[Marxism-Thaxis] Mark Tomasik: Don’t discount Gore-led ticket

[Charles Brown]

Mark Tomasik: Don’t discount Gore-led ticket 
By Mark Tomasik (Contact)
Monday, March 24, 2008 
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/mar/24/mark-tomasik-dont-discount-gore-led-ticket/
 
U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney


U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney, whose district includes much of Martin and St. Lucie 
counties, is hoping he won’t have to attend the Democratic Party national 
convention in Denver in August.

If he does go, that will mean the Democrats still haven’t decided a nominee for 
the presidential election. And if neither Sen. Hillary Clinton nor Sen. Barack 
Obama has clinched the nomination by August, Mahoney says we may see a brokered 
convention, meaning the nominee could emerge from a negotiated settlement.

“If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don’t be surprised if 
someone different is at the top of the ticket,” Mahoney said.

A compromise candidate could be someone such as former vice president Al Gore, 
Mahoney said last week during a meeting with this news organization’s editorial 
board.

If either Clinton or Obama suggested to a deadlocked convention a ticket of 
Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama, the Democratic Party would accept it, Mahoney said.

Mahoney, who is one of the superdelegates who gets to cast a vote at the 
convention, hasn’t endorsed a candidate. He said he doesn’t intend to endorse 
anyone because “I don’t see it as my job as a district representative” to 
endorse a nominee for the presidential race.

If neither Clinton nor Obama has enough delegates to secure the nomination by 
the time the convention starts Aug. 25, Mahoney will have to cast a 
superdelegate vote for someone. Superdelegates make up about one-fifth of the 
total number of delegates to the convention and are free to support any 
candidate for nomination. Most superdelegates are current or former elected 
officeholders or party officials.

As an uncommitted superdelegate, Mahoney said he has been wooed by Clinton and 
Obama for an endorsement. Clinton has been the more aggressive solicitor, 
Mahoney said.

Mahoney said he has met twice with Obama. He has met more often with Clinton. 
Two weeks ago, Mahoney attended a cocktail party at Clinton’s house in 
Washington, D.C., he said. Mahoney told of how impressed he is by Clinton’s 
commitment to helping people and her human touch. When Clinton learned that 
Mahoney’s daughter is interested in horses, she called the girl to encourage 
her interest, Mahoney said.

While Mahoney hasn’t committed to either contender, he clearly likes Clinton 
and her stance on issues. He praised her for having a grasp of matters of 
importance to Floridians, especially homeowners insurance reform. (He also made 
the point that Sen. John McCain, the apparent Republican presidential nominee, 
is the only candidate in either party not to support national reform of 
homeowners insurance.)

Mahoney described Clinton as being “incredibly bright, very personable” and 
having “an unbelievable grasp of policy” during his meetings with her.

Mahoney said he had intended to skip the convention because “I have better 
things to do in my district” than attend what recently has become a glorified 
pep rally. He will stay away if his superdelegate vote isn’t needed. Meanwhile, 
he’s lobbying to get the results of the Jan. 29 Florida primary vote to count.

The national Democratic Party and its chairman, Howard Dean, stripped Florida 
of its delegates as punishment for violating party rules by moving up the 
state’s primary date from March to Jan. 29. Dean banned the Democratic 
candidates from campaigning in Florida. Still, a record 1.75 million Democrats 
voted in the Florida primary. Clinton won by 17 percentage points.

A recent statewide poll of registered Democratic voters by the St. Petersburg 
Times and its television partner showed that the campaigning boycott of Florida 
had little effect on Democratic voters’ choices in the Jan. 29 primary. The 
poll showed that 56 percent said the lack of campaigning had “no effect at all” 
on their vote. Also, 77 percent of the people polled said that it is “very 
important” to them that the results of the Jan. 29 primary count.

Mirroring our editorial board’s position and the poll results, Mahoney said the 
Jan. 29 results should be counted and the full slate of delegates should be 
seated at the convention.

“The delegates have to be treated fairly and responsibly and given full 
weight,” Mahoney said.

The St. Petersburg Times poll showed that one in four state Democrats might not 
vote for the party’s nominee if Florida delegates aren’t given a full say in 
the presidential nomination. That would seem to indicate that all Florida 
Democratic candidates for office in November could be in jeopardy of losing 
support.

Mahoney dismisses this notion, saying the issues are too important for 
Democratic voters to either sit out the election or vote Republican. Democrats 
need to first clean up the mess they made in Florida and honor the votes of the 
J

[Marxism-Thaxis] randi rhodes

[Charles Brown]

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

[Marxism-Thaxis] Behind the Clinton machine attacks on Richardson

[Charles Brown]

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-March/025835.html
Joaquin Bustelo

Í don't know if anyone here has followed the comments of the
Clintonites upon losing Governor Bill Richardson's endorsement. The official
reaction was ho hum, no big deal, there weren't any states left where
Richardson, who is of Mexican descent, could help Obama much (which is
probably true).

But having a former prominent cabinet member of the Bill Clinton
administration, who served as both energy secretary and UN Ambassador, the
only Latino governor in the country, who was himself a presidential
contender and is the most prominent Latino politician in the Democratic
Party, supporting Obama could not be dismissed so lightly. 

Particularly galling to the Clinton camp must have been the warmth
of Richardson's endorsement, and how Richardson emphasized that Obama's life
experience meant that he understood the situation Latinos faced, that he was
a true friend that the community could rely on. 

He said that one phrase in Spanish as he embraced the Illinois
Senator, undoubtedly knowing that this moment would be at the top of
Spanish-language TV newscasts -- which, of course, it was.

It's a subtle thing, but Obama has differentiated himself from
Clinton on the immigration issue, not so much on the details of the proposed
immigration reform each one favors, but by denouncing the scapegoating of
undocumented immigrants and saying he is in favor of giving them drivers
licenses. This last point would be moot under the kind of sweeping
legalization both candidates suggest they would support, but is one of great
symbolic importance to the community.

He painted a portrait of Obama as a "god guy", a decent human being
who, in one of the campaign debates, saved Richardson's but by whispering
"Katrina, Katrina," when the governor was caught by surprise by a question
when he wasn't paying attention. 

Richardson also attacked the negativity of the Clinton campaign, a
reference to the increasing racist tinge it is acquiring around the edges.
It's no secret that it was Clinton campaign operatives who jumped on the
Wright smear in the media, and pushed it, giving it a credibility in the
mainstream press it would otherwise not have had. Thus Richardson's fulsome
praise for Obama's speech on race, and the timing of his endorsement to help
prevent the Wright controversy from monopolizing weekend campaign
ruminations by the punditocracy, was clearly aimed at undermining a Clinton
offensive against Obama that had been more effective than anything else the
Clintonites had tried.

And Richardson suggested that it was time for Hillary to quit by
saying, in essence, that he'd never say it was time for some candidate to
quit. But coming within hours of it becoming clear there would be no do-over
in Florida and Michigan, which means that it is impossible for Clinton to
overcome Obama's lead in popular votes or elected (pledged) delegates, the
message was that as one of the more prominent of the super-delegates, it was
time for the super-delegates to step in and put the Clinton campaign out of
its misery.

And there could not be a harsher verdict against Sen. Clinton than
that of a former Clinton Administration insider, rejecting ties that go back
more than a decade and a half to back the upstart from Illinois.

And so calls were steered to "Raging Cajun" James Carville, who
dutifully told the New York Times that Richardson was a traitor, in fact, a
Judas.

He said it on Friday, and on Monday evening he was interviewed by
CNN --twice!-- and went out of his way to repeat and reiterate the
characterization both times. He said people like Kennedy or Daschle having
endorsed Obama didn't bother him, that was fine, he was still friends with
them, but Richardson was a traitor. He didn't bother to go out of his way to
explain just WHY Richardson was a Judas, he only asserted and reaffirmed it.

The reaction in political circles has been instructive. Everyone
agrees it was mean spirited, even stupid, a gift from the Clintons to Obama.
But despite every opportunity to soften his remarks, Carville was, if
anything, more cutting on CNN Monday night than he'd been in his comments to
the New York Times on Friday.

Yet no one has said the obvious thing -- even though Carville
virtually invited this by referring to other Obama endorsees who he did not
castigate in the same way -- that here was the hitherto-dominant white
faction of the Democratic Party lashing out at a Latino who had dared
challenge it, having consciously and explicitly allied himself with what
might by called an emerging Black-identified wing of the party. 

But what's going on is brass-knuckle politics. The Clinton machine
wants all the super-delegates still on the fence to know that if she wins
the nomination, they can expect to be stabbed in the back by their own
candidate in the g

[Marxism-Thaxis] Michelle O

[Charles Brown]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14michelle.html?ex=1218603600&en=68dffadd447e129c&ei=5087&excamp=GGPOmichelleobama&WT.srch=1&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=PO-S-E-GG-NA-CT-michelle_obama

Michelle Obama Thrives in Campaign Trenches 
 Monica Almeida/The New York Times
Michelle Obama at a rally last week at the University of California, Los 
Angeles, with Stevie Wonder in the background. 


 
By SUSAN SAULNY
Published: February 14, 2008
CHICAGO — There is no confusing Michelle Obama for her husband on the campaign 
trail.

Skip to next paragraph 
Related
Michelle Obama Adds New Role to Balancing Act (May 18, 2007) 

Blog
The Caucus
The latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.

Candidate Topic PagesMore Politics News
 
Jim Wilson/The New York Times
Michelle Obama said of her role, “I am trying to be as authentically me as I 
can be.” 
Asked at the Democratic debate in Los Angeles whether he would pick Senator 
Hillary Rodham Clinton as a vice-presidential running mate, Senator Barack 
Obama said she “would be on anybody’s short list.”

But when a television interviewer asked Mrs. Obama last week whether she would 
support Mrs. Clinton, if she won the nomination, Mrs. Obama was less generous. 

“I’d have to think about that,” Mrs. Obama said on “Good Morning America” on 
ABC. “I’d have to think about — policies, her approach, her tone.” 

Outspoken, strong-willed, funny, gutsy and sometimes sarcastic, Michelle Obama 
is playing a pivotal role in her husband’s campaign as it builds on a series of 
successes, including a sweep on Tuesday of contests in Maryland, Virginia and 
the District of Columbia.

Her personal style — forthright, comfortable in the trenches, and often more 
blunt than Mr. Obama — plays well with a broad swath of the electorate and has 
given the campaign a steelier edge while allowing Mr. Obama to stay largely 
above it all.

“I am trying to be as authentically me as I can be,” Mrs. Obama said in an 
interview. “My statements are coming from my experiences and my observations 
and my frustrations.”

Mrs. Obama says she dislikes politics — she insists there will be no second run 
for the presidency if her husband falls short this time — but relishes a good 
fight, the competition of it all.

In the beginning, she had significant questions about an Obama candidacy. She 
pressed advisers for a blueprint of how the campaign would raise money and 
compete with Mrs. Clinton and other candidates. She gave her approval after 
seeing a concrete plan presented in strategy meetings in late 2006, all of 
which she attended.

Now she is involved in most major facets of campaign strategy, always a fierce 
protector of her husband’s image. While the Obamas seldom travel together — 
fanning out much as the Clintons do — Mrs. Obama is often in touch with key 
advisers and her message is shaped by the same strategists who advise her 
husband.

“The strategy is not to pigeonhole her to any one kind of audience,” said 
Valerie Jarrett, a close family friend who is a senior adviser to the Obama 
campaign.

Growing up in Chicago, her brother, Craig Robinson, recalls, Mrs. Obama did not 
like watching close basketball games, but would always watch blowouts to the 
end.

“She didn’t like the stress of watching,” said Mr. Robinson, the men’s 
basketball coach at Brown University. Thinking about the campaign for a moment, 
he added: “It’s much harder watching Barack in this race than watching my own 
team. It’s much harder to watch someone you love go through a close game.”

At almost six feet tall in heels, Mrs. Obama, 44, cuts an athletic and 
authoritative figure in her tailored pantsuits and skirts. A Harvard-educated 
lawyer who had been earning $212,000 a year as a hospital executive before she 
took leave on Jan. 1, she delivers rousing 40-minute speeches — surveying 
topics as far-ranging as the specific failings of the federal No Child Left 
Behind education act and problems with the military strategy in Iraq — without 
the aid of even a notecard.

A doting mother of two, Mrs. Obama has kept crowds waiting with telephone calls 
to her “little people” — daughters Sasha, 6, and Malia, 9.

But Mrs. Obama’s confident, commanding presence has its drawbacks. At an 
address last month for an African-American awards gala in Atlanta, some in 
attendance were left feeling that she had been condescending, preaching to a 
group of achievers about the need to achieve.

“Her speech was very long and inappropriate for that occasion,” said Vivian 
Creighton Bishop, a public official in Columbus, Ga., who supports Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs. Obama has also had to learn to tamp down her sometimes biting humor 
because it too often leaves Mr. Obama as the punch line. (It has been a long 
time since she has talked publicly about her husband of 15 years being smelly 
in the morning, as she told Glamour magazine, or forgetting to put away the 
butter.) 

“What I’ve learned is that my humor doesn’t transl

[Marxism-Thaxis] McCain's pastor on segregation, racism, and genocide

[Charles Brown]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaaDbGgsKA 




___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

[Marxism-Thaxis] An introduction to Henryk Grossman

[Charles Brown]

>From LouPro


http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2008w11/msg00070.htm
One of the motivations in scheduling a discussion of "crisis theory" in
this online introduction to Marxism class is that it gave me an excuse
to read Rick Kuhn's new biography "Henryk Grossman and the Recovery of
Marxism". I have heard Grossman's name bandied about on various leftwing
mailing lists for the past 10 years and was curious to see what the buzz
was about. Kuhn's book has been a rewarding experience both in terms of
its scholarly treatment of a somewhat neglected figure and as an
important piece of the jigsaw puzzle of capitalist crisis.

This puzzle is of course all the more compelling given the events of
the past few months. A Lexis-Nexis search on "1929? for articles within
the last 3 months yields 992 hits! Here's something from one right off
the top:

How will new Fed chairman Ben Bernanke's handling of the current crisis
compare to Greenspan's record? The big worry is that the collapse in
share prices has been accompanied by a banking crisis. With hundreds of
billions of sub-prime mortgage losses yet to surface, most banks have
given up lending to one another. This has inevitably invited comparisons
with what happened between 1929 and 1933.

As against that, Bernanke has cut US interest rates four times since
last September. They now stand at just 3.5 per cent as against 5.25 per
cent when the crisis first began. And the Fed isn't done cutting yet,
with a further rate cut, possibly to three per cent, likely before the
end of the month. While there is a chance that things could go terribly,
horribly wrong, the likelihood is that cheaper money will limit the
effects of any economic downturn.


?Irish Independent, January 26, 2008

Rick Kuhn has been devoted to re-establishing Grossman's reputation
since 1993. His preface gives reasons why. Part of it was personal. Like
Grossman, Kuhn's Jewish parents had to flee Nazi-controlled territory in
1938 and 1939. (Grossman made it out of Europe safely, but his wife, son
and many other relatives were killed by the Nazis.)

But the main reason was what Grossman had to contribute on Marxist
economics, which was of great importance to Kuhn's peers, including
Anwar Shaikh, whose "excellent survey of Marxist crisis theory provided
a sympathetic account of Grossman's position." This survey of course was
the text around which I focused my first post on this topic.

One of Kuhn's first forays into the area of Grossman studies appeared
in the Summer 1995 edition of Science and Society. It was titled
"Capitalism's collapse: Henryk Grossman's Marxism". The second paragraph
is about as key to the discussion that we have been having on this topic
as anything I have read anywhere:

Capitalism does many horrible things to people. It generates radical
differences in income and wealth, with starvation on one side and
immense luxury on the other. It alienates us from each other, and from
our natural capacities ? for work and even for sexual pleasure. The
system reproduces itself by dividing humanity along arbitrary lines of
nation, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation. Its wars
periodically massacre huge numbers of people. All of these provide bases
for socialist critiques of the capitalist mode of production. But if
capitalism can go on forever, increasing the production of wealth all
the time, then in principal economic problems, at least, could either be
overcome through working-class action to reallocate wealth or
ameliorated into unpleasant but bearable irritants. In these
circumstances, Grossmann argues, the working class could just as easily
reconcile itself with capitalism as voluntaristically attempt to realize
socialism.

full:
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/an-introduction-to-henryk-grossman/



___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

[Marxism-Thaxis] Fictitious capital

[Charles Brown]

Fictitious capital

Jump to: navigation, search
 This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but 
its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations.
You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations. 
 This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced 
material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008) 

Fictitious capital is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political 
economy. It is introduced in the third volume of Das Kapital, a manuscript 
which Marx never edited for publication.

Fictitious capital could be defined as a capitalisation on property ownership. 
That ownership itself was very real and legally enforced, and so were the 
profits made from it, but the capital involved was fictitious in the sense that 
it was not backed by any real physical asset value or earning power.

Fictitious capital could also be defined as "tradeable paper claims to wealth" 
but this definition disregards that tangible assets themselves may under 
certain conditions also gain a vastly inflated value, far beyond what they are 
really worth.




Part of a series on
Marxism 
 
Theoretical works 
The Communist Manifesto · Das Kapital · The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis 
Napoleon · Grundrisse · The German Ideology · Economic and Philosophical 
Manuscripts of 1844 · Theses on Feuerbach
 
Sociology and anthropology 
Alienation · Bourgeoisie · Class consciousness · Commodity fetishism · 
Communism · Cultural hegemony · Exploitation · Human nature · Ideology · 
Proletariat · Reification · Socialism · Relations of production
 
Economics 
Labour power · Law of value · Means of production · Mode of production · 
Productive forces · Surplus labour · Surplus value · Transformation problem · 
Wage labour
 
History 
Anarchism and Marxism · Capitalist mode of production · Class struggle · 
Dictatorship of the proletariat · Primitive accumulation of capital · 
Proletarian revolution · Proletarian internationalism · World Revolution
 
Philosophy 
Historical materialism · Dialectical materialism · Analytical Marxism · Marxist 
autonomism · Marxist feminism · Marxist humanism · Marxist geography · 
Structural Marxism · Western Marxism · Libertarian Marxism · Young Marx
 
Prominent figures 
Karl Marx · Friedrich Engels · Karl Kautsky · Georgi Plekhanov · Rosa Luxemburg 
· Antonie Pannekoek · Vladimir Lenin · Leon Trotsky · Georg Lukács · Guy Debord 
· Antonio Gramsci · Karl Korsch · Che Guevara · Frankfurt School · Jean-Paul 
Sartre · Louis Althusser
 
Criticisms 
Criticisms of Marxism
 
All categorised articles 
Communism Portal 
This box: view ● talk ● edit 
Contents [hide]
1 Origins 
2 Effects 
3 Illustration 
4 See also 
5 References 
 


[edit] Origins
Marx saw the origin of fictitious capital in the development of the credit 
system and the joint-stock system.

Governments and banks could create additional money or credit, which generated 
purchasing power unrelated to the value of real production or real consumption, 
or to the real value of physical assets owned.

They could also issue debt securities of various kinds which could be traded 
in, regardless of whether these were backed by assets or deposits, and which 
became objects of speculation.

Companies could likewise issue share certificates that were speculated in. 
Again, this caused fluctuations in asset values unrelated to what a business 
and its production were really worth.


[edit] Effects
The general effect was that:

the market value of physical and financial assets could, backed by credit, be 
driven up and artificially inflated by some margin, purely as a result of 
supply and demand factors which could themselves be manipulated for profit. 
That margin of value could, however, just as suddenly disappear, if large 
amounts of capital were withdrawn. 
profit could be made purely from trading in a variety of financial claims 
existing only on paper. 
profit could be made by using only borrowed capital to engage in (speculative) 
trade, not backed up by any tangible asset. 
In addition, changes in underlying technology of a competitor, such as a labor 
saving advance, can render market value of paper claims to an asset 
"fictitious." Many features of modern global capitalism reflect the impact of 
such changes. Thus, a business firm may attempt to prop up the market value of 
its stock by increasing the rate of exploitation of its work force in order to 
keep up with the innovating firm. Other firms may attempt to use legal 
sanctions in the form of, for example, intellectual property law to prevent 
competitors, or potential competitors, from developing labor saving advances.


[edit] Illustration
Marx cites the case of a Mr Chapman who testified before the British Bank Acts 
Committee in 1857:

"though in 1857 he was himself still a magnate on the money market, [Chapman] 
complained bitterly that there were sev

[Marxism-Thaxis] Left O support

[Charles Brown]

COMMENT | posted March 24, 2008 (web only)
Progressives for Obama

TOM HAYDEN, BILL FLETCHER JR., DANNY GLOVER & BARBARA EHRENREICH

All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama.

[etc.]


___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Precis on theories of capitalist crisis

[Charles Brown]

>>> CeJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/25/2008 9:01 PM >>>
Precis on theories of capitalist crisis, replies to CB and SM

>>CB: Yes, , but I have this thing that Marxists shouldn't be focussed
on
how crises occur, but what how they impact the classes and class
struggle, , if you follow me. They would be interested in what's
happening now, as you say, but they would be interested in a different
aspect of what's happening now than what "economists" are interested
in
.  They would want to know how the crisis  impacts class
consciousness,
class unity, the struggle between the classes right now. Do you see
the
distinction I'm making ?<<

Well as lists like PEN-L and LBO-T show (at least to me), discussion
and analysis is largely futile. I don't see myself as socially placed
to affect elite opinion about such matters, and yet I don't see myself
as socially placed to take part in some enhanced class struggle.
Besides, by the time the analysis is taking place, it might be that
opportunities for exploiting the crisis have already passed. It's
history, and history gets written by the academics in the
establishment.

I suspect, as has already been pointed out at, for example, Leninology
blog, that it isn't going to be places like US, UK or Australia where
the political opportunities present themselves.

^
CB: I don't think this is a done deal.




CB:

>>See above. Marx didn't even leave a coherent theory of crises.
People have to pick through his writing and construct one.  A lot of
the
theory is in Vol. III which he didn't even bother to complete. I think
that's because he didn't want Marxists to spend a lot of time
analyzing
the why and how of crises.  He wanted them to concentrate on raising
the
class consciousness of the working class. The main thing needed is to
demonstrate to the working class that capitalist wealth is exploited
from them, and that mass immiseration at one end of the wealth pole is
linked inextricably with wealth accumulation at the other end of the
wealth pole, i.e. the Absolute General Law of Capitalist
Accumulation.<<

I think Lenin is one of the more important analysts in a rationalist
tradition, and he was certainly no laid-back, sold-out academic or
establishment opinion-maker. And he worked on the issue past his
important conception of imperialism and analysis of WW I and its
aftermath.

As for taking advantage of the current crisis, who is placed to do
this? Democrats who promise mortgage relief? Lou Dobbs who has a show
that is viewed by millions where he gets to argue that there is
nothing wrong with finance capitalism so long as it is regulated?

^
CB: Not many are placed to take advantage of the current crisis, but
not none are placed to take advantage of it. And there is possibility of
building a new movement out of  those who learn something from the
current crisis
^

When I look at the current figures as to the extent of the sub-prime
loan problem combined with the way venture capital and private equity
are faltering at putting together ever larger take over and merger
deals, this crisis does look to be a MAJOR one. I'm reminded of late
70s, early 80s. And that is because the US and other OECD countries
really do look to be heading into a recession together, which brings
up the depression word. OTOH, one thing to remember about private
equity--and things that act like private equity even though the term
is not used, such as Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway--this sort of
predatory capital has pretty much had free run of the OECD economies
for the past  15 years, and this sort of predatory capital likes
crises. It likes distressed assets; it even orchestrates panics on
companies and sectors to make its money go further (since its
principals expect 20% or more returns on investment).

^^^
CB: Yes , the real bourgeoisie make money come rain or come shine.
coming and going, in boom or bust. This is important to emphasize shout
from the roof tops, propagandize on constantly. They say themselves in
their "lit" and "internal" dialogues.

SM:

>>The crisis in profitability is demonstrated by the fact that for the
past decade a huge share of newly formed money capital has been
leveraged into fictitious capital rather than invested as real
capital.<<

Except your timeline is a bit short, don't you think? I mean what do
the S&L, junk bond (remember Milken?), dot.com, and Enron debacles
indicate? Enron was fictioning its capital from the late 1980s,
because it had managed, like so many of these fictitious capital
firms, to stay ahead of big bang 'reforms', such as deregulation and
privatization schemes, not just in the US (which often lags behind
other OECD countries in actual deregulation and privatization), but in
Europe and Asia.

I think the term 'crisis' indicates the fairly rapid onset of said
crisis. So it's like saying the symptoms of an illness which just
started this morning are key to understanding the illness. It might be
crucial to control the symptoms, but you 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O and racism

[Charles Brown]

>>> CeJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/25/2008 8:07 PM >>>
About Richardson. Does anyone outside New Mexico know he is Hispanic?


Yes,. Everybody knows. It is very significant that he came out for O
after the important speech on race, because, as I had anticipated, a lot
of other people of color would really "get it"  on O speech on race.
They can identify , shall we say. There are no doubt masses of people of
color who got it, when O had to "defend" Wright, explain racism to white
people for the ten millionth time.

Richardson said O is a once in a lifetime leader . Pretty strong
language.

Carvill ,the Clintonian, disgracefully called Richardson a "Judas" (!)
, right around Easter, as if the Clintons are Jesus ?! Jeeezzus that was
gross.  Anyway, it was also significant that he had been a Clinton
cabinet member.   For him to choose O over C, is a very strong message
for O.

^^^


He looks very white male ethnic

^
CB: Actually, no, not "very", and not white, but colored ethnic.

^

, but his name says Anglo-Celtic elite.
He seems to have positioned himself with a future Obama presidency,
perhaps he does have V.P. stars in his eyes.


CB: He was a Presidential candidate this year.

^^^

I think an Hispanic from California or Texas is a risky strategy, but
that now is not the time for Obama to play it safe. That is my hunch.
Playing it safe makes him the next John Kerry.
He may help JK  and Dean get rid of the influence of the Clintons, but
he doesn't do more than this.


CB:  Uhh no, O is not the next John Kerry . Uh no



But I think the white male ethnic Roman Catholic demographic is also
worth considering. Hillary Clinton does better with this category over
Obama, but not that much better. That is one reason why he has got
this far. This type of voter doesn't like the professorial type. Both
Mondale and Dukakis were too professorial for them (though Dukakis
comes out of this demographic, if you call Greek Orthodoxy another
form of catholicism).


CB: This fails to understand a subtley of the race dynamic.  A Black
candidate must adhere to a higher standard than whites. This is a
fundamental known to Black people not just for political candidates but
all areas of life for decades. I'm not going to explain the whole thing
now, but just assert it conclusorily.  In this case, "professional" is a
higher standard than "casual". Notice the speech patterns. Obama must be
very "professional" or be seen as a lower down negro. He doesn 't have
the luxury of being folksy for white workers. In fact, of course,
Clinton and McCain are much more hooked up with the ruling class than O,
despite their folksier manners.



Perhaps a white ethnic female might make the best VP choice? Nancy
Pelosi?
Diane Feinstein? But since so much of this is symbolic and emotional,
I think his VP choice should be around his age or younger by a year or
two.

CJ

^
CB: Clinton would be the best VP if she hasn't trashed O too much. She
has done a suicide job, by saying McCain is ready and O isn't. That was
absolutely astonishingly treacherous. Right now you have McCain,
Clinton, Clinton and Ferraro white ganging up on O. It is amazingly
revealingly racist. Clinton literally had an ongoing theme basically
endorsing McCain over Obama. I can't think of an adjective to describe
how outrageous that is in terms of "party loyalty'. She basically was
trying to get the nomination by wrecking Obama and then saying to the
superdelegates ,in effect, O is ruined by me so, if you want to win in
November , you have to pick me. " Not just " I can win in November but
he cant' , " but " I'm going to say and do things ( McCain is
presidentially ready and he isn't. O isn't ready to answer the red 
phone, but McCain and I are) and have Ferraro say something, that would
stir up the racist and "patriotic" votes against O , now, so that he
can't win in November _ by Clinton's own statements in conjunction with
McCain_.  Literally, what she did should be grounds for reprimand by the
Democratic Party. How you gonna say the Republican is better prepared to
be President than your fellow Democrat ! That's party treason.

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis