[PEN-L:8334] On Dictatorship, The State And Democracy

[SHAWGI TELL]

--Boundary (ID uieuzoOyuFxtYmNFIr+Wow)

 
 The question of the "withering away of the state" is not dependent on 
this or that belief. The state is a feature of class society. Its 
withering away is a feature of the classless society. The way forward for 
the U.S. to achieve this is to defeat the anti-social offensive so as to 
guarantee the victory of the pro-social program, the building of 
socialism and the creation of conditions for the complete emancipation of 
the working class and the entire humanity, that is, the creation of the 
conditions of modern communism. 
 During the immediate struggle against the anti-social offensive and
for the victory of the pro-social program, the working class must
fight to establish a direction for society whereby it is the people
who begin to benefit from it. This struggle will be most complicated
and violent, as the ruling class, the financial oligarchy, will never
agree to permit a peaceful change in the direction of society from the
anti-social offensive to the pro-social program. It will use the
violence of the state to stop it from happening. 
 The question which arises is this: Can the same state that guarantees
through violence the anti-social offensive also, secure the pro-social
program? The answer obviously is no but this is beside the point.
Whether the state guarantees the pro-social program or not, the aim of
the struggle against the anti-social offensive is to establish the
reality that it is the will of the people which counts in society. In
order to establish the people's will for a pro-social program, the
working class has to smash the old state machine. This old state
machine is consistent with the will of the financial oligarchy not the
people's, and must be replaced with a new one consistent with the
aspirations and will of the people. 
 At this time in the U.S., it is the will of the financial oligarchy that
prevails. It takes the form of a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It
does not matter how many arguments are given or briefs presented to
convince the bourgeoisie that its anti-social offensive is hurting the
people and damaging the economy, the bourgeoisie does not listen and
does not want to listen to those things that go against its will and
interests. It is exercising its dictate over the people. The people
can only establish their own pro-social program if they establish
their dictate over the rule of the financial oligarchy. In order for
the working class to lead the people to impose their dictate over the
bourgeoisie, they will have to smash the old state machine and create
a new one. 
The new state will proceed by changing the direction of the economy by
expropriating the bourgeoisie, and creating a socialist society. As
the socialist society strengthens itself and develops, and the
exploitation of persons by persons is eliminated, and the
international situation changes dramatically with the elimination of
all imperialism and imperialist superpowers and any danger coming from
other capitalist or imperialist states, the new state that was
established by the people will no longer be needed. Such a state will
wither away. 
 It is extremely important not to speak of "dictatorship" in general.
In a class society, the class in power establishes its dictatorship
and exercises its rule. The entire history of class society is a
history of class dictatorships. There was the dictatorship of the
slave owning class, followed by the rule of the feudal aristocracy
which was overthrown and replaced by the rule of the capitalists,
which is the situation at present. The working class is the first
class that has come into existence whose aim is to establish its own
dictatorship with the express aim of eliminating all dictatorships
including its own. Its aim is to "negate the negation." 
When the bourgeoisie speaks of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"
it does so with bad conscience. It uses words glibly and creates the
impression as if its own rule is "democracy" and that "democracy" is
neutral and above classes, while the rule of the working class is a
"dictatorship," which is, in turn, brutal and blood-thirsty. To be
scientific and to use words in good conscience the working class
places words such as "democracy" in very specific historical and
actual circumstances. Democracy describes a definite system of class
rule. Depending on the class in power, it can either be a bourgeois
democracy - dictatorship of the bourgeoisie - or a proletarian
democracy - a dictatorship of the proletariat. Either kind of
democracy holds elections but the role of elections should also be
discussed concretely. The role of elections under the dictatorship of
the bourgeoisie is to sort out contradictions among the capitalists
themselves to see which section will govern for the coming period. It
is also to provide the institutions of government with credibility. In
other words by permitting the people the right to vote, people are
supposed to 

[PEN-L:8333] Re: market socialism, planned socialism, utopian

[Doug Henwood]

At 4:01 PM 1/24/97, Robin Hahnel wrote:

>the work that I have published with Michael Albert on "participatory
>planning."

Robin, what's your answer to the critique pungently summarized by Nancy
Folbre, who said that your utopia sounded like one long student council
meeting?

Meaning in part that it's hard politically to sell all that involvement;
atomized individuals are quite happy to delegate all that, they just want
more.

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217 USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice  +1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: 

day care

[Joshua William Mason]

Anybody out there aware of any studies on day care availability and women's
labor-force participation, in this country and in Europe?
Any information on day care provision, either public or private, in
European countries would also be helpful.

This is for an article in the crypto-socialist biweekly, In These Times.

Josh Mason


J. W. Mason
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:8332] Re: market socialism, planned socialism, ut

[PBurns]

  In reply to Robin Hahnel: I've read Devine's work 
  [Democracy and Economic Planning] and I would not 
  characterize it as anti-market socialist as far as 
  substance goes (as against labels).  In common with most 
  advocates of market socialism, Devine calls for planning 
  of investment, but he allows significant scope for 
  markets in consumption goods.  Where he differs from 
  market socialists is that his investment planning 
  mechanism is rather more comprehensive and detailed than 
  theirs usually are.  But I think the differences between 
  Devine and, say, Schweickart, are more over degree of 
  planning than principle, and over the willingness to 
  accept market-friendly language.  Devine would emphasize 
  the failings of markets, would probably not accept the 
  'market socialist' label, etc, whereas Schweickart would 
  probably put himself in the market socialist camp and 
  would emphasize some of the positive aspects of markets 
  and the failings of excessive amounts of central 
  planning.  I don't think their two models are so much 
  opposed as on a continuum.
  
  Peter
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:8331] Re: Defining "economic freedom" (fwd)

[Anthony P D'Costa]

While I am no fan of the Heritage nor its definitions of economic freedom,
having been in Singapore I can testify that "freedom" is an extremely
loaded word.  The Heritage and the writer of the piece below suffer from
their inability to discriminate social contexts.  As economists, even if
not of the mainstream variety, we should recognize trade-offs.  Singapore
is a multicultural society and it functions quite well, chewing gum or
not.

In fact one ought to read the piece by Hanly on Cuba's human rights 
together with this one.  If Cuba has human rights because it has
socialized medicine then who could say there isn't freedom in
Singapore?  On all counts of healthcare Singapore will outdo Cuba
several times over.  Here is Singapore, crime is low.  Women need not
fear walking the streets at night, although the usual precautions are
always advised.  So there is a trade off.  Ask the women and see what
they would prefer?  So this piece by Norman is the usual "holier than
thou" attitude, typical also of the NYT.  If it is not free market, it
must be bad, if it is not politically "liberal" it must be bad.  


Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor Senior Fellow
Comparative International Development   Department of Economics
University of WashingtonNational University of Singapore
1103 A Street   10 Kent Ridge Crescent
Tacoma, WA 98402 USASingapore 119260

On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, D Shniad wrote:

> > From: Norman Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 
> > WHEN "ECONOMIC FREEDOM" BARS CHEWING GUM
> > 
> > By Norman Solomon  /  Creators Syndicate
> > 
> > 
> >  America's top business newspaper has put out a fascinating
> > document called the 1997 Index of Economic Freedom. It's a thick
> > book that illuminates the priorities of Wall Street Journal
> > editors, who teamed up with the influential Heritage Foundation
> > to rank the countries of the world.
> > 
> >  So, which sovereign nation scored highest in economic
> > liberty?
> > 
> >  The answer: Singapore.
> > 
> >  In Singapore, the indexers of "economic freedom" have seen
> > the future, and it works: "an efficient, strike-free labor
> > force...no minimum wage...no antitrust regulations."
> > 
> >  But some significant facts go unmentioned. For instance,
> > chewing gum has been illegal in Singapore since 1992. The
> > government recently reaffirmed the ban and warned citizens that
> > ordering gum from foreign mail catalogs could bring a year in
> > jail and a fine of $6,173.
> > 
> >  The crackdown came after authorities blamed wads of gum for
> > jamming subway doors. Evidently, the visionary leaders of
> > Singapore have realized that people can't have economic freedom
> > and chew gum at the same time.
> > 
> >  Nor do financial liberties on the Asian island extend to
> > anyone who might want to buy or sell -- or read -- a copy of
> > Watchtower magazine. The Jehovah's Witness religious group and
> > its literature have been banned in Singapore for a quarter of a
> > century.
> > 
> >  Throughout last year, at least 40 Jehovah's Witnesses were
> > behind bars in Singapore for refusing military service on
> > religious grounds. Amnesty International calls them "prisoners of
> > conscience." Dozens of other Jehovah's Witnesses spent weeks in
> > jail for "peacefully exercising their right to freedom of
> > expression."
> > 
> >  The unfettered commerce that dazzled the "economic freedom"
> > indexers does not include the exchange of ideas or information.
> > As the Associated Press reported last spring, Singapore "has some
> > of the world's strictest media controls."
> > 
> >  And Singapore's methods of punishment remain harsh. Brutal
> > caning is mandatory for vandalism and 30 other crimes. Death by
> > hanging awaits those caught with 500 grams of marijuana. As you
> > might guess, dictator Lee Kuan Yew has scorned "decadent" notions
> > of civil liberties.
> > 
> >  Ranked just behind Singapore -- and also classified as
> > "free" in the Index of Economic Freedom -- is Bahrain. The small
> > Persian Gulf country wins profuse accolades: "a free-market
> > economic system...no taxes on income or corporate profits...no
> > capital gains tax...few barriers to foreign investment...a
> > vibrant and competitive banking market with few government
> > restrictions."
> > 
> >  Overall, in Bahrain, "businesses are free to operate as they
> > see fit." To investors, that's high praise indeed. But you
> > wouldn't know from the report that Bahrain is a traditional
> > monarchy. Long ruled by the al-Khalifa family, it's a nation that
> > gives plutocracy a bad name.
> > 
> >  A royal decree abolished Bahrain's parliament 22 years ago,
> > and since then the government has suppressed dissent. During the
> > mid-1990s, several thousand people were arrested for pro-
> > democracy street protests. Amnesty International notes that
> > Bahra

[PEN-L:8330] Re: market socialism, planned socialism, utopian

[Robin Hahnel]

WhileB. Rosser is correct that many advocates of socialist planning
do NOT address the issue of what classes might or might not develop,
and do NOT explain HOW workers (and consumers) would exactly participate
in the planning process; that is NOT true of either Pat Devine whose
book and articles on the subject of democratic planning deal extensively
and in great detail with these two critical issues; nor is it true of
the work that I have published with Michael Albert on "participatory
planning." Devine, Albert and I were largely motivated by the lack of
concrete attention to these issues by many advocates of democratic planning
and opponents of market "socialism." Of course, our arguments may be
ill-founded, but they are there for any who care to consider them and
respond.

[PEN-L:8329] Labor Notes 1997 Conference (fwd)

[D Shniad]

> Labor on the Move: Which way from here?
> Labor Notes' Ninth Biennial Conference
> April 18-20, 1997
> Westin Hotel, Downtown Detroit
> 
> "...the most significant gathering of individuals committed to
> democratic reform in the trade union movement..."
>  -Victor Reuther, Co-founder of the UAW
> 
> The bosses are tough--downsizing, contracting out, halting our
> efforts to organize. Our workplaces are lean and mean. And, we
> face aggressive attacks on affirmative action, health care,
> immigrant and welfare worker rights, and the 40-hour week.
> 
> The fight we face goes beyond individual unions or countries and
> is sounding a wake-up call to the whole labor movement. With
> changes at the top of the AFL-CIO, the ranks are calling for more
> action against corporate greed.
> 
> We are fighting back, with immigrant truckers and tortilla
> workers organizing in Los Angeles, demolition workers in New
> York; Boeing workers beating outsourcing; Canadian Autoworkers
> taking-over General Motors; turning around corruption and
> business-unionism in the Teamsters; winning living wage
> campaigns, student-union organizing, and the founding of the
> Labor Party. And thousands have taken to the streets in Canada,
> Mexico, Brazil, and in Europe against privatization.
> 
> But we have much to do to be a winning movement, to reform our
> old ways. Unions could be a force for justice and securing a
> decent standard of living. The 1997 Labor Notes Conference will
> take a look at where we are at, and where we need to go.
> 
> What Is Labor Notes?
> Labor Notes is an independent non-profit educational organization
> dedicated to rank and file labor activism. Since 1979 we've
> published books and a monthly magazine, and sponsored eight
> international conferences.
> 
> --Conerence Information--
> Place: Westin Hotel, Renaissance Center, In downtown Detroit
> 
> Registration: $85 ($105 Canadian) includes Saturday Banquet.
> Early registrations by Jan. 31, take $10 OFF. Some scholarship
> money is available for low-income workers.
> 
> Lodging: $72 per night single; $82 double; $92 triple; $102 quad.
> Call the Westin, 800/228-3000. Mention Labor Notes to get these
> rates.
> 
> Air Transportation: Northwest Airlines offers a 5% discount on
> conference travel. Call 800/328---mention Labor Notes
> Conference, and Code #NY3CX. Shuttles to the Westin are available
> from Detroit Metro airport.
> 
> Childcare (ages over 1 year): Available for a fee if registered
> by March 15.
> 
> 
> Conference Agenda
> 
> Friday, April 18
>  Registration open 12-9:00pm.
> 1:00 Early workshops, Women of Color Meeting
> 3:00 Latino Workers Meeting
> 5:00 Early Union/Industry Meetings
> 
> 7:00 Opening Session: Labor on the Move--Which Way
>  A report card on the changes in our movement.
> 9:00 Reception, various Caucus meetings
> 
> Saturday, April 19
> 7:30am Registration
> 8:30 Three Concurrent Mini-Plenaries:
>  One: Social Movement Unionism--many attacks, one struggle
>  Two: Lean Production/Privatization--an international fight
>  Three: Organizing Strategies--how we win, today and beyond
> 10:00 Union/Sector Meetings
> 12:30 People of Color Meeting
> 2:00-5:15 Workshops I & II
> 5:30 Interest Meetings
> 7:30 Banquet, Party
> 
> Sunday, April 20
> 7:30 Caucus Meetings
> 9:00 Workshops and Meetings
> 11:00 Brunch, Women's Caucus
> 12:30-2:30 Keynote speakers and Program
> 
> [All main sessions, some workshops and meetings will be
> translated into Spanish and sign language.]
> 
> Over 50 workshops, and meetings by union and industry--
> 
> 
> Workshops will include:
> 
> *  Model Organizing Locals
> *  How to Win Strikes
> *  Workers' Centers
> *  Building Workplace Unionism
> *  Controlling Contracting
> *  Job Security: Shorter workweek
> *  Coalitions Against Privatization
> *  Living Wage Campaigns
> *  How to Run for Office
> *  Fighting Racism on the Job
> *  Cooperation Programs
> *  Telecommunications Rengineering
> *  Technology and Jobs
> *  Health Care Restructuring
> *  Contract Campaigns
> 
> "A lot of things have happened in my union life since I attended
> the '95 Labor Notes conference that were good for me and for my
> union sisters and brothers. It was like a light came on in
> Detroit and I brought that light back to Columbus."
>  -Dennis Anderson, Teamsters Local 413
> 
> For More Information, write to Labor Notes, 7435 Michigan Ave.,
> Detroit, MI 48210. Or call 313/842-6262. Or fax us at 313/842-
> 0227. Or E-mail us at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> P.S. We are putting together a program book for the conference,
> and are looking for unions and labor activists to advertise. It's
> a great way to contribute to Labor Notes and send a message to
> the over 1000 people who will be attending. It also helps defray
> the costs of putting together the conference, and provides
> scholarships for those (strikers, students, etc.) who need.
> 

[PEN-L:8328] Defining "economic freedom" (fwd)

[D Shniad]

> From: Norman Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> WHEN "ECONOMIC FREEDOM" BARS CHEWING GUM
> 
> By Norman Solomon  /  Creators Syndicate
> 
> 
>  America's top business newspaper has put out a fascinating
> document called the 1997 Index of Economic Freedom. It's a thick
> book that illuminates the priorities of Wall Street Journal
> editors, who teamed up with the influential Heritage Foundation
> to rank the countries of the world.
> 
>  So, which sovereign nation scored highest in economic
> liberty?
> 
>  The answer: Singapore.
> 
>  In Singapore, the indexers of "economic freedom" have seen
> the future, and it works: "an efficient, strike-free labor
> force...no minimum wage...no antitrust regulations."
> 
>  But some significant facts go unmentioned. For instance,
> chewing gum has been illegal in Singapore since 1992. The
> government recently reaffirmed the ban and warned citizens that
> ordering gum from foreign mail catalogs could bring a year in
> jail and a fine of $6,173.
> 
>  The crackdown came after authorities blamed wads of gum for
> jamming subway doors. Evidently, the visionary leaders of
> Singapore have realized that people can't have economic freedom
> and chew gum at the same time.
> 
>  Nor do financial liberties on the Asian island extend to
> anyone who might want to buy or sell -- or read -- a copy of
> Watchtower magazine. The Jehovah's Witness religious group and
> its literature have been banned in Singapore for a quarter of a
> century.
> 
>  Throughout last year, at least 40 Jehovah's Witnesses were
> behind bars in Singapore for refusing military service on
> religious grounds. Amnesty International calls them "prisoners of
> conscience." Dozens of other Jehovah's Witnesses spent weeks in
> jail for "peacefully exercising their right to freedom of
> expression."
> 
>  The unfettered commerce that dazzled the "economic freedom"
> indexers does not include the exchange of ideas or information.
> As the Associated Press reported last spring, Singapore "has some
> of the world's strictest media controls."
> 
>  And Singapore's methods of punishment remain harsh. Brutal
> caning is mandatory for vandalism and 30 other crimes. Death by
> hanging awaits those caught with 500 grams of marijuana. As you
> might guess, dictator Lee Kuan Yew has scorned "decadent" notions
> of civil liberties.
> 
>  Ranked just behind Singapore -- and also classified as
> "free" in the Index of Economic Freedom -- is Bahrain. The small
> Persian Gulf country wins profuse accolades: "a free-market
> economic system...no taxes on income or corporate profits...no
> capital gains tax...few barriers to foreign investment...a
> vibrant and competitive banking market with few government
> restrictions."
> 
>  Overall, in Bahrain, "businesses are free to operate as they
> see fit." To investors, that's high praise indeed. But you
> wouldn't know from the report that Bahrain is a traditional
> monarchy. Long ruled by the al-Khalifa family, it's a nation that
> gives plutocracy a bad name.
> 
>  A royal decree abolished Bahrain's parliament 22 years ago,
> and since then the government has suppressed dissent. During the
> mid-1990s, several thousand people were arrested for pro-
> democracy street protests. Amnesty International notes that
> Bahrain's recent political detainees have included "children as
> young as 10."
> 
>  In Bahrain, the past year has brought "large-scale and
> indiscriminate arrests," says Human Rights Watch. "Serious,
> extensive and recurrent human rights abuses continued in the form
> of arbitrary detention, abusive treatment of prisoners and denial
> of due process rights." Torture has been common. But "there were
> no known instances of officials being held accountable."
> 
>  Clearly, political tyranny can be quite compatible with the
> kind of economic order favored by folks at The Wall Street
> Journal and the Heritage Foundation. The touting of countries
> like Singapore and Bahrain is proof that one-dimensional
> fixations are foolish -- and dangerous.
> 
>  Despite persistent efforts by some media outlets and think
> tanks, it's not possible to credibly separate the flow of money
> from the exercise of power. Every day, much of the real world is
> buffeted by a political version of the golden rule: Those who
> have the gold make the rules.
> 
>  All too often, terms like "economic freedom" get defined in
> ways that just so happen to favor the interests of the wealthy
> few. In the process, such definitions set aside democratic
> values.
> 
>  Inadvertently, the 1997 Index of Economic Freedom renders a
> valuable public service. It shows that narrow concepts of
> "economic freedom" can be catastrophic for genuine human freedom.

[PEN-L:8327] Axworthy in Cuba

[HANLY]

Canadian foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy met with Castro the other
day for 6 hours. A CBC interviewer asked him about US concerns with human
rights in Cuba. The wily Ax pointed out that US policy in China was not
to use trade sanctions as a weapon to force changes in human rights, and
that this was a policy with which Canada agreed and followed as well in
Cuba. He also pointed out that he did get some agreements on human rights from
Castro, whereas US policy achieved nothing except to anger its allies.
Finally he really socked it to the US. He said that one some human rights
issues Cuba was better than other countries in the area. He said , for example,
that they have a universal medical care system that provides free care for
all citizens. I wonder what other countries he had in mind !
   Cheers, KEn Hanly