Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Fate of a Cold War Vestige
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:19 PM, waistli...@aol.com wrote: On Dec 13, 2010, at 2:07 PM, c b wrote: ...It is something of a law of history that sooner or later all empires must collapse. ^ CB: See _Dialectics of Nature_ by Frederick Engels. _Everything_ has a beginning , middle and end. A mobius strip has none of those aspects. Nothing lasts forever. The universe lasts forever. Shane Mage Reply Nothing lasts forever by definition. ^^^ CB; And only death is eternal . Precisely because nothing is temporal to the human senses and exists outside a definite point in human understanding. That is why it is called nothing. Nothing is a concept of the unknown. No one knows and can know how long the universe, as we understand it . . . lasts. Maybe the universe collapses upon itself and become a new manifestation of something. One thing is certain: nothing lasts forever, however one understand nothing. WL. ___ 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 unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Bertie Bubble
Hi Concerning the “deal between the Irish Government and the ECB/EU/IMF troika” Constantin Gurdgiev argues in the Sunday Independent, December 5th 2010, that far “from providing a resolution to Ireland’s financial and fiscal crises, it made the restructuring of our banks’ debt inevitable, no matter what the conditions underlying the deal says.” Gurdgiev has been one of the those analysts stridently calling for a large and significant part of the total surplus value owed by the Irish state and banks to be transferred abroad. There appear to be three kinds of economic commentators occupying the public stage in Ireland at the moment. The first kind might fit into the neo-liberal group: They are of the view that the total exchange value foisted onto the state, and thereby the working class, is on such a scale that it may prevent the Irish Republic’s economy from recovering from the adverse effects of global economic downswing. Such a situation, many of them would hold, can but lead to political instability and even class warfare. These bourgeois intellectuals see the writing on the wall. They realise the dangers for capital regarding the character of the so called bail out. The vast amount of exchange value that must be extracted from the Irish economy now and into the future will leave little or no capital to maintain and extend the reproduction of capital in the country itself. The effect of this massive transfer of its wealth abroad will transform the country into an economic and social wasteland. Consequently European capital may be forced to tolerate an Irish default. However because of the belated nature of this default there are is a greater probability that the default will do more economic harm than a controlled and regulated default undertaken now. Constantin Gurdgiev, Jim Power and Brian Lucey. This group overstates the power of the Irish government to radically renegotiate a deal with the troika. The Irish economy is too minuscule and dependent on imperialism to be in a position to determine how it deals with the economic crisis that it has been enduring. If it were as strong as this group suggests then there would never have been a crisis in the first place. The second type of economic commentator essentially goes along with the Irish government. It bases its economics on the Micawber Principle. These doughty ideologues are claiming that the economy should be able to recover from the huge debt burden being imposed on it. They don’t see any possibility of renegotiating the deal done with the international troika. Underlying their claims is the assumption that the expansion of the valorisation process will increase to and beyond the minimum rate necessary to make repayment possible. This suggests that the reproduction process will start to produce exchange value on a scale that allows Ireland to both produce enough surplus value to maintain and increase the accumulation of capital and leave surplus value over for distribution towards welfare and debt obligations. Ironically there is no evidence to support this Quixotic prediction. This second group of bourgeois analysts based in Ireland are, largely speaking, the very group that mistakenly claimed that the Irish economy was in for, at worst, a soft-landing in the aftermath of the Bertie Bubble. These are commentators such as Brendan Keenan from the Irish Independent and Sean Fitzgerald from the ESRI. Then there is the third type. They are of the view that the Irish government are not compelled to lie on the procrustean bed offered by the international troika. However they mistakenly believe that the state can and should engage in more spending rather than less. They say that more spending will stimulate the Irish economy and bring about recovery. This group are the infamous Underconsumptionists. For them economic crisis are caused by deflated demand. What they don’t understand is that by its very nature demand is always deflated under capitalism. This is why there has always been poverty under capitalism. If the solution were as simple as one of increasing demand then there would never have to be economic crises under capitalism. Once demand was artificially increased to a sufficient degree the entire population, generally speaking, would be made affluent. Indeed the years of the Bertie Bubble were, in a sense, just that. Demand was “artificially” increased leading to the Bertie Bubble. People like Michael Taft, Kieran Allen and Joe Higgins are exponents of Underconsumptionism. They patriotically wish to save Irish capitalism from destruction by a programme of public investment The real future is that the Irish Republic will be forced into default or else be turned into an economic wasteland. The latter scenario may lead to the further centralisation and concentration of European capital to the advantage of its core imperialist economies. Now European imperialism has less need of
[Marxism-Thaxis] Youtubes on Octavius Catto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abe4-9EXtgQ http://watch2video.net/tasting-freedom-octavius-catto-and-the-battle-for-equality-in-civil-war-america-video-Deh4-9HAwjT.html ___ 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] Letter to the Left Establishment; Fletcher and Hayden responses
Letter to the Left Establishment Bill Fletcher, Tom Hayden and The Letter === 1. Responding to the 'Letter to the Left Establishment' regarding Obama By Bill Fletcher, Jr. A so-called Letter to the Left Establishment critical of the Obama administration has been circulating for a few days. The letter is a bit odd because if you do not read it carefully, it appears that the people named in the first paragraph, including yours truly, are actually asking people to sign on. In reality the Letter is a criticism of several individuals who offered varying degrees of support to the candidacy of President Obama in 2008. On the grounds of confusion alone the Letter should be withdrawn and the signatories should request that their names be removed. But what is odder to me is that the Letter has all sorts of implications. The Letter calls upon those named in the first paragraph to criticize the policies of the Obama administration, as if we have not. It implies that we have been silent about major decisions of the Obama administration that have been wrong. It recites a list of decisions, approaches, etc., by the Obama administration as if any of this is new to those of us identified in the first paragraph. None of this is new. And the authors of the Letter should know that. In fact, if they happened to have been in a cave for the last couple of years and did not keep up with the news, they could have Googled the names of most of the people listed in the first paragraph and found that we have been generally outspoken in our criticisms as well as involved in organizing to put pressure on the administration. For these reasons i have been trying to figure out what the intent of the Letter actually is. I am not going to speak for anyone else. In 2008 i reluctantly came to the conclusion that a position of critical support of Obama was the correct stand. Reluctantly because i had a number of concerns about Obama, most of which have been realized. Nevertheless i was impressed by the congealing of forces that i believed had the potential to do something progressive in the political realm irrespective of the actions of Obama-the-individual. I actually still believe that this is possible and not too late. In 2008, i and several others mentioned in the Letter also suggested that if there was no pressure from the Left and progressives on Obama, assuming he was elected, that we would find ourselves in deep trouble. In fact, people used to joke with me immediately before and immediately after the November 2008 election because i would be asked how much of a honeymoon period Obama should receive and my answer was always the same: 24 hours. I insisted, as did many of my colleagues, that we could not, in effect, give Obama any honeymoon period and that pressure had to start from the beginning. We were correct. The Letter reads as if those named in the first paragraph have been sitting on their hands or standing at the gates refusing to permit the masses to pass through and challenge Obama. I am not sure whether the authors are standing in some parallel universe, but in this one i see no evidence of that at all. There are differences, some over tactics while others over strategy, among those named in the first paragraph, but precisely for that reason it is odd that the names would all be thrown together as if someone were actually trying to stir up confusion and promote disinformation. I don't know, but i have actually seen a film much like this before. So, assuming that there is loving intent from the authors--and i am certainly not critical of the signatories--then i would say, i agree with many of the criticisms they have offered of the Obama administration; i have offered many of those criticisms already; i have been active, as have most of my colleagues, in trying to engage liberal and progressive social forces in the need to both combat the political Right as well as put the pressure on the Democrats; and, guess what? I will continue to, and i am assuming that my colleagues will as well. Oh, and while i am at it, one thing that the authors of the Letter did not address was the question of the African American electorate. I don't know about you, but how we handle the question of this administration is particularly dicey when the African American electorate feels, overwhelmingly, that Obama is under an intense racist assault from the political Right (which is, as you know, quite correct). This basic question of the African American electorate and huge portions of the Latino electorate means that our electoral tactics in the coming two years will have to be handled very carefully, even while we put the pressure on this administration and struggle against its defense of warmed over neo-liberalism. It might have been a good idea, and this is only a suggestion, for the authors of the Letter to have reached out to those mentioned in the first paragraph rather than trying to embarrass us. It certainly
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Fierce Ideology of 'No Labels'
http://gawker.com/5713046/the-fierce-ideology-of-no-labels The Fierce Ideology of 'No Labels' A cabal of centrist Democrats and lapsed Republicans are gathering in New York today to launch No Labels, a group that advocates ditching partisan politics for supposedly common sense solutions. Cute! But don't pretend that this isn't ideological. The purpose of No Labels, according to the Declaration they ask you to sign, is this: Sign the No Labels Declaration and join your neighbors who are asking their leaders to put the labels aside and do what's best for America. In other words, if you believe in what either party is saying, take your skin out of the game and let the following people supposedly reasonable people decide what's best for America for you: Featured Speakers: Mayor Michael Bloomberg Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Congressman Bob Inglis Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Congressman Tom Davis David Brooks Joe Scarborough Mika Brzezinski Senator Joe Lieberman Senator Evan Bayh Senator Joe Manchin David Gergen Governor Charlie Crist Lt Governor Abel Maldonado Congressman Michael Castle Ellen Freidin Pretty much everyone on this list of speakers at today's launch has a label: wishy-washy centrist who wants the rubes to stop their clamoring before it defeats them in an election (if it already hasn't — Inglis, Crist, Castle) or takes power away from the entrenched producers of conventional wisdom. ___ 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] Marianne Faithfull - Working Class Hero
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N_rNz2oAGA ___ 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] Boyz II Men - Let It Snow feat Brian McKnight Wanya Morris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKAaB9JHn84 ___ 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] Democrats, Labor, Legislation: Three Stories
1) Dems vs. unions: It's On By Charles Lane Washington Post December 13, 2010 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/12/dems_v_unions_its_on.html Next to the drama in Washington, the big political story in 2011 will be the struggle to rein in public- sector unions, whose pay, pensions and health benefits are bankrupting some of the biggest states in the country. Today's Wall Street Journal contained a tough op-ed on public-sector unionism by Minnesota's Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a presidential hopeful. Neighboring Wisconsin's ascendant Republicans may try to end collective bargaining for public workers in that state. But GOP moves against public employee unions, the core constituency of the Democratic Party, are no surprise. What's really interesting, as I've written, somewhat obsessively, is the looming struggle between budget-cutting Democrats and the unions. This is the contest that will determine whether Democrats can survive as a party with a broad political base at the state level, by putting the sustainability of vital public services ahead of the unions' demands -- or whether they will allow their public-sector union allies to drag them into a political death spiral of endless deficits, higher taxes, sluggish growth and declining services. And the contest has already begun. On a small scale, right in the Washington area, there's the clash between the Montgomery County Council and its public employee unions over proposed legislation to make arbitrators give the county's sorry fiscal situation top consideration when deciding the size of the unions' next contract package. Proposed by Council President Valerie Ervin (D-Dist. 5) of Silver Spring, usually a reliable labor ally, the bill has drawn preliminary support from most of the rest of the council, including a newcomer, Hans Riemer, who won his seat with union backing. Riemer's stance prompted this thuggish outburst from the county employees' union leader, Gino Renne: You're going to be a one-termer, pal. Welcome to the big leagues. [See http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/12/dems_v_unions_its_on.html for the rest of the article]. (2) Workers' Safeguards Strengthened by N.Y. Law By Sam Dolnick The New York Times December 13, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/nyregion/14wage.html?partner=rssemc=rss Gov. David A. Paterson signed into law some of the nation's strongest protections against wage theft on Monday, after months of lobbying by immigrants' advocates and labor unions that said New York lagged behind other states on the issue. The law, which takes effect in April, will quadruple the penalties for employers who steal workers' pay, and will protect whistle-blowers from retaliation. Employers who pay below the minimum wage, fail to pay overtime or unfairly garnishee wages are especially rampant in restaurant, retail and construction businesses where illegal immigrants make up much of the work force, according to a report this year by the National Employment Law Project. In New York City, the report said, lost wages add up to more than $18.4 million a week. [See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/nyregion/14wage.html?partner=rssemc=rss for the rest of the article] (3) It's Wrong When Employers Cheat Congress should vote for legislation to help workers get what they're due By Van Jones Detroit Free Press December 13, 2010 http://www.freep.com/article/20101212/OPINION05/12120503/1336/Opinion/Its-wrong-when-employers-cheat What if someone took $50 from your wallet, in plain view? What if it happened every week? Millions of people around the country have this experience when their employers commit wage theft-- the illegal underpayment or nonpayment of workers' wages. Companies short workers' pay, don't pay overtime, force people to work off the clock, or omit a worker's last paycheck. Companies that commit wage theft gain an advantage at the expense of both their workers and their law-abiding competitors. What's more, they keep lawfully earned pay from being spent where it will do the most to strengthen our economy. Wage theft happens to workers at every level and in every field. If you haven't been a victim, someone you know probably has. Industries where the problem is rampant include farming, food processing, restaurants, clothes manufacturing, long-term care and retail. Nationwide, more than $19 billion in wages are stolen from millions of workers every year, according to the Economic Policy Foundation. It happened to a woman we'll call Denise, who worked at the now shuttered Detroit restaurant Carl's Chophouse, as a cook. That was the only job she'd ever had, so when her paychecks started bouncing, she figured her employer would make it right -- and kept working. This went on for a few months, until one morning, when Denise arrived for work and the doors were locked [See http://www.freep.com/article/20101212/OPINION05/12120503/1336/Opinion/Its-wrong-when-employers-cheat to read more]
[Marxism-Thaxis] Bill Fletcher, Jr. Responding to the 'Letter to the Left Establishment'
Letter to the Left Establishment Bill Fletcher, Tom Hayden and The Letter === 1. Responding to the 'Letter to the Left Establishment' regarding Obama By Bill Fletcher, Jr. A so-called Letter to the Left Establishment critical of the Obama administration has been circulating for a few days. The letter is a bit odd because if you do not read it carefully, it appears that the people named in the first paragraph, including yours truly, are actually asking people to sign on. In reality the Letter is a criticism of several individuals who offered varying degrees of support to the candidacy of President Obama in 2008. On the grounds of confusion alone the Letter should be withdrawn and the signatories should request that their names be removed. But what is odder to me is that the Letter has all sorts of implications. The Letter calls upon those named in the first paragraph to criticize the policies of the Obama administration, as if we have not. It implies that we have been silent about major decisions of the Obama administration that have been wrong. It recites a list of decisions, approaches, etc., by the Obama administration as if any of this is new to those of us identified in the first paragraph. None of this is new. And the authors of the Letter should know that. In fact, if they happened to have been in a cave for the last couple of years and did not keep up with the news, they could have Googled the names of most of the people listed in the first paragraph and found that we have been generally outspoken in our criticisms as well as involved in organizing to put pressure on the administration. For these reasons i have been trying to figure out what the intent of the Letter actually is. I am not going to speak for anyone else. In 2008 i reluctantly came to the conclusion that a position of critical support of Obama was the correct stand. Reluctantly because i had a number of concerns about Obama, most of which have been realized. Nevertheless i was impressed by the congealing of forces that i believed had the potential to do something progressive in the political realm irrespective of the actions of Obama-the-individual. I actually still believe that this is possible and not too late. In 2008, i and several others mentioned in the Letter also suggested that if there was no pressure from the Left and progressives on Obama, assuming he was elected, that we would find ourselves in deep trouble. In fact, people used to joke with me immediately before and immediately after the November 2008 election because i would be asked how much of a honeymoon period Obama should receive and my answer was always the same: 24 hours. I insisted, as did many of my colleagues, that we could not, in effect, give Obama any honeymoon period and that pressure had to start from the beginning. We were correct. The Letter reads as if those named in the first paragraph have been sitting on their hands or standing at the gates refusing to permit the masses to pass through and challenge Obama. I am not sure whether the authors are standing in some parallel universe, but in this one i see no evidence of that at all. There are differences, some over tactics while others over strategy, among those named in the first paragraph, but precisely for that reason it is odd that the names would all be thrown together as if someone were actually trying to stir up confusion and promote disinformation. I don't know, but i have actually seen a film much like this before. So, assuming that there is loving intent from the authors--and i am certainly not critical of the signatories--then i would say, i agree with many of the criticisms they have offered of the Obama administration; i have offered many of those criticisms already; i have been active, as have most of my colleagues, in trying to engage liberal and progressive social forces in the need to both combat the political Right as well as put the pressure on the Democrats; and, guess what? I will continue to, and i am assuming that my colleagues will as well. Oh, and while i am at it, one thing that the authors of the Letter did not address was the question of the African American electorate. I don't know about you, but how we handle the question of this administration is particularly dicey when the African American electorate feels, overwhelmingly, that Obama is under an intense racist assault from the political Right (which is, as you know, quite correct). This basic question of the African American electorate and huge portions of the Latino electorate means that our electoral tactics in the coming two years will have to be handled very carefully, even while we put the pressure on this administration and struggle against its defense of warmed over neo-liberalism. It might have been a good idea, and this is only a
[Marxism-Thaxis] JFP 12/13 - Daniel Ellsberg: I Am Wikileaks!
*Just Foreign Policy News December 13, 2010 * *Just Foreign Policy News on the Web:* http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/782http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2c=J7GGv2RU5VPPZiJPUqu29AYuW7ejrXUs [To receive just the Summary and a link to the web version, you can use this webform: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/switchdailynewshttp://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2c=Xzoi85OhknOGPK%2FT4JSD3gYuW7ejrXUs ] *Daniel Ellsberg: I Am Wikileaks!* Before asserting that Julian Assange and Wikileaks have nothing in common with Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers case, Senator Durbin would have been wise to take note of the fact that Daniel Ellsberg is still alive and forcefully believes the opposite. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/daniel-ellsberg-i-am-wiki_b_795848.htmlhttp://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2c=kI7PfQfoxBdxRigZc%2Fav9QYuW7ejrXUs *Afghanistan** experts call for peace deal and exit strategy* Afghanistan experts with decades of experience in the country call on President Obama to change course and push for a peace settlement and exit strategy. Signers include: Scott Atran, Michael Cohen, Gilles Dorronsoro, Bernard Finel, Joshua Foust, Anatol Lieven, Ahmed Rashid, and Alex Strick van Linschoten. http://www.afghanistancalltoreason.com/http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2c=XED55B08T%2Bwwo4ozLR2ZSwYuW7ejrXUs **Action: Petition: Timetable for the Withdrawal of UN Troops from Haiti* The election fiasco in Haiti, following UN attempts to cover up the likely role of UN troops in the outbreak of cholera in Haiti, add urgency to the call for the UN to tell Haitians what the plan is for the full restoration of Haitian sovereignty. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/haitihttp://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2c=lRqF8exHZGnIqNpUziZU7gYuW7ejrXUs *Ron Paul Defends Wikileaks on the House Floor* Rep. Ron Paul directs a series of questions to the anti-Wikileaks hysteria. How can the US government prosecute an Australian citizen for treason for the theft of documents which he did not steal? If Wikileaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified U.S. government documents, why shouldn't the New York Times and the Washington Post be prosecuted? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxPB9yy7IJ4http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2c=bFgNdmwI63Kcps%2F6JY9J5AYuW7ejrXUs *Help Support Our Work* Your donation helps us educate Americans and create opportunities to advocate for a just foreign policy. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donatehttp://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2c=G3B9PqvKua1vUmmIsvItfwYuW7ejrXUs *Summary:* *U.S./Top News #12ce21e9b4c21b9d_December1310m1* 1) An increasingly assertive group of engagement hawks - a group of professional diplomats, military officers, and academics - is arguing that a mindless, macho refusal to engage with terrorists might be causing as much harm as terrorism itself, writes Thanassis Cambanis in the Boston Globe. Brushing off dialogue betrays an alarming ignorance of how, historically, intractable conflicts have actually been resolved. The current backlash against the don't talk policy began among frustrated military officers, Cambanis writes. Thomas Pickering, a career US diplomat who has spent the decade since his retirement from the State Department working as an unofficial liaison to many of America's bitterest foes, is currently engaged in an unofficial effort to forge a regional peace agreement for Afghanistan. 2) New U.S. intelligence reports paint a bleak picture of the security conditions in Afghanistan and say the war cannot be won unless Pakistan roots out militants on its side of the border, AP reports. The National Intelligence Estimates on Afghanistan and Pakistan could complicate the Obama administration's plans to claim that the war is turning a corner, AP says. 3) The US, Brazil, Canada and the UN were divided on what to do about the Haiti election fiasco, the Miami Herald reports. Brazil pushed a three-person runoff. The UN suggested ruling party candidate Célestin withdraw. The US asked for a true recount with foreign experts going through not just the tally sheets but checking the actual ballots against the partial voter lists. Canada floated cancellation and new elections under an interim government. 4) Out of every $100 of U.S. contracts now paid out to rebuild Haiti, Haitian firms have successfully won $1.60, AP reports. Of the 1,583 U.S. contracts given so far in Haiti totaling $267 million, only 20 - worth $4.3 million - are going to Haitian-owned companies. 5) Julian Assange's attorney Mark Stephens says he has been told by Swedish authorities that a secret grand jury is meeting in Alexandria, Virginia to consider criminal charges in the WikiLeaks case, CNN reports. Stephens said he thinks his client is being held in Britain on a holding charge while the U.S. prepares espionage charges. Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee [chaired by
