I don't care now about who did what when. The list was going quite well
until you revived this vituperation. It must cease immediately.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 02:13:40AM -0700, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I do not want to have to keep monitoring this thread. It is a bad time
> > for me. This sort of sarcasm has no please here. Please stop!!!
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:55:19AM -0700, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah so someone like Kabeer is a bourgeois hack like Friedman? Hmm. What do you
> > > think someone like her thinks of you.
> Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I do not want to have to keep monitoring this thread. It is a bad time
> > for me. This sort of sarcasm has no please here. Please stop!!!
>
> Michael,
> henwood referred to those who characterize the anti sweatshop movement as
> protectionist as bourgeois hacks--to this you do not object! Henwood and
> featherstone had written that naila kabeer thoughty of the anti
> sweatshop movement as protectionist; hence, they had implicitly referred to
> her as a bourgeois hack. i objected to this by asking them to consider what
> she may think of them. how else is one to return the slander? at least, i did
> not call them hacks.
>
> let me be clear here. i know doug--he is tough minded in that enlightenment
> way, obviously very smart and grounded in the data beyond compare. it is
> beneath him in my opinon to have hitherto been insufficiently critical of the
> post Seattle union backed "fair trade" movement of which this student anti
> sweatshop agitation is indeed a manifestation in spite of h's heroic attempts
> to delink the students from the protectionist, i.e., social imperialist,
> unions which are bankrolling them.
>
> in my opinion, henwood has been way too soft in his lingua franca and nation
> pieces on the reactionary nature of Sweeney's putative new internationalism.
> and i do think the stakes are very high in regards to the northern attempt to
> prevent defacto the North's living up to its side of the trade bargain in 2004-
> 5. Very high indeed. So yes I think Henwood is making a big, global political
> error from the perspectives of both foreign and American workers in not blowing
> the whistle on Sweeney's fair trade movement.
>
> I have been very unhappy that the anti protectionist viewpoint has not been
> adequately covered in the numerous pieces on anti globalization in the Nation.
> Instead we have this applauding of snooty kids' feel good activism. they are
> getting way too much attention, especially since they are ultimately pawns in
> the high stakes protectionist game.
>
> as for sawicky, the case is clearer. for years now he has tried to develop a
> folksy kind of populism his commitment to which led him to rise to the defense
> of Lind's liberal nationalism which upon closer examination proves to be an
> externally illiberal nationalism or national chauvinism, plain and simple. i
> have for years thought that sawicky was too much of a nationalist to fight off
> national chauvinism which is a trap for the working class. and that he needed
> to defend lind against me only underlines the point.
>
> if you go back to the mid july exchange, you will see that i did not insult
> max but lind and lind only for his nativism. Sawicky then felt compelled to
> dismiss my charges of lind's racism and nativism as irresponsible hysteria and
> hallucination--these are the kinds of words which he used.
>
> i then wrote a fairly substantial criticism of the lind piece on
> immigration which pugliese had downloaded--if you don't believe me, ask
> pugliese. sawicky ignored my attempt to justify my accusation of nativism but
> jumped to the bottom of the post where i noted that lind's foreign policy views
> are also reactionary. Then sawicky after having ignored the bulk of the post
> accused me again of hurling unsubstantiated accusations of nativism and trying
> to switch the topic to the vietnam war.
>
>
> then it gets more bizarre: a few days later sawicky announces to lbo that he
> has noted an uncomfortable overlap between lind's views and brimelow's white
> nationalism--the very point i had made in my comments on the piece which
> pugliese had downloaded! It was clear not to me alone that sawicky had become
> unhinged.
>
> And the whole thing became yet even more bizarre when Sawicky decided to
> castigate again my views on Malcolm X. I then reminded him that I did not say
> the things which he claimed. He admitted to being in error in a supremely
> obnoxious post titled Rakesh and Reptiles--though he claimed that he did not
> mean to insinsuate my less than human nature though he treats me in sub human
> terms in this post which was meant to retract his error in characterizing my
> views.
>
> you or doug have not intervened as a moderator to point out to Sawicky who is
> clearly a racist that there were replies on this question of nativism or on the
> question of the use of trade sanctions to enforce the core conventions.
> Sawicky continued to say that I had made no counter arguments when they were
> there in the archive plain for anyone to see.
>
> i don't believe you are capable of being a fair moderator. you have your
> prejudices--my opinion is that they are deep. So i am not surprised that you
> tend to see me as the one who has made the first attack against henwood and
> sawicky. of course i appear the aggressive one--not the ones who ignore the
> perspective of most third world trade unionists or think that it's reasonable
> to call for zero net immigration and a purge of illegal immigrants to keep
> natives' wages up. no, these are not the aggressive ones.
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
