[Marxism-Thaxis] TheGreenBeautiful
" I can't recommend this film enough. I would love to own it, but it's only available in the original French, and I'm not yet programmed to understand that language. The story centers on the people who live telepathically and in tune with nature. It begins with a call for volunteers for a trip to the earth where they've not been for 200 years. No one volunteers initially until one woman finally agrees to go. When she arrives in Paris, her magical powers cause havoc, inspiration and a series of very humorous moments. I had no intention of watching the whole 9 segments, but couldn't stop! Enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreenBeautiful " MW ^ CB: Wow ! Sounds like my kind of science fiction. ___ 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] Rev. Jackson joins call for foreclosure moratorium
Bottoms up ! CB ^^^ http://www.michigancitizen.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=8262&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1070&hn=michigancitizen&he=.com Rev. Jackson joins call for foreclosure moratorium -- 1/31/2010 Victims, organizers plan to take struggle to shareholders, streets By Diane Bukowski Michigan Citizen DETROIT — The demand for a moratorium on foreclosures, first raised several years ago by Detroit’s Moratorium NOW! Coalition, is now being advanced nationally by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, leader of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. He was the keynote speaker Jan. 24 during a day-long mobilization against banks and mortgage companies at Central United Methodist Church in downtown Detroit. Jackson recalled that Michigan’s legislature declared a five-year halt to foreclosures during the Great Depression of the 1930s. He said the nation’s five largest banks have 3.3 million mortgages eligible for modification (monthly payment reduction), but have modified only 30,000. He castigated the U.S. Department of Justice for refusing to enforced recently enacted laws against foreclosures. These include President Barack Obama’s Helping Families Stay in Their Homes Act and the Home Economic Recovery Act, which require modifications in exchange for what may soon amount to $1 trillion in taxpayer bailouts. “Haiti has been devastated by a physical earthquake while we face an economic earthquake caused by greed and not governed by law. It’s time to revive the movement of the 1960s, to take our battle to shareholders’ meetings and the streets, to restructure the banks, not repossess churches and homes,” Jackson said. “The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to bankroll elections has emboldened Wall Street,” he observed. “Stocks for banks and insurance and pharmaceutical companies are on the rise, along with unemployment, foreclosures and poverty.” Jackson said banks make more money on foreclosures than on mortgages. In addition to government bail-out dollars and excessive fees, they profit by processing loans, bundling or securitizing them, and getting 80 percent of their value through foreclosure insurance paid for by the homeowner. During the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt, Jackson noted, it was illegal for banks and securities firms to be under the same roof, but laws against such combinations were struck down during President Bill Clinton’s term of office. Rainbow/PUSH is targeting Bank of America’s shareholders’ meeting Feb. 23 in Charlotte, North Carolina, for its first action, after a Feb. 20 gathering in Detroit. Bank of America (BOA) has 1.2 million homes facing foreclosure, but has granted modifications in only 100 cases. Michelle Hart said she and her elderly mother, who is suffering from pancreatic cancer, have experienced Bank of America’s greed first hand. They got an adjustable rate home loan from Countrywide through Bank of America and their payments increased dramatically. But BOA refused them a modification despite her mother’s illness. “We have been fighting Bank of America to stay in our home for almost two years,” Hart declared. “Meanwhile the market value has dropped, and the government is just backing the banks. I want everyone to contact the governor and their legislators. Homelessness is not something that should make profits for the banks.” Rev. Edwin Rowe, pastor of Central United, and attorneys Vanessa Fluker and Jerome Goldberg, who have devoted most of their practices to fighting foreclosures, reinforced Jackson’s call for a moratorium, to be won through marches on Washington and other tactics. “The banks signed contracts to keep people in their homes, but instead they are using our tax dollars to throw out our neighbors,” said Fluker. “As a result of a drop in property values, the total tax base of our communities is being destroyed. Why should we have to keep going to court to stop foreclosures and evictions?” She asked people to pack a State Court of Appeals hearing on the eviction of her client Marvin Morris. The hearing is to take place Tues. Feb. 2 at 10 a.m. at Cadillac Place, the state’s Detroit headquarters (formerly the GM Building) on W. Grand Blvd. Goldberg said more than 50 percent of foreclosures are now being carried out by the government itself, on mortgages insured by the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agencies. Those entities were taken over by the federal government in 2008, costing taxpayers $400 billion, with another $400 billion currently being contemplated by Congress. The Center for Responsible Lending projects nearly 326,000 more foreclosures in Michigan from 2009 through 2012, and says that nationally, $1.9 trillion in homeowner wealth will be lost during the same period. “A moratorium on foreclosures can be declared through executive order by the President, and by Governor Jennifer Granholm dec
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Setting the record straight
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:55:44 -0500 Ralph Dumain writes: > Looks like the real story to me. Notice the entry ends with Gerald > Ford. Social liberalism was killed off during the Carter > administration. The secret of all mysteries lies in the '70s. One of the ironies is that probably the greatest philosophical defense of American social liberalism, John Rawls's *A Theory of Justice* came out just as social liberalism was beginning to die out. I don't think that it is any great mystery what happened in the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, we had the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. It became clear that the institutional framework which modern capitalism had been working under since the 1930s and 1940s was no longer politically viable. It, therefore, came under challenge both from the left and the right. But as things turned out, the right (which was rapidly gaining the support of big business), was much better positioned to institute a new political framework than was the left. Hence, from the mid-1970s on, we see the rise of neo-liberalism, with the state attempting to promote economic expansion by holding down wages. Thus, the efforts to unravel the social safety net that that had been put in place under the New Deal and the Great Society. Jim F. http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant > > At 05:39 AM 1/26/2010, CeJ wrote: > >Sometimes in the American political lexicon, a 'liberal' is > someone > >who espouses a very weak form of > >'social democracy' European style. Classical liberals, an > >understanding most Americans know nothing of, have ended up over > >amongst the libertarians I suspect. I suspect the contradiction > that > >lies within Barrage Obushwa is warpigism vs. social > internventionist > >liberalism. A religious belief in America and its right to > dominate > >the world is always the glue that keeps such incoherence going. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States > > > >History of modern liberalism in the United States > >... > > > _ > > "If you don't know the '70s, you don't know shit!" > > > ___ > 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 > > Criminal Lawyer Criminal Lawyers - Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=QWemd8GuspwwZyl1yNMMaAAAJ1AP8ttsZd_TbiVxkZxsC3mBAAYAAADNAAAiFgA= ___ 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] NAACP Response to State of the Union address
Response to State of the Union address: We cannot be silent By Benjamin Todd Jealous NNPA Guest Commentary President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address is a testimony to the power of we: We, who dared to dream breaking the centuries-old color barrier at the White House was possible; we, who continue to fight for expanding voting rights; we, who battle tirelessly every election to maximize voter participation and minimize voter intimidation. His first State of the Union address is a paean to those who have joined together throughout history to change our country for the better. We are in crisis today. The greed of fat-cat bankers has unleashed a torrent of predatory lending and a trickle of permanent loan modifications that together are turning homeowners into the homeless. The unemployment rate for Americans of all colors is over 10 percent, Black and Brown American unemployment hovers above 15 percent. The jobless rate among African American men in many cities is over 50 percent. Approximately 50 million Americans lack health insurance. More than 50 million people in America — disproportionately children — don’t get enough to eat. The President unveiled new polices to support working families. He reiterated his commitment to rein in some of the worst excesses of Wall Street, and pledged his enduring dedication to bring health care to millions of uninsured Americans. He expressed his forceful and compassionate commitment to the people of Haiti — a swift, comprehensive response to the human tragedy that stands in stark contrast to his predecessor’s reaction to the thousands victimized by Hurricane Katrina. President Obama outlined the right agenda — one that is pro civil rights, pro human dignity, and pro the American Dream for every American. However, he cannot do it without us. Predatory banks, profit-driven health-care CEOs, and those big business leaders who would see our country and our families go bankrupt before they would pay their own way (or even a living wage) are committed to funding a fierce battle for the status quo. The Supreme Court, still dominated by those who helped steal the election in 2000 and their protégés, has unleashed unlimited amounts of corporate dollars into the political landscape with its ruling this month on campaign finance reform. President Obama has vowed to fight. He has pledged to reverse the worst impact of the Supreme Court decision. Yet without each of us fully engaged, loads of greedy multi-national corporate treasure will be used to crush his agenda and those who support it for simply daring to do the people’s will. Still we can win. Organized people ultimately trump organized money. But without you and all your friends and neighbors back on the battlefield, sowing and reaping the power of we, there is no guarantee progress will continue. Like every great wave, the one that made it possible for a Black family to live in the White House must be regenerated, or it ebbs. More importantly, our communities’ and families’ fates, which are in perilous condition, will ebb with it. We can be proud of the progress President Obama has made — implementing policies to stem massive job losses, extending health care coverage to millions of children, stabilizing the economy, increasing women’s ability to ensure fair treatment in the workplace, rebuilding the Justice Department and EEOC’s ability to protect Americans’ basic rights, and restoring our nation’s ability to protect its food and water. These are our victories. Some argue that our president has not pushed hard enough for the change we need. But just as this Administration’s greatest accomplishments lies in the hands of the idealists and organizers, so too must we claim the shortcomings. In too many instances in the past 12 months we have powered down, left the field for the bleachers, and chosen to play armchair pundit rather than continue to build and lead. If our president is not bold enough, it is up to us to build the next wave for bolder action. The great Frederick Douglass once said, “If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation … want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. ... Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” We cannot be silent. The change we seek is in our hands. Benjamin Todd Jealous is President and CEO of the NAACP ___ 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] involuntary acceleration hysteria
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/toyota-consumer-safety-advisory-102572.aspx?srchid=K610_p228906387 Frequently Asked Questions For Sticking Accelerator Pedal Recall and Suspension of Sales Which models are affected by the recall/stop sale? Toyota’s accelerator pedal recall and suspension of sales is confined to the following Toyota Division vehicles: 2009-2010 RAV4, 2009-2010 Corolla, 2009-2010 Matrix, 2005-2010 Avalon, Certain 2007-2010 Camry 2010 Highlander except hybrid models, 2007-2010 Tundra, 2008-2010 Sequoia No Lexus Division or Scion vehicles are affected by these actions. Also not affected are Toyota Prius, Tacoma, Sienna, Venza, Solara, Yaris, 4Runner, FJ Cruiser, Land Cruiser, Highlander hybrids and select Camry models, including all Camry hybrids, which will remain for sale. What is the condition that has prompted Toyota to take this action? In rare instances, there is a possibility that certain accelerator pedal mechanisms may, mechanically stick in a partially depressed position or return slowly to the idle position. What is the likelihood that my vehicle will experience this condition? The condition is rare and does not occur suddenly. It can occur when the pedal mechanism becomes worn and, in certain conditions, the accelerator pedal may become harder to depress, slower to return or, in the worst case, stuck in a partially depressed position. Are you continuing to investigate other models? Toyota is confident that all models that contain the potentially sticking pedals have been identified. Why has Toyota stopped selling the affected vehicles? Until Toyota has finalized an appropriate remedy to address the potential for sticking accelerator pedals, a sales suspension is necessary. How long will this stop sale be in effect? New cars covered by this recall will not be delivered until a remedy is finalized and then implemented. When do you expect to have a remedy? We’re making every effort to remedy this situation for our customers as quickly as possible. What options are you exploring for a remedy? We are reviewing a number of different options, and we hope to announce a remedy soon. What should I do if I believe my vehicle is affected by this condition, i.e. I have noticed that my accelerator pedal is hard to depress, slow to return or is unsmooth during operation. What should I do? The vehicle should be driven to the nearest safe location, the engine shut off and a Toyota dealer contacted for assistance. What if you experience a sticking accelerator pedal while driving? Each circumstance may vary, and drivers must use their best judgment, but Toyota recommends taking one of the following actions: • If you need to stop immediately, the vehicle can be controlled by stepping on the brake pedal with both feet using firm and steady pressure. Do not pump the brake pedal as it will deplete the vacuum utilized for the power brake assist. • Shift the transmission gear selector to the Neutral (N) position and use the brakes to make a controlled stop at the side of the road and turn off the engine. • If unable to put the vehicle in Neutral, turn the engine OFF. This will not cause loss of steering or braking control, but the power assist to these systems will be lost. • If the vehicle is equipped with an Engine Start/Stop button, firmly and steadily push the button for at least three seconds to turn off the engine. Do NOT tap the Engine Start/Stop button. • If the vehicle is equipped with a conventional key-ignition, turn the ignition key to the ACC position to turn off the engine. Do NOT remove the key from the ignition as this will lock the steering wheel. If I am an owner of one of the affected vehicles, what action do I need to take? Toyota is working quickly to prepare a correction remedy and will issue owner notifications in the future. No action is required at this time unless you feel you are experiencing this condition. If you are experiencing this condition, immediately contact your nearest Toyota Dealer for assistance. Toyota stated that this did not affect new/low mileage vehicles, has the situation changed? The law requires that the entire universe of new vehicles identified in our recall notice must be included in the stop sale. Why are you stopping production at your factories? Production is being stopped temporarily at five North American production facilities to assess and coordinate activities related to the recall announced on January 21. What should I do if I still have questions or concerns? If you still have questions or concerns that have not been addressed here, please contact the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331. The Toyota Customer Experience Center hours are: Mon - Fri, 5:00 am - 6:00 pm PST Sat, 7:00 am - 4:00 pm PST ### The latest news about the sticking accelerator pedal recall: Statement from Toyota on Supplier CTS (Jan. 28, 2010) Toyota Temporarily Suspends Sale of Selected Vehicles (Jan. 26, 2010) Toyota Files Volunt
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Setting the record straight
Dear Jim and list, Jim, I don't think this gets to the heart of what happened in the 1970s. You put it down to neo-liberalism, but neo-liberalism is merely a policy at the level of the State, and it is not an ontological change in the structure of capitalism. But there WAS a major change that took place in the structure of not only American, but world, capitalism in the 1970s. That change was that in the 1970s for the first time in history TRANSNATIONAL capitalist corporations emerged which are so large in terms of turnover and product that they economically dwarfed all but the few richest nations, and they, for the first time in history, had come to collectively dominate economy and policy on a world scale, i.e. even the richest and most powerful nation-state - the USA - became in the 1970s very much subordinate to the transnational capitalist corporations. The age of capitalist nation-states dictating their own national economic policy completely died in the 1970s. Along with this, any attempt at reform on a merely national basis became utopian, if one takes account of this shift in power to the TRANSNATIONAL capitalist corporations. This has all been usefully summarised and theorised by Leslie Sklair in his books since 1990, though Sklair probably goes too far in suggesting that there is (already) a transnational capitalist class. That seems wrong, but the shift to transnational capitalist corporations now largely controlling economy and policy (instead of the State controlling them) is a fact and is a major change of which socialists need to take account if they are not to be starting from mistaken assumptions about the ontology of the world economy. Phil Walden -Original Message- From: marxism-thaxis-boun...@lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:marxism-thaxis-boun...@lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Farmelant Sent: 31 January 2010 16:35 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Setting the record straight On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:55:44 -0500 Ralph Dumain writes: > Looks like the real story to me. Notice the entry ends with Gerald > Ford. Social liberalism was killed off during the Carter > administration. The secret of all mysteries lies in the '70s. One of the ironies is that probably the greatest philosophical defense of American social liberalism, John Rawls's *A Theory of Justice* came out just as social liberalism was beginning to die out. I don't think that it is any great mystery what happened in the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, we had the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. It became clear that the institutional framework which modern capitalism had been working under since the 1930s and 1940s was no longer politically viable. It, therefore, came under challenge both from the left and the right. But as things turned out, the right (which was rapidly gaining the support of big business), was much better positioned to institute a new political framework than was the left. Hence, from the mid-1970s on, we see the rise of neo-liberalism, with the state attempting to promote economic expansion by holding down wages. Thus, the efforts to unravel the social safety net that that had been put in place under the New Deal and the Great Society. Jim F. http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant > > At 05:39 AM 1/26/2010, CeJ wrote: > >Sometimes in the American political lexicon, a 'liberal' is > someone > >who espouses a very weak form of > >'social democracy' European style. Classical liberals, an > >understanding most Americans know nothing of, have ended up over > >amongst the libertarians I suspect. I suspect the contradiction > that > >lies within Barrage Obushwa is warpigism vs. social > internventionist > >liberalism. A religious belief in America and its right to > dominate > >the world is always the glue that keeps such incoherence going. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States > > > >History of modern liberalism in the United States > >... > > > _ > > "If you don't know the '70s, you don't know shit!" > > > ___ > 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 > > Criminal Lawyer Criminal Lawyers - Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=QWemd8GuspwwZyl1yNMMaAAAJ1AP8t tsZd_TbiVxkZxsC3mBAAYAAADNAAAiFgA= ___ 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 mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsu
[Marxism-Thaxis] Setting the record straight
JF: >>I don't think that it is any great mystery what happened in the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, we had the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. It became clear that the institutional framework which modern capitalism had been working under since the 1930s and 1940s was no longer politically viable. It, therefore, came under challenge both from the left and the right. << Yes, but RD said that the secret to all our mysteries now lies in understanding the 1970s. We can't even currently explain unintended acceleration in Toyotas now. Or how Abba would get a major musical based on their songs! Perhaps we don't understand the 1970s as well as we think we do. I think the sense of crisis was over the future of American domination of the rest of the world. Consider, Japan and W. Germany were surpassing the US in terms of industrial production, most visible with the automobiles and electronics. The threat of certain countries using OPEC to control the price of oil and even the supply of it, although a crisis for global capitalism (think of Japan with its total dependency on imported oil), in the US it was seen as a threat to American power. And then there was the humiliation of the Vietnam War, where global perceptions were that the US had lost or at least had met the limits of its own power. And then there were the 'big bang' financial reforms of Thatcher, which threatened to make London the top center of financial activity, over NYC. What is ironic is that militarist Demoncrats and Repugnicans (who had been around a long time and hadn't just emerged in the 1970s) used rationales like 'deficits' to justify agendas against 'liberalism' (in terms of the government being involved in social agendas and spending) and then, from late Carter onwards, proceeded to drive up government deficits and trade deficits to unprecedented levels, much of which can be attributed to the military spending and their willingness to use Japan's and W. Germany's industrial capacity to meet American consumer needs as they did so. About the same time, American elites, under a supposedly 'free trade' and 'liberalization' regime (rhetorical regime), moved strongly, nationalistically and unilaterally to hem in Japan in terms of (1) the value of the yen (which has pretty much been appreciating since the 1970s and is the real cause of 'deflation' in Japan) and (2) in locking Japan out of processor chip-OS development for desktop and server computing (giving us American cartels in control of most of our computing). They also imposed import quotas on Japanese cars and automobile parts under Reagan and Bush I (GHWB). Clinton largely continued the unilateral 'trade and currency agenda' against Japan. You can see the result. Wintel duopoly. Or, for example, Toyota became a dominant player but auto makers like Mitsubishi found themselves pretty much eliminated from the North American market because they didn't have a dealership network in place before the 1980s. And even Toyota was forced to move production to the US while buying American-made automobile parts. They seem to be blaming their current recall issue on an American maker of the accelerator assembly, but elsewhere others have said that the 'sticky accelerator' is a separate issue from 'unintended acceleration' or at best only one partial explanation of the phenomenon (which is so statistically insignificant and small one would be forced to explain the actual cause of each separate incident before one could come to any conclusions). CJ ___ 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] Setting the record straight
>>even the richest and most powerful nation-state - the USA - became in the 1970s very much subordinate to the transnational capitalist corporations. The age of capitalist nation-states dictating their own national economic policy completely died in the 1970s.<< But that was the plan. An elite of Americans would dominate the world post 1945 and wanted to continue to do so until the end of humanity. Ask yourself why it is the US that dominates investment banking, hedge funds and private equity. Ask yourself why it is American companies that dominate desktop and server computing. Why does the US get to spend well over a trillion dollars it doesn't have on its superpower military, borrowing the money it needs to float it all from Europe, Gulf States, Japan, S. Korea and China? Clearly there is a nation-state superpower agenda your formulation seems to be missing out. CJ ___ 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] Setting the record straight
I don't buy the 'Trotskyite' theories of their origins, but I do get
that they were clustered around warhawk Demoncrat Scoop Jackson in the
1970s. Also, I don't necessarily agree with all of this analysis
cited below, which cites Lind, who is cited all over the internet.
Zbigniew Brezinzski would be the other nexus of human waste in the
1970s and early 80s here, and we have already seen how he has arisen
from the dead, like Volker, with Barrage Obushwa as prez.
Still yet another factor would be just how close Israel came to
causing a nuclear war because they were set to lose a conventional war
to Egypt in 1973. First, the US intervened massively to shore up the
depleted IDF, actually causing supply shortages in their logistical
chains to NATO Europe and SE Asia. Second, the US intervened to make
sure the Soviet Union didn't get involved. Third, Israeli leadership
would have unleashed their nukes if they were going to lose the
conventional war against Egypt. And they even further threatened to
try and destroy as much of the world as possible with their nukes
before they would ever accept defeat.
For some secular Jewish intellectuals who found they could not believe
in much of anything that the US was offering at the time, embrace of
Israel became their religion. Under Reagan this actually filtered down
to third and fourth generation 'Jewish Americans' outside of elite
intelligentsia (typically of Ashkenazic descent, meaning E.
European-Slavic cultures), making them still yet another white, mostly
male group of 'ethnics' who having lost their ethnic identity embraced
militarism, conservatism, and pro-zionism as their religion. Alan
Dershowitz and his popular appeal come to mind. Some of this makes its
way into popular culture now, with loads of stories about how Israel
and the Mossad and the IDF are such good guys and gals. It goes way
beyond the pointy-eggy-head perceptions of guys like Alan Greenspan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Drift away from New Left and Great Society
Neoconservatives came to dislike the counterculture of the 1960s baby
boomers, and what they saw as anti-Americanism in the
non-interventionism of the movement against the Vietnam War.[citation
needed]
As the policies of the New Left pushed these intellectuals farther to
the right, they moved toward a more aggressive militarism, while
becoming disillusioned with President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great
Society domestic programs. Academics in these circles, many still
Democrats, rejected the Democratic Party's foreign policy in the
1970s, especially after the nomination of anti-war candidate George
McGovern for president in 1972. The influential 1970 bestseller The
Real Majority by future television commentator and neoconservative Ben
Wattenberg expressed that the "real majority" of the electorate
supported economic liberalism but social conservatism, and warned
Democrats it could be disastrous to take liberal stances on certain
social and crime issues.[21]
Many supported Democratic Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, derisively
known as the Senator from Boeing, during his 1972 and 1976 campaigns
for president. Among those who worked for Jackson were future
neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and Richard Perle. In the
late 1970s neoconservative support moved to Ronald Reagan and the
Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.
Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, explained:[22]
Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of
anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman,
Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom
preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the
Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic
center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad
neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the
left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons
were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and,
in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs
of older ex-leftists.
In his semi-autobiographical book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography
of an Idea, Irving Kristol cited a number of influences on his own
thought, including not only Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss but also the
skeptical liberal literary critic Lionel Trilling. The influence of
Leo Strauss and his disciples on neoconservatism has generated some
controversy, with Lind asserting:[23]
For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting
morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth
which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical
elite in order to ensure social order... In being a kind of secretive
elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These
ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see
themselves as a kind of Leninist group, yo
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Setting the record straight
Getting around to more of the ancient mysteries of the 1970s and Reagan 80s. Operation Nickel Grass was a major sealift, too, with ultimately more moved by ship in order to re-supply the IDF. By the way, getting to end of the 1970s, the second oil shock was with the revolution in Iran, and the Gulf Arabs moved in to fill the loss of Iranian oil. And going into the 1980s we see another massive re-supply of Israel in their interventions in Lebanon, with much of the US-supplied equipment ending up in the hands of their Christian Phalangist allies. I remember how the M48A5 tank I trained on in my national guard unit simply disappeared overnight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass Operation Nickel Grass was an overt strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The Military Airlift Command of the U.S. Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of tanks, artillery, ammunition, and supplies in C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft between October 14 and November 14, 1973. This rapid re-supply mission was critical to the Israeli military's ability to thwart the armed Egyptian and Syrian action to regain their sovereign territory; it had been captured and occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six Day War. The overall re-supply effort soon had additional far-reaching effects beyond the immediate combatants. Following a further massive US pledge of support on October 19, the oil-exporting Arab states within OPEC held to their previously declared warnings to use oil as a "weapon" and declared a complete oil embargo on the United States, and restrictions on other countries. This, and the contemporaneous failure of major pricing and production negotiations between the exporters and the major oil companies both led to the 1973 oil crisis. - Effects Operation Nickel Grass had immediate and far-reaching effects. Arab members of OPEC had declared they would limit or stop oil shipments to the United States and other countries if they supported Israel in the conflict. Holding to their threats, the Arab states declared a complete oil embargo on the United States. Oil prices skyrocketed, fuel became scarce, and the United States was soon embroiled in the 1973 oil crisis. Nickel Grass also revealed a severe deficiency in American airlift capabilities: the need for staging bases overseas. Without Portugal's assistance, the airlift might not even have been possible. As a result, the U.S. greatly expanded its aerial refueling capabilities and made long-distance flight operations the standard rather than the exception. A GAO study of the operation discussed the shortcomings of the C-141A. As a result, the C-141B was conceived. The A models were sent back to Georgia where they were cut fore and aft of the wing, extended in length by three pallet positions, and refitted for in-flight refueling. Nickel Grass vindicated the Air Force decision to purchase the C-5 Galaxy. Since its introduction in 1970, the C-5 had been plagued by problems. The Air Force claimed to have rectified the problems, but the C-5 was still viewed by the press as an expensive failure. During Nickel Grass, C-5s carried 48% of the total cargo in only 145 of the 567 total missions. The C-5 also carried "outsize" cargo such as M60 Patton tanks, M109 howitzers, ground radar systems, mobile tractor units, CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters, and A-4 Skyhawk components; cargo that could not fit in smaller aircraft. This performance justified the C-5's existence, and allowed the Air Force to move forward with their proposed upgrade to the C-5B variant. Another effect of the operation was the near-resignation of then United States chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) General George Brown. Brown was reportedly livid that American weapons and munitions were being sent to a foreign country at the same time that the American command in Vietnam was protesting a lack of supplies in its theater of operations.[11] ___ 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] Setting the record straight
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:16:17 +0900 CeJ writes: > JF: >>I don't think that it is any great mystery what > happened in the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, > we had the greatest economic crisis since > the Great Depression. It became clear that > the institutional framework which modern > capitalism had been working under since > the 1930s and 1940s was no longer > politically viable. It, therefore, came > under challenge both from the left > and the right. << > > > Yes, but RD said that the secret to all our mysteries now lies in > understanding the 1970s. We can't even currently explain unintended > acceleration in Toyotas now. Or how Abba would get a major musical > based on their songs! Perhaps we don't understand the 1970s as well > as > we think we do. > > > I think the sense of crisis was over the future of American > domination > of the rest of the world. Consider, Japan and W. Germany were > surpassing the US in terms of industrial production, most visible > with > the automobiles and electronics. That was certainly one part of it. The Second World War had devastated industry in western Europe and Japan, leaving the US without significant competition. But by the 1970s, both western Europe (especially Germany) and Japan had completed their recoveries from the war and were now able to compete with the US. > The threat of certain countries > using > OPEC to control the price of oil and even the supply of it, although > a > crisis for global capitalism (think of Japan with its total > dependency > on imported oil), in the US it was seen as a threat to American > power. > And then there was the humiliation of the Vietnam War, where global > perceptions were that the US had lost or at least had met the > limits > of its own power. Also, the US by the mid-1970s was being perceived as starting to lose the cold war. Soviet-backed national liberation movements were making progress in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. The Vietnam War itself, had left the US exhausted with the American public less than eager to see US military intervention in other countries (what the US ruling class called "Vietnam syndrome"). Also, we shouldn't leave out the impact of the great social movements of the 1960, including especially the civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, the student movement, and the women's movement. All of which weakened the legitimacy of the state, forced through significant social reforms. Labor insurgencies of various sorts became increasingly frequent at the time, and we have the case of France, where the student movement, at least for a while, was able to join forces with labor insurgents to shake the political foundations of that country. That sort of thing put the fear of God into the hearts of the US ruling class who was fearful of a similar occurence on this side of the Atlantic. By the early 1970s, the ruling classes of the US and UK were eager to find ways of rolling back the social gains of the 1960s which were seen as directly threatening the profits, social status, and political power of the ruling classes. Bourgeois economists were already openly talking about the need to tolerate higher rates of unemployment in order to dampen down wage demands. And within a few years this sort of talk began to be translated into policy, involving a tightening of monetary policy to force up interest rates, deregulation of industries (starting with transportation under the Carter Administration), the shift by the Federal government to an openly anti-labor stance, starting with Reagan's response to the PATCO strike (by a conservative union that had actually endorsed Reagan in 1980. > And then there were the 'big bang' financial > reforms > of Thatcher, which threatened to make London the top center of > financial activity, over NYC. > > What is ironic is that militarist Demoncrats and Repugnicans (who > had > been around a long time and hadn't just emerged in the 1970s) used > rationales like 'deficits' to justify agendas against 'liberalism' > (in > terms of the government being involved in social agendas and > spending) > and then, from late Carter onwards, proceeded to drive up government > deficits and trade deficits to unprecedented levels, much of which > can > be attributed to the military spending and their willingness to use > Japan's and W. Germany's industrial capacity to meet American > consumer > needs as they did so. > > About the same time, American elites, under a supposedly 'free > trade' > and 'liberalization' regime (rhetorical regime), moved strongly, > nationalistically and unilaterally to hem in Japan in terms of (1) > the > value of the yen (which has pretty much been appreciating since the > 1970s and is the real cause of 'deflation' in Japan) and (2) in > locking Japan out of processor chip-OS development for desktop and > server computing (giving us American cartels in control of most of > our > computing). They also imposed import quotas on
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Setting the record straight
Last one, which I guess does support the idea that the neocons are a product of this loss of the liberal consensus (expand social programs, concede to some civil rights, and win the Cold War against the Soviet Union both with military might and better rhetoric about freedom, democracy, human rights, etc). This is a review of a book by Pat Buchanan by a paleoconservative blogger. Excerpt only. I think the emphasis should be here on 'ex-liberal' , otherwise most of these people would never have functioned the way they did in American society (infiltrating elite society). We should also note that the Israeli agenda is still not yet complete. First, Iraq has not been broken up completely (yet). Two, Iran hasn't been 'regime changed' yet. Third, all Palestinians have not been forced to leave all of Palestine yet. Fourth, the goal of getting Arab accomodationism might not last if the price of oil goes down and all their development bubbles get wiped out. It's going to be an interesting decade, this next one. CJ http://www.daveblackonline.com/buchanan_is_right_about_the_righ.htm Buchanan Is Right About the Right Darrell Dow With Where the Right Went Wrong, Pat Buchanan takes aim squarely at the neoconservatives. Buchanan thus joins other paleoconservative and paleolibertarian authors such as Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, Justin Raimondo and Joseph Scotchie who have offered up their own analyses, diagnoses, and prescriptions to decapitate the parasitical neocon host presently devouring the body politic. So who are these mysterious neocons, anyway? Neoconservatism originated in few periodicals and northeastern universities in the 1960’s. Its early exponents were largely Jewish and Eastern European. Today, neoconservatism claims such “luminaries” as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, Richard John Neuhaus, and a bevy of syndicated columnists. Buchanan calls them “ex-Trotskyites, socialists, leftists, and liberals who backed FDR, Truman, JDK and LBJ.” They are “the boat people of the McGovern revolution that was itself the political vehicle of the moral, social, and cultural revolutions of the 1960’s.” Skilled in the arts of political chicanery and bureaucratic infighting, the neocons migrated into the Republican Party during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Sam Francis explains why the neocons drifted to the right politically: The political impetus for neoconservatism was, first the threat to the integrity of universities and American intellectual life presented by the militancy of the New Left and the barbarism of the counterculture of the late 1960’s; secondly, the threat to Jewish academic and professional achievements in America presented by the quotas and affirmative action programs of the Great Society; and thirdly, the development of serious anti-Semitism on the Left and the Soviet alliance with radical anti-Western and anti-Israeli Arab regimes and terrorists. Another pillar of the neoconservative mind is the conflation of American and Israeli national interests, which is the root of the current mess in Iraq. In an essay in the Wall Street Journal, militant neocon Max Boot, who has called for the U.S. to take up the imperial burden, called support for Israel a “key tenet” of neocon ideology. Buchanan shows how the neocons used the cover of the billowing smoke of 9/11 to implement long-standing plans to remake the Middle East in Israel’s interest, with the invasion of Iraq at the top of the agenda. In 1996, a group called The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies published a paper for then Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu. The paper called for Israel to “destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats,” and called the removal of Saddam Hussein “an important Israeli strategic objective.” The authors of this policy paper included attorney Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and Richard Perle – all prominent figures in the Bush administration. ___ 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] Setting the record straight
1. In Japan, the history of the 1970s is often boiled down to these key events: Nixon Shock (that is actually shocks, i.e., currency, 10% tariffs on goods from Japan, and China), first oil shock, second oil shock. 2. About the Vietnam syndrome. Much misunderstood. It actually boils down to: war with draft vs. war (indeed wars) without draft. For the military leadership getting over the Vietnam syndrome was about finding faith in all the high tech weapons they had stockpiled under Reagan. As it turned out, a lot of them didn't work. But they were able to sell the public on the idea that they did, thus justifying the huge budgets spent, to be spent, they are spending etc. CJ ___ 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] Setting the record straight
I could also add that the top military leaders had two sources of doubt: 1. the high-tech weapons and reliance almost entirely on air power and its ability to drop bombs and missiles 2. the fighting coherence of the all-volunteer 'professional' military It's interesting how point 2 led to Abu Graib's obscene sadism. For any who were shocked at that sort of institutionalized sadism, I would point out that (1) it's found in American schools and prisons, (2) if you ever attended US military basic 'training' in the late 70s early 80s, you will recognize the behaviour all too well. The officers, after Vietnam, were worried about the ability of the career NCOs to control the volunteer enlisted across the lower ranks and throughout the less popular military specialities (combat arms, infantry, armor, artillery). So they re-doubled their efforts at using this sort of sadism to control the force, while at the same time creating a PR rhetoric about how the entire military was the most well-trained, most professional fighting force in the history of mankind. Some of the elite forces actually are, but they are not what everyone thinks of as elite--the elite are the USAF, the naval and marine airwings, the nuclear submarine force. Everything else is more like life at high school. CJ ___ 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
