Re: Postone on value form and capitalist production
>Although I have no degree in economics, I have doubts about your >claim that this issue is soluble in terms of "Marx's conceptual >distinction between value (labor time as a measure of wealth) and >wealth itself, the production of which has come indeed to depend less >on direct labor because of scientific and technological advance..." >There is a Scholastic touch to this argument which I mistrust. >For, if the production of wealth depends increasingly on science and >technology, how can "labor time [continue to be] a measure of wealth"? Hi Ricardo, I certainly have no degree in economics. I'll just elaborate a bit about how I understand Postone's argument. If the quantity of use values produced by the modal producer per unit of time (say an hour) determines what counts as a social labor hour (say the "average" is 40 yds of cloth per hour by a powerloom), then it follows that until through the generalisation of his technique he becomes the modal producer, a more efficient producer actually performs more social labor hours ( say someone with a very powerful loom, using unshreddable synthetic materials, which allows him to produce in one hour 80 yds of cloth). Since in bourgeois society the metric is a social labor hour, it follows that the most efficient producer actually has actually put in twice as many social labor hours as a result of the greater quantity of use values he has produced...even if he has put in the same number of abstract units of time: The "Newtonian" interval of abstract, homogeneous units of time is irrelevant. This is not a scholastic distinction. If it were not the case that the most efficient producer actually does produce more value by performing more hours of social labor, then there would be no way to understand the race to increase productivity and therewith value and most importantly surplus value. Now it does seem paradoxical that the producer who may have put in the most social labor hours may have worked fewer of those Newtonian units of abstract time than even the average, much less least efficient, producer. It does follow that if the least efficient producer labors for a duration of more units of abstract time, while in that time not producing as many use values as the modal producer does in say an average working day (say a handweaver who produces only 20yds of cloth in one hour), this "backward" producer has actually put in fewer social labor hours and produced less value--a little more than half as much if he put in more abstract units of time than the modal powerloomer. The market will thus punish the handweaver unless he can win some protection from it--otherwise, the countryside will be bleached with the bones of the weavers, as Marx noted about India. At the most basic level, this is part of the reason there is a struggle for protection from the world market. Rakesh
Re: "Four Days in September"
Jim Westrich: > >Barreto sums up his movie and his approach quite well and I think this is >the strength of the movie. I was quite moved by the attempt to portray the >"humanness" of all the parties involved (revolutionaries, secret police, >ambassador). It certainly could be argued that this attempt was a bit >stiff at times but to see the American ambassador as a human being (as well >as a representative of the imperialist bourgeois pigs) was a strength of >the movie. His little speeches of his "limousine liberalism" were quite >well done. It did not threaten my politics in any way or my condemnation of >the dictatorship and secret police to see a torturer concerned that his >love might not approve of what he does. > Actually the film was deeply flawed by its refusal to allow the terrorists to make the case against US support for the coup in Brazil. It is astonishing that the American Ambassador was never once challenged on the role of the CIA in Brazilian politics. When Alan Arkin says that "his government opposes dictatorship since they produce more problems in the long run than they solve in the short run," his captors stand there speechless like a bunch of dummies. Any terrorist worth his or her salt would have replied, "This is a deeply amoral approach to the question of democracy, isn't it?" And would have followed up with some remarks on the history of US intervention in Brazilian politics. But this would have bored and alienated Barreto's intended middle-class audience, so he left it out. > The politics were about the >people. The struggle was not just about capitalism and militarism v. >revolutionary heros but about who cooks dinner (or what one orders >takeout), about who tells who what to do and why, how people treat one >another, and whether one is creating revolution out of a community of >interests or an a priori conception of "what's right" for "our struggle." > Well, of course the film was "political" in this sense. The terrorists were a bunch of creeps who held an innocent person captive--just as the cops did. The leader of the terrorists considered the use of torture to get Arkin to reveal the identity of CIA agents--just as the cops do when they try to find out who is in the underground. Etc., etc. Standing between these two warring camps is the gentle, liberal and sympathetic American Ambassador. It doesn't take too much brains to figure out what this implies politically. >I think that Jonas could have tip his hand more but the strength of the >movie was its subtlety. The fact that Louis could conjure up such rich >detail about a character who gets 3-4 minutes of screen focus proves its >strength. > This is nonsense. I conjured up this detail because I was deeply involved with Latin American politics in that period. I was in the Trotskyist movement and had frequent visits from Argentinian comrades who were in a factional struggle with leftists who carried out bank-robberies and kidnappings. They were known as the PRT-Compatiente and were supported by the European Trotskyist movement, including Ernest Mandel. Those events and the events sketched at in the movie are very close to me. The average film-goer would not be able to supply the context. > >This is far from true. This movie (even with it faults) portrays >revolutionaries as heros with courage, intelligence, compassion and doubts. > I cannot speak to its historical accuracy but I could not help but feel >that it "seemed" very accurate. Also, the movie captured all I needed to >fell about "repression" I did not need to see any violence. > The movie's biggest lie was the way it handled the torture of one of the captured members of the underground group. Henrique, the cop who is Serran's favorite character, plunges the captive's head into a tub of water for about 15 seconds. It is an evasion of the truth. Real torture is nothing like this mild baptism. It is horrifying. Unless the film was about to deal with this reality, it should have not put forward a sanitized version of what takes place. It is only through such an evasion that it becomes possible for the film to suggest the plausibility of a torture victim falling in love with her torturer and marrying him. This is an obscene lie and an insult to the tens of thousands of people who have been tortured in Latin American prisons. Louis Proyect
Progressive Populist 11/97 Fight Freebooters
___ THE PROGRESSIVE POPULIST: A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF THE HEARTLAND November 1997 -- Volume 3, Number 11 ___ EDITORIAL Fight the Freebooters, Get the Word Out This issue marks the second anniversary of the Progressive Populist as a publication. It is said that less than 10 percent of periodicals survive two years and we are proud to have made the cut. We undoubtedly have surprised a few skeptics as we have published every month and slowly built our paid circulation to a little more than 2,000. We appreciate all our subscribers. We particularly thank those charter subscribers who not only took a chance on our new Journal from the Heartland but now have chosen to renew for another year or two. For those who have held off on subscribing, wondering if we would last, let the word go forth: We're here to stay. Not everybody has been happy with our work. Occasionally we get a note from somebody who thinks we are too liberal, or even socialist. About as often we get a note from somebody who thinks we are not radical enough. But the great majority of our correspondence is appreciative of our efforts to revive democratic political debate, and that is gratifying. Some enquiring minds wonder why we started a journal of politics and economics. Lord knows, starting a political magazine that starts off by alienating corporations is a good way to lose a bundle and we're not wealthy. But we grew up believing that in America individuals can make a difference, and if you believe in something you should go for it. We also grew up in a relatively small Iowa town that reflects the changes going on in rural America. Storm Lake, Iowa, in the 1960s, when I was growing up there, was probably as close to an egalitarian community as you're likely to find. We knew the grocer, the butcher, the banker, the hardware store owner, the newspaper publisher, the radio station manager and the local meatpacking plant executive. Anybody who tried to put on airs likely would be ridiculed for their pretension. Some of the wealthiest people in the county, at least on paper, were farmers and you wouldn't want to put on their airs, particularly if they raised hogs. But in the businesses along the main street, Lake Avenue, everybody pitched in for the community. If a business manager laid somebody off, he or she would have to look that person and their families in the eye when they passed on the street. The town still looks the same, but chains have turned the groceries into supermarkets; they took over the newspaper and radio station; they're moving in on the local banks; they've placed the discount stories on the outskirts of town and driven the dime stores and hardware stores out of business. You still know who works at the chain stores but you don't have a clue who owns them or who issues the order to "downsize." The phone company is diversifying its services in more lucrative markets and cutting its local staff. The meatpacking plant changed hands, drove out the union and cut wages to the point where they had to bring in workers from out of state. They include immigrants from Mexico, Asia and Africa who make more in an hour there than they made in a day or even a week back home. Storm Lake has a lot more colorful festivals than we used to have, but it also has the state's largest share of students taking English as a second language - and growing ethnic hostility. Now the factory farms are moving in, threatening to replace the family-owned farms, feed stores and stockyards that have served small towns in the Midwest for generations. Change is inevitable; it's progress, we are told. But in the new integrated agribusiness, farmers will grow crops from seeds sold by the gene-altering bioengineers and they'll raise livestock to specifications set by the meatpacking corporation. If the farmers balk, the bank will call in their loans and sell the farm to somebody who will be more cooperative. Everybody will work for Wall Street. The Company Store will be Walmart. Vertically integrated sharecroppers will end up owing their souls to Master Card. This is progress? More importantly, how did we come to this in the span of one generation? In the case of the farmer, first we ran him into debt in the 1970s. We made him dependent on credit and chemicals in the 1980s. Then we exposed him to global competition in the 1990s and replaced the local bankers with executives from Minneapolis, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. The New Deal, coming out of the Great Depression, helped small farmers climb out of their sharecropping condition and put some stability into agriculture. It has taken 50 years for big business to put farmers back "in their place." As the independent farmer goes, so goes the small towns. There's still nothing wrong with Storm Lake that $5-a-bushel corn and $
Re: fast track
> Subject: 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? Sure. > Also, the Naderite discussions that I heard gave references to protecting > the environment without specifying just how trade agreements do so. As I mentioned in another post, formulating a positive alternative is our next order of business. We've begun working on it and will have something ready for next January. 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. ===
Union Staff Positions Open
Dear Sisters/Brothers: Please be informed that Union staffing and trades positions are now being posted at one central location on the Internet at http://www.unionjobs.com This site can also be found through a link from the AFL-CIO site to Union Jobs Clearinghouse. For more information, please visit the site or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your help would be greatly appreciated in getting the word out, by contacting any unions or Labor Councils you may know to let them know that this service is now available. Fraternally, Gary Cortes Union Jobs Clearinghouse -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 530-898-5321 916-898-5901 fax
Progressive Populist 11/97 Fight Freeboot
No Subject
Regarding LatAm reaction to FT defeat, I made the following notes for Doug H. It might be of interest for the rest of the list, so here goes. >Tom - > >Hmm, this might be interesting. How much attention is Bolivia paying to the >fast track thing? How does Bolivia fit into proposals for LatAm integration? > >Doug > Doug: Bolivia (read: elite managers, owners and operators of Bolivia) is a member of Mercosur, and as such is very interested in questions of integration, trade, etc. The past president (favorite of Wall Street, U Chicago educated Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada) rushed the country into the pact before we (read: NOT the owners/operators of Bolivia) knew what it was or might mean. The impact is still unclear. Bolivia's tarrifs are already very low, and we're flooded with Argentinian, Brazilian, Chinese, etc. imports (largely contraband). So the impact will probably be more in terms of access to Brazilian, Argentinian, Peruvian and Chilean markets. A note on Mercosur. As you may know, it's basically a tariff union (shared rules of the game) the involves about 50% of the population of South America, 60% of the region's gross product, and 40% of the region's foreign trade. Members are allowed to enter into other trade agreements, of course, as is the case with Chile, which has been bucking for entrance to NAFTA. Thus, of the region's countries, Chile is perhaps the hardest hit by fast track going down. Various business sectors here were opposed to joining (often those used to comfy govt. subsidies), but the Bolivian chapter of the transnationalized economic elites (lots of MBAs from the US and Chile, Mitsubishi 4x4s for city driving, cell phones and Christmas shopping in Miami) carried the day. In thinking about all this, a couple of basic points need to be emphasized. First, while Bolivia (read: ...), like the rest of LatAm and the "developing" world, is staking its future on export led growth, free trade, etc., it is very small country (under 7 million pop., $770 GNP/cap in 1994), with very few products the world is interested in (except coca/cocaine), and loaded with a good deal of debt. For 1996 Debt/GNP was 61.4%; Debt/Exports 408.2%, in 1995 the debt grew by 12.4%, in 1996 by 2.6%. Bolivia's exports are still over 40% minerals. If you add oil and gas, over 50% are extractive products. 1996's exports were (estimates): Minerals40.2% Oil and Gas 11.8% Soy 14.2% (much goes to feed Brazilian cows) Wood 6.6% Jewelry 3.6% Other 23.6% "Other" includes all sorts of stuff: furniture, ceramics, artesanal goods, rainforest products (oils, nuts), and -- get this! -- coffins made from precious hardwoods. The value added in such goods varies a lot, but is assumed to be higher than for just wood, say. Thus, Bolivia remains overwhelmingly an exporter of raw materials and low value added goods. Point 2: Thanks to the work of Rhys Jenkins, we now have a somewhat clearer picture on trade's impact post struct. adj. He found that trade liberalization has NOT led to improved export performance and has NOT led to increases in productivity. Improvements in trade performance are instead attributed to "more realistic and more stable real exchange rate[s] after 1985, while the trade policy reforms [tariff reductions, etc.] have had little impact." (Note: this was before entering Mercosur.) As for productivity increases, he concludes simply that "there is no evidence that the Bolivian trade reforms [again, pre Mercosur] have led to improved productivity performance." There were productivity increases in the period studied but is was attributed largely to "increased intensity of work and a result of reduction in personnel." (Jenkins in Journal of Intl. Dev., 7(4) 1995:594). Informed opinion would, presumably, consider such things in thinking about integration, export led growth models, etc. Point 3: Living here I sometimes feel like I'm in a dreamland when presented with econ. data. Reason: the coca/cocaine economy is enormous, ubiquitous, and largely unmeasured and perhaps unmeasurable -- if one fancies living. Still, every reasonable economist, sociologist or anthropologist here (and the US Embassy) admits that the impact is enormous. Most commonly it is suggested that without coca/cocaine, the structural adjustments of the mid 1980's would have resulted in upheaval. Reform of the financial sector in 1985-6 allowed for unhampered buying and selling of dollars (in fact, it produced a complete "dollarization" of the banking system -- CDs bought and sold in dollars, checking in dollars, and scads of dollar changers on every downtown corner, moving $10-30,000 daily) and, most significantly, the *repatriation of capital no questions asked*. The latter has kept Bolivia liquid through the ups and downs of savage restructuring in the 80s and 90s. Thus, the implications of integration, trade, etc. are rather complex. At the same time, some old patte
Re: Alex Cockburn vs. Michael Moore
Tom Kruse: >With some VERY important exceptions, of course. For example the Labor >Committee on Central America, some of TecNica's labor delegations, community >based material aid through the Quijote Center, etc. In the examples cited >there was, sometimes, more than "single issue" politics going on; >"connections" were being made; people were being listened to/worked with. >The point was made earlier: through those kinds of "connections" people take >good positions all around. More committed to progressive movements in the >US --> more enraged by US wars in Central America; and vice versa. Yeah, TecNica did have this orientation and I was responsible for it. I initiated the skilled trades task force that recruited welders, mechanics, machinists, etc. even though I was a computer programmer myself. The reason that TecNica took this approach is that all the people in leadership positions (I was east coast coordinatior) had a background in Marxist politics. The groups that lacked such an orientation tended to focus more on morality at the expense of class politics. This was no crime in itself. When Catholic priests attacked US policy in Central America, this had a powerful limiting effect on US war aims. The real problem--and on this I disagree with Moore--is that organized labor had not gone through the evolution that it has gone through recently and was largely unapproachable. Some union leaders were in favor of contra funding or support to Duarte, while others functioned as Democrats, which is to say that they were ineffectual. One of the things to look forward to in the event of an upturn in the colonial struggle is the transforming labor movement and the Internet itself. I would have no qualms this time about going directly to the UAW and telling it to put its body on the line. I would also expect the Internet to be a powerful rallying tool. When TecNica was first getting started, we had nothing but Peacenet to make connections with. Louis Proyect
self-promotion
Sorry for the self-promotion, but folks in the NYC area can see me yakking at Labyrinth Books, 112th St between Broadway & Amsterdam, tonight (Thursday) at 7 PM.
Naderite groups and fast track
Speaking on behalf of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, the main "Naderite" group working on this issue, of course we have been hammering on how FTAs threaten the environment. In recent weeks our efforts were targetted to the Hill for obvious reasons, and we did focus on "deals" that Clinton made in '93 for NAFTA votes and how many of those deals were broken, again for obvious reasons. We wanted to win. That's where the votes were. (We issued two reports on this subject: Deals for NAFTA Votes: Trick, No Treat and Deals for NAFTA Votes II: Bait and Switch.) But not all the "deals" were pork projects. Some had to do with protecting workers' rights and environmental cleanup. Documenting the failure of these "deals," along with sustained grassroots pressure, was decisive in turning some key votes (e.g. Nancy Pelosi, who was promised in '93 that the Administration would use trade sanctions to enforce workers' rights in Mexico). A similar broken promise that we documented was the one that Mexican (minimum) wages would rise with productivity. Also, on the enviro side in addition to documenting the failure of NADBank and the undermining of food safety, [topic also of a report last month: "Fast Track to Unsafe Food"] we hammered on the Ethyl and Metalclad cases as evidence for how NAFTA and similar FTAs (e.g. WTO) undermine environmental regulation (as predicted). Robert Naiman Public Citizen -- Global Trade Watch
Chile's UNDERFUNDED Social Security System
Folks, The former chief actuay of our Social Security Administration, Robert Myers points out in the latest issue of "Contingencies" (an actuarial trade publication) that Chile's SS system is in deep actuarial do-do: Their vaunted "Personal Savings Account System" supposedly avoids unfunded liabilities because a worker only gets a return only on what they contribute. However, the system is way underfunded because of 1) it grants prior-service credits (i.e. credit before there was a private ss system), and 2) grants a mi nimum pension guarantee of 85% of the legal minimum wage for those under 70 and a 90% benefit for those over. Privatized, yeah once they realize that this program represents a "mammoth unfunded liability," they'll really need to privatize!! Bottom line: While Pinochet's Chicago boys "won the war", the old dictator had to throw a healthy dose of collectivized $'s to make it "work." Jason
Teaching Finance Courses
Folks, Any Pen-L's teaching Managerial Finance out there? I have a slim chance for a tenured-track teaching finance at a small b-school (731 letters and 4 years, holy cow! my first (and only?) interview!! Is there a "progressive" text out there (besides Doug's "Wall Street" - which will only be required reading for Harvard MBA's)? Should I keep my day job as an econometrics hack or go teach finance if I make the cut? All advice is appreciated. Jason
Re: Alex Cockburn vs. Michael Moore
First off, as someone who DID read Moore's original piece, he very clearly stated that BOTH opposition to corporate power and the Contras were important. (In the sentence immediately follwing the two htat have been quoted above.) I thought his article was provocative in a good way, perhaps over the top in a few places, but all the more readable and thought provoking for it. Aside from the immediacy of the threat (war vs lay-offs) argument, it seems to me the reasons that one form of struggle feels more do-able than the other gets to the heart of life in a capitalist democracy: we really do have more power over the foreign policy of our government than we do over the profit strategies of big corporations. In addition the ruling powers have much more at stake in the later than the former, so the resources brought to bear are greater. If radical, organized labor is indeed on the upswing, then perhaps the balance of power is shifting somewhat. Another interesting point: I'd argue that the Nicaragua solidarity movement was as effective as it was precisely because it employed the kind of tactics that Moore advocates. They sent ordinary folks down to the front lines and into the communities under seige, than had these folks come back and give talks at their house of worship, the local school or library, in their living rooms. This was what worked much more than abstract speaches about imperialism or isolated demonstrations of the already convinced. Randy Divinski, Dollars & Sense magazine
Re: FastTrack - LatAm view
Doug, If it's not too late: Wil Milberg or Lance Taylor jason
re: dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
Max writes: >When did I ever use or impute 'conspiracy theory'? My accusation was of a theory of monolithic, utterly inflexible rule. In other words, no scope for democratic opposition.< I don't know what a "theory of monolithic, utterly inflexible rule" could be unless it's a conspiracy theory, where a unified elite is almost omnipotent in charting the nation's historical course. You seemed to be saying that any defeat of the current policy tack of Clingrichism -- e.g., the downing of fast track -- was a victory of, by, and for the good guys against the "monolithic, utterly inflexible rule" of capital. But it could just as well be seen as a victory of, for, and by the protectionist wing of capital. Remember that free trade was actively opposed by the GOP from before the Civil War all the way into the 1950s. In reality, politics within the capitalist class involves competing elites (e.g., free-traders vs. protectionists), each with monetary resources and mass followings to one degree or another. Some of these capitalist elites actually are in favor of high wages and environmental sanity, hoping to preserve the system. Of course, the latter aren't very influential these days. What we need is counter-elites, organized to fight the current system by mobilizing their mass followings. To an (inadequate) extent, the AFL-CIO is acting more along these lines than it did 10 years ago. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "The only trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too damned greedy." -- Herbert Hoover
Workers, Moore and Nicaragua
John Gulick: >Here in S.F. where I live, young white men who _look_ like Michael Moore's >stereotyped depicitions of the working class (bowling shirts, tattoos, into >car repair, etc.) are rarely themselves from a working-class background, hold >working-class jobs, or have any sense of working-class identity. This is a very interesting thread. Part of the problem with the left is that it retains a vision of Marxism from the 1930s when many of these stereotypes had some basis in reality. One of the reasons that Moore is so much a fountainhead of this imagery is that he is so strongly shaped by Flint, Michigan, the quintessential 1930s city. Working class consciousness has been evolving as the mode of production has been evolving. For an excellent insight into changing values and attitudes--as well as a history of the TDU--, check Dan LaBotz's "Rank and File Rebellion". I can't say enough good things about it. In it we learn that Pete Camerata liked working with the Catholic Church in Detroit where he went to school and began college. The Church he attended eventually had a majority black congregation, but he stuck with it. He got a job on a loading dock when a fraternity brother told him about the opening. As a Catholic in a mostly black congregation, Camerata began thinking about the issues of poverty. By 1975, he considered himself a Christian socialist. The book is filled with portraits of people like this. One final word on Michael Moore. Just after he got canned from Mother Jones for refusing to print one of Paul Berman's awful pro-contra pieces, I got in touch with him in DC to debate Berman up in NY. He said sure, he'd be happy to. Meanwhile, I got talked into asking this "expert" professor from Middlebury named John Weeks who always appeared in NACLA. On the night of the debate, which occurred right after Chamorro's victory, Weeks got up and told the audience that the Sandinistas were no different from the ruling party in Mexico. I nearly fell out of my chair. So much for experts. It turned out that Weeks had gotten very sour on the FSLN and neglected to inform me of this when he accepted the invite. Louis Proyect
Re: help - on livable wage campaigns
For the third time (I've lost this twice!) so I'm going to be very brief: Local minimum wage data shows a net wash (see Krugger and Scmidt EPI report). living wage bills are targeted to place bound large employers over which city has much leverage with non-profit pass alongs. This is excellent emplyment enhancing econ deve subsidy which will go to people most in need as opposed to top down subsidies trikel down which politicians like as they can support their contributors. IN short demand side multiplier effects outweigh the supply side job suppression effects. I have text of my testimony to Chicago City Council on this if your interested. At URPE sumer conference Bob (polin) said that his most convincing argument in LA was that local profitable and successful employers paid the liveing wage. Best (so late its usless)!, ROn ** Ron Baiman Dept. of Economics Roosevelt UniversityFax: 312-341-3680 430 South Michigan Ave Chicago, Illinois 60605 Voice: 312-341-3694 ** On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, DOUG ORR wrote: > I have just been drafted to participate in a panel discussing the merits of > implementing a "livable wage" in Spokane. The opposition includes a business > owner (not sure which industry) and the president of the local Chamber of > Commerce. > > I feel preety secure going in, but I would like to hear from people who > may have participated in these debates (Bob Pollin are you there?). What > are the arguments from the other side that I should be ready for? What are > the most effective arguments in favor. > > Any help I can get before Wed. at noon would be very useful. > > Thanks, > Doug Orr > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Pink Slips
I just found the answer to my question about more layoffs: Ax and Ye Shall Receive? Companies Are Aiming for Growth in New Round of Layoffs By Tim Smart Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, November 13, 1997; Page E01 The Washington Post For 24 hours this week, it looked like the early 1990s again as Corporate America brandished pink slips with abandon. Eastman Kodak Co. set the pace, with its announcement Tuesday of 10,000 layoffs as part of the photographic film giant's broad restructuring. Underwear maker Fruit of the Loom Inc. was not far behind, giving 2,900 workers the ax. Electronic components company Kemet Corp. showed the door to another 1,000 while New York fashion house Donna Karan International Inc. sliced its payroll by 15 percent, or 285 employees. Then came news that General Motors Corp. would take a huge charge, between $2 billion and $3 billion, for restructuring its operations and closing an unspecified number of manufacturing plants. It would be GM's biggest charge against earnings since 1990, when the automaker took a $2.1 billion hit. Though GM did not specify how many U.S. jobs would be lost, analysts expect a large number. American workers, noting the record profits that companies have been posting the past few years and, until recently, the ever-upward rise in their stock prices, might wonder why downsizing is back in the headlines after an apparent hiatus. That's especially true given that the nation's unemployment rate stands at 4.7 percent, the lowest it has been in almost a quarter century. Analysts and consultants who advise companies on strategic issues said the latest restructurings, painful as they are from the viewpoint of the unemployed worker, are different from the era of massive downsizing that characterized the turn of the decade. "This is a new restructuring wave," said Gary Neilson, a senior vice president at Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc., a Bethesda-based consulting firm. And even though the individual numbers seem huge, they still pale in comparison with some of the bloodletting of 1993, the worst year for layoffs. International Business Machines Corp., for instance, laid off 60,000 people that year; Sears, Roebuck and Co., 50,000; and Xerox Corp., 10,000. Then, some of the companies were in dire financial shape, losing market share and even in danger of being also-rans in their business. Today, the restructurings reflect different business conditions. In GM's case, the automaker probably will record a one-time gain of almost $4 billion on the sale of its defense arm of Hughes Electronics Corp. to Raytheon Co. The expected restructuring charges could be offset, in part, by the gain. "They almost went broke the last recession," said David Healy, an analyst with Burnham Securities, a New York investment bank and brokerage. "They'd like to be sitting on a cash hoard when the next downturn comes." But even GM has been doing well, with a profit of $4.5 billion through the first nine months of the year and cash on hand of $15 billion. "They're behind their competition in North America," Healy said. "They have too much capacity to build passenger cars and not enough to build trucks." Similarly, General Electric Co. is enjoying record profits that have it on track to earn $8 billion this year. Yet, in the past week, it announced a deal under which it is selling back its stake in Lockheed Martin Corp. of Bethesda for certain Lockheed assets and a $1.5 billion payment. GE said it expects to record a $1 billion net gain on the deal, which it will use to restructure some of its industrial businesses. Booz-Allen's Neilson, a veteran observer of corporate makeovers, said today's downsizings are more strategic in nature than those in the past. "The restructuring we see in this wave is a lot more repositioning for growth rather than retrenchment," he said. "It's a lot more `Let's get our act together and focus on who we are going to be,' " Neilson said. "In the early '90s and late '80s there was more downsizing for survival." Still, Tuesday's carnage was the worst one-day round of layoffs since November 1996, according to Challenger, Gray and Christmas Inc. in Chicago, an outplacement firm. "They've been surging since July," John Challenger, executive vice president of Challenger, Gray, said of the cutbacks. "I think there is a real potential this is another wave." Driving companies to continue their cost-cutting, according to First Union Corp. economist Mark Vitner, is an economic environment in which businesses have been unable to get price increases for their products. "We have seen absolutely no inflation in the price of goods," Vitner said. To make the same amount of money or more -- as many firms hope given the continuing pressure for earnings growth from Wall Street -- companies must continually prune their overhead, usually people, often one of a company's highest costs. "There's been very high rates of job loss and displacement that actually grew in
Re: moore vs. cockburn -Reply
Didn't Cockburn defend Moore in the pages of The Nation after he was axed as editor of Mother Jones because Moore refused to publish an analysis critical of the Sadinistas? What was the spat between Adam Hochschild and Michael Moore all about? Didn't Cockburn defend Moore? I think I remember something like this. At any rate, there was another good essay by Katha Pollitt in a recent *Nation* about the degeneration of left journalism--Mother Jones was featured. So while Cockburn now turns on the editor he once defended, Pollitt goes after the offending journal. Gotta love those *Nation* regular columnists. Rakesh
Working-class kitsch
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, John Gulick wrote, in part: > Here in S.F. where I live, young white men who _look_ like Michael Moore's > stereotyped depictions of the working class (bowling shirts, tattoos, into > car repair, etc.) are rarely themselves from a working-class background, hold > working-class jobs, or have any sense of working-class identity. More likely, > they derive from a middle-class background and already are members of or > are heading toward the technical-professional salariat, and are merely > "slumming" and riding the latest sardonic and demeaning capitalist culture > industry trend, "working-class kitsch," which itself derives from a > stereotyped depiction of "Joe Six-Pack." This sort of trip is, of course, not unique to San Francisco, but one can bet that it's more of a blatant hothouse plant there than in, say, Pittsburgh. Do we take this phenomenon at its surface repulsiveness, as just one more odious turd afloat in this flooded toilet of a society, or can it count as an item worth some serious analysis? In early 1937 Orwell thought that the bourgeoisie had quit Barcelona en masse, but upon returning 3 months later he realized that it had simply been hiding out in blue overalls (and that the revolution was over!). valis
Re: Alex Cockburn vs. Michael Moore
Behind the controversy between Michael Moore and Alex Cockburn, I believe is what might be termed a class division within the so-called left. On the one hand, there are the more academic and intellectual left,to which I think both Moore and Cockburn in their own way belong and then the blue-collared left, who are generally not as educated and articulate as the academics. Working from a fairly comfortable material position, the academic left often see solidarity with international causes as a higher priority and give most of their energy in that direction. Since they do not experience the insecurity of the job market that blue-collar workers, workers struggles and their interests are much lower on the scale of importance for them. Rightly, I think they are often dismissed as bourgeois arm-chair intellectuals by the workers. In that I concur with Michael Moore. Workers, however, whose lives and income is so precarious very often do not have the time or energy to get concerned about East Timor or Nicaragua or Haiti etc. This is understandable. I might add in this context that many activists in the Afro-American community also tend to see both sectors of the white left as irrelevant since they show little concern with the type of oppression that they have to cope with every day namely racial oppression. This controversy is good in the sense that it provides an opportunity to discuss some of the fundamental weaknesses in the left. It is not a question of what should be on the agenda of the left, local or international but of the recognition that the intellectual academic left have such a preponderance in defining the agenda which reflects their interests and not necessarily the interests of blue-collar workers, women and racial minority groups. Michael Drohan
Legal Victory for Free Radio Berkeley (source unclear)
> I don't know what whiff of far-off blood it is that some judges have been catching lately, but I might take a guess. valis ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FREE RADIO BERKELEY & MICROPOWER BROADCASTING At 7 PM on Wednesday, November 12 attorneys for Stephen Dunifer & Free Radio Berkeley received a 14 page decision via fax from Federal District Court Judge Claudia Wilken announcing her ruling in favor of Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Her ruling denies the FCC's motion for summary judgement for a permanent injunction, states that she has jurisdiction in this case and that the FCC's regulatory structure is unconstitutional. Further, she orders the FCC to submit within 14 days a brief on the constitutional issues raised. Essentially Judge Claudia Wilken affirms all the merits and arguments raised by the defense attorneys for Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Stay tuned for further details. The full text of the decision will be posted ASAP. A victory party will take place on Saturday evening, November 15 in Berkeley. Place to be announced as soon as one is secured. Everyone is invited. Stephen Dunifer Free Radio Berkeley
Re: ripening contradictions?
Pen-L'ers, On the topic of Michael Moore's conceptions and representations of the U.S. working class, Michael Eisenscher says, >Michael Moore frequently makes great sense, but his view of the "working >class" is about as stereotyped as that of many off-the-wall leftists. To >listen to him, you'd think that the only real workers are "Joe 6-packs" who >hang out at bowling allies, stock car races, monster tractor meets, and >neighborhood bars. News Flash: this is not 1952 and the working class and >the world are just a tad more complex than his oversimplified images, >however entertaining they may be. While Mike is rubbing pot bellies with >the good ol' boys at the tavern, there are a lot of working folks whose >lives and interests are far more textured and interestings that he suggests, >and they are not all white guys into arm-wrestling and beer guzzling. Here in S.F. where I live, young white men who _look_ like Michael Moore's stereotyped depicitions of the working class (bowling shirts, tattoos, into car repair, etc.) are rarely themselves from a working-class background, hold working-class jobs, or have any sense of working-class identity. More likely, they derive from a middle-class background and already are members of or are heading toward the technical-professional salariat, and are merely "slumming" and riding the latest sardonic and demeaning capitalist culture industry trend, "working-class kitsch," which itself derives from a stereotyped depiction of "Joe Six-Pack." (Meanwhile these same folks who affect stereotyped "white working class" styles of dress, mannerism, consumption tastes, etc., are pawns in the gentrification of real working-class Latino and black neighborhoods). In these so-called "post-modern" times, the capitalist culture industry has become so all-encompassing, savvy, and complex, one risks wild inaccuracies if one deigns to connect a person's habits and consumption preferences, and that person's "objective" class location. Corner taverns formerly favored by working-class old timers are colonized by gentrifying hipsters who find the gritty working-class milieux so "authentic," yet don't know and don't care (and make even crack jokes) about its former denizens. Meanwhile working-class folks flock to the chain family restaurants and big box stores in the middle-class suburbs, the very places that the hip twentysomething young adults who latch onto "working class kitsch" are trying to escape. And so on. John Gulick Ph. D. Candidate Sociology Graduate Program University of California-Santa Cruz (415) 643-8568 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Teaching Finance Courses
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Any Pen-L's teaching Managerial Finance out there? I have a slim chance for > a tenured-track teaching finance at a small b-school (731 letters and 4 > years, holy cow! my first (and only?) interview!! Is there a "progressive" > text out there (besides Doug's "Wall Street" - which will only be required > reading for Harvard MBA's)? I can't imagine why there would be, but if there is Edward Herman should know. > Should I keep my day job as an econometrics hack or go teach finance if I > make the cut? Teach finance and use your extra earnings to buy EPI literature. 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: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
> Subject: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie > Scholars such as Hal Draper have shown pretty convincingly that for Marx, > if not for Max, the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is synonymous > with "proletarian democracy." . . . This was edifying, but I would say that for Lenin and much of today's left, including really-existing socialist governments, dictatorship of the proletariat means a highly concentrated party leadership doing whatever it damn pleases for the sake of whatever it decides is right, and often making a bloody mess of things in the process. > That democracy is aimed mostly at allowing the capitalists to come to > agreements amongst themselves, though outside-the-beltway pressure from the > proletariat can win reforms that don't quite fit with what the capitalists > want. (It's been awhile since that's happened in the US.) > > Also, we should remember C. Wright Mills' distinction between the ruling > class (the economic class that dominates society as a whole) and the power > elite (the small group of people who make the political decisions). Even > though the logic of profit-seeking and accumulation dominate US society, > the very rich (the elite group of capitalists) may only be a minority of > the power elite. Military types, professional politicians, and bureaucrats > play a role. In some cases, e.g., Nazi Germany, the very rich end up being > shunted from the power elite even though they still dominate the economy > and have a massive influence on the operations of the government. Either way, the Fast Track vote suggests more flexibility and scope for politics than seems to be reflected in the remarks of many people, not necessarily including yourself all the time. > The Nazi dictatorship (now using the word "dictatorship" in the 20th > century way), BTW, shows that even a _total despotism_ isn't monolithic. > Hitler had to compromise with a bunch of different political forces (the > SS, the Wehrmacht, capitalists, etc.) It wasn't monolithic. Sure. > Max writes >we ... have to consider the possibility that Democratic members > of Congress, with no manifest popular agitation, can still do the right > thing sometimes, because they represent their constituents' interests to > some extent, so there is some scope for parliamentary politics.< > > They represent their constituents to some extent -- constrained by the > nature of capitalist politics, the rule by campaign contributions, PACs, > etc., along with the entire way that the state is structured (including the > exclusion of many key issues, like monetary policy, from democratic > purview). As I said, further, some of these constituents are protectionist > small and medium-size businesses. Non-business plays a role, as no-one has > denied, since labor and other excluded groups have been able to win some > democratic rights. > > BTW, I am not one to get into moralistic dismissal of the Congressional > Representatives. The point is simply this: Ron Dellums (e.g.) isn't a > relatively good Congressman because he's Ron Dellums. He's relatively good > because of his district, a very active and politically-conscious left-wing > district (or at least it was last time I checked). It's the long-term > agitation in that district that created a "good" district. Good, but the feasibility of a 'good' district with 'good' reps hinges on the state of democracy at both ends, so to speak -- where the good reps are elected, and where they get a chance to do some good things. > >To say that sometimes the ruling class is divided (something of a > contradiction in terms, what?) and sometimes it isn't looks like another > out. < > > It's not an "out." You are asking people to adhere to a political theory > that they don't accept. You want people to see that they're _really_ > adhering to a conspiracy theory, so that once we see that, we'll accept > _your_ (superior) theory. But most Marxism is very skeptical of conspiracy > theories. (Not that conspiracies never happen: it's just that we can't > explain the broad sweep of history with them, especially since conspiracies > aren't omnipotent and compete with each other.) When did I ever use or impute 'conspiracy theory'? My accusation was of a theory of monolithic, utterly inflexible rule. In other words, no scope for democratic opposition. > >But then it isn't really a dictatorship, and politics need not be confined > to extra- parliamentary venues.< > > Under capitalism, intra-parliamentary venues are dominated by money. I'm > not against the kind of polite lobbying and education work that EPI does. FYI we hardly ever lobby, and much of our education is aimed at the masses, albeit through the medium of mass organizations. > Not at all (if I had some money, maybe I'd give some to EPI). But the > influence that EPI has exists not because its accurate statistics but > because of what remains of the power of labor unions. That is, it arises > from extra-parl
AP: Debate on European-wide Jobs Program- Germany
November 13, 1997 Kohl Nixes European Jobs Program By The Associated Press BONN, Germany (AP) -- Chancellor Helmut Kohl on Thursday rejected any Europe-wide program to create jobs, saying governments cannot solve the unemployment problem by throwing money at it. At the European Union jobs summit next week, France's Socialist government, in particular, is expected to push for new EU funding to cut unemployment. But Kohl said governments would better help the region's 18 million jobless by restraining spending, easing regulations for business and aiding startup firms involved in new technologies. ``We should not promote the illusion that we can sustainably create new jobs with state funding for short-term employment programs,'' he said in a speech to parliament. ``The way to more jobs lies mainly in structural reform.'' Kohl refused to commit to firm targets for reducing unemployment at the Nov. 20-21 jobs summit. He said fighting unemployment was above all a national task. ``It is obvious that there is no patented recipe for the entire EU,'' Kohl said. Still, he said, the summit should agree on ``realistic goals.'' He cited stable fiscal policies and wage restraint. The European Commission has proposed setting a target to cut EU unemployment to 7 percent in five years, calling for lower labor costs and promoting a pro-business climate. Germany's unemployment rate stands at 11.2 percent; France's is 12.5 percent. EU statisticians say they don't expect much change next year, despite a revival of economic growth on the continent. Socialist Premier Lionel Jospin, in power since June, is seeking to cut France's work week to 35 hours from 39 to spread jobs around. He also wants to create 700,000 jobs in the public and private sector. Kohl's ruling conservative coalition has taken a more free-market approach. But he has acknowledged that he probably won't reach his goal of slashing German unemployment by half by 2000. Opposition politicians in Thursday's parliamentary debate charged Kohl was holding up progress on jobs. The Social Democrats said the EU conference should go beyond rhetoric and agree on job creation goals. ``We must put people's worries on the political agenda,'' the party's parliamentary leader Rudolf Scharping said during Thursday's debate in the lower house.
re: Mike
Doug writes: >This was the substance of Cockburn's critique. Moore essentially takes the mainstream caricature of w.c. life - a bunch of subliterates who belch and fart in front of the TV - as accurate. In that, he seems to have in common with our old friend Bob Malecki. The guy is immensely talented, but as Cockburn also says, he takes a patronizing, Lettermanesque view of much of humanity.< To some extent, Moore's Lettermanesque view of the working class reflects the class that he came from (Flint, etc.) To some extent, I think, it represents a deliberate overstatement on Moore's part (something Cockburn should appreciate, since he does it too, in different ways): he's pushing white middle-class liberals and leftists (who, generally speaking, are the ones who read the NATION) to care about connecting with and supporting not only racial minorities (and gays, battered women, etc.) but also the "ethnics" and "rednecks" in the working class. He's trying to shake the libs and lefts out of their complacency and group self-isolation. It's cartoonish, but cartoons are what pundits are made of. MM has been pretty successful at his fun kind of punditry. TV NATION, which was amazingly successful at drawing in large numbers of belchers and farters. (It's one of the few truly left-wing TV shows in the history of TV.) His book DOWNSIZE THIS! is in the same vein -- and seems to sell very well. (I recently got to read it, since it's finally out in paperback.) It says something about the power of a good sense of humor. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
Re: getting kicked of pen-l
Mike, I think this has happened 3 times since I began with Pen-l in 19992(?) jason
US official on Japan: "There's a potential here for anenormous train wreck"
November 13, 1997 In Letter, Rubin Warns Japan It Must Bolster Limp Economy By DAVID E. SANGER WASHINGTON -- In another sign of U.S. concern about an escalation of the financial crisis in Asia, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin wrote a private letter to his Japanese counterpart late last week warning that the health of Japan's banking system was deeply imperiled and urging strong action to spur the Japanese economy. Details of the letter have leaked out in both Japan and the United States in recent days, though the Treasury Department, citing the traditional confidentiality of correspondence between finance ministers, has declined to release the text. Reports about the letter's content appear to reflect the Clinton administration's fears that the choking off of Japan's long-delayed economic recovery, worsened by a sharp fall in the Japanese stock market, could set off a crisis like the one that moved from the markets of Southeast Asia to those of New York and Latin America in the last month. In Tokyo, the Nikkei stock average fell more than 2.5 percent Wednesday to a two-and-a-half-year low. Rubin's letter, as described by people who have seen its content, apparently does not directly refer to the weakening Japanese yen, which Wednesday fell to 126 yen to the dollar, a six-month low. But Rubin repeated his warning that Japanese officials should not be tempted to export their way out of their troubles -- a move that would greatly increase the U.S. trade deficit. A weaker yen makes Japanese goods more affordable overseas. While Rubin's letter was directed at Japan, it is increasingly clear that the administration's immediate worry these days centers on what Japan might do in response to a potential financial collapse of South Korea. The South Korean currency has plummeted in recent weeks, corporate bankruptcies are spreading, and its banks are teetering under the weight of bad loans that many experts think vastly exceed the banks' corporate equity. In recent days, officials in Washington and Tokyo have made little secret of their concern that a free fall in the South Korean currency could put pressure on Japan to let the yen fall as well. South Korea is one of Japan's fiercest regional competitors, and U.S. officials worry that Japanese industry may urge the government to make sure that Korea's devaluation does not undermine Japanese businesses by making Japanese exports less competitive than Korean ones. "There's a potential here for an enormous train wreck," one senior administration official said last week. "It's not clear, however, that there is much we could do to prevent it." The immediate result, U.S. officials think, could be a huge rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Asia next year. One leading trade economist, David Hale of the Zurich Insurance Group, estimated recently that U.S. trade deficit with the world could expand to $250 billion to $300 billion by early 1999, up from $192 billion last year. But the trade imbalance could rank among the least of the problems. Japanese banks, securities houses and insurance firms have struggled for several years because of the implosion of the Japanese real estate market and the fall of the stock market. They are particularly vulnerable now because they are also exposed to enormous losses in Southeast Asia. A collapse in South Korea could lead to a new round of trouble across the Sea of Japan. Japan and the United States could also come under great pressure to engineer a South Korean aid package, though the South Korean finance ministry, in a long and defensive statement issued nesday, insisted that it would need no outside help. Economists in the United States and Europe are clearly unconvinced. "The U.S. will probably have to play a dominant role in a Korean aid package because it is difficult to imagine government in either Seoul or Tokyo accepting one which placed a major responsibility on Japan," Hale wrote recently. But that could prove politically impossible in Washington, where Congress balked two years ago at approving a bailout of Mexico. South Korea's status as a key U.S. military ally in Asia might not be enough to sway those in Congress who think the United States should not put money at risk rescuing foreign countries, even if the real purpose is to stabilize the world economy. Letters between Rubin and Hiroshi Mitsuzuka, his Japanese counterpart, are not unusual, but this one comes at an extraordinarily sensitive time. It is unclear why Japanese officials first leaked some of the content of the letter to Mitsuzuka, a longtime Liberal Democratic Party politician who several years ago served as Japan's trade minister. They could have been paving the way for the release of a Japanese fiscal stimulus package Friday. But it is also possible that Japanese officials are seeking to establish that the country is facing pressure from abroad to take more drastic, politically unpopular steps to rescue its financial sector, inc
Re: Alex Cockburn vs. Michael Moore
A couple of notes on "Nicaragua vs. Detroit". I spent 1985-90 in Nicaragua, often in war zones, saw a lot of the stuff mentioned in some of the missives. I also read the Moore article in the Nation (seems I get it here before the west coast of the US). I found the article wonderful, very much to the point. Lots of us did mountains of solidarity work in the 1980s. Mostly the arguments we took to people were moral ones: this is wrong, it must stop. (Interestingly, a close Nicaraguan friend once told me: "You know why they do all this shit to us [referring to the US war]? Because of a *moral* position we [FSLN] have staked out.") Often, those arguments didn't have the impact they might have precisely because, as Moore puts it, we weren't talking to people or involved in their lives in any way other than "moralizing" about Central America. Often Central America activists had absolutely no idea what was going on the US (the "Great U Turn", etc.). All true. With some VERY important exceptions, of course. For example the Labor Committee on Central America, some of TecNica's labor delegations, community based material aid through the Quijote Center, etc. In the examples cited there was, sometimes, more than "single issue" politics going on; "connections" were being made; people were being listened to/worked with. The point was made earlier: through those kinds of "connections" people take good positions all around. More committed to progressive movements in the US --> more enraged by US wars in Central America; and vice versa. As fodder for debate, erecting hierarchies of need are nifty (first stop the rape, then attend to the fired friend). Life, however, is seldom so neat; choices seldom so tidy. Posing them that way also positions us as omniscient intervenors, as if today we could jet to Chiapas, tomorrow to the neighborhood to attend to various injustices. Usually, though, we just have to do the best with what and who is before us. And in working with my students, for example, I find the best I can do is get them to just consider some problem that touches them (or is of interest) and DO SOMETHING, anything. The notion of actually participating in a collective action of some sort is so remote from their experience it is amazing. Often they have not even engaged what, at root, they might hope for in the world, much less how to act on it. In _Animal Dreams_, a book dedicated to the memory of Benjamin Linder, Novelist/poet Barbara Kingsolver put it this way, in the words of Hallie, her protagonist off to Nicaragua to defend the revolution: "The very least you can do in your life is figure out what you hope for. And the most you can do is live inside that hope. Not admire it from a distance, but live right in it, under its roof. What I want is so simple I almost can't say it: elementary kindness. Enough to eat, enough to go around. The possibility that kids might one day grow up to be neither the destroyers or the destroyed. That's about it. Right now I'm living in that hope, running down its hallways and touching the walls on both sides." Tom - Tom Kruse / Casilla 5869 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (011-591-42) 48242 (h) 22669 (w) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
moore vs. cockburn -Reply
This line of discussion may be ending/over, but I'll toss in my two cents anyway. Perelman wrote >>> Moore was wrong, I agree, to set Flint vs. Nicaragua as an either or situation. <<< I'm not so sure that Moore is saying that Flint and Nicaragua are an either or situation. (I haven't read the piece in the Nation. I let my sub expire after getting a solicitation letter from them suggesting that if I was mad as hell at the right and the left, then I should go wth the independent voice of the Nation.) My perceptions come from a talk Moore gave after unveiling his new film in Portland, OR a few weeks back. Immediately after poking fun at non-spanish speaking lefties who pronounce Nicaragu or Cuba with a thick "spanish" accent, he admits/claims that he too supported the Sandinistas and travelled to Nicaragau. He also say's the he has supported work against the blockade and was active against the war in Vietnam. To attack US imperialism and fight for working people in this country is entirely consistent. However... some strategies followed in supporting the Sandinistas can undermine alliances with workers in this country (as Newall pointed out). Also, as Lear has pointed out, some factions on the side of workers in this country have promoted the destruction of democracy abroad. Given this, I don't think the answer is to abandon either issues, and I don't think that is what Moore is promoting. The answer is to fight for both issues in a mutually supportive way. Supporting the Sandinistas in ways the tell working people in this country that the left is against America are less than optimal. Also, it is quite possible to fight conservative elements in the labor hierarchy and be strongly supportive of working people. The problem is that there is a whole nest of perceptions and often elitism that can get wrapped up with support of many issues that can drive a wedge self-identified leftist and workers/the general population. If the left is or is perceived by the general public to be academic elitist snobs that are out of touch with ordinary people, then all issues that are important to us will suffer. Moore is one of many who is working over-time to help the left communicate with people outside the walls of the university. Both Hightower and Moore are populists whose message and style can excite and convince people to struggle for workers in this country and across the globe. Their example should be followed. I agree with other people on this list who have written about the importance of speaking in a language that will resonate and be understood by ordinary people. Factionalization and endless bickering over value theory (regardless of whether or not you are a Marxist) is not the way to go.
Mike
Michael Eisenscher wrote: >While Mike is rubbing pot bellies with >the good ol' boys at the tavern While Mike (Moore, not Eisencher) certainly has the belly for the job, there aren't any such taverns in the neighborhood he lives in, which is also mine. Except that I live in a tiny rent-stabilized apartment, and Mike lives in a $1 million co-op. >there are a lot of working folks whose >lives and interests are far more textured and interestings that he suggests This was the substance of Cockburn's critique. Moore essentially takes the mainstream caricature of w.c. life - a bunch of subliterates who belch and fart in front of the TV - as accurate. In that, he seems to have in common with our old friend Bob Malecki. The guy is immensely talented, but as Cockburn also says, he takes a patronizing, Lettermanesque view of much of humanity. I think it's unfortunate that Alex launched this attack in a right-wing paper like the New York Press, though (a paper which, it must be admitted, is a lot more fun to read than the increasingly dreadful Village Voice). Doug
Vigorously Oppose The U.S. Imperialist Gangster Logic Against Iraq
U.S. imperialist Defence Secretary William Cohen declared on Tuesday that the United States wouldn't need United Nations authorization to launch a military strike against Iraq. He said there is already sufficient authority "to justify an attack." TML Daily vigorously opposes this U.S. imperialist gangster logic to justify an attack against Iraq. It also denounces the other big powers in the U.N. Security Council and Canada for going along with this imperialist gangster logic. On the occasion of the U.S.'s cruise missile attacks against civilian targets in September 1996, U.S. imperialist chieftain Bill Clinton declared that "Our objectives are limited but clear: to make Saddam pay a price for the latest act of brutality, reducing his ability to threaten his neighbours and America's interests." Now once again the same language is being used, along with the same kind of media manipulation of the facts as used in the past - all to justify the unjustifiable. What the people of Canada and the world must clearly reckon with is that this gangster logic is not so much aimed against the government of Iraq but against all the peoples and governments of the world, threatening them that U.S. imperialism will make them "pay a price" if they should ever threaten "America's interests." By continuing to violate Iraq's sovereignty with U2 spy planes and F-16 fighters, all in the name of United Nations and sanctions, the foreign policy of U.S. imperialism is exposed as thoroughly bankrupt. It cannot garner the support of various of its major llies, either in the "West" or the Arab League for its policy of using force against Iraq, but nonetheless it is threatening to impose its supremacy based on the criminal logic that "Might Makes Right." This shows that the U.S. wants to lay down the law for the entire world and enforce it through armed aggression. TML Daily demands that the Chretien Liberals dissociate Canada from this imperialist logic. Canadian Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy has reiterated Canada's demand that Iraq comply with U.N. sanctions and refused to listen to the direct appeal of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that attention be paid to Iraqi concerns about the spying role of U.S. inspectors operating under the cover of UNSCOM. TML Daily reiterates the well-known position of CPC(M-L) that all members of the United Nations, big or small, have the right to have their say in laying down the law in international affairs; no single country nor group of nations has any right to usurp the right of the U.N. General Assembly to lay down the law and no single country nor group of nations has any right to interpret and enforce international law in any way it so desires. The peoples of the world can never accept the dictate of the U.S. imperialists according to which they have the right to do whatever they want with Iraq. We call on all peace and justice-loving Canadians to oppose the criminal gangster logic against Iraq and vigorously support its sovereignty. TML DAILY, 11/97 Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ripening contradictions?
Michael Moore frequently makes great sense, but his view of the "working class" is about as stereotyped as that of many off-the-wall leftists. To listen to him, you'd think that the only real workers are "Joe 6-packs" who hang out at bowling allies, stock car races, monster tractor meets, and neighborhood bars. News Flash: this is not 1952 and the working class and the world are just a tad more complex than his oversimplified images, however entertaining they may be. While Mike is rubbing pot bellies with the good ol' boys at the tavern, there are a lot of working folks whose lives and interests are far more textured and interestings that he suggests, and they are not all white guys into arm-wrestling and beer guzzling. And they don't all come from Flint, any more than from Berkeley or Cambridge. Michael (who grew up in good ol' working class Milwaukee, which at the time had more bars per capita than any other city in the country)
Re: "Four Days in September"
First, I want to make it clear that I generally enjoyed "Four Days in September". [I will say I have also recently seen 2 other better South American "political" movies (the amazing low-budget allegory "Moebius" from Argentina and "The Shipwrecked" from Chile) but this is not a film review group]. I also think that nearly all the people that I know on this list would like the movie "Four Days in September" (if nothing but to find fault in it). How many movies have revolutionary Marxist terrorist's as protagonists these days? I thought Louis made a number of interesting observation's about the movie and it deserved some of his criticism. However, he was unnecessarily harsh. >Director Bruno Barreto, best known for his "Dona Flor and Her Two >Husbands," simply decided to dump the politics to make the film palatable. >"I did not make a film about politics but about human beings. I did not >make a film about ideas, but about the fears, desires and tensions involved >in a specific episode. Besides, no one would be able to stand to listen to >the actual way the terrorists spoke at the time." Barreto sums up his movie and his approach quite well and I think this is the strength of the movie. I was quite moved by the attempt to portray the "humanness" of all the parties involved (revolutionaries, secret police, ambassador). It certainly could be argued that this attempt was a bit stiff at times but to see the American ambassador as a human being (as well as a representative of the imperialist bourgeois pigs) was a strength of the movie. His little speeches of his "limousine liberalism" were quite well done. It did not threaten my politics in any way or my condemnation of the dictatorship and secret police to see a torturer concerned that his love might not approve of what he does. >Without politics, the film becomes a banal crime melodrama. >To sustain the audience's interest, Barreto emphasizes human relationships that >have little to do with politics. First of all the film is very political even without a lot of "political dialog" (it could very well been a lot more boring with it in). Louis is correct in that one could of made a "mass film" in which we see quite clearly the revolutionary implications of Brazil 69 and I very well might have enjoyed that but this is not that film. The politics were about the people. The struggle was not just about capitalism and militarism v. revolutionary heros but about who cooks dinner (or what one orders takeout), about who tells who what to do and why, how people treat one another, and whether one is creating revolution out of a community of interests or an a priori conception of "what's right" for "our struggle." >In the production notes, Fernanda Torres is contemptuous of the character >she plays. She says, "Maria was sort of a 'sergeant' in the group, and, to >my mind, the least credible character in the script. I wasn't alive when >the kidnapping took place so I can't be sure if militant political women >really behaved like that." One can only wonder why Torres accepted the role >if she has so little identification with the character and shows so little >interest in finding out about what made such a character tick. Perhaps >there is no tradition of method acting in Brazil. Her comments are interesting and she seemed a little out of place in the film. Anyway, I don't think she is Brazilian (my guess is that she is Portuguese) because this is the first Brazilian film she appeared in (all her other movies are European I believe). >In a letter to his wife, Elrick confesses his inability to understand the >fanaticism of Jonas. It never would have occurred to Leopoldo Serran, the >screenwriter, to fill in some background on such a character. Like the rest >of the people associated with the project, he was hostile to leftist >politics. He kept resisting Barreto's invitation to write a script based >on Gabeira's memoir. "I refused several times, because I disagreed with >many of the leftist principles and practices, and I could not agree to do >anything complimentary or biased." This is an interesting statement and explains why the movie focused on the "universal" virtues of the revolutionaries (compassion, commitment, courage) and not any particular anti-militaristic or anti-capitalist insights. >The same >sense of indignation that committed him to peaceful change, however, must >have fueled Jonas. It would have made for a much richer film if Jonas spoke >openly about the circumstances that led him to such extremist politics. I think that Jonas could have tip his hand more but the strength of the movie was its subtlety. The fact that Louis could conjure up such rich detail about a character who gets 3-4 minutes of screen focus proves its strength. >Ultimately "Four Days in September" is repression without violence. It >represses the real beliefs and the real motivations from the terrorist >band, as much as a gag over the mouth of a prisoner does. A
Re: Alex Cockburn vs. Michael Moore
On Wed, November 12, 1997 at 22:08:30 (-0800) Nathan Newman writes: > >Except for a small handful of Americans who physically went down to >Nicaragua and put their bodies in between the Contras and the peasants, >your analogy doesn't hold. What most folks were doing in the solidarity >movement was trying to influence US foreign policy, i.e. its political >makeup and decision-making. Funny, you seemed to have snipped my example of Vietnam, and your literal reading of my example completely misses the point. I also thought that the point, first, was to raise public awareness of the issues, and to raise the price to the criminals. This succeeded, forcing the Reagan clan underground because of public opposition. >Many people would say (and I think this is Michael Moore's point) is that >you mobilize the broadest number of people into opposition to the >government promoting the policies you oppose. Now, if you focus on issues >that many people don't understand or identify with, you will fail in that >endeavor and while you may feel good about talking a lot about the "most >urgent" issues, you actually will have materially accomplished little for >the Nicaraguans. This is patent nonsense. If that strategy had been tried during Vietnam, the war would have been over. A byproduct of "talking" about issues is that you can educate people, and plenty of people were educated about Nicaragua who would have otherwise "not understood" the issues. >If, on the other hand, you spend time working with those fired workers in >Flint and build a strong progressive coalition to take political power, >helping the Nicaraguans, ending the death penalty and a host of other >issues will flow from addressing "less urgent" issues at the forefront. I see. And, suppose those workers don't give a flying flip about peasants in Nicaragua? Suppose they listen to their brave leaders in the AFL-CIO? >That doesn't mean that you don't spend some time on key "urgent" issues, >from Nicaragua to defending immigrant fights to defending affirmative >action (all of which I have been immersed in mysefl) but that if you fail >to keep majoritarian appeals to broad economic issues, you will inevitably >fail on most of those "urgent" issues. And suppose the workers argue "But our jobs are more important than a bunch of crummy, dark-skinned peasants."? Anyway, I think Mike P. is right. We both basically agree that both issues should be addressed. I just happen to feel that when people are being slaughtered, actively, with the grace of your tax dollars, your first priority better be to get it stopped---immediately, not 14 months or two years later, when a cozy broad coalition has had time to gel. Bill
