaign. Back then, Mr. Kerry could convincingly denounce President Bush as a miserable manager of the American economy. That argument is harder to make now that a stronger economy has been generating jobs, although at a slower rate in June. So Mr. Kerry is talking more boldly about policy. Of course, the centrism still comes through loud and clear in speeches and in interviews. But in the heat of the policy debate, deficit reduction appears to be taking a back seat to what is easily Mr. Kerry's most significant economic proposal: an expensive expansion of government-financed health insurance. He says he would subsidize health insurance for millions of people not covered now. That is the jewel of his economic plan. An omnibus health insurance bill would be the first legislation sent to Congress in a Kerry presidency, he says. But while the centrist Kerry still advocates shrinking the budget deficit, a bolder Kerry, less noticeable so far in the campaign rhetoric, adds that if the deficit threatens to rise rather than fall, well, so be it - he'll go ahead with his health plan anyway. Health care is sacrosanct, Mr. Kerry said in a telephone interview, offering the most explicit commitment to date to a program that he estimates would cost $650 billion. That is an amount greater than the cost of all his other economic proposals combined. Listen, he said, if worse comes to worst, you make adjustments accordingly in other priorities. And not in health care? Mr. Kerry says that he will not have to face that choice, and that in his overall economic plan there is leeway for deficit reduction and expanded, subsidized health insurance. But if a choice has to be made, deficit reduction will have less priority. Health care is too important, he said. For Mr. Kerry, who has promised to cut the budget deficit in half in four years as president, sticking his neck out on subsidized health insurance seems a shrewd shift in tactics, if not a defensive one. That is because it is tougher to blame President Bush for a bad economy when the economy has improved. Once he could charge that the president was presiding over more than two million lost jobs and would become the first president since Hoover to end his term with fewer Americans at work than when he took office. Now the odds are rising that the president may squeak through with as many jobs at the end of his term as at the start, or almost as many. JOB creation began to surge in February, just as Mr. Kerry was pushing the Hoover comparison in the early primaries. As of Friday, when the Labor Department announced employment numbers for June, the cumulative job loss since Mr. Bush took office in January 2001 was down to 1.1 million, less than half of the 2.6 million jobs that had disappeared as of last August, when employment finally began to turn up, slowly at first and then more rapidly. In response, Mr. Kerry has switched his emphasis to job quality from jobs lost - specifically, to the harder to demonstrate but apparently accurate claim that the new jobs pay less, on balance, than the ones that
The US's inevitable dictator
(It was bound to come to this - something which always eludes liberal imperialists like George Ignatieff and Thomas Friedman, seduced by the promise that US intervention abroad, however messy, will yield democratic results. The Pentagons widely discredited choice for strongman, Ahmed Chalabi, was forced to give way, so to the CIAs nominee, Iyad Allawi, was the only possible alternative. Now the repression-with-an-Iraqi-face will begin in earnest. What Allawi would seem to have going for him is the understandable longing for stability and orderly development by the mass of the Iraqi population. But, like Chalabi, he is an exile who hasnt a base, unlike most dictators who emerge from the armed forces or a mass fascist movement, and, as the article indicates, he will face formidable opposition from both from the anti-occupation resistance forces and from Shia and other rivals within the US-appointed puppet administration.) --- A Tough Guy Tries to Tame Iraq By Dexter Filkins New York Times July 11, 2004 BAGHDAD, Iraq Throughout this war-ravaged land, where facts are hard to come by, rumor and innuendo can often serve as the most reliable measure of the Iraqi mood. Consider the lurid tale about Iyad Allawi, the new Iraqi prime minister, that made the rounds in the Iraqi capital last week. Late one night before taking power, the story went, Mr. Allawi was not to be found cramming for his new job but instead was in the innards of a Baghdad prison, overseeing the interrogation of a cabal of Lebanese terrorists. No one was talking. Bring me an ax, the prime minister is said to have announced. With that, the story went, Mr. Allawi lopped off the hand of one the Lebanese men, and the group quickly spilled everything they knew. The tale passed from ear to ear, much like the rumors blaming the Americans for the many explosions that mar the capital. But in this case, the remarkable thing was that the story about Mr. Allawi was not greeted with expressions of horror or malice, but with nods and smiles. After months of terror and anarchy here, many Iraqis are only too happy to believe that their new prime minister is a tough guy who is on their side. Mr. Allawi's hard-nosed reputation, even the unearned parts, is indicative of the unusual ways in which the country's interim government, which took over on June 28, appears to be acquiring a measure of legitimacy among the Iraqi people. Unelected, headed by an exile and chosen largely by diplomats from the United States and the United Nations, the new Iraqi government nonetheless appears to be enjoying something of a honeymoon, even as Mr. Allawi has quickly embarked on a series of sweeping and potentially draconian measures aimed at quelling the guerrilla insurgency. Yet Mr. Allawi also faces a conundrum in the coming months: as he tries to assert Iraqi control and bring a degree of order to this country, thereby gaining the gratitude of many Iraqis, he will risk alienating the very group, the country's Sunni Arab minority, from which an overwhelming majority of the violence here has been generated. Among Iraq's three major groups, it is the Sunni Arabs who are still most broadly resisting the American-sponsored framework that is designed to lead the country toward democratic rule next year. Iraq's Shiites, the country's largest group, are hungry for elections that promise them their first real shot at political power. The Kurds, America's closest friends, seem to be planning to hunker down and watch events from their stronghold in the north. Without the support of the Sunni Arabs, a minority that has dominated the country for five centuries, it seems unlikely that Mr. Allawi will make much headway in bringing a measure of stability in time to hand over power to a democratically elected government next year. Indeed, without some success in winning over the towns and villages of the Sunni Triangle, the area north and west of Baghdad where the insurgency is still churning, it is conceivable that the nationwide elections scheduled to be held by January might have to be postponed or even forgone in significant parts of the country. In some ways, Mr. Allawi seems to be the perfect man, under the circumstances, to bring this fractious country together. As a Shiite, he is a member of the country's largest group, and although he is thought to be a largely secular man, his ascension to the post of prime minister was not opposed by Iraq's most powerful religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Mr. Allawi is known for his decade of work in trying to topple Mr. Hussein, but he is a former Baathist himself, with suggestions among those who regard him with suspicion that he once engaged in thuggish work on the party's behalf. That tough-guy past, even his former association with the Central Intelligence Agency, seems to warm the hearts of many Iraqis who miss Mr. Hussein's iron-fisted ways. That Allawi worked for the C.I.A. may be a
Correction
Sorry. Michael Ignatieff. George was his dad, a Canadian diplomat.
The housing bubble
(Despite widespread speculation that the turn in the interest rate cycle will burst the housing bubble in the US and elsewhere, precipitating a wider financial and social crisis, early indications are that housing markets will soften and stagnate rather than collapse, according to a report in todays Financial Times. Analysts say interest rates would have to go a lot higher, and purchasing power decline a lot further for that to happen, even though the gap between house prices and income is at its widest point since the previous housing market boom turned to bust in the late 1980s. This time, the central banks are counting on revived growth -- absent in the late 80s -- to keep enough homeowners solvent and enough homebuyers in the market to cushion the effect of gradually rising rates, allowing the bubble to deflate slowly. Goldman Sachs estimates the US, British, and Australian housing markets are currently overvalued by 10, 15 and 29 percent respectively.) Will rising rates bring correction or collapse? By Henry Tricks, Virginia Marsh and Christopher Grimes Financial Times July 7 2004 David Salvi set up his estate agency, Hurford Salvi Carr, eight years ago in one of London's property sweet spots: amid the converted warehouses and lofts stretching from the capital's traditional financial district, the City, to its new one, Canary Wharf. In that time, property prices in his area have soared as much as 175 per cent - far more than the national average. Yet most of the increase occurred during the first five years he was in business. Mr Salvi says he has not experienced boom conditions since 2000, at the height of the stock market bubble: while there have been minor fluctuations, average home prices in his patch are little changed since just before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the US. For that reason, Mr Salvi cursed when Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, warned last month that the risk of a fall in house prices had increased. It was overkill. We lost five deals that Monday as a result, he said. In his opinion, the market in which he works had already experienced the soft landing that Mr King was trying to engineer. Nationally, however, UK prices were rising at rates of 20 per cent or more a year. Across the western world, homeowners and estate agents such as Mr Salvi are bracing themselves for more of such this sort of central bank intervention as the global interest rate cycle turns, partly in a bid to cool overheated housing markets and excessive borrowing. But in all countries, pockets of blistering hot-house prices sit alongside cooler spots such as Mr Salvi's Docklands. That complicates the task of central bankers trying to engineer a correction without causing a collapse. Evidence so far suggests that housing markets where rates have risen are slowing gently, rather than suffering from panic selling. That is good news for policymakers worried about what a sharp jolt to confidence could do to their over-leveraged economies. Whether this sense of calm persists depends on how high rates are expected to rise. In Australia, two interest rate rises in quick succession last year appear to have cooled house price inflation in Sydney and Melbourne, its two biggest cities. In the UK, the first quarter of the year saw feverish price rises, especially in the less affluent north of England. But after a rise of 100 basis points in interest rates since November, and especially following Mr King's warnings, many estate agents report slackening home sales and falling asking prices. Mortgage lenders have also seen signs of a slowdown in June. The evidence in Britain to say this is the long-awaited correction, however, is still inconclusive - indicators of activity have fluctuated wildly for several years and there have been several false peaks. Most recently, the US's quarter-point rate rise last week to 1.25 per cent was the first in four years. But the expectation of higher rates had led to a flurry of homebuying in the first half of the year to catch the best mortgage deals before borrowing costs rose. In New York, one of the hottest markets, the average price of a Manhattan apartment touched almost $1m this spring. Given the pace of global house price growth recently, few would dispute that properties in many countries are to some extent overvalued. In a recent research paper, Goldman Sachs, the investment bank, warned that the US, UK and Australian housing markets were overvalued by 10, 15 and 29 per cent respectively, after prices had risen by 37, 96 and 82 per cent in real terms since the mid-1990s. It said all three markets were at risk from higher rates. The European Central Bank has not yet raised interest rates in the eurozone, but there too, house prices have rocketed in many countries. Cheap credit has underpinned housing booms in Spain and Ireland, partly because mortgage rates are flexible, and even lacklustre economies such as those
Distinguishing between Tweedledum and Tweedledee
(Or: are the 5 just misguided leadership dupes?) Really Laboring To Beat Bush The nation's largest union will shell out $65 million to campaign against the reelection of President George Bush. On June 23, the 1.6 million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU) announced at its annual convention that $40 million will go to pay for 2,000 union members to work full-time as political organizers until November. Thousands of union members volunteer in every national political election -- the SEIU expects 50,000 members will do so by the fall -- but most do it nights and weekends and only take off a few days or a week right before the vote. The rest of the money will go to more traditional activities, such as registering members to vote and educating them about campaign issues. The union's anti-Bush war chest is a huge sum, given that the AFL-CIO will spend only $44 million. SEIU President Andy Stern's ambitious plan will give a big boost to likely Democratic nominee John Kerry, whom the union endorsed -- but only after first supporting former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. We're going to build the strongest grassroots political voice in North America, Stern told his members. Well, if money talks... (Business Week, July 12, 2004)
Business on Edwards
(How business intends to go after Edwards as a trial lawyer, from todays WSJ. Ignore the unintentional humour about the Chamber of Commerces traditional stance of political neutrality. Advice to the Democrats on how to blunt the thrust of Republican criticism by making Edwards the standardbearer for business attacks on class action suits) Business Elite Vows To Take On Kerry If He Taps Edwards By Alan Murray Wall Street Journal July 6, 2004 Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has made a public vow: If John Edwards is chosen as John Kerry's running mate, the chamber will abandon its traditional stance of neutrality in the presidential race and work feverishly to defeat the Democratic ticket. We'd get the best people and the greatest assets we can rally to the cause, he says. Other business leaders in Washington have been less public and less precise, but no less passionate. Reviewing the candidates in the Democratic primaries earlier this year, a Fortune 100 chief executive who is active in Washington told me that Mr. Edwards, the North Carolina senator, is the one we fear the most -- more than John Kerry, more than Dick Gephardt, more than Howard Dean. None of this is personal. These businessmen barely know Sen. Edwards and would probably find him a far more engaging dinner companion than most of his fellow Democrats -- Sen. Kerry included. Nor is it completely rational. Mr. Edwards's political and policy views are more moderate -- and more in line with business -- than those of Gov. Dean, Rep. Gephardt or even Sen. Kerry. But Mr. Edwards is a trial lawyer. His campaign for the presidency was financed by trial lawyers. And there is nothing that makes America's CEOs see red these days like America's trial lawyers. It's visceral, says one person who works with a group of chief executives. You can feel it in a room. The nation's top executives view the plaintiff's bar as modern-day mobsters, shaking down corporations by bringing endless lawsuits that are too costly and too dangerous to litigate and that result in settlements costing billions to the corporate bottom line. The antipathy, while not new, has never been greater. This is not a personal issue and it is not a party issue, says Mr. Donohue. It is not about getting Bush or Kerry elected. It is about something so fundamental to what we do here at the chamber that we can't walk away from it. Should Democrats care? After all, big business is hardly their natural constituency. The Chamber of Commerce will never be a hotbed of Democratic support. And the number of chief executives in the elite Business Roundtable who will vote for Sen. Kerry, regardless of his running mate, can be counted on Fannie Mae CEO Frank Raines's right hand -- with digits to spare. But party wisdom that's been passed down by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Robert Strauss, and now resides with Democratic economic guru Robert Rubin, is that big business does matter to Democrats. To be successful, a Democratic presidential candidate doesn't need the active support of America's CEOs, but he does need to keep them on the sidelines. Jimmy Carter lost his bid for re-election at least in part because business was determined to dump him. Bill Clinton won election and re-election at least in part because the business community, while not strongly supportive, wasn't threatened by him. Sen. Kerry has accepted this wisdom and has worked since the end of the primary season to moderate the way he's viewed by business. The harsh talk of Benedict Arnold corporations and CEOs that send jobs and profits overseas -- a standard line in his stump speech back in January and February -- is gone. Instead, he talks coolly of eliminating tax breaks that encourage companies to send jobs outside the U.S. With Mr. Rubin at his side, he met with the leaders of the Business Roundtable. While there were no apparent converts, he did put the group at ease. A decision now by Sen. Kerry to make Sen. Edwards his running mate would end that ease, and Sen. Kerry's advisers know it. If Sen. Edwards doesn't get the nod, concern about business backlash will be one reason. If he does, the campaign will be looking for ways to moderate their vice-presidential candidate's business image. Mr. Edwards's aides already are pointing out that as a trial lawyer, he never brought the kind of controversial class-action lawsuits that drain millions from a company's coffers but provide only minimal benefits to each member of a large group of plaintiffs. Perhaps as a vice-presidential candidate, Sen. Edwards would take up the cause of class-action reform -- a business-friendly position already staked out by Democrats like Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. The Kerry campaign also could try to minimize damage by tying Mr. Donohue closely to the White House. In a news release last Thursday, the campaign attacked the chamber chief for a speech he gave in San Francisco defending outsourcing, and it
Re: Stephen Gowans on Fahrenheit 9/11 and Robert Jensen
- Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 7:14 PM Subject: [PEN-L] Stephen Gowans on Fahrenheit 9/11 and Robert Jensen July 6, 2004 Critiquing the critique Pandering to the lies the Left tells itself about the Democrats By Stephen Gowans (snip) --- A (short) critique of the critiquer of the critique: An excited Stephen Gowans has come upon a new idea: Steer clear of Micheal Moores electoral trap andbuild genuine anti-war, anti-imperialist, pro-egalitarian movements and parties committed to radical change. Good as far as it goes, as he says of Robert Jensen who says the same of Micheal Moore, but, alas, not quite good enough. For Gowan, too, falls short and panders to popular prejudices by not stressing that GENUINE radical change has historically required the violent elimination of the ruling class. In fact, nowhere in his extended essay is that even hinted at, nor the corresponding need to begin educating and preparing the working class for armed self-defence. It is precisely opportunistic adaptations of this sort by so-called leftists that underlies the historic failure of the American working class to free itself of electoral illusions and to take GENUINE power through sustained armed struggle, demonstrably the only means by which this has ever been accomplished. Anyone care to up the ante further? Marv Gandall
Still solidly Bush
Even by traditional Republican standards and despite Iraq, Wall Street is engaged in an unprecedented drive to reelect George Bush, according to the Washington Post. Investment dealers like Morgan Stanley, who have profited hugely from the administrations first term dividend and capital gain tax cuts, are leading the charge. Those profits stand to soar higher if Bush is relected, the Post reports. The administration is promising to enact what the Post describes as the most dramatic Bush tax proposal yet - so-called Lifetime Savings Accounts , or super-IRAs which would allow wealthy families to shelter up to $30,000 annually of investment income. But the real prize being sought by Wall Street is the partial privatization of Social Security which would redirect billions into individual investment accounts and away from the public system. The White House is anticipating that this so-called reform of Social Security will be the crowning domestic achievement of a Bush second term, says the Post. Under Bush, the average tax rate on investment income has dropped to 9.6%; wages are taxed at an average 23.4%. URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50364-2004May23.html Also: http://www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Nuclear marketplace
The case of an Israeli orthodox Jew selling nuclear weapons parts to a Pakistani Islamic fundamentalist illustrates the extensive underground trade in the components, todays Los Angeles Times reports. Asher Karni, an Israeli citizen now resident in South Africa, was arrested on a recent visit to the US and charged with violating federal laws against nuclear proliferation. The Karni case offers a rare glimpse into what authorities say is an international bazaar teeming with entrepreneurs, transporters, scientists, manufacturers, government agents, organized-crime syndicates and, perhaps, terrorists, writes reporter Josh Meyer. The trade is flourishing despite decades-long efforts by the US and its allies and the UNs International Agency for Arms Control to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The parts shipped by Karni to his Pakistani collaborator, who is allegedly linked to an Islamic militant group, were believed intended for use in Pakistans nuclear weapons program. Another report in todays Washington Post corroborates the ease with which nuclear weapons can be assembled from materials available on the open market for potential use against civilian populations. Both articles available on: http://www.supportingfacts.com or URLs: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-nukes24may24,1,7259909.s tory?coll=la-headlines-world http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50362-2004May23.html?referrer =email Sorry for any cross posting.
Lula's China visit
Brazilian president Lulas state visit to China at the head of a huge business delegation, beginning today, is part of a strategic effort to connect the biggest emerging markets in the eastern and western hemispheres, says an article in the Financial Times. It is a development with potentially huge geopolitical implications, writes the Times Latin American editor, Richard Lapper, based on solid economic fundamentals. Chinas insatiable economy needs Brazilian iron ore and other commodities, and Brazil is seeking Chinese capital to develop the infrastructure to bring them to market. The Asian powers rapidly developing trade ties throughout Latin America poses a significant challenge for the US right in its own backyard, says Lapper, especially at a time when American relations with Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela have deteriorated, raising the spectre of new power blocs in the region. He suggests the US and other OECD countries will need to further invest and open their markets and borders to Latin American products and labour to compete with China. FT (sub only) article available on http://www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting. 1
Iran's cautious tactics
Kaveh L. Afrasiabi in todays Asia Times examines whether Iran is acquiescing in or subverting the US occupation of Iraq, and concludes it is doing both in tandem in response to a complex and fluid situation. On the one hand, the Iranians would like to see threatening US forces expelled from the region. On the other, like Iraqs supreme ayatollah Ali Sistani, they are hoping the occupation will end peacefully and result in a Shia-dominated state allied to Iran. The uprising led by Muqtada al Sadr has sharpened the Iranians dilemma of whether to support a nonviolent or armed struggle against the Americans. Afrasiabi notes the regime is divided between the conservative clerics led by Ali Khamenei who are sympathetic to the militant Islamists under Sadr, while the liberal wing represented by president Mohammad Khatami has shunned and criticized him. But the Iranians, he suggests, now appear to be tilting increasingly in his direction irrespective of their minor misgivings about him because of the Sadrists unexpected success - a development which may underlie recent American charges of Iranian meddling. Asia Times URL: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE20Ak01.html Also: http://www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
More evidence of crumbling US position
(From todays Financial Times) Iraq's rebel cleric gains surge in popularity By Roula Khalaf in Baghdad An Iraqi poll to be released next week shows a surge in the popularity of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical young Shia cleric fighting coalition forces, and suggests nearly nine out of 10 Iraqis see US troops as occupiers and not liberators or peacekeepers. The poll was conducted by the one-year-old Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, which is considered reliable enough for the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority to have submitted questions to be included in the study. Although the results of any poll in Iraq's traumatised society should be taken with caution, the survey highlights the difficulties facing the US authorities in Baghdad as they confront Mr Sadr, who launched an insurgency against the US-led occupation last month. Conducted before the Abu Ghraib prisoners' scandal, it also suggests a severe erosion of American credibility even before Iraqis were confronted with images of torture at the hands of US soldiers. Saadoun Duleimi, head of the centre, said more than half of a representative sample - comprising 1,600 Shia, Sunni Arabs and Kurds polled in all Iraq's main regions - wanted coalition troops to leave Iraq. This compares with about 20 per cent in an October survey. Some 88 per cent of respondents said they now regarded coalition forces in Iraq as occupiers. Iraqis always contrast American actions with American promises and there's now a wide gap in credibility, said Mr Duleimi, who belongs to one of the country's big Sunni tribes. In this climate, fighting has given Moqtada credibility because he's the only Iraqi man who stood up against the occupation forces. The US authorities in Baghdad face an uphill battle to persuade Iraqis that the transfer of sovereignty on June 30 will mark the end of the US occupation. The removal of US troops was cited in the poll as a more urgent issue than the country's formal status. Respondents saw Mr Sadr as Iraq's second most influential figure after Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's most senior Shia cleric. Some 32 per cent of respondents said they strongly supported Mr Sadr and another 36 per cent somewhat supported him. Ibrahim Jaafari, head of the Shia Islamist Daawa party and a member of the governing council, came next on the list of influential Iraqis. Among council members, Adnan Pachachi, the Sunni former foreign minister, came some distance behind Mr Jaafari. Mr Pachachi is regarded as the apparent favourite for the ceremonial post of president when a caretaker government takes over.
Nader lauds Kerry
Ralph Nader all but endorsed John Kerry for president in an interview yesterday with the New York Times, effectively undercutting those of his supporters who want to define his candidacy as a sharp break with the Democrats. Nader told the Times that Kerry was very presidential, and indicated he was planning a decidedly different strategy from the one he pursued in 2000 against (Al) Gore, whom he often ridiculed as symbolizing the corporatization that he said made the Democratic Party indistinguishable on many issues from the Republican Party. Nader, it would seem, is ready to act as the Democratic candidates stalking horse, attacking President Bush, primarily, rather than trying to hold Mr. Kerry's feet to the fire (going) after Bush in ways that we could not, satisfied Kerry aides told the Times. Conceived of in this fashion, a Nader campaign would in effect tell disenchanted liberal and antiwar voters that Kerry, despite his reluctance to go after Bush on Iraq and other issues, was the lesser evil and deserving of the presidency. The Democrats can probably live with this, short of Nader dropping out of the race. New York Times URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/campaign/20KERR.html Also available: http://www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting. 1
Hardening divide
The widely held view that the US-Europe rift is only a temporary one which will disappear with the Bush administration looks to be wrong, according to the latest Economist. The magazine says the transatlantic rift that opened up because of Iraq shows little sign of healing. On the contrary, it may widen. The Americans, contrary to expectations, have been unable to pressure the Europeans to bail them out in Iraq, and, although this is partly attributable to the deteriorating security situation, the Economist notes broader differences over trade, China, and the Israel-Palestine conflict. More generally, the unilateral exercise of US power has produced the popular belief in Europe, evidenced in recent elections, that the US is a dangerous, immoral power that needs countering. But the Economist thinks European prayers for a Kerry victory in November are misplaced, especially in relation to Israel and US deference to international institutions. While it is absurd to contemplate a revival of the kind of inter-imperialist tension which culminated in World War I, the notion that Europeans and Americans may increasingly be rivals rather than partners seems less implausible than it once did, the article concludes. Economist (sub only) article available on http://www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Capital fright in India
Investors are spooked but foreign manufacturers are largely unfazed by the Congress Partys election win in India, according to reports in todays Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. The Indian stock market plunged by a record 16% since the defeat of the right-wing BJP government and, especially, since the Left Front, a parliamentary coalition of the influential Communist Party of India (Marxist) and three others, announced it would not join the government. The refusal of the Left Front parties to join a government headed by Sonia Gandhi is viewed as a signal that they will oppose rather than take responsibility for privatizing the state sector, dismantling labour rights, lowering corporate taxes, and cutting social programs, which could complicate Congress expected effort to continue these initiatives. Although investment banks and mutual fund companies, who are more sensitive to short-term shifts in the political landscape, have been dumping their Indian holdings, Western business executives interviewed by the WSJ and FT, especially in the burgeoning high-tech sector, are viewing the results with equanimity, partly on the basis of their favourable experience in states governed by the CPI-M and other left parties. WSJ and FT (sub only) articles available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross-posting.
Revolt fizzling?
Todays Daily Telegraph is reporting that Moqtada al-Sadr has indicated his willingness to surrender and disband the Mahdi Army, which would likely halt the 10-day old Shia rising. According to the Telegraph, Sadr is said to be buckling under the twin pressures of a massive build-up of American forces near his base and demands for moderation from the country's ayatollahs. Sadr and his militia control Najaf, but his emissaries have reportedly told US authorities and the Iraqi Governing Council (ICG) that, if his personal safety is guaranteed, he would agree to submit to trial in an Iraqi court on charges of having last year ordered the assassination of a rival cleric. Unless the leak is calculated disinformation, Sadrs sudden capitulation is surprising, because he had vowed a fight to the death, his mass support was growing, and it was widely felt the Americans would not assault Najaf, a Shia holy site. But the Telegraph says Sadr has been subject to intense pressure from the senior Shia clergy and the Iranian government, which favours the SCIRI, a rival Shia faction. Article on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$CRGUYNIF1XGP3QFIQMGCFF 4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2004/04/15/wirq15.xmlsSheet=/news/2004/04/15/ixnewstop .html Also: www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Marching on Karbala
Todays The Age (Melbourne) reports surging support for Moqtada al-Sadr among the millions of pilgrims converging on Karbala for the Shia holiday of al-Arbaeen, which it sees as a reprieve before an assault by US forces. The papers Baghdad correspondent Paul McGeough was staggered by the numbers supporting Sadr who is tapping a deep pool of resentment at the occupation, and surprised by the enthusiasm expressed for his pursuit of an alliance with the Sunnis. (He deems the latter improbable and Machiavellian - a common prejudice of foreign observers, promoted by occupation authorities, that outside intercession is needed to keep the two communities from fighting with each other like squabbling children.) McGeough cites among the examples of cooperation combined Shia-Sunni military operations and a joint meeting with Palestinians offering guidance on how to run a long-term resistance campaign. A companion piece by the Ages Washington correspondent Marian Wilkinson suggests the US moved against Sadr because of his approaches to the Sunni clerics, but that it is trying to defuse the uprising through the UN. Articles posted on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
United resistance
The Fallujah and Sadrist risings have sparked a much broader resistance movement among the Iraqi people, one which is rapidly uniting Sunnis and Shias, according to todays New York Times. Times reporter Jeffrey Gettleman was in the Khadamiya neighbourhood in Baghdad when rumours circulated of a US raid on the local offices of the Mahdi Army. Within minutes this entire Shiite neighbourhood in central Baghdad had mobilized for war, Gettleman reports. Behind the several thousand estimated fighters in the Madhi Army, there were thousands of men and boys in just one Baghdad neighbourhood ready to fight for Mr. Sadr, he writes. In Sunni bastions like Falluja and Ramadi and in Shiite areas like Sadr City, it was growing increasingly clear that the militias could materialize almost instantaneously. Gettleman also describes how Sunnis from neighbouring Adamiya joined the Khadamiya demonstrators; rival Shia and Sunni gangs who used to cross the bridge to rumble now do so to coordinate attacks. A UPI report meanwhile describes the links being forged between Sadrists and Sunnis at the national level. Articles available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Sadr's popularity
Separate first-hand accounts in todays Guardian and Financial Times describe why the movement led by Moqtada al-Sadr is attracting support from Iraqis, particularly among the most oppressed. The Guardians Rory McCarthy says the Sadrists, led by the younger generation of Shia clerics, have acquired an astonishing position of strength with a large, armed militia and a highly organised militant political force with roots in several southern cities and in the eastern Shia slums of Baghdad. In Kufa, where Sadr had taken refuge and his partisans controlled the town, pilgrims and families chanted his name. (AP reports he has since left Kufa). In Sadr City, east Baghdads huge Shia quarter, the Financial Times Nicola Pelham saw barefoot children throwing stones at American tanks, hospitals and morgues crammed with civilian casualties, shops shuttered and residents on strike, police joining the demonstrators, and the once supportive shanty towna seething mass of hostility in what Pelham suggested was the beginning of a Shia intifada. Economic deprivation and chaos and the aggressive nationalism of the Sadrists underlie its increasing appeal to poor Iraqis, the Guardians McCarthy writes. Articles available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: Decisive showdown
I'd be surprised if we find we have substantial disagreements about US foreign policy. It's broadly bipartisan, and when there are deviations from the consensus, as in the Iraq adventure, the adventurists are reined in. Iraq was a Republican adventure, while the original one, Vietnam, was presided over by Democratic presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Since Vietnam, the guiding dictum of the foreign policy establishment has been: contain and subvert and, if necessary, bomb and blockade, rather than invade and occupy. The Clinton administration followed that script in the Balkans, as well as Iraq. The only departure from the norm might be where there is an internal popular uprising underway involving widespread military defections, which US ground forces could assist. The great miscalculation of the Bush administration, which they are paying a heavy price for, was in expecting that a ground invasion of Iraq would trigger that scenario. Afghanistan has also not been pacified. I doubt the Republicans would be willing or able to repeat these occupations, particularly in view of the quagmire in which they have found themselves in Iraq. So I would expect whether Kerry or Bush is elected, both would use diplomatic and economic pressure to influence developments in Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and elsewhere. Having said that, the greater propensity for military adventurism does lie with the Bush administration, because it is more ideological and, as Iraq showed, therefore more willing to deviate from the consensus. With this in mind, my point to Carrol was that he wouldn't get very far with the Iranians, North Koreans, and Cubans trying to persuade them that Kerry was the more dangerous imperial warrior of the two -- notwithstanding that everyone understands very well that the Democrats are also pursuing US imperial interests. It's why unions prefer facing liberal rather than reactionary employers; the former better understand the relationship between their firm's objectives and a stable environment, and are prepared to make concessions at the margin in order to realize this. Which is not to say, in exceptional highly polarized circumstances, liberals aren't prepared to withdraw the mailed fist from the velvet glove. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Decisive showdown Marvin Gandall wrote: Carrol Cox wrote: I still think that it is really not possible to both support Kerry and continue to build the anti-war movement. It is essential that we keep front and center that Kerry will be a more dangerous imperial warrior than Bush. I don't want to speak for Carrol but it seems to me that the reference to dangerous is not to unilateralism but to a President Kerry's ability to escalate the war in Iraq based on a consensus between the Democratic and Republican party. Granted, the Democratic Party opposition to Bush's war was lukewarm at best but with Kerry in the driver's seat, it will be nonexistent. A model for a Green, liberal, social democratic, multilateral war sanctioned by the UN already exists: The Scotsman April 29, 1999, Thursday NATO ADMITS BOMBING OF CIVILIANS BUT VOWS TO INTENSIFY AIR CAMPAIGN (snip)
Re: Decisive showdown
I'd just finished conceding your point that Germany 1932 and the US 1936 weren't a proper comparison, when you fed us this zinger: The decision of the CPUSA to support Roosevelt, in fact, was as disastrous as the failure of the KPD to oppose Hitler. The Civilian Conservation Corps as disasterous as death camps? Come on now. You place too much of a burden on the CPUSA and left, in general, for the disaster of '36, which served to tie 'the left' in the US permanently to the DP. In fact, both the CP and SP would have liked the workers to move past the DP to join them; their orientation to the New Deal was a tactical one. That's why they didn't dissolve their parties. At least credit them with that. In fact, it was the mass of working people, not the left, which tied itself to the Democratic party --and this as a result of the New Deal's introduction of collective bargaining rights, public works projects, and new social programs, which the unions and workers overwhelmingly favoured. And well before the World War II jobs boom, as Roosevelt's overwhelming victories in 36 and 40 illustrate. The widespread and persistent need on the left to find a rival left faction to blame for the failure of revolutionary hopes to be realized is endemic. The alternative is to assign responsibility for this outcome to the masses themselves and to capitalism's continuing ability to satisfy their immediate needs. I sometimes think the inability to accept this as an explanation is the mistaken fear that it is a permanent condition. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Decisive showdown Marvin Gandall wrote: Carrol Cox wrote: I still think that it is really not possible to both support Kerry and continue to build the anti-war movement. It is essential that we keep front and center that Kerry will be a more dangerous imperial warrior than Bush. --- Isn't this like saying a Republican victory in 1936 would have been preferable to the relection of FDR and the Democrats because the latter, by promoting social reform and collective bargaining rights, had a more sophisticated understanding of how to save capitalism? Or the same as the German KPD worrying that a more dangerous social democratic victory would postpone the German revolution, which Nazi repression would hasten? Those two elections were very different. Neither Landon nor Bush bears comparison to Hitler. I am coming to object rather violently to the comparison. The 1932 situation in Germany (in hindsight, and presumably to many at the time) fulfilled the conditions classically named in the Declaration of Independence -- political changes which threatened to be irrevocable. No such situation exists now, nor did it exist in 1936. The decision of the CPUSA to support Roosevelt, in fact, was as disastrous as the failure of the KPD to oppose Hitler. Seventy years later, as the flourishing of ABBs shows, leftists in this country are still cursed by the disaster of '36, which served to tie the left in the u.s. permanently to the DP. Until that link is broken The U.S. Left should never be mentioned without scare quotes. (And incidentally, it is not at all self-evident that Landon would have been all that much more conservative than FDR, whose main accomplishment during his second term was quietly to destroy the most radical 'achievement' of the New Deal, the WPA.) The ABB case stands or falls on the assumption that Bush represents not just ordinary evil but a qualitatively distinct element in u.s. politics, threatening irreversible damage. That is nonsense. Any other argument for supporting Kerry will apply as well to all future elections. (snip)
Decisive showdown
Todays Washington Post describes how nervous US authorities have provoked a showdown with the radical wing of the Shia movement led by Moqtada al-Sadr, which could decide the fate of the occupation. American officials had been hoping to contain and diminish al-Sadrs influence, while cultivating the Shia leaders who participate on the US-appointed Governing Council, which will nominally be handed political sovereignty in several months. But the Post reports Paul Bremer and his aides have become alarmed by the rapid growth in size and influence of the Mahdi Army, the Sadrist militia, and fear it will compete for power after the U.S. administration of Iraq ends... According to the Post, the US decided to test the groups resolve by closing down its newspaper and arresting one of its top leaders, Mustafa Yaqoubi, suspected in the murder of a rival cleric last year. The US gamble has triggered a widespread and violent response, and the occupation forces are now confronted by what the Post calls their greatest fear: an untenable two-front Sunni and Shia insurgency. Article available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: Decisive showdown
Carrol Cox wrote: I still think that it is really not possible to both support Kerry and continue to build the anti-war movement. It is essential that we keep front and center that Kerry will be a more dangerous imperial warrior than Bush. --- Isn't this like saying a Republican victory in 1936 would have been preferable to the relection of FDR and the Democrats because the latter, by promoting social reform and collective bargaining rights, had a more sophisticated understanding of how to save capitalism? Or the same as the German KPD worrying that a more dangerous social democratic victory would postpone the German revolution, which Nazi repression would hasten? Today, the Democrats and their European allies share a common liberal political culture and, as such, can be said to have a more sophisticated understanding of how to advance capitalism's interests in the international arena than do the neoconservatives. Iraq has proved that in spades. The Europeans tried desperately to prevent the Bush administration's adventure, which has turned out to be very destabilizing not only in Iraq, but globally, and has damaged US and Western interests. A Kerry administration, in league with the Europeans, would not have invaded Iraq, but would have used subtler methods to try and force internal regime change or, failing that, would have been content to contain the Baathist regime, possibly cutting a deal in exchange for loosening sanctions. I imagine in 2000, though, you would have been telling the Iraqis that it is essential to keep front and center that Gore will be a more dangerous imperial warrior than Bush? And in 1936, would you not have been telling trade unionists that it is really not possible to both support FDR and continue to build the labour movement? Marv Gandall
Consolidating control
The US has taken steps to ensure it controls Iraq through its future army even after it formally transfers political sovereignty to a civilian government, reports todays Washington Post. The Post says the US is creating an Iraqi defence department modelled on the Pentagon, and is presently training its top officials in Washington. The US wants to secure Iraq as a strategic base for its forces in the region, but the Pentagon has no assurance of what kind of shared forces agreement, if any, it might negotiate with a new Iraqi government after planned elections at the end of 2005. So the establishment and staffing of an Iraqi Defence Ministry, as the Post notes, appear aimed at ensuring that the Iraqi military's new leaders will be responsive to U.S. interests, regardless of what kind of agreement is eventually reached. In the interim, as the New York Times reported earlier this week, the US claims it has the right to continued military occupation of the country and command of all Iraqi and foreign units. Articles available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Taiwan's election
Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian's controversial reelection, being contested by the opposition, has left the islands business interests and the Chinese government disgruntled, according to Business Week. Chen narrowly defeated Kuomintang (KMT) leader Lien Chan on March 20, following an assassination attempt a day earlier which Liens followers are intimating was staged by Chen. The KMT has since been holding mass rallies and demanding a recount. Business Weeks Bruce Einhorn reports if Chen's victory is confirmed, that's not likely to please the thousands of Taiwan businesses that are becoming ever more dependent on trade with China, and whose leaders generally back Lien's party... The Chinese, meanwhile, are less concerned about Chen, then about his largely pro-American Democratic Progressive Party base which is looking forward to winning control of the legislature in December, writing a new constitution, and holding a referendum on independence in 2008. The Chinese have threatened war, but, as Einhorn notes, their economic leverage they can threaten to cut trade ties and lure Taiwanese capital to the mainland should be sufficient to deter any formal steps towards independence. BW article available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
The Newdow case
Ellen Goodman in todays San Francisco Chronicle says that atheist Michael Newdows constitutional challenge to the American Pledge of Allegiance may be nettlesome, but raises important questions of principle. Newdow, an emergency room doctor with a law degree, was allowed to argue his own case before the Supreme Court that the reference in the pledge to one nation under God violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Newton had earlier won his point in a California lower court, and was defending it on appeal. The Supreme Court ruling is expected in June. Goodman notes that 90% of Americans support the pledge, and, as another Chronicle report indicates, Newdow has some of the eccentric traits associated with crusading atheists. Who needs this in the middle of an election? Why stir up the culture wars? Why make such a big deal of two little words? Aren't there bigger fish to fry?, writes Goodman. Here's the problem, she adds, Newdow is right. So unfortunately is author Susan Jacoby commenting in the article on the powerful connection between religion and patriotism in American life. Articles available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Interest rate debate
Gerald Baker in todays Financial Times describes the renewed debate within financial circles about whether it is time to tighten US monetary policy, and weighs in against sado-monetarism. Baker says a deviancy popular among certain central bankers and commentators in the 1980s, is out of the closet and back in respectable living rooms. Advocates of a rate hike, most notably the Economist and Wall Street analyst Stephen Roach, think the threat of deflation has passed, but worry that the excessive liquidity pumped into the US economy since the 2000-01 recession is creating another bubble and the potential for a global financial crisis. The accompanying Economist article notes that with growth at 4%, the Federal Reserve now has room to constrict demand, arguing for the use of GDP rather than inflation to gauge monetary policy. Baker reflects the Fed position when he cites continuing excess capacity, widespread unemployment, and a falling core rate of inflation as evidence the keening for a tightening of monetary policy now is misplaced, and would tip the US economy back into recession - or worse. Articles available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Operation Backfire
The Pakistani army has been mauled and the Musharraf government is risking civil war in its failed attempt to capture Ayman al-Zawahiri in the Pashtun tribal region, reports todays Asia Times. American and Pakistani officials boasted last week that they had trapped a high value target, understood to be al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Ladens close aide, in the Pashtun province of South Waziristan. But the Times Pepe Escobar says bin Laden and al-Zawahiri crossed the border into Afghanistan two months ago when word was rife all over the tribal areas about the upcoming spring offensive. Meanwhile, the Pakistani army, composed mainly of Punjabi conscripts, is seen as an occupying army by the Pashtuns, and has behaved as such, shelling villages and inflicting civilian casualties, and taking serious losses in return, while the countrys powerful Islamist parties are mobilizing in defence of the tribal revolt. An accompanying report by Syed Saleem Shahzad describes the growing dissent in the army ranks, and the rumoured involvement of Indian and Afghan intelligence services seeking to exploit Musharrafs difficulties. Articles available on www.supportingfacts.com. Sorry for any cross posting.
Yassin assassination
Though widely decried as stupid, Israels provocative assassination of sheikh Yassin simply underscores its opposition to a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, according to todays Wall Street Journal. Journal reporters Karby Leggett and Christopher Cooper note that the Sharon governments unilateral actions in walling off the occupied territories, deciding to pullback from Gaza, and systematic murder of the Palestinian leadership all run counter to a longtime guiding principle in the Middle East conflict: that Israelis and Palestinians would ultimately settle their differences through negotiations. In light of Israels plans to annex an estimated 60% of the occupied territories and cage the Palestinians on small islands of territory, the Journal describes as ironic Hamas claims it was forcing the Israelis to retreat from Gaza. While the US is allowing Israel to impose this settlement unilaterally, if need be the Journal report on the Bush administrations concerns that the latest dramatic manifestation of the Sharon policy may complicate US relations with its allies in Iraq, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. WSJ article reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: Yassin assassination
Perhaps you misunderstood. I said exactly what you have said below. I don't consider the action was stupid -- that's how it's been criticized in the West and by Arab conservatives -- but cold-blooded calculation in accordance with a long-held Likud strategy. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: ravi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Yassin assassination Marvin Gandall wrote: Though widely decried as stupid... why is this assassination considered stupid? isn't it obvious israeli strategy to incite hamas into becoming the primary opposition, thus sidelining more moderate elements with whom they (israel) may be forced to negotiate with by their patrons (the US)? --ravi
Employer mobilization
American corporations are planning a major effort to muster their employees to vote Republican to counter labour unions organizing on behalf of the Democrats, according to todays Washington Post. The Post says the Business Roundtable and industry trade associations are enlisting a rapidly growing number of firms to ensure their workers are registered to vote, provided with company propaganda, and turned out to cast ballots on election day. The mechanisms include e-mails and voice mails from company executives, workplace posters, and customized web sites that show how candidates for federal office have voted compared with the companies' position. Pilot programs in the 2000 and 2002 elections indicated these services to employees increased pro-business voting, and the Chamber of Commerce estimates millions of workers will be reached by the program. As the Post notes, Republicans are thrilled at the prospect and Democrats, who have long benefited from union-led get-out-the-vote campaigns, are worried that business finally has developed a vigorous counterpunch. Post article on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Chomsky favours Kerry
Though he admires Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky tells the Guardian he supports John Kerry over George Bush because small differences can translate into large outcomesin this case as in 2000. The description of Kerry as Bush-lite is not inaccurate, he says, describing the Republicans and Democrats as two factions of the business party. But Chomsky notes the choice between the two can make a difference, even if only a fraction in foreign policy and maybe even more dramatically domestically. Chomsky fears the people around Bush are very deeply committed to dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past centurythe present group in power is particularly cruel and savage in this respect. Chomsky also told his interviewer that Americans would be more strongly opposed to the Iraq occupation if they were made more fully aware by the media that the US was planning a powerful, permanent, military and diplomatic presence in Iraq, and he called for an international trial for Saddam Hussein where US and Western complicity in his crimes could be subjected to public scrutiny. Chomsky interview reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Iraq one year later
The Economist is no longer convinced the invasion of Iraq was worthwhile, and reflects on the contradictory effects which make the outcome for the country and region so uncertain. Despite the shocking clumsiness of the occupation and resulting violence and insecurity, it cites polls showing most Iraqis think their lives have improved, mostly because of the greater availability of consumer goods and more freedom of expression. At the same time, it also notes that the prime beneficiaries of the consumer boom are the moneyed classes, throttled and evicted by the series of Iraqi revolutions that began in 1958. Although oil and electricity are back to prewar levels, half the population remains unemployed. Neoconservative illusions that the invasion would trigger pro-Western upheavals throughout the region have evaporated, but the Economist dwells at length on what it regards as the first stirrings of democratic reform, and more cautious behaviour by Iran, Libya and Syria. The articles greatest failing is its blindness to the widespread Iraqi opposition to the occupation, both peaceful and violent, which has been the defining characteristic of its first year. Economist article available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Divided over Iran
The Bush administration is split on Iran policy, according to the Financial Times - specifically over whether a deal favourable to US interests can be struck with the entrenched clerical leadership. The differences echo those between the State and Defence departments leading up to the invasion of Iraq and over North Korea. The Times says the State department, Condoleezza Rice, and the old Republican national security establishment believe the Iranians can be persuaded to drop their support of armed Islamist militias, recognize Israel, cooperate on Iraq, and scale back their nuclear program. These so-called realists no longer have confidence in an Iranian change of regime which would transfer power to liberal, secular, pro-Western reformers, and want to respond to long-standing peace overtures from Iranian conservatives. But the opposing faction led by defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld is adamantly against abandoning this pursuit, and accuses its more pragmatic opponents of secretly welcoming the rigging of recent elections in Iran as providing an opening for renewed diplomacy. FT article reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: Historical Accuracy
Shane Mage wrote: Marvin Gandall writes: ...bourgeois-dominated but worker-based parties like the Democratic party in the US... If Marvin thinks the Dumbocrats are worker-based they're most welcome to his support. I'm not speaking here of the mass of the working population, a large percentage of which - especially the very poor - is politically apathetic. But there is no doubt the organized American working class has a long historical relationship to the Democratic party. This is not only true of the top leadership of the AFL-CIO, which is again funding and organizing for the Democrats, but of the local trade union activists, as well, and more broadly of union households. There has been abundant coverage of Steelworkers and other industrial workers; SEIU-affiliated cleaners, health care personnel,and other service workers; teachers, ACFSME-affiliated government workers, and other public sector employees, voting in primaries and working on behalf of Democratic party candidates. There is no such corresponding official or grassoots union support for the Republicans. This is what centrally differentiates the two parties. It means, for example, that in the event of social spending cuts by the next administration, it will be easier for the left to help mount a fightback campaign with Democratic trade union and social movement activists whose expectations have been excited and who have easier access to a Kerry administration, than if these vital constituencies are demoralized by a Bush re-election victory and cut off from an administration which responds to a different political and social base. This is no small consideration. An additional point of demarcation, often overlooked in simplistic reflex characterization of the two parties as Tweedledum and Tweedledee, is that the Republicans are the party of choice of the big bourgeoisie while the Democrats are its preferred alternative. In both these senses - bourgeois-dominated but worker-based - the DP has the same political physiognomy as the social democratic parties elsewhere around the world. The old verities of class parties with which we were able to distinguish the social democratic parties from the Democrats in the US no longer apply. They have the same relationship to their labour movements as the Democrats have to the American one, and they long ago abandoned public ownership as their objective. They, like the Democrats, openly seek the reform of capitalism. As do the Greens. The differences on this issue - despite the vehement efforts by some Green supporters on the list to portray themselves as revolutionaries fighting a battle against class traitors - is over which pro-capitalist party to support, ie. the Greens and the Democrats. The Green supporters think their party is a more progressive one, and I agree - up to a point, that point being if and when it should approach power, when it will be forced to succumb to systemic pressures to adjust its program to the one more or less being presently advanced by the Democrats. How do you think Joshka Fischer, the Green leader, ever became the German foreign minister? Given that the choice is between which reformist party to support, I believe it is better for the left to stay as close to the organized working class as possible, at every stage of its political evolution, in order to be in a position to influence its direction if events should ever compel it to break with the Democratic party. I would think Leninists especially would see this as consistent with the advice Lenin gave in LWC, adapted to present conditions. My hesitation about the Green party is not so much that it is so peripheral to the political process - the usual objection - but that its class character is predominantly petty-bourgeois rather than working class. If this should ever change, so would my interest in the party. Finally, I don't think the use of an expression like Dumbocrats befits a politically serious person. Nor is it accurate; the Democratic leadership may be many things, but, alas, it is not dumb. Marv Gandall
Fading US tech lead
The USs once overwhelming dominance in high technology is beginning to wane, and outsourcing is only one of the symptoms, reports Business Week. Although the US is still the overall leader and Microsoft, General Electric, and Intel are household names, the Nordic countries are in the forefront of wireless communications, the EU in commercial aircraft, Japan in optical electronics and robotics, and Israel in information security technology. US per capita spending on scientific R D lags other countries, and most of it is defence-related, the magazine says, with not enough being directed to key disciplines such as chemistry, materials science, and physics. China and India now have more science graduates than the US, with the lead expected to widen as the US falls behind in relative education spending. A measure of the shift is that in the decade between 1992-2002, the US went from being a net $35 billion exporter to a net $54 billion importer of high-tech products. An accompanying Los Angeles Times report shows the hollowing out effects of outsourcing on legendary Silicon Valley. Business Week and LA Times articles reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Historical accuracy
Louis Proyect wrote: I have a feeling that the same people who are urging a vote for Kerry today will be urging the same policies in the future when workers are occupying factories and calling for a general strike. You don't switch brands from Menshevism to Bolshevism when the time is ripe. Menshevism is a chronic condition like eczema. --- The eczema remark is unnecessary. It's also wrong. The Bolsheviks wouldn't have acquired their majority in the Soviets and seized state power without the wholesale defection to their side of the mass of Menshevik workers and some important intellectuals. This wasn't unique to Russia; it is characteristic of every revolutionary process, and if the revolutionary party you are contemplating should ever come to pass in the US in our lifetime, it would almost certainly be composed in the main of those trade union and social movement activists whose current allegiance is to the Democratic party and who are urging a vote for Kerry. It would also likely include many of their secondary and perhaps even some of their nationally-known leaders. This isn't to suggest such a party wouldn't also incorporate many of the people who now support the Greens and the various Marxist groups, but given the present political landscape, this is not where most would come from. None of us, incidentally, can possibly know in advance how individuals will react to a social crisis. Historically, we know there have been many honest liberals and social democratic activists who have moved left, and Marxist intellectuals who despite their professed commitment to revolutionary politics have turned tail, under the pressure of events.
Re: Historical accuracy
This would probably be the appropriate moment -- in light of your comments and Joel Wendland's -- to ask Louis to elaborate on the following statement: ...I am far more interested in defining the class criterion that would make support for bourgeois parties impermissible... What are the class criterion you have in mind, Louis? Marv G - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 9:14 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Historical accuracy Could someone explain what Ralph Nader's candidacy has to do with the development of a socialist party in the U.S.? I could swear he was a petit bourgeois who believed in the beauties of small business and competition. Doug
Re: Historical Accuracy
Shane Mage is right in noting that Lenin was talking of intervention in a class party, ie. the Labour Party, but he is wrong when he says Left-Wing Communism is concerned with the differences between the leader of the British capitalist class and the leader of the British Labor Party and that Lenin is attacking the infantile leftists explicitly because they pay attention only to the size of the differences and ignore the central point, the class antagonism between capital and labor. It makes me think he hasn't read or doesn't recall the content of Lenin's polemic. In fact, it was the so-called infantile leftists who made the class antagonism between capital and labour the central point in arguing for the need of the newly formed Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) to run independently in elections against what they regarded as the class-collaborationist Labour Party led by Henderson. This was the gist of their appeal to Moscow when the Communist International ordered the fledgling CPGB to instead enter the much larger Labour Party, to fold its own banner, and to support the LP electorally as a rope supports a hanged man. What Lenin meant by this latter much-quoted expression is that by encouraging the electoral efforts of the Labour Party, the LP workers -- supported by and patiently counseled by the Communist Party workers campaigning with them in the ridings -- would more quickly come to recognize the deficiencies of their own social-democratic leadership and program. When Lenin came down on the side of the entrists, this was quite a shock to the left-wing communists who wanted to hammer the LP leadership from the outside and ideologically expose them before the working class. The Labour Party, unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, was considered a class party -- that is to say, it was founded and funded by the trade unions, had substantial working class support, and was programatically commited to the public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, ie. socialism. Therefore it was regarded as an appropriate venue for socialist participation and electoral support. By these criteria, it would be impermissable to participate in or call for a vote for the Democratic party. By the same token, however, it would be equally unprincipled to call for a vote for the Green Party as Louis does, and perhaps Shane as well. The Lenin of Left-Wing Communism would have rightly characterized the Greens as a progressive petit-bourgeois party which has neither has a connection to the labour movement not a program based on public ownership. The fact that the Greens represent a break with the two party system, to which Louis attaches great importance, does not make it a working class party anymore than Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party of Lenin's time or Ross Perot's Reform party more recently -- each also representing a break with the two party system -- made them proletarian parties. So I would ask Louis on what basis he believes participation in and encouragement for the Green Party is in accordance with what he calls class criteria, while an orientation to another bourgeois party -- in this case, the Democrats, by far the much larger of the two and the one supported by the trade unions and social movements -- is denounced as a betrayal? Things, of course, have been turned on their head since Lenin wrote -- there are no longer any working class parties fitting his description -- and this necessarily affects our relationship to bourgeois-dominated but worker-based parties like the Democratic party in the US and social democratic parties elsewhere. But I'll wait for he and Shane to reply before taking this up. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Shane Mage [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:07 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Historical Accuracy Joel Wendland completely misunderstands what Lou and Lenin were talking about. Lenin *counterposes* the differences between Lloyd George and Churchill (differences within the executive committee of British Imperialism) to the differences between Lloyd George and Henderson--the differences between the leader of the British capitalist class and the leader of the British Labor Party, representing the great majority of the British working class. Lenin is attacking the infantile leftists explicitly because they pay attention only to the size of the differences and ignore the central point, the class antagonism between capital and labor. Their counterparts today are those who ignore the class identity between Dumbocrats and Republicons and seek out differences between Ubu and Kerry in order to avoid anything smacking of independent workingclass politics. Shane Mage Thunderbolt steers all things. Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 Louis Proyect wrote: In a Nov. 9, 1912, article on the U.S. elections Lenin wrote, This so-called bipartisan system prevailing in America and Britain has been one of the
Re: Historical accuracy
No, I'm afraid this won't do, Louis. There was no distinction made between a party of the big bourgeoise and the petty bourgeoisie. The only permissable electoral activity for a Marxist was in relation to a party based on the unions and committed to public ownership. You're just trying to put a principled gloss on your support for Nader and the Greens. And, incidentally, while I have great respect for Peter Camejo, he is, after all, in the same line of work as Goldman-Sachs, is he not? Marv G - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:50 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Historical accuracy What are the class criterion you have in mind, Louis? Marv G I'd say that until Goldman-Sachs starts giving money to the Green Party, the class criteria are pretty clear. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Spain and Iraq
Although the new Spanish socialist government, reflecting the strong pressure of its supporters, says it will leave Iraq, analysts interviewed in todays Wall Street Journal are sceptical it will do so. The US has been working behind the scenes with Germany and other European states to effect a nominal transfer of command of American and other occupation forces to either the UN or NATO by June 30. This is the same template which was used to disguise the US role in the NATO intervention in Kosovo and the UN intervention in Afghanistan, where the command and main military forces were American. While Journal reporters Greg Jaffe and Greg Hitt speculate that the election has dealt this objective a setback, an accompanying Journal report by Marc Champion and Carlta Vitzthum notes the Socialist Party has praised the German effort to get the North Atlantic Treaty Organization involved in the occupation. The socialist victory, it would seem, is likely to have a significantly greater impact on the new EU constitution and perhaps other elections than on developments in Iraq. WSJ articles reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
RS
I think the relevance of the classical Marxists, for myself at least, lies in their analytical power, which is immense, rather than their predictive power, which turned out to be negligible. Thats to be expected since it is a lot easier to accurately interpret current conditions than to speculate about the future direction of history based on tendencies inherent in those conditons. The classical Marxists represent for me the highest expression of the materialist method of analysis which began with the Englightment. Given the turbulent context in which they wrote - the primitive acculumulation of capital and the violent rise of the labour and socialist movements in the West - they can be forgiven if their confidence in the inevitable triumph of socialism, by peaceful or other means, turned out to be too optimistic. Their understanding of the relationship between economic class interest and politics and culture is unmatched - it is by far the best way to make sense of present and past social developments - and the debt owed by all of the social sciences to Marxism is now widely accepted. From this standpoint, I find it equally rewarding to read revolutionary socialists like Lenin, Bukharin and Luxembourg and Marxist reformists like Bernstein, Plekhanov and Kautsky. The debate they were engaged in was about the nature of capitalism and the process of historical change on both a global scale and in various national settings - relevant subjects still - and the common methodological tools they employed and the insights they gleaned are still the best means we have for advancing our understanding. The political strategies they bequeathed are less rewarding. They were all, without exception, wrong - revolutionaries and reformists alike. This was because the shared assumption upon which all of their differing prescriptions rested was mistaken: that capitalism had exhausted its historic potential, and the working class would become increasingly immiserated and receptive to socialist change by peaceful or violent means. On the right, Bernsteins suggestion that socialism, which he also took to be public ownership of the commanding heights, could be accomplished by gradual and parliamentary means has nowhere been realized. On the left, Trotskys theory of permanent revolution - that a revolution in Russia, capitalisms weakest link, would trigger socialist revolution beginning in the advanced West, has also never been realized. In the centre, Kautsky, polemicizing against the Bolsheviks, was wrong in supposing that Russias weak and timid bourgeoisie could emulate their Western counterparts and introduce a robust capitalism as the next necessary stage preceding socialism. It could be argued Lenin was closest to the truth when he formulated the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry - the idea that it would fall to the popular classes to accomplish the historic democratic tasks the bourgeoisie was no longer capable of undertaking - in particular, land reform, industrialization, mass education and health care, etc. Lenins formula presupposed that the workers parties would participate in a coalition with the peasant parties, possibly in a subordinate role, and preside over an extended period of capitalist development. In April, 1917, impressed by the strength of revolutionary anticapitalist sentiment in Russia and Europe, he was won over to Trotskys perspective that the socialist dictatorship involving the political and economic expropriation of the bougeoisie had bypassed his formula of the democratic dictatorship on the historical agenda. From roughly 1917-1990, it appeared this scenario, albeit in a deformed way, was unfolding in the USSR and China and was an appropriate model for postcapitalist development elsewhere in the world. The collapse of the USSR and China have since demonstrated these were at best premature experiments with public/state ownership, and that reports of the death of capitalism were greatly exaggerated. It is tempting to speculate that Lenins original formulation of a prolonged period of capitalist development under the direction of a workers and peasants government may be a useful way of understanding the course of 20th century history in China and the USSR, except that he understood this as a way station to a socialist future. Instead, as we now know, they turned out not to be that at all: In the late 80s, under the pressure of a more productive capitalist world economy, they reversed course and reverted to private ownership. The problem with the revolutionary-reformist debate on this list and elsewhere, as it appears to me, is that it is abstracted from material conditions. There is an inextricable link between the two. At its most basic, it is this: so long as capitalism has not, as Marx had supposed, exhausted its historic potential, it will not be replaced by a new social system. If and when it is no longer capable of delivering a modest
Spanish spectre
The Socialist Party victory in Spain has sent political shock waves around the world, changed the European power balance, and is ominous news for George Bush, according to an analysis in todays Asia Times. The election has drawn Spain closer to France and Germany, further isolating Tony Blair in Europe and threatening his continued leadership of the Labour Party. The election outcome is being attributed to an unusually high turnout by Spanish youth opposed to the Iraq war, and the unprecedented mobilization of the Socialist Party ranks angered by the election-eve efforts of the Aznar government to use the Madrid bombing to partisan advantage. A large turnout of Democratic Party and independent American voters angry at having been lied to about Iraq haunts the Bush administration, and the Spanish result will do little to allay its foreboding. The underestimated electoral power of the antiwar movement may, as J. Sean Curtin notes, also make the Japanese government more vulnerable, and he could have added Italy, Poland, and Australia to the list. Article reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: Spanish spectre
I don't disagree with your main point about the effect on Iraq of a Kerry victory. I don't think it's any more likely to lead to a US troop withdrawal than Bush's reelection. In both cases, I think the withdrawal of US forces will depend either on much larger numbers of US casualties or, alternatively, the defeat of the insurgency. The intention is in any case to leave behind garrisons in new military bases. As we've discussed elsewhere -- and this is not an invitation to resume the debate by any means -- any US government, including a Green Party one, would be compelled to respond this way, if allowed to come to power through the electoral system. It's not assured in Spain, incidentally -- and I'm sure you know this -- that the 1200 Spanish troops will be withdrawn on June 30. The PSOE has left itself an escape hatch in that some or all of the troops will remain in Iraq if there is a (nominal) transfer of command of the occupying forces to the UN, ie. Abizaid takes off his US hat and puts on a UN one. This is likely what will happen. Nothwithstanding all of the above, I'm still encouraged by and applaud the mobilization of the Spanish people, who angrily refused to buy the lies and manipulation of the Aznar government. I'll feel the same way if the same thing happens in the US. I don't see this as grounds for pessimism. Politics is a process, after all. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Spanish spectre Marvin Gandall wrote: A large turnout of Democratic Party and independent American voters angry at having been lied to about Iraq haunts the Bush administration, and the Spanish result will do little to allay its foreboding. I am not sure what point is being made here. The SP in Spain was opposed to the war and pledged to remove troops if elected. The DP in the USA supports the war and John Kerry has pledged to increase the numbers of troops. It just might turn out that Bush is replaced by Kerry, but this will make little difference to the people of Iraq unless he decides to renounce his pro-war views once in the White House. Since US foreign policy is made by an invisible government with little connection to how people vote, I doubt if there is much basis for optimism. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Spanish spectre
Hey, we agree. :) - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Spanish spectre Marvin Gandall wrote: means -- any US government, including a Green Party one, would be compelled to respond this way, if allowed to come to power through the electoral system. The notion of a Green President in the USA is so beyond the realm of possibility without concomitant mass mobilizations that it seems doubtful to speak in terms of it being compelled in one way or another. If this did come to pass, it would likely put enormous pressure on the bourgeoisie to get out of Iraq but most other places as well. We are not anywhere near that situation unfortunately. It's not assured in Spain, incidentally -- and I'm sure you know this -- that the 1200 Spanish troops will be withdrawn on June 30. The PSOE has left itself an escape hatch in that some or all of the troops will remain in Iraq if there is a (nominal) transfer of command of the occupying forces to the UN, ie. Abizaid takes off his US hat and puts on a UN one. This is likely what will happen. Right. They say that if the UN takes charge, they will stay in Iraq. Sort of the position of the DSA, the Nation Magazine and the rest of the missionary left that doesn't want to abandon the Iraqis. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Derivatives
Sabri Oncu provided some unhelpful comments about my queries on derivatives. 1) If he were advising the government of Cuba would he immediately recommend it drop its sugar derivatives program -- and, by extension, advise other poor countries to do the same in relation to their own resources? 2) It's not enough to sarcastically point to the dangers they pose to the world economy. What can be done about what the bourgeoisie itself, notably Warren Buffet, describes as a ticking time bomb? Anything? -- a) prohibit the $130 trillion trade in derivatives altogether (fat chance), b) endorse efforts to regulate the the more exotic opaque instruments by requiring greater transparency and mark-to-market accounting standards, or c) wait for the whole house of cards to collapse so we can say told you so. I have a genuine interest in the issue, want to know more about it, and have no ax to grind. I think it was good of Juriann Bendian to raise it, and bad for Sabri to curtly dismiss his effort as a bad essay without any explanation except derivative are dangerous (indeed) and to invite me to kiss his sweet cheeks for pursuing the thread. Marv Gandall
Re: Derivatives
Thanks. This is more what I was looking for. I wouldn't discount efforts towards some form of self-regulation in the overall self-interest of investors, however, and especiially by the big banks who are forced to take a bath to take when heavily leveraged big players like LTCM bet wrong and can't cover their trades. The systemic risk resulting from LTCM situations is a real concern. But I think the real question is whether this huge shadowy market can be effectively regulated. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Derivatives 1) If he were advising the government of Cuba would he immediately recommend it drop its sugar derivatives program -- and, by extension, advise other poor countries to do the same in relation to their own resources? I, for one, see nothing wrong with hedging on the futures market to try to lock in a price on some -- but not all -- of a country's crop. (Not all because it makes sense to diversify.) This kind of derivative is what farmers have been doing for quite awhile. It's basically the same thing as taking out insurance. 2) ... What can be done about what the bourgeoisie itself, notably Warren Buffet, describes as a ticking time bomb? Anything? -- a) prohibit the $130 trillion trade in derivatives altogether (fat chance), b) endorse efforts to regulate the the more exotic opaque instruments by requiring greater transparency and mark-to-market accounting standards, or c) wait for the whole house of cards to collapse so we can say told you so. It seems to me that (b) is the obvious solution for the bourgeoisie. Not that they'll do it in the near future, because given the current balance of power (the lack of a serious labor or social-democratic movement) the short-term and particularistic thinkers and their neo-liberalism will dominate regulation. Jim Devine
Re: An essay on economic basis of bourgeois risk and gambling culture - parasitism as derivatives, options, swaps, hedge funds etc.
I didn't ask the question to be provocative. Someone raised it with me in a discussion. Your answer seems to be maybe they work for hedging purposes, but they still represent a potential source of catastrophic instability. That's essentially what I replied, wondering whether I'd missed any intrinsic arguments against their being efficient hedges, which might have been more persuasive. Anyway, don't sweat it;there are more important issues, but thanks for replying... Marv G - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 12:11 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] An essay on economic basis of bourgeois risk and gambling culture - parasitism as derivatives, options, swaps, hedge funds etc. Marvin: Sabri: How would you answer the argument that most derivatives are used for hedging operations and are therefore a source of stability for the system? Dear Marvin, I was tempted to open up with the following: Are they? I did not know this! But if I do that you may get the impression that I am attacking you. But no! Even if I opened up like that, my intention wouldn't have been to attack you. It would have been to attack the standard finance text books which claim the above. Those books are not only based on unreasonable rationality assumptions but also they ignore the effects of size. Soros was able to attack the UK government and beat it when he bet against the pound but I don't think even he has the ability to bet against the US market. The US financial market is a monster against which no one has the ability to bet. And that is the problem. Controlled chaos is fine as long as those who are at the reigns have the ability to pull them. But if the horses go crazy, it does not matter how good a rider you are. They decide where they want to go and they may even choose to jump of a cliff. There are trillions of dollars worth of derivatives out there with no connection to neither the real economy nor the money supply. Anyone create money in these markets by signing derivatives contracts, as long as they have the credibility to sell them. This global gambling casino grew so big that none of the owners, including the US Treasury and the FED, really own this casino anymore. It became uncontrollably chaotic despite denials of the alleged owners. And the casino always wins, and if nobody owns the casino, everybody loses, sooner or later. Best, Sabri
Lukewarm Wall Street
Wall Street is not as enamoured of George Bush as might be supposed and some think a John Kerry presidency would be better for the economy, reports the American financial weekly, Barrons. Wall Streetis pretty much divided on the two candidates, writes Jim McTague. In essence, as individual investors, the big capitalists favour the Bush income and dividend tax cuts for self-interested reasons, but as a class they worry the reductions have swollen a soaring budget deficit which threatens to collapse the dollar and the economy. Wall Street has traditionally looked to the Republicans as deficit hawks, even though stock returns have historically been better under the freer spending Democrats. McTague says the centrepiece of Kerrys program is to boost income taxes on earnings above $143,500 to protect Social Security and Medicare programs the corporations and Republicans are determined to cut. Unless there is an unanticipated shock to the economy, you can expect current robust profit growth and Wall Streets traditional party allegiance to again take precedence over its habitual nagging doubts. Article reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: Russia-China: Putin's next term
I read somewhere the Chinese felt betrayed when the Russians agreed to let the Japanese, late entrants, divert the proposed West Siberian oil pipeline from Daqing to Nakhodka for trans-shipment across the Sea of Japan to Japan and beyond -- presumably to the US West Coast. The Chinese evidently thought they had reached agreement in Moscow last year that the oil would be directed their way. Now they're being told, it would seem from the Asia Times article, that they'll have to make do with more limited and costly shipments by rail. How big an issue was/is this, and was there any US role as far as you know? Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Chris Doss [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 5:02 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Russia-China: Putin's next term The strategic relationship with China idea goes back to the 1998 Primakov Doctrine put forward during the reign of Boris the Drunk, but has really developed under Putin as part of 1) the Shanghai Six group providing collective security in Central Asia and 2) the trilateral relationship between Russia, China and India, which is in part directed against the US. Really, Putin has managed to become allies with everyone and enemies with no one largely by using one of Russia's built-in advantages (and defects): size. Russia is the one country that borders every center of world power. China needs Russia for energy and natural resources; the EU needs Russia for the same reason; the United States needs it to supply stability in Central Asia (though there's been a lot of what I consider pretty knee-jerk talk about the US thrusting Russia out of the 'stans and whatnot, in fact US and Russian activities there have been closely coordinated; the Kant base was opened not because the Kremlin is worried about US troops being Kyrgyzstan, but because it is worried that there are not enough. Actually if the US sent troops to guard the Tajik-Afghan border and relieve the Russian troops there, the Kremlin would probably applaud, not to mention the troops.). -Original Message- From: joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:21:49 -0800 Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Russia-China: Putin's next term Say what you will, Putin is a smart guy. Joanna Eubulides wrote: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FC12Ag01.html Putin to expand strategic partnership with China By Sergei Blagov Mar 12, 2004
Re: An essay on economic basis of bourgeois risk and gambling culture - parasitism as derivatives, options, swaps, hedge funds etc.
- Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] An essay on economic basis of bourgeois risk and gambling culture - parasitism as derivatives, options, swaps, hedge funds etc. Marvin Gandall: Hungarian, but a good essay nonetheless. :) No! It is not a good essay. It is a wonderful demonstration of lack of understanding of derivatives, as the following statement of its author demonstrates: the rate of profit on capital can be significantly higher, and the risk much lower, than if you invested in any tangible or productive asset - derivatives allow many bigger capitalists to make more money faster, with less bother and less risk. The above is true only if they have the reigns in their hands. Just as they can make more money faster, they can lose more money equally faster, if they don't have the reigns in their hands. So Buffet is right: derivatives are time bombs and financial weapons of mass destruction And this system, under the domination of strured finance and derivatives, is heading towards its self-destruction, assuming that until that happens we can avoid an ecological collapse or a nuclear disaster. Watch Fannie-Mae in these days. Best, Sabri
Re: An essay on economic basis of bourgeois risk and gambling culture - parasitism as derivatives, options, swaps, hedge funds etc.
Sabri: How would you answer the argument that most derivatives are used for hedging operations and are therefore a source of stability for the system? I agree with your point about the downside; while all markets are a gamble, a wrong bet on highly leveraged derivatives -- as LTCM showed -- poses a real systemic risk. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] An essay on economic basis of bourgeois risk and gambling culture - parasitism as derivatives, options, swaps, hedge funds etc. Marvin Gandall: Hungarian, but a good essay nonetheless. :) No! It is not a good essay. It is a wonderful demonstration of lack of understanding of derivatives, as the following statement of its author demonstrates: the rate of profit on capital can be significantly higher, and the risk much lower, than if you invested in any tangible or productive asset - derivatives allow many bigger capitalists to make more money faster, with less bother and less risk. The above is true only if they have the reigns in their hands. Just as they can make more money faster, they can lose more money equally faster, if they don't have the reigns in their hands. So Buffet is right: derivatives are time bombs and financial weapons of mass destruction And this system, under the domination of strured finance and derivatives, is heading towards its self-destruction, assuming that until that happens we can avoid an ecological collapse or a nuclear disaster. Watch Fannie-Mae in these days. Best, Sabri
Re: An essay on economic basis of bourgeois risk and gambling culture - parasitism as derivatives, options, swaps, hedge funds etc.
Hungarian, but a good essay nonetheless. :) - Original Message - From: Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 6:31 PM Subject: [PEN-L] An essay on economic basis of bourgeois risk and gambling culture - parasitism as derivatives, options, swaps, hedge funds etc. George Soros, through his Quantum Fund, became famous when his fund 'bet' millions that the UK would be forced to devalue the pound in 1992. He won his bet, made lots of money, and became famous as the Greek who broke the pound. Yeah.
More on Argentina
Im not that knowledgeable as others on this list about these matters, but an interesting sidelight for me has been the reported role played by the Bush administration which has, in effect, inadvertently (or perhaps not so inadvertently) run interference for the Argentineans. North American football fans will recognize this as the expression which describes how big linemen clear the way for smaller running backs to skirt past the opposition. The US doesnt reportedly want to see a big IMF bailout of the banks; its Britain, Japan, and Italy who do. The conservative Republicans apparently have decided to draw the line here as concerns moral hazard the breakdown of lending self-discipline by the banks confident that governments and international financial institutions (IFI's)like the IMF will always be there to bail them out in the case of debt default. Paul ONeil, the former Treasury Secretary, was keen that if the banks wanted to speculate in risky emerging market debt, they should expect, as speculators, to be subject to the discipline of the market without expecting government/IFI relief. Leaving aside whether this is actually how the system works, the Kirchner government has taken advantage of this emergent US view to deepen the ideological split within the IMF. The FT article I referred the list to yesterday quoted the Argentinas economy minister Roberto Lavagna as follows: I agree that you must not use the money of American plumbers and carpenters or German dentists to bail out Argentina, Turkey or any other country. But if you take that decision many other things have to happen too. One of those things, he says, is that the world has to get used to lower debt-recovery levels. the FT article continues. And quotes Lavagna again: That is the reality. It was not Argentina's decision. It was the US's, and it means we have to carry out a restructuring deal with our own resources. The opponents of the US line cite Lavagna's stance, of course, as an example of how this approach just encourages defaults and bankruptcies and debt reductions by poorer nations, knowing that theyre not going to be subject to US heavy pressure to pay up. They say this ultimately puts the big banks and by extension the worlds financial system at risk, and these are simply too big to fail. The banks, of course, have always used this Cassandra cry to their advantage. Anyone else have any further information or special insights to offer about this reported ideological split? Todays FT report on Argentinas decision to pony up an IMF repayment, as had mostly been expected, follows. Marv Gandall Argentina agrees to meet IMF debt deadline By Adam Thomson Financial Times March 10 2004 Argentina on Tuesday agreed to make a $3.1bn payment to the International Monetary Fund, narrowly avoiding what would have been the biggest single default in the fund's history.The move broke a deadlock between President Nstor Kirchner's government and the IMF. Argentina is already in default with its private creditors after the country stopped servicing almost $100bn of debt in December 2001.It is expected IMF management will recommend that the fund's board members formally approve Argentina's second review under the current standby programme. Formal approval, expected within about two weeks, would unlock funds about equivalent to yesterday's payment. Argentine investors expressed relief at the agreement. The peso strengthened against the dollar while Argentine stocks and bonds were also higher. But there was no reaction in global markets, where some kind of deal had been expected. Global markets have generally been immune to this crisis, perhaps foolishly so, said Guillermo Estebanez, emerging markets currency strategist at Banc of America Securities. The agreement comes as the IMF searches for a new managing director after Horst Khler, the fund's current head, resigned last week after he was proposed as Germany's next president.Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's prime minister, said on Tuesday he would back the nomination of Rodrigo Rato, Spain's economy minister, to spearhead global attempts to head off financial crises. Details of how the IMF and Argentina broke the impasse were unclear on Tuesday afternoon. But people close to the negotiations told the Financial Times that Argentina had agreed to several IMF demands over the country's treatment of its private creditors. The most important of these is that Argentina should agree to enter formal negotiations with its private creditors to restructure the country's defaulted sovereign debt. Until now, Argentine authorities have gone out of their way to avoid using the word negotiation and, according to creditors, have done everything possible to delay the process. As part of the deal, Argentina will formally recognise the Global Committee of Argentina Bondholders (GCAB), a group claiming to represent institutional and retail investors holding about $37bn of defaulted Argentine bonds. It is
A tactical debate
An interview with John Kerry in the latest Time, and an article in today s Wall Street Journal article on current US foreign policy, illustrate that Democratic and Republican differences primarily turn on the alliance with Europe. As the Journal reports, the Bush administration recognizes the need for multilateral diplomatic, military, and economic support in pursuit of US imperial objectives, while Kerry told Time he is prepared to act unilaterally if I have to mostly, like the Republicans, against weak and defenceless countries. But the Democrats generally adhere to the traditional bipartisan consensus favouring the use, in alliance with Europe, of recognized instruments like the UN and NATO, while the Republicans feel constrained by old Europe and prefer instead to assemble more pliable ad hoc and, if necessary, illegitimate coalitions of the willing. The differences though tactical are not inconsequential; Kerry, for opportunistic electoral reasons and despite his misgivings, voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq (as he earlier voted for Reagans invasion of Grenada), but it is almost certainly true, as he maintains, that he would not as President have initiated action against Iraq without European support and reliable evidence of WMD. At bottom, the differences over Europe would seem to reflect differing assessments of its military capabilities and whether its global economic interests are compliment or contradict those of the United States. Articles reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting
Re: Question on public choice theory
Maybe liberal social attitudes. But what do the surveys show about the relationship between income/education and attitudes to taxes and social programs, for example? Is it not the case the higher up the education and income ladder you go, the greater receptivity there is to cutting taxes and programs? And if professional and technical white-collar jobs and income is threatened, would these issues not be thrust to the forefront of their concerns -- as, say, in Argentina or in relation to software programmers and back office workers who perceive a threat from outsourcing? Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: michael perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 1:26 PM Subject: [PEN-L] Question on public choice theory Public choice theory suggests that people vote with their pocketbooks. How would they explain that more educated people have more liberal voting preferences? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: [Marxism] A tactical debate
Louis Proyect wrote: This is an interesting question. Kerry insists that he voted for the war because he was misled. He based his vote on the documentation furnished by the CIA. If he has stated somewhere that he would have voted differently if he knew back then what he knows now (as even Colin Powell implied the other week), I haven't heard it. - An interesting question -- why? I think even if Kerry knew then what he knows now, he would still have voted for the resolution authorizing war provided the WMD issue was not a matter of public controversy as it is now. What he personally believed at that time about the existence or non-existence of WMD's had little to do with it. Surely you know that. If he could have foreseen that the war and occupation would become unpopular and that his vote would later almost cost him the nomination and subsequently give the Bush people a chance to attack him as a hypocrite, then he would have voted the other way. But a finger to the wind can only pick up today's breezes, not tomorrow's. But, anyway, that's not the issue. What's important is less what he did as a opportunist politician running for President, than what he would have done as the incumbent President. You seem to be suggesting that his dissembling means he might have, like Bush, invaded Iraq. Against the strenuous objections of France, Germany, Russia, and China, the UN, and the opposition of a large part of his base? If that is your position, you would be saying, against all evidence and logic, that there was a bipartisan consensus for the invasion of Iraq, and all the past year's noise and talk of a split in the US ruling class over the war was just so much malarkey. In fact, as you know, Scowcroft, Kissinger, Eagleburger, Holbrook, Brzezinski, Albright, and Christopher -- who between them embody the consensus -- were very much against going to war, until the administration had proceeded so far down that path that they closed ranks with it in the overarching interest of preserving America's credibility. But they never favoured putting boots on the ground to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They knew the risks much better than the neocon naifs in the Defence department and around Cheney. Their preferred method is to rely on economic pressure rather than military power, ie. on sanctions and, if necessary, aerial bombing of infrastructure, to force regime change from within. It's much safer and, if it doesn't result in regime change, it least allows for containment. That's why Bush Sr. halted short of Baghdad, and it was also the policy of the Clinton administration. You would also be saying that Kerry, as President, and the Democrats would have, like the conservative wing of the Republican party, decided to turn its back on its historic alliance with Europe, NATO, and the UN. In fact, even though they were forced by political expediency to vote for the war resolution, they never ate freedom fries and continued to agitate for a greater UN role. The Republican right has a long history of of experiencing the UN and Europe as an intolerable fetter on American power; the Democrats have none. There is no reason to suppose, then, that Kerry as President would have followed the same course as Bush. The Bush administration represented a radical break with the past against the opposition of the major part of the Republican establishment, the Democrats, and joint chiefs. But, as we know, the demonstration effect it intended of American power had quite the opposite effect, the US got bogged down in Iraq, and the bipartisan consensus reeled Bush back in. Now that the administration's wings have been clipped, the case can be made that the foreign policy of a second term Bush and a first term Kerry administration would look pretty much the same. But you can't make that case for last April, if that is what you're hinting at. This may be another instance where your visceral response to the Democrats and efforts to show they are indistinguishable from the Republicans may have clouded your judgement. Marv Gandall
Argentinean hardball
Argentina is showing how a poor country can use a debt default to relieve its obligations to foreign creditors a tactic that has infuriated the big banks and split the IMF, report the Financial Times and the Guardian. The country is suffering under a crushing $100 billion debt burden, and has been steadily accruing $700 million monthly in interest charges since it defaulted on its international bond repayments in December, 2001. The IMF has contributed more than $15 billion to help Argentina repay the big banks and smaller creditors, but has made further loans conditional on receiving regular repayment and on an agreement being struck with its bondholders. The Kirchner government, however, is fighting to direct improved revenues from revived growth to economic recovery at home. Its efforts to win further IMF concessions and to give its private creditors a close financial haircut has strong support from the mass of Argentineans impoverished by the 2001 economic collapse. A large debt reduction in Argentina would set a powerful precedent for other poor indebted nations. Both articles reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Crisis at the peak
The world will be plunged into crisis long before it runs out of oil in as little as 10-15 years when production will likely peak, according to energy analyst Paul Roberts in the Los Angeles Times. Oil optimists think the world wont run out of reserves until at least mid-century, by which time alternative energy technologies will have been developed to replace it. But Roberts says at some point, however, production simply won't be able to match demandwe won't be out of oil ; a vast amount will still be flowing just not quickly enough to satisfy demand. When that happens, prices wont simply increase; they will fly, as a manic scramble for the remaining supply accelerates its depletion, and provokes energy wars and a recession so severe the Great Depression will look like a dress rehearsal, he writes. The worried oil companies know supply and demand are widening faster than forecast, and their mantra has been to get us back into the Middle East which nationalized them when OPEC was formed a message the Bush administration has taken to heart, without much success, notes Roberts. Article reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com. Sorry for any cross posting.
Fear of polarization
The conservative US News and World Report is worried by data showing the worsening condition of US workers, and the growing prospect of class polarization threatening corporate America and the Republican party. Working class Americans are living on the edge of a decline very different from the traditional ebb and flow of the economic cycle, says the USNWR. The most visible indication the system is no longer delivering as before is a shortfall of 8 million jobs from the customary pattern of previous recoveries. American families, even with two incomes, have less discretionary income than a generation ago; are unable to meet soaring health care and education costs; are worried about outsourcing and job loss; and more people this year will end up bankrupt than will suffer a heart attack or be diagnosed with cancer or graduate from college or file for divorce, the USNWR notes. Add a widespread perception of growing inequality, corporate corruption, and the transparently pro-business bias of the Bush administration, and the Report fears populist politics will catch fire if stoked by the Democrats. Article reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Haiti's repression begins
Jean-Bertrand Aristide may have been allowed to leave, but middle class vigilantes and police loyal to the rebels have entered Port-au-Princes slums to hunt and kill his supporters, according to the Washington Post. Residents of the slum quarter of La Saline told the Post uniformed police and armed civilians patrolling in SUVs shot and killed several people. Witnesses identified the armed civilians as mulattos, a reference to the light-skinned Haitians who control much of the economy . Two police officers were reported killed in an adjoining quarter, as some fearful residents vowed to fight back in self-defence. The rebels are led by former death squad leaders and officers of the old Duvalierist army including the most well known, Guy Philippe, who told the Miami Herald last week that his political role model was former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Aristide supporters predicted the rebels would reconstitute the disbanded Haitian army to defend the country's tiny and reactionary economic elite and to repress movements for progressive political change. URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20983-2004Mar1.html?nav=headlines Also: www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: He does have a point
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote (02/27/04 6:13 PM) The Green Party needs to run a presidential candidate, especially in war times, since it is the executive branch of the federal government that determines foreign policy, making life-and-death decisions on matters of war and peace. Running candidates in winnable local elections alone doesn't allow the Green Party to publicize its foreign policy. Besides, on issues of local governance, there are much fewer differences between the Green and Democratic Parties than at higher levels anyway. - Yoshie suggests that the differences between the Greens and Democrats are less pronounced at the local level, but wouldn't she agree that even at the national level, were the Green Party ever to become a serious contender for power, it would be under enormous pressure to moderate its rhetoric and program and adapt to the norms of the two-party system - or it wouldn't be allowed to govern? This has certainly been the case in Germany, where the Green Party was born and attained its greatest success. As it grew, so did the pressures on it to conform, resulting in an inevitable internal split between the Fundis and the Realos. The latter were led by Joshka Fischer, who of course went on to become the country's Foreign Minister. You can see the same phenomenon at work in the earlier history of labour and social democratic parties, and subsequently of the European Communist parties in the postwar period. Their adaptation in all cases reflects the continuing success of capitalism in delivering a tolerable standard of living, and the domination of the parties championing the system with whom the (formerly) anticapitalist parties compete for power in the political arena. I think most of us understand this state of affairs will not change in the absence of a social crisis and mass upheaval, but this understanding seems to be obscured every four years by the exaggerated polemics on the left surrounding the differences between the parties and the personalities - in the current election, between the Republicans and Bush vs. the Democrats and Kerry or Kerry vs. the Green's Nader or Camejo. This seems inconsistent with an appreciation that Presidents Bush, Kerry, Kucinich, Nader, or Camejo would all have to govern within the framework of a bipartisan consensus in economic and foreign policy responsible ultimately to the markets. For example, I think it's equally likely that a second term Bush, the adventure in Iraq having gone awry, will govern like a Democratic multilateralist in foreign policy, and that a President Kerry, faced with a soaring deficit, will attack spending programs with a determination (though not an ideological zeal) which is indistinguishable from the Republicans. Notwithstanding the above, I wouldn't describe myself as a political cynic counselling others not to vote. I regularly vote for the social-democratic NDP in Canada. But I think it's worth pointing out, for the purposes of your debate, that I don't do so because I think the party, in the unlikely event it should take power at the national level, will govern much differently than the Liberals or Conservatives. The NDP 's history of governing at the provincial level in the West and in Ontario shows this to not be the case. What attracts me to the party is its social composition. It's where the trade union and social movement activists are to be found, and where consequently the greatest potential for mobilizing resistance to unpopular government policies exists. In my earlier days, I used to frontally attack the program and leadership of the party - both at its conventions and within the labour movement which supported the NDP - until I concluded that the activists and the constituencies they represent, so long as they retain confidence in their current leaders and party policies, understand such criticisms as an attack on themselves. Applying the same logic to the US, I can understand why Democratic union and social movement activists are so hostile to a Green party candidacy which, despite all the disclaimers and however softly it is posed, they presently see directed as themselves. I also think that deep spending cuts will be at the top of the agenda of an incoming administration, and that effective resistance to these will necessarily have to begin with the union and social movement activists who are in and around the Democratic party. In my view, they'll be much less inclined to accept these from a Democratic president who has raised their expectations and over whom they feel they have some control, than from a Republican administration, dependent on a different social base, which they could only hope to marginally influence through demonstrations, the organization of which will be hampered by the certain demoralization which will set in following a Bush victory. These two factors alone would lead me to favour the
Re: Estanblished Trade Unions Left Politics, was Re: He does have a point
I agree with you, Carrol, when you associate radical trade unionism activity with the historic labour struggles for recognition and collective bargaining rights. And also your points concerning the decline in trade union density within the society, and the scarcity of politically-conscious activists in the locals. No different up here or in any of the developed capitalist economies in this period. But I'm not referring to the left-wing militancy we associate with the old IWW- and CP-led unions -- but something much more elementary, when people initially have bread and butter trade union and political consciousness forced on them by the circumstances they find themselves in. In this context, I do think if the coming cuts to retirement, medical, and other core government programs are deep enough and perceptible enough, people will react -- in varying degrees -- even if they're deep into watching sports, sex, and survivors on TV today. And people invariably turn first to what it closest at hand when their living standards are threatened -- their unions and, in the US case, the Democratic party -- which is why I think these are the venues where any opposition to serious cutbacks would first manifest itself. Of course, this isn't certain; the cuts, when they come, will almost certainly be downplayed, disguised, sold as reforms, and phased in. So they may well be, by and large, passively accepted because they won't be experienced directly as an immediate assault on jobs or income. But if there is a potential to organize opposition, as I think there will be, it will be easier and more effective to do so from within the unions and the DP rather than from the outside. I include in this the development of opposition within the environmental, lesbian and gay, Latino/a, black, and other social movements -- all of whose demands to stop the cutbacks will be necessarily channeled into the Democratic party and directed at the party's legislative representatives at all levels of the political system. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 1:04 PM Subject: [PEN-L] Estanblished Trade Unions Left Politics, was Re: He does have a point Marvin Gandall wrote: I regularly vote for the social-democratic NDP in Canada. But I think it's worth pointing out, for the purposes of your debate, that I don't do so because I think the party, in the unlikely event it should take power at the national level, will govern much differently than the Liberals or Conservatives. The NDP 's history of governing at the provincial level in the West and in Ontario shows this to not be the case. What attracts me to the party is its social composition. It's where the trade union and social movement activists are to be found, Hypothesis: Trade Unions are actively left in their politics ONLY during their early stages, when the chief issue is establishing the right to exist. Once that right is established, they rapidly cease to be an element in left politics. At the present time, with only scattered exceptions, one will not, in the u.s., find social activists _and_ trade union leadership in the same social/political locations. In most instances of radical activists inside the trade-union movement you are more apt to meet those activists in organizations separate from the trade union itself. And, of course, in the u.s. the membership in unions has shrunk to the point where it makes up an extremely small proportion of non-public employees. If we want to reach the working class our efforts for the most part will have to be directed to non-union workers. My wife was president of the APWU local for many years, and also served on the County AFL-CIO Central Council. It doesn't take two hands to count the number of activists she met in those years. Before being employed in the Post Office she had led for a number of years an organizing committee (variously attached to AFSCME, NEA, SEIU) among clerical employees at Illinois State U. I make these observations to emphasize that I am _not_ talking from a vantage point outside the union movement. I'm for unions, not against them, but leftists at the present time simply should not fool themselves into thinking, again _at the present time_, unions are a very important locus for leftist activity. Carrol Carrol
Re: declaration of war?
Maybe not so stupid. It's called laying pipe -- preparing the American public for the deep cuts in social programs which are going to follow the election to deal with the deficit. I expect Bush and the Republicans to devote more than a little time talking about diverting social security payroll taxes to individual retirement savings accounts as the sweetener, and about reforming the already very limited medicare program to deal with a looming funding crisis resulting from the boomers reaching retirement age. Greenspan's authority can be enlisted in the exercise. Greenspan recognizes also that taxes are going to need to be hiked -- something neither party will talk about during the election -- and he wants to ensure that the dividend tax cuts and other advantages for wealthy investors aren't targeted. I'm not sure how much the Democrats are going to want fight the election on tax policy, anyway, given the way the Republicans frame that debate against them, or attack congressional spending cuts they know they'll largely support if they should win the presidency. I suspect they'll focus on the jobs issue instead, and only tangentially attack the class bias of the tax system, but that's pure speculation. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] declaration of war? As opposed to the old policy of no class war? I don't know. Actually, I think it was just a stupid move. I mean, why say anything like this before the election? Joanna Eugene Coyle wrote: Wasn't Greenspan's little talk about cutting taxes for the rich and cutting Social Security pretty close to an open declaration of class war? Gene Coyle
Post-election, Korea?
Todays Financial Times says the Bush administration is going through the motions of negotiating with North Korea, and will push for economic sanctions which could lead to war after the US election. FT reporter Andrew Ward says the US needs to bring the Chinese and South Koreans onboard, but both are strongly opposed, fearing [sanctions] would lead to war or destabilizing regime failure in the North. The Pentagon estimates a war would kill a staggering 500,000 South Korean and US troops, and hundreds of thousands more civilians in the first 90 days. The unspecified destabilizing effects alluded to by Ward which most concern North Koreas neighbours are their borders being overrun by starving refugees. Some analysts point to similar US threats in an identical crisis in 1994, and the resulting succcessful Chinese pressure on the Kim il-Jong regime to freeze nuclear weapons development. But others note the North Koreans are on the brink of permanently guaranteeing their security as the worlds ninth nuclear power, and believe the US and others will have no choice but to reconcile themselves to it. FT (sub only) article available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: Secret Pentagon report on global warming
Details of this report first appeared in Fortune magazine last month. Today's Observer article is a more sensational recycling of the already sensational story which Fortune reporter David Stipp broke last month. And the Observer account misses the main point of the exercise. As reported by Fortune, the Pentagon study assumed a midrange case of abrupt global warning, characterized by plunging temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, droughts, storms, flooding, desperate illegal migration from poorer regions, border raids, and the possibility of full-scale warfare between alliances of nuclear-armed states over scarce food, water and energy supplies. Note, in particular, the reference to illegal migration. The study's concern is less scientific than military, less the causes than the effects of an environmental catastrophe. Stipp is, in fact, quite explicitly says climate change should be treated as a national security issue to protect America's borders and resources. Significantly - and presuming the reporter is reflecting the views of his editors who reflect the views of the Fortune 500 - there is little emphasis, despite the frightening apocalyptic scenario, on any urgent preventative environmental measures, beyond tightening fuel emission standards for new passenger vehicles. It would appear the Pentagon planners invited Stipp in for a chat and leaked the Marshall study to him in a bid for further resources. Must be getting close to budget submission time in Washington. - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 8:28 AM Subject: [PEN-L] Secret Pentagon report on global warming Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us · Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war · Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years · Threat to the world is greater than terrorism Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York Sunday February 22, 2004 The Observer Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. (snip)
The jobless issue
The Bush administrations many critics are hoping the current jobless recovery will turn the US working class against it, but a review of the job market in the latest Economist suggests this is unlikely. American workers are conservative because the US economy continues to furnish them with job opportunities well beyond world standards even during periods like the present when, as the Economist notes, the public perception is otherwise. There are signs of discontent with the current slow pace of job growth and the quality of the jobs being created from industrial workers and, increasingly, from white-collar employees faced with the outsourcing of their jobs overseas. But official unemployment still hovers at a relatively low 6%, and 140 million Americans continue to work a near-record, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the population, says the magazine. The US historically creates many more jobs than it loses and the Economist is expecting the economy to revert to form this year insisting with other conservative commentators that lagging job growth is cyclical rather than structural, and that outsourcing is overstated. Economist (sub only) article available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
The hijab controversy
Todays Toronto Star has a piece by Haroon Siddiqui outlining the reasons he and other liberal democrats are troubled by the French ban on the hijab a stance which reveals how much the influence of religion has waned in modern urban society. Religious values and institutions are not the dominating reactionary force they once were, and still are, in predominantly rural societies, so it seems incomprehensible to Siddiqui and other liberals to attack what they now regard as harmless religious symbols particularly when they belong to immigrants whose cultures should be treated with respect rather than intolerance. In this, they are mostly correct. Many young urban women wear the hijab today as a defiant assertion of their identity in the face of pressures to conform to Western society, and their daughters another generation removed from the immigrant culture of their families will almost certainly not feel the same urge to do so. In light of this, attacking the hijab and other religious practices, as Siddiqui notes, is unnecessary and politically counter-productive. But Siddiqui is mistaken in his belief that secularism was historically neutral rather than anti-religious when it arose in reaction to superstition and clerical domination, or that modernizing secular reformers like Kamal Ataturk were in their own way as oppressive as their misogynistic opposite numbers in the Taliban. URL: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1c=Articlecid=1076800208681call_pageid=1038394944805col=103839493 Also: www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross posting.
America's benefactors
Asian financing of the US economy to keep it afloat as its largest export market is the biggest aid programme of all time, and Europe is paying the price, writes Martin Wolf in todays Financial Times. As is been widely known, Asian central banks notably in Japan, China, and Taiwan have been massively buying US Treasuries and other securities to keep their own currencies and American interest rates relatively low, and US demand for their exports correspondingly high. Any significant falloff in their dollar-denominated purchases would provoke a free fall in the weakening US currency, a spike in US interest rates, and a probable recession or worse in the American economy. Wolf reflects the divergent European interest in decrying as protectionism the refusal of the Asian central banks to let FX markets reprice their artificially undervalued low currencies upward. The euro s sharp rise against the US and Asian currencies has badly dented European exports and growth. He dismisses the recent Boca Raton call by G-7 finance ministers three of them from Europe for more Asian exchange rate flexibility as sound and fury, signifying nothing in view of the tacit agreement between the Asian central banks and the US to govern their trade relationship through what Wolf regards as a de facto system of partially fixed exchange rates. FT (sub-only) article available on www.supportingfacts.com Sorry for any cross-posting.
Re: The economy - a new era?
This is true, but I think the classical socialist movement favoured concentration for mostly economic rather than political reasons -- ie., like bourgeois economics, Marxists and social democrats saw concentration as historically progressive because it yielded economies of scale, and large-scale enterprises could more easily be brought under public ownership without the need for much prior industrial reorganization in the affected sector. - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era? Lenin applauded large factories for just that reason. On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 09:44:13AM -0800, joanna bujes wrote: The other reason is that more concentration make it easier to organize labor...they're all in one or a few places. I remember reading somewhere famous that the mammoth factories of early 20th century Russia made it easier to organize the workers. Today, I guess it would make strikes more effective. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Psychoanalysis Re: happiness is a transitory state
And if you want to take it even further -- that capitalism has been able to deliver, despite episodic crises, a modest but steady improvement in living standards and working conditions for the mass of Western wage- and salary-earners, despite Marx's belief that it had exhausted its historic potential a century and a half ago and would produce only increasing immiseration. It's reasonable to expect that a reversal of this historic trend, especially if abrupt, would be accompanied by a radically changed psychology, with few exceptions, among friends, neighbours, relatives, and co-workers desperate to recover their lost jobs, homes, and income. We caught a glimpse of the relationship between economic (in)security and personal and political psychology during the Great Depression through World War II until the system righted itself. Doug Henwood wrote: Or, if you want to take it further, there's Judith Butler's argument - rooted in that silly doctrine called psychoanalysis - that subjects are formed in subjection (through deference to authority figures, like parents, and their successors, like language and law), and that attitude of deference to authority persists through life, for fear of the disintegration of the subject. Mike Ballard wrote: Why *don't* the proles revolt? After all, capitalism is way past its use-by date by now. That's demonstrated on this list daily by the countless, excellent news articles posted. Could this condition originate in a conservative psychological character structure rooted in the upbringing of individuals within societies where the monogamous-paternalistic family, private property and the State permeate social relations?
Re: Response:Bush and the F 102
Fascinating stuff, Jim Craven. Never knew the details. Is it all documented in one place? - Original Message - From: Craven, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 5:32 PM Subject: [PEN-L] Response:Bush and the F 102 Bush and the Texas Guard flew the F 102. An aviation buddy points out that the F 102 had no conceivable mission in Vietnam. So even if he showed up, his unit wasn't going to go. Gene Coyle Response (Jim C) Absolutely true. At the time Bush got into the Texas Air Guard (with a national waiting list of over 150,000, got in the same day he applied--with 12 days left until his deferment was up, and with a waiting list of 160 in Texas for 2 pilot slots max, and with a score of 25% on the airman exam--lowest possible passing) The F-102 was being phased out. Then he gets a direct commission to 2nd Lt. bypassing a requirement for 23 weeks OCS, then he goes to flight school and finishes 100 hours or so short of the hours requirement, then he is transferred to the Alabama Air Guard with no aircraft (to work on the Senate campaign of his daddy's buddy Winston Blount) then he is missing for 13 months (records since lifted from the Guard records in 1994 by two shadowy characters who paid a visit), then in April 1972 the medical exams are changed to include random drug testing, and he is due for an exam in May of 1972 but in September 1972, he and his buddy James R. Bath (then a principal representative of the Bin Laden family in Houston) refuse to take a medical exam and are taken off flight status--with a pilot shortage existing at the time. Then he gets out 8 months early to go to Harvard Business school after first being denied entrance to Univ of Texas Law School for bad grades. Bush served a total of 51 months out of a 72 month Guard obligation. Jim C.
Exhausted Palestinians
Palestinian morale is at its lowest ebb and the impotent Palestinian Authority is debating whether to dissolve itself, according to Harvey Morris in todays Financial Times all in keeping with the Sharon governments game plan. Palestinian academics and politicians told Morris that, 10 years after its founding, the PA had reached a dead end unable to garner effective international support for a viable independent state, or, alternatively, to lead a popular resistance movement to the Israeli occupation, the latter task having fallen to the Islamist parties. As Morris notes, the beleaguered Palestinians are at a crossroads: either capitulate to the surrender terms on offer from the Sharon government, or abandon the two-state solution in favour of an anti-apartheid struggle for democratic and human rights in a single binational state of Hebrew- and Arabic-speakers. In an accompanying sidebar, however, Morris reports how Israel intends to keep the Palestinians outside as a cheap labour pool while annexing part of occupied territory containing the settlements through a series of bypass tunnels and bridges augmenting the border wall. Financial Times (sub only) article reproduced on www.supportingfacts.com. Sorry for any cross posting.
Re: Exhausted Palestinians
Why so angry? I might not phrase it in quite the way you do and I don't agree all Palestinian politicians are Islamists, but do you think there's anything you say about the political strategy which should have been followed that I would disagree with? And it has everything to do with political exhaustion, like it or not. Anyone who has ever been on the losing side in a labour or other social struggle, where the relationship of forces is overwhemingly adverse, knows justice or militancy doesn't always or mostly triumph over raw power. We're not talking poetry here. - Original Message - From: Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Exhausted Palestinians This is just garbage poetry. It has nothing to do with exhaustion. It has to do with whether you can win something, and how you can win it, i.e. political strategy. Palestinian politicians thought they could substitute Islam for politics, whereas they ought to have been splitting Jewish opinion in an effective way, uniting with the Israeli Left and progressive liberal opinion, against Judeo-Hitlerite fascism funded by American christianists. The Western Left just adapts to bourgeois discussions about anti-semitism, but it has nothing to do with the real politics of it. Jurriaan
Recent postings on Supporting facts
The following items have been posted during the past two weeks on www.supportingfacts.com. The full text of each article is preceded by a short summary. STUTTERING ECONOMIES The global economy is in worse shape than many thought before this winter began, and the economic and financial headlines could get worse before they get better, says the Economist. DESPERATE BLAIR Tony Blair thinks all will be forgiven when images are shown of Iraqis cheering their British and American liberators, but Seumus Milne of the Guardian thinks he and his Labour government will never recover. PROFITABLE DESTRUCTION The Wall Street Journal reports that the US, anticipating large-scale destruction, is inviting bids from American companies to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure it intends to bomb. IN-BEDDED Under the guise of press freedom, the Pentagon is embedding hundreds of journalists into combat units on the assumption they will bond with the troops and serve as instruments of US war propaganda. PENSIONS THEFT Fortune magazine says employees counting on company pensions to help fund their retirements may be in for a rude awakening when corporations renege on their commitments and slash benefits by as much as half. US CHEMICAL WARFARE The Independent reports the US is preparing to use pepper spray, CS gas and other toxic agents in Iraq, including ones similar to the chemical that killed 120 Moscow hostages last year. SIEGE OF BAGHDAD The US is continuing to deploy its forces for a sprint to Baghdad, writes military historian John Keegan in the Daily Telegraph, but he may be overly optimistic that the city will fall without a fight. HAMAS SUPPLANTS PLO Hamas has displaced the PLO as the leading Palestinian faction with no small assist from the Israelis, according to an analysis in Haaretz. CONFLICTING PRESSURES Provoked by US unilateralism, governments everywhere are having to choose between elite anxieties and an aroused public opinion including in France, where the outcome is still uncertain. ANTIWAR ILLUSIONS Perry Anderson argues that contemporary antiwar movements lack staying power because they have illusions about the UN and the possession of nuclear weapons by smaller states. QUANTIFYING LIBERTY Post-9/11 restrictions on civil liberties are under scrutiny in the US, reports the New York Times, and if they are loosened, it will have more to do with economics than liberal morality. POTENTIAL UNgate It will be interesting to see whether UN diplomats react with cynicism or outrage to revelations by Britains Sunday Observer that US intelligence is monitoring their confidential communications. MEET UNAMI Unami, says the London Times, stands for United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq a secret group established by the UN in violation of its own charter charged with forming a new post-invasion Iraqi government. NOT ACCORDING TO PLAN The war hawks not only expected the USs reluctant allies to have fallen into line by now, but also the first signs of an Iraqi coup or uprising to have emerged. Neither has yet transpired. DEMOCRATIC DILEMMA An article in the Washington Post describing reform efforts in Saudi Arabia points to the dilemma confronting US foreign policy: democratization is likely to bring to power forces hostile to its interests. ASSERTIVE EUROPE The resistance to US war plans by the leading European powers is intended as a warning they cant be ignored, but whether they will veto an American resolution at the UN remains an open question. TURK REVERSAL LOOMS Defying public opinion, the hard-pressed Turkish government will likely succeed in reversing a parliamentary vote denying access to US forces to launch an invasion of northern Iraq. OCCUPYING IRAQ Time magazine says White House officials publicly talk about liberation but privately concede the aim is to take over Iraq, plain and simple and impose strong military control over the country. If you do not want to receive these reminders, please reply to this e-mail with unsubscribe in the subject line. If you like this site, please consider forwarding this message to others who may be interested in these issues. Sorry for any cross posting.
