Fair Trade Coffee Public Meeting (fwd)
A PUBLIC MEETING ON FAIR TRADE COFFEE FOR CANADIANS When: Tuesday, November 4 at 7.30 pm Where: SFU Harbour Centre, 514 West Hastings Street, Room 1410 (close to Sky Train, Sea Bus and public transit) DO YOU CLOSE YOUR EYES WHEN YOU DRINK YOUR CUP OF COFFEE? It's time to open up your eyes to the human reality. * Find out about the inhumane exploitation that is part and parcel of your everyday cup of conventional coffee. * Find out how, through just small actions, you can play an important part inbringing about change. * Find out how you can choose coffee with a taste of justice. * Find out how there is a better form of trade that values human beings and the environment, rather than the exploitation and environmental abuse of Free Trade, NAFTA and APEC. COME AND HEAR: -Gaspar Tomas, former coffee worker from Guatemala -Bob Thomson, Managing Director, Fair TradeMark Canada -Kathleen Ruff, Oxfam Canada, TAKE A LOOK AT THE EVERYDAY REALITY FOR COFFEE WORKERS IN THE SOUTH THAT LIES BEHIND EACH CUP OF CONVENTIONAL COFFEE: *coffee workers spraying dangerous pesticides are provided with NO protective clothing or equipment *coffee pickers earn $2 a day for back-breaking labour - not enough to buy a latte *coffee workers who try to organize to improve working conditions are found tortured and dead IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. THIS EXPLOITATION EXISTS BECAUSE THE COFFEE COMPANIES AND SUPERMARKETS BELIEVE CONSUMERS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EXPLOITATION OF COFFEE WORKERS. LEARN ABOUT HOW THE FAIR TRADE COFFEE MOVEMENT IS HELPING WORKERS IN THE SOUTH ENJOY BETTER CONDITIONS: *Fair TradeMark Canada supports small coffee producers and cooperatives and ensures workers are paid fairly for their labour *Fair TradeMark Canada is part of a global fair trade movement *Fair TradeMark Canada ensures that its ethical and quality standards are independently monitored *In Europe 24 million pounds of fair trade coffee was sold in 35,000 supermarkets in 1996. Why not in Canda? Meeting organized by Oxfam Canada. Endorsed by VanCity Credit Union, Citizens Bank, Canadian Business for Social Responsibility, Sustainable Development Research Institute - UBC, Fair TradeMark Canada. Members of Fair TradeMark Canada include: CUSO, the United Church of Canada, Canadian Autoworkers, OXFAM-Canada, Steelworkers, World Vision, Ten Days for Global Justice, Council of Canadians. COME AND BRING OTHERS! FOR MORE INFORMATION, OR TO GET INVOLVED, CONTACT: Kathleen Ruff 1903 - 1552 Esquimalt Avenue West Vancouver, BC V7V 1R3 Phone and Fax: 926-7309 Kathleen Ruff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chicago Teach-In On Labor New Alliances:detailed schedule for (fwd)
Networking for Democracy presents the 8th Annual Midwest Radical Scholars Activists Conference A Teach-In On Labor New Alliances: Strategies for Workplace, School Community in the 21st Century October 24 25, 1997 Co-sponsored by: Committees of Correspondence Democratic Socialists of America Midwest Center for Labor Research Open University of the Left Roosevelt Co-Sponsor: School of Policy Studies Location: Roosevelt University 430 South Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois Program: Friday, October 24 12:00=F11:00 pm =09Registration, 2nd Floor Michigan Room 1:00 pm=09=09Book Fair Opens, Michigan Room 1:00=F13:00 pm Concurrent Sessions A. Media , Labor Labor's Media Roger Kerson, editor publisher, National News Reporter Bob Ginsburg, Research Director, Midwest Center for Labor Research Liane Chlorfene-Casten, Chicago Media Watch, Chair B. Unfair Burdens: Working Women, Today's Inequalities the Tasks of Unio= ns Carole Travis, Political Director, Illinois Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Anne Zacharias-Walsh Judy Raight, former official UAW Local 600 in Ann Arbor [Chair to be assigned] C. Radical Theory: Why Dialectics? Why Now? Bertell Olman, Philosophy, New York University Peter Hudis, News Letters Ron Aronson, Philosophy, Wayne State University Kevin Anderson, Philosophy, Northern Illinois University, Chair 3:00=F15:00 pm Concurrent Sessions A. Labor's Alliances: Learning from History William Adelmen, Illinois Labor History Society Frank Girard, Editor, Discussion Bulletin Jack Metzger, Labor Education, Roosevelt University Rado Mijanovich, New Union Party, Chair =0CB. New Technology, Unions Changes in Work Abdul Alkalimat, Africana Studies Sociology, University of Toledo Pavlos Stavropoulos, Managing Editor, English Language Edition, Democarcy Nature Mike Parker, Labor Notes Jerry Harris, History, DeVry Institute of Technology Carl Davidson, Chicago Third Wave Study Group, Chair C. 6:00=F17:00 pm Dinner Break 7:00=F19:30 pm Plenary Session Call to Order: Carl Davidson, Conference Organizer Greetings from Roosevelt University School of Policy Studies Speakers: Helen Shiller, Alderman, 46 th Ward Bill Fletcher, National Education Director, AFL-CIO Carole Travis, Political Director, Illinois SEIU Manning Marable, African American History, Columbia University Saturday, October 25 10:00 am=F112:00 Noon Concurrent Sessions A. Market Socialism: A Debate among Socialists David Schweikart, Philosophy, Loyola University: For Bertell Ollman, Philosophy, New York University: Against Rado Mijanovich, New Union Party, Chair B. Race, Nationality Winning Alliances Bill Fletcher, National Education Director, AFL-CIO Manning Marable, African American History, Columbia University Mike Goldfield, Labor Studies, Wayne State University [Chair to be assigned] C. Structural Reform, Mass Campaigns New Alliances Bob Brown, South Shore Communiversity Dan Swinney, Director, Midwest Center for Labor Research Harry Targ, Political Science, Purdue University Sondra Patrinos, Committees of Correspondence, Chair D. Cabrini-Green and the Future of Public Housing, or Do We Really Want to Live in a =EBCommunitarian City'? Larry Bennett, Political Science, DePaul University Marilyn Katz David Peterson [to be confirmed] E. Building Worldwide Resistance to Unfree Trade, Corporate Greed the Ne= w Global Austerity Program Keith McHenry, Food Not Bombs, San Fransisco Two members of Baladre, an Iberian organization fighting unemployment, poverty and social exclusion panel members are presently on a North American Tour to End Corporate Domination session organizers: The Autonomous Zone (A-Zone) Saturday, October 25 (continued) 12:00=F11:00 pm Lunch Break 1:00=F13:00 pm Concurrent Sessions A. Democratic Schools in a Democratic Society Linda Voss, Chicago elementary school teacher Beth Meeker, Chicago Public High School teacher George Searfoss, Coordinator, Labor in the Schools Program, Indiana University South Bend Edna Pardo, League of Women Voters Bill Ayres, Small Schools Workshop, UIC, Chair B. Globalization, NeoLiberalism Labor Strategy Kim Moody, Labor Notes Dave Ranney, Center for Urban Economic Development, UIC [third person to be named] Mel Rothenberg, Mathematics, University of Chicago, Chair C. Independent Politics: Labor-Community Alliances Doug Gills, Center for Urban Economic Development, UIC Todd Reardon, Independent Progressive Political Network Helen Shiller, Alderman, 46th Ward Julie Brow, IL Committee for Proportional Representation Dennis Dixon, Jobs With Justice, Networking for Democracy, Chair D. Welfare Reform, Income Policy Trade Unions John Hagedorn, Criminal Justice Dept. UIC Helen Slessarev, Director, Urban Studies Program, Wheaton College; author o=
New Zealand prepares for APEC
MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE USE 20 October 1997 GATT Watchdog Activist Launches Legal Action Against SIS Over Bungled 1996 Break-in Prominent Auckland QC To Take Case Fighting Fund Launched The man at the centre of a botched NZ Security Intelligence Service (SIS) break-in at his Christchurch home on July 13 1996 is taking a legal case against the SIS. Aziz Choudry has engaged prominent Auckland QC, Dr Rodney Harrison to act as senior legal counsel in the case. A fighting fund, the Democratic Rights Defence Fund, is being launched to raise money to cover the costs of the legal action. Mr Choudry says that the break-in, which took place within two weeks of new legislation (the 1996 New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Act) expanding the scope of SIS targets, confirms concerns that critics of the government's free-market policies are now fair game for the SIS. He says that the break-in puts the lie to assurances contained within the legislation and reiterated by the Prime Minister that remaining within the law is a guarantee of freedom from SIS operations and that the SIS would not be used against legitimate political dissenters. "It is clear that such promises were made to be broken" said Mr Choudry, a Corso National Officer and spokesperson for the fair trade coalition GATT Watchdog. "The only conceivable reasons for the break-in arose from my involvement with GATT Watchdog, which works to expose and oppose the APEC agenda and my role in organising an alternative forum critical of free trade held just prior to the APEC Trade Ministers Meeting here in Christchurch," said Mr Choudry. "This is thoroughly unacceptable". Mr Choudry and Dr David Small (who discovered the two intruders at the scene of the break-in) made complaints to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security about the incident, but these were not upheld. Neither man accepts the Inspector-General's conclusions, released this June. The Inspector-General's advice implicitly acknowledged that the two men responsible for the break-in were SIS operatives. A subsequent call for an independent public enquiry into the matter on the anniversary of the break-in was endorsed by a wide range of groups, organisations and unions, but met with no response from the government. Mr Choudry intends to sue the SIS for substantial damages for trespass and unreasonable search. A letter of claim has been sent to the Director of Security asking him to confirm or deny that the two men involved in the break-in were indeed SIS operatives and/or were acting on behalf of the Service. The letter complains of the civil wrong of trespass, and of unreasonable search contrary to Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Democratic Rights Defence Fund has been set up to encourage people to publicly endorse the need for legal action in this case, and to raise and account for the money needed to take this action. The Fund's committee comprises Dr Jane Kelsey, Professor of Law, Auckland University; Maxine Gay, President of the New Zealand Trade Union Federation; Dr Jim Stuart, Minister of the Church of St Andrews on the Terrace, Wellington; Leigh Cookson of Corso; Murray Horton, CAFCA and Anti-Bases Campaign organiser; and Nicholas McBride of the Christchurch Community Law Centre. The fundraising target is $20,000. "GATT Watchdog believes that human rights violations and the suppression of legitimate dissent go hand in hand with the market model of development which APEC promotes. Last year's actions set a dangerous precedent for the targetting of any New Zealand organisations, unions or individuals who exercise their democratic right of dissent and free speech against government policies in the future, especially bearing in mind the fact that New Zealand will host the major 1999 APEC meetings,. If it can happen to me - you could be next. The SIS - and their political masters - must be called to account. This legal case is one way to do that, " said Mr Choudry. Donations for the Democratic Rights Defence Fund can be sent to PO Box 1905, Christchurch. For further comment, please contact Aziz Choudry: (03) 3662803; or Leigh Cookson (Democratic Rights Defence Fund) ph 03 3662803 (w)
Re: Do the Jews Own America?
Louis Proyect wrote: I am not advocating "techno-jargon". I am advocating facts about the economy, which inevitably involve numbers. Andrew Hacker's last book was about race relations and it simply produced page after page that showed inequality between black and white. When black college graduates earn $753 for every $1000 earned by a white college graduate, this puts the kibosh on Rush Limbaugh's claims that blacks have caught up. Patrick Mason gave a very interesting talk at the New School yesterday afternoon documenting, against the wisdom of a good bit of the economic literature, that racial discrimination exists in the labor market, even after correcting for education and even IQ. I don't think anyone on PEN-L doubts this, but it still amazes me that mainstreamers believe otherwise. But in the course of his talk, Patrick mentioned the roadblocks that mainstream journal referees present to publication of papers showing the material reality of racism. One was a paper arguing that there was systematic racial bias in IQ tests. And another was his own work on educational attainment. If you build a model to predict the number of years of education - based on typical things like parental education, family income, etc. - the model underpredicts black schooling. In other words, given identical demographic backgrounds except for race, an African-American is likely to have *more* years of education than a similarly situtated white. Apparently this is too much for the (white) reviewers to handle. Doug
Re: theory of societal wealth
Date sent: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:28:46 -0700 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:theory of societal wealth Ricardo writes: I think we can leave aside the biblical question as to whether Marx used the term "labor theory of value". That's the term we now commonly employ; in fact, those who raised this very objection used it in those very missives. Devine: Yes, let's leave aside bibilical questions (though Ricardo goes on to quote the "bible" at length). But a lot of people talk about something called a "labor theory of value" without explaining what it means. Often it's a Ricardian theory of price (a different Ricardo, of course). Most objections to the "LTV" seem to be to the Ricardian theory of price (and the idea that individual prices should and can be mathematically derived from individual values). It's always good to be clear what one is discussing, attacking, or defending. To make it clear what I'm talking about when I talk about the "labor theory of value," I'll call it the "labor theory of societal wealth." BTW, I think that Fred Moseley's article in his edited volume MARX'S METHOD IN CAPITAL (1993) is excellent on value/price relations. The objections I am making against the LTV are ones I think Marx is making in the Grundrisse. ricardo: As far as the claim that Marx is talking about a `future society', I say he is talking about a future CAPITALIST society Marx will insist that science and technology are the creations of human beings. However the emphasis is no longer on "labour" or the "worker"; rather, it is on the "understanding of nature", "the general powers of the human mind", "intellect", "the application of mechanical and chemical laws" - the worker ceasing to be "an essential part of the process of production". Indeed, with automation the "human factor" is limited to overseeing - "supervising" - the production process Devine: but labor still plays a role. Who repairs and programs the machines? Isn't supervision a kind of labor? That's right. The question then is: if this is the only role labor is playing, how can we continue to hold the ltv? The only way out is to say that science and techonology represent past embodied labor, but that's not what Marx says in the Grundrisse (and I think he is right not to say that). Ricardo: Marx is seemingly aware that his labor theory of value is untenable in the context of this society; and in a revealing passage which comes soon after the above cited remark, he says: "Capital is itself contradiction in action, since it makes an effort to reduce labour time to the minimun, while at the same time establishing labour time as the sole measurement and source of wealth" (142-3). This, of course, sounds like Marx himself: on the one hand, he advances the LTV, on the other he knows that within automated capitalism the contribution of the direct laborer to the production process is being reduced to a minimun! Devine: This is very much Marx: capitalism tries to abolish the role of labor in producing value and surplus-value. But it can't do so. So there is crisis. Absent the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by something else, however, value dominates, i.e., labor remains the source of societal wealth. The fact that we still have capitalism suggests that labor is still the sole source of societal wealth (though I don't know how this wealth could ever be produced solely by machines). Even before that, somewhere in CAPITAL vol. I, Marx notes that the rise in labor productivity implies what is nowadays called "technological unemployment." This addition to the reserve army of the unemployed depresses wages, which then encourages clinging to old "labor-intensive" techniques. (Something like this is part of the globalization of production.) This delays the day of judgement where the role of labor is abolished. Ricardo: You are moving into Marx's theory of crisis, which is a different issue. Ken Hanly and Gil Skillman write about the "Lockean Proviso." Even though I believe that Marx's labor theory of societal wealth is _more_ in the same league as Locke's labor theory of private ownership than Ricardo's labor theory of prices, I don't see the relevance of the Proviso to Marx. Marx's theory doesn't seem to be normative in the same way that Locke's is. Locke is trying to justify capitalist private property morally (via "natural law") whereas Marx is (among other things) investigating the internal contradictions of an economic system which values exchange-value and surplus-value uber alles. Value and surplus-value are "good" only from a capitalist perspective. Gil writes: ... Marx's theory of value arguably pertains to a setting without absolute scarcity--and also, for that matter, without increasing returns to scale or
The Attack On Public Education - PART 2 of 2
Path: news.igc.apc.org!cdp!not-for-mail From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: labr.teacher Subject: Privatization, Corporations The Attack On Public Education Date: 14 Oct 1997 00:09:12 RAISING STANDARDS: There is a world of difference between raising our "expectations"for students and raising "standards." Raising our expectations means raising our belief in students' ability to succeed and insuring that all the resources are there to see that they do. Raising standards means erecting new hoops for them to jump through. For years Massachusetts has ranked just after Mississippi as the state with the greatest inequality among its school districts. Vast inequalities still remain among Massachusetts schools. Sharply raising standards while not equalizing resources at a common high level, and using "high stakes" tests as the engine of reform, is setting many thousands of children and many school districts up for failure. Establishing a statewide core curriculum and curriculum frameworks can be very useful steps toward educational quality and equity. My limited conversations with teachers who have seen these frameworks in various disciplines, however, lead me to think that they are being established at unrealistic levels that will assure massive student failure. INCREASING STANDARDIZED TESTING: The massive increase in standardized testing is exactly the wrong thing to do in our schools. At the very time when educators are calling for more "critical thinking" and "higher-order thinking skills," teaching is increasingly being driven by standardized, norm-referenced, multiple-choice tests. The effect will be to narrow the curriculum and push teachers into teaching techniques geared toward memorization and rote learning. With more focus on norm-referenced testing, the content of education disappears, to become simply the "rank" of the individual student. The effect is to attack the relationships among students and force them into greater competition with one another. Education is more than ever reduced to a game of winners and losers. LOWERING THE SCHOOL LEAVING AGE: Another thrust of such plans has been to encourage young people to leave school at an earlier age. In 1985 I was employed by the Minnesota Education Association to help design a strategy to defeat the reform plan proposed by the Minnesota Business Partnership. The Minnesota Business Partnership Plan was probably the most sophisticated education reform plan proposed in any state at the time. It proposed, among other things, moving from a K-12 to a K-10 system, and giving a "Certificate of Completion" to all students who successfully completed the tenth grade. Only a select group of students projected to be about 20% would then be invited back to complete grades 11 and 12. The clear effect would have been that a great many students would end their education at age 16. What was the sense of this proposal? The Business Partnership claimed that the plan was designed to allow students greater "personal flexibility" and "choice." In fact it had a quite different purpose. Minnesota at the time had the highest school retention rate in the country: fully 91% of Minnesota's young people were graduating from high school, and a high proportion of these were proceeding on to college. By encouraging tens of thousands of young people to leave school at age 16, the Business Partnership comprising some of the largest Minnesota corporations, like 3M, ConAgra, and Honeywell would have created huge new pools of cheap labor in Minnesota, to work in stock yards and assembly plants and flip hamburgers. The Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 does not have exactly the same proposal, but the Massachusetts law moves in a similar direction. In 1998 Massachusetts will require that all students pass a "high stakes" test in the tenth grade to be eligible to graduate. At the same time, the schools will begin offering students a "certificate of competence" upon successful completion of the tenth grade curriculum. What will be the effect of the "high stakes" test, especially if dramatic steps are not taken to insure that the educational programs offered young people in many poorer or urban districts are dramatically improved? I suspect that many thousands of young people who would otherwise be graduating with a high school diploma will leave school instead with a "certificate of competence" after the tenth grade. (Only 48% of Chicago's young people recently passed the new "high-stakes" test required for graduation.) I suggest to you that the effect of the high stakes 10th grade test will be to lower the school retention rate, and that it has the same purpose as the proposed Minnesota reform: to enlarge the pool of cheap labor, and to make it seem as if it is our young people and not our economic system that is failing. You may be aware that in 1995 for the first time in our history the gap between black and white high school completion rates
The Attack on Public Education, PART I of 2
From: Labor Video Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Privatizaton,Corp Public Education SCHOOL REFORM AND THE ATTACK ON PUBLIC EDUCATION by David G. Stratman KEYNOTE ADDRESS MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS SUMMER INSTITUTE, 1997 I have two propositions I would like to put to you. The first is that the official education reform movement in Massachusetts and the nation is part of a decades-long corporate and vernment attack on public education and on our children. Its goal is: --not to increase educational attainment but to reduce it; --not to raise the hopes and expectations of our young people but to narrow them, stifle them, and crush them; --not to improve public education but to destroy it. My second proposition is that the education reform movement is part of a wider corporate and government plan to undermine democracy and strengthen corporate domination of our society. What evidence do I have for these assertions? Let's look first at the long-standing campaign to persuade the American people that public education has failed. This has been a disinformation campaign based on fraudulent claims, distortions, and outright lies. Since the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, there have been numerous reports issued, each declaring U.S. public education a disaster, and each proposing "solutions" to our problems. The sponsors of the many reports are a little like the con-man in "The Music Man," who declares, "We've got trouble, right here in River City..." and the chorus repeats, "trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble..." He just happens to be selling the solution to all their troubles. How do you sell radical changes that would have been completely unacceptable to the public a decade or two ago? You tell people over and over that their institutions have failed, and that only the solutions you are peddling offer any way out of their "troubles." In the past couple of years, several excellent books have been published showing in detail that these claims are false. My purpose in this talk is not to cover the ground that these authors have already explored, but to answer the critical question: Why are the public schools under attack? But let's look just briefly at a couple of the key pieces of disinformation to which the American public has been subjected. The supposed dramatic decline of Scholastic Aptitude Test scores was a fraud. These scores did decline somewhat over the period 1963 to 1977. But the SAT is a voluntary test. It is not representative of anything, and it is useless as a measure of student performance or of the quality of the schools. The scores began to fall modestly when the range of young people going into college dramatically expanded in the mid-sixties. Did this mean that there was a lowering of student achievement during this period? Absolutely not. The Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test, or PSAT, is a representative exam, given each year to sample student populations across the country. During the period in question, PSAT scores held absolutely steady. Even more notable is the fact that scores on the College Board Achievement Tests--which test students not on some vaguely-defined "aptitude," but on what they know of specific subjects--did not fall but rose slightly but consistently over the same period in which for the first time in the history of the United States or any other country, the sons and daughters of black and white working families were entering college in massive numbers. Berliner and Biddle comment in their book, The Manufactured Crisis, "the real evidence indicates that the myth of achievement decline is not only false it is a hysterical fraud." How different would have been the public's understanding of what was happening in the schools if the media and the politicians had told the truth! How different if they had announced that, during the period of the greatest turmoil in American society since the Civil War, in which a higher proportion of young people were graduating high school and going on to college than ever before, at a rate unparalleled in any other country in the orld, representative tests showed that overall aptitude and achievement were holding steady or increasing? How different would have been the history of these last decades for educators and parents and students and for public education? What about the claim that U.S. business has lost its competitive edge because of the alleged failure of public education? Anyone who has been watching the triumphal progress of American corporations in the world market in the last two decades or has watched the unprecedented returns on the stock market knows that these claims are preposterous. But let me cite a few specific facts here: U.S. workers are the most productive in the world. Workers in Japan and Germany are only 80% as productive; in
Lubicon protest
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:14:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Don Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ACTION ALERT, ACTION ALERT, ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT AFTER READING PLEASE SEND THIS ALERT ON TO YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL E-MAIL LIST On November 3, 1997 supporters of the Friends of the Lubicons will be holding a informational picket at the Diashowa Packaging Plant at 1750 Inkster Blvd. at 5:00 p.m. in the city of Winnipeg located in the province of Manitoba, Canada. We are holding the informational picket to expose Diashowa's attempt to quash the Friends of the Lubicons fundamental democratic right to free speach by SLAPPING them with a lawsuite . The Friends of the Lubicons are a support group who are helping to bring public attention to the blight of the Lubicon First Nation in Alberta, Canada. Should Diashowa win this court case against the Fiends of the Lubicons we are all next. We are asking for your support in two ways: First, please send us your organizational endorsement for the informational picket so that we can usE your groups name on our press release. Please email your organizational endorsement ASAP to; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Secondly, please pass this message on to your organizational e-mail list. We would like to have broad support locally, nationally and internationally. By passing on this message through the internet we hope to accomplish this objective. Should you require additional information about what is happening to the Friends of the Lubicons in order to endorse our informational picket please visit the Friends of the Lubicons Website Page at: http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/Lubicon/main.html or phone (416) 763-7500 Thank you for your support. Don Sullivan 2-70 Albert Street Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B 1E7 Phone: 204-947-3081 Fax: 204-947-3076 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Do the Jews Own America?
Today, the Jews are doing better at blending in. We see more and more of them in the right wing think tanks. I suspect that this turn of events might be an interesting sociological study. Waddya think Louis? Yeah, this will go into my chapter on Jews in America. The specimen known as Henry Kissinger deserves close scrutiny under a microscope, especially in light of the mordant comedy that went on in Nixon's White House when he complained, "It's the Jews, Henry, it's the Jews." For any who didn't know, the definitive treatment of this is Joseph Heller's novel, "Good as Gold." If you haven't read it, stop whatever you're doing now and get a copy. MBS === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
Responses on Phil Gramm
Thanks to all of you for the help in framing a response to Gramm's social security speech. Some follow-up questions: 1. Doug Henwood says that the doomsday scenarios on SS are based on an unrealisticaly low projection of GDP growth of 1.4%. I believe that there was some commission study recently that relied on this assumption in reaching its gloomy conclusions. What was that study? And did they give any reason at all for using this growth figure? 2. Doug says that investing the SS fund in the market is also in reality a pay-as-you-go system, since the market doesn't really supply investment funds to any great extent. OK, let's grant this, and agree that the market really serves the purpose of upward redistribution. But how do we respond to the intuition that investing social security funds in the market would somehow equalize the siphoning so that more working class people would be getting in on the act? Why wouldn't this be a virtue of his proposal, even if the addtional funds would not increase GDP growth? 3. Someone noted that the present system is actually mildly redistributive, contrary to Gramm's contention that it rips off working people. But what about his point that working class people who start their working lives earlier than professional people are not having a lot of years of their labor counted in the system. Is this a valid point? Also - can someone give me a reference on the redistributive nature of SS now. (I believe there was an article on this in Monthly Review several years ago.) 4. Finally, someone mentioned the income cap on social security taxes. (What is that cap now - something like $50,000?) Is there any rationale for the cap? Should we be advocating that it be removed altogether, or just raised? How much would it help correct the predicted shortfalls? Thanks again for your help, which I will incorporate into my op-ed response. - John Exdell, Philosophy, Kansas State University
Re: labor theory of value
Date sent: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:03:48 -0400 (EDT)
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shane Mage)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: "labor theory of value"
What discussion? You have yet to saying anything in response to
my commentary on Marx. To say that science and automation can be
reduced to "dated" socially necessary labor time is absurd. Devine,
in his own way, is saying the same. Yet it is clear from my citations
that Marx is not saying that at all.
ricardo
No explanation is required for a passage from a rough draft ("Rohentwurf")
which its author chose not to use in the published version, which alone can
be taken to represent his considered formulation. In any case, this
passage is no evidence that, when he was writing his rough draft for
Kapital, Marx was afflicted by the vulgar confusion between *wealth* and
*value*. But in the published Kapital, vol. 1, Marx takes great pains to
obviate any such conclusion. This discussion shows how right he was!
Shane
If Marx leaves no such confusion, how do you explain the very
first sentence of the passage I quoted below where Marx links
directly the creation of "real wealth" with "labor time"?
Today science and technology play a greater role in the creation of value
than productive labor. In the GRUNDRISSE Marx recognizes this: "But as
heavy industry develops the creation of real wealth depends less on labor
time and on the quantity of labor utilized than on the power of mechanized
agents which are set into motion during the labor time. The powerful
effectiveness of these agents, in its turn, bears no relation to the
immediate labor time that their labor cost. IT DEPENDS RATHER ON THE
GENERAL STATE OF SCIENCE AND ON TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS, OR THE APPLICATION
OF THIS
SCIENCE TO PRODUCTION." (Italics added).
James and Ricardo seem to share the same vulgar-economics confusion: that
*value* is the same thing as *wealth*. Marx leaves no room for this
confusion. Value *is* the mass of socially necessary labor time embodied
in the social product of a given period. Wealth *is* the mass of use-value
available to society at any given point in time for consumption, new
investment, and maintenance of productive capacity. Value is measured as a
quantity of labor time exerted in the period being studied. Use-value is
measured as a quantity of *dated* socially necessary labor time. The
change in labor productivity from year x to year y is measured as quantity
of use-value produced by t hours of socially necessary labor time in year
y divided by the quantity of use-value produced by t hours of socially
necessary labor time in year x. Clear?
Shane
Re: Phil Gramm on SS
A few additions to Doug's comments: 1. The SS system will become insolvent when the baby boom generation become recipients in about 15 years. The reasons are demographic. In 1950 there were 16 workers for every beneficiary, paying 2 per cent of their paychecks into the system. Today there are only 3.9 workers per beneficiary, paying over 12% of their paychecks into the system. In 25 years there will be only 2 workers per retiree paying 18 per cent of their earnings to keep the system solvent. These trends are caused not only by the one-time historic post-war birth boom, but also by the ongoing trend of increasing life-expectancy. (If we combine Medicare and SS, our payroll tax will double in 25 years from 15 to 30%, bringing the marginal tax rate for families earning between 39 and 49,000 to nearly 60%) Among other problems, this model assumes that our population will become elderly at a ridiculous rate: under their assumptions, the entire U.S. will eventually look like Florida. If that's the case, we'll have bigger problems than finding workers to pay for SSI. One easy solution: more immigration of young workers. 4. The solution is to get people into an "investment based system." If the average American worker 22 years old could put 1% of their wages into a private investment fund through a mandatory program, assuming a very modest growth rate of only 4%/ year, they could fully fund their health care retirment benefit. (He supplied parallel calculations for Medicare.) Like Doug said, 4% a year? Also, Gramm's assuming that the stock market will keep on growing--that we won't have a crash, a long period of stagnation, etc. that could devastate the ability of people to retire. And what about the people who get ripped off or who make a mistake because they don't quite know what they're doing? Will they go live with Phil? Right now, SSI is a guarantee; under Gramm's plan, it becomes a casino (where, as Doug noted, the House will get a very nice cut of the profit). 5. The current system is not only unproductive and insolvent, it is also unfair to poor people. This is because the money we put into the system counts only for the 35 years of our highest wages, typically then from ages 30-65. That's fine for professional people who start earning their salaries after they finish schooling close to age 30. But for working class people who enter the workforce at a much earlier age, say at 16, they are paying into the system for 14 years without getting anything from it. The real problem with the system today for poor people is that the SSI payroll tax is capped, which makes it a very regressive tax. The other thing that might be worth pointing out is that the assault on SSI follows to the letter the Right's blueprint for attacking govt. programs they don't like (unlike, say, the Pentagon). They can't come out and say, SSI is evil, so instead they manufacture a major crisis. Whatever this is about, it ain't about ensuring that people who work can afford to retire. Anders Schneiderman Research and Education Director Financial Markets Center
Re: Do the Jews Own America?
This raises some very interesting issues. Part of the problem is that American Jewry *is* an important part of the ruling class. It *does* wield enormous power in Hollywood, real estate, retail and Wall Street investment banking. This economic base allows it to shape the policies of the Democratic Party, including the pro-Zionist tilt. Leni Brenner's book "The Jews in America" does a good job pointing this out, including the fact that the Jews are the main financial base of the Democratic Party. While one could argue that they are underrepresented in heavy industry, petrochemical, transportation, agribusiness, etc., I hardly expect this fact to sway the thinking of somebody who takes Nazi propaganda seriously. It seems to me that if one engages in such an argument on their terms, one is on a slippery slope. For one thing, agreement would be elusive as to what would constitute control of business and Hollywood, etc. Further, Jews basically _do_ run Hollywood; not just ownership, but actors,etc. Just check out the cast list of 90210. Clearly, a more effective tactic would be to help these youths examine capitalism itself. I suppose it's closer to the truth to say the English and Scottish run the country, but even if it were the Jews, it would make almost no difference. By the way, the Democrats don't need the Jews to "shape" its policies for a "pro-Zionist tilt". The strategic benefits of the Israel/US alliance far outweigh such secondary considerations, as seen in the uniformity of Dem/Rep policies and the US attitude toward Israel before 1967. Killing In The Name Killing in the name of! Some of those that were forces are the same that bore crosses Some of those that were forces are the same that bore crosses Some of those that were forces are the same that bore crosses Some of those that were forces are the same that bore crosses Huh! I always thought it was: Some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses But perhaps you have the lyric sheet for it. Oh well, 'scuse me while I kiss this guy. Regards, Dave
Re: Do the Jews Own America?
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, michael perelman wrote: Jews, as neuvaux riche, wanted to shout with pride about their accomplishments. By calling attention to themselves, they made themselves more vulnerable to charges of control. In addition, by gravitating to the lower ranks of business, they found themselves close to the point of contact with other ethnic groups, as the Koreans or Middle Easterners today. Today, the Jews are doing better at blending in. We see more and more of them in the right wing think tanks. I suspect that this turn of events might be an interesting sociological study. Waddya think Louis? Yeah, this will go into my chapter on Jews in America. The specimen known as Henry Kissinger deserves close scrutiny under a microscope, especially in light of the mordant comedy that went on in Nixon's White House when he complained, "It's the Jews, Henry, it's the Jews." Louis P.
Re: Do the Jews Own America?
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Louis Proyect wrote: This raises some very interesting issues. Part of the problem is that American Jewry *is* an important part of the ruling class. It *does* wield enormous power in Hollywood, real estate, retail and Wall Street investment banking. This economic base allows it to shape the policies of the Democratic Party, including the pro-Zionist tilt. Leni Brenner's book "The Jews in America" does a good job pointing this out, including the fact that the Jews are the main financial base of the Democratic Party. While one could argue that they are underrepresented in heavy industry, petrochemical, transportation, agribusiness, etc., I hardly expect this fact to sway the thinking of somebody who takes Nazi propaganda seriously. But as you know it is not only those inclined to take Nazi propaganda seriously who emphasize the division between finance etc. and industry. Keeping the signficance of the former in proper proportion is necessary to argue against the conspiracy theories. So if there is any accessable summary of corporate ownership/control by ethnicity I would appreciate the reference. And are Jews the main financial base of the Republicans as well? Bill Burgess
Re: Responses on Phil Gramm
John B Exdell wrote: 1. Doug Henwood says that the doomsday scenarios on SS are based on an unrealisticaly low projection of GDP growth of 1.4%. I believe that there was some commission study recently that relied on this assumption in reaching its gloomy conclusions. What was that study? And did they give any reason at all for using this growth figure? It comes from the annual reports of the trustees of the SS system, and is based on projections of labor force growth plus productivity growth. There is strong evidence of an inverse relationship between LF and productivity growth (see Cutler et al, "An Aging Society: Opportunity or Challenge?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1990:1, pp. 1-73). When I told the SS system's chief actuary, Steve Goss, about this, he said he'd never heard such a thing. I gave him the reference, but I doubt we'll see this in next year's report. 2. Doug says that investing the SS fund in the market is also in reality a pay-as-you-go system, since the market doesn't really supply investment funds to any great extent. OK, let's grant this, and agree that the market really serves the purpose of upward redistribution. But how do we respond to the intuition that investing social security funds in the market would somehow equalize the siphoning so that more working class people would be getting in on the act? Why wouldn't this be a virtue of his proposal, even if the addtional funds would not increase GDP growth? So we divert more money into the market even as GDP growth remains unchanged. Then we'd be equalizing stock ownership to a minor degree as valuation levels become ever more stratospheric. And who votes the shares that the working class nominally owns? Not the working class, I'll bet. 4. Finally, someone mentioned the income cap on social security taxes. (What is that cap now - something like $50,000?) Is there any rationale for the cap? Should we be advocating that it be removed altogether, or just raised? How much would it help correct the predicted shortfalls? I was told that the original Congressional intent in financing the SS system was that it should always be funded by taxes on labor, not capital. So if you conceptualize salary incomes above a certain level as fundamentally returns to capital, this makes perfect sense. I say remove the cap and tax capital income too. Doug
Re: Financial Crisis (fwd)
Got it direct. Thanks. X-From_: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 23 09:29:52 1997 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:16:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Arthur Cordell [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: future [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Financial Crisis Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Some background reading that may be especially interesting these days. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:16:51 -0400 From: Michel Chossudovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS by Michel Chossudovsky The writer is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and has written widely in issues of international finance and macro-economic reform. He is the author of "The Globalization of Poverty, Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms", Third World Network, Penang and Zed Books, London, 1997. Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa 1997. All rights reserved. (This text can be posted, for publication in printed form, contact the author). The author can be contacted at [EMAIL PROTECTED], fax: 1-613-7892050. Black Monday October 19, 1987 will be remembered as the largest one day drop in the history of the New York Stock Exchange overshooting the collapse of October 28, 1929, which prompted the Wall Street crash and the beginning of the Great Depression. In the 1987 meltdown, 22.6 percent of the value of US stocks was wiped out largely during the first hour of trading on Monday morning... The plunge on Wall Street sent a "cold shiver" through the entire financial system leading to the tumble of the European and Asian stock markets... Almost ten years later on Friday August 15, 1997, Wall Street experienced its largest one day decline since 1987. The Dow Jones plummeted by 247 points. The symptoms were similar to those of Black Monday: "institutional speculators" sold large amounts of stock with the goal of repurchasing them later but with the immediate impact of provoking a plunge in prices. Futures' and options' trading played a key role in precipitating the collapse of market values. The tumble on August 15, 1997 immediately spilled over onto the World's stock markets triggering substantial losses on the Frankfurt, Paris, Hong Kong and Tokyo exchanges. Various "speculative instruments" in the equity and foreign exchange markets were used with a view to manipulating price movements. In the weeks that followed, stocks continued to trade nervously. Wide speculative movements were recorded on Wall Street; billions of dollars were transacted through the NYSE's Superdot electronic order-routing system with the Dow swinging spuriously up and down in a matter of minutes. The Asian equity and currency markets declined steeply under the brunt of speculative trading. In a three week period the (Hong Kong) Hang Seng Index had declined by 15 percent. The Japanese bond market had plunged to an all time low. In turn, billions of dollars of central bank reserves had been appropriated by institutional speculators. (The Thai Central Bank lost more than ten billion dollars of its official reserves in the period extending from June through September 1997). Business forecasters and academic economists alike have casually disregarded the dangers alluding to "strong economic fundamentals"; G7 leaders are afraid to say anything or act in a way which might give the "wrong signals"... Wall Street analysts continue to bungle on issues of "market correction" with little understanding of the broader economic picture. In turn, public opinion is bombarded in the media with glowing images of global growth and prosperity. The economy is said to be booming under the impetus of the free market reforms. Without debate or discussion, so-called "sound macro-economic policies" (meaning the gamut of budgetary austerity, deregulation, downsizing and privatisation) are heralded as the key to economic success. The realities are concealed, economic statistics are manipulated, economic concepts are turned upside down. Unemployment in the US is said to be falling yet the number of people on low wage part-time jobs has spiralled. The stock market frenzy has taken place against a background of global economic decline and social dislocation. Table 1: Single-Day Declines on Wall Street (Dow Jones Industrial Average, percentage change) October 28, 1929-12.8% October 29, 1929 -11.7% November 6, 1929-9.9% August 12, 1932 -8.4% October 26, 1987 -8.0% July 21, 1933 -7.84% October 18, 1937 -7.75% October 5, 1932 -7.15% September 24, 1931 -7.07% October 19, 1987
Re: Do the Jews Own America?
At 03:45 PM 10/22/97 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: "Teenage kids of an Iranian friend of my family have been reading Nazi-type web pages and have become convinced that Jews own all of Hollywood and in fact most of the US economy. This came up in a discussion I had with them about Iran and Israel and US support for Israel (whether it is mainly because Jews control US policy). -snip-- This raises some very interesting issues. Part of the problem is that American Jewry *is* an important part of the ruling class. It *does* wield enormous power in Hollywood, real estate, retail and Wall Street investment banking. This economic base allows it to shape the policies of the Democratic Party, including the pro-Zionist tilt. Leni Brenner's book "The Jews in America" does a good job pointing this out, including the fact that the Jews are the main financial base of the Democratic Party. Louis: The problem with dealing with those kind of arguments is that people have become so infatuated with techno-jargon of economics, poli-sci, or sociology (numbers, graphs, charts, statistics and what not) that they lost their capacity to comprehend standard English or basic rules of logical reasoning. The fact that there are Jews in the ruling elites tells more about the elites than the Jews. In the same vein, the fact that most members of the US ruling elites are male, and the elite policies are pro-Zionist does not mean that all or most males in the US are pro-Zionist. This kind of faulty reasoning can be refuted with elementary logic showing the absurdity of the Nazi claims equating Jewish elites with all Jews. In other words, it can be easily demonstrated without a recourse to techno-jargon that the elite behavior not only does NOT represent the behavior of all people sharing the same ethnicy; but also that ethnicity has little, if any, influence on the elite behavior. For example, I would ask those Iranian guys if they support waging the holy war against the US by the Iranian ayatollahs -- thus demonstrating on their own example they absurdity of the logic they use to make claims about Jews. The problem with the academic Left, however, is that they became so accustomed to the use of techno-jargon that they often forget that simple rules of language or logic can be a very powerful weapon against right wing propaganda. Needless to add that a simple argument is much more convincing than the use of obtuse jargon, graphs and charts. regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233
Re: Do the Jews Own America?
Louis: The problem with dealing with those kind of arguments is that people have become so infatuated with techno-jargon of economics, poli-sci, or sociology (numbers, graphs, charts, statistics and what not) that they lost their capacity to comprehend standard English or basic rules of logical reasoning. wojtek sokolowski I am not sure why you are belaboring me with this. I am not an academician. My point is a rather simple one. I am not advocating "techno-jargon". I am advocating facts about the economy, which inevitably involve numbers. Andrew Hacker's last book was about race relations and it simply produced page after page that showed inequality between black and white. When black college graduates earn $753 for every $1000 earned by a white college graduate, this puts the kibosh on Rush Limbaugh's claims that blacks have caught up. And I'll tell you something else. One of the things that annoys me about these god-damned Internet discussions is how few statistical citations there are. When I argue with the Trotskyite knuckleheads over on the Spoons lists, they simply wilt before, for example, figures showing how few industrial workers there were in Nicaragua at the time of the Sandinista revolution. They have a metaphysic of proletarian revolution, but when confronted by the statistical evidence they collapse like vampires in sunlight. Lenin was an absolute stickler about statistics (I know this is irrelevant to most people here). He castigated the Russian social democracy for not using the most reliable and up-to-date statistics. I think it is absolutely critical to refer to the Census, BLS, etc. That is what makes Doug Henwood more of a Marxist than 99% of the bullshit artists who can cite chapter and verse of Das Kapital, but who never discuss the world we are living in. Louis Proyect
Kevin Phillips
At 01:08 PM 10/22/97 -0700, you wrote: GOVERNMENT BY AND FOR THE ELITES By Kevin Phillips With each successive book or article I read by Kevin Phillips, he sounds more and more like a bona fide left populist. This from a guy who helped map out electoral strategy for Nixon and Reagan. Has anybody seen or read an interview w/Phillips where he speaks frankly about his own political conversion or political leanings ? Also, we all know that the Dems under the DLC's aegis have come to rival the Repubs when it comes to soft money/PAC/etc. fund-raising, but does anybody think that it really has reached a _qualitatively_ new level (for both parties) in the past few years ? If you have a more or less structural Marxist theory of the capitalist state, should the empirical fact that backroom policy-making and influence-peddling are on the rise make any difference in political outcomes ? John John Gulick Ph. D. Candidate Sociology Graduate Program University of California-Santa Cruz (415) 643-8568 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Clear Perspective Of The Chretien Liberals
Speaking to an interviewer on BBS Sunday Edition, Prime Minister Chretien, referring to the demand of the people of Quebec to exercise their sovereignty, declared: "This road to paradise, via a mere vote for independence, must be put in a clear perspective, and this is what we have achieved in the last two months". Chretien's "clear perspective" is expressed in the Calgary Declaration and in the letters of his Inter-Governmental Affairs Minister Stephane Dion to Quebec ministers. According to Chretien, these have created "an open and realistic atmosphere". Referring to the government of the Parti Québécois, he also said: "Before, they were selling dreams, now I think they must see the reality as it is". The "clear perspective" and "reality" Chretien refers to are wishful thinking based on nineteenth century considerations. Today is the end of the twentieth century and Canada is poised to enter the twenty-first century. If there is one thing Canadians have learned in the past one hundred and thirty years of Confederation is to face reality by paying attention to the needs of the times, not to the needs of the ruling elite to maintain the status quo. It does not take a genius to understand that the Calgary Declaration, the letters of Dion to Quebec ministers and the use of the Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of the right of Quebec to exercise its sovereignty are part of a single whole which aims to further negate the right of the Quebec people to affirm their sovereignty. If words are to be given any meaning whatsoever, the reality of the politics of threats and intimidation against the people of Quebec and the attempt to divide the entire polity between enemies and friends according to whether they support or oppose Quebec's right to self-determination, can be called self-destructive, but not a "clear perspective." Far from creating an "open and realistic atmosphere," the activities of the Chretien Liberals for the last two months have shown that they are trying to launch a campaign of chauvinist hysteria. Quebec is accused of trying to break up Canadian unity and the rules set by the Calgary Declaration for the "consultations", under the hoax of using modern technology, will further marginalize the people while lowering even further the level of the discussion. Chretien's statement according to which before Quebeckers were buying the pipe dreams of he separatists, now they are becoming more realistic is an open admission that his main interest is to block the movement of the people of Quebec to affirm their sovereignty. It is to say that the Chretien Liberals will carry on with their politics of threats and interference in the affairs of Quebec until the time the people of Quebec give up their right to decide their own future. Since a right belongs to the holder by virtue of his or her being, and cannot be given, taken away, usurped or given up, and the right of the Quebec nation to self-determination is such a right, it is Chretien that seems to be very unrealistic. Anything short of providing this problem with a solution will continue to exacerbate the problem. Will Chretien smarten up? The clear perspective is that this is not likely. TML DAILY, 10/97 Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: Kevin Phillips
Kevin Phillips, who I read regularly in the L.A. TIMES and hear on (U.S.)
National Public Radio, seems to be a leftist Perotist. I don't think he's a
leftist (and it's nauseating to think that he may be counted as one of the
few leftists in the capitalist press). It was Ross Perot who got him out of
the Republican orbit. It's possible that he's being shunned by the
inside-the-beltway crowd, encouraging him to be more independent in his
thinking, allowing him to be more populist. He's also always been much more
historically-minded in his analyses than the vast majority of pundits.
That's a good thing.
John Gulick also asks: If you have a more or less structural Marxist
theory of the capitalist state, should the empirical fact that backroom
policy-making and influence-peddling are on the rise make any difference in
political outcomes ?
I don't know how much I fit in the "structural" school, but it seems to me
that there is always a difference between the perceived interests of
individual capitalists and the long-run interests of the capitalist class
as a whole.
In practice, it's the latter that typically dominates. Actual politics
(concerning issues that affect capital's or capitalists' interests) in the
US mostly represents the conflict between the "special interest" types
("backroom policy-making and influence- peddling") and the types who strive
to make the ruling class pursue what these elites perceive to be its
long-term class interest (establishmentarian editorialists, foundations,
etc.) (Working people play a role by pressuring the state from the outside.)
I don't think that the actual politics always serves the the long-term
interests of the capitalist class, though on basics such as the
preservation of capitalist property rights using force, etc., it does.
Sometimes actual politics gets way out of line, actually contradicting
what's good for capital. This causes crises, as when the decade of greed of
the 1920s contributed to the collapse of the early 1930s. The rise of the
political feeding frenzy nowadays might contribute to some sharp crisis
(perhaps environmental, perhaps societal, perhaps economic, perhaps all
three) in the near future.[*]
In such a crisis, chances are that the spokespeople for the long-term
interests of capital will enjoy an ascendancy. But remember that even FDR's
efforts didn't bear fruit until World War II...
[*] In some sense we can say that all three of these "crises" already
prevail. But I think that misuses the word. As Marx noted, crises aren't
permanent, long-living. A different word is needed.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Dear, you increase the dopamine in my accumbens." -- words of love for the
1990s.
Re: Do the Jews Own America?
At 01:52 PM 10/23/97 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: I am not sure why you are belaboring me with this. I am not an academician. My point is a rather simple one. No personal innuendo intended. Just a thought triggered by your posting to the list. And I'll tell you something else. One of the things that annoys me about these god-damned Internet discussions is how few statistical citations there are. The problem with statistical citations is that there are so many of them. They use different assumptions, different definitions, different methods of measurement. Consequently, they produce different, often contradicting, images of the existing phenomena, let alone future ones. In a sense, they are like Platonic or Hollywood-produced shadows on the wall -- you know they are shadows of something, but you cannot be sure what exactly that something is. Of course, someone with sufficient knowledge and free time could could check the assumptions, definitions, measurement techniques and other relevant details, but that would require enormous effort had heve very little impact because of the diifculty to convey the necessary technical details to the public. Right wing warlocks know that very well, and they throw around bullshit numbers to support their bogus claims, knowing that either nobody will debunk those numbers, or if someone does, people will still remember the bogus claim and pay little attention to technical corrections of the figurs on which those claims are based. Lenin was an absolute stickler about statistics (I know this is irrelevant to most people here). He castigated the Russian social democracy for not using the most reliable and up-to-date statistics. I think it is absolutely critical to refer to the Census, BLS, etc. That is what makes Doug Henwood more of a Marxist than 99% of the bullshit artists who can cite chapter and verse of Das Kapital, but who never discuss the world we are living in. You are abslutely right, Louis, except one detail: since when statistics are the world we live in? In my book, they are rather idealistic representations of the world, Platonic shadows on the wall, if you will. I do number crunching for a living and what amazes me is that numbers are more important than reality they represent. One can tell the most blatant lie with impunity, if only he can produce graphs and charts to back this claim up. It is also amazing how easily people capitulate if they are slapped with numbers. That reminds me of a public debate here at Hopkins on the supposed "genatic inferiority" of Blacks, in connection with the publication of the "Belle kkkurve." A local sociologist made similar arguments backing them up with regression results showing correlations between academic performance and race. A chorus of other sociologists and psychologists vehemently objected arguing that his research methods were faulty. In the retrospect, what strikes me is that while distinguished professors were debating fine points of data collection and analysis -- nobody noticed the idiocy of the entire situiation: a sociologist trying to solve questions of human genetics and biology with paper and pencil tests, and doing so at a university famous for its medical research. To realize the absurdity of the situation, just imagine a sociologist administering a survey how people perceive the solar system, and then presenting his "data" at an astronomers' convention to argue that Sun rotates around the Earth. They guy would be laughed off the stage, as most people would take his presentation as entertainment during an intermission between the sessions. Stated differently, statistical edifices erected by many pundits and so-called researchers are simply a red herring that diverts people's attention form either some fundamental and easily demonstrable flaws in their argument, or form the basic fact that these pundits bring the proverbial duck to a cock-fight and discuss questions they are not equipped to answer. The whole strategy is based on the expectation that the critics will follow the scent and debate fine points of that edifice, and that will distract them from discerning more fundamental flaws. The capitulation before numbers and shadowy images of reality built with them can only be compared to medieval times, when every superstition could pass for unquestionable truth, if veiled in the language of theology. regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233
Re: Origins of the term wage slavery
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, William S. Lear wrote: Can anyone fill me in on the origins of the term "wage slavery"? I can't fill you in on its origins, but there is a great example of the comparisons you made in the 1960's movie "Burn" or "Quemado" starring a thin Marlon Brando with a British accent. A must-see on all accounts. Ellen Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax:619-696-
Re: Do the Jews Own America?
I appreciated Wojtek's point of how simple logic and clear context is
often better than numberjumbo. But Louis is right about how concrete
evidence is ignored/avoided. As Lenin liked to say (according to a list of
all-time citations I saw, Lenin comes right after Shakespeare), "Facts are
stubborn things." Statistics may be a shadow on the wall, but at least
there is something substantial projecting that shadow, whereas the usual
evidence for conspiracy theories is more like personal annecdote ("My
cousin knows a guy who has had 17 bosses and all them were Jews.")
I was the one who asked Louis for references on this, and I still think it
would help me to refer my friends to a serious study on this question,
especially since, as has been pointed out, Jews *are* prominently
represented in certain sectors of the economy. Pomoists have had too much
success in encouraging rarified discourse in place of serious
empirical investigation. Academics have the time and resources to do the
latter and this is one way we can be most useful.
Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663
University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150
Aha!!
I am speaking of the sort of thing that appears in the Harpers Magazine each month, called the "Harper's Index". From the October issue, we learn that the average change in the federal taxes an American earning less than $22,600 will pay under the new tax law is +$19. Meanwhile, the average change for an American earning more than $246,000 will pay is -$16,157. The ratio of Americans earning less than $22,600 to those earning more than $246,000 is 40:1. The percentage of Americans who earn more than $246,000 who met Bill Clinton last year was 11. This is not shadow on the walls of Plato's cave. This is the real world. This is the sort of information I'd like to see on a PEN-L web page. Well that's it, Louis! Ask Harper's to contribute its index to the page each month; that's great advertising for them without getting into arcane intellectual property hassles with their writers. That index is unique. Yeah, I've never been around distinguished professors myself in person. Well, just one maybe. That was Stanley Aronowitz, but his wife told me to get lost. I got that treatment from the big A himself about 10 years ago. He had never laid eyes on me before the moment I arrived outside his open office, where he was on the phone. Almost immediately he slammed the door in my face with a vigor that clearly said "Fuck off!" I doubt he was discussing anything that classified, and chalked it up to the abnormalities of New York, but I never went back. Whoever he was supposed to be, that little performance told me that he had lost something along the way. valis
'Men of the Deeps'
This is inspired by Louis' recent postings on working class culture. Two nights ago I went to a concert at one of Winnipeg's major concert venues given by the 'Men of the Deeps", a miners choir formed 32 years ago in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, to celebrate the Canadian Centenary. The qualifications to be a member of the group is first, that you are (or have been) an underground miner; and, secondly, that you can sing. (The only non-miner is the conductor, a music professor from Antigonish College, John O'Donell, who drives the 500 plus kilometers to Glace Bay every week to reherse.) At the moment, the 25 or so members of the group, mostly aged 40-70s, are on a cross Canada tour, in part to promote their most recent CD, "Coal Fire in Winter". (They have 5 or 6 recordings, the previous one being "Buried Treasures" released in 1995.) The 'Men of the Deeps' have the largest repetoire of coal mining and un union songs in Canada, many of them collected by O'Donell or written by or for the group. Many of the songs they sang recounted the under- ground disasters that plagued the region throughout its history. There was not a dry eye in the house when one relatively young miner, a former president of the miners' union local, introduced a song written about one of the more recent mine explosions when, as union president, he was called out in the middle of the night to watch as his cousin's and uncle's bodies were hauled out of the burning shaft. But these were proud workers, fathers and sons, brothers and cousins, proud of Cape Breton and its labour tradition, and proud of their union -- and willing to sing about it. Among the frequent sad refrains of death and disaster was also their sometimes caustic humour. One recounted the story of the union president being interviewed on a local talk-radio show. He was being asked by the host about criticism that had been levelled agains his leadership and the local union. He retorted: "We have heard of these them allegations -- But, you can be sure, we know who these alligators are!" Personally, a miners' choir strikes a responsive chord with me. It is part of my own cultural background. My grandfather emigrated from the coal mines of Wales to work the hardrock mines of the Boundary country of southern British Columbia early in this century. I'm not exactly sure which year(s) but he was secretary of the Western Federation of Miners local in Phoenix some time before the 1st World War. One of his closest friends was Bill Pritchard, one of the jailed leaders of the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike and of the One Big Union. I interviewed Pritchard in the early 1960s (part of my research for my PhD thesis on the B.C. Labour movement.) At that time Bill had retired to San Diego where he was spending his retirement years -- conducting a Welsh ladies Choir. Shortly afterwards, I arranged to tape an interview with my grandfather, at that time in his mid 90s on his history in the unions and the music they sang. (He was an ardent opera singer.) The day we were to do the interview he phoned to postpone, saying he did not feel well. A couple of days later he died -- I had lost the opportunity not only to reclaim part of my personal heritage, but to record for posterity a small part of Canada's working class history. I have always regretted that I waited too long. This was just one of the memories and meanings that the concert evoked. For one thing, the Celtic sense of poetry -- from the reading of a poem "Who are They" by a former member of the 'Men of the Deeps'. "Who are they who poke and rile, and sing out names with humour bold, that load and hew and take the guff, to those above these tales are never told. "Who are they who lead the way, when rescue is in store, when men are trapped and loving families weep, as torches fail and lamps grow dim and darkness slowly creeps. Who are they who fought to break the company's chains and never shied when days were lean, to change this way of life; and now, the fields are green." The 'Men of the Deeps' sang for 2 1/2 hours in their pit clothing -- heavy work boots, dark grey green shirts and pants, held up by wide black leather belts, and each with hard hat complete with miners lamps. The climax of the concert was the great miners anthem penned by Canada's Nova Scotian songbird, Rita McNeil -- "Working Man". "It's a working man I am, and I've been down underground, And I swear to God if I ever see the sun, Or for any length of time, I can hold it in my hand, I never again will go down underground." (She has recorded this with the 'Men of the Deep' on her album, 'Reason to Believe'.) As they sang, the stage lights dimmed as the miners/singers turned on their head lamps. By the end, the auditorium was ' dark as the dungeon' except for the lights of the miners helmets which shone into the audience 'as dark as the coal.' To a person, the audience rose in standing ovation . While the waves of applause continued, the choir
Raw Data for Data Buffs
As the saying goes, "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics." or "Figures don't lie, but liers sure can figure."
Columbia U Clericals Strike
October 23, 1997 Officials at Columbia U. Meet With Strikers NEW YORK -- Columbia University officials held an impromptu meeting Wednesday with representatives of striking clerical workers, a move that is expected to lead to new negotiations, possibly as early as Thursday. The meeting was arranged by Stephen Yokich, president of United Auto Workers International, whose Local 2110 represents 800 university secretaries and office workers. It was the first talks since the strike began a week ago. David Cohen, the director of employee and labor relations at the university, characterized the meeting as "cordial" and intended to get negotiations back on track. "Both sides need to come to the table ready to make compromises," he said. Maida Rosenstein, the president of the local, said: "I hope there are real negotiations, but what the union is seeking would require substantive changes in the university's position on some key points, and I hope we do reach some agreement." The university has offered a contract with three annual 3 percent pay increases as well as bonuses for good performance. The local union -- secretaries, cashiers, financial advisers and other service workers -- rejected the offer, saying the performance bonuses, called merit pay, would be racially and sexually divisive in a mostly female and minority union. Further, the union has said that the university's proposals to increase the length of the contract to 38 months and to establish a two-tiered promotion system for new employees are both unacceptable. The union has also protested the loss of 300 jobs since 1984 because of downsizing and new technology. Yokich, who had come from union headquarters in Michigan on other business, said he visited the picket lines to "let members know we are supporting what they are seeking." "This is a thing we've faced in all industries," he said. "It is a sad commentary on businesses and on colleges." Yokich led the striking workers from the picket lines to the steps of Low Memorial Library, the administration building, where approximately 200 placard-carrying strikers shouted slogans, blew whistles and banged on homemade drums. After requesting an unscheduled meeting with university officials, Yokich, Ms. Rosenstein and UAW International vice president Carolyn Forrest were escorted by security into the building, where they met with Columbia's executive vice president, Emily Lloyd, Cohen, and Colleen Crooker, the vice president for human resources. UAW officials said that beginning Thursday, union members could sign up to collect $150 a week in strike pay, retroactive to the first day. By state law, union members will be eligible for unemployment benefits 49 days after the first day of the strike. Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company
