Re: Labor Movement Growth & Decline
At 07:14 PM 4/2/98 EST, MScoleman wrote: >Aside from the problems within unions once people are organized and the >problems with organizing new members (all this stated well in other messages) >I think that the other primary thing missing is the overall political >'movement' atmosphere needed to organize anything. During the height of union >organizing in the US following the Civil War and again pre and post WWII in >the USA, there was a highly charged political atmosphere with MANY groups with >variations of the same message -- working class solidarity and the need to >organize. The same type of atmosphere led to many of the successful >organizing tactics in civil right, vietnam war and the women's movement of the >60s/70s. How does one begin to create such an atmosphere? The movements you refer to did not spring into life fully developed, but rather were created out of an accumulation of struggles (many that ended in defeat) over a protracted period of time. In other words, this was an extended process that finally reached critical mass. We are obviously in a very different period, but there is a process of rejuvenation under way (albeit one that is still woefully inadequate to the challenge unions confront). Redirecting the labor movement is like turning the Queen Mary at sea; it will only happen in a large arc, with many course corrections. The process requires change at the top, to be sure, but just as importantly, it requires change at the bottom -- both through official channels, and in the rebuilding of rank & file movements pushing for change. There is evidence out there, if one looks carefully at what is happening (and does not rely on the mainstream media for information), that change is taking place. >I can't help but >think that some of these unions who are doing such a poor job would welcome >leadership -- they realize they are dieing but don't know what to do about it. >maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] In my experience, those who portray the existing leadership as incompetent, inadequate, or otherwise seriously deficient, and then who offer themselves as advisors to help lead these wayward unions out of the wilderness are unlikely to find a very warm welcome for their ideas or assistance. Good ideas don't have much influence if they are delivered with the presumption that the existing leadership doesn't know what it is doing. Whatever the value of the message, the credibility and attitude of the messenger will determine whether the message ever gets a hearing. In solidarity, Michael
Yugoslavia and Market Socialism
I think a couple of weeks ago Barkley posted something about Yugoslavia and market socialism which prompted a spirited response from somebody that Yugoslav socialism was an 'oxymoron' because Yugoslavia was not democratic and therefore could not be socialist. Unfortunately, (as I indicated previously) I lost all my previous e-mail so if I am grossly misrepresenting some views posted to pen-l then I apologize in advance. However, I would like to put my vote of confidence behind Barkley, rather than his critics, who seem not to know much about went on in Yugoslavia in the 1970s and 1980s. When Tito came to power at the end of WWII he and the leadership of the JCP established a 'Stalinist' type state which lasted justed a few years before Jugoslavia broke with Stalin and began (after 1950) introducing worker self-management and democratizing both the workplace and decentralizing state powers to the republics and the autonomous regions like Kosovo and Vojvodina. Though there was never 'two-party' elections (sic) like there are in the US, there were multi-interest group elections at all levels particularly after the implementation of the new constitution in 1976. There were in fact multi-'parties' and the Communist Party was disbanded (to be replaced by the 'non-party' League of Communists.) Indeed, after the breakup, these various groups reorganized as political parties alternative to the growth of neo-liberal nationalist parties favoured by the US (at the expense of so many lives.) Indeed, I would argue that Jugoslavia came closer to establishing a truly democratic regime at both the industrial and political level than any other regime in modern European history. It failed both because of internal contradictions and external interventions. We have argued this all in our book _The Rise and Fall of the Third Way: Yugoslavia 1945-1991_ One may agree or disagree with our analysis, but to argue that Jugoslavia was some sort of anti-democratic, authoritarian offshoot of Stalinism and was not (at least) attempting socialism is the kind of bourgeois or crude-marxist crap that brings disrepute to scholarship on the left. Nasvidinje, Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: an example of participant-observer sociology
<< At 11:32 AM 4/2/98 -0800, Jim Devine wrote: >Last night, I went to my neighborhood's "homeowner association" meeting, >which was a response to a recent gang slaying at the neighborhood park's >basketball court (luckily a very rare event). Despite the mixed ethnic and >religious character of the neighborhood, I saw a strong show of >middle-class solidarity. (No-one even hinted at the fact that the >gang-members involved were black, since more than half of the crowd was >black too.) On reason for the mood of middle-class solidarity is that the >apartment-dwellers in the neighborhood are excluded from the meeting. > >We (my wife and I and others) are pushing to prevent the movement that >turns our neighboorhood into a "gate-guarded community" (the abomination >that disgraces the LA landscape). Luckily, no-one is talking about closing >the park or getting rid of basketball. Our homeowners' association seems >less reactionary than the reputation that most in LA have. That may be >because of the ethnic mix and the relatively good conditions we have in >Culver City compared to Los Angeles (the city and county that engulf us). Wotjek Sokolowski wrote: > The ethnic mix seems the be a good explaining factor. Although the urban >landscape of Baltimore is not very conducive to building gates, private > security forces seem to be the trend in the white enclaves. I live in what >has beeen designated as the empowerment zone, a racially mixed homeowner > community amidst urban wasteland (although some gentrification efforts are > under way) -- and nobody even mentions private security - the main concern > is building a community garden. >A friend of mine at UCSC, orginally from the Orange County, wrote her >thesis on the white mobilization in her lilly-white home community. She >chose that topic because she was apalleed by seeing that nothing can >mobilise white community better than the prospect of Blacks moving to the >neighborhood (in her case it was the white opposition to integrated >schools). Little wonder why Wilson was elected Gauleiter, err.. Governor >of California. Maggie Writes: I live in a Manhattan neighborhood which used to be Irish working class and is now all Hispanic working class on one side, and mixed Irish and other on the 'other' side (Broadway being the dividing line). I live on the Hispanic side. A few years ago a friend of mine (Irish) talked me into joining a neighborhood watch thingy. They had a car with a flashing light and it drove around the neighborhood. If we saw break ins or anything we reported it directly to the police. The first time I went on watch, we kept driving around the 'other' side of Broadway. After about an hour, I suggested we go to 'my' side of Broadway -- in fact, I pointed directly to my block. The guy who was driving told me that even though they never said it publically, whites (including me in his 'we') never went to that side of Broadway, it was too dangerous. So I said, gee, I have a headache, can you drop me off home? They guy said sure, I told him where I lived, he turned ten shades of red, dropped me off and that was the end of my involvement in neighborhood watching. You don't have to live in white or middle class suburbs to suffer from the 'other' side illnesses. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boddhi, read the comments by our (Chase) economist Lipsky.
This has some interesting stuff in it so I forwarded it in its entirity. --- (Embedded image moved to file: PIC12196.PCX) April 2, 1998 NewsWatch | Chase Stock Price|136 |+1 1/8 | | Dow Jones Industrial |8868.32 |+68.51 | | Average || | | || | |--++---> Six Gainers, Six Losers Among 12 Leading Bank Stocks; Dow, Bonds Up Bank Stocks: Yesterday's trading saw six gainers, six losers among the leading banks listed above, with most changes moderate. Chase closed up 1 1/8, Citicorp up 1/2, J.P. Morgan down 1 1/16. Dow Industrials: Closing up 68.51, the Dow posted its second straight gain, joined yesterday by other major indexes, the NASDAQ Composite at a record high close. Bonds: Treasurys rallied late yesterday on short-covering, a strong dollar and expectations for follow-through bond buying in overseas markets. In the day's only major economic report, the National Association of Purchasing Management said its index of business activity surged to 54.8% last month from 53.3% in February, whereas economists had expected the figure to be unchanged to slightly lower. In late trading, the benchmark 30-year Treasury bond was up 23/32, trimming yield five basis points to 5.88%. Other Indexes: Tokyo's Nikkei 225 stock index closed down a steep 3 1/3% today (Thursday), Hong Kong's Hang Seng down 1 1/4%. Late this morning, London's FT 100, retreating from somewhat bigger gains earlier, was up a mere 6 points at 6023 after gaining 1.44% yesterday. [Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Investor's Business Daily, CBS Radio, others] All items are from today's news media unless noted otherwise. CHASE IN THE NEWS Some 45% of automated teller machines (ATMs) impose surcharges, up from 33% last year, according to a random survey of 200 ATMs statewide and nearly 70 in New York City, says the New York Public Interest Research Group. Nationwide, says the U.S. Public Interest Research Group after surveying 470 banks and 46 credit unions, 71% of ATMs charge consumers who bank elsewhere and often face a fee from their home institutions. Newsday reports Chase and Citibank spokesmen said neither charges non-account holders ATM fees. No state has approved legislation to ban ATM fees, but Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) vows Congressional legislation will be passed this year to ban ATM surcharges. [Daily News, New York Post, Washington Post, others] Chase first-quarter earnings per share are expected to jump 14% from last year to $2.26 -- the best showing among money center banks, according to analysts as calculated by First Call Corp. Chase, Bankers Trust and J.P. Morgan are expected to take the heaviest blows from weak Asian results, but Chase and BT "are expected to make up for the losses through revenue from other businesses, particularly corporate finance and advisory," according to Ryan, Beck & Co. analyst Lawrence Cohn. Analysts also predict "big mortgage originators" Chase, Norwest and Fleet Financial will "show gains based on low interest rates and mortgage refinancings." [American Banker] Morgan Stanley Dean Witter has reportedly offered its custody business for sale, and "people familiar with the situation" said Chase, Citicorp and Bank of New York are among potential buyers of the business. The companies would not comment. [Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Financial Times] Chase is preparing for the introduction of a single European currency with a pan-European infrastructure. Rather than maintaining separate computer systems in each country, Chase is putting its EMU-based computer operations on its mainframe in Bournemouth, England. While each country's operations will be partitioned, the central processing site will allow for seamless cross-border payments and information flows. Chase?s Martin Lebouitz is quoted. [April 1, First/Corporate EFT Report via NewsEdge] The Vanguard Group, which manages $360 billion in stock, bond and money-market mutual funds, has applied for permission to sell investments to Europeans. The funds would be marketed by a small sales force in Brussels, Belgium, administered through an Irish subsidiary of Chase Manhattan Corp., and managed by investment managers at Vanguard's Malvern complex. [First/The Philadelphia Inquirer via Knight-Ridder/Tribune Corporation] Chase Manhattan International is bookrunner for Unibanco's two-year 150 billion Italian lire bond with a 7.50% coupon. [Financial Times] U.S. commercial banks "are beginning to crack the market in Japan for pension fund management." Chase, Citicorp, Bankers Trust and J.P. Morgan are noted as "among the original entrants to Japan's trust banking market." Japan's pension fund assets are predicted to hit $3 trillion in 2005. [American Banker] An article in yesterday?s American B
Re: Labor Movement Growth & Decline
Aside from the problems within unions once people are organized and the problems with organizing new members (all this stated well in other messages) I think that the other primary thing missing is the overall political 'movement' atmosphere needed to organize anything. During the height of union organizing in the US following the Civil War and again pre and post WWII in the USA, there was a highly charged political atmosphere with MANY groups with variations of the same message -- working class solidarity and the need to organize. The same type of atmosphere led to many of the successful organizing tactics in civil right, vietnam war and the women's movement of the 60s/70s. How does one begin to create such an atmosphere? I can't help but think that some of these unions who are doing such a poor job would welcome leadership -- they realize they are dieing but don't know what to do about it. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: an example of participant-observer sociology
At 11:32 AM 4/2/98 -0800, Jim Devine wrote: >Last night, I went to my neighborhood's "homeowner association" meeting, >which was a response to a recent gang slaying at the neighborhood park's >basketball court (luckily a very rare event). Despite the mixed ethnic and >religious character of the neighborhood, I saw a strong show of >middle-class solidarity. (No-one even hinted at the fact that the >gang-members involved were black, since more than half of the crowd was >black too.) On reason for the mood of middle-class solidarity is that the >apartment-dwellers in the neighborhood are excluded from the meeting. > >We (my wife and I and others) are pushing to prevent the movement that >turns our neighboorhood into a "gate-guarded community" (the abomination >that disgraces the LA landscape). Luckily, no-one is talking about closing >the park or getting rid of basketball. Our homeowners' association seems >less reactionary than the reputation that most in LA have. That may be >because of the ethnic mix and the relatively good conditions we have in >Culver City compared to Los Angeles (the city and county that engulf us). The ethnic mix seems the be a good explaining factor. Although the urban landscape of Baltimore is not very conducive to building gates, private security forces seem to be the trend in the white enclaves. I live in what has beeen designated as the empowerment zone, a racially mixed homeowner community amidst urban wasteland (although some gentrification efforts are under way) -- and nobody even mentions private security - the main concern is building a community garden. A friend of mine at UCSC, orginally from the Orange County, wrote her thesis on the white mobilization in her lilly-white home community. She chose that topic because she was apalleed by seeing that nothing can mobilise white community better than the prospect of Blacks moving to the neighborhood (in her case it was the white opposition to integrated schools). Little wonder why Wilson was elected Gauleiter, err.. Governor of California. Regards, WS
FWD: Only Jews Need Apply
>Reposted from Friends of Sabeel-North America mailing list. [Sabeel is a nonviolence/liberation theology group. -ed] > >>Dear friends: >> >>This op ed from Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper, should be reprinted in U.S. >>newspapers. Can you see if you can interest your own papers in printing it? >> >>It speaks cogently to the central dilemma Israel faces on its 50th >>anniversary. >> >>Some background might be needed to understand the article. Ayman and Adil >>Qaadan are trying to buy land in a new housing development Katzir in >>Galilee, inside Israel. He is a health worker, and has been allowed to >>care for Jews in a hospital. But he has not been allowed to buy a house in >>this new development because he is not a Jew. The land for this >>development is owned by the Jewish Agency, which will lease only to Jews. >>The Qaadan family, like other Palestinians inside Israel, cannot find land >>to build on because so much of it has been taken for Jewish-only >>settlements. Palestinians feel these "planning" moves are not neutral, but >>intended to force them out of the country because they cannot find space >>for houses. >> >>This story brings into sharp relief the lack of respect for other religions >>in Israel today. If, in our country, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims found >>that much of the attractive housing was reserved for Christians only, there >>would be a strong condemnation of this policy, in which Jewish groups might >>be in the lead. But in Israel, it is the Jewish religious groups which are >>in the lead in denying non-Jews (Muslims and Christians) the right to buy >>or rent a house wherever they choose. >> >>What is especially surprising is that American tax dollars and U.S. >>tax-exempt gifts are going into this country on a massive scale to fund >>policies which would be illegal here, policies which lead to ethnic >>cleansing, which we oppose elsewhere in the world, and which undermines the >>so-called "peace process" which we are supposed to be sponsoring. >> >>> Only Jews need apply >>> >>> By Orit Shohat >>> Ha'aretz, Friday, March 27, 1998 >>> >>> A few weeks ago, the High Court of Justice >>> refrained from ruling on the question which >>> is the most important question for Israeli >>> democracy: Can an Arab couple, Israeli >>> citizens, buy a home in the settlement of >>> Katzir in the Galilee, though it is intended >>> only for Jews? Is it at all possible, in a >>> democratic country, to earmark state lands >>> for Jews only.The legal "maneuver" whereby >>> Ayman and and Adil Qaadan were prevented >>> from buying a home in Katzir was through the >>> transfer of the land to the Jewish Agency. >>> It is difficult to find any national, moral >>> or security justification for this sort of >>> maneuver, which was tailored for the days >>> before the establishment of the state. After >>> 50 years, "redeeming" state lands from the >>> state itself to transfer them from the >>> citizens of the state to world Jewry, only >>> so as to prevent Israeli citizens of the >>> state from living on them, not only looks >>> absurd, but also has little redemption about >>> it and a lot of racism. >>> >>> The lust to "Judaize" lands also leads to >>> wasteful policies of distributing plots to >>> individuals who set up huge private ranches >>> on them only to insure that they will be >>> solely in Jewish hands. Glatt kosher. In >>> those places in the Negev where the Bedouin >>> are blocked from grazing their flocks, the >>> state allows Jewish shepherds to fence in >>> tracts of thousands of dunams. In the >>> Galilee, the same is true: Jews who grabbed >>> lands that were not theirs to put up a >>> house, or a tent, or a restaurant in the >>> bosom of nature, are recognized >>> retrospectively by National Infrastructure >>> Minister Ariel Sharon and Agriculture >>> Minister Rafael Eitan, who are interested in >>> encouraging the dubious process of >>> "Judaization." To date, approximately >>> 100,000 dunams have been parcelled out in >>> this way among 50 people, and at the Jewish >>> Agency, anot
Re: common threads
At 03:29 PM 4/2/98 -0400, Ricardo Duchesne wrote, replying to Michae Perelman: >> The real question is more like, what the hell would I do if I wanted to >> make a better world. The common theme is that the answer is not easy. >> Even so, I think that we are making a healthy stab at it. > >No, the real point is that the Lenin-Stalin takeover was a disastrous >failure, a huge tragedy for which there is no justifiable "balance >sheet". ricardo That depends on how one views the REAL objective of the October Revolution. If that REAL objective was the establishment of a socialist society worthy its name, then I fully concur with Ricardo - the x-USSR was a gigantic failure. If, on the other hand, that REAL objective was catching up with the advanced capitalist powers of Western Europe and Japan, ideological proclamations notwithstanding -- a view I tend to espouse -- then the Stalinist policies should be viewed as a moderate (because of the considerable human cost) success. The USSR was the power that could withstand the defacto blockade by Western powers during the iner-war period, defeat the Nazis, and effectively compete with American imperialism during the post war period. In short, from the WWI defeat, Russia came out as a great imperial power. That, of course, is not a reason for the Left to cherish Stalin and his successors any more than, say, Otto von Bismarck. So the question becomes not what Russia did to help the socialist cause worldwide, but how the competition between major imperial powers affected the socialist cause in different parts of the world, and what does the ebbing of that competition mean for that cause. BTW, concerning the comments of our Argentinian friend, I do not think that the US support for fascist dictatorships in South America and elsewhere had much to do with the existence of the USSR. I think that support would have existed with or without the existence of the x-USSR for a very simple reason - the goal of US foreign policy was to back up Washington-friendly forces (aka "our thugs") in that region that happen to be the agrarian elites in cahoots with the urban bourgeoisie -- an unholy alliance that generates fascist dictatorship (cf. Moore, _Social Origins..._ Rueschemeyer et al., _Capitalist development and democracy_). The only effect x-USSR might have had was her support for the forces that might undermine the Washington-friendly thugs - hence her superficial support for national liberation movements in many developing countries*), and the absence of that support for such movements in Argentina and other South American countries. I cannot speculate about the reasons for that lack of support, but it might have something to do with the American defeat in Korea and Vietnam. The Russians might have wanted to avoid the same mistake. - *) The character of that support becomes apparent when we consider the position Khruschev took during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The withrdawal of the strategic missiles was the subject of the agreement, but the tactical missiles (of which Americans knew little at that time, foolishly planning an invasin of the island which would have turned into a major military disaster) could have stayed. However Khruschev made the decision to withdraw them as soon as he learned that Castro intended to use them as a bargaining chip to strengthen his position vis a vis the US. regards, Wojtek Sokolowski Institute for Policy Studies Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 Opinions expressed above are those of this writer only. They do not represent the views or policies of the Institute for Policy Studies, the Johns Hopkins University, or anyone else affiliated with these institutions.
Re: common threads
> Date sent: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 09:55:34 -0800 > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject:common threads > For the most part the discussions concerning the Soviet balance sheet > and Peru seem to be coming up against a very difficult subject. Nobody > to my knowledge has been able to make much progress in society without > coming up against powerful, and often violent resistance. Whether it is > the early Teamsters organizing in the U.S., peasants in Peru, or even a > state such as the early S.U. or Nicaragua or Cuba struggling to survive, > all are met with violence. > > Matters become even more complicated when strange alliances emerge. In > the face of this confusion, progressive parties make mistakes. I can > sit in my office connected to the Internet and pontificate: X is bad. I > am above all that. yadda yadda yadda. > > The real question is more like, what the hell would I do if I wanted to > make a better world. The common theme is that the answer is not easy. > Even so, I think that we are making a healthy stab at it. No, the real point is that the Lenin-Stalin takeover was a disastrous failure, a huge tragedy for which there is no justifiable "balance sheet". ricardo > Congratulations to all involved. I wish that more of you were > participating -- especially those of you located outside of the North > American continent. > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 916-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
re:state-war
> Date sent: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 10:16:51 -0800 > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject:re:state-war > This seems even shorter, though there's more heat than light. > > I had written: >>I think one thing to do is start treating "rationalism" > more as a dependent variable and not some extra-historical force [an > independent variable]. ...<< > > Ricardo D writes: >Why is the choice for rationalism between "dependent > variable" and "extra-historical force", whereas the assumed-independent > variable here cannot be accused of being an extra-historical force? And, > if rationalism is "dependent", how does the assumed-independent variable > exist without any form of human reason?< > > You'll note that I didn't put the issue in the either/or way that you > assume, but instead used the phrase "more as a," which speaks of _degrees_ > of exogeneity or endogeneity. Stop playing games. Throughout this exchange you have been saying things yet pretending you are saying something else as well. As is evident further below, you DO MEAN to say that rationalism is the dependent variable, even if you aknowledge that rationalism may have an effect as well on the independent variable. No one today would hold the "dependent variable" in an absolute state of dependency, theorefore I take your qualification for granted. The point is you assign primacy to non-rational factors. > But put the issue in another way: the "human reason" that exists in an > extra-historical way is so abstract that it can show up in lots of > different forms, from feudal rationality to capitalist rationality, to > bureaucratic rationality, to socialist rationality, depending on the > specifics of the social organization in which it exists. Talking about > "human reason" _per se_ isn't very helpful in understanding the world. It's > like talking about the Holy Ghost, which is everywhere and nowhere -- by > definition. First, rationalities do not come a dime-a-dozen. Second, drop the assumption that only if you do not connect idea x to the "specifics of the social organization", then you are dwelling in "abstrations". Anything - ideal or material - seen in isolation is an abstration. The word "abstraction" by itself is an abstraction, and so is the word "concrete". The phrase "specific social organization" is a monumental abstraction. Jim Devine by himself is also an abstraction. A starving person is itself an abstraction. > RD had written: >>>The inescapable fact for marxists is that without Lenin > no October Revolution.<<< > But we don't know what would have happened if Lenin had been having dinner > in September 1917, had choked on a beet, and his dinner companion, Stalin, > hadn't known the Heimlich maneuver (or didn't want to use it), so that the > Bolsheviks were suddenly rendered leaderless.[*] The fact is that there > were other leaders amongst the Bolsheviks who could have eventually > replaced Lenin (I don't count Trotsky among them, since he was treated as > an outsider by the bolshies). Russia was in severe crisis on several > different levels (exemplified by mutinous soldiers and sailors, rebellious > peasants, and workers' soviets), with Karensky's government having an > extremely hard time trying to paper over the contradictions with > legislative fiat. (Maybe Karensky might have been pushed in a more > socialist direction which could have encouraged peasant land-hunger and > worker soviets even more.) Perhaps eventually some mediocrity like Zinoviev > would have been pushed to change his attitudes to lead a revolution; maybe > he would have done a better job, having been forced to think for himself by > the absence of his leader. Perhaps the rev. would have happened in November > rather that October (old style). Maybe the Left Social Revolutionaries, > instead of the bolshies, would have engineered a revolution. But this kind > of counterfactual speculation is pointless after awhile. See what I mean: all your counterfactuals leave you with a "mediocrity like Zinoviev", or the disorganized social revolutionaries - so we are back with Lenin: no Lenin, no revolution. > The point is that the broad social forces that produced the Russian > Revolution did not produce the exact kind of revolution that actually > occurred (the October rev.) Rather, they produced only _opportunities_. > Given the balance of forces, the kind of political organization he led, > and the kinds of allies he had, a "great individual" like Lenin can > engineer a revolution. There is nothing to say that other "great > individuals" can't replace the ones we emphasize with the benefit of > hindsight (even when we talk about competition among leaders, it's the > victors who get the emphasis in the history books). But he (or she) cannot > escape the broad social forces. Once the October revolution had occurred, > another social
Re: Russia
At 01:01 PM 4/2/98 -0500, Barkley Rosser wrote: >Doug, >A very useful and highly respected source that you >could easily contact personally on income data in Russia is >Igor Birman who lives in Brooklyn, I believe. He has been >one of the most respected experts on income levels and >distribution in the FSU and now Russia for several decades. >In the last issue of the Russian (and Russian language) >magazine _Ogonyok_, he argued that real income levels are >not much below what they were a decade ago, based on >consumption data. The unhappiness arises from: 1) >increased inequality of income, although he does not see as >much increase in inequality as does the Luxemburg Income >Study that claims that it is now more unequal than in the >US, and 2) the increased choices available that many cannot >afford that increase dissatisfaction levels. That makes a lot of sense. The vast body of research on relative deprivation suggests that it is not the absolute income level that matters by the income level relative to a reference group. Thus group A who are better off than group B in absolute terms may feel more deprived than B simply because their reference group is much better off than themselves (which may not be the case for A). Regards, Wojtek Sokolowski Institute for Policy Studies Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 Opinions expressed above are those of this writer only. They do not represent the views or policies of the Institute for Policy Studies, the Johns Hopkins University, or anyone else affiliated with these institutions.
re: rationality
I had written: >> You'll note that I didn't put the issue in the either/or way that you assume, but instead used the phrase "more as a," which speaks of _degrees_ of exogeneity or endogeneity [of rationality]. << Ricardo responds: >Stop playing games. Throughout this exchange you have been saying things yet pretending you are saying something else as well. < This is not true: instead, you act as if you know my opinions better than I do, knowing what better than I do what I "pretend" as opposed to actually believe in. This has had the positive effect of encouraging me to clarify exactly what I meant (which gives _me_ jollies, but may be very boring to pen-l). But the arrogant assumption seems to persist (as exemplified by the above), making this discussion very tedious and irritating. RD: >As is evident further below, you DO MEAN to say that rationalism is the dependent variable, even if you aknowledge that rationalism may have an effect as well on the independent variable. No one today would hold the "dependent variable" in an absolute state of dependency, theorefore I take your qualification for granted. The point is you assign primacy to non-rational factors.< I don't know what you mean by the "non-rational" factors that you _assume_ I assign "primacy" to. On what I "DO MEAN" to say, I'll simply repeat that there are _degrees_ of exogeneity and endogeneity (though that's a pretty inadequate summary). Below, I'll address the question further at the end of this missive -- at the asterisks. What I had said was: >> But put the issue in another way: the "human reason" that exists in an extra-historical way is so abstract that it can show up in lots of different forms, from feudal rationality to capitalist rationality, to bureaucratic rationality, to socialist rationality, depending on the specifics of the social organization in which it exists. Talking about "human reason" _per se_ isn't very helpful in understanding the world. It's like talking about the Holy Ghost, which is everywhere and nowhere -- by definition.<< RD:>First, rationalities do not come a dime-a-dozen.< I didn't assert otherwise. You'll notice that I listed less than ten, about five. RD:>Second, drop the assumption that only if you do not connect idea x to the "specifics of the social organization", then you are dwelling in "abstrations".< How do you know my "assumption"? How do you know that my view that 'talking about human reason _per se_ isn't very helpful' isn't a _conclusion_ rather than an assumption? Can you read my mind? I don't pretend to read yours. RD:>Anything - ideal or material - seen in isolation is an abstration. The word "abstraction" by itself is an abstraction, and so is the word "concrete". The phrase "specific social organization" is a monumental abstraction. ... A starving person is itself an abstraction.< Did I say that abstractions were _bad_ and to be avoided at all cost? No. In fact, my natural tendency is to revel in abstractions; but I've learned better over the years, to avoid the academic abstraction addiction as awful. Rather, the problem with abstractions are _inadequate_. They can _help_ us understand the reality of specific situations, but we also need to know the specifics, the empirical data which we're trying to stuff into the abstractions. (This attitude would help the World Bank/IMF avoid their "one size fits all" approach of forcing all countries into the same Walrasian mold -- though I doubt any kind of attitude change will occur without massive popular rebellion; the Bretton Woods Institutions' arrogance arises from their power.) In the ellipsis, RD writes: >Jim Devine by himself is also an abstraction.< Gosh, Ricardo, I _wish_ I were an abstraction, or at least more abstract. That way, I'd weigh less. (Louis, give me a rim-shot.) But seriously folks: Since I don't know what Ricardo means by "non-rational factors" above, let's clarify a bit more. Ricardo never defined what he meant by "rationality," so let's define it following the dominant perspective in economics (a field obsessesed with rationality), i.e., the consistent pursuit of given goals. This definition is pretty tautological, as sophisticated mainstream economists such as Amartya Sen acknowledge. The rational feudal vassal values valor and so acts to maximize valor subject to constraints; all but the insane (who have conflicting motives) are rational in this sense. If we drop the "consistently," it is totally tautological, since any behavior can be seen as "rational," given a preference for variety or conflicting motives. As a (near-)tautology, this kind of rationality is everywhere and nowhere. (My phrase about the "Holy Ghost" modifies a line from George Dalton's summary of Karl Polanyi's ideas in PRIMITIVE, ARCHAIC, AND MODERN ECONOMIES.) Under this definition, "non-rational factors" would involve the _determination_ of exactly what goals the agent consistently pursues. It would determine the _content_ of t
Russia
Oh yes, one more point. According to the latest polls taken in Russia, an overwhelming plurality of people state that living conditions were best during the Brezhnev era. Barkley Rosser -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Russia
Doug, Going backwards through my mail and only now got to this. An implication of my earlier point from Igor Birman (also supported by Luxemburg Income Study, etc.) that income distribution is much more unequal now in Russia, is that even if average real consumption levels have not fallen in the past decade, real consumption levels have certainly declined for a whole lot of people, especially the rural elderly. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 18:12:10 -0500 Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: > > > One piece of evidence is that consumption stats on > >such things as electricity have not fallen nearly as much > >as official income stats. One point, a lot more of the > >economy is now underground unreported income for a variety > >of reasons. Things are a lot worse than they were in the > >countryside, but there has been a definite turnaround in > >many urban areas, especially Moscow. > > This doesn't answer the question of whether most Russians would regard > themselves as better off now than in 1990. For those who remember, I'd love > to see a comparison with 1980. > > Doug > > > -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Russia
Doug, I repeat, the upswing is most clear in urban areas, especially in Moscow where a lot of foreign analysts hang out. The countryside is not in an upswing, although it may not have fallen down as far as many think, as another post I have just sent indicates. As regards life expectancy for males in USSR/Russia, I note that according to Murray Feschbach, it began declining as early as the mid-1960s, hardly a paean to the glories of life under Brezhnev despite the current nostalgia for his era, although there was certainly an acceleration of that decline after 1991. But most think that this reflects the accumulated effects of gradually rising alcoholism, again, not a big plus for the previous system. There is evidence that the decline in male life expectancy has stopped and may have even turned around a bit. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 19:53:01 -0500 Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Jones wrote: > > >I presume the official concerned did not attempt to consult the 3 million men > >aged between 23-45 who according to official Russians stats (cited on JRL) > >died *in excess of * the demographic trendline since 1991. This calamity, the > >worst ever in Russian peace time history,combined with falling fertility and > >birth rates, has resulted in the Russian census department producing a new > >population estimate of 90 million (down from the present 147m) by 2050. > >Russian male life expectancy is now lower than most African countries, at 56.5 > >years, down a full decade from Soviet times. > > > >Who was this Goebbels you were talking with? > > Well, I can't say really. She did concede the rise in the death rate and > the shrinkage of the population, but swears these bottomed out in 1996. > Like Barkley, she perceives an upswing. > > Doug > > > -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Russia
Doug, A very useful and highly respected source that you could easily contact personally on income data in Russia is Igor Birman who lives in Brooklyn, I believe. He has been one of the most respected experts on income levels and distribution in the FSU and now Russia for several decades. In the last issue of the Russian (and Russian language) magazine _Ogonyok_, he argued that real income levels are not much below what they were a decade ago, based on consumption data. The unhappiness arises from: 1) increased inequality of income, although he does not see as much increase in inequality as does the Luxemburg Income Study that claims that it is now more unequal than in the US, and 2) the increased choices available that many cannot afford that increase dissatisfaction levels. Barkley Rosser -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Soviet balance sheet
I am going to support the argument that one needs to judge the system, not particular individuals, however much they may have contributed to the nature and outcomes of that system. Thus, more careful studies by Getty and Manning conclude that Stalin PERSONALLY ordered the deaths of somewhat less than a million people, although still way in excess of 100,000, no trivial rate of butchery. But the Stalinist system certainly killed millions and imprisoned millions more. Likewise, the glory of defeating Hitler is not especially to Stalin's personal credit, but to the people and to some extent the system of the USSR. As has been pointed out, many of Stalin's personal acts and decisions may well have aided Hitler's cause, objectively, more than they hurt it. Barkley Rosser On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:45:34 -0400 Ricardo Duchesne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Date sent: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 15:44:43 -0500 > > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > From: Wojtek Sokolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject:Re: Soviet balance sheet > > > > WS: > > Au contraire, I insist on using the same and comparable standards. If we > > were to judge leaders' crimes, say, per years in office and per population > > size affected by the leader's power (including the client states) - most US > > presidents would look quite unfavourably. Stalin crimes are better > > publicized than those of other leaders, but that has to do with the fact > > that many of his victims were white middle class professionals instead of > > nameless masses in India or Africa. > > > You are just accepting stalinist propaganda that only a small class > of "kulaks" was killed. Truth is Stalin was personally involved in > the deaths of millions of ordinary people. He had no qualms murdering > even those who were closest to him, either party- > friends or family. His oldest son was bullied by him throughout his > childhood and when captured by the Nazis Stalin would not move a > finger to free him, but said something to the effect "let him die". > Just read Medvedev's Let History Judge. > > > In short, I am not denying Stalin was a pig, but so were other empire > > builders. So instead of singleing him out, that plays right into the hands > > of anti-communist propaganda, let us just say "Every empire builder is > > likely to commit atrocities in his/her gamble for power, regardless of the > > ideology used to legitimate the empire or the leader's position in it." > > > Churchill and the other western leaders at the time looked saintly > beside Stalin. ricardo > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Wojtek Sokolowski > > Institute for Policy Studies > > Johns Hopkins University > > Baltimore, MD 21218 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > voice: (410) 516-4056 > > fax: (410) 516-8233 > > > > Opinions expressed above are those of this writer only. They do not > > represent the views or policies of the Institute for Policy Studies, the > > Johns Hopkins University, or anyone else affiliated with these institutions. > > > > > > > > -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Semi-feudalism in Brazil
April 2, 1998 In Brazil Tobacco Country, Conglomerates Rule By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO SANTA CRUZ DO SUL, Brazil -- When Blasio and Claire Lehman were married here 22 years ago, farmers could build a future on tobacco. Four years after their wedding, they bought a piece of land. A few harvests later, they were able to build a simple wooden house. In those days, tobacco companies bought their leaves on the free market, and price was related to supply and demand. But in an age of global competition, most of those smaller tobacco companies have been swallowed by conglomerates. The remaining ones decide prces among themselves, and punish growers heavily should they decide to sell elsewhere. For the 160,000 tobacco growers of Brazil, the leading exporter of tobacco, that has meant disaster. Local officials estimate that 35 percent of the tobacco growers here will end this harvest owing more money than they earned. The Lehmans' son Ismail, who dreams of going to a university, has offered to quit high school -- only temporarily, he says -- to save the family $35 a month in bus fare. "All we're doing is falling," Mrs. Lehman said, "deeper and deeper each year." The tobacco companies call their approach an "integrated system of production." The small farmers call it a new feudalism, and say they would quit growing tobacco if they could switch to another crop. "We think about it every day," said Mr. Lehman. "But everything we think of needs a lot of money to start up," his wife added. Helio Friedrich, a city councilman in nearby Venâncio Aires from the left-of-center Worker's Party, said: "We have a system in which a half dozen companies are strangling the growers. Each year they come up with a new way to squeeze the growers tighter." The tobacco companies have legal advantages and tax incentives to help them compete in the world economy. In Rio Grande do Sul, the heart of tobacco country, state tax incentives to Souza Cruz, the biggest company, amounted to $770 million, while Philip Morris received $195 million. The tax break is supposed to create jobs. But at the modern Souza Cruz proessing plant, the permanent work force has dropped to 180, from 1,000, through a combination of technology and streamlining, said Guido Knies, a senior manager. In calculating what they pay growers, the big companies join together to estimate the growers' cost of production plus a modest margin. To help enforce their control, the companies hold back a share of the farmer's payment until the entire harvest is delivered. The companies say that the growers like the arrangement and that they are merely suffering a difficult year in which the harvest has declined 35 percent because of heavy rainfall. "There is no bad faith on our part," said José Luiz Gaiad de Camargo, manager of corporate communications, science and regulation at Souza Cruz. "What we have is a bad year." Souza Cruz, which controls 84 percent of the Brazilian cigarette market, increased profits 40 percent last year, to $275 million. Company brochures cite success in keeping down costs as the reason for the growing profits. Its stock price has risen 38 percent in two years. At the same time, despite substantial inflation and cost increases for the growers, the price they get their tobacco has remained stagnant. Four companies dominate the tobacco market in Brazil -- Dimon, CTA and Universal Leaf, in addition to Souza Cruz. Though they are competitors in the world market, they all operate by the same rules in their dealings with the farmers. The squeeze on the growers begins at the start of the season, when they must take bank loans to buy kits from the companies that include seeds, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, a plastic sheet to cover the soil and protective gear for applying the chemicals. The growers say they do not have the technology to extract seeds in the quantity they need. The growers must not only pay for the kits; they must also pledge to sell their harvest to the companies. The companies also hold back 15 cents for each kilo of tobacco the farmer delivers as insurance that the grower will deliver the rest of the promised harvest. The companies contend that they do this so their technical assistance will not be wasted, but the practice also leaves growers little recourse in disputes over acompany's valuation of their crop. The companies tightened the pricing noose after farmers' strikes for higher prices in the late 1980's. When supply fell in 1991, the growers and the companies negotiated a 50 percent increase in payments. But shortly after that the companies banded together, with all offering the same terms to the growers. That ended any opportunity for the growers to negotiate prices. Nelson Proença is the secretary for development of international investment for Rio Grande do Sul. His office has granted nearly $1 billion in tax breaks to the tobacco companies, but he said the local government had no say in
Re: Request for information
At 08:10 AM 4/2/98 +, you wrote: >I agree with everything you've said in terms of the basic concepts >expressed. But perhaps re-read that message from that journalist >again. How about summarily concluding that the notion of sexual >predators on the internet is exaggerated on the basis of nothing more >than one's limited experience with one's own children? Jim: I know that person from more than the few lines I extracted from her personal email to me, and can reasonably tell that she generally takes a common sense approach rather than "following the party line". I agree, though, that had that been an official request from, say, a media agency, your point about pre-conceived conclusions would hold. Regards, WS >
Re: Soviet balance sheet
> Date sent: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 15:44:43 -0500 > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Wojtek Sokolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject:Re: Soviet balance sheet > WS: > Au contraire, I insist on using the same and comparable standards. If we > were to judge leaders' crimes, say, per years in office and per population > size affected by the leader's power (including the client states) - most US > presidents would look quite unfavourably. Stalin crimes are better > publicized than those of other leaders, but that has to do with the fact > that many of his victims were white middle class professionals instead of > nameless masses in India or Africa. You are just accepting stalinist propaganda that only a small class of "kulaks" was killed. Truth is Stalin was personally involved in the deaths of millions of ordinary people. He had no qualms murdering even those who were closest to him, either party- friends or family. His oldest son was bullied by him throughout his childhood and when captured by the Nazis Stalin would not move a finger to free him, but said something to the effect "let him die". Just read Medvedev's Let History Judge. > In short, I am not denying Stalin was a pig, but so were other empire > builders. So instead of singleing him out, that plays right into the hands > of anti-communist propaganda, let us just say "Every empire builder is > likely to commit atrocities in his/her gamble for power, regardless of the > ideology used to legitimate the empire or the leader's position in it." Churchill and the other western leaders at the time looked saintly beside Stalin. ricardo > Regards, > > > > > Wojtek Sokolowski > Institute for Policy Studies > Johns Hopkins University > Baltimore, MD 21218 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > voice: (410) 516-4056 > fax: (410) 516-8233 > > Opinions expressed above are those of this writer only. They do not > represent the views or policies of the Institute for Policy Studies, the > Johns Hopkins University, or anyone else affiliated with these institutions. > > > >
an example of participant-observer sociology
Last night, I went to my neighborhood's "homeowner association" meeting, which was a response to a recent gang slaying at the neighborhood park's basketball court (luckily a very rare event). Despite the mixed ethnic and religious character of the neighborhood, I saw a strong show of middle-class solidarity. (No-one even hinted at the fact that the gang-members involved were black, since more than half of the crowd was black too.) On reason for the mood of middle-class solidarity is that the apartment-dwellers in the neighborhood are excluded from the meeting. We (my wife and I and others) are pushing to prevent the movement that turns our neighboorhood into a "gate-guarded community" (the abomination that disgraces the LA landscape). Luckily, no-one is talking about closing the park or getting rid of basketball. Our homeowners' association seems less reactionary than the reputation that most in LA have. That may be because of the ethnic mix and the relatively good conditions we have in Culver City compared to Los Angeles (the city and county that engulf us). in the "heart of screenland," home of the Sony studios, Jim Devine[EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html Los Angeles, the city of your future: the city of smog, earthquakes, modern slavery, fires, mudslides & sinkholes, civil disturbances (a.k.a. riots or rebellions), OJ, the Menendi, and Heidi Fleiss (daughter of our nephew's pediatrician).
Re: Soviet balance sheet
On Fri, March 27, 1998 at 16:35:26 (-0800) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >I would like to get some feedback about the net impact of the Soviets on >World History. > >Here are some variables that I would consider: > >The threat of the Soviet Union caused the U.S. and other capitalist >countries to soften the harsh face of capitalism -- more acceptance of >unions, some help to some progressive forces above, but also intensified >support to the Marcoses, Mobutus, etc. While this is undoubtedly true for some countries, it is not as true for others. The case of Argentina (where I am from and with which I have some familiarity) falls in the second group of countries. The U.S. supported the most brutal dictatorship of recent history which came to power in 1976. The objectives of the dictatorship were clear: to wipe out left of center labour and student activism and to move the country's economy towards a "market friendly" (i.e. neoliberal) structure. Furthermore, the Argentine Communist Party gave the dictatorship "critical support" which was apparently the result of an agreement between the SU and the repressors: don't disappear our activists and we won't condemn you too much. Also, Argentina greatly benefited from increased trade with the SU during the military dictatorship. (The Argentine CP later, in 1986 I believe, repented from its past errors. However, by then as many as 30,000 people had been disappeared including many of its own activists.) While the departure of the military from power in 1983 resulted in somewhat less orthodox economic policies, high inflation and general macro instability resulted in a return to hyper-neoliberalism with the current Menem administration (1989-present). I guess my points are: 1) The existence of the SU did not result a softer hand towards labour or the left in Argentina (or other Southern Cone countries for that matter), on the contrary, they were treated with the utmost brutality and impunity. 2) The existence of the SU did not stop the implementation of the most savage form of neoliberalism in Argentina (or Chile, for example). Of course, one could argue the SU was already in decline and the US knew this and acted accordingly. However, the very cozy relationship of the SU with the Argentine military is a fact that cannot be that easily written off. In solidarity, Alan
Re: Request for information
At 03:05 PM 4/1/98 +, Jim Craven wrote: >This is priceless. Who is this narcissistic creature? Let me see if I >got this straight. I'm this world renowned journalist who must be >careful about anything I write because it could terrorize parents >about the Internet with my views AND my pet thoery is that the >dangers of sexual predators in the Internet are exaggerated on the >basis of ANECDOTAL evidence, police reports and arrests BUT I don't >know how to find my own ANECDOTAL evidence (except my limited >impressions from my own little world at home) which will be REAL >supporting not ANECDOTAL evidence for my pet theory (read working >hypothesis or provisional conclusions about which I am certain) and I >don't know where to even find REAL (those which confirm my >pre-conceived conclusions and contrived syllogisms) numbers but >that's OK, I know what is what and what is really true about sexual >predators on the internet and I will not turn my earthshaking piece >in another fear-mongering piece thus cause fear among those millions >of families who hang on my every word. > >Is this person for real? Is this another one of those self-appointed >freelance "journalists" with fantasies of grandeur and mass influence? >Some of these journalists are such narcissistic scum. Why would an attempt to separate fact from fiction and fear mongering to do a really modest assignment, like writing a "human interests" article for a local newspaer, qualify as "narcissistic scum" is beyond me. Are you suggesting that she should have followed the footsteps of her more prestigious colleagues covering the Monica Lewinsky case? The only reason I reposted this request is that I am nausated by the claim-and-grievance-manufacturing industry, of which the media and various professional groups are an integral part. In the topsy turvy world where appearances count more than reality and every single event, from Jonesboro shooting, to the allged sexual adventures of our fearless leader, is turned into a rallying point for some cause (usually right-wing, wacky, or both) -- a common sense approach that distrust those manufactured claims from the start is rare wisdom. I wish the professional and academic establishment expressed such common-sense judiciousness. Regards, Wojtek Sokolowski
Re: Peruvian Maoism
Tom Kruse: >Is this the case? Have ideas won allegiances? Relevant to the this line of >discussion is Fernando Mires' work on revolutions in Latin America. He does >a very good analysis on what sorts of conclusions we can/should draw from >indigenous peoples' participation in social struggles over the years. He >studies both the period 1780-1 (Tupaj Katari and Tupaj Amaru), as well as >the Bolivian "national revolution". He suggests that the relationships >between the ideas, leaders and followers in such processes is very >problematic. Many thanks to my friend Tom Kruse for his thoughtful post. I told another friend that I had some worry that my Shining Path piece would make me persona non grata with my professor pals on PEN-L. If Tom hasn't disowned me, then I feel I have done an adequate job. Who knows, I might end up in Bolivia one of these days where we can have a nice chat in person. The point he raises above is key not only to Peru, but all revolutionary situations. The masses take up the gun not because somebody has intellectually convinced them of the merits of socialism, but because the day-to-day oppression of capitalism is unbearable. On the Marxism lists, Doug raised the question of the PCP's rejection of indigenism. Geraldo Renique, who wrote "Time of Fear" with Deborah Poole, argued that many Quechua youth are attracted to Maoism because it is a form of rejection of a cultural identity that has a degraded status in Peru. I replied that there are many Senderologists who argue just the opposite. They claim that there are subtle appeals to Inca nationalism in the PCP propaganda and that Gonzalo was presented to the rural masses as a sort of Tupac Amaru figure. I thought that the problem with these types of analyses is that they are much too open to conjecture. My guess is that the peasant would be open to just about any ideology that promised that the system that oppressed them be demolished. I suspect that the growth of Christian Protestant millenarian cults in Latin America is another reflection of this sort of desperation. When you read the Senderologists, the thing that strikes you is HOW LITTLE actual engagement there is with the rank-and-file Senderoso. Robin Kirk has a new book called "The Monkey's Paw" on the movement which attempts to put a spotlight on the motivations of the membership, but unfortunately she is just too biased to let them speak for themselves. I will tell you that she is much less severe in her judgements than she used to be. What the Shining Path needs is a advocate who will approach them with the sort of even-handedness that I tried to muster. Of course, they should be able to speak Quechua and be an expert in Peruvian politics as well. A tall order. My goal was a simple one. It was to rescue the reputation of the Communist Party of Peru from the charge that it is Pol Pot-ist. I urge people who have more than a passing interest in Peru to look for Diaz Martinez's book on Ayacucho. It is a powerfully reasoned, sensitive attempt to make the case for sweeping change in the Andean countryside. I should mention, by the way, that Diaz Martinez was killed in prison during a confrontation between the Shining Path inmates and their guards. Louis Proyect
re:state-war
This seems even shorter, though there's more heat than light. I had written: >>I think one thing to do is start treating "rationalism" more as a dependent variable and not some extra-historical force [an independent variable]. ...<< Ricardo D writes: >Why is the choice for rationalism between "dependent variable" and "extra-historical force", whereas the assumed-independent variable here cannot be accused of being an extra-historical force? And, if rationalism is "dependent", how does the assumed-independent variable exist without any form of human reason?< You'll note that I didn't put the issue in the either/or way that you assume, but instead used the phrase "more as a," which speaks of _degrees_ of exogeneity or endogeneity. But put the issue in another way: the "human reason" that exists in an extra-historical way is so abstract that it can show up in lots of different forms, from feudal rationality to capitalist rationality, to bureaucratic rationality, to socialist rationality, depending on the specifics of the social organization in which it exists. Talking about "human reason" _per se_ isn't very helpful in understanding the world. It's like talking about the Holy Ghost, which is everywhere and nowhere -- by definition. RD had written: >>>The inescapable fact for marxists is that without Lenin no October Revolution.<<< I responded: >>Lenin shaped the nature of the Rev, no doubt about it, just as Napoleon had a big impact on the recasting of Europe after the French Revolution (as I said). But Lenin was highly constrained by (1) the Russian situation of the time, (2) the organization he led. Like all "great individuals," Lenin was also a product of his time. You'll note that he changed his opinions a lot as "material conditions" changed. The Lenin of WHAT IS TO BE DONE? or TWO TACTICS OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY is quite different from that of STATE AND REVOLUTION. ... This suggests that even though "Great Individuals" shouldn't be ignored, the "Great Individual" theory of history should be dropped. If Lenin had died before 1917, it's also quite possible that some other great individual would have arisen to pick up the torch. Krupskaya? << RD now says: >The weakness of your argument here is quite evident when we are left with the choice of dropping the "great individual theory of history" so we can pick up Krupskaya!< The reference to Ms. K was what's known in the trade as a "joke." I doubt that she had the political basis amongst the Bolsheviks to take over from Lenin. But we don't know what would have happened if Lenin had been having dinner in September 1917, had choked on a beet, and his dinner companion, Stalin, hadn't known the Heimlich maneuver (or didn't want to use it), so that the Bolsheviks were suddenly rendered leaderless.[*] The fact is that there were other leaders amongst the Bolsheviks who could have eventually replaced Lenin (I don't count Trotsky among them, since he was treated as an outsider by the bolshies). Russia was in severe crisis on several different levels (exemplified by mutinous soldiers and sailors, rebellious peasants, and workers' soviets), with Karensky's government having an extremely hard time trying to paper over the contradictions with legislative fiat. (Maybe Karensky might have been pushed in a more socialist direction which could have encouraged peasant land-hunger and worker soviets even more.) Perhaps eventually some mediocrity like Zinoviev would have been pushed to change his attitudes to lead a revolution; maybe he would have done a better job, having been forced to think for himself by the absence of his leader. Perhaps the rev. would have happened in November rather that October (old style). Maybe the Left Social Revolutionaries, instead of the bolshies, would have engineered a revolution. But this kind of counterfactual speculation is pointless after awhile. The point is that the broad social forces that produced the Russian Revolution did not produce the exact kind of revolution that actually occurred (the October rev.) Rather, they produced only _opportunities_. Given the balance of forces, the kind of political organization he led, and the kinds of allies he had, a "great individual" like Lenin can engineer a revolution. There is nothing to say that other "great individuals" can't replace the ones we emphasize with the benefit of hindsight (even when we talk about competition among leaders, it's the victors who get the emphasis in the history books). But he (or she) cannot escape the broad social forces. Once the October revolution had occurred, another social force reared its ugly head explicitly: the US and other "Western" forces invaded Russia and its environs. This, plus the persistence of the societal contradictions within Russia shaped the actual practice of the October revolution -- and its results -- much more than Lenin did. A lot of Lenin's writings after the rev. are like descriptions of efforts to "put out fires" that keep o
Drug warriors supporting single mothers (!?)
Dear Pen-Lers: Check out this delicous quote on how to fight the drug war on the demand side, by none other than the Czar himself, Ge. McCaffrey: "The family is the number-one defense we have," McCaffrey said. "And that includes single moms. We must structure society to support working moms," he told about 350 participants at the first U.S.-Mexico Binational Demand Reduction Conference held here March 18-20. "Structure society"! Golly, don't that sound exciting! Almost Marxish. But read on; let's look at the structuring operations they propose: "The key element in the plan is awareness and information," said Chavez. "We must team up with educators, clergy and leaders in other community organizations to reach our young people and give them peer and adult role models, teach them skills for resisting drugs and provide safe anchors." Aw shit; and just when the rhetoric was getting good ... structuring desire/expectation/fear again, not, say, relations of production. But there is another piece: A second major element is the reduction of tolerance for drug use. "We cannot just do prevention," McCaffrey said. "We need law enforcement too. Drugs must be socially disapproved by society." Guns and night sticks again. After paragraph 1 had my hopes up ... what happened to the single moms? And in closing, the Czar treats us to a bit of voodoo economics: At the same time, McCaffrey said, the rest of the world must also work to reduce its demand for illicit drugs. "The United States is not the top user of illegal drugs in the world," he stressed. That perception "is simply not true. The problem is that it is our money that provides the fuel for international crime." Let's see: not the top user, but it is US consumption spending that injects $$ into the hands of "international crime", persumably dealers, cartels, etc. Hmmm. Are US citizens giving Europeans the money to buy drugs? How DOES this work? Just goes to show, in this war you can say whatever the #$%&! you want. Tom Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
common threads
For the most part the discussions concerning the Soviet balance sheet and Peru seem to be coming up against a very difficult subject. Nobody to my knowledge has been able to make much progress in society without coming up against powerful, and often violent resistance. Whether it is the early Teamsters organizing in the U.S., peasants in Peru, or even a state such as the early S.U. or Nicaragua or Cuba struggling to survive, all are met with violence. Matters become even more complicated when strange alliances emerge. In the face of this confusion, progressive parties make mistakes. I can sit in my office connected to the Internet and pontificate: X is bad. I am above all that. yadda yadda yadda. The real question is more like, what the hell would I do if I wanted to make a better world. The common theme is that the answer is not easy. Even so, I think that we are making a healthy stab at it. Congratulations to all involved. I wish that more of you were participating -- especially those of you located outside of the North American continent. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Peruvian Maoism
At 09:09 PM 4/1/98 -0500, you wrote: >Friends, > >There is a book reviewed in the 12/97 "Monthly Review" by Bruce Cumings. The book >is writtne by Maurice Meisner and is titled "The Deng Xiaoping Era: An Inquiry >into the Fate of Chinese Socialism." Cumings gives it a rave review. Has anyone >on the list read it? It sounds like it has a lot to say about Mao and the >Cultural Revolution. > >Michael yates > Meisner's book is first-rate. As far as I know, it is one of the only Marxist appreciations--as opposed to a Maoist hagiography--of Mao and his successors. I strongly urge it for anybody who has even a cursory interest in China. Louis Proyect
World Debt
WORLD BANK REPORTS LDC DEBT LEVELS UP SLIGHTLY IN 1997 25 March 1998 By Jon Schaffer, USIA Staff Writer Washington -- The aggregate debt of developing countries rose slightly in 1997, but debtor nations were better positioned to service their debt, the World Bank says. Aggregate debt of 138 developing countries rose from $2.095 trillion ($2,095,400 million) in 1996 to $2.171 trillion in 1997, the World Bank reported in its annual "Global Development Finance" report issued March 24. While there is no one best measure of a country's potential capacity to service its debt, the report emphasizes certain export measures because exports are considered important in providing foreign exchange needed to make debt payments. The report also looks at debt as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) because GNP is viewed as the broadest measure of income generation in an economy. All of the measures showed some improvement. The World Bank reported that the ratio of total external debt-to-exports of goods and services fell from 137 percent in 1996 to 134 percent in 1997. The ratio of total external debt-to-GNP fell from 36.0 percent to 34.9 percent and the ratio of total debt service payments-to-exports of goods and services (also called the debt service ratio) fell from 17.2 percent to 16.7 percent. In part, the progress reflected a number of programs implemented by the international financial community to reduce the debt burden of some of the poorest nations and strong export growth in a number of the debtor countries. Nine debt reduction agreements were concluded with commercial banks in 1997 reducing outstanding debt by $6,700 million. In addition, six low-income countries reached agreement with creditor governments on $5,800 million in official debt reduction and five other countries have been made eligible for $1,500 million in multilateral debt relief under the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. Following are some regional trends: East Asia: Long-term external debt climbed by 10 percent in 1997 to $111,000 million. The rise reflected increased borrowing by some countries seeking to take advantage of low foreign interest rates. Even with the increase, the ratio of debt-to-exports of 103 percent was below the 134 percent for all developing countries, the report said. But debt serviceability among the region's countries was mixed -- low in the middle-income countries and very high among the region's poorer countries, such as Laos, Burma and Vietnam. The report did not speculate on the effects of the recent Asian financial crisis on debt in the region. Europe and Central Asia: The stock of debt rose 6 percent in 1997 to $316,000 million, reflecting a $20,000 million increase in debt owed private creditors. The debt-to-export ratio was down slightly from 105 percent to 102 percent, far below 1993's 142 percent. The debt service ratio remained at about 11 percent. Latin America and the Caribbean: Total long-term external debt rose 4 percent to $538,000 million, mainly because of a sharp increase in the outstanding stock of bonds, which accounts for almost half the total. The debt indicators are mixed. The debt-to-export ratio fell from 198 percent in 1996 to 193 percent in 1997 and remains far below the 245 percent annual average for 1990-95. However, the average debt service-to-export ratio was 34 percent in 1997, well above the 26 percent average in 1990-95. Eight of the 14 countries classified as severely indebted middle-income countries are in this region. The debt-to-export ratios of Argentina and Brazil approach 300 percent. Bolivia and Guyana have been reviewed by the IMF and World Bank executive boards for HIPC debt relief and, assuming good economic performance, may soon be eligible for debt relief of up to $1,042 million, the report said. It said that the eligibility of Honduras and Nicaragua for HIPC relief will be reviewed at a later date. Middle East and North Africa: The stock of long-term external debt rose 3 percent in 1997 to $166,000 million. While official debt accounts for 68 percent of the region's external debt, the main source of the increase was private debt, which rose from $45,000 million to $53,000 million. As in Latin America, the debt indicators are mixed. The debt service ratio remained at 11 percent in 1997. However, the average debt-to-export ratio climbed by four percentage points to 115 percent in 1997. Both Yemen and Jordan agreed to a rescheduling of their official bilateral debt last year. South Asia: Disbursements from official creditors -- which hold 75 percent of the region's debt -- boosted slightly the stock of debt to $139,000 million in 1997. More than half of the official debt is owed to multilateral financial institutions. The region's ability to service their debt improved slightly last year and is indicative of a regional trend during most of the decade. The ratio of debt-to-exports fell from 194 percent in 1996 to 180 percent in 1997 whil
Re: Request for information
> Received: from MAILQUEUE by OOI (Mercury 1.21); 2 Apr 98 07:50:09 +800 > Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 2 Apr 98 07:50:02 +800 > Received: from host (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > Thu, 2 Apr 1998 07:48:01 -0800 (PST) > Received: from jhuml1.hcf.jhu.edu (jhuml1.hcf.jhu.edu [128.220.2.86]) > Received: from sokol.wpmc.jhu.edu (wsokolow.wpmc.jhu.edu) > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 10:38:50 EDT > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 10:42:37 -0500 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Wojtek Sokolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Request for information > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > MIME-version: 1.0 > Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN > X-PMFLAGS: 34078848 > > At 03:05 PM 4/1/98 +, Jim Craven wrote: > >This is priceless. Who is this narcissistic creature? Let me see if I > >got this straight. I'm this world renowned journalist who must be > >careful about anything I write because it could terrorize parents > >about the Internet with my views AND my pet thoery is that the > >dangers of sexual predators in the Internet are exaggerated on the > >basis of ANECDOTAL evidence, police reports and arrests BUT I don't > >know how to find my own ANECDOTAL evidence (except my limited > >impressions from my own little world at home) which will be REAL > >supporting not ANECDOTAL evidence for my pet theory (read working > >hypothesis or provisional conclusions about which I am certain) and I > >don't know where to even find REAL (those which confirm my > >pre-conceived conclusions and contrived syllogisms) numbers but > >that's OK, I know what is what and what is really true about sexual > >predators on the internet and I will not turn my earthshaking piece > >in another fear-mongering piece thus cause fear among those millions > >of families who hang on my every word. > > > >Is this person for real? Is this another one of those self-appointed > >freelance "journalists" with fantasies of grandeur and mass influence? > >Some of these journalists are such narcissistic scum. > > > Why would an attempt to separate fact from fiction and fear mongering to do > a really modest assignment, like writing a "human interests" article for a > local newspaer, qualify as "narcissistic scum" is beyond me. Are you > suggesting that she should have followed the footsteps of her more > prestigious colleagues covering the Monica Lewinsky case? > > The only reason I reposted this request is that I am nausated by the > claim-and-grievance-manufacturing industry, of which the media and various > professional groups are an integral part. In the topsy turvy world where > appearances count more than reality and every single event, from Jonesboro > shooting, to the allged sexual adventures of our fearless leader, is turned > into a rallying point for some cause (usually right-wing, wacky, or both) > -- a common sense approach that distrust those manufactured claims from the > start is rare wisdom. > > I wish the professional and academic establishment expressed such > common-sense judiciousness. > > Regards, > > Wojtek Sokolowski > Response: I agree with everything you've said in terms of the basic concepts expressed. But perhaps re-read that message from that journalist again. How about summarily concluding that the notion of sexual predators on the internet is exaggerated on the basis of nothing more than one's limited experience with one's own children? What kind of investigating, inference or adduction/deduction is that? And how about asking for data and sources to confirm a pre-determined conclusion which was arrived at on the basis of "evidence" even more anecdotal and even more limited than the "evidence" that was being summarily rejected as it didn't fit with the pre-determined conclusion and the desire not to contribute to "fear mongering" (sometimes there are indeed things about which parents ought to have some fears just as sometimes paranoids do have real enemies)? Sorry, but I put that person, perhaps too summarily and unfairly, but I put that person in the same camp and some of those other self- promoting and self-authoritative (without portfolio) "journalists" based on her own words deconstructed. Jim Craven *---* * "Let me be a free man, free to travel,* * James Craven free to stop, free to work, free to * * Dept of Economics trade where I choose, free to choose * * Clark College my own teachers, free to follow the * * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd. religion of my fathers [and mothers], * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 free to talk, think and act for * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] myself--and I will obey every
Peru
Louis and others: In recounting the Peruvian Yuyasquani theater piece, I forgot a very important aspect of the symbolism of dismemberment and re-membering. After the uprisings and rebellions of the 1780s, one of the indigenous leaders was quartered by the Spanish troops, his body torn to pieces by four powerful horses, pulling in four different directions, one limb tied to each. Just before dying he is reported to have said "volveremos y seremos millones -- we will return, and we be millions." The Spaniards scatterd his bones so that no one might have a body or even a relic to rally around (producing a disorientng effect perhaps not all that different from what "disapperances" of this century produce). It came to be believed that once the pieces of his body were reassembeld, then the people would return, the millions. Re-membering -- both physically and historically -- is a powerful referent. Tom The Peruvian theater company Yuyasquani (sp?) is not. They did an absolutely incredible presentation in La Paz some time ago. The theater piece dealt with violence, and was produced collaboratively by the members of the group. The story they told: In one (of so many) acts of systematic, exemplary violence loosed on the rural population, a Peruvian Army unit dismembers the play's protagonist. The rest of the work is our dead hero's epic journey in search of his own bones, so that he might re-member himself and rest in peace. The journey takes him along the well worn migratory path from countryside to city, thus re-enacting the ubiquitous culmination of "land hunger". Finally he arrives Lima, that teeming, horrific tragedy of a city. (Lima was for me the most alienating, aggressive, hateful place I have yet experienced.) Finally the hero stumbles his way to the Cathedral in the center of the city, and in the crypt he finds his bones, mixed up with and indistinguishable from those of Pizarro's, the conqueror. Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fw: "To spite them all." (Russ Election) (fwd)
If nearly all politicians are crooks, why settle for a pale imitation when you can have the real thing? >Johnson's Russia List >#2127 >1 April 1998 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >*** > >#9 >The Electronic Telegraph >1 April 1998 >[for personal use only] >Convicted criminal is elected mayor of Russia's third city >By Alan Philps in Moscow > > VOTERS in Russia's third city, Nizhny Novgorod, once considered the >vanguard of economic reform, have dealt a blow to the political elite by >electing a twice-convicted criminal as mayor. > Andrei Klimentyev, a nightclub owner known as "the Pimple", was >sentenced in 1982 to eight years in jail for fraud and selling >pornographic videos, and recently served an 18-month sentence for >embezzling £1.5 million of a state loan. He polled 34 per cent of the >vote, beating by two points the current incumbent, a lawyer. The Kremlin >immediately sought to challenge the result, which marks a serious blow >to the Volga city's prestige. > Under the governorship of Boris Nemtsov, now deputy prime minister in >the Russian government, the city was a beacon of reform in the stagnant >provinces. Lady Thatcher and John Major went there, and it was chosen as >the site for an experiment to turn Soviet-style collective farms into >modern agricultural businesses. > But the people of Nizhny Novgorod took delight in overturning the city's >good reputation. One woman, asked why she voted for Mr Klimentyev, said: >"To spite them all." The Kremlin said that President Yeltsin was >"alarmed and deeply concerned" at the result. Alexander Ivanchenko, >chairman of the Central Electoral Commission, called for the vote to be >cancelled, saying Mr Klimentyev had bought votes. > The new mayor responded: "Who is going to declare the vote invalid? I'm >the boss here now." The mayor never tried to smarten himself up, >realising a gangster is a stronger pull at the polls than his grey, >careerist rivals. All politicians and the police are widely seen as >corrupt, greedy and selfish, while criminals are able to project a Robin >Hood image. During his campaign, Mr Klimentyev promised to open three >groceries where pensioners could buy cut-price chicken legs, pig's >hearts and salo, or salted pork fat, a peasant delicacy that is washed >down with vodka. > The city's go-ahead image is very important for the Kremlin, and Mr >Yeltsin has used it as a source of new blood for his administration. It >is the home of Mr Nemtsov and the new acting prime minister, Sergei >Kiriyenko. But the successful image is superficial. Wages in many >factories are delayed for months, and the defence plants lay idle. > >*** >--- >David Johnson >home phone: 301-588-3861 >office phone: 202-862-0700 >fax: 202-862-0708 >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >home address: > 9039 Sligo Creek Parkway #1003 > Silver Spring MD 20901 > USA > >*** >* Alex Chis & Claudette Begin * >* P.O. Box 2944 * >* Fremont, CA 94536 * >* 510-489-8554* >* [EMAIL PROTECTED] * >*** >
Re: Russia
60 Minutes has done several slots on the low pay of the military -- you might give them a call and get transcripts. Also a newspaper search on government employees not getting paid at all for months at a time should be productive, I know I've read a couple of Times articles to that effect. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Russia
I presume the official concerned did not attempt to consult the 3 million men aged between 23-45 who according to official Russians stats (cited on JRL) died *in excess of * the demographic trendline since 1991. This calamity, the worst ever in Russian peace time history,combined with falling fertility and birth rates, has resulted in the Russian census department producing a new population estimate of 90 million (down from the present 147m) by 2050. Russian male life expectancy is now lower than most African countries, at 56.5 years, down a full decade from Soviet times. Who was this Goebbels you were talking with? Mark Doug Henwood wrote: > I was just told by a U.S. government official that claims of a 50% decline > in Russian incomes during this decade are based on flawed stats, and that > few Russians would claim that they're worse off now than in 1990. > > This strikes me as preposterous, but does anyone have some data to back up > my skepticism? > > Doug
[Fwd: M-I: Re: M-TH: Re: Peruvian Maoism]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --6D0B31EBEF66B8470C90ED13 Adolfo Olaechea, chair of Committee Sol Peru in London, commented on my posting and I am forwarding it, appropriately, to Pen-L. Mark --6D0B31EBEF66B8470C90ED13 Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 17:27:59 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hariette Spierings) Subject: Re: M-I: Re: M-TH: Re: Peruvian Maoism Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Didn't take long for the tame Senderologists to show their head, did it? >The problem with the kind of thinking Rob Saute exemplifies is that his >alternative is, well, what they've got: Fujimori and all the things which give >him aid and comfort. Jim Craven asks why the bile? I believe it's this: the >left is so exercised by the PCP's alleged 'human rights' violations because the >answer the PCP gave to left-wing hypocrisy was definitive. > >That's why it hurts. > >Mark > >Robert Saute, CUNY Grad Center wrote: > >> On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Louis Proyect wrote: >> >> > We sometimes forget that the Shining Path is in a war >> > with the Peruvian state and not the American left and its allies in Peru. >> >> Of course, Louis Proyect is partially correct in the above >> statement. The Communist Party of Peru/Shining Path/Sendero Luminoso is >> not at war with the U.S. Left; they could probably care less. On the >> other hand, many a labor leader, leftist party militant, shanty-town >> organizer or peasant activist killed at the hands of Sendero Luminoso >> cadre might from the grave, were that possible, find his characterization >> of Shining Path's enemies a bit disingenuous. Seen through the lens of a >> debate on just how semi-feudal Peru is or is not, the endless >> preoccupation with human rights does seem to be so much drivel. >> >> Sub-comandante Marcos take heed, knock off a few human rights >> workers from the Catholic Church, execute a doctor or two from San >> Cristobal, murder local activists from the PRD, and Zapatista stock will >> rise in Lou's eyes. >> >> May a thousand dead dogs hang from the lampposts of a land purged of petty >> bourgeois revisionists and misleaders of the working class! >> >> Sincerely yours, >> >> Robert Saute >> Dear Mark: I will like to comment with you the question of the real significance of all this "human rights" and "murder of union and local activists" that the mouthpieces of US imperialism posing as "people of the left" lay at the door of the Peruvian Maoist revolutionaries of the PCP. You are absolutely right that behind all this talk about "Human Rights" there is only concern for BOURGOIS PROPERTY RIGHTS and Maria Antoniette style "aristocratic altruism" of the kind of "if there is no bread, serve them cakes" which permeates the mentality of the liberal or social imperialist of the Western "leftist" variety from the cradle to the grave! Not in vain these are basically the same people who thought nothing of advancing slogans such as "we are the world" and other condescending saviour Amnesty International kind of "solidarity". But, let us address the concrete accusation of "killing union and community activists" which these gentlemen apologists of the ruling classes shamelessly lay at the Peruvian communists. Recently in Peru, the Fujimori intelligence services have released the true curriculum of the scab Huillca, chief of the so called GGTP (Peruvian TUC) who was, according to El Diario Internacional, executed by a guerilla detchment of the PCP a few years ago. It is well known that about Mr. Huillca and his fate, all the international Trade Union bureacrats and all the bogus leftists in the world have not ceased to shed tears and express outrage against the revolutionaries. Now, from the Intelligence Services of Fujimori's dictatorship, it is officially acknowledged that Mr. Huillca did indeed work as an agent, informer and organiser of paramilitary death squads. The eternal gratitude of the sinister organism headed by Fujimori's bloodthirsty "Rasputin", Vladimiro Montesinos to Mr. Huillca, whom they themselves have called "our comrade in arms" has now been revealed in full. What have the "defenders of the Peruvian Union and community leaders" have to say to this? Not much, since Orwell, Isaiah Berlin, and company, people whom they likewise promote as "representatives of the popular cause" have also recently been exposed by their former imperialist employers as playing the same role in European working class politics as those putative "Union and community leaders such as Huillca, Maria Elena Moyano, etc. play in Peru: Counter-revolutionary activities and DEFENSE OF THE SOCIAL ORDER OF EXPLOITATION AND OPPRESSION, at the very basis of which lays the same BOURGEOIS PROPERTY RIGHTS which they wave as "Human Right" to beffuddle the unaware and divert the proletariat and the people from the revolutionary road. Adolfo Olaechea --
