Research Unit for Political Economy
The Research Unit for Political Economy (RUPE), located in Bombay, India, brings out a bulletin called "Aspects of India's Economy" published 4 times a year. RUPE is a two-person outfit comprised of Ms. Rajani X. Desai, an economist and a young compatriot. Ms. Desai, who was previously on the editorial board of the well-known "Economic and Political Weekly" (EPW) for many years decided to leave EPW and started RUPE with her own retirement funds since EPW was becoming increasingly commercialized and was accepting advertisements from corporations. I have found "Aspects of India's Economy" to be an excellent journal of political economy which seeks to explain the workings of the economy of a third-world country (India) in a simple language with extensive economic data that can be easily understood by the ordinary lay person. Journals of this type, which present and explain concrete economic and social facts from the left progressive viewpoint, are increasingly rare in today's climate. At present "Aspects" is being published primarily in English with some articles being translated into other Indian languages. The intention is to publish it in the major Indian languages for which support is required. The primary purpose of "Aspects" is to provide a theoretical weapon in the hands of political activists who are fighting the comprador capitalist class implememting IMF-World Bank structural adjustment programs in third-world countries like India. As an example, the January-March 1997 issue of "Aspects" contains articles on "Union Budget 1997-98", "Welfare, agriculture slashed", "Road to Mexico", "Why stagnation", "Black money blessed", "Plant patenting alarm", etc. In the spirit of international solidarity and in order to understand the workings of a third-world economy from those who are under the boot of international and comprador finance capital, I urge the comrades and all progressive people of this list to subscribe to this journal. The annual subscription price (4 issues) is only $11 which includes postage. Please send your subscription orders (personal checks) in the name of: Research Unit for Political Economy 18, Peter Marcel Building Plot 941, Prabhadevi (Opposite Prabhadevi Temple) Bombay 400025, INDIA Phone: 91-22-4220492 Below is reproduced an editorial from "Aspects no. 1, July 1990 and then some economic statistics on the effects of "Structural Adjustment" (imperialism) on the people of India during 1991-1994 which RUPE has summarized. S. Chatterjee Why 'Aspects'? [Editorial of "Aspects", no. 1, July 1990] The economy should be the concern of ordinary people. For it is they who work it. And the quality of their lives, their joys and tragedies, are decided by the way the economy functions. Unemployment eats into their very existence; retrenchment with modernisation throws them out of production and livelihood; a retrograde agriculture keeps most of them depressed without the wherewithal for producing surpluses; drought and flood in such rural conditions drive some to the cities where they add to the insecure wretched seeking odd jobs at any wage. This is twentieth century India. For four decades and more our country has been ruled using the rhetoric of "planning" and even "socialism". Still people are being told that their condition will improve with this or that change of policy. Most people's lives, however, have gotten worse. As rulers have ruled, economists have advised and are increasingly giving consent. Economists cannot change the economy; they are a profession as any other. People can and must for their own sake. For economic history is made in political terms. And the sooner people become conscious of this and are in their own democratic forums organised to effect it, the sooner will such change take place. For this they must understand how the economy functions; why it functions in ways opposite to the stated objectives of policy; why their economic condition is what it is; and what premises must change -- how the constitution of society itself must change -- to bring precept and practice into alignment. "Aspects of India's Economy" is aimed to reach ordinary people. It can only reach them indirectly, in the present circumstances of illiteracy and diversity of language, through individuals and associations who, having direct contact with broad sections of people, can widely disseminate its contents. "Aspects" will seek to inform on economic policy, on the mechanics and links of our country's economic life, and on the facts and statistics that are given to us officially and through academia. Most papers reflect on the economy from the angle of business interests, or of ostensibly all classes and interests. This generally is called a balanced view of the economy. Such a balance blurs issues as it fails to put a consistent focus on the basic issues and to relate all other issues as secondary to them. For instance, retrenchmen
Re: labor rights in Vietnam
I have been looking through Gabriel Kolko's Anatomy of Peace; it is quite informative on economic policy, labor and general social conditions in Vietnam. rb
FWD: Senior Researcher Position Open
> Please Post - 3/23/98 > >Senior Researcher for >Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch > >Global Trade Watch is the Public Citizen group that fights for trade and >other economic policies that promote consumer protection, government and >corporate accountability, and a healthy environment through research, >lobbying, public education and the media. Public Citizen is a national >consumer and environmental organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971. > >THIS POSITION IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SENIOR RESEARCHER-EDITOR POSITION >PREVIOUSLY ADVERTISED. > >DESCRIPTION: The Senior Researcher designs and writes major research >reports, conducts research and develops materials for a wide range of users, >including congressional staff, grassroots organizers, reporters and the >general public. > >RESPONSIBILITIES: > Research and analyze international trade and economic globalization >issues; > Convert research into fact sheets, articles, and other educational >materials for congressional staff, press, and organizers; > Track issues by attending hearings, reading periodicals, and attending >conferences; > Assist with research for lobbying activities as needed; > Develop and maintain relevant databases; > Assist with outreach to coalition partners and activists. > >QUALIFICATIONS: >Experience:Minimum 2 years research and writing or advocacy/legislative >experience. >Education: College degree required, advanced degree preferred. >Knowledge: Understanding of economics and statistics required; knowledge of >fundamental research practices including quantitative analysis, electronic >research systems, sourcing and citing protocols; familiarity with the >legislative process, international trade and/or environmental and labor >issues. Spanish language helpful. >Skills:Excellent writing, research and organizational skills; >familiarity >with database and spreadsheet programs. > >CAPABILITIES: Ability to work with a wide range of people, perform well >under pressure. > >CONDITIONS: Walking two flights of stairs and several blocks to and from >congressional offices. Nonsmoking workplace. > >SALARY & BENEFITS: $27,720 or slightly higher; three weeks vacation; >excellent benefits. > >TO APPLY: Send resume and writing sample to Chris McGinn, Global Trade >Watch, > fax: (202) 547-7392, 215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, 3rd floor, >Washington, DC, 20003. > >Public Citizen is an equal opportunity employer. (Non-smoking workplace)
re:state-war
> Date sent: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:03:28 -0800 > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject:the state [was: what's in a name?] > Ricardo D responds: >Yes, the relative autonomy of the state is a well > established idea within marxist theory, starting with Marx himself... The > contending issue between marxists and weberians today is that the state may > do "much more than" the relative autonomy concept allows for. It is in this > context that Skocpol should be seen - that is, her argument takes account > of the more sophisticated marxian version... Skocpol goes beyond the > sophisticated marxist version in seeing the state as an administra- > tive/military organization with its own unique interests. Although the > state relies on the support of the dominant class, it may do things against > this class to cultivate or protect its own geo-political interests.< Devine: > I think Marx would agree with this "weberian" idea (at least Draper's > exhaustive summary of his ideas would). In modern times, the division > between the state sector and the economy (or civil society) arose with the > rise of capitalism. As is usual with the societal division of labor, there > are conflicting interests between different industries, where of course > government is just another "industry" (albeit a very important one). This > is the kind of thing that Marx was talking about in his analysis of the > type of state autonomy associated with Bonapartism. Draper, interestingly > enough, summarizes Marx's views on state autonomy using a language similar > to that of the familiar principal/agent problem, with the bourgeoisie as > the principal and the state bureaucracy as the agent. The latter doesn't > always do what the former wants. For weberians the state is not "just another industry"; it is precisely this kind of economic reductionism which they reject. When Theda Skocpol, for example, looks at the rise of the welfare state in the US she distinctly says this was no mere strategy to preserve the ultimate goals of capitalist accumulation; rather, the state had its own *political* interests. However, I know too little about Skocpol's analysis of the New Deal to pursue this point further; I can make the same theoretical point in the context of what you say below. > This conflict is not omnipresent: the "geo-political interests" of the > state bureaucracy often mesh well with the expansionary interests of capital. Although they do often coincide they are not the same. Simply, at one point capitalism did not exist yet there were military conflicts. > It seems to me that the "weberian" emphasis on the state as having "its own > unique interests" is more of a response to what I called "received Marxian > political theory" (which includes such "sophisticated" authors as > Poulantzas and Miliband) however sophisticated than to Marx's own theory > (as Draper presents it). It was Poulantzas and Miliband, in their own ways, who first developed the concept of the relative autonomy of the state, so if you want to use this concept you should at least aknowledge its origins. What you call "received Marxian political theory" has long been challenged by countless of people since the 60s, so perhaps yo shall called it the "abandoned theory". ricardo: > >For weberians warfare is a fundamental factor in the evolution of the > state, of even greater importance than class conflict.< Devine: > Since Marxists see warfare as a "fundamental factor" -- an important aspect > -- of any class society, including capitalism, there's no big disagreement > here. It sounds like one of the many pointless academic arguments floating > around. > > Where they had a state as a separate segment of society, pre-capitalist > class societies wedded the class-oppression aspect of the state and the > attack-other-states aspect of the state.[*] The division between the > domestic police and the armed forces arises only when class relations have > been largely pacified. But when the oppressed get uppity, martial law is > declared and the superficial distinction between police and army fades (as > we discovered in L.A. six years ago). In systems such as feudalism or > chattel slavery, where direct physical coercion is applied as part of > normal "economic" relations (i.e., where the division between "politics" > and "economics" is even fuzzier than usual, where the state is not a > separate sector), the police _are_ the army (and vice-versa). The slave > system involved a marriage between the class-oppression and > externally-oriented functions in that while the army was needed to keep the > slaves down, external war was needed to replenish the stock of slaves. Etc. Pointless? Again, for weberians you cannot identify warfare with class coercion, which is what you do above. I know marxists have tried to convince us that because pre
FWD: URGENT ACTION: STOP MAI IN IMF!
>-- Forwarded message -- >Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 14:18:24 -0500 (EST) >From: Chantell Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Multiple recipients of list MAI-NOT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: URGENT ACTION: STOP MAI IN IMF! > >The following sign-on letter is being circulated as an urgent action against >the upcoming vote to change the IMF's charter incorporating MAI provisions. >Show your continued solidarity against the MAI by signing the letter today! >A note following this email will explain further the MAI in IMF. > >Proponents are trying to call the vote before Spring Recess in US Congress >(April 2nd) so time is of the essence - urgent responses needed. > >Thanks for your support! > >Chantell > > >PLEASE SIGN-ON TO THIS DRAFT LETTER!! DEADLINE: THURSDAY (3/26, 10:00 Am) >CALL ROSANNA AT THE CITIZEN'S TRADE CAMPAIGN, 202-783-7400 X 213 TO SIGN-ON >(Attached are pertinent background materials) > >THE MAI AT THE IMF >"Welcome to the MAI Shell Game." > >Dear Representative: > > We, the undersigned groups, would like to bring to your attention a little >known proposal that is circulating through the halls of the IMF that may >give you further reason to oppose the $18 billion funding request that the >Administration is seeking for the IMF. The proposal is an amendment -the >first in the IMF's history- to the IMF's Articles of Agreement. The >Amendment is based on some of the most extreme provisions of the MAI- those >which force participatory governments to eliminate restrictions on capital >flows and foreign ownership of land and other investments. > > We urge you to support the ___Amendment to the House FY98 Supplemental >Appropriations Bill which requires the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to >vote "no" when the new Article is proposed at the IMF Board of Governors >meeting in mid-April or lose the additional $18 billion funding increase. > > Amending the Articles of Agreement of the IMF requires an 85 percent voting >majority by the IMF Board of Governors (mostly heads of finance ministries >or central banks). As the US holds 17 percent of the votes, the US >Secretary of the Treasury could effectively veto any amendment of the >Articles of Agreement. > > If the amendment passes, all member countries of the IMF, including the >United States, will be forced to accept the capital accounts liberalization >provision of the MAI which forces governments to remove barriers to >international capital flows. The IMF would be able to dictate the extent of >the controls a country may maintain, the rate of the capital account >liberalization, and changes in macroeconomic policy. > > Incredibly, Congress has not been informed of this change nor its >substantial implications. The Administration is apparently seeking to do >through the secretive process of the IMF what it has thus far been unable to >accomplish through the MAI negotiations currently being held at the OECD. > > At the very moment that citizen concern about the provisions contained in >the MAI, such as "national treatment" of all foreign investment, is slowing >down negotiations at the OECD, the > > >DRAFT Letter p.2 > >IMF is moving to assert its own global authority over such matters. > > Specifically, we oppose giving the IMF this authority for the following >reasons: > > o The IMF operates behind closed doors and cannot be held accountable >through any kind of democratic process. > > o Speculative investment will be encouraged by the proposed IMF by-laws >change because it would prevent countries from setting up so-called >"financial speed bumps" which slow the outflow of short-term capital. A >Chilean "speed bump" law helped to stem a possible financial panic in Latin >America at the time of the 1994 Mexico peso devaluation. > > o Speculative investments will be further encouraged by preventing >countries from regulating the nature of acceptable investments in their own >country. In the U.S., current law restricts foreign ownership of media, and >certain national security related industries. > > o The objective of promoting the free flow of capital that benefits >investors is given priority over other objectives relating to the democratic >right to consider the purpose of investments in shaping the future of a >country, and to values such as human rights, protection of workers and the >environment. > > Therefore, we strongly urge you to deny the IMF bureaucracy this >unprecedented authority over the sovereign rights of the United States and >other countries to control capital flows within their national borders. > > Sincerely,
Re: Cyberjournal * I PROTEST * - version 2.1
Hello, Richard - BTW, note how my e-address really goes:
valis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ("earth" is a server) - and all Cc'd.
I just gave the last three years of the CPSR timeline a look at
the organization's Website. Perhaps I missed something significant,
but my conclusion is that you and CJ have simply become a major
ideological embarrassment and real-life political liability for
your hosts; you espouse revolution, they do not, and it's that simple.
This disruption is a blessing in disguise; it's just as well that
you find yourself a truly compatible host before proceeding,
for from this point on a rough stretch of road awaits us in any case.
valis
Occupied America
"A community will evolve only when
the people control their means of communication."
-- Frantz Fanon
American Indians and the Department of Defense
Federally recognized Indian tribes and other Native American organizations also can affect DoD [Department of Defense] agency land management decision-making in the field, particularly when an affected tribe or Native American organization and interested environmental organizations coordinate their activities to advance the attainment of common political objectives. The 50 states contain 2.27 billion acres of land. Of that amount, 650 million acres of public land is owned by the United States, 25 million acres of which are administered by DoD agencies. The other 625 million acres are administered by other federal agencies, principally the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services inside the Department of the Interior, and the National Forest Service inside the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Defense manages 25 million acres of federal land. About 16 million acres of this land is withdrawn from the public domain under varying conditions for return to the public domain and the extent to which it may be accessed by the public. The military will also make occasional requests for temporary use of lands and virtually any expansion or rearrangement of DoD will involve accessing lands that are now in the public domain. If a DoD agency's use of its own land, of withdrawn public land, or of public land administered by a non-DoD agency may affect members Federally recognized Indian tribe, the President's April 29, 1994 memorandum requires the DoD agency to consult with the tribe to using the land. Independent of the memorandum's admonition that the agency do so, consultation is a sound and cost-effective policy that will advance the agency's accomplishment of its ion. The reason is simple. >From the view out the window of an F-15 aircraft overflying Alaska or 22 coterminous states west of the Mississippi River, most of the (largely public land owned by the United States) appears uninhabited. However, contrary to appearance, every acre of public land and the western states has been allocated (in a political sense) to one or more of the groups whose members use the public domain--ranchers, mining companies, timber companies, hunters, runners, wilderness area backpackers, mountain bike enthusiasts, four-wheel-drive off-road dune buggy owners, fly fishermen, and so forth. Each of the aforementioned groups has a trade association or non-organization that employs lobbyists, attorneys, and professional staff to represent its members' interests on Capitol Hill, inside the executive branch, and in the states where the public land in the groups' members claim an interest is located--a fact of life that has serious consequences for DoD agencies' use of land for defense purposes. Simply put, any DoD agency that asks a non-DoD agency for permission to use public land that the non-DoD agency administers can expect that its request will be opposed by one or more groups whose members claim an interest in the same acreage. For that reason, prior to making such a request, the DoD agency should identify the groups that can be expected to assert an interest, take the legitimate interests of those groups into account, and, to the extent practicable, accommodate their interests. Of the groups holding an interest in public land, many believe that Indian tribes have the most compelling claims because their members' ancestors used the land for generations before Congress extinguished their aboriginal title. For that reason, tribal members who hunt or graze sheep or cattle or otherwise use DoD or non-DoD agency-administered public land have a stronger moral argument that their use of the land should not be curtailed or disrupted (even if this result inconveniences DoD agencies) than do other groups that claim an interest in the public land. As the following case studies demonstrate, other groups (particularly environmental organizations) recognize that fact, and frequently include Indian tribes in their efforts to disallow DoD agencies from using public land in which the groups' members claim an interest. Idaho Training Range The Air Force has recently been forced to abandon long-held plans to establish an Idaho Training Range (ITR) in the southwest corner of the state. Although a legal suit related to procedural implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was the immediate cause of the Air Force's decision to abandon plans for the range, the decision was the culmination of lengthy political controversy in which Native American concerns played an important role. The purpose of the range was to expand the area available to train flight crews stationed at Mountain Home Air Force Base and Gowen Field near Boise. Aircraft participating in training sorties would have delivered training ordnance to target areas inside the range, as well as set off flares. The aircraft would have flown at supersonic speed and at low altitude. Idaho environmental and sportsmen's
U.S. post-war hegemony and deindustrialized Detroit
A couple of completely unrelated questions for the pen-l crowd: 1) A statistic often trotted out to attest to the uncontested hegemony of the immediate post-war U.S. is the fact that U.S. industrial output comprised more than 50 percent of total world industrial output. Is this figure artificially inflated by the overvaluation of the dollar ? Or since the dollar was the international currency at that point in time (the Bretton Woods gold standard) and the U.S. actually had massive trade surplusses was the dollar _not_ overvalued. If we used the PPP criteria which y'all have been discussing of late would the U.S. share of total world industrial output in 1950 drop significantly ? 2) In the early 1990's under Republican Governor John Engle (is that the correct name ?) the state of Michigan completely did away with general assistance for households w/o dependent children. What have been the consequences of this in deindustrializied municipalities such as Detroit and Flint where rates of structural unemployment must rate way above 10 percent ? Obviously everybody kicked off GA cannot find full-time or even part-time low-wage employment flipping burgers or checking out video rentals, and even the informal sector (i.e. the criminalized drug trade) can absorb so many people. Has the rate of incarceration boomed ? Have property crimes escalated ? Or has there been a small trickle of cash circulating around these communities from what remains of the post- welfare reform transfer payment system (i.e. men who are boyfriends and men and women who are family and friends of AFDC recipients trying to get by collectively on ultra-meager AFDC allotments) ? You can reply to me publicly or privately. Thanks in advance, John Gulick John Gulick Ph. D. Candidate Sociology Graduate Program University of California-Santa Cruz (415) 643-8568 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: U.S. post-war hegemony and deindustrialized Detroit
> A couple of completely unrelated questions for the pen-l crowd: > > 1) A statistic often trotted out to attest to the uncontested hegemony of the > immediate post-war U.S. is the fact that U.S. industrial output comprised > more than 50 percent of total world industrial output. Is this figure > artificially inflated by the overvaluation of the dollar ? Or since > the dollar was the international currency at that point in time (the > Bretton Woods gold standard) and the U.S. actually had massive trade > surplusses was the dollar _not_ overvalued. If we used the PPP criteria > which y'all have been discussing of late would the U.S. share of total > world industrial output in 1950 drop significantly ? Just fishing with a boat hook, but a lot of that 50% figure would come from capital goods and rolling stock that replaced what the war destroyed in Europe and Japan; processed foreign resources, i.e. Arab oil, Jamaican bauxite, might account for more of it. America was, in terms dear to Hollywood propagandese, the Mighty Powerhouse of Destruction and Reconstruction. Pardon the poor Axis folks if they had a different slant on the political economy of those festivities. > 2) In the early 1990's under Republican Governor John Engle (is that the > correct name ?) the state of Michigan completely did away with general > assistance for households w/o dependent children. Effectively those "households w/o dependent children" boiled down to single black males anywhere from 18 to 50 years old, John. > What have been the > consequences of this in deindustrializied municipalities such as Detroit > and Flint where rates of structural unemployment must rate way above 10 > percent ? Obviously everybody kicked off GA cannot find full-time or even > part-time low-wage employment flipping burgers or checking out video > rentals, and even the informal sector (i.e. the criminalized drug trade) > can absorb so many people. I can't speak for just lately, but the effect for the abovementioned during the first few years after the GA scrub was about as close to genocide as can be achieved without dedicated death camp machinery. Hundreds and hundreds of single men, mostly black, were simply out there and into raw survival somehow. Very few people gave a shit about them. > Has the rate of incarceration boomed ? Have > property crimes escalated ? Or has there been a small trickle of cash > circulating around these communities from what remains of the post- > welfare reform transfer payment system (i.e. men who are boyfriends and > men and women who are family and friends of AFDC recipients trying to > get by collectively on ultra-meager AFDC allotments) ? The world's largest walled prison, at Jackson, just outside Detroit, proved to have an insatiable appetite. Yes, more crime there was. Some died, some others found their way elsewhere. Being in Detroit on a secret mission in '91, I can attest to its having possessed the deadest downtown imaginable; any square mile of Albania chosen at random must have seen more currency change hands. For the sorry details of survival, the socio-folks at Henry Ford CC in Dearborn or at Wayne State can tell you more than you could ever possibly wish to know. valis
Dematerialization
==> Two days ago Mark Jones used this term in connection with possibilities of capitalism's demise; it was the first time I'd seen the concept deployed anywhere outside of ghost stories (though perhaps any notion of capitalist mortality is no more than a kind of ghost story as well). Whatever the case, AltaVista yanked the following crystal-clear explanation out of the ether, leaving me with the sensation of being trapped in deep space with a psychotic mainframe `a la "2001." Can anyone hear me and offer a human override? valis Dematerialization Introduction The ultimate goal of any Capital Market suite of systems is to eliminate the security certificate and to rely on electronic record keeping within a Central Depository. There are various approaches which can be used to arrive at this ultimate goal. Immobilization The step which many markets have taken towards the eventual elimination of all security certificates is to immobilize the certificates once they are presented for deposit into the Central Depository. In an immobilization process there are still security certificates but the certificates are held by or on behalf of the Central Depository. The certificates can either be held in street name or in the nominee name of the Central Depository. To reduce the size of the certificate inventory, the concept of "jumbo" certificates is often used. Withdrawals are usually allowed from the immobilized inventory of security certificates and a Certificate Management System is required to keep track of and reconcile the inventory of certificates. There are often legal reasons why it is necessary to adopt an immobilized Depository rather than moving directly to a dematerialized Depository. Dematerialization In a partially dematerialized environment there are no security certificates held by the Central Depository but certificates can still be held by individual investors. In a fully dematerialized environment there are no security certificates either in the possession of the Central Depository or individual investors. Reconciliation of holdings is through a comparison of electronic records maintained by the Transfer Agent and by the Central Depository. Resolution of differences is through examination of respective electronic transaction entries. Clearly, the degree of reliance which can be placed on the integrity of these electronic records is a major determinant in moving to a dematerialized environment. _
Re: a proposed leading indicator
I have printed my initial statement and Tom Kruse's response below. Tom, I don't disagree with you at all, but my statement was meant to be a sarcastic commentary on military involvement IN the drug trade, not a comment on the generosity of the drug fighting budget. [basically, this is a great example of how email falls short of face to face communication and formally written work -- or, sarcasm just don't work in cyberspace] What I was trying to say, and clearly failed, was that the military reaps huge cash reserves from being involved in the sale and distribution of drugs -- and this gives them untraceable money to spend on other items. The military attempts at fighting drugs are a complete and dysmal failure -- local law enforcement types arrest most druggies, and almost all lower level ones. I forget what the statistics are, but the military as put almost NO one in jail for drugs. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] maggie says: << >i think including illicit drugs is a good idea, but as an indicator of how >much cash the american military complex has added to its supply. maggie >coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom Kruse says: According to the official data, it's not all that impressive -- just around a billion or so, that is, just 0.37% of the DOD budget is dedicated to the war on drugs, and this is down slightly from a high point in 1991-92. In fact, according to the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), which has done a great deal of work on militarization of the war on drugs, there is much reluctance in the ranks of DOD to get involved more, and thus get stuck with the blame for "another Vietnam". In journals such as Military Review, you'll see now and again DOD drug warriors (look for the USSOUTHCOM by line) lamenting the no-win terms of this new imbroglio. On the other hand, there are numerous desk bound drug warriors VERY happy to see their appropriations grow year to year. And they are a powerful force. If, however, by "american military complex" you meant the narco-enforcement complex (a slightly different animal), then yes, mucho dinero has been added to the coffers. And always privileging the supply-side-and- policing approach. Never has demand reduction taken up more than about 32% of drug war funding. And this despite pretty impressive studies by RAND, suggesting that to achieve a 1% drug in cocaine consumption you would have to spend: $783 million on source county control [eradicating coca, etc.], or $366 million on interdiction [stopping vessels in the Caribbean, etc.], or $246 million on domestic enforcement [more policing!], or just $34 million on treatment programs. (Data for their model building -- both on supply and demand side -- was all from 1992. See Rydell and Everingham, "Controlling Cocaine: Supply vs. Demand Programs", Santa Monica, RAND, 1994, Doc. MR-331-ONDCP/A/DPRC., p. xi-xix for summary.) ONDCP was so unhappy with the results of the study they commissioned another one. The Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) did it, and found, lo and behold, for a mere $20 million of source and transit country work, you could produce the same 1% drop in cocaine consumption. Unfortunately for ONDCP and IDA, the work was extremely shoddy. Among the comments in the internal peer review were: "Various features of the argument suggest that the authors started with a conclusion and tried to fit a model that would support it rather than starting from the data." "Advocacy analysis and specious arguments will compound the problem of organizing and implementing a counterdrug policy and program." "It is clearly fundamentally flawed in its approach and conclusions and reads as if the authors were neither well versed in the drug policy literature nor in the standard social sciences, particularly economics." ... etc. ONDCP basically buried it. The big drug war budgets have always been at Justice, which sucks up around 40% of drug war funding. For example, in 1997 DOJ took in $6.703 billion of a total $15.3 billion (actual); 1998: $7.260 of $15.977 (enacted); and 1999 $7.760 of $17.069 billion (requested). And in DOJ, the largest single line item is ... Bureau of Prisons ($2.166 billion requested for 1999, up from $1.843 billion in 1997), followed by the DEA, the only federal agency dedicated 100% to the war on drugs (if you leave out the Generals in the bunkers over at ONDCP). Closing comment: I don't mean to underplay the role of DOD, or the powerfully nasty stuff their drug warring produces in Latin America particularly. I am currently working with a group of investigators here in the region (colleagues in Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Brazil) to study the "collateral damage" to "fledgling democracies" produced by the drug warring. The affects are horrible, should be denounced, etc. But the more I look at the evidence (budgets, imprisonment statistics, lists of abusive asset "forfeitures", etc.)
re:state-war
The following is long and may safely be deleted by those uninterested. Most of the below is simply responding to Ricardo's misinterpretations. My main point is though the specifics of "weberian" research on the state (advocated by Ricardo) may be of interest and useful, on the theoretical level, there's not much that's new to Marxian political economy. Unless Ricardo makes an interesting theoretical point in response, this is my last contribution to this thread on pen-l. The rest will be off-list. I had written: >> I think Marx would agree with this "weberian" idea (at least Draper's exhaustive summary of his ideas would). In modern times, the division between the state sector and the economy (or civil society) arose with the rise of capitalism. As is usual with the societal division of labor, there are conflicting interests between different industries, where of course government is just another "industry" (albeit a very important one). This is the kind of thing that Marx was talking about in his analysis of the type of state autonomy associated with Bonapartism. ... << Ricardo answers: >For weberians the state is not "just another industry"; it is precisely this kind of economic reductionism which they reject. < Of course the state isn't _literally_ "just another industry." I used that phrasing (note the quote marks around "industry") simply to stress the point concerning the fact that state and society were once unified but are no longer so. The definition of state that Marxists use is actually much the same as Max Weber's (in "Politics as a Vocation"), which he borrowed and adapted from Leon Trotsky, who was of course a Marxist. The state has a monopoly of the use of force within a given geographical area. (Note that this definition avoids the ambiguity of Weber's use of the adjective "legitimate" before "force." Also, the state isn't the only organization that uses force; but the state sets the rules concerning its use.) I wish people would stop making accusations of "reductionism" in response to an obviously incomplete statement of a more complex theory. _Any_ theory looks "reductionist" if it's incomplete. As pen-l people well know, I'm perfectly willing to expand my thoughts at length to make sure that my theory is complete in its complexity, but it does take up a lot of time & space. >When Theda Skocpol, for example, looks at the rise of the welfare state in the US she distinctly says this was no mere strategy to preserve the ultimate goals of capitalist accumulation; rather, the state had its own *political* interests. However, I know too little about Skocpol's analysis of the New Deal to pursue this point further... < In the case of the rise of the (US federal) welfare state, the actual state organization outside the military, police, and court system, was pretty small before the welfare state existed. So it's hard to see it having much influence here. And the military, police, and courts weren't enthusiasts of the welfare state. So I would point to struggles in society being the main factor promoting the welfare state. But I can't argue with Skocpol's analysis, not having read it. It's enough to say that the idea that the state has political interests does not contradict Marx's views. >> This conflict is not omnipresent: the "geo-political interests" of the state bureaucracy often mesh well with the expansionary interests of capital. << >Although they do often coincide they are not the same. Simply, at one point capitalism did not exist yet there were military conflicts. < This doesn't disagree with what I said. >> It seems to me that the "weberian" emphasis on the state as having "its own unique interests" is more of a response to what I called "received Marxian political theory" (which includes such "sophisticated" authors as Poulantzas and Miliband) ... than to Marx's own theory (as Draper presents it). << >It was Poulantzas and Miliband, in their own ways, who first developed the concept of the relative autonomy of the state, so if you want to use this concept you should at least aknowledge its origins.< Why? the idea is almost universally accepted by Marxists and can be found in Marx's own work even if the phrase "r. a." is not used explicitly. I like a lot of what P and M say, but pen-l is not the venue for scholasticism, where every idea is footnoted. Anyway, the point is that Skocpol was responding to P, M, and others (received academic Marxist theory) and is many way simply returning to what Marx said. (This sometimes happens with left critics of Marx.) The downplaying of relative autonomy in Marx's work shows up when the state approximated the 19th century liberal ideal "night-watchman state" (still advocated by so-called libertarians). When it doesn't, Marx emphasizes the state's autonomy more. > What you call "received Marxian political theory" has long been challenged by countless of people since the 60s, so perhaps yo[u] shall called it the "abandoned the
Kosovo
For the most part I agree with Barkley on his comments on Kosovo but I would add a few considerations. 1. The most recent crackdown on Albanian separatists was a result of the killing of 4 (?) Serbian Police in an ambush. The police responded by raiding the headquarters of a faction of the Kosovo Liberation Army. One may argue that the scale of the response was inappropriate to the provocation, but I have heard little about the American sanctions on Britain for its military response to IRA terrorism (or the genocide by Suharto in East Timor.) It is obvious that the American response (and the British) is propelled by something other than principle, though as Barkely points out, what it is the makes the US and Albright so war-mongering, I am not sure. 2. It is abundantly clear that, if Kosovo was granted independence, it would immediately begin ethnically cleansing the region of Serbs. In fact, ever since I have been going there for 10 years, there have been (documented) examples of 'cleansing' done by the Albanians. 3. The 'poverty' of Kosovo is probably not as bad as Barkley intimates. Many Kosovan 'families' have networks of businesses inother parts of Yugoslavia (past and present). Eg. in Slovenia many of the fruit and vegtable stands, pastry shops and even sum of the pubs are run by Albanians (and owned by Albanians) who are obligated by family connections to remit part of their revenues to Kosovo. (i.e. a colleague friend told me that when he was in the army, an Albanian in his unit had to remit part of his salary to his 'family' back in Kosovo. The families ahve the same sort of extended nature and coersive (though not necessarily criminal) as the Sicilian families.) 4. The problem is almost sure to break out in Macedonia because of the inequality in birth rates between the Macedonians (Slavs) and the Albanian minority. At the present rates it will not be too many years before the Albanian population excees the Macedonian as in Kosovo. The Macedonians also fear ethnic cleansing. I was told a couple of years ago (by a Slovene) that the Macedonian government was exploring asking the Serbs to provide soldiers to police its border with Albania to prevent Albanian migration into Macedonia. I have no way of knowing whether or not it is true, but it does sound plausible. 5. What is the answer? I don't know -- but the US response is only making matters worse. Already it has brought to prominance and leadership the ulti-rightist and nationalist Voyslav (?) Seslj who makes Milosevic look like a civil rights worker. God save us from US foreign policy. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Kosovo
Not too long ago my friend (and former debating partner on Balkan issues), Paul Phillips, dropped a remark on this list about "American support of Kosovan terrorists" or something to that effect. Nobody has remarked on it and I have been thinking about it, not quite sure what I think. But, upon reading an interesting piece by Dusko Doder in the Washington Post this morning, I offer the following and inquire of a response from Paul in particular: 1) Kosovo has long been the poorest part of the former (and what's left of) Yugoslavia, with its income relative to the other provinces/republics/nations having steadily fallen since 1945. 2) Kosovo is the "ancient historic heart of Serbia", but only about 10% of the population is ethnically Serb today. The majority are mostly Muslim Albanians (there are some Catholic and Orthodox Albanians). 3) Kosovo was a part of the Italian-ruled "Greater Albania" during WWII. Tito gave it a measure of self-rule and autonomy as a province within the Republic of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia. 4) In response to alleged discrimination against the minority ethnic Serbs, in 1989 Slobodan Milosevic, then Gen Sec of the Serbian Communist League, removed the local government and imposed a Serb-dominated government in Kosovo. Many observers view this as the beginning of the ultimate disintegration of the former Yugoslavia (a point that I believe Paul and I differed on in the past on this list). 5) The unofficial leader of the Kosovars (Albanian Kosovans) since has been Ibrahim Rugova who supports nonviolent resistance but ultimate independence from Yugoslavia. A shadow de facto Albanian government has been established that operates in an underground manner. 6) More recently a violent independence movement has arisen, the Kosovo Liberation Army. The recent Serbian police attacks were aimed at this group. It has been claimed that there were more than 20 dead women and children as a result of that attack. I am not sure how many women and children have been killed by Kosovar "terrorists." 7) I gather that the KLA has support from Albania and from Albanians in Macedonia, but I do not know if or how much active support they have from other outsiders, especially the US. 8) I have trouble seeing why the US would want to actively support the KLA very strongly. Granted it puts some pressure on Milosevic whom the US would like to enforce the Dayton Agreement in Bosnia-Herzegovina. OTOH, uprisings by Kosovars merely inflames Serb nationalism that makes it harder for Milosevic or any other Serbian political leader to make or enforce peace agreements with anybody anywhere. It seems to me the US wants a stable situation in B-H so it can get its troops out. I see little interest of US capital in Kosovo that would overwhelm this strong desire and pressure. Certainly all the pressure in Congress is to get out, not arm the Kosovars, who as Muslims get only a certain amount of sympathy/support, more so when they appear to be brutally slaughtered as has apparently happened recently. 9) Doder writes of a Kosovar leader, Adem Demaci, who spent 29 years in Yugoslav jails for protesting human rights violations. Apparently Demaci has supported the actions of the KLA but also argues against independence and for a confederation within Yugoslavia wherein Kosovo is granted equal status with Serbia and Montenegro. Doder approves of this. Might this not be a reasonable way to go? 10) One person's "terrorist" is another person's "freedom fighter". How are the Kosovars different from the Palestinians? Barkley Rosser -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another leading indicator
Jim, you understood exactly. The letter came in response to the issue with pictures of the Singapore towers on the cover. > > At 08:16 PM 3/23/98 -0800, Micheal Perelman wrote: > >A letter to the recent Scientific American suggested that tall buildings > >were associated with impending depressions. > > wasn't the tallest building in the world recently built in Singapore? or > was it somewhere else? was it finished? does it suggest anything about the > Asian meltdown? > > in pen-l solidarity, > > 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. > > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] The tallest building is the Petronas towers in Kuala Lumpur. Not quite Singapore and not far away either but what the hell from a distant everything and everyone looks the same:) but there is some possibility of a merger between Malaysia and Singapore in the future. Asian meltdown was in Malaysia (which is recovering) and not in Singapore. BTW has anyone tried to explain why Taiwan is not part of the Asian meltdown? What does it mean for contagions of any stripe? Cheers, Anthony D'Costa
labor rights in Vietnam
Wednesday, March 25, 1998 Shifty Move on Labor Rights in Vietnam By JIM MANN WASHINGTON--The Clinton administration showed a few days ago that it is faster and has shiftier moves than Michael Jordan. Jordan, the world's most famous basketball player, has said that he will travel to Asia this summer to see firsthand how workers are treated at Nike factories in Vietnam and other countries. He decided to make this trip after seeing a flurry of reports about substandard working conditions in these countries. But last week, the U.S. government beat him to the punch. In a little-noticed action, a federal agency called the Overseas Private Investment Corporation formally determined that things are getting better and better for workers in Vietnam--thus opening the way for it to start helping businesses get established in that country. OPIC gave Vietnam's labor policies a clean bill of health--even though it acknowledged that that country's trade unions are controlled by the Communist Party, that workers are not free to join unions of their choice, that wages range from $30 to $45 per month and that Vietnam does not spend money to enforce health and safety rules. How could this happen? How could an agency of the federal government reach a conclusion that seems to defy reality and common sense? To understand that, one has to know about Washington and the forces that drive it. OPIC's job is to provide insurance against political risk for U.S. companies when they do business abroad. U.S. firms want OPIC insurance so they can launch projects overseas with the assurance that, if there is some upheaval, they will not lose all their money. Not long ago, there was some talk about abolishing OPIC. It was "corporate welfare," said conservative critics such as House Budget Committee Chairman John R. Kasich (R-Ohio). Such talk is not heard anymore, mostly because conservative Republicans, like liberal Democrats, have been overwhelmed by the political clout of the U.S. business community. Over the last year, the Clinton administration has been eager to clear the way for OPIC to begin operating in Vietnam. U.S. Ambassador to Hanoi Pete Peterson, in particular, has argued that American companies will be more eager to do business in Vietnam if they can get insurance from OPIC and loans from the U.S. Export-Import Bank. For their part, American firms have been waiting in line. According to Virginia Foote of the U.S.-Vietnam Trade Council, OPIC insurance could help clear the way for deals for steel processing, telecommunications, air-traffic control and power installations. So two powerful interests, the diplomats and the American business community, both wanted OPIC to start up in Vietnam--which would have been fine, except for a slight legal impediment. It involved the question of labor. Congress enacted a provision several years ago that prohibits OPIC from operating in any country not "taking steps to adopt and implement laws that extend internationally recognized worker rights." Given Vietnam's labor record, you might think this requirement would be difficult to meet. Even Clinton administration officials seemed to think so. Last December, when the administration decided to remove the main legal obstacle to new economic relations with Vietnam, Assistant Secretary of State Stanley Roth assured Congress that this action was only a "limited and modest step." It did not amount to carte blanche for programs such as OPIC, Roth testified, because there were other factors, including "problems on labor rights." Congress was being misled. Clinton's action had much broader implications. Within a day after it was made final on March 10, OPIC announced that it was ready to go in Vietnam. To make the issue of labor rights disappear, OPIC turned to the third key ingredient for getting things done in Washington: lawyers. OPIC's attorneys crafted a 14-page decision that interpreted the labor provision so narrowly that Simon Legree might have passed the test. The only thing that counts is whether Vietnam has done anything at all regarding labor, the decision reasoned. And Vietnam does have a labor law, passed in 1994. OPIC admitted that, when it comes to workers' rights to form their own unions, Vietnam's labor law does not meet international standards. Nevertheless, OPIC's lawyers decided that Vietnam is "taking steps." "The measure is not an absolute standard, but a comparison," Charles Toy, OPIC's vice president and general counsel, said in an interview. "They're making progress." OPIC had dispatched a couple of delegations to Vietnam, in part to look at conditions there. But the agency's final decision avoided saying anything about what, if anything, they saw. "Meetings and interviews were held" with management and workers, the report helpfully noted. So, presto. Congress' labor requirement has been satisfied and OPIC now gets to start up in Vietnam. This is Washington at its hypocritical best. W
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1998 It will take more than a small oil price increase to knock the U.S. economy off its stride, says The Wall Street Journal (page A2) The most important thing to remember, economists say, is that the recent drop in oil prices was largely unexpected - a surprise gift for energy dependent companies, car-bound commuters, and inflation-conscious Fed policy makers. The U. S. economy was booming, with low inflation, before oil prices fell. And, they say, it will continue to boom even if oil exporters hit their goal of slicing world production Some blue-collar workers find princely pay, writes Peter Passell in The New York Times (March 22, Section 3, page 1). He gives examples of four workers who have defied trends to use their hands and brawn to earn upper-middle-class status -- workers who earn $80,000 to $100,000 and up. However, the median annual earnings of male high school graduates in 1995 was just $29,000, down by one-fifth since 1976 after taking inflation into account and barely 60 percent of those of their counterparts with college credentials. The earnings data for women show the trend, too For some blue-collar workers, success turns on working longer and harder. For others, high pay comes with highly valued skills not taught in college. And for others, it is a matter of breaking into the club - of joining one of the small, powerful unions that vault semiskilled workers into the upper middle class Graphs show median weekly earnings for selected occupations in 1996 and median annual earnings of workers aged 25 to 64 from 1976 in 1995 dollars, with bachelors degrees or more, high school education, or high school dropout, by gender. Source of the data is given as the Labor Department. application/ms-tnef
