Re: Re: Stagism, Etc.
At 24/05/01 10:14 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: >I don't care about being popular. In high school I read James Joyce while >everybody else preferred Grace Metalious. This sounds like the story that Trotsky tended to alienate other members of the Central Committee by reading French novels during the meetings. (or is this apocryphal?) Certainly not a stagist approach to collective political practice. Is it wise? Chris Burford London
Re: rules of debate
At 24/05/01 15:02 -0700, you wrote: >I do not want to call a halt to this debate. A good number of people seem >to be interested. > >But, I am worried when a discussion centers so much on personalities >rather than ideas. Whether somebody is an academic superstar or a naive >Trotskeyist or any of the other names that have been thrown about is >irrelevant. If Wood or Brenner or Proyect or Devine or even Perelman made >a mistake, fine, pointed it out. Their motives, however, are irrelevant. While I support the moderator's draconian policy on etiquette, I think the better way to deal with stimulating controversy is to expect contributors to go straight to the differences. Broadly there seems to me to be an overlap in comments by people such as Justin, Leo, and Louis about what the argument is about. The passion is related to its significance. As Louis wrote >At 24/05/01 10:14 -0400: >Furuhashi: > >Brenner can't be in support of both stagism & "socialism from below" > >at the same time. > >What on earth are you talking about? Brenner was connected with the >Analytical Marxist current before it gave up the ghost. These people, G.A. >Cohen et al, are Second Internationalists in cap and gown. The argument is about whether the fight against opportunism is central to finding a way ahead; whether the danger is only of right opportunism, or whether if there has to be a fight against opportunism, there has to be a fight against left opportunism too. How far 'marxism' can emerge as 'Marxism' through a relentless purely theoretical fight against opportunism and revisionism or whether it needs to arise in the course of discussing current political practice. Or whether reading these implications back into historical research unacceptably distorts the whole nature of historical study. Whether dogmatism is also a form of opportunism and revisionism. And how much one of the characteristics features of opportunism, as in Lenin's view, is its elusiveness. That does not of course obviate the rules of debate, but it may help people avoid being too stung by what they experience as personal attacks. Chris Burford London
Re: Re: Expect the Chinese to Overtake America
At 23/05/01 09:00 -0700, you wrote: >China may have one of the biggest economies, but it also has the most >mouths to feed. This man Burki argues >Conventional wisdom used to hold that developing countries with ever >expanding populations were doomed to poverty because rising population >would eat up whatever economic gains they made. But as countries like >China, India, Brazil and Mexico learn to manage their economies better, >their size becomes an advantage. Now you *could* argue that this position is consistent with the law of value being based on labour power. BTW I would appreciate an explanation of PPP and what aspect of an economy that is likely to favour in calculating comparisons. Ultimately this issue may be about the relative strength of living labour versus dead labour. Chris Burford London
Re: Re: Re: IMF as the "world Fed"?
At 22/05/01 16:16 -0400, you wrote: > >And then there are all the worldly wise 'marxists' who can find so many > >revolutionary reasons for arguing that a certain battle cannot be won, > >without proposing a more attainable target that can more easily be won. > > > >Chris Burford > > > >London > >A clumsy bait. > >Louis Proyect >Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ >in keeping >with a long-standing Proyectist tradition, I insisted on public debate. I >believe that the Internet is as important to revolutionary politics today >as the printing press was to revolutionary struggles in England during the >17th century
Expect the Chinese to Overtake America
Although this article from the IHT refers to GDP and not centralization of capital, it appears highly significant.: >by H.D.S. Greenway The Boston Globe Wednesday, May 23, 2001 > >BOSTON After being the world's No. 1 economic power during most of the >20th century, is America ready to fall into second place within a couple >of decades? At the moment it is riding high. The gap between the world's >No. 1 and the next tier down is probably greater than at any other time in >recorded history. But even superpowers wane, and American preeminence, at >least in economic terms, may not last another 25 years. So says the >Harvard- and Oxford-trained economist Shahid Javed Burki, a former World >Bank official and the chief executive officer of Emerging Markets >Partnership, a Washington consulting firm. In a recent talk to executives >of the American International Group, Mr. Burki predicted that by 2025 >China will have the largest economy in the world and the United States >will be in second place. China, he said, has already passed Japan for the >No. 2 position. > >Last year the United States, with an $8 trillion gross domestic product, >accounted for about 22 percent of the global total, according to Mr. >Burki. The European Union contributed another 20 percent. "If the present >trends continue over the next quarter century, we will see a fundamental >reordering in the position of the large economies." China's share of >global output will be 26 percent, while America's will remain the same, >around 21 or 22 percent.
Re: Re: Re: IMF as the "world Fed"?
At 21/05/01 16:07 -0700, you wrote: >>>Now the IMF might become a "world Fed," managing the world's money, but >>>I think that the US power elite would oppose that. It likes the way the >>>actual Fed manages things. > >Chris B. writes: >>Sure. Change will not come without a battle. > >it doesn't seem like a battle we want to get involved in, since it >involves a conflict between rich-country capitalist elites. Why should that be beneath the dignity of the privileged but progressive citizens of the hegemonic capitalist country of the world?! Even if what Jim describes is the true reality of the global economic system and not merely the surface reality, why should that preclude progressives taking up this battle if it is a battle that must be fought? I know Jim Devine is no dogmatist and I ask him to appreciate that the blows might fall on the sack but they are aimed elsewhere. There is a Trotskyist opinion in marxism space that the dispute between the rich imperialist countries of the Second World War was no business of the proletariat, and the alliance of the Soviet Union with Britain and the USA was an opportunist alliance, and that the world united front against fascism was an opportunist united front. Now when it is the bounden duty of all progressives in the world, *especially* those in the USA, (who also happen to dominate English speaking email lists) to further a world united front against US hegemonism, this viewpoint is extremely harmful and adds to the inertia of any serious attempt to integrate theory with practice, which of course is always difficult. Let us go back to Jim's proposition. >it doesn't seem like a battle we want to get involved in, since it >involves a conflict between rich-country capitalist elites That zealous, even at times over-zealous, Marxist, Lenin, argued "Why does it follow that 'the great, victorious, world' revolution can and must employ only revolutionary methods? It does not follow at all." [The Importance of Gold, November 1921] He personally dirtied his own hand: "I very well recall the scene when, at the Smolny, it was my lot to hand an act to Svinhufvud - which in Russian means 'swinehead' - the representative of the Finnish bourgeoisie, who played the part of a hangman. He amiably shook my hand, we exchanged compliments. How unpleasant that was!" [On the Party Programme, March 1919] Back to world strategy at present, is the following injunction out of date for progressives enjoying the comfort of living in the world hegemonic state? "a rule which will remain fundamental with us for a long time until socialism finally triumphs all over the world: we must take advantage of the antagonisms and the contradictions that exist between the two imperialisms, the two groups of capitalist states" [Speech to a Meeting of Activists 6th December 1920] Chris Burford London
Re: IMF as the "world Fed"?
At 21/05/01 08:59 -0700, you wrote: >Chris B. wrote: >>Why cannot the IMF's role be to manage world money? > >because that's not how it's presently set up (though of course that might >change). >Now the IMF might become a "world Fed," managing the world's money, but I >think that the US power elite would oppose that. It likes the way the >actual Fed manages things. Sure. Change will not come without a battle. But from a marxist perspective, of course gold (or silver) as world money is a mystification. Although it is less of a mystification to treat the US dollar as world money, it still is a mystification. I note however, the deafening silence in response to my question, on this list, apart from Jim. A World Fed is perhaps not revolutionary enough, too soiled with the realities of commodity exchange. Yet Jim's sketch of the present role of the IMF seems to be close enough to reality. IMF critics recognise that it tends to bail out the creditors instead of punishing them as vigorously as the failing country. What the left, if this list is left, cannot address about the failings of the IMF is that we confine the debate to patronising charity if we just back debt cancellation for individual countries. We have to make a theoretical quantum leap to grasp this. In a world in which socialism cannot be imposed overnight, there will still be economic and financial activity. It is impossible to find equitable rules as to why massive credit should be extended to one country or enterprise rather than another in times of crisis. What is needed is a truly global policy which recognises that corporations will indeed go bankrupt at times, but 1) the overall global financial climate does not have to be sado-monetarist 2) there could be broad rules for the distribution of credit on a global basis which maks it somewhat more available in some areas than others, as in the European Union. But enterprises would still have to bid against the available credit. If we want to push the analogy with the US Fed, how about just considering the formula by which a world fed would extend credit at a lower rate of interest to the central banks of the African countries compared to the central banks of the USA and Europe. (compare the recent reduction in the Fed rate to the states banks) To win this battle we not only have to argue against the self-interest of US finance capitalism. We also have to argue within the left against 1) revolutionary global anarchism 2) patronising christian charity yet both of these consitutencies are currently our allies. And then there are all the worldly wise 'marxists' who can find so many revolutionary reasons for arguing that a certain battle cannot be won, without proposing a more attainable target that can more easily be won. Chris Burford London
Re: Re: IMF
At 19/05/01 15:27 -0700, you wrote: >Brad, come on. I asked Michael K. to cool it, because I thought you had. >Nobody benefits from repeatedly going over the same tit for tat stuff. >You made your case fairly clearly in your last post, calling for a >kinder-gentler IMF. > >Let me ask a question about that post: Is the role of the IMF to help >eliminate financial crises -- which was supposedly its original intention >-- or is it to jam neo-liberal policies down the throats of weaker states? Isn't part of the problem that we are confined to present definitions of the problem? Let me persist in trying to reframe a different question. Why cannot the IMF's role be to manage world money? Chris Burford London
Fwd: Re: IMF and world money
For some reason this post from me did not get through, or has been delayed an unpredicably long time. >Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:56:41 +0100 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [PEN-L:11824] Re: IMF > >At 19/05/01 15:27 -0700, you wrote: >>Brad, come on. I asked Michael K. to cool it, because I thought you had. >>Nobody benefits from repeatedly going over the same tit for tat stuff. >>You made your case fairly clearly in your last post, calling for a >>kinder-gentler IMF. >> >>Let me ask a question about that post: Is the role of the IMF to help >>eliminate financial crises -- which was supposedly its original intention >>-- or is it to jam neo-liberal policies down the throats of weaker states? > > >Isn't part of the problem that we are confined to present definitions of >the problem? > > >Let me persist in trying to reframe a different question. > > > Why cannot the IMF's role be to manage world money? > > >Chris Burford > >London
Jail small talk reveals Holocaust guilt
Jail small talk reveals Holocaust guilt Banter between Nazi PoWs shows how much they knew about the death camps, reports Ed Vulliamy Sunday May 20, 2001 The Observer http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,493590,00.html Although this relates to Goldhagen's book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" I do not think it supports the Goldhagen's implication that the German people in general were ready to act as executioners in large numbers. These tapes reveal mounting disquiet even among the Nazi cadre force. Chris Burford London
