M-TH: (updated)DETAILED AGENDA FOR MARXISM 2000

[Bullimore / Kim Maree (COM)]

Dear comrades,
Following is a fairly long email with the full (provisional) agenda for
the Marxism 2000 Asia Pacific Solidarity and Education Conference to be
held in Sydney January 5-9, 2000. 

This version includes a list of workshops, seminars and panels and who
will be giving them or on the panels, so hopefully it will give a much
more indepth idea of what is available at the conference (if you want to
go straight to this, it is about half way down the email). 

The Democratic Socialist Party and Resistance send a warm
invitation to all left activists to attend the conference. If you would be
interested in attending or would like further information, please contact
the DSP at: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hope to see you there,
comradely, 
Kim B

Marxism 2000
Asia Pacific Solidarity and Education Conference
Sydney January 5-9, 2000

Initiated by the Democratic Socialist Party and Resistance

Marxism 2000: a gathering of left parties and socialist activists from
Australia, Asia and the Pacific, and around the world, to discuss the
prospects for socialism in the 21st century.

Five days of feature presentations, talks, workshops, classes, cultural
events and discussion.

International guest speakers:
John Pilger  Internationally acclaimed left journalist and film-maker
James Petras  Latin American specialist, Professor of Sociology, New
York University
Francisco Nemenzo Professor of Political Science, President of the
University of the Philippines

Leaders of left parties and socialist activists from:
India:  Dipankar Bhattacharya, Communist Party of India Marxist
Leninist, general secretary
Philippines:  Sonny Melencio, Socialist Party of Labour, chairperson;
Rasti Delizo, executive council, Reihana Mohideen, national committee.
Cris Gaerlan, Alab-Katipunan, secretary-general.
Indonesia: Five leaders of the Indonesian Committee for Socialism and
the revolutionary democratic movement
Pakistan:  Farooq Tariq, Labour Party Pakistan, general secretary; Amjad
Ayub, national committee
East Timor:  Avelino dos Santos, Socialist Party of Timor secretary
general;
A central leader of Fretilin, and other Fretilin activists
Britain:  Phil Hearse, Socialist Democracy Group
United States:  Caroline Lund, Malik Miah, Barry Sheppard, Solidarity
Scotland:  Pam Currie, Scottish Socialist Party
France:  Stan Demidjuk, Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire
New Zealand:  Adam Novack, editor, International Viewpoint (Fourth
International)
Matt McCarten, NZ Alliance director
Burma:  Maung Maung Than, All Burma Students' Democratic Organisation

As well as activists from: Aceh, PNG, Bougainville, West Papua, East
Timor, Malaysia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Palestine, Bangladesh, Taiwan, Hong
Kong. Plus speakers from the Democratic Socialist Party, Resistance,
Green Left Weekly, Action in Solidarity with Indonesia and East Timor,
Committees in Solidarity with Latin America and the Caribbean, and
activists from political campaigns and union struggles around Australia.

Provisional
AGENDA
The Marxism 2000 Asia Pacific Solidarity and Education Conference
consists of 15 plenary talks and panels, and 86 multiple choice talks,
classes or workshops. Unfortunately, with so many choices, it won't be
possible for you to attend all those you'll want to. The multiple choice
talks are arranged in 23 streams which group related talks, workshops
and classes. These streams don't clash, allowing conference participants
to attend all the sessions in a particular stream.

Seminar Series
Talks, classes, workshops
A. Internationals and Internationalism
B. The Indonesian revolution
C. East Timor's struggle for freedom
D. The history and perspectives of the Philippines left
E. New developments in the Latin American left
F. Issues facing the left in Asia
G. Struggles for democracy and independence in South East Asia
H. Classics of Marxism-Leninism
I. Creating capitalism — understanding bourgeois revolutions
J. Marxist philosophy
K. Marxist economics
L. Marxism and the national question
M. Crucial issues for Marxists
N. Introduction to the DSP & Resistance
O. Australian workers' history and struggle
P. Propaganda tools for revolutionaries
Q. The political legacy of the Bolsheviks
R. The historical contribution of Trotskyism
S. Towards a history of the US Socialist Workers Party
T. Building socialist parties in advanced capitalist countries
U. How Marxism analyses women's oppression
V. Can humanity survive the 21st century?
W. Panels and debates

We will record and publish many of the talks, so if you miss out on some
talks you wanted to get to, you will be able to read the presentation in
Green Left Weekly or Links magazine, or on our web pages:
Democratic Socialist Party: http://www.dsp.org.au/
Resistance: http://www.greenleft.org.au/resistance/
Green Left Weekly: http://www.greenleft.org.au/
Links: http://www.dsp.org.au/links/

Organising meetings for DSP and Resistance members active in particular
unions and areas of political

SV: M-TH: What goes around, comes around (I told you so)

[Bob Malecki]

OK Doug,

I will take a shot at your latest sleeping pill that all is well and the left with its 
crisis mongering is wrong.

I say that the destruction of the Soviet Union and the deformed workers states can not 
be absorbed into post war capitalist economic politics. That this event more then 
anything else is taking us to the brink.One thing for the capitalist to load the past 
periodical crisis's on the poeble a whole other ballgame when it comes to establishing 
"free" markets in the east.

Basuically your arguement appears to be that according to all the data we have arrived 
at more or less a super imperialist stage of development. What is your take by the way 
on the so called global economy? I noticed that you mention America pulling billions 
out of their socks and naturally the dumping of large parts of the Keynes type state 
intervention in order to pull this off.

Actually what did these billions do? A lot of it went to create and shore up bourgeois 
regimes in the making but hardly will be helpful in the longrun to stop the clock from 
heading in the direction that people like Lenin and Trotstsky desdcribed as the death 
gnall of the capitalist/imperialist system.

Do you really think that capitalism/imperialism can solve the future of mankind? Or 
are we heading towards the cliff. I mean there ain't no way we can live in the never 
never land of plenty for all for ever.It took the dismantling of the welfare states 
and many of the reforms fought for to fianance the present operation and where we are 
now. But where are all the billions gonna come from to feed the enormous blackhole in 
the future. And there are plenty of nationalists and fascist demogues waiting in the 
wings to take over when the house of cards falls down.

Seems to me that you have become the Guru of the soft intellectual left who find it so 
comfortable in the present order of things. Well I got a hunch that the house of cards 
you are building is gonna get a rude awakening. But thge left that supports your ideas 
will unfortunately wind up screaming for their own bourgeoisie to save them I'm 
afraid..

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki







 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

RE: M-TH: C'mon you lot!

[Janssen]

Hi all,

Being a newcomer on this list, I don't know what you're talking about.  It seems to me 
that we shouldn't be attacking people and we should concentrate more on critiquing 
their ideas in a constructive manner so that we can formulate better positions and act 
in the interest of the working class.  Calling people scumbags doesn't help.

Comradely,

Issam mansour 

-Original Message-
From:   Hugh Rodwell [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Thursday, October 28, 1999 10:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: M-TH: C'mon you lot!

Nice as slapping bottoms might be, Rob, and I never thought you were a
Madonna fan, a more
appropriate measure might be to put offenders in the front row of the scrum
in the coming
final between the Springboks and the All Blacks. Five minutes at tight head
would just about do
the trick ...

If only Proyeccht were still subscribed -- I'd love to see his face as the
packs
engaged. But since he's not, imagination will have to do.

Trouble about not discussing people like him is they're such archetypal
scumbags.
If they didn't exist we might have to invent them. I don't think
"personalities" as such
are the issue, it's the "principles" that the likes of Yechhh represent (or
since they lack
principles, the class interests they so faithfully and energetically serve).

Anyhow, since the world's moving a lot faster than it did just a few
seasons ago, the likes
of Yechhh are becoming too practically irrelevant to cause much of an
obstruction any
more. So many of the briefly fashionable "left" positions of recent years
are ending up on imperialist
ministerial platforms that their supposedly Marxist let alone revolutionary
credentials
get washed away in the ensuing tide of blood. Making things much clearer.

Cheers,

Hugh


>G'day Macdonald,
>
>I was hoping to let this unhappy little silliness pass, but you're making it
>difficult for me.  I, for one, intend to observe this list's recently
>mentioned and long-standing policy not to engage in discussions concerning
>personalities not subscribed to this list (and sad indeed to see that Jerry
>couldn't live up to a policy to which he explicitly committed himself only
>last month).  And whilst I reckon this 'I'm gonna take my ball and go home'
>talk is a bit over-the-top, Macdonald, you do remind me of this list's
>democratically agreed policy and the role of a co-moderator occasionally to
>lend such commitments some clout.
>
>If Thaxists wanna renogotiate the policy, well, fine (although I'd join Russ
>in passionately casting a no-change vote in such an event).  Failing that,
>if they wanna keep up unproductive personal sniping, Bill and I would have
>to assume the balance of the list would want us to slap bottoms accordingly.
>
>The list has been regaining just a little of its old zest of late.  Let's
>not squash the phoenix in its egg, eh?
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
>
>
> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---






 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

 application/ms-tnef

Re: M-TH: Re: What goes around, comes around (I told you so)

[Doug Henwood]

Gerald Levy wrote:

>Of course, I note that you side-stepped the whole issue of _LM_ -- a
>magazine that I recall you were rather sharply critical of in the past.
>Is my memory failing me or isn't that correct? What happened to change
>your perspective on _LM_?

I don't agree with lots of things in LM, and I haven't changed my 
mind on any of that. But I'll write for pretty much anyone who lets 
me say what I want, and LM let me say exactly what I want. I also 
think James Heartfield, the LM editor who asked me to do the piece, 
is a very smart guy and a very good writer, and even when I disagree 
with him, I admire those virtues. So, basically, nothing happened to 
change my perspective.

Doug



 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

M-TH: Re: What goes around, comes around (I told you so)

[Gerald Levy]

G'day Rob,

>  A good article called 'In
> Love With Disaster', which accuses capitalism of producing poverty alongside
> wealth, alienation for all, periodic destructions of productive capital,

I didn't get the sense that this was what the article was about ...

> and, of late, some lefties who content themselves with predicting imminent
> systemic self-destruction without lending themselves the credibility of
> first producing detailed and coherent explanations for our apparently
> expansionary times hitherto, or explaining why hard times should indeed turn
> society left when the evidence since the war has been that such social
> shifts have attended the good times more often than the bad.

Rather, this is the major thrust of his article.
 
> Now this might well be an outrageous load of bollocks, Jerry 

Not at all. Indeed, I think it is a valid criticism of many on the Left
who seem to think that every decline in GDP, increase in the trade
deficit, the rate of unemployment, or even daily declines in stock prices
is an indication of impending doom. Not only is such a perspective wrong
on the face of it, but it is rather a odd perspective for Marxists to hope
for and rejoice over the possibility of another depression -- a depression
in which the lives of millions of working people would be grievously
harmed. It, indeed, reminds me of the pessimism of Raptis (Pablo) who
believed that socialism would arise out of the ashes of thermonuclear
destruction. 

> - all the more
> likely for the fact that I find it utterly compelling - but it's all we have
> to go with  while we await your own analysis and guidance.  Time to step
> forth, Augustus-like to your Philippi, Jerry!  What do YOU reckon?

So, it is "all" we have to go on, is it? C'mon, Rob: even Doug might
appreciate a more critical stance towards his writing.

My perspective, in a nutshell, is that while there is a lot of validity to
what he writes, Doug bends the stick too much in the opposite direction.
Thus, he replaces the "optimism" of those who anticipate an immanent
depression, with the pessimism that the capitalist state has shown that it
can overcome crises and maintain social-economic stability. The
"ultra-leftism" of the former and the reformism of the later are opposite
sides of the same coin. To overcome this, what is needed is a *theory* 
that explains late capitalism rather than a set of empirical/historical
observations *alone*. And, Doug's article is woefully lacking in giving
any theoretical explanation for this subject.

> Here's the article (as I submitted it - there may have been minor 
> editing changes in the published version, but I didn't do a 
> word-by-word comparison). Judge for yourself.

Thanks for making the article available: I've read a lot worse.

Of course, I note that you side-stepped the whole issue of _LM_ -- a
magazine that I recall you were rather sharply critical of in the past. 
Is my memory failing me or isn't that correct? What happened to change
your perspective on _LM_?

Now that you have taken on the role of being a tragic-comic figure, you
are almost likeable.  You would be still more likeable if you weren't an
empiricist.

Jerry

 > - 
> 
> In love with disaster
> by Doug Henwood
> 
> 
> Back in 1992, I wrote an article in the newsletter I edit 
>  saying 
> that it was pretty likely that the U.S. financial system wasn't going 
> to implode. After the roaring eighties peaked around 1989, the U.S. 
> economy fell into stagnation, and bank failures and bankruptcies 
> reached frightening proportions. Since by most ordinary measures, the 
> financial structure was as bad as or worse than 1929's, it wasn't at 
> all alarmist to fear the worst.
> 
> But George Bush's government came up with hundreds of billions (no 
> one really knows for sure how many) to save the wrecked savings & 
> loan industry, and Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve pushed real 
> interest rates down to 0% and kept them there for years. State action 
> saved capital from itself, and I thought it was time to say that 
> there would be no second Depression. Saying so evoked a fair amount 
> of mail and phone calls, ranging from those expressing concern about 
> my sanity to those expressing outright hostility.
> 
> Last fall, I said pretty much the same thing about the Asian 
> financial crisis - that, thanks to state intervention (mainly an 
> indulgent U.S. Fed and the ministrations of the IMF), the worst of 
> the 1997-98 melodrama was probably behind us. I made it clear that I 
> didn't think the worst was over for the workers and peasants of Asia 
> - - just that the systemic meltdown of the global financial system was 
> looking pretty unlikely. This too evoked reactions similar to 1992's 
> all clear.
> 
> I recount this not to brag about my prescience; I've made lots of bad 
> calls in my life too, though they're a lot less pleasant to think 
> about. One of those ba

Re: M-TH: What goes around, comes around (I told you so)

[Doug Henwood]

Gerald Levy wrote:

>In a startling plot twist, Doug H, it seems, -- has written an article
>for _LM_.
>
>Is that correct, Doug? What's the title of the article and the issue # of
>the magazine?
>
>Now it seems that Doug has been cast in the role of Julius Caesar.
>Doug turns to his former friend and says:
>"Et tu Brutae?"

Here's the article (as I submitted it - there may have been minor 
editing changes in the published version, but I didn't do a 
word-by-word comparison). Judge for yourself.

Doug



In love with disaster
by Doug Henwood


Back in 1992, I wrote an article in the newsletter I edit 
 saying 
that it was pretty likely that the U.S. financial system wasn't going 
to implode. After the roaring eighties peaked around 1989, the U.S. 
economy fell into stagnation, and bank failures and bankruptcies 
reached frightening proportions. Since by most ordinary measures, the 
financial structure was as bad as or worse than 1929's, it wasn't at 
all alarmist to fear the worst.

But George Bush's government came up with hundreds of billions (no 
one really knows for sure how many) to save the wrecked savings & 
loan industry, and Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve pushed real 
interest rates down to 0% and kept them there for years. State action 
saved capital from itself, and I thought it was time to say that 
there would be no second Depression. Saying so evoked a fair amount 
of mail and phone calls, ranging from those expressing concern about 
my sanity to those expressing outright hostility.

Last fall, I said pretty much the same thing about the Asian 
financial crisis - that, thanks to state intervention (mainly an 
indulgent U.S. Fed and the ministrations of the IMF), the worst of 
the 1997-98 melodrama was probably behind us. I made it clear that I 
didn't think the worst was over for the workers and peasants of Asia 
- just that the systemic meltdown of the global financial system was 
looking pretty unlikely. This too evoked reactions similar to 1992's 
all clear.

I recount this not to brag about my prescience; I've made lots of bad 
calls in my life too, though they're a lot less pleasant to think 
about. One of those bad calls was to take the 1987 stock market crash 
all too seriously - I thought it was the overture to a rerun of the 
1930s, when it turned out to be the financial equivalent of a summer 
thunderstorm. That made me think a lot about catastrophism.

The left, Marxist and non-Marxist, has long shown an unhealthy 
affinity for disaster. Bank runs, currency crises, oil spills get 
radicals' blood running. But this hasn't proved a very fruitful 
passion. Of course it goes without saying that a system so prone to 
crisis - where it's become routine that a major country go under 
every couple of years - has, by definition, serious systemic 
problems. But despite the turmoil and misery that come with these 
crises, capitalism  has shown a remarkable capacity to heal itself, 
and even to turn crisis to its advantage. The bourgeois state has 
become remarkably skilled at socializing losses, and shifting the 
burdens of adjustment onto the poor and the weak. The terminal 
crisis, the death agony of capitalism, just refuses to arrive.

Let's think back for a moment on some of the great financial 
disasters of the last 20 years.

* There was the Third World debt crisis, that even respectable people 
thought might be a system breaker. Instead, the creditor countries, 
led by the U.S. Treasury and the IMF, used the crisis to force debtor 
countries to dismantle protectionist development machinery, open up 
to foreign trade and capital flows, and privatize state enterprises. 
The human consequences have been severe - massive impoverishment and 
polarization - but the system emerged not merely intact but 
strengthened.

* There was the (now-forgotten) U.S. leveraging mania of the 1980s, 
which I mentioned at the beginning of this article. Not only were 
several hundred billion dollars of public money expended with almost 
no debate - at a time when we were constantly told there was no money 
available for social spending - the Fed's low-interest-rate policy 
set the stage for the great bull market in stocks of the mid- and 
late-1990s. That bull market has not only greatly enriched the 5% of 
shareholders who hold 95% of all stock, it's also contributed to the 
broad prestige of U.S. capitalism. That prestige and the bull market 
probably won't last forever, but it's been quite a lovely run so far.

* And there were the two great "emerging market" disasters - Mexico 
in 1994-95 and Southeast Asia in 1997-98 - both of which looked like 
potential system-breakers, especially the Asian melodrama. But again, 
the combination of emergency funding and engineered depression in the 
crisis countries kept the system together. Mexico was further 
"liberalized," and the developmentalist state regimes of Southeast 
Asia, particularly Korea

M-TH: Re: C'mon you lot!

[Rob Schaap]

G'day Hugh,

>Nice as slapping bottoms might be, Rob, and I never thought you were a
>Madonna fan, a more appropriate measure might be to put offenders in the 
>front row of the scrum in the coming final between the Springboks and the 
>All Blacks. Five minutes at tight head would just about do the trick ...

Heh, heh.  That'd be the third-fourth play-off you'd be talking about, eh? 
Rather their packs than the French, say I.  What a bunch of thugs!  Did like
laMaison, though - and I suppose said thugs have to get credit for giving
him the room for those worrying little kicks of his.

>So many of the briefly fashionable "left" positions of recent years
>are ending up on imperialist ministerial platforms that their supposedly 
>Marxist let alone revolutionary credentials get washed away in the ensuing 
>tide of blood. Making things much clearer.

On that reckoning we should be seeing some dramatic polarisation at the
ballot box and not a little taking it to the streets.  Arguably, we're
seeing a bit of this in Germany and parts of the erstwhile Eastern bloc.  I
even detect a little leftish grumbling rising to the surface from the Noo
Labour backbenches - all with appropriate British reserve, of course - but
then the journey of a thousand steps starts with the first whimper, I
s'pose.  Is Tony Benn's retirement from the parliament for, er, more direct
politics getting much coverage over there, btw?

Cheers,
Rob.


 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

M-TH: Re: What goes around, comes around (I told you so)

[Rob Schaap]

G'day Jerry,

>In a startling plot twist, Doug H, it seems, -- has written an article
>for _LM_. 

Yeah, a timely warning to lefties to avoid making public clutzes of
themselves by screaming fire every time a percentage point comes off the Dow
(sage advice I keep ignoring to my cost, btw).  A good article called 'In
Love With Disaster', which accuses capitalism of producing poverty alongside
wealth, alienation for all, periodic destructions of productive capital,
and, of late, some lefties who content themselves with predicting imminent
systemic self-destruction without lending themselves the credibility of
first producing detailed and coherent explanations for our apparently
expansionary times hitherto, or explaining why hard times should indeed turn
society left when the evidence since the war has been that such social
shifts have attended the good times more often than the bad.

Now this might well be an outrageous load of bollocks, Jerry - all the more
likely for the fact that I find it utterly compelling - but it's all we have
to go with  while we await your own analysis and guidance.  Time to step
forth, Augustus-like to your Philippi, Jerry!  What do YOU reckon?

>Now it seems that Doug has been cast in the role of Julius Caesar. Doug
turns to his former friend and says:
>"Et tu Brutae?" 

Slipping a quick one into the ribs ere the Ides of November, eh?  

Cheers,
Rob.




 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

M-TH: Fwd: [Cuba SI] Venezuela to change name

[Macdonald Stainsby]

>
>Venezuela name change will honor Bolivar
>
>Copyright © 1999 Nando Media
>Copyright © 1999 APonline
>
>
>
>   Venezuelan rights activists win major victory 10 years after riots
>
>By BART JONES
>
>CARACAS, Venezuela (November 12, 1999 7:56 p.m. EST
>http://www.nandotimes.com) -
>Venezuela's Constitutional Assembly voted Friday to change the
>country's name to the
>Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in honor of South American
>independence hero Simon
>Bolivar.
>
>The assembly voted to include the name change in a proposed new
>constitution it is writing
>for Venezuela. The new constitution is to be voted on in a national
>referendum Dec. 15.
>
>The assembly had previously voted against the name change, saying it
>would be too costly
>to change passports, currency and official documents.
>
>But President Hugo Chavez, who idolizes Bolivar and proposed the new
>name, lobbied
>assembly members. The assembly is dominated by Chavez supporters.
>
>To minimize costs, the assembly decided that the name change would
>be implemented
>only after the current supply of documents and official papers is
>depleted.
>
>Bolivar, who was born into a wealthy family in Caracas in 1783, is a
>towering figure in
>Venezuela and other Latin American nations. He freed Venezuela,
>Colombia, Ecuador,
>Peru and Bolivia - the country named after him - from Spanish rule.
>
>But his goal of uniting South America eventually failed, and in 1830 he
>died a poor and hated
>man. His reputation has since been rehabilitated.
>
>Chavez often quotes Bolivar and has named several of his government
>programs after him.
>
>The assembly has come under fire for rushing the new constitution and
>proposing
>controversial articles regarding abortion, the media, the economy and
>other issues.
>
>It approved some 400 articles in about three weeks and plans to hold
>the second and final
>debate on the entire document in about two days, wrapping up their work
>this weekend.
>
>They say they are working quickly so that Chavez, who took office in
>February, can move
>ahead with a "peaceful revolution" aimed at reducing widespread
>corruption and poverty in
>the oil-rich South American nation.
>
>
>
>
>

__
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


 --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---