FW: BLS Daily Reportboundary=---- =_NextPart_000_01BCEF58.2C53A110
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. -- =_NextPart_000_01BCEF58.2C53A110 charset="iso-8859-1" BLS Daily Report, Monday, November 10, 1997 RELEASED TODAY: The number of persons who worked at some time during the year increased by more than 2 million in 1996 to 141.4 million, according to data from the annual survey of work experience. At the same time, the number who experienced some unemployment declined by 1.3 million to 16.8 million Nonfarm payroll employment grew by a seasonally adjusted 284,000 in October, and the jobless rate fell to a 24-year low of 4.7 percent, the Labor Department reports. The BLS payroll survey showed stronger and more widespread job growth than most analysts anticipated. Factory employment shot up by 54,000 in October, the largest monthly gain in manufacturing payrolls since February 1990. A further tightening of labor markets, an uptick in average hourly earnings, an unemployment rate that fell from 4.9 percent, and increased financial instability in Asia shake U.S. financial markets Some analysts said residual effects from the latest minimum wage increase contributed to the upswing. But Philip Rones, BLS assistant commissioner for current employment analysis, dismissed this supposition "The effect is to increase average earnings a penny or two," Rones said. "There may be a small residual effect, but earnings increased in a lot of industries where there aren't a lot of minimum wage workers" "While many industries participated in October's rise, half the gain occurred in just two industries - industrial machinery ... and transportation equipment ," said BLS Commissioner Katharine Abraham, at a JEC hearing ...(Daily Labor Report, pages D-1, E-1)_U.S. jobless rate at 24-year low; inflation feared. Economic report helps to put stocks in a skid (Washington Post, Nov. 8, page A1)_U.S. jobless rate declines to 4.7 percent, lowest since 1973. Payrolls rise by 284,000. Hourly wages continue climb. Strong labor data stir worries of inflation (New York Times, Nov. 8, page A1)_The decline in the unemployment rate lends credence to Alan Greenspan's concern that the economy's breakneck growth rate has resulted in a dearth of employable adults (Wall Street Journal, page A2). The Federal Reserve agrees with the Boskin Commission's conclusion that the consumer price index is overstated by about one percentage point, Fed chairman Alan Greenspan said in Frankfurt, Germany, where he was addressing the Center for Financial Studies. About half of the overstatement, he said, was due to insufficient adjustment for quality improvement and new products, and the other half to the way individual prices were figured in the overall mix. Greenspan said Fed economists have "corroborating evidence of price mismeasurement" by looking at sectors that interrelate in the economy. He cited "implausibly weak" growth of output and productivity in the service sector (Daily Labor Report, page A-4). The White House and Republican congressional leaders put the finishing touches on a politically sensitive compromise for conducting the year 2000 census that would allow the administration to experiment with statistical sampling to achieve a more accurate count, but give Republicans ample time and resources to challenge the work in court .(Washington Post, page A4). Increasing numbers of Americans are choosing not to buy health insurance even when their employers offer it, according to a study that sheds new light on why the ranks of the uninsured have been swelling in recent years. The study, published in today's issue of the journal Health Affairs, shows that the number of people who turned down their employers' health plans more than doubled over the past decade, from 2.6 million in 1987 to 6 million last year. That trend has emerged even as the proportion of workers who are offered insurance through their jobs has increased The study was done by economists at the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, HHS (Washington Post, page A12; Wall Street Journal, page B2)_Poor workers turning down employers' health benefits. More Americans than ever are being offered health insurance through their jobs. Even so, more and more workers, especially those who earn low wages, are declining to take the benefit (New York Times, page A24). The Wall Street Journal's feature "Tracking the Economy" (page A4) shows the Technical Data Consensus Forecast for nonfarm productivity, third quarter, due to be released Thursday, increasing 3.0 percent in comparison with the previous quarter's rise of 2.7 percent. The Producer Price Index for October, to be released Friday, is predicted to be up 0.1 percent, in contrast to rising 0.5 percent in September. The U.S. unemployment rate seems likely to continue to hurt temporary staffing
Blinder on Democratizing the FED
Bill Lear posts the following: In FOREIGN AFFAIRS you will find Alan Blinder (former Vice Chairman of the FED) arguing, quite seriously, that more of government should be shifted to a "politics-free zone", safe from "partisan politicking", as has been done with "independent agencies like the Federal Reserve" (this is from the blurb in the table of contents). This is the crap that the econ. textbooks and the Krugmans of the world hand us teachers every day (and people like the UK's PM take it seriously, moving to make the B of E more like the FRB). Somehow the Fed is nonpolitical? independent? Gadzooks! Methinks that the Fed should be treated in theorizing as nothing but a government-sponsored and -protected banking cartel. It responds to the political pressures from its members, the banks, and its allies on Wall Street. Epstein and Ferguson showed convincingly that the banks successfully opposed expansionary open-market operations during the early 1930s, making the Depression worse. Since then, as Tom Dickens and others have shown in a lot of papers, the Fed has consistently acted as an "executive committee" of the financial bourgeoisie. How do we control this beast? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney.
Globalization and global warming
Today's NY Times has a full page ad attacking the United Nations Kyoto Global Warming treaty. In addition to a handful of unions like the United Mineworkers who have identified their interests as being the same on this issue as the boss's, the sponsors include industry groups like: American Automobile Manufacturers Association American International Automobile Dealers Association American Iron and Steel Institute American Petroleum Institute American Plastics Council American Trucking Associations Association of American Railroads Chemical Manufacturers Association The Fertilizer Institute National Association of Manufacturers National Automobile Dealers Association The National Cattlemens Beef Association National Mining Association The Small Business Survival Committee U.S. Chamber of Commerce They are angry that the treaty allows 134 of 168 countries like India, China and Mexico to be exempt from the emissions controls stipulated by the treaty. The ad complains that they are "responsible for almost half of the world's greenhouse gases." What a striking admission. 134 of 168 countries--79%-- are responsible for 50% of the carbon emissions. What this means is that these countries are underdeveloped and use fewer resources per capita. The treaty, with all of its deficiencies, takes this into account. That is why trade associations from the world's most powerful imperialist nation attack the treaty. The web page tied to the ad is also aggravated by other provisions that favor the weak at the expense of the poor: "Oil producing and other developing nations have proposed that they be reimbursed for the economic losses they would suffer if the industrialized world cuts back on its use of fossil fuel. The negotiating text before the UN includes a proposal for developed countries to compensate oil producing and other nations, which will not be bound by the agreement, for 'social and economic losses arising from implementation of the present instrument" and developing countries "shall have a claim for the loss of income from export of fossil fuel products, raw material other than fossil fuels or finished or semi-finished goods.' "Unless all nations participate in an agreement, global emissions levels will continue to rise. This means that Americans could end up making sacrifices for little or no environmental benefit." The fight over this treaty foreshadows the big class questions we face in the environmental movement in the 21st century. The capitalist class in the exploiter nations resents any controls over its profit-making prerogatives. The developing nations are fighting for the right to catch up to the imperialist nations economically and regard emission controls as a burden. Socialists should support whatever financing is necessary to allow these countries to produce energy without generating greenhouse gases. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs is encapsulated in the fight over global warming. We have to subject the bourgeoisie of the developing nations to a class-based critique as well. The governments of India, Mexico and China are among the most environmentally insensitive in the world. The Chinese have just completed work on the Yangtze dam, which is an assault on the environment as well as on Chinese civilization. The landscape along the river, which is a national treasure like the Grand Canyon or the beaches of Cuba, will be marred permanently by this project. So where will energy come from to satisfy the needs of the world's population? That is the big question for socialists and bourgeois ideologues as well. Socialists urge the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and bringing the resources of the world under rational and scientific control. Bourgeois ideologues, who inevitably identify with their own ruling class, argue that their own capitalist system can not be regulated. If American big business is saddled with costly emission controls, prices will have to rise. If prices rise, the French capitalists or the German capitalists will take advantage of us. The interesting thing about the United Nations taking responsibility for drafting a universal treaty on global warming is that it presumes a "globalization" political framework, when all evidence points to the contrary. The "globalization" theorists have it all wrong. Economic nationalism is still the rule. Louis Proyect
Re: ripening contradictions?
In many respects, the contradictions were "riper" in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Recall gold soaring to $800 an ounce, prime interest rates of 20%, the fall of the Shah in Iran, the Sandanista victory in Nicaragua, uprising in S. Korea, big corporate bankruptcies, the threat of third world loan default, Jimmy Carter's "malaise" . . . Those ripening contradictions turned out to be mulch for reaction and retrenchment rather than fodder for revolution. The current set of ripening contradictions shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who follows the rhythm of ripenings. As the preacher said, there's nothing new under the sun. So, comrades, what is to be done? Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ knoW Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: ripening contradictions?
In many respects, the contradictions were "riper" in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Well today we have a much worse economic situation for the non-rich- wages have been falling since then. Also, many people remember the late 70's as a time of jobs for the asking, while today i suspect many people hold no hope for a good job situation. As Michael Moore wrote recently, the left has to get off its butt, stop infighting, and get to the people who will make a difference: the bus driver with a second job to make ends meet; the waitress who's a single mom; these people are about 3 inches from denouncing capitalism, only they don't even know what caitalism is. As Moore points out, it's no coincidence that Terry Nichols is from the Flint, MI area; while GM employees were being laid off by the thousands, 'the left' was in Nicaragua supporting the Sandanistas, or in Philly protesting the death penalty. Regards, Dave
Alex Cockburn vs. Michael Moore
Louis points to a verbal war between Alexander Cockburn and Michael Moore. As usual, these guys probably both are right (and both wrong) in different ways. I think Moore's critique of the Left is largely friendly: he wants us to be more involved with talking to actual working people and less involved with obscure debates, etc. (See his article in a recent NATION, which folks on the east coast probably received two weeks before I did.) Alex C. generally supports the "good causes" (Jesse Jackson, etc.) But even though I generally agree with what he says (when he's not exaggerating for effect), I think his _style_ is off-putting to most working people. The same goes for Noam Chomsky. I think almost everything he says is right on, but his excessive use of irony and sarcasm (e.g., the use of the phrase "the Free Press" in a discussion of how corporate-dominated it is) is a turn-off for many. As one born with irony-rich blood, I know very well that irony only works if there is already a strong basis for communication beforehand. Moore seems to be reacting to the _style_ of the Left more than its position. Awhile back, he was brought in as editor of MOTHER JONES magazine, causing all sorts of conflicts over style and his firing. In the end, he seems to be the winner, what with MJ deciding that affirmative action is out. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
Re: ripening contradictions?
Tom Walker wrote: In many respects, the contradictions were "riper" in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Recall gold soaring to $800 an ounce, prime interest rates of 20%, the fall of the Shah in Iran, the Sandanista victory in Nicaragua, uprising in S. Korea, big corporate bankruptcies, the threat of third world loan default, Jimmy Carter's "malaise" . . . Those ripening contradictions turned out to be mulch for reaction and retrenchment rather than fodder for revolution. The current set of ripening contradictions shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who follows the rhythm of ripenings. As the preacher said, there's nothing new under the sun. Different contradictions now from then. Those contradictions gave rise to the "neoliberal" retrenchment, a strategy that now may be stumbling. To put it crudely, in the late 1970s, the working class and the Third World had gotten too powerful and needed to be cracked over the head. They were, quite successfully. Whether that "solution" has now run its course is worth thinking about. As I said in response to Bill Lear, I'm deeply allergic to diagnosing crisis; the left has been wrong too many times on this. On the other hand, this very reluctance to see crisis (compared with the hysterical tone of much 70s left discourse, and even mainstream discourse) may in itself be telling. So, comrades, what is to be done? World revolution, now! Of course. I know because I read Workers Vanguard. Doug
REPORT: From Microsoft Word to Microsoft World
== REPORT: From Microsoft Word to Microsoft World How Microsoft is Building a Global Monopoly == November 12, 1997 Contacts: Nathan Newman, Project Director Phone: (510) 452-1820 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] orAudrie Krause, Executive Director Phone: (415) 775-8674 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microsoft's Buying Spree Takes Consumers from Microsoft Word to a Microsoft World SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- Microsoft has invested an estimated $4-$5 billion in its quest for control of cyberspace and is acquiring key strategic technologies at a rate of over one per month, according to a comprehensive NetAction White Paper that examines Microsoft's strategy for domination of the global information technology industry. The report, "From Microsoft Word to Microsoft World: How Microsoft is Building a Global Monopoly," was released today by NetAction. The complete report is available on NetAction's Web site, at: http://www.netaction.org/msoft/world/ "What is most disturbing about Microsoft's buying spree is that Internet markets are expected to explode geometrically within the next few years," said Nathan Newman, author of the report and Project Director of NetAction's Consumer Choice Campaign. With financial analysts predicting anywhere from $80 billion to $160 billion in electronic commerce by the year 2000, the stakes are high. "If Microsoft isn't reigned in soon, there is a very real possibility that it will become an unprecedented financial and technological colossus, reaching into more markets and industries than any monopolist has ever aspired to dominate," said Newman. NetAction's research documented nearly 50 Internet-related investments and acquisitions made by Microsoft, most of them within the past 24 months, and the White Paper traces the company's leveraging of these investments into dominance of the global information technology industry. In addition to a detailed description of the steps Microsoft is taking to gain control of Internet access, content, and commerce, NetAction's report reveals that the company is spending millions of dollars to subsidize developer tools and train software developers and other computer professionals in order to tie them to the Microsoft framework. "Microsoft is not only forging partnerships with commercial and academic training institutions, it is literally stealing key employees away from its competitors," said NetAction Executive Director Audrie Krause. The White Paper is one of the most comprehensive examinations to date of Microsoft's strategy for global dominance. NetAction is distributing copies to key members of Congress and the Justice Department, as well as to participants in Ralph Nader's Appraising Microsoft Conference, which takes place Thursday and Friday in Washington, D.C. The report includes five recommendations for action by policy makers to restrain the negative aspects of Microsoft's dominance: * Require Microsoft to divest its Windows operating system monopoly into a separate company from the application and Internet divisions, and determine whether there is a need for divestiture of the Internet division, as well. * Restrain predation by stopping Microsoft from giving away its Internet browser. * Prohibit licensing practices that restrict customer dealings with Microsoft's competitors, as well as exclusive dealing and tying arrangements for products. * Promote processes that support open standards, and defend open standards established through industry processes from anti-competitive abuse by Microsoft. * Establish processes to ensure that Internet users can participate in policy decisions effecting consumer use of the Internet, including appropriate mechanisms for addressing complaints about product marketing and the quality and reliability of Internet services. "Implementing these recommendations will benefit consumers by ensuring that the Internet develops as a vigorously competitive market," said Krause. In May, NetAction launched the Consumer Choice Campaign to educate cyberspace consumers about the threat of a Microsoft monopoly of the Internet, and mobilize Internet users to pressure federal officials for more vigorous enforcement of antitrust laws. Additional information about the campaign is on the NetAction web site at: http://www.netaction.org. ### From Microsoft Word to Microsoft World: How Microsoft is Building a Global Monopoly A NetAction White Paper by Nathan Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Executive Summary The full report can be found at: http://www.netaction.org/msoft/world/ Introduction: Where do you want to go today? Microsoft has other plans Is Microsoft building a monopoly? To ask the question, one has to ask in what markets, since through a combination of business acumen, hardball tactics that many consider
Re: fast track
Thank god fast track is stopped for now. I was troubled by the framing of the debate. I heard virtually nothing about the Naderite critique -- that the trade agreements gave a free hand to corporations to dismantle any social or environmental controls, such as the case with the tuna fishing and the Venezualan oil. Nor did I hear anything about the vast array of special deals tucked away in GATT or NAFTA. Were these issues brought up? If not, why not? In any case, we owe a debt to all who stopped the thing regardless of the tactics. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Principles Text
Hey folks, For those of you who are struggling with what book to use for your Principles of Economics course, I suggest you take a look at the new edition of underlineEconomics, A Tool for Critically Understanding Society/underline by Riddell, Shackelford and Stamos. This book contains all of the standard neoclassical stuff, but supplements it nicely with short sections on economic history and the history of economic thought (even a chapter on Marx and a brief section on Veblen!). Furthermore, the authors consistently offer contending theoretical perspectives on various issues. In short, it's a lot better than the books out there that offer nothing but contemporary neoclassical theory. You can read about the book and request a desk copy at Addison Wesley's website: http://hepg.awl.com/AWBookCatalog/Book/book.asp?BOOK_ID=153 Cheers, Geoff Geoffrey Schneider Assistant Professor of Economics Bucknell University Lewisburg, PA 17837 Phone: (717) 524-3446 Fax: (717) 524-3451 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web page: http://www.bucknell.edu/~gschnedr
Re: ripening contradictions?
friends, it seems hard to believe that micxhael moore can be called a hypocrite. in what sense? he certainly puts his money where his mouth is, by, for example, giving time and money to the workers at borders to help their union drives, as well as allowing his new film to be used for similar purposes. he's given away a lot of his royalties too. i heard him speak to borders' workers in nyc a few months ago. great stuff and he really connected with the workers. of course, it is easy enough to argue with his nation articles, especially if we take him literally, just as it is esy to be put off by alex cockburn's style sometimes. for example, moore tells us to go to bowling alleys and bowl and meet some real people. well, i was once a good bowler and i spent hundreds of hours in bowling alleys (and pool halls and basketball courts and sleazy bars, etc.) and i've been teaching real people for years. trouble is, real people, like professors and the like on the left, are a mixed bag. a guy in a bowling alley was once going to knock me senseless for suggesting that michael jordan was a better player than larry bird, and i cannot tell you how many fights i've nearly gotten into over racial issues in bars and on b-ball courts. so if you elite snob leftists decide to take moore's advice, be careful or be a ggod fighter! i do draw the line at car racing, however. i'd rather suport mumia and the sandinistas. of course, there is no reason why we cannot be attuned to the lives and needs of working people (including all of the ones in academe) and at the same time support every good radical cause in the world. it is sad to think that two good leftists like moore and cockburn would waste time fighting. they should bowl a couple of lines, have some beers, and have a good time. michael yates
Re: ripening contradictions?
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Doug Henwood wrote: The authors don't draw this conclusion, but those three clouds, plus the fourth, the fast-trace defeat, look like the ripening contradictions of the hypercapitalism of the last 20 years. If the Asian "miracle" is over, then the export model is in need of a serious rethink; if the U.S. can't get its allies to sign onto a bombing run over Baghdad or the continued isolation of Iran, then the New World Order of 1991 seems a lot more disorderly; and if some approach to greenhouse gas reduction can't be crafted, then life itself is in danger. That, plus a growing political backlash against free trade and capital mobility, all suggest some major political quake is underway. Very likely. Probably the backlash has been somewhat delayed in the United States of Decay, for all the usual post-Imperial reasons -- i.e. a stagnant service economy, and an unusually corrupt corporate media -- but there's no doubt that neoliberalism as a political project is crashing and burning before our very eyes (this is not the same thing, of course, as the crash and burn of the global economy itself, which I regard as highly unlikely). During my sojourn in Europe 1995-96 I was constantly amazed at the depth and scale of the popular anger in France, Belgium and elsewhere in Europe against the marketeers; Maastricht monetarism was truly a paper tiger from the beginning, but its superficial gnawing at the (still mostly intact) European welfare states has now called forth the fearsome dragon of Red-Green mobilization in Central Europe. Something similar is happening in Eastern Europe, where 20% unemployment and a Great Depression caused people to trash Hayek and the market idols even faster than they trashed the Stalinist monuments. And now even the supposedly market-led boom of the Southeast Asian microbubbles (as opposed to the genuine, state-led boom of the East Asian core states) has gone bust, which has called forth a spate of -- savor the dialectical irony, comrades! -- gargantuan transnational Government bailouts, virtual replays of the 1992-97 Japanese Godzilla-of-all-bank-bailouts. Theoretically, you could argue that after proletarianizing the bulk of the planetary working population from 1965-95 and utterly and horribly smashing the former Second and Third Worlds, capital has unwittingly created, Frankenstein-style, a transnational proletariat out of the regional, urban, national and international predescessors of such. This proletariat consumes global commodities and cultural icons, fights interlinked class struggles against interlinked comprador elites, works for the same multinationals in global niche markets, communicates on global telecom and computer networks, and runs the gamut from graduate students and computer programmers to Third World women and factory children. The Old Mole of revolution is quantum-tunneling in the mazes of e-money and silicon commerce, grubbing the forests of Chiapas and the development ministries of Malaysia, and scouting the Intranets of Mitsubishi's corporate HQ and the mansion-fortress of the World Bank, and though none can say where or when the neon-pixeled pick-and-shovel icon of the radical critter will surface on the Websites of the world, the tapping sounds from the Pentium bus are getting louder and louder. -- Dennis
Re: Alex Cockburn vs. Michael Moore
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, William S. Lear wrote: If Moore actually said this: while GM employees were being laid off by the thousands, 'the left' was in Nicaragua supporting the Sandinistas, or in Philly protesting the death penalty. then, I don't blame Cockburn for being upset. This goes far beyond a critique of style. While workers in Detroit were being downsized, Nicaraguans were being, quite literally, slaughtered by the contras. But the question is does spending your main energies protesting the Contras help the Nicaraguan people more than concentrating on the needs of Detroit workers who are needed as an integral part of any decent, progressive foreign policy? "Reagan Democrats" were very likely the margin of death in a number of third world countries and neglecting strong inclusive mobilization of our own working class is a rotten approach to defending the working class of other countries. I would hazard a bet (and I could be wrong, but I don't think so) that Congresspeople with 100% COPE labor rating are probably more consistently good on international issues, pro-environment and pro-choice issues than the other way around. There are exceptions, especially dating from the anti-Communist years of the AFL-CIO, but overall when working class issues are a key part of the progressive agenda, other progressive issues usually are strengthened. --Nathan Newman
Iraq's Legitimate Concerns
At a press conference at the United Nations on Monday, Secretary General Kofi Annan is reported to have expressed the hope that the Security Council will listen to the concerns of the Government of Iraq about the work of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in Iraq, once it complies with the Security Council resolutions. The press conference took place following the return of the Secretary-General's special mission to Iraq, comprised of three special envoys. He sent the mission to defuse the situation created after Iraq barred U.S. weapons inspectors from entering military sites. According to the Secretary-General, all Iraq needs to do is comply "with the obligations under all relevant (Security Council) resolutions." He said that once that is done, he expected the Security Council would, in turn, be prepared to listen to Iraq and to its grievances. He said that it is an issue between Iraq and the Security Council. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz also addressed the press conference. He said that Iraqi officials had explained to the Secretary-General's mission the concerns and grievances which Iraq has been suffering since 1991. He said the Iraqis were concerned about the "unbalanced" composition of the UNSCOM. "The Americans dominate the Commission," he said. "In 1996 the percentage of their presence was 44 percent among other nationalities." This year, he said, their presence is 32 percent as compared to the French presence of five percent. Mr. Aziz said that all the leading positions in the headquarters of UNSCOM have been held by Americans. He also charged that "those who created the crisis which provoked the Council to take further decisions against Iraq" were Americans. Mr. Aziz said that the United States will not agree with the lifting of sanctions unless the leadership of Iraq was changed. He also accused the members of UNSCOM of intruding on Iraq's national security by collecting information on security "and at the same time, the main source of information of UNSCOM is an American source, the U2 spying plane" which collects information about Iraq, and gives UNSCOM selected information. "I cannot trust that the Special Commission is in full control of that plane and what that plane provides to the Special Commission is impartial, technical information," Mr. Aziz said. He also charged that the U2 spy plane entered Iraq one or two days before the military attacks which the United States conducted against Iraq in January and June 1993, and in September 1996. Mr. Aziz also called the deal whereby Iraq is allowed to sell about $2 billion worth of oil every six months in order to buy food and medicine for its people suffering under sanctions, "a farce." He said U.S. officials insisted on finding mistakes in contracts the Security Council's sanctions committee has to approve, thereby delaying the needed supplies. The leader of the Secretary-General's mission to Iraq, Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, told the press that he thought the situation "is extremely serious." The United States resumed the flights of its U2 spy planes over central Iraq on Monday. Mohamed al-Sahaf, Iraq's Foreign Minister, sent a letter to Kofi Annan in which he said that Iraq now considered the U2 flights alien aircraft and not part of the U.N. weapons surveillance program. He said the flight was "escorted by several formations of American aircraft" and violated Iraqi sovereignty. President Bill Clinton told reporters at the White House that "The next step is to get a very strong resolution from the United Nations manifesting the determination of the international community to resume those inspections." French Ambassador to the U.N. Alain Dejammet said that if Iraq rescinded its decision (to bar U.S. inspectors), "then it will be possible to reopen the dialogue." "We are not going to negotiate but will listen," he said. In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen and Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov demanded that "Iraq immediately resume cooperation with the United Nations." But they also declared themselves against a military strike, urging all parties "to adopt an attitude of restraint and avoid any escalation of contradictions, especially in terms of military conflict." Britain and Germany called on Iraq to rescind the ban against American arms inspectors. Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy said that the United Nations, not the United States, should solve the crisis. TML DAILY, 11/97 Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alex Cockburn vs. Michael Moore
On Wed, November 12, 1997 at 17:38:41 (-0800) Nathan Newman writes: On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, William S. Lear wrote: If Moore actually said this: while GM employees were being laid off by the thousands, 'the left' was in Nicaragua supporting the Sandinistas, or in Philly protesting the death penalty. then, I don't blame Cockburn for being upset. This goes far beyond a critique of style. While workers in Detroit were being downsized, Nicaraguans were being, quite literally, slaughtered by the contras. But the question is does spending your main energies protesting the Contras help the Nicaraguan people more than concentrating on the needs of Detroit workers who are needed as an integral part of any decent, progressive foreign policy? Suppose someone down the street from you were being raped. Next door, a friend of yours is fired. Do you rush to the aid of the person being raped, or do you rush next door? As far as I'm concerned, building labor solidarity, pushing back against capitalists (and more) is a long-term job, something which should never be neglected (and, contrary to what Moore apparently writes, it was not). Aiding people who are actively being slaughtered (this was a full-scale war, remember), however, is far more urgent. You can always get people another job, you can always build a movement out of displaced workers---you have no such luxury with murdered campesinas. One could have asked the same question in the 1960s: ...does spending your main energies protesting the Vietnam war help the Vietnamese people more than concentrating on the needs of American workers...? The answer then, as in the 1980s, is clear I think. Again, as I said earlier, I don't think this is, or ever was, a zero-sum game. The left spent a goodly amount of time bemoaning and actively fighting "downsizing" during the eighties, as I recall, and also strongly fought against rapacious U.S. foreign policy. I also remember some difficulty in getting U.S. unions to join the criticism of U.S. foreign policy, to put it mildly (see below for details). "Reagan Democrats" were very likely the margin of death in a number of third world countries and neglecting strong inclusive mobilization of our own working class is a rotten approach to defending the working class of other countries. I don't exactly understand what you mean by "Reagan Democrats". Both Democrats and Republicans were perfectly ok with the murderous contras, the Democrats objecting, typically, only that it might be too costly, etc. As I said, one should never neglect working class issues (and they were not, in fact), but I should point out that this was not about the "working class" in Nicaragua, it was about peasants, intellectuals, etc., *and* the working class in Nicaragua. I would hazard a bet (and I could be wrong, but I don't think so) that Congresspeople with 100% COPE labor rating are probably more consistently good on international issues, pro-environment and pro-choice issues than the other way around. There are exceptions, especially dating from the anti-Communist years of the AFL-CIO, but overall when working class issues are a key part of the progressive agenda, other progressive issues usually are strengthened. Just when do you think the "anti-Communist years of the AFL-CIO" ended? The AFL-CIO's Free Trade Union Institute (FTUI), as part of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED---"a government tool for penetrating civil society in other countries down to the grass-roots level", employing "'Psychological-political penetration and subversion of foreign states'" [1]) was key to the Reagan program in Nicaragua. One of Reagan's favorite recipients of cash was the Coordinadora Democratica Nicaraguense (CDN), composed, inter alia, of two trade union groups affiliated with the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO also helped funnel cash to the American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD) (with the term "Free" needing the usual Orwellian interpretation), and Lane Kirkland himself personally solicited funds to help out "Free Labor" in Nicaragua. For further evidence of the supposed turn from the "anti-Communist years" by the AFL-CIO, see Winslow Peck, "The AFL-CIA," in Howard Frazier (ed.), *Uncloaking the CIA* (Free Press, 1980); Jonathan Kwitny, *Endless Enemies* (Congdon and Weed, 1984); Tom Barry and Deb Preusch, *AIFLD in Central America: Agents as Organizers* (Resource Center, 1990). Despite this, I do agree that it is key for the left to integrate working class issues as part of its agenda, no question. Bill [1] William I. Robinson, *A Faustian Bargain* (Westview Press, 1992) provides most of the facts I cite here.
Ontario Teachers Continue To Receive Support
On November 10, a meeting of representatives from six locals of the Nova Scotia Teachers Union (NSTU) passed a unanimous motion in support of the "courageous action undertaken by Ontario's teachers in defence of public education." Jim Boudreau, President of the Guyborough NSTU local, said that public education cannot tolerate repeated reductions in funding. Boudreau states in a press release that the delegates to the meeting, representing more than 2,500 teachers, are calling on all concerned citizens "to remain vigilant and oppose government actions which seek to disguise cost-cutting measures as legitimate educational `reform. Paul Melong, president of the Antigonish local said that the Ontario teachers played an important role in making parents and the public aware of the potential damages inherent in Bill 160. Describing the protest of the Ontario teachers as a "tremendous effort to displace that bill," Melong said the Nova Scotia teachers hope that "honest education reform will take precedence over economic agendas." TML DAILY, 11/12/97 Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ripening contradictions?
The NY Press, which Cockburn writes for, has been attacking Moore as a do-nothing hypocrite for a while now and Cockburn has entered the fray. If that is a good summary of Alex's position on MM, that's pretty weak. If 'the masses' are ripe for organization, I'd posit that Moore has aided in that development. After all, his show was apparently the time-slot leader for 18-35 yr old males. I don't see AC denouncing his friend Noam Chomsky for not being more active amongst workers, yet NC has said things very similar to what MM wrote. "More news for you, Michael. The 'left' did come [to Flint]. They supported Jesse Jackson. That particular year, under the influence of Andrew Kopkind, the Nation actually endorsed Jackson. We wrote pages about the Michigan vote, many of them by me. The people who didn't want to pay attention to the Michigan vote were the liberals backing Dukakis. If you had a memory instead of a set of one-liners you'd remember that, and you'd attack the liberal Democratic mainstream. But it's somehow more fun to flail away at that poor old tarnished nag, 'the left,' in which activity you're at one with the entire political mainstream." There seems to me to be a big difference between writing about it and having a strong organizational presence amongst the workers. i don't see what AC's problem is. If he is saying that he (and the real left, not the mainstream) wrote about it and somehow that disproves MM's thesis, he isn't speaking to Moore's point- i.e. writing about it isn't good enough; how about showing up and speaking with the folks who later joined militias? Show them that the left isn't a bunch of isolated intellectuals, but real people with an inspiring program for positive change. If, on the other hand, Alex is saying that the real left did do all they could (beyond just writing), then evidently their message had little effect. Many people eventually opted for the extreme right (Nichols, et al). However, i think this argument would be rather feeble. Chomsky related recently how he was quite disappointed with a "solidarity" event in Boston regarding the situation in Decatur. While nearly every leftist event packs this particular hall, it was nearly empty for that event. Granted, it's a different state, but... At any rate, it seems to me quite clear that the left has loads of readily available actions to undertake. Take the contrast of student vs. worker organizations: on any campus, for students who are sick of 'the system', there are generally several groups to join- the problem is apathy, as well as (due to small numbers) a lack of visibility; but few debutante lefties could claim they don't know about the groups. For non-students (i.e. regular people) the situation is exctly the reverse. Though frustration runs high, there are few institutions available, and besides, very few people know about them. It seems to me that the most most effective tact for the left would be to form highly visible, highly accessible organizations so that, should a person feel frustrated and want to "do something", there are obvious groups to join. Sort of like Greenpeace: everyone knows that if you want to save the whales, join them (or give money). Any thoughts? Regards, Dave
Re: Alex Cockburn vs. Michael Moore
On Wed, November 12, 1997 at 11:09:58 (-0800) James Devine writes: I think Moore's critique of the Left is largely friendly: he wants us to be more involved with talking to actual working people and less involved with obscure debates, etc. (See his article in a recent NATION, which folks on the east coast probably received two weeks before I did.) I agree with this, and Cockburn actually precedes Moore in this by several years. Moore seems to be reacting to the _style_ of the Left more than its position. ... If Moore actually said this: while GM employees were being laid off by the thousands, 'the left' was in Nicaragua supporting the Sandinistas, or in Philly protesting the death penalty. then, I don't blame Cockburn for being upset. This goes far beyond a critique of style. While workers in Detroit were being downsized, Nicaraguans were being, quite literally, slaughtered by the contras. We should remember images such as the following: Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out. They where killed by slitting their throats, and pulling the tongue out through the slit. ---From a survivor's account of a contra attack. Jonathan Steele and Tony Jenkins, *Manchester Guardian Weekly*, Nov. 25, 1984. This goes far beyond anything those in Detroit had to endure, was paid for by U.S. taxpayers, and was commonplace throughout Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, to name three of the more egregious cases. There is no reason to attack "the left" for opposing this, or even for putting this as a higher priority than solidarity with downsized workers, though I don't see this as a zero-sum game, either. I appreciate much of Moore's sentiments about the left "getting to know" people, which, as I said, is something Cockburn has been saying, perhaps in a different way, perhaps with more off-putting sarcasm surrounding it, for years. There is, I agree, much shared ground between Cockburn and Moore, but I think what are apparently Moore's tactless and idiotic noises about the left's Nicaraguan stance deserve strong rebuke. Bill
Re: fast track
The deals to which I referred were not the special payments to compliant congressional representatives, but the corporate deals tucked in the earlier agreements. Had anyone addressed them? Also, the Naderite discussions that I heard gave references to protecting the environment without specifying just how trade agreements do so. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Marx and Malthus
The reference to overpopulation on Marxism-International leads us into a discussion of the Marxist critique of Malthus itself. One of the most substantial discussions to date on the relationship between Marxism and Malthusianism is in Marc Linder. The Dilemms of Laissez-Faire Population Policy in Capitalist Societies: When the Invisible Hand Controls Reproduction. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997. rb
Re: fast track
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:34:07 -0800 (PST) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank god fast track is stopped for now. I was troubled by the framing of the debate. I heard virtually nothing about the Naderite critique -- that the trade agreements gave a free hand to corporations to dismantle any social or environmental controls, such as the case with the tuna fishing and the Venezualan oil. Nor did I hear anything about the vast array of special deals tucked away in GATT or NAFTA. Were these issues brought up? If not, why not? Nader's groups and green issues were quite prominent in the process, from where I sat. The special deals were also discussed and as before tended to undermine the credibility of the entire exercise, not least because the Administration reneged on a number of deals it had made to pass NAFTA. Some Members were not ready to be suckered a second time. 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. ===
Re: ripening contradictions?
So, comrades, what is to be done? World revolution, now! Of course. I know because I read Workers Vanguard. Doug Aw Doug, First we need to have an internecine war between revisonists, mensheviks, true trots and false trots*then* and only then can we have a world revolution Steve
Re: fast track
Congratulations are due to Max and others who worked against this measure. Thanks but personally I didn't do much except post a few things on the net. The real credit as far as EPI is concerned is due to Rob Scott and Jesse Rothstein, who did most of the trade work, and Thea Lee of the AFL-CIO (formerly of EPI). Politically of course the center of opposition was House democrats under the leadership of Dick Gephardt and David Bonior, and the AFL-CIO. One new political factor was the avid participation of the public employees and other service workers, who understand their wages and political fortunes in general depend in some measure on how well manufacturing workers are doing. There is more class solidarity by virtue of this experience. This process also elevates how organized labor is viewed by the general public. More broadly, there has been established more of a distinction between the Administration and what some people call "the democratic faction of the Democratic Party." There is an important opportunity here for the left to float and motivate progressive proposals to receptive Democrats, not for the sake of herding people into the DP, but to further the establishment of a progressive political platform independent of the White House/ Democratic National Committee which forces Democrats to choose between the two and lays the basis for either driving the Clinto-crats out of the party or contributing to the formation of a viable third party. The immediate next step in the wake of the Fast Track outcome is to propose an alternative approach to trade which can be used to counter any repeat attempt to pass Fast Track (a virtual certainty), but more important to build support for a positive alternative. Suggestions in this vein and supporting research would of course be very welcome. Cheers, 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. ===
Re: ripening contradictions?
I really don't know what Doug is talking about. I just got my IMF Survey a couple of days ago and the headline reads: "Camdessus Commends Indonesia's 'Impressive' Economic Policy Program". Obviously, nothing is wrong with the far east.(;-)) Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: ripening contradictions?
Dave Markland: As Michael Moore wrote recently, the left has to get off its butt, stop infighting, and get to the people who will make a difference: the bus driver with a second job to make ends meet; the waitress who's a single mom; these people are about 3 inches from denouncing capitalism, only they don't even know what caitalism is. As Moore points out, it's no coincidence that Terry Nichols is from the Flint, MI area; while GM employees were being laid off by the thousands, 'the left' was in Nicaragua supporting the Sandanistas, or in Philly protesting the death penalty. PEN-L'ers should be aware that a full-scale verbal war has erupted between Alex Cockburn and Michael Moore over this article. The NY Press, which Cockburn writes for, has been attacking Moore as a do-nothing hypocrite for a while now and Cockburn has entered the fray. For example, on the question of the left getting enthused over the Sandinistas and ignoring Flint, Cockburn says: "More news for you, Michael. The 'left' did come [to Flint]. They supported Jesse Jackson. That particular year, under the influence of Andrew Kopkind, the Nation actually endorsed Jackson. We wrote pages about the Michigan vote, many of them by me. The people who didn't want to pay attention to the Michigan vote were the liberals backing Dukakis. If you had a memory instead of a set of one-liners you'd remember that, and you'd attack the liberal Democratic mainstream. But it's somehow more fun to flail away at that poor old tarnished nag, 'the left,' in which activity you're at one with the entire political mainstream." Louis Proyect
Marx and Malthus
Mark Jones cites an authority on overpopulation: Pimentel also said: The world population is expected to double in the next 41 years. According to Dr. Pimentel's statistics, the U.S. population -- now 260 million -- would have to be reduced by about 60 million people, even though actual trends suggest that the U.S. population will double over the next 63 years. The reference to overpopulation on Marxism-International leads us into a discussion of the Marxist critique of Malthus itself. Once again I will refer to Michael Perelman's book "Marx's Crises Theory: Scarcity, Labor and Finance", which contained the eye-opening first chapter on Marx's understanding of India. I posted it last week to show that Marx's understanding of the role of English colonialism in India in 1853 was limited by both inadequate knowledge and incomplete theorization of Capital itself. Very conveniently for our purposes, chapter two of Michael's book is on "Marx, Malthus, and the Concept of Natural Resource Scarcity". Marx avoided a direct confrontation with Malthusianism itself. The reason for this was German socialists, under Lasalle's initiative, had incorporated Malthus's doctrines into their program through their notion of the "Iron Law of Wages." Marx decided that he had enough on his table in explaining the labor theory of value without taking Malthus head-on, besides wanting to avoid factional warfare with the German party. This has caused a serious misinterpretation of Marx's views today, because it would lead to the conclusion that Marx did not think that the question of natural resources and their scarcity had any importance. It would fortify the arguments of "deep ecologists" and "green anarchists" who view Marx and Engels as treating nature as nothing but a huge faucet and drain. Ore, water, crops, etc. come out of the faucet in unlimited supply; labor turns them into commodities; and the waste products go down the drain. This interpretation does not do justice to Marx. Marx treats the question of overpopulation itself as an function of capital's need to deploy labor in the social relations surrounding production. A "relative surplus of population" or "industrial reserve army" comes into existence when traditional means of production are abolished, such as village-based, communal agriculture. As Perelman comments: "The apparent 'overpopulation' that then arises is relative, not to natural conditions or food supply, but to the needs of capital accumulation; that is, capital requires a reserve army of labor power on which it can draw quickly and easily, one that holds the pretensions of the working class in check. Scarcity in this context is scarcity of employment owing to the concentration of the means of production under the control of a small class of capitalists operating according to the logic of profit and competition." (Perelman, p. 31) Besides providing a theoretical approach to the question, Marx also dealt with the historical example of Ireland, which Malthusians cited as a classic example of overpopulation. Marx took another tack entirely. He argued that the massive exodus of people following the potato famine did not improve the standard of living in Ireland. It mirrored a decline that began before 1846, the year of the famine. The depopulation of Ireland was engineered by an English and Irish landlord class that transformed the island from a wheat-producing nation, protected from foreign competition by the corn laws, into a huge pasture for wool-producing sheep. Scarcity of natural resources, like population, could not be understood on its own terms. It arises as a consequence of historically determined social relations. His understanding of scarcity comes into the sharpest focus when discussing agriculture. At first Marx believed that agriculture's problems were the heritage of pre-capitalist formations. The bourgeois revolution would fix everything. In the Communist Manifesto, he includes the "application of chemistry to industry and agriculture" as among the greatest accomplishments of capitalism. In a letter to Engels from this period, Marx states that capitalist agriculture breakthroughs "would put an end to Malthus' theory of the deterioration not only of the 'hands' [i.e., people] but also of the land." The more he studied agriculture under capitalism, the more pessimistic Marx became of these prospects. This change occurred between 1861 and 1863 when he was writing "Theories of Surplus Value," a work which while still promoting the view that capitalist agriculture might even progress at a faster rate than industry, contains a new "greenish" view that is less optimistic: "The moral history...concerning agriculture...is that the capitalist system works against a rational agriculture, or that a rational agriculture is incompatible with the capitalist system (although the latter promotes technical improvements in agriculture), and needs either the hand of the small farmer living by
Re: ripening contradictions?
William S. Lear wrote: First, I'm very leery of "ripening contradictions", as I remember hearing about those continually for the past umpteen years, and somehow, capitalism always seems to right itself. Oh god, me too. I'm very very wary of crisis talk, which is one reason I'm so tentative about this. I just think there's some reason to feel that *something* is happening, though I'm not sure what. Finally, I recognize the glee one might feel in seeing the system creak and groan---I share it, too. But I think we also ought to ask ourselves what will happen when it comes to a crashing halt, or if it significantly breaks down. I entirely agree. I'm not feeling gleeful about this - especially since the left is in such dismal shape. Just seems like something we should be aware of, and talking about. Doug
Re: ripening contradictions?
On Wed, November 12, 1997 at 10:04:19 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes: Today's Financial Times has a think piece by reporters Bruce Clark and Nancy Dunne reflecting on the failure of fast track. As they say, this setback to the free traders' agenda "coincides with the appearance of three other dark clouds...on the global horizon": the collapse of Asian currencies and stock markets, international reluctance ot go along with Washington's policy of "dual containment" of Iran and Iraq, and the inevitably acrimonious Kyoto global warming conference. The authors don't draw this conclusion, but those three clouds, plus the fourth, the fast-track defeat, look like the ripening contradictions of the hypercapitalism of the last 20 years. Let me play a half-serious Doubting Thomas to some very good observations by Doug. First, I'm very leery of "ripening contradictions", as I remember hearing about those continually for the past umpteen years, and somehow, capitalism always seems to right itself. Fast track was not a defeat for capitalism itself, it was more like a mild rebuke to a particular coalition of the capitalist class. If the Asian "miracle" is over, then the export model is in need of a serious rethink; That's a big "if", which if it nevertheless comes to pass, might be replaced by yet another "miracle", or even dispensed with altogether. Capital's ability to exploit won't be deterred by minor setbacks, it will take major divisions within the capitalist class (which actually may be set in motion by the end of "miracles"). Also, as you have pointed out, hasn't the real level of "globalization" been relatively constant over the past 20 years? Or is this something entirely different? What fraction of our GNP is directed toward Asia? What are the fractions of capital flows (if this is even the right question)? What, in real terms, would we (the capos) lose should Asia really go down the tubes? if the U.S. can't get its allies to sign onto a bombing run over Baghdad or the continued isolation of Iran, then the New World Order of 1991 seems a lot more disorderly; The New World Order was built on pretty much the same international opinion. The U.S. essentially bribed and threatened the rest of the world to go along with us in 1991, and the other G7 countries (except for our loyal puppy, Great Britain) basically washed their hands of things. We've been outvoted 150-2 in the UN for at least 20 years on issues like this, and it hasn't seemed to hamper us too much. and if some approach to greenhouse gas reduction can't be crafted, then life itself is in danger. This is the one which has me the most worried, because I think the problem will continue to grow, and that it could mean an immense crisis, particularly in the US, based so heavily as it is on automobile transportation. On the other hand, new technologies have a way of appearing when they are needed most. There has been little real effort on the part of the capos to address this. Given their immense resources (real human beings under their control, immense sums of cash), I can envision even this problem being solved, and hell, even a profit turned on it. That, plus a growing political backlash against free trade and capital mobility, all suggest some major political quake is underway. Don't know what it all means yet, but something's happening. The real question is, Where is this backlash located? Sure, the population is not fooled, and has rarely been, about for whom the political system (or economic system) works. But, to the extent that this opinion is outside of the functioning political system, and that the "golden rule" applies here, we need to look at the elite coalitions and how they might be fracturing over this. That is not to say, of course, that the usual rules of the Left don't apply (organize, teach, think, etc.) and that we should sit on our thumbs. But, if we really are talking about a "political quake", that is, something which is likely to shift the political system itself, then I'd say, at least in the short run, we'll have to keep a very sharp eye out on the various capo coalitions. Tom Ferguson's work here is unparalleled and I think it would very nicely compliment much sensible Marx-inspired work on class discontents, etc. Finally, I recognize the glee one might feel in seeing the system creak and groan---I share it, too. But I think we also ought to ask ourselves what will happen when it comes to a crashing halt, or if it significantly breaks down. Particularly in the U.S., I fear that nothing like a "popular" revolution will take place. The level of religious fundamentalism in this country is immense, and increasing, fanned by the entire spectrum of responsible opinion and money. We are, in Chomsky's words, "a dissolved society", and
ripening contradictions?
Today's Financial Times has a think piece by reporters Bruce Clark and Nancy Dunne reflecting on the failure of fast track. As they say, this setback to the free traders' agenda "coincides with the appearance of three other dark clouds...on the global horizon": the collapse of Asian currencies and stock markets, international reluctance ot go along with Washington's policy of "dual containment" of Iran and Iraq, and the inevitably acrimonious Kyoto global warming conference. The authors don't draw this conclusion, but those three clouds, plus the fourth, the fast-trace defeat, look like the ripening contradictions of the hypercapitalism of the last 20 years. If the Asian "miracle" is over, then the export model is in need of a serious rethink; if the U.S. can't get its allies to sign onto a bombing run over Baghdad or the continued isolation of Iran, then the New World Order of 1991 seems a lot more disorderly; and if some approach to greenhouse gas reduction can't be crafted, then life itself is in danger. That, plus a growing political backlash against free trade and capital mobility, all suggest some major political quake is underway. Don't know what it all means yet, but something's happening. 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
