Re: Oil Socialism
Ian: Capitalism has come to be dependent on fossil fuels, yes, but *so has actually existing socialism been, it will remain so in the foreseeable future*, so oil dependency does *not* define *either* mode of production -- it has become common to both, which is an empirical fact. Yoshie ** Similarly, the transition to a post-oil economy is, in all probability, independent of whether it is done under capitalism or socialism. Not quite. I think that abolishing the logic of M-C-M' makes it much easier to plan implement more rational resource uses. The transition to socialism will not in itself make the problem of path dependency disappear, but I believe there will be less constraints on adopting greener technology under socialism, provided that socialism in question is (a) democratic (b) neither subject to imperialist attacks nor in competition with the capitalist world economy . That said, so far there has been no available alternative to fossil fuels which does not depend upon fossil fuels in its production. Hence Cuba's need for oil, a little greener agricultural production that it has had to invent (by making a virtue out of necessity) notwithstanding. No one -- not even the most patriotic of the Cubans -- likes blackouts. An interesting question is whether capitalism would secure even greater allegiance if it were to successfully navigate the current technological regime to a more hospitable relationship to the global ecology, or whether the price paid for technological success in terms of even less freedom for individual and social development would incite people to transform the relations of production. I think that rich nations will continue to displace their ecological problems onto poor nations, and the rich citizens will displace their ecological problems onto poor communities in a given nation, as they have so far. As long as poor nations the working class in general remain poor powerless, that's the path of the least resistance for capital. Yoshie
Capitalism = Fetters on Growth? (was Re: Beyond the Summary ofNader analysis)
From James Heartfield to John Gulick: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes How about a program of zero economic growth ? With a considerable part of the world mired in poverty, zero economic growth seems like a convenient way for the affluent West to secure its own economic advantage for all time. That is true, James, to the extent that neoliberalism has been a program of slow growth for all (with a possible exception of some sectors of rich nations, esp. the USA) and de-industrialization de-modernization for many (especially for many ex-socialist citizens as well as those under the harshest regimens of the SAPs). The problem with capitalism is not that it grows too fast, but that it puts chains on the further development of the forces of production. Does capitalism put "chains on the further development of the forces of production"? In what sense? Some thoughts on so-called "fetters": 1. One might argue, as Ellen Wood (drawing on Robert Brenner, Karl Polanyi, etc.) does, that the dialectic of forces of production and relations of production (with the latter acting as fetters for the former) is one unique to the capitalist mode of production, with its logic of M-C-M' which entails market compulsion to innovation (do or die, prosper or go bankrupt) creative destruction; this dialectic is not useful for explaining, for instance, the transition from feudalism to capitalism -- nor should it predominate an emancipated future under socialism. 2. Does "the further development of the forces of production" equal "economic growth"? The former must be equated with the latter only under capitalism, it seems to me. For instance, under capitalism, rates of productivity growth have to outpace rises in wages, in order for capitalists to make profits while buying off an important section of the international working class. Such concerns will be meaningless under socialism. If we get to abolish capitalism, I think we'll be able to rethink "the further development of the forces of production" in qualitative, not quantitative, terms. Instead of being slaves to "more" in the abstract, we'll know the meanings of "enough," "different," "beautiful," etc. in the "fullness of time." If we want "more" of some (though not all) goods services under socialism, it will be because of _our conscious collective decision_, not because of subjection to M-C-M'. 3. Under capitalism, there will always be a relative surplus population (not surplus to the mythical "carrying capacity" of the earth, but surplus to the requirements of capitalist production). Under capitalism, the majority of women in the world cannot emancipate themselves, facing, among others, barriers against achieving full control of their reproductive destiny. Hence the sterile debate between heirs of Malthus Condorcet. Hence the so-called "population" problems. Hence the need for constant compulsive growth. Under socialism, we can move beyond the Malthus-Condorcet debate, so no need for compulsion to grow, grow, grow. Workers of the world, unite, take it easy Yoshie
Paul Laurence Dunbar: Mr. Cornelius Johnson, Office-Seeker (wasRe: The Language of Betrayal)
Nathan Newman wrote: At a more sophisticated level, you have Yoshie attacking the NAACP and NOW as the "Talented Tenth" as if working class blacks through a whole range of organizations have not supported Gore. What organizations you have in mind? Most working class blacks don't vote. Doug Does Nathan or Doug or anyone have a race-divided analysis of union votes for Gore, Bush, Nader, etc.? If such an analysis is available, it will probably reveal that both Doug and Nathan are partially right here: most working-class blacks don't vote (and many of them are not allowed to vote), but the voting members of the black working class do vote Democratic, and without their votes, we can't even speak of "union votes" (for lots of white male unionists vote Republican). That said, I will continue to refine my analysis of the Talented Tenth, but meanwhile, those of you who have not read Paul Laurence Dunber's "Mr. Cornelius Johnson, Office-Seeker" (first published in _The Cosmopolitan_ in 1899) should immediately read it at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=DunMisttag=publicimages/modengdata=/texts/english/modeng/parsed. Here's a teaser, whose last lines should resonate for blacks who have continue to vote Democratic: * ...Cornelius and Mr. Toliver hugged each other. "It came just in time," said the younger man; "the last of my money was about gone, and I should have had to begin paying off that mortgage with no prospect of ever doing it." The two had suffered together, and it was fitting that they should be together to receive the news of the long-desired happiness, so arm in arm they sauntered down to the Congressman's office about five o'clock the next afternoon. In honor of the occasion, Mr. Johnson had spent his last dollar in redeeming the gray Prince Albert and the shiny hat. A smile flashed across Barker's face as he noted the change. "Well, Cornelius," he said, "I'm glad to see you still prosperous-looking, for there were some alleged irregularities in your methods down in Alabama, and the Senate has refused to confirm you. I did all I could for you, but -- " The rest of the sentence was lost, as Mr. Toliver's arms received his friend's fainting form. "Poor devil!" said the Congressman. "I should have broken it more gently." Somehow Mr. Toliver got him home and to bed, where for nine weeks he lay wasting under a complete nervous give-down. The little wife and the children came up to nurse him, and the woman's ready industry helped him to such creature comforts as his sickness demanded. Never once did she murmur; never once did her faith in him waver. And when he was well enough to be moved back, it was money that she had earned, increased by what Mr. Toliver, in his generosity of spirit, took from his own narrow means, that paid their second-class fare back to the South. During the fever-fits of his illness, the wasted politician first begged piteously that they would not send him home unplaced, and then he would break out in the most extravagant and pompous boasts about his position, his Congressman and his influence. When he came to himself, he was silent, morose and bitter. Only once did he melt. It was when he held Mr. Toliver's hand and bade him good-bye. Then the tears came into his eyes, and what he would have said was lost among his broken words. As he stood upon the platform of the car as it moved out, and gazed at the white dome and feathery spires of the city, growing into gray indefiniteness, he ground his teeth, and raising his spent hand, shook it at the receding view. "Damn you! damn you!" he cried. "Damn your deceit, your fair cruelties; damn you, you hard, white liar!" * Yoshie
Re: oil and socialism
An Arab economist coined the phrase : The dialectics of oil, or every drop of oil costs a drop of blood. --- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Capitalism is supposed to have been integrally associated with the rise of modern technology, which is absolutely dependent on fossil fuels. So, if modern technology depends on fossil fuels -- everyone but George Gilder and the like will agree with that -- that maybe you can say that capitalism depends on fossil fuels. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! http://calendar.yahoo.com/
Re: oil and socialism
Capitalism is supposed to have been integrally associated with the rise of modern technology, which is absolutely dependent on fossil fuels. So, if modern technology depends on fossil fuels -- everyone but George Gilder and the like will agree with that -- that maybe you can say that capitalism depends on fossil fuels. It is not capitalism but anyone who uses a car who depends on fossil fuels.
Re: Re: oil and socialism
G'day Ricardo, Capitalism is supposed to have been integrally associated with the rise of modern technology, which is absolutely dependent on fossil fuels. So, if modern technology depends on fossil fuels -- everyone but George Gilder and the like will agree with that -- that maybe you can say that capitalism depends on fossil fuels. It is not capitalism but anyone who uses a car who depends on fossil fuels. Hence, capitalism currently does rely on fossil fuels, no? Imagine the capital and time it'd take to come up with an alternative to getting a bunch of farflung intensively conditioned individualists from dorm to production locus? And Mark does have a point, I reckon. Exactly what alternative is it we'll be pursuing when 'the market' thinks it time so to do? Photovoltaic/hydrogen arrays? Alcohol? Transmat beams? I think this bears some real thionking about. None of which is to say there ain't a greenhouse crisis in train ... or the odd breathability problem in various conurbations ... Shit, I reckon everyone's probably right. Pollution begins the tragedy, and depletion traumas delivers the coup de grace! I mean, look at the state of the arguments spawned by Kyoto. How do you get from the neoliberal nirvana of a couple of hundred competing national economies to the proper global allocation and coordinated control of production such that the world's air, water and soil can be protected? I see no answer other than doing away with the whole bloody system - from the accumulation drive to the nation state. Pity I don't see that, either ... Sigh, Rob.
RE: Hoax
Ricardo Duchesne wrote, in reply to Louis Proyect: "It is obvious that there exists a Western delirium that seems to be the flip side of a great rationality and that there is a Western bias that seems to be the flip side of a great efficiency. Obvious as long as one takes into account that the West is at war. And that it is waging its war through peaceful means which are characteristic of a cultural war: 'If you want war, pretend you are making peace.' The West's principal weapon is its monopoly on information (and disinformation) along with the financial establishment of multinational corporations. It is winning the war of words and images...The best source of propaganda for the West was the Pol Pot regime. We needed that ogre, that foil"by Regis Debray. How many millions did that foil cost Cambodia? === Actually, none. The wicked Pol Pot regime was supported by the wicked regimes of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Deng Xiao-Ping, on the basis that it was anti-Vietnamese. No amount of words and images concerning the Pol Pot ogre served to temper that support. Michael K.
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2000 RELEASED TODAY: CPI -- The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.2 percent in October on a seasonally adjusted basis, following a 0.5 percent increase in September. Deceleration in the energy index -- up 0.2 percent in October, following a 3.8 percent rise in September -- was largely responsible for the moderation in the October CPI-U. In October, the index for petroleum-based energy declined 1.2 percent, while the index for energy services increased 1.5 percent. The food index, which increased 0.2 percent in September, rose 0.1 percent in October. Excluding food and energy, the CPI-U rose 0.2 percent, following a 0.3 percent rise in September. A smaller increase in apparel prices and a downturn in the tobacco index were principally responsible for the more moderate advance in October. ... REAL EARNINGS -- Real average weekly earnings were essentially unchanged between September and October after seasonal adjustment. A 0.4 percent increase in average hourly earnings was offset by a 0.3 percent decline in average weekly hours and a 0.1 percent rise in the CPI-W. ... Real average weekly earnings fell by 0.2 percent from October 1999 to October 2000. ... BLS reports labor productivity increased in more than three-fourths of 119 U.S. manufacturing industries in 1998. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-11). American industrial output weakened in October and businesses grew cautious about stockpiling goods, according to two reports, adding to signs of a gradually cooling economy. The Federal Reserve's monthly report on industrial production showed that output by mines, factories, and utilities fell 0.1 percent last month after an upwardly revised gain of 0.4 percent in September. It was the first drop in monthly output since a 0.2 percent fall in July, and only the second since the beginning of 1999. Manufacturing stalled while the output at utilities fell. The second report, from the Commerce Department, showed that business inventories in September were growing at their slowest pace in nearly 2 years. Production to build inventories is generally a source of economic strength, unless faltering sales cause an oversupply that forces sharp cutbacks. ... (New York Times, page C6; Wall Street Journal, page A2)_Declines in the output of automobile products and household appliances pushed industrial production down 0.1 percent in October. The decline was the second in the last 4 months, although production remained 5.2 percent higher than a year ago and was 46.3 percent above its 1992 average. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). Federal Reserve officials, increasingly convinced that U.S. economic growth has slowed to a sustainable pace that does not threaten to make inflation worse, decided to leave interest rates unchanged. The Federal Open Market Committee, the central bank's top policymaking group, also left in place its assessment that the risk of inflation accelerating in the future continues to outweigh the possibility that growth could slow very sharply, or that the economy could tip into a recession. ... (Washington Post, page E1)_Citing clear evidence that the economy has shifted into a lower gear, the Federal Reserve voted to hold interest rates steady, but with unemployment low and energy prices high the central bank said it was not yet ready to proclaim that inflation was no longer a threat. ... (New York Times, page C1)_The Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged, but disappointed investors by dismissing growing concerns that the economy is slowing too much and declaring that inflation -- not recession -- remains the greater danger. ... (Wall Street Journal, page A2) A majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics expect the U.S. economy to slip into a sustainable pace of expansion through next year. .. A soft landing is in progress, and inflation will moderate next year as energy price pressures fall back. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-7). The female-male pay gap varies greatly on a state-by-state basis, according to a new analysis by the Institute for Women's Policy Research. Using federal government statistics and other data, the report analyzes and ranks women's state-by-state status in employment and earnings, as well as "economic autonomy" -- a composite index, based on college education, business ownership, poverty, and health insurance coverage; political participation; and health status/reproduction rights. In terms of pay, the report finds that women earned the highest percentage of men's wages in the District of Columbia, 86 cents for every dollar earned by men, followed by Hawaii, 84 cents, and Maryland and New York, each 80 cents. The lowest earnings ratio was in Wyoming, at 63 cents, followed by Louisiana and Utah, 65 cents each, and Indiana, 67 cents. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-5). Another study on women's
Re: oil and socialism
At 09:51 PM 11/16/2000 -0800, you wrote: Capitalism is supposed to have been integrally associated with the rise of modern technology, which is absolutely dependent on fossil fuels. So, if modern technology depends on fossil fuels -- everyone but George Gilder and the like will agree with that -- that maybe you can say that capitalism depends on fossil fuels. actually-existing capitalism depends heavily on fossil fuels, but does capitalism in general? though capitalism is amazingly inflexible on issues of preserving class privilege and dictatorship, it is also amazingly flexible when it comes to adapting to disaster (like that of the 1930s). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Oil Socialism
IMO, total er faulty facts and reasoning. i don't see how the Simon and Kahn future scenarios logically follow from the (real) facts any more than i see how the Mark Jones future scenarios logically follow from the (real) facts. more on that after after i check out my PEN L email. apparently i stirred up a hornet's nest (again). wonder how far out on a limb i am this time? below, Ian and Monbiot raise a mighty host of mostly ethical questions about how and which species and how and which members within each species are going to survive on a fixed planet with a mostly fixed amount of land, water and air. short answer: some are not. which ones are not? "that depends". i agree entirely with you about the Kyoto Protocol and this silly business of trading pollution chits. just a lot of buck-passing with another "no solution" to a serious problem to get a political "agreement". i just shake my head from side to side every day when i read how seemingly intelligent and educated politicians do what they do to "solve" problems. as to whether various anarchist, socialist or capitalistic paradigms can come up with better solutions than the current proposed ones well "i'm all ears" as Perot said. norm -Original Message- From: Lisa Ian Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 4:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4507] RE: Re: RE: Re: Oil Socialism IMO, total nonsense. norm *** Well I shudder to learn what you think of this great prediction, then... "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be less crowded (though more populated), less polluted, more stable ecologically, and less vulnerable to resource-supply disruption than the world we live in now. Stresses involving population, resources, and the environment will be less in the future than now...The worlds people will be richer in most ways than they are today...[and] life for most people on earth will be less precarious economically than it is now." [Julian Simon Herman Kahn, 1984] It seems that the tougher question is one of whether or not we can produce the knowledge needed to tap energy in ways that are ecologically benign, not just for ourselves, but for beings like the phytoplankton, the frogs, the birds etc. The issue of sources and sinks will not go away irrespective of whatever forces and relations of production obtain in the future. Additionally, another looming question is the relationship of knowledge production and distribution to democratic systems of governance [which is totally anemic at this point in history]. The concentration of knowledge/power in the hands of the few who then treat the majority with disdain and contempt when they attempt to hold the "experts" accountable for their errors, is every bit as dangerous as the concentration of wealth; indeed the two go hand in hand, as does the current cultural allergy to the very idea of accountability. We see this in both the current election fiasco and the debate on global warming. Published on Thursday, November 16, 2000 in the Guardian of London The Great Climate Sell-Off by George Monbiot The privatisation of Britain's air traffic control systems is rather like the Millennium Dome. First the government backs it, then it tries to figure out what on earth it is for. Ministers' attempts to explain the inexplicable have not been helped by an unequivocal promise the Labour party made in opposition: "Our skies," it announced, "are not for sale." The government is clearly trying to beat its own egregious record, for in one week it is planning to break this promise not once, but twice. It is currently trying to sell not only our flight paths, but also the sky itself. The world's weather is on the brink of being privatised. The original purpose of the climate change negotiations taking place in the Hague this week was to cut the amount of greenhouse gases the world produces, in order to avert more catastrophic weather of the kind Britain has suffered over the past few weeks. But corporations have discovered in the world's disasters a marvellous opportunity for making money. Thanks to their lobbying, the climate saving talks have been turned into a surreal discussion about how the atmosphere can be bought and sold. Under the Kyoto protocol on climate change, countries are allowed to reduce their emissions through something called "flexibility mechanisms". Instead of cutting carbon dioxide at home, they can either buy "carbon credits" from countries which have exceeded their own targets for cuts, or invest in carbon-reducing technologies elsewhere in the world. At first sight, this looks like a fine idea. It places a financial premium on cleanliness, and encourages the transfer of environmentally-friendly technology to the developing world. In practice, it promises to exacerbate both climate change and inequality. Flexibility mechanisms could enable countries to trade in hot air. A
Re: oil and socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/17/00 10:29AM At 09:51 PM 11/16/2000 -0800, you wrote: Capitalism is supposed to have been integrally associated with the rise of modern technology, which is absolutely dependent on fossil fuels. So, if modern technology depends on fossil fuels -- everyone but George Gilder and the like will agree with that -- that maybe you can say that capitalism depends on fossil fuels. actually-existing capitalism depends heavily on fossil fuels, but does capitalism in general? though capitalism is amazingly inflexible on issues of preserving class privilege and dictatorship, it is also amazingly flexible when it comes to adapting to disaster (like that of the 1930s). (( CB: The specific flexibility of capitalism in adapting to the crisis of the 1930's was to blast the hell out of actually-existing socialisms and actually existing national liberation movements in its neo-colonies for 60 years. It won't be able to shoot its way out of earthly exhaustion of fossil fuels, if this latter fact develops as true.
Re: Re: oil and socialism
actually-existing capitalism depends heavily on fossil fuels, but does capitalism in general? though capitalism is amazingly inflexible on issues of preserving class privilege and dictatorship, it is also amazingly flexible when it comes to adapting to disaster (like that of the 1930s). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine I have no idea what "capitalism in general" is supposed to mean. This is the same kind of intellectual exercise as asking whether capitalism requires slavery. Perhaps if we phrase the question in terms of whether capitalism REQUIRED slavery (or oil) rather than whether it REQUIRES it, we'd be better off. We only know the historical capitalism that has existed--trying to come up with hypothetical examples of another capitalism of our imagination seems besides the point. The Guardian (London), December 2, 1991 In defence of Pearl Harbor: John Casey argues that Japan's attack 50 years ago on the US fleet was prompted by fear By JOHN CASEY After the Meiji restoration of 1868 which swept away feudal Japan, the Japanese set themselves to become a modern, westernised, industrial power. They assumed this included acquiring overseas territory - or at least influence - to protect their supply of raw materials. The Japanese came to think that they had vital interests in Manchuria, and gradually expanded their presence, building railways, and bringing in millions of Japanese and Korean immigrants. Japanese 'special interests' in Manchuria were officially recognised by the Americans in 1915. The Japanese were obsessed by the idea that they were a major industrial power with hardly any natural resources, always at the mercy of foreign powers. Japan depended for its survival on free and open international trade. However, with the slump of 1929, the US and the imperial powers erected ever higher tariff walls, which effectively excluded Japanese exports from Europe, the US and Britain. Japan responded by increasing its trade in the Near and Far East. But in due course Japanese exports were kept out of all the countries which the Western powers controlled - the Philippines, Indo-China, Borneo, Indonesia, Malaya, Burma and India. If you read accounts of debates in various Japanese cabinets in the years leading up to the Pacific war, you are left in no doubt that the Japanese really did fear encirclement. With the restraints on Japanese trade increasing, Japan became preoccupied with its position in Manchuria, and eventually began to expand into China proper. The Americans responded with their 'open door policy' - which essentially meant that the Western industrial powers could not be denied the right to share the rich pickings available in Manchuria. By 1940 the Americans were openly saying that war with Japan was inevitable. They helped to make this prediction come true when, in that same year, they placed an embargo on aviation fuel, which Japan could obtain from no other source. The Americans stepped up their aid to Chiang Kai-shek in his struggle with Japan. In September 1940 Japanese troops entered Indo-China, as a step towards ensuring the supply of petroleum from the Dutch East Indies. In 1941 the US announced a total embargo on oil supplies to Japan. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: oil and socialism
Jim, the answer is not necessarily. I was only drawing upon the idea that capitalist apologists speak as if capitalism = progress and this progress is necessary as long as markets are free to follow their own natural processes. Jim Devine wrote: At 09:51 PM 11/16/2000 -0800, you wrote: Capitalism is supposed to have been integrally associated with the rise of modern technology, which is absolutely dependent on fossil fuels. So, if modern technology depends on fossil fuels -- everyone but George Gilder and the like will agree with that -- that maybe you can say that capitalism depends on fossil fuels. actually-existing capitalism depends heavily on fossil fuels, but does capitalism in general? though capitalism is amazingly inflexible on issues of preserving class privilege and dictatorship, it is also amazingly flexible when it comes to adapting to disaster (like that of the 1930s). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: oil and socialism
Rob: I see no answer other than doing away with the whole bloody system - from the accumulation drive to the nation state. Pity I don't see that, either ... Capitalism is not a system; and if it is we're all part of it however much we may pretend not to, that's why capitalism always comes back not matter how much you try to suppress it, 'cause everyone wants cars and can't do without oil. So the solution is not to blame capitalism and call for its downfall but to affirm alternative ecological lifestyles.
RE: Re: Oil Socialism
Similarly, the transition to a post-oil economy is, in all probability, independent of whether it is done under capitalism or socialism. Yoshie: Not quite. I think that abolishing the logic of M-C-M' makes it much easier to plan implement more rational resource uses. * How so? The complexity of ecosystem dynamics makes prediction horizons very problematic [see Levins and Lewonton and Wimsatt on capriciousness/randomness and Robert Peters on prediction] Granted, allocation and distribution based on the current price system stinks, but planning would still need accounting algorithms of staggering complexity based on satellite data, continuous monitoring of massive chemical cycles, co-ordination of decision making over various time-scales from weeks to decades, prioritization criteria given the multiplicity of non-human constraints etc. http://www.grc.uri.edu/programs/2000/ecology.htm http://www.egr.msu.edu/der/research/ee.htm http://www.fao.org/gtos/default.htm http://games.bio.ucf.edu/ Justin's remarks on Hayek aren't too off the mark here; the possibilities of information overload leading to incommensurable priorities could lead to gridlock, as are some of the ideas in Luhmann's "Social Systems". As of now, accounting for resources stocks and flows via mathematical models is still in it's infancy [but will, with investment in RD, get better], and as I remarked in my previous post, getting a substantial majority to achieve the scientific literacy to participate in decision making is a daunting challenge, especially if people don't WANT to do it. Oscar Wilde's quip on socialism taking too many evenings and all that. The transition to socialism will not in itself make the problem of path dependency disappear, but I believe there will be less constraints on adopting greener technology under socialism, provided that socialism in question is (a) democratic (b) neither subject to imperialist attacks nor in competition with the capitalist world economy . ** Well, yet another "first" place to start is to agitate to stop the current technology transfer programs in the US whereby the privatization of taxpayer funded knowledge is appropriated by the Corps. This process has taken off like a rocket under Clinton. We all know about the corporate invasion of universities; how do we kick them out? How do we inculcate a different ethos of a person's particular "knowledge set" as a form of self ownership that can't be alienated via wage labor contracts and at the same time get them to see that it is just a small piece of an enormous cognitive commons that has been built up over millennia and thus "belongs" to everyone. That seems to be a potentially explosive issue for young people today [see GA Cohen and David Ellerman]. Greening technology means greening epistemology; you can't build it until you know how to. And building up and rapidly diffusing green knowledge is a big priority. I think that rich nations will continue to displace their ecological problems onto poor nations, and the rich citizens will displace their ecological problems onto poor communities in a given nation, as they have so far. As long as poor nations the working class in general remain poor powerless, that's the path of the least resistance for capital. Yoshie Tragically true. The good news is that in this century "they" are learning new ways of fighting back and the fledgling attempts to build solidarity with their struggles by activists and many many others in the US is a very hopeful sign. When the WTO talks collapsed last year many delegates from non-western countries expressed thanks for giving them a place to draw a line in the sand and say no more institutionalizing of the greatest rip-off the world has yet seen. I suspect we'll see a lot more courage when Michael Moore's replacement at the WTO assumes responsibility. The terms of trade they are 'a changing, slowly, but surely. Ian
Re: Re: oil and socialism
Jim, What of this as an argument. a. Capitalism, as a system, requires constant expansion -- "Accumulate, Accumulate, that is Moses and the Prophets" -- but this accumulation requires expansion of the system geographically particularly as overaccumulation takes place in the centre -- therefore, globalism. b. Expansion of the system (globalization of capitalism) requires increased trade and the movement of goods -- Canada, for instance, is approaching 40% of its GDP in Exports. All these exports require transportation. (Huge growth here particularly in long-distance truck transport.) All transportation at the moment requires fossile fuels. c. Therefore, the capitalist system (at least as it currently operates) is dependent on fossil fuels. But, unless it can come up with an alternative fuel, it can not continue to increase its geographic scope and thus can not continue as a system. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba On 17 Nov 00, at 7:29, Jim Devine wrote: actually-existing capitalism depends heavily on fossil fuels, but does capitalism in general? though capitalism is amazingly inflexible on issues of preserving class privilege and dictatorship, it is also amazingly flexible when it comes to adapting to disaster (like that of the 1930s). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
RE: Hoax
"It is obvious that there exists a Western delirium that seems to be the flip side of a great rationality and that there is a Western bias that seems to be the flip side of a great efficiency. Obvious as long as one takes into account that the West is at war. And that it is waging its war through peaceful means which are characteristic of a cultural war: 'If you want war, pretend you are making peace.' The West's principal weapon is its monopoly on information (and disinformation) along with the financial establishment of multinational corporations. It is winning the war of words and images...The best source of propaganda for the West was the Pol Pot regime. We needed that ogre, that foil"by Regis Debray. How many millions did that foil cost Cambodia? === Actually, none. The wicked Pol Pot regime was supported by the wicked regimes of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Deng Xiao-Ping, on the basis that it was anti-Vietnamese. You can add China to the list, but my point is that Debray, Chomsky and others dismissed western reports about the extermination this regime was carrying against its own people - those who drove cars and used oil, simply on the grounds that non- westerners were incapable of such crimes. We now know that every race and ethnic group on earth that has had the opportunity has killed, infected, exterminated, and assimilated others: the West has no monopoly on this, and should be praised for cultivating the very ideas you now advocate. No amount of words and images concerning the Pol Pot ogre served to temper that support. Michael K.
Re: Re: oil and socialism
I wrote: actually-existing capitalism depends heavily on fossil fuels, but does capitalism in general? though capitalism is amazingly inflexible on issues of preserving class privilege and dictatorship, it is also amazingly flexible when it comes to adapting to disaster (like that of the 1930s). Charles writes: The specific flexibility of capitalism in adapting to the crisis of the 1930's was to blast the hell out of actually-existing socialisms and actually existing national liberation movements in its neo-colonies for 60 years. It won't be able to shoot its way out of earthly exhaustion of fossil fuels, if this latter fact develops as true. I don't see why the rise in the cost of fossil fuels can't be dealt with by intensifying labor and cutting wages. Or by economizing on fossil fuels, using modern technology. Louis writes: I have no idea what "capitalism in general" is supposed to mean. The phrase "capitalism in general" refers to a commodity-producing mode of production in which labor-power is a commodity, where workers have no choice but to sell their labor-power on the market though they are exempted from the direct and overt coercion of the form that characterized slavery and serfdom (Marx's definition of "capitalism" as far as I can tell). Actually-existing (and -existed) capitalism refers to the way in which this mode of production has worked on in practice (often in different ways in different countries, though the overriding tendency is toward homogeneity) during the last 300 years or so. As Paul Sweezy points out in the first chapter of his magisterial THEORY OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT, Marx himself worked at different levels of abstraction. Marx saw the actually-existing English capitalism of his day as being the closest empirical representation of capitalism in general, a pretty abstract concept, and so used examples from England to illustrate his theory. But that doesn't make the 19th century English economic system the same as capitalism. Unless you reject all abstract thinking, it makes sense to differentiate between different levels of abstraction -- to choose another example, between "socialism in general" and actually-existed (and existing) socialisms. The problem occurs either when the former concepts are reified (treated as a real thing in empirical reality) or when the theory is totally ignored. Following the first principles of Marx's materialist conception of history, what happens _in practice_ is what really counts, so that actually-existing (or -existed) capitalism and/or socialisms must be the center of attention. (For most people, there's no choice on this matter, especially when the labor movement and similar counter-hegemonic movements are weak, so that it's hard to think about how things could be different.) But concepts of "capitalism in general" and "socialism in general" help us understand the real world better than simply describing that world (empiricism) or denouncing that world (moralism). In any event, I was using the distinction between capitalism in general and actually-existing capitalism to make the point that even though the past is prologue, things often change in unpredictable ways. Capitalism isn't necessarily doomed by an energy crisis. This is the same kind of intellectual exercise as asking whether capitalism requires slavery. Perhaps if we phrase the question in terms of whether capitalism REQUIRED slavery (or oil) rather than whether it REQUIRES it, we'd be better off. We only know the historical capitalism that has existed--trying to come up with hypothetical examples of another capitalism of our imagination seems besides the point. The problem is that if one assumes that just because capitalism historically _required_ slavery or oil it _always_ requires slavery or oil, that makes one think that simply removing slavery or oil from the picture will destroy capitalism. If you argue that just because capitalism historically required slavery or oil, it doesn't always require slavery or oil, then you're accepting my point. BTW, I'm still wondering why the "energy crisis" is the focus of attention, when real oil prices are still pretty low by historical standards. Again, I think the environmental crisis deserves much more attention. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
irrelevant thought.
I heard a little of one of Bill Clinton's speeches in Vietnam on the radio this morning. Ignoring the content, it struck me that I'll miss Bubba -- because both George W. and Al G. are such horrible public speakers. For those whose e-mail programs can read attachments, there's a good picture attached. Aus-Powers.jpg Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Hoax
Ricardo, we don't need this here. Chomsky was not interested in dismissing the problems in Cambodia but pointing out the selective outrage that existed in the capitalist press. Ricardo Duchesne wrote: "It is obvious that there exists a Western delirium that seems to be the flip side of a great rationality and that there is a Western bias that seems to be the flip side of a great efficiency. Obvious as long as one takes into account that the West is at war. And that it is waging its war through peaceful means which are characteristic of a cultural war: 'If you want war, pretend you are making peace.' The West's principal weapon is its monopoly on information (and disinformation) along with the financial establishment of multinational corporations. It is winning the war of words and images...The best source of propaganda for the West was the Pol Pot regime. We needed that ogre, that foil"by Regis Debray. How many millions did that foil cost Cambodia? === Actually, none. The wicked Pol Pot regime was supported by the wicked regimes of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Deng Xiao-Ping, on the basis that it was anti-Vietnamese. You can add China to the list, but my point is that Debray, Chomsky and others dismissed western reports about the extermination this regime was carrying against its own people - those who drove cars and used oil, simply on the grounds that non- westerners were incapable of such crimes. We now know that every race and ethnic group on earth that has had the opportunity has killed, infected, exterminated, and assimilated others: the West has no monopoly on this, and should be praised for cultivating the very ideas you now advocate. No amount of words and images concerning the Pol Pot ogre served to temper that support. Michael K. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
Jim, don't underestimate the importance of fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels there would be virtually no surplus value; thus, no capitalism. Jim Devine wrote: I wrote: actually-existing capitalism depends heavily on fossil fuels, but does capitalism in general? though capitalism is amazingly inflexible on issues of preserving class privilege and dictatorship, it is also amazingly flexible when it comes to adapting to disaster (like that of the 1930s). Charles writes: The specific flexibility of capitalism in adapting to the crisis of the 1930's was to blast the hell out of actually-existing socialisms and actually existing national liberation movements in its neo-colonies for 60 years. It won't be able to shoot its way out of earthly exhaustion of fossil fuels, if this latter fact develops as true. I don't see why the rise in the cost of fossil fuels can't be dealt with by intensifying labor and cutting wages. Or by economizing on fossil fuels, using modern technology. Louis writes: I have no idea what "capitalism in general" is supposed to mean. The phrase "capitalism in general" refers to a commodity-producing mode of production in which labor-power is a commodity, where workers have no choice but to sell their labor-power on the market though they are exempted from the direct and overt coercion of the form that characterized slavery and serfdom (Marx's definition of "capitalism" as far as I can tell). Actually-existing (and -existed) capitalism refers to the way in which this mode of production has worked on in practice (often in different ways in different countries, though the overriding tendency is toward homogeneity) during the last 300 years or so. As Paul Sweezy points out in the first chapter of his magisterial THEORY OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT, Marx himself worked at different levels of abstraction. Marx saw the actually-existing English capitalism of his day as being the closest empirical representation of capitalism in general, a pretty abstract concept, and so used examples from England to illustrate his theory. But that doesn't make the 19th century English economic system the same as capitalism. Unless you reject all abstract thinking, it makes sense to differentiate between different levels of abstraction -- to choose another example, between "socialism in general" and actually-existed (and existing) socialisms. The problem occurs either when the former concepts are reified (treated as a real thing in empirical reality) or when the theory is totally ignored. Following the first principles of Marx's materialist conception of history, what happens _in practice_ is what really counts, so that actually-existing (or -existed) capitalism and/or socialisms must be the center of attention. (For most people, there's no choice on this matter, especially when the labor movement and similar counter-hegemonic movements are weak, so that it's hard to think about how things could be different.) But concepts of "capitalism in general" and "socialism in general" help us understand the real world better than simply describing that world (empiricism) or denouncing that world (moralism). In any event, I was using the distinction between capitalism in general and actually-existing capitalism to make the point that even though the past is prologue, things often change in unpredictable ways. Capitalism isn't necessarily doomed by an energy crisis. This is the same kind of intellectual exercise as asking whether capitalism requires slavery. Perhaps if we phrase the question in terms of whether capitalism REQUIRED slavery (or oil) rather than whether it REQUIRES it, we'd be better off. We only know the historical capitalism that has existed--trying to come up with hypothetical examples of another capitalism of our imagination seems besides the point. The problem is that if one assumes that just because capitalism historically _required_ slavery or oil it _always_ requires slavery or oil, that makes one think that simply removing slavery or oil from the picture will destroy capitalism. If you argue that just because capitalism historically required slavery or oil, it doesn't always require slavery or oil, then you're accepting my point. BTW, I'm still wondering why the "energy crisis" is the focus of attention, when real oil prices are still pretty low by historical standards. Again, I think the environmental crisis deserves much more attention. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
Paul Phillips wrote: What of this as an argument. a. Capitalism, as a system, requires constant expansion -- "Accumulate, Accumulate, that is Moses and the Prophets" -- but this accumulation requires expansion of the system geographically particularly as overaccumulation takes place in the centre -- therefore, globalism. Even though (in context) the quotation from Marx actually refers to his description of capitalist ethics (which he saw as being broken), it sure does describe capitalism's dynamic. Though Luxemburg argued that capitalism would collapse if it didn't continue _extensive_ expansion, I don't find her argument convincing. (However, such extensive expansion does continue in practice.) That's because I don't see why capitalism can't have _intensive_ expansion. After all, when the "frontier" closed more than 100 years ago in the U.S. (i.e., when all the lands had been stolen from the Indians), the U.S. economy was able to make up for it with increased labor productivity (relative surplus-value extraction), largely based on technological change and mechanization. (Of course, as Yoshie notes, it also helped to be the biggest bruiser on the block, allowing the U.S. to dump costs on the less powerful countries.) Does someone have a convincing argument that capitalism will collapse if it doesn't expand geographically? b. Expansion of the system (globalization of capitalism) requires increased trade and the movement of goods -- Canada, for instance, is approaching 40% of its GDP in Exports. All these exports require transportation. (Huge growth here particularly in long-distance truck transport.) All transportation at the moment requires fossile fuels. right, at the moment. c. Therefore, the capitalist system (at least as it currently operates) is dependent on fossil fuels. But, unless it can come up with an alternative fuel, it can not continue to increase its geographic scope and thus can not continue as a system. _At the moment_, all transportation requires fossil fuels. Exactly. I'm no Nordhausian optimist, but I think that even if true scarcity-of-energy crises occur in the future, they don't automatically imply capitalism's demise. Crises represent opportunities for mass movements to push for progressive change rather than automatically causing the system to collapse. In the meantime, new power sources can be promoted while old ones can be economized on (say, by relying more on local trade and less on international trade, or by introducing energy-saving technology), so that if the chance to revolutionize capitalism is missed, capitalism can continue, even with very high fossil-fuel prices. And, as I said before, intensifying labor and cutting wages can help capitalism continue. In fact, we may see the irony of progressive movements that do stuff like pushing for solar power use helping to save capitalism's bacon. (It's an irony I'll have to live with, since I favor solar power.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
At 09:22 AM 11/17/00 -0800, you wrote: Jim, don't underestimate the importance of fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels there would be virtually no surplus value; thus, no capitalism. why? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
Because given the limits of technology today, without fossil fuel, we would be unable to produce a surplus over and above the subsistence needs of workers Jim Devine wrote: At 09:22 AM 11/17/00 -0800, you wrote: Jim, don't underestimate the importance of fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels there would be virtually no surplus value; thus, no capitalism. why? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
JDDoes someone have a convincing argument that capitalism will collapse if it doesn't expand geographically? *** Geographic space is only one type of space. Imagine buying and selling data structures in cyberspace as a form of real estate transactions. In it's own way, cyberspace has the potential to become as large as astronomical space. So spatial considerations are irrelevant with regards to collapse. The relationships between energy, information and knowledge are pivotal in the coming century. Post oil possibilities within capitalism are enormous if capitalists and governments INVEST in them; just watch how the linkages between physics and computer science and electronic engineering grow stronger. We're at the tip of an iceberg with this stuff! As the current intellectual property rights disputes wage on, it's a battle for who will own the knowledge. It's the path dependency of the land grab mentality inherited over the last 500 years that's' screwin' us up too. Michael's work as well as others critiquing the current diseased paradigm is very very important and as I hinted at earlier can lead to different notions of subjectivity as well. Imagine a webhead from silicon valley talking to someone from say, Boonville, Indiana or Rwanda; almost totally different worlds. Ian
oil and socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/17/00 12:36PM Though Luxemburg argued that capitalism would collapse if it didn't continue _extensive_ expansion, I don't find her argument convincing. (However, such extensive expansion does continue in practice.) That's because I don't see why capitalism can't have _intensive_ expansion. After all, when the "frontier" closed more than 100 years ago in the U.S. (i.e., when all the lands had been stolen from the Indians), the U.S. economy was able to make up for it with increased labor productivity (relative surplus-value extraction), largely based on technological change and mechanization. (Of course, as Yoshie notes, it also helped to be the biggest bruiser on the block, allowing the U.S. to dump costs on the less powerful countries.) Does someone have a convincing argument that capitalism will collapse if it doesn't expand geographically? ((( CB: I don't think "the" idea is that capitalism never has periods when it retains its rate of expansion of terrritory, that it must be uniform and continuous territorial expansion, that it won't be in ebbs and flows. Thereby, looking at capitalism's whole history there is evidence that expansion must always be returned to, even with ebbs. This evidence is empircal evidence supporting the claim that capitalism must expand geographically. The theoretical match for these facts h, lets see. We might start by looking more deeply into Marx and Engels reference to the fact that capitalism constantly seeks new markets. I would say that it goes back to the competition pressure from other capitalists. Some capitalists, to get new markets WILL expand their territory ( use their states to control countries, force markets to be open, force free trade on the world) because there is no force in the world saying they can't. ( They are the masters of the universe anyway). The other capitalists must follow suit once any capitalists do this, or else face ruin, takeover, extinction.
things are hot and heavy in AP GovPol
First, it is a sick calumny against Rev. Jackson to compare his use of popular street pressure to lynchings. Second, until well into the Nineteenth Century street pressure from "mobs" (always a term used by the elite to describe the common people) was considered normal and even traditional. Third: The so-called Rule of Law always comes down to the rule of men in judicial robes. It was another of the devices used by the colonial and revolutionary era elites to override democracy. The rich white planters, merchants, and lawyers--religiously called the Founding Fathers even by historians until the late 60s--also liked to refer to democracy as "Mob Rule." It behooves us to remember that the "rights" that these elites were interested in protecting, were their own property rights. They were united in their anger at some state governments which, under popular pressure from voters, had passed debtor relief laws for the farmers. All feared the passage of so-called "agrarian legislation" that would redivide property. Hence their fear of democracy. NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE To the citizens of the United States of America, In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new Prime Minister (The rt. hon. Tony Blair,MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect: 1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed". 2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. 3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. 4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. 5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through. 6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005. 7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "sh*t". 8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day". 9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. 10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy. Thank you for your cooperation.
Re: Capitalism = Fetters on Growth?
In his criticism of traditional Marxism, Postone zeros in on the notion that the "forces of production" and the "relations of production" refer respectively to the production process of modern industry and private ownership of the means of production. According to Postone, that is simply not what Marx meant by forces and relations of production. The fundamental contradiction of capitalism is thus not that private ownership and the anarchy of the market unduly limit the development of industry or "economic growth" -- in many respects, they unduly promote it! The contradiction resides rather in the specifically capitalist *value form* of material wealth, which relies on the expenditure of units of abstract human labour. The production of material wealth by modern industry is increasingly a function of the application of general social knowledge (powers of science and nature) in the process of production but the measure of value created remains units of abstract labour time. What this fundamental contradiction explains is not simply why there is "not enough" or why there is "too much" but precisely why there is poverty in the midst of excess. Or as Marx put it in the Grundrisse, why capital "posits the superfluous in growing measure as a condition -- question of life or death -- for the necessary." The nice thing about Postone's critique of traditional Marxism is that it specifies exactly how that misreading of Marx "makes sense" within its own historical context, just as Marx's immanent critique of political economy showed how the bourgeois concepts made sense within the historically determinate context of capitalism. A not inconsiderable side benefit (IMHO) is that it relieves the "story of Marxism" of its otherwise inexplicable parade of renegades, apostates, deviants, mass-murderers-posing-as-saviours, turncoats and sourpusses. And it even opens up the potential for attributing avowedly anti-socialist thought to something other than unmitigated bad faith, stupidity, copiously-funded conspiracy or simply false consciousness. Postone's book, regretably, is gruellingly repetitive, dizzingly abstract and irritatingly reticent about some of the more gossipy, horoscopic concerns us ordinary folks thrive on: Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? When will it all end? Where will NASDAQ and DJIA be six months from now? And, by the way, isn't there some way I can place a bet on the outcome and still hedge it just in case it doesn't turn out that way? Yoshie wrote, Workers of the world, unite, take it easy I sense in this close both the intended irony but also a (fey?) residue of *enchantment* with the idea of the proletariat as the Subject of history. According to Postone, however, the "historical 'irony'" of capitalism, as analyzed by Marx, is that "productive labor is the structural source of its own domination." Or, in Marx's own words, "To be a productive worker is . . . not a piece of luck, but a misfortune." The Subject is Capital . . . Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant Bowen Island, BC
Re: Re: Oil Socialism
To say that capitalism is based on fossil fuels would be to argue that there was no capitalism prior to the coal-based industrial revolution in the 1700s in Great Britain. That can be argued, but most on this list would probably not agree. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: martin schiller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 7:58 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4516] Re: Oil Socialism Jim Devine said on 11/16/00 3:31 P I guess I don't accept the premise that fossil fuels define capitalism. Do you? does anyone? That's what I thought that this thread was based on.
Re: RE: Hoax
Ricardo Duchesne wrote: You can add China to the list, but my point is that Debray, Chomsky and others dismissed western reports about the extermination this regime was carrying against its own people - those who drove cars and used oil, simply on the grounds that non- westerners were incapable of such crimes. We now know that every race and ethnic group on earth that has had the opportunity has killed, infected, exterminated, and assimilated others: the West has no monopoly on this, and should be praised for cultivating the very ideas you now advocate. Leaving aside the apparently deliberate misconstrual of what Chomsky was attempting to do in his coverage of the then Kampuchean situation... the West has no monopoly on those ideas, and really, "cultivation" is a gross distortion of what the West has done, at least from the perspective of those of us outside the West. Sen's Development as Freedom points out several instances of such ideas which long pre-date the contemporary West's promotion (cultivation implies some really serious effort of application) of them -- a promotion, need one add, fulfilled more in the breach than in the observance. Unless, of course, one chooses to ignore the continued Anglo-American actions in Iraq, not to mention the consistent support for Israeli policy and bloody-mindedness. Incidentally, curious isn't it, that any talk of Asian values should meet with such outrage, and the inevitable scare quotes, whereas "the West" can be bandied about with apparent self-evident status, minus the scare quotes and the capitalised "W". KJ Khoo
Re: Re: Re: Oil Socialism
Speaking of mixed feelings about the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, I just read the obituary of Gus Hall in The Economist. It noted that although he supported that invasion, he had to allow that the Czechoslovak Communists had some good ideas so as to avoid a mass desertion from the CPUSA at the time. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:20 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4519] Re: Re: Oil Socialism At 07:55 PM 11/16/00 -0500, you wrote: Yes, but I'm more concerned about the politics of oil supplies than either of the above, since it tends to make hundreds of bloody imperial flowers bloom unleash the dogs of war. I feel this way perhaps because I'm from Japan (remember World War 2!) Yes, I understand. I was responding to Mark's somewhat apocalyptic attitude toward oil supplies. Even if there is no absolute limit of the sort he talks about, there have been a hell of a lot of wars over oil. (Also, did you know that the USSR probably cut Cuba's oil supplies in 1968 to get Castro to endorse their invasion of Czechoslovakia that year?) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
oil and socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/17/00 12:11PM The problem is that if one assumes that just because capitalism historically _required_ slavery or oil it _always_ requires slavery or oil, that makes one think that simply removing slavery or oil from the picture will destroy capitalism. If you argue that just because capitalism historically required slavery or oil, it doesn't always require slavery or oil, then you're accepting my point. CB: First, while I agree with Lou's point that how actual, concrete capitalism has "gone down" in history must be kept in the forefront of the minds of every generation of Marxists because we must examine the facts to confirm or update Marx's theory, I think Jim is correct to examine capitalism "in general" in relations to its particular manifestations. This is inherent in a theoretical approach. Jim and I discussed this "necessity of slavery" issue a little while ago. We looked at Marx's theoretical statements toward the end of Vol. I of _Capital_ in the Chapter on "The Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation". I agree with Jim that it is best to interpret Marx there as using "slavery" metaphorically, except I would add the caveat that I think the metaporical use there includes the literal use of "slavery". In other words, literal slavery is one of the forms that the metaphorical slaveries take, as in the era of literal slavery under capitalism. The point is that it is the same fundamental mechanism in capitalism in general that produced the literal slavery as produces the figurative slaveries as long as there is capitalism. So, the varioius forms of oppressed labor other than literal slavery are the empirical confirmation of Marx's generalization that capitalism's basic mechanisms have a historical tendency to produce oppressed labor ( "slavery") along side ! wage labor. The "mechanism" is optimum accumulation and competition and some capitalists who will ruthlessly pursue any way to get an advantage forcing all capitalists to the most advantageous exploitation, i.e. a form of oppressed labor or "slavery". This doesn't make the whole argument, because there is also the issue of if somehow the capitalists were prevented from creating and exploiting forms of oppressed labor before the end of capitalism ( which is not that "simple" to accomplish), how would that lead to the end of capitalism period ? Won't go into that now. Oil is a little different. If an alternative were found, I see no reason why a group of "alternative fuel" controlling capitalists couldn't take over from the fossil fuel capitalists.
Cuba's future
Now that we have gotten past the discussion of elections and Cuba, I would like to raise a couple of other issues. The first has to do with a chart I saw in the back of a recent issue of The Economist (same issue with Gus Hall obit and Survey on Mexico). It showed Cuba as one of several countries where rates of child undernourishment have sharply increased in the last 20 years, from almost zero to nearly 20%. There are others that are much worse (Somalia, Haiti, and North Korea were at the top of the list, with rates well over 50%), but this put Cuba as worse than India and some other places that surprised me. Is this due to the cutback in oil supplies from the former USSR? If so, what does this say about the success of the new "green agriculture" in Cuba? Is it classic "socialist inefficiency in agriculture"? \ Whassup? The other is now that it increasingly looks like indeed that Bush will "triumph" (if that is the right word) in Florida, what will his presidency mean for Cuba's future? The obvious expectation would be that it means a hard line, given both that Jeb is governor of Florida and how crucial that state has proven in the presidential election and the now likelihood that we shall see even more lackey-like bootlicking of the obnoxious Cuban-Americans in Miami. OTOH, given the increasing pressure from a lot of American capitalists to loosen further the embargo, might we see the Dubya pulling a "Nixon in China" routine and ending the embargo? Barkley Rosser
Re: Oil Socialism
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. said on 11/17/00 10:50 A To say that capitalism is based on fossil fuels would be to argue that there was no capitalism prior to the coal-based industrial revolution in the 1700s in Great Britain. That can be argued, but most on this list would probably not agree. That the _thread_ was based on the dependence of capitalism on oil, not that capitalism was based on oil. Capitalism is based on control.
Re: Hoax
Ricardo, we don't need this here. Chomsky was not interested in dismissing the problems in Cambodia but pointing out the selective outrage that existed in the capitalist press. I probably admire Chomsky more than any other critic. Imagine he came to talk to our nowhere campus, something which many left- wing stars would have never done, 'cause they believe they'll get a higher (personal) marginal return speaking to the workers teaching at Yale, Princeton and Chicago. But Chomsky is too strong a supporter in open discussion to censor any criticism of something he did/said among the millions of other good things he has done. So I don't feel bad citing Alain Finkielkraut's *The Future of a Negation, Reflections on the Question of Genocide*: "...in this conversation between Chomsky and Debray, the argumentation moved up a notch: the American linguist figured the number of victims of Khmer Rouge repression to be one hundred thousand. 'And', he added, 'we should probably take into account local reprisals by peasants'. In other words the Cambodian regime was probably not exactly heaven on earth, but it was in vain that its leaders said, 'The revolution needs only a million and a half to two Cambodians to build the country'. They were innocent of the principal crime of which they were accused, that of having reduced their people to slavery, having let the unfit die, and having annihilated everyone who on the basis of culture or parentage was denied acccess into the kingdom of the New Man. And if they were innocent, it was precisely because the [western] media judged them to be guilty. The absence of genocide was attested to by its presence in the images from the news."
Re: Cuba's future
Now that we have gotten past the discussion of elections and Cuba, I would like to raise a couple of other issues. The first has to do with a chart I saw in the back of a recent issue of The Economist (same issue with Gus Hall obit and Survey on Mexico). It showed Cuba as one of several countries where rates of child undernourishment have sharply increased in the last 20 years, from almost zero to nearly 20%. There are others that are much worse (Somalia, Haiti, and North Korea were at the top of the list, with rates well over 50%), but this put Cuba as worse than India and some other places that surprised me. Actually, Cuba rated better than India if we are looking at the same chart. (Oct. 28) Furthermore, there are two measurements, one for the period 1979-1981; the other for 1996-1998. In the first time frame, Cuba appears to be best nourished country in the entire group, although it is difficult to determine this exactly since the chart does not supply the actual percentage--just a bar on a graph. In the period from 1996-1998, Cuba' s malnutrition shot up. This is because of severe economic dislocation attributable to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is only first starting to turn the corner. Here is a report from a conference that just took place in Havana. Although it appeared in the rag I use to sell in my Trotskyite days, I would guess that there is more than a kernel of truth to it: === Carlos Lage, secretary of the Executive Committee of the Council of Ministers, took up questions that have been discussed informally by many delegates concerning the economic measures taken in the 1990s to confront the economic crisis. He pointed to gains made in the six years since the 1994 conference. Unemployment dropped last year from 8 percent to 6 percent. Productivity and job conditions have improved, with production nationwide growing an average of 4.4 percent a year since l995. Food supplies are more ample and nutrition is noticeably better. Instead of extended, daily interruptions in electric power, such blackouts are now only infrequent. Foreign capital has been used to improve the productivity of some important Cuban export industries such as nickel. But this and other measures, such as setting up farmers' markets and legalizing the private holding of dollars, Lage explained, are not aimed at restoring some kind of capitalism. "These are unavoidable measures taken in new circumstances to make it possible to continue defending the revolution, to continue defending socialism," he said. "Ours is not and never has been a privatization process. "We are not trying to establish a market economy, and we will never subordinate our revolution to the market." Lage pointed to many difficulties impeding production. In addition to the economic war being waged by Washington, including the obstacles to getting long-term low-interest loans, the price of the oil Cuba imports has tripled since 1998, while the price of Cuba's chief export, sugar, has dropped below 5 cents a pound, substantially less than production costs. "That correlation could not be worse." Daily life remains hard, Lage insisted. While food shortages have eased, thanks to the enormous efforts made to encourage production and improve distribution, prices are high and very damaging shortages remain in such vital areas as transportation and medicine. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: oil and socialism
Michael P. wrote: Jim, don't underestimate the importance of fossil fuels. Without fossil fuelsthere would be virtually no surplus value; thus, no capitalism. saith I: why? Michael replies: Because given the limits of technology today, without fossil fuel, we would be unable to produce a surplus over and above the subsistence needs of workers Not even if the intensity of labor is increased? not even if the effectiveness of using such fuels increases? The mainstream media talk about how the U.S. economy is more energy-efficient than it was 25 years ago. I'm sure there's a lot of hype there, but there also seems to be some truth, too. After all, U.S. cars get more miles per gallon of gasoline than they used to... - In a separate message, I wrote: Though Luxemburg argued that capitalism would collapse if it didn't continue _extensive_ expansion, I don't find her argument convincing. ... That's because I don't see why capitalism can't have _intensive_ expansion. After all, when the "frontier" closed more than 100 years ago in the U.S. (i.e., when all the lands had been stolen from the Indians), the U.S. economy was able to make up for it with increased labor productivity (relative surplus-value extraction), largely based on technological change and mechanization. (Of course, as Yoshie notes, it also helped to be the biggest bruiser on the block, allowing the U.S. to dump costs on the less powerful countries.) Does someone have a convincing argument that capitalism will collapse if it doesn't expand geographically? Charles writes: I don't think "the" idea is that capitalism never has periods when it retains its rate of expansion of terrritory, that it must be uniform and continuous territorial expansion, that it won't be in ebbs and flows. Thereby, looking at capitalism's whole history there is evidence that expansion must always be returned to, even with ebbs. This evidence is empircal evidence supporting the claim that capitalism must expand geographically. The theoretical match for these facts h, lets see. We might start by looking more deeply into Marx and Engels reference to the fact that capitalism constantly seeks new markets. I would say that it goes back to the competition pressure from other capitalists. Some capitalists, to get new markets WILL expand their territory ( use their states to control countries, force markets to be open, force free trade on the world) because there is no force in the world saying they can't. ( They are the masters of the universe anyway). The other capitalists must follow suit once any capitalists do this, or else face ruin, takeover, extinction. I agree: capitalist competition (a much more violent and aggressive process than textbooks talk about) encourage each capital to expand like crazy (grow or die, of GOD, as former pen-l pal Blair Sandler calls it). The competition encourages businesses to seek low wages and materials costs, new markets, etc. This is a very strong dynamic force, based in the structural antagonisms which are inherent in capitalism. Further, the structural antagonism of class relations encourage expansion: businesses seek low-wage areas to undercut organized labor, among other things. However, does GOD apply to capitalism as a whole? I'd say yes, but does it have to be _extensive_, geographical? can't it also be technological? Ian writes: Geographic space is only one type of space. Imagine buying and selling data structures in cyberspace as a form of real estate transactions. In it's own way, cyberspace has the potential to become as large as astronomical space. So spatial considerations are irrelevant with regards to collapse. The relationships between energy, information and knowledge are pivotal in the coming century. Post oil possibilities within capitalism are enormous if capitalists and governments INVEST in them; just watch how the linkages between physics and computer science and electronic engineering grow stronger. We're at the tip of an iceberg with this stuff! As the current intellectual property rights disputes wage on, it's a battle for who will own the knowledge. It's the path dependency of the land grab mentality inherited over the last 500 years that's' screwin' us up too. Michael's work as well as others critiquing the current diseased paradigm is very very important and as I hinted at earlier can lead to different notions of subjectivity as well. Imagine a webhead from silicon valley talking to someone from say, Boonville, Indiana or Rwanda; almost totally different worlds. this suggests that geographical expansion can be replaced. After all, technical "progress" can cheapen raw materials, undermine labor, create new markets, etc. Increased Taylorization of production seems the way to go... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Cuba's future
At 02:13 PM 11/17/00 -0500, you wrote: The other is now that it increasingly looks like indeed that Bush will "triumph" (if that is the right word) in Florida, what will his presidency mean for Cuba's future? The obvious expectation would be that it means a hard line, given both that Jeb is governor of Florida and how crucial that state has proven in the presidential election and the now likelihood that we shall see even more lackey-like bootlicking of the obnoxious Cuban-Americans in Miami. OTOH, given the increasing pressure from a lot of American capitalists to loosen further the embargo, might we see the Dubya pulling a "Nixon in China" routine and ending the embargo? I don't know where you get the idea that Gore would be any better in terms of loosening the economic embargo of Cuba. Remember his stance on Elian. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: oil and socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/17/00 02:55PM Does someone have a convincing argument that capitalism will collapse if it doesn't expand geographically? Charles writes: I don't think "the" idea is that capitalism never has periods when it retains its rate of expansion of terrritory, that it must be uniform and continuous territorial expansion, that it won't be in ebbs and flows. Thereby, looking at capitalism's whole history there is evidence that expansion must always be returned to, even with ebbs. This evidence is empircal evidence supporting the claim that capitalism must expand geographically. The theoretical match for these facts h, lets see. We might start by looking more deeply into Marx and Engels reference to the fact that capitalism constantly seeks new markets. I would say that it goes back to the competition pressure from other capitalists. Some capitalists, to get new markets WILL expand their territory ( use their states to control countries, force markets to be open, force free trade on the world) because there is no force in the world saying they can't. ( They are the masters of the universe anyway). The other capitalists must follow suit once any capitalists do this, or else face ruin, takeover, extinction. I agree: capitalist competition (a much more violent and aggressive process than textbooks talk about) encourage each capital to expand like crazy (grow or die, of GOD, as former pen-l pal Blair Sandler calls it). The competition encourages businesses to seek low wages and materials costs, new markets, etc. This is a very strong dynamic force, based in the structural antagonisms which are inherent in capitalism. Further, the structural antagonism of class relations encourage expansion: businesses seek low-wage areas to undercut organized labor, among other things. However, does GOD apply to capitalism as a whole? I'd say yes, but does it have to be _extensive_, geographical? can't it also be technological? (( CB: First, intensification of production due to technological improvement that increases the productive power of labor reduces the rate of surplus value ( or profit ?) , doesn't it ? Isn't this part of the logic of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall due to the increase in organic composition of capital ? But perhaps the more complete answer is : assume the intensification you describe. Soon all capitalists will so intensify. Then , with all the potential proletarians over in some other country or geographical area, some one of the capitalists is going to break out and try to get the lead among all the intensified capitalists by combining intensification with extensification ( geographically). The only limit on extensification is the globe. The New Economy is largely the reextensification of world capitalism into geographical areas that had been foreclosed to it by socialism and to some extent formerly non-aligned countries which had some barriers to entry to capital based on their relationships with and the promise of the European socialist system. Because the bourgeoisie constantly revolutionize the instruments of production, it seems to me your intensification scenario has in fact been continuously part of the history of actual capitalism. In other words, we don't have to think of what you pose as hypothetical , do we ?
Re: Re: oil and socialism
Charles wrote: First, intensification of production due to technological improvement that increases the productive power of labor reduces the rate of surplus value ( or profit ?) , doesn't it ? Isn't this part of the logic of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall due to the increase in organic composition of capital ? all else (especially real wages) constant, increases in labor productivity raise the rate of surplus-value. I don't accept the standard story about the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, since increases in labor productivity also cheapen the means of production, undermining the increase in the organic composition. FWIW, the capital-output ratio has been roughly constant in the US since the 19th century. This is a sign that any increases in the organic composition have been prevented by "counteracting tendencies." But perhaps the more complete answer is : assume the intensification you describe. Soon all capitalists will so intensify. Then , with all the potential proletarians over in some other country or geographical area, some one of the capitalists is going to break out and try to get the lead among all the intensified capitalists by combining intensification with extensification ( geographically). The only limit on extensification is the globe. The New Economy is largely the reextensification of world capitalism into geographical areas that had been foreclosed to it by socialism and to some extent formerly non-aligned countries which had some barriers to entry to capital based on their relationships with and the promise of the European socialist system. Because the bourgeoisie constantly revolutionize the instruments of production, it seems to me your intensification scenario has in fact been continuously part of the history of actual capitalism. In other words, we don't have to think of what you pose as hypothetical , do we ? right. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Nader's plans
(posted on the Marxism list) "He's totally toast among Democrats," says a senior Democratic Congressional aide. "There is deep animosity toward him among high-ranking Democrats in Congress. For now, the relationship is completely ruptured." Hmm, I attended a Nader meeting last night at Skidmore College, in Saratoga Springs, NY. I arrived a half hour early only to see a line four people deep and one hundred yards long waiting to get in to the field house. After parking a quarter of a mile away, I waited in line for 15 minutes myself, as we snaked through the entrance, down stairs and down a long hall to get in. I would estimate the standing room only crowd at between 1,000 to 2,OOO. Nader was greeted with a standing ovation and prolonged and repeated applause through out his standard speech which only briefly mentioned the Florida mess. After his talk he took questions for another hour from people lined up at two microphones. Evidently some people on the ground are not too worried about the ire of Democratic Party "progressives." Jon Flanders Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Oil Socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/16/00 07:55PM To my mind, the key issue with fossil fuels is not the absolute shortage that Mark talks about but instead the environmental impact. So for that issue, the previous paragraph applies. Yes, but I'm more concerned about the politics of oil supplies than either of the above, since it tends to make hundreds of bloody imperial flowers bloom unleash the dogs of war. I feel this way perhaps because I'm from Japan (remember World War 2!) (( CB: There is a kind of converse to the truth Yoshie points to. Marxists must consider war as an ecological problem in the era of nuclear weapons ( Remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima !) , biological weapons and who knows what else they'll come up with as science grows under capitalist control.
Re: Nader's plans
At 03:56 PM 11/17/00 -0500, you wrote: (posted on the Marxism list) "He's totally toast among Democrats," says a senior Democratic Congressional aide. "There is deep animosity toward him among high-ranking Democrats in Congress. For now, the relationship is completely ruptured." Jon Flanders writes: Hmm, I attended a Nader meeting last night at Skidmore College, in Saratoga Springs, NY. I arrived a half hour early only to see a line four people deep and one hundred yards long waiting to get in to the field house. After parking a quarter of a mile away, I waited in line for 15 minutes myself, as we snaked through the entrance, down stairs and down a long hall to get in. The "senior Democratic Congressional aide" is expressing the vision of those who want politics to be a bunch of deals and back-scratching among the insiders, i.e., the politicians, lobbyists, fund-raising organizations, etc. Nader seems to have been kicked out of their midst. That's a good thing, since it will encourage him to cultivate the grass roots. Only when the grass roots grow tall will the insiders be pushed to deviate from the same old game. (Alternatively, they'll be forced to break with the game when their own aggressive non-cultivation of the grass roots undermines their influence, as with the DLC's success in cutting off of the US Democratic Party's own political base or the AFL-CIO's extremely weak efforts to organize the unorganized until very recently.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
the rate of surplus-value
I wrote: all else (especially real wages) constant, increases in labor productivity raise the rate of surplus-value. (( CB: I'm always a little unclear on this. I know that the capitalists who make the initial innovations gain an advantage over those who don't because with the increase in productivity, they get more unit commodities to sell for the same total wage. But after all capitalists finally get the innovative technology, is it true that the rate of surplus value is up for everybody as compared with before the innovation ? In other words, surplus value can only be made on labor, so the less human labor that goes into a commodity , the less value goes in. The rate of surplus-value is a ratio, the mass of surplus-value S divided by the mass of variable capital V. One way of looking at it is the way Marx does in volume I of CAPITAL: in per-worker-day terms, the mass of surplus-value S equals the length of the working day (H) minus the number of hours of the day needed to pay for the worker's wages (V). If we take the worker's daily real wages as given and fixed, and equal to B, and assume that labor productivity (Q = output per hour) is the same in all sectors, then the number of hours needed to produce the real wage, V, would equal (commodities paid per worker-day)/(commodity output per hour) = B/Q. Then the mass of surplus-value per worker-day S equals H - B/Q. The rate of surplus-value is the ratio of surplus-value per worker-day: S/V = (H - B/Q)/(B/Q) = (H*Q/B) - 1. This says that the rate of surplus-value rises if the length of the working-day is raised (absolute surplus-value extraction) or labor productivity rises (relative surplus-value extraction). Marx assumed B was constant in almost all of volume I, but if it's depressed, the rate of surplus-value rises. Boosting profits by cutting wages seems akin to absolute surplus-value extraction. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Cuba's future
Barkley Rosser wrote: The first has to do with a chart I saw in the back of a recent issue of The Economist (same issue with Gus Hall obit and Survey on Mexico). It showed Cuba as one of several countries where rates of child undernourishment have sharply increased in the last 20 years, from almost zero to nearly 20%. There are others that are much worse (Somalia, Haiti, and North Korea were at the top of the list, with rates well over 50%), but this put Cuba as worse than India and some other places that surprised me. Is this due to the cutback in oil supplies from the former USSR? If so, what does this say about the success of the new "green agriculture" in Cuba? Is it classic "socialist inefficiency in agriculture"? \ Whassup? * ...The collapse in GDP was a result of the collapse of trade relations with countries of the Soviet bloc. In response to the U.S. trade embargo, Cuba joined the Soviet bloc's international trade alliance. That integration had two consequences. First, Cuba chose to remain a predominantly agricultural economy, relying on imports to meet its requirements of manufactured goods. Second, agriculture reflected a tendency towards monocrop production, with a heavy dependence on sugar as an export crop. According to Peter Rosset, executive director of Food First, in 1989 land under sugar cultivation was three times as much as that under food crops, and sugarcane accounted for 20 per cent of agricultural production. This was not merely the result of the structure of production under colonialism, but also the consequence of the large market offered by the Soviet bloc for Cuba's sugar exports at prices which, during the 1980s, were on average 5.4 times higher than world prices. In return for those exports at favourable prices, Cuba received petroleum which could be re-exported to earn hard currency. The net result was that imports accounted for 57 per cent of the total calories in the average Cuban diet. The loss of revenue from sugar export that followed the Soviet collapse reduced export revenues from $5,399.9 million in 1989 to $1,156.7 million in 1993. This meant that after taking into account dollar inflows in the form of remittances, for example, imports had to be massively curtailed, falling from $8,139.8 million in 1989 to $2,008.2 million in 1993. The consequences were disastrous for the highly import-dependent production structure. Reduced access to fertilizers, pesticides, industrial inputs and oil forced a sharp cutback in domestic production. It also impacted heavily on the quality of life by generating shortages of food and medicines and by disrupting transportation http://www.frontlineonline.com/fl1607/16071120.htm * * ... Prior to the collapse of the socialist bloc, Cuban agriculture focused on large-scale, capital-intensive, high-input monoculture. The governments before and after the revolution (1959) have focused the country's agricultural production on export crops. After the revolution, agrarian reforms (1959 and 1962) converted most of the large cattle ranches and sugarcane plantations into state farms. (Rosset, 1997) Eventually, the state took control of 63% of all cultivated land. (Benjamin et. al. 1984) The state farms focused on extensive monocrop production of exports and were heavily dependent on imported agricultural chemicals, hybrid seeds, machinery, and petroleum. In the late 1980's, 48% of fertilizers and 82% of pesticides were imported. If the raw materials imported for the domestic manufacture of fertilizers is factored in, the percentage jumps to 94%. (Rosset, 1997) The figures for herbicide (98%) and animal feed (97%) indicate an almost complete dependence on imported materials for agricultural inputs. Overall, the identifying elements of Cuban agriculture were a high degree of modernization, the dominance of export monoculture crops over more diverse food crops, and a strong dependence on imported inputs for the agricultural system. With the collapse of the socialist bloc's support in late 1989 and 1990, Cuba's government declared the "Special Period in Peacetime" and instituted an austerity program to conserve resources. The agricultural sector faced a more than 80% drop in the availability of the fertilizers and pesticides on which they were so dependent and a more than 50% reduction in fuel and other energy sources produced by burning petroleum. (Rosset and Benjamin, 1994). Cuba was now faced with having to rely on its own resources and ingenuity to survive and feed its population ... Cuban agriculture has made great progress but the input substitution strategies do not address the underlying problems associated with extensive monoculture, and the separation of crop and livestock operations. Because of its minimal biodiversity, monoculture systems are vulnerable to pest and disease attack (Altieri, 1987) and are
Re: irrelevant thought.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Jim Devine wrote: I heard a little of one of Bill Clinton's speeches in Vietnam on the radio this morning. Ignoring the content, it struck me that I'll miss Bubba -- because both George W. and Al G. are such horrible public speakers. In a weird sort of way, so will I. My own totally quixotic take on the era of the Bubba Bubble: http://www.efn.org/~dredmond/neolib.PDF -- Dennis
Re: Re: oil and socialism
To some extent, the increasing energy efficiency is real, but a large portion is illusory. For example, the United States imports much more of the energy intensive goods -- for example, steel. Much that we sell has been extraordinarily high markup -- for example, software. Cars have greater fuel efficiency potential -- you are correct, although the automobile fleet probably has less because of the increase in the SUVs. Jim Devine wrote: Not even if the intensity of labor is increased? not even if the effectiveness of using such fuels increases? The mainstream media talk about how the U.S. economy is more energy-efficient than it was 25 years ago. I'm sure there's a lot of hype there, but there also seems to be some truth, too. After all, U.S. cars get more miles per gallon of gasoline than they used to... -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: oil and socialism
Jim D. says: Michael P. wrote: Jim, don't underestimate the importance of fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels there would be virtually no surplus value; thus, no capitalism. saith I: why? Michael replies: Because given the limits of technology today, without fossil fuel, we would be unable to produce a surplus over and above the subsistence needs of workers Not even if the intensity of labor is increased? not even if the effectiveness of using such fuels increases? The mainstream media talk about how the U.S. economy is more energy-efficient than it was 25 years ago. I'm sure there's a lot of hype there, but there also seems to be some truth, too. After all, U.S. cars get more miles per gallon of gasoline than they used to... You must take into account the most scarce resource of all: time. In the long run, we are all dead, as Keynes reminded economists of his day. Can capital increase productivity, improve energy efficiency, and/or invent alternative energy sources (whose production does not depend upon fossil fuels) _in time_? Here, you must consider the problem of path dependency, not to mention the question of hegemony, as well. Even discounting the finiteness of any physical entity (including fossil fuels), which is not likely to become a problem in the foreseeable future, we may still encounter a quite interesting supply-side crisis, depending upon political developments in oil-producing regions which have remained as volatile as ever (hence the imperial insistence upon the expansion of the NATO focus on Yugoslavia Columbia in recent years). Yoshie
Paging Leone
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Tom Walker wrote: Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? That's simple, you just have to tune your optic sensors to cellphone frequencies, and you'll see, in glorious 1600 x 1200 resolution: The Good: developmental states, the European Union, Quake 3, and the Japanese postal savings system The Bad: Wall Street, comprador elites, the IMF The Ugly: the US one-party state, the US economy's net international investment position Jiang Zemin is good, except when he's bad. John Carmack is one bd dude, which is good. Bailouts can be both good and bad. The World Bank isn't so much bad as very, very naughty. The dotbombing of the dotcoms is very good indeed. Have I mentioned that STMicro is a screaming buy? -- Dennis
RE: Re: oil and socialism
Yoshie: You must take into account the most scarce resource of all: time. In the long run, we are all dead, as Keynes reminded economists of his day. Can capital increase productivity, improve energy efficiency, and/or invent alternative energy sources (whose production does not depend upon fossil fuels) _in time_? Here, you must consider the problem of path dependency, not to mention the question of hegemony, as well. ** Could any system at this point? Anyone who's taken a look at Paul Ekins projections in "Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability" or the work of Robert Goodland and Peter Vitousek among others, has some inkling of the pickle we're in in this century. A global growth rate of 2-3% a year leads to a quadrupling of output in 50 years [according to Ekins model]; combined with UN projections of population growth, the reduction of environmental impacts per unit of consumption must fall by 91% to achieve "sustainability" [no further damage of ecological systems than we've already done]. Quadrupling the "South's" per capita consumption over this period of time would result in it's being only 1/6th of current levels in the North; thus the burden falls on the North to change production/consumption regimes. Any takers? The issue of time takes on a different form of nefariousness that touches on both Yoshie's and Jim's ideas. The critical issue in innovation is time to market and how long one can hold the lead [via property rights etc.] before competitors catch up. As the pace of innovation -product life cycle- quickens, the level of investment needed to achieve economies of scale to sustain an adequate level of demand in order to garner a decent rate of return on investment rises enormously. In a macroeconomic context, the system becomes addicted to the speed of innovation and the implications for stagnation in output per man/woman hour becomes ever larger as the speed at which one must keep ahead of ones competition quickens. The speed of market saturation is reached more quickly etc...To increase, let alone sustain, demand that would justify investment then eats into whatever energy efficiency gains are made. What does it matter if cars average 50 miles a gallon over the next decade if the number of drivers quadruples or greater over the next 50? Contra Alan Greenspan, the rate of dematerialization in the North is nowhere near offsetting growth in resource use. Hence the issue becomes one of seriously putting sand in the gears of the path dependency of the "speed economy" which paradoxically has become one [in the North] at precisely the time when the middle class professionals that make it go are increasingly complaining about gridlock in their transportation networks; sclerosis. Thus cell phones! Soon everyone will work in their cars :-)! So, if oil is the "computational substrate" of contemporary capitalism; what's the next computational substrate? Ian Even discounting the finiteness of any physical entity (including fossil fuels), which is not likely to become a problem in the foreseeable future, we may still encounter a quite interesting supply-side crisis, depending upon political developments in oil-producing regions which have remained as volatile as ever (hence the imperial insistence upon the expansion of the NATO focus on Yugoslavia Columbia in recent years).
EU goes after US legislation on FSC's
full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/17/business/18CND-TRADE.html November 17, 2000 European Union Seeks More Than $4 Billion in Trade Sanctions Against U.S. By PAUL MELLER BRUSSELS, Nov. 17 -- The European Union filed for trade sanctions worth just over $4 billion against the United States today in retaliation for what it claims is an illegal tax break granted to American exporters. The United States trade representative, Charlene Barshefsky, and the Treasury Department's deputy secretary, Stuart Eizenstat, said in a joint response that the United States will "contest the level of damages alleged by the E.U." The European Union asked the World Trade Organization for permission to seek sanctions, and submitted a long list of United States products from which it would choose where to apply the sanctions. The W.T.O. has already ruled that the United States tax break in question is illegal. The list of 99 product groups includes soaps, paper products, sugar confectionery, aircraft and sports accessories. If the sanctions are launched they will hit some of the biggest United States exporters, including Procter Gamble, Mars, Boeing and Nike. Agricultural products including cereals, meat and dairy products are also included. So are more specialized products such as fur skins, nuclear reactors and imitation jewelry. The $4 billion in sanctions is 2.7 percent of the $160 billion in United States exports sold in the European Union each year. The sanctions would be applied in the form of customs duties on imports into the European Union of some of the United States products on the list, said Anthony Gooch, spokesman for the European Commission, the union's executive arm. "The figure of just over $4 billion the E.U. is claiming in damages makes other trade disputes between the E.U. and U.S. pale into insignificance," said Mr. Gooch. The figure "is a reasonable estimation of the damages the E.U. has incurred as a result of the U.S. Foreign Sales Corporation program," he said. The program, which was introduced in 1984, allows United States companies to avoid taxes on revenues generated from exports if the revenues are booked through a foreign subsidiary. The program has reduced United States companies' export tax bills by as much as 30 percent a year, giving them a competitive advantage over their European competitors not just in markets in the European Union, but globally, Mr. Gooch said. "This case is of major importance for European companies as the sectors that benefit the most from the F.S.C. are sectors where U.S. and E.U. companies fiercely compete," he said. These sectors include chemicals, pharmaceuticals, mechanical machinery, electrical equipment and transport equipment, the European Commission said in a statement. The product groups on the European Union's list are ones where European dependency on American imports is low, and where the sanctions wouldn't affect consumers and industry in Europe, Mr. Gooch said. The application for W.T.O. authorization comes days after the United States agreed to replace the Foreign Sales Corporation program with another tax regime for exporters. But the European Union claims this replacement regime is just as bad, and possibly worse. "We regret that the E.U. has not accepted our new legislation," Ms. Barshefsky and Mr. Eizenstat said. "We continue to strongly believe that it is W.T.O.-compliant," they said. The European Union has asked the W.T.O. to examine the new export tax legislation, which is not expected to happen before early next summer. The American officials said no sanctions would be imposed until a W.T.O. ruling on the legislation.
Re: Capitalism = Fetters on Growth? (was Re: Beyond the Summary ofNader analysis)
Surely the basic fetter upon production under capitalism is the need to make a profit. There is no lack of materials, or skills, to produce in a manner that meets the basic food and shelter needs of those who have not the wherewithal to satisfy these needs within a capitalist economy. Production for profit and in accordance with effective demand rather than for need is a basic fetter. This fetter is part and parcel of the contradiction between the relations of productions and productive forces mentioned by Yoshie in her 1st point. Why would the contradiction continue at all under socialism? There would be constraints placed upon production by scarcity of materials and degree of development of skills, and technology etc. but that would seem a different type, albeit an important fetter both within any system. Just to add a couple of observations with respect to Yoshies second point. Much production under capitalism is directed to satisfaction of needs that are really not significant in contributing to human happiness and welfare and which does not factor in the total "costs" to the environment. Under a socialist democratically planned economy there should be much less production of this type. The concept of sustainable development seems more relevant that that of zero growth. Sustainable growth may be zero growth of even a shrinkage, but even with a shrinkage the forces of production could very well be used to more fully satisfy social needs than capitalism does at present. It is not so much a matter of quality as distribution on the basis of need rather than on money income. CHeers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 3:35 AM Subject: [PEN-L:4532] Capitalism = Fetters on "Growth"? (was Re: Beyond the Summary ofNader analysis) From James Heartfield to John Gulick: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes How about a program of zero economic growth ? With a considerable part of the world mired in poverty, zero economic growth seems like a convenient way for the affluent West to secure its own economic advantage for all time. That is true, James, to the extent that neoliberalism has been a program of slow growth for all (with a possible exception of some sectors of rich nations, esp. the USA) and de-industrialization de-modernization for many (especially for many ex-socialist citizens as well as those under the harshest regimens of the SAPs). The problem with capitalism is not that it grows too fast, but that it puts chains on the further development of the forces of production. Does capitalism put "chains on the further development of the forces of production"? In what sense? Some thoughts on so-called "fetters": 1. One might argue, as Ellen Wood (drawing on Robert Brenner, Karl Polanyi, etc.) does, that the dialectic of forces of production and relations of production (with the latter acting as fetters for the former) is one unique to the capitalist mode of production, with its logic of M-C-M' which entails market compulsion to innovation (do or die, prosper or go bankrupt) creative destruction; this dialectic is not useful for explaining, for instance, the transition from feudalism to capitalism -- nor should it predominate an emancipated future under socialism. 2. Does "the further development of the forces of production" equal "economic growth"? The former must be equated with the latter only under capitalism, it seems to me. For instance, under capitalism, rates of productivity growth have to outpace rises in wages, in order for capitalists to make profits while buying off an important section of the international working class. Such concerns will be meaningless under socialism. If we get to abolish capitalism, I think we'll be able to rethink "the further development of the forces of production" in qualitative, not quantitative, terms. Instead of being slaves to "more" in the abstract, we'll know the meanings of "enough," "different," "beautiful," etc. in the "fullness of time." If we want "more" of some (though not all) goods services under socialism, it will be because of _our conscious collective decision_, not because of subjection to M-C-M'. 3. Under capitalism, there will always be a relative surplus population (not surplus to the mythical "carrying capacity" of the earth, but surplus to the requirements of capitalist production). Under capitalism, the majority of women in the world cannot emancipate themselves, facing, among others, barriers against achieving full control of their reproductive destiny. Hence the sterile debate between heirs of Malthus Condorcet. Hence the so-called "population" problems. Hence the need for constant compulsive growth. Under socialism, we can move beyond the Malthus-Condorcet debate, so no need for compulsion to grow, grow, grow. Workers of the world, unite, take it easy Yoshie
Re: Re: oil and socialism
A number of things bother me about this whole debate. Does Jim really believe that there is an infinite limit to how we oppress labour and that, even if there were, that that would not promote a realization crisis.? And does Yoshie really believe that we can raise all the current population to a decent level of material living without destroying the world ecology? If the answer to either is yes, then I can only suggest we increase the cultivation of certain plants now denied us by US imperial decree. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Date sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:40:26 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:4582] Re: oil and socialism Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jim D. says: Michael P. wrote: Jim, don't underestimate the importance of fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels there would be virtually no surplus value; thus, no capitalism. saith I: why? Michael replies: Because given the limits of technology today, without fossil fuel, we would be unable to produce a surplus over and above the subsistence needs of workers Not even if the intensity of labor is increased? not even if the effectiveness of using such fuels increases? The mainstream media talk about how the U.S. economy is more energy-efficient than it was 25 years ago. I'm sure there's a lot of hype there, but there also seems to be some truth, too. After all, U.S. cars get more miles per gallon of gasoline than they used to... You must take into account the most scarce resource of all: time. In the long run, we are all dead, as Keynes reminded economists of his day. Can capital increase productivity, improve energy efficiency, and/or invent alternative energy sources (whose production does not depend upon fossil fuels) _in time_? Here, you must consider the problem of path dependency, not to mention the question of hegemony, as well. Even discounting the finiteness of any physical entity (including fossil fuels), which is not likely to become a problem in the foreseeable future, we may still encounter a quite interesting supply-side crisis, depending upon political developments in oil-producing regions which have remained as volatile as ever (hence the imperial insistence upon the expansion of the NATO focus on Yugoslavia Columbia in recent years). Yoshie
A UK solution to the US electoral impasse
NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE To the citizens of the United States of America, In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The rt. hon. Tony Blair, MP for the 98.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect: 1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed". 2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. 3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. 4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. 5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through. 6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 1.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005. 7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "shit". 8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day". 9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. 10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy. Thank you for your cooperation. = .
Re: A UK solution to the US electoral impasse
This, of course, implies that Blair is close to/is an imperial potentate who, given his performance in the Balkans, deserves to control the rate of extermination of humanity in the region. Since Britain is am historic carnivore of human values, it is difficult to argued who should be the ultimate exterminator of human life. From: "Ken Hanly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:4588] A UK solution to the US electoral impasse Date sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:09:08 -0600 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE To the citizens of the United States of America, In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The rt. hon. Tony Blair, MP for the 98.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect: 1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed". 2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. 3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. 4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. 5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through. 6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 1.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005. 7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "shit". 8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day". 9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. 10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy. Thank you for your cooperation. = .
On the subject of Cuba...
One of my colleagues sent this to campus line... xxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of WashingtonCampus Box 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5718 xxx I'm travelling to Cuba as a member of a People to People Medical Initiative, leaving the U.S. on December 2nd. Over the counter medications are in short supply there, so I will be carrying some with me. If anyone would like to contribute sealed, over the counter meds (aspirin, ibuprophin, baby and children's vitamins, adult vitamins, etc.) please let me know, and I'll arrange to collect them. Thanks!
US-Singapore FTA to be negotiated
I would be interested in any reactions to the following announcement of a US-Singapore FTA. Singapore recently signed a FTA with New Zealand. Actually it was much more than that - it covered tariffs, services, investment, government procurement, TBT/SPS, intellectual property, disputes procedures and more. It was explicitly intended to be a model and a catalyst for further agreements. I can provide copies and various analyses for anyone interested. Singapore has announced negotiations for similar agreements with Australia and Japan. The intention of at least some of the parties (including Singapore and New Zealand) is to link them up into a wider FTA. New Zealand officials and trade ministers have been pushing for a "Pacific 5" agreement - US, Chile, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Bill Rosenberg Singapore To Launch Free Trade Negotiations Friday, 17 November 2000, 3:44 pm Press Release: The White House Singapore To Launch Free Trade Agreement Negotiations (First U.S.-Asian Free Trade Agreement to be established) (740) President Clinton and Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, on the final day of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders' Meeting in Brunei, announced the United States and Singapore will launch negotiations for the first U.S. free trade agreement (FTA) with an Asian country. "This agreement will both develop and strengthen one of the Pacific's largest trading relationships, and bring us a step closer to the realization of APEC's vision of 'free and open trade' throughout the Pacific," said U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Charlene Barshefsky. Geared toward the information technology-driven "new economy," the agreement will address significant service sectors of the economy including communications, the Internet and high technology and include provisions on labor and the environment. According to Barshefsky, the agreement represents a major economic potential to reap the benefits of the new economy and has strategic significance for the overall mission of APEC. "As we realize the commercial benefits of an expanding trade relationship, we are also setting an example of progress toward the long-term vision of an open, prosperous and stable Pacific region," Barshefsky said. Singapore is the United States' largest trading partner in Southeast Asia. Trade between the two countries totaled $34.4 billion in 1999. Following is the text of the U.S. Trade Representative release: (begin text) OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Executive Office of the President Washington, D.C. 20508 00 - 81 November 16, 2000 U.S. and Singapore to Launch Negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement President Clinton and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore, meeting in Brunei on the final day of the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, today announced the launch of negotiations for a U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA). "This agreement will both develop and strengthen one of the Pacific's largest trading relationships, and bring us a step closer to the realization of APEC's vision of 'free and open trade' throughout the Pacific," said United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky. "It will remove the remaining barriers to trade between our countries, and help us take full advantage of the new opportunities unfolding through communications, the Internet and high technology. It will also demonstrate again the Clinton Administration's commitment to accompany open markets with labor and environmental provisions." The FTA will be only the fifth Free Trade Agreement the U.S. has signed, and the first with an Asian country. Modeled after the recently signed U.S.-Jordan FTA, but reflecting the substantial volume of trade between the two nations, the agreement will eliminate tariffs on all goods over time; cover substantially all services sectors, help to develop electronic commerce, protect intellectual property rights, and include safeguards and dispute settlement mechanisms. Like the Jordan FTA, it will include provisions on labor and the environment. "President Clinton and Prime Minister Goh have taken a step of major economic potential and strategic significance," said Ambassador Barshefsky. "As we realize the commercial benefits of an expanding trade relationship, we are also setting an example of progress toward the long-term vision of an open, prosperous and stable Pacific region." The agreement is expected to have significant commercial benefits, as Singapore is already the United States' largest trading partner in Southeast Asia, with two-way trade totaling $34.4 billion in 1999. The agreement will represent the new economy, focusing on removing Singapore restrictions on a wide range of services, including high technology sectors such as engineering, medical, information technology, environmental, legal, financial education and distribution. Furthermore, the agreement
Some Cheap Election Laughs
New Recipe for Texas Presidential Omelet: First steal 12 eggs... New Presidential Theme Song: Hail to the Thief... New election standard: Three Strikes and you're President
Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And does Yoshie really believe that we can raise all the current population to a decent level of material living without destroying the world ecology? The answer to the above is definitely yes -- the obstacles are political, not technical. I don't have time to do a decent essay on this. I simply going to make a list of assertions, whose truth or falsity you can research for yourself -- not fair I know, but the nice thing about list communication is you do not have to meet academic standards I am going to outline thee case that we can not only provide a decent material standard -- but a standard close to that of the US. This does not mean that the US good keep the same goods that it has now or that others could duplicate them, but that we could have equivalent goods provided in a slightly different manner for everyone: ** Energy+Transportation -- we could provide equivalent output in terms of heat, cooling, transportation, driving industrial engines etc -- while using 90% less ecologically destructive goods: This would involve: Super-insulation of new and existing buildings -- reducing heat loss and gain Co-generation -- use of waste heat from fossil fuel plants to heat buildings and water for commercial, industrial and home use, short term use of Hybrid-autos where autos have to be used -- long term, train and trolley based transportation, including use of subsidies and taxes to encourage populaton shifts to urban coridors. Use of more effiecient electrical motors, Use of solar heating , cooling and air conditioning as an additial conservation measue in areas where this is practical (many). Use of wind power to generate a percent of electricty. A requriement that goods be manufactured with minimum lifespans to reduce the requriements for replacing them. (I.E. -- a great deal of energy is spent on the original manufacture of goods, quite separate from the energy required to operate them. A doubling or tripling of goods lifespan would save a great deal fo energy.) === Food and Fiber -- You may have been joking, but at least one banned sustance hemp could provide complete protein, a good sustitute for ecologically unsound cotton at a much lower enviromental and energy cost, and a substitute for wood fiber in fiberboards. It PROBABLY could produce paper as well -- although there are problems with converting hemp to paper on a large scale, and hemp paper is only produced in small scale operations -- thus is very expensive, and not always a high quality paper. This probably is solvable , but until solved should not be included in any calculations.. In general organic waste from food and fiber production could at least provide chemical feedstocks for industry. Barry Commoner claims to have worked out some cycles incorporating corn and cattle by which meat, alchohol and methane could be produced, providing food and fuel without robbing the soil.. (and unlike some current production methods -- providing net energy). Similarly, a combination of designing goods for long life, designing them to be produced with minimal waste, and designing them to last a long time could greatly reduce the materials used in producing goods -- in addition to reducing energy as already mentioned above. In short technology commercially available now could sustain an USA Quality (though not USA Style) level of material goods while consuming natural sources and sinks at a level of around 5% to 10% per capital of what the USA does. (And yes, as a US citizen I agree the USA should set the example for this.) Note that I am not including fuel cells, projectiong cheap PV or any technolgy not currently available. And yes fossil fuels would still be needed -- but at a level that is environmentally sustainable. In short the barriers are not techical, nor are they feasability questions -- the costs of the switch in terms of labor and materials is by no means overwhelming. They are strictly political; our current economic system could not tolerate many of the changes and could not make many of the changes it could tolerate. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Date sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:40:26 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:4582] Re: oil and socialism Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jim D. says: Michael P. wrote: Jim, don't underestimate the importance of fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels there would be virtually no surplus value; thus, no capitalism. saith I: why? Michael replies: Because given the limits of technology today, without fossil fuel, we would be unable to produce a surplus over and above the subsistence needs of workers Not even if the intensity of labor is increased? not even if the effectiveness of using such
Nader's plans
FEATURE STORY | December 4, 2000 Nader: Is There Life After Crucifixion? by DAVID CORN After the election came the crucifixion. Before the Gore-Bush mess was settled--but as soon as it was apparent that Ralph Nader's vote in Florida was greater than the gap between Al Gore and George Bush--pundits, editorial boards, political partisans and liberals pounced. AFL-CIO president John Sweeney called Nader's campaign "reprehensible." Environmental Working Group president Ken Cook declared, "The public-interest community is going to spend tens of millions of dollars a year for the next four years playing defense. I don't think [Nader's] going to build a Green Party any more than O.J.'s out there looking for a murderer." Larry Marx, co-executive director of Wisconsin Citizen Action, complained that Nader "got tunnel vision and lost sight of progressive goals." "I will not speak his name," hissed Democratic spin man James Carville. "I'm going to shun him. And any good Democrat, any good progressive, ought to do the same thing." In addition to the demonization of a progressive icon--Nader himself--Nader's campaign resulted in a sharpening of the sometimes blurry line between inside-the-duopoly progressives who try to nudge the Democratic Party to the left and nonestablishment progressives who eschew the party as part of the problem, not the potential solution. His candidacy hardened positions along this divide. It also diminished whatever opportunity he had to work with left-leaning Democrats in Washington. "He's totally toast among Democrats," says a senior Democratic Congressional aide. "There is deep animosity toward him among high-ranking Democrats in Congress. For now, the relationship is completely ruptured." And with 2.7 million votes--3 percent of the vote--Nader fell far short of the magic mark of 5 percent, which would have qualified the Green Party for federal funding in the next presidential election. So was it worth it? "Of course," says an utterly undaunted Nader, who obviously relished the campaign experience. "Look what came out of this--the third-largest party. Tens of thousands of people were energized. It was a great burst. We can continue on and recruit more candidates in 2002. There will be a Green Party presence here [in Washington], which will speak with authority--electoral authority--when it goes to Capitol Hill, not just say, 'Please, please, do what we want.'" He expresses no regrets; he is unfazed by the harsh criticism; he is unrepentant. With the Florida recount under way, Nader showed no sign of caring much about who will win. Instead, he was more excited about a letter he received on November 8 from Holly Hart of the Iowa Green Party. She reported that his campaign appearances there prompted Republican farmers to contact the party and that "the Green Party and the message of your campaign have come out well ahead of where they started." Though Nader only scored 2 percent in Iowa, that was enough for the Iowa Green Party to qualify for automatic ballot status. "Not only that," Hart wrote; "we now have around five new Green student organizations and many new county Green chapters--enough so that we can now organize a real statewide Green Party." This is evidence of the "benefits" of his campaign, Nader notes; he has created a "ripple effect" throughout the nation. Full article at: http://www.thenation.com Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Capitalism loves misery
NY Times, November 17, 2000 In Yugoslav Misery, Investors Knock By PETER S. GREEN Just over a month has passed since Yugoslavia's emerging democrats sent President Slobodan Milosevic packing and Western countries began lifting sanctions. Already, foreign investors are sifting through the physical and economic wreckage for investments and markets in Yugoslavia, a country they say should be the engine of Balkan recovery. Trade delegations from Greece, Austria and the Czech Republic have visited. American and European companies are considering investing or reviving dormant links, and some that weathered the storm have expansion plans. "My client list has doubled since the changes," said Benoit Junod, a former Swiss diplomat in Belgrade whose Geneva-based consulting firm, AS, is scouting Serbia on behalf of foreign clients, particularly construction concerns. In 1989, Yugoslavia was the wealthiest and most open country in the Communist world. Ten years of ethnic hatred, economic mismanagement and war have left its economy devastated and its infrastructure in tatters. But where many citizens see misery, investors see opportunity. Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/17/business/17YUGO.html Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
