On bureaucracy
Bureaucracy by Devine, James 04 April 2002 17:22 UTC Charles Brown wrote:Isn't bureaucracy a Weberian and not Marxist concept ? ... I wrote: The issue is not whether it's a Marxist concept in the sense of whether Marx talked about it as much as whether it fits with Marx's materialist conception of history. CB:Why do you interpret my usage Marxist concept as meaning something other than as part of a materialist conception of history ? What else would a Marxist concept be except materialist , in the Marxist sense ? No, I was opposing Marxist concepts to whether Marx talked about it (i.e., Marxology), as should be clear from the context (which follows). ^^ CB: What is Marxology ? How does that even come up here ? JD:But see, for example, Hal Draper's book KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION (several volumes, Monthly Review Press), especially volume I. Marx talked a lot about bureaucracy. For example, in CAPITAL, he talks about how bureaucrats (hired managers) were doing more and more of the work that capitalists took credit for doing. BTW, Marx was quite familiar with a quasi-Weberian view of the state bureaucracy, that of Hegel. CB: That is not the way bureaucracy is tossed around today - to point out how capitalists are getting out of doing work. Bureaucracy is used as an anti-socialist, pro-private enterprise buzz word. People abuse all sorts of words (Stalin claimed to be a socialist, while Bush claims to be for freedom.), but that doesn't mean we should automatically avoid them. I'm trying to clarify a more rigorous concept of bureaucracy. Your critique of the buzz-word version of the concept helps, but it doesn't say that we should avoid the word. ^ CB: I still don't see any good usage or rigorous usage of bureaucracy in what you have said. Hierarchy or elite is better for all the purposes mentioned. And bureaucracy has anti-socialist connotations historically ,for example, in the Reaganite anti- Big Guvment demogogy. ^^^ JD:Weber Marx have different theories of bureaucracy. Weber was pro-bureaucracy [shorthand alert!], seeing hierarchies of this sort as an efficient and rational way of attaining goals. (My late friend Al Szymanski (sp.?) once embraced this view, arguing for his version of Leninism by saying that a top-down (bureaucratic) organization was the most efficient way to organize a revolution. If corporations use hierarchy, why can't we?)... CB:Why not call it a hierarchy ? What is the specific significance of it being in an office or related to bureaus. Top-down or hierarchy is what is meant, not office work. You can call it hierarchy, but the word bureaucracy also has a real meaning beyond the buzz-word. Again, I see no reason to abandon a word simply because other people attach other meanings to it that I don't like. BTW, the _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary_'s first definition of bureaucracy is a body of nonelected government officials. That's the way I would define it, without restricting it to governments. Corporations have bureaucracies, too. ^ CB: This continues the anti-socialist, pro-corporate/private sector connotation PRECISELY ! The dictionary does NOT include corporate hierarchies and elites. You had to add that. The common meaning of the word has the politically anti-socialist, pro-private business connotation , just as I said. Nobody who reads the dictionary definition will know of your addendum. CB:...When a giant bureaucracy is mentioned, I get this picture of an enormous collection of people sitting at desks in office buildings. HOWEVER, it is not this bureau-proletariat of secretaries, clerks, mailboys, receptionists, beancounters, etc. that is the cratic, the power in either Russia or the New Deal, or any government. This mass of deskclerks is not the cause of redtape or anti-democratic rule from above, as if they took a vote among the vast bureaucracy to exercise its power on major questions before whatever institution with whatever bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a very misleading concept that is rife in liberal political analysis. JD:The thing about bureaucracy is that the power of any individual rises as you go up the hierarchy (though that power is hardly absolute, since people down below can often block the effectiveness of the organization -- that's one of the things that red tape is about). The difference between the top bureaucrats and the petty bureaucrats is a little like the difference between the grand and petty bourgeoisie. (Unlike Weber, I see a bureaucracy as involving a lot of competition.) CB:Even dividing into a couple of tiers, the number of people with power is a very small % of the total bureauworkers. Most of the giant bureaucracy , in the sense that it is a large number of people, are not grand or petty bureaucrats , in the sense of having power. Most tasks are ministerial, i.e. without discretion. This doesn't fit with my experience: waiting in
BP, Sinopec Launch Petrochemical Plant In China
The Financial Express March 29, 2002 BP, Sinopec Launch Petrochemical Plant In China Shanghai, March 28: Oil titan BP and China's Sinopec Corp launched a massive $2.7 billion petrochemical complex on Thursday, hoping slumping product prices would recover by 2005 when the plant goes into operation. The complex, BP's largest single petrochemical investment in the world, would begin pumping out 900,000 tonnes per year (TPY) of ethylene long after the global petrochemical industry emerged from the painful downturn of the past two years, executives said. It's been perhaps more dire than a slump. These have been awful market conditions, said managing director for Asia, Byron Grote. We're seeing early signs of improved economic activity and therefore improved demand for petrochemical products. BP and Sinopec officials estimated China would still need to import 40 per cent of its ethylene by 2005 - versus about half now - boding well for the complex's ethylene-based products. We're confident that conditions will be better by the time this petrochemical complex comes onstream in three years, Mr Grote told a news conference in Shanghai. BP holds 50 per cent in the joint venture company, Shanghai SECCO, while Sinopec has 30 per cent and its subsidiary Shanghai Petrochemical owns 20 per cent. It will be China's largest ethylene cracker and one of the world's biggest. By 2005, China is projected to consume 13 million tonnes per year of ethylene, the building block of plastics and other chemicals, Sinopec's Chairman Li Yizhong said. But domestic capacity would be just 8.35 million tonnes, he estimated. Presently low petrochemical usage in China also indicated the potential for growth. Li forecast the average Chinese uses 16 kilograms (35.27 lb) of plastics a year, versus a worldwide mean of about 35 kilograms. We witnessed a cyclical low in 2001. This year it seems prices are picking up pace, he told reporters. Sinopec is expected to report a sharp decline in 2001 profits on Thursday, hit by sharp drops in crude oil and ethylene prices. - Reuters © 2002: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. All rights reserved throughout the world.
BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 2001: New claims for unemployment insurance shot up last week, but the layoffs picture was distorted by federal requirements related to how laid-off workers who exhausted their benefits may seek to get them extended. For the work week ending March 30, new claims for jobless benefits jumped by a seasonally adjusted 64,000 to 460,000, the highest level since the beginning of December, the Labor Department reported today. Many analysts had expected new claims to fall. Because a Federal provision requires workers whose benefits are exhausted to file a new claim so that they can become eligible for an extension of Federal jobless benefits, the weekly claims figures could be volatile in the next few week. The benefit program is part of an economic stimulus package passed by Congress to help workers who lost their jobs amid last year's recession and in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Private economists polled by Reuters had expected claims to fall to 376,000 in the March 30 week. The Labor Department reported claims of 394,000 for the week of March 23. In a sign that people are still struggling to find work, the number of unemployed who had already qualified for a week of benefits rose to 3.608 million in the week ended March 23. This was well above the 2.494 million registered for the same period a year ago. More data on the U.S. jobs market are due out tomorrow, with the release of the March non-farm payrolls report. The unemployment rate is expected to edge up to 5.6 percent from 5.5 percent in February, and outside the farm sector, 41,000 jobs are expected to be created compared with a gain of 66,000 in February (Jeannine Aversa, Associated Press, http://www.nypost.com/apstories/V0456.htm; Nancy Waitz, Reuters, http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/business/2997408.htm). Income inequality rose, dropped sharply, and then surged in the last century. In the 80's and 90's, top income groups carried an increasingly large share of the total income in the United States, according to Alan B. Krueger, Berndheim Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University writing in the Economic Scene columns of The Wall Street Journal (page C2). Before the 1940's the wealthiest Americans earned the bulk of their income from returns on capital. But capital taxation has had a cumulative effect on top incomes. Today's rich are not so different from the rest of us after all -- they, too, work for a living. But they earn a lot more money. In 2001, the average chief executive of an industrial company with approximately $500 million in sales was paid $1.9 million, according to the Towers Perrin Worldwide Total Remuneration Report. After adjusting for inflation, salaries of chief executives grew almost 6 percent a year in the 1980's and 1990's. Wage growth has been so strong at the high end that the top 1 percent of taxpayers have taken home 84 percent of the growth in total income since 1973. Data compiled by the Bureau of National Affairs through April 1 for all contract settlements show that the average first-year wage increase in newly negotiated contracts is 4.3 percent, compared with 3.9 percent in the comparable period last year. The manufacturing average increase was 2.5 percent, compared with 3.3 percent in 2001, and the median was 2.8 percent, compared with 3 percent. The nonmanufacturing (excluding construction) average increase is 5.2 percent, compared with 4 percent in 2001, and the median was 4 percent, compared with 3.8 percent (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). After accounting for inflation, tuition at 4-year public colleges is up 128 percent since 1980-81, tuition at private 4-year colleges is up 131 percent. After taking into account family incomes and available student financial aid, the affordability of public 4-year colleges varies among states. Most affordable are in Utah, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, and Minnesota. Least affordable are in Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, California, and New Hampshire. Source of the data is the College Board (USA Today, page 12A). DUE OUT TOMORROW: The Employment Situation, March 2002. application/ms-tnef
Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy by Devine, James 04 April 2002 23:47 UTC I wrote: Applied to the CPUSA, the phrase democratic centralist involves an abuse of the word democratic. CB: Are you saying that the majority's votes were ignored in some election of Gus Hall ? Earl Browder ? John Reed ? Henry Winston ? Sam Webb ? on a provision of the Constitution ? Give me specific examples of where the vote of the majority was not followed in the CPUSA ? Actually, that was a typo. I meant to write the CPSU -- specifically referring to the period of the 1920s and after, since I have limited knowledge of the inner workings of the CPUSA. (That it was a typo makes sense in the context of the larger message: it was followed by the sentence The elections in the old USSR were a sham, while the members of the CP didn't have real democratic control over the leaders or over the Party Line.) But wasn't Earl Browder -- a long-term leader who was quite popular with the CPUSA's rank and file members -- kicked out of the leadership of the CPUSA for disagreeing with the Party Line handed down by Moscow? CB: On Browder, I was going to use him as an example of the ability to remove the very top leader in the CPUSA . He was General Secretary. There was a letter from a French, not Moscow, Communist , named DeClou ( sp.) criticizing Browder's proposal that the CP become an educational organization rather than a political party. In general, that was termed liquidationism, liquidating the party In retrospect, one wonders whether Browder was told that by the US bourgeois powers that be - do that , or we will come after the Party. But that would be a conspiracy explanation. Or maybe he just figured it out: That McCarthyism/CPUSA purge was coming, and was trying to avoid it. Anyway, in many ways the CPUSA has been an educational organization and not a real political party since after the jailings of its leaders, so it ended up where Browder projected.
Re: Fwd: A call for action for Palestine
Dear Yonca, I agree with all of what you say. incidentally, I´m also in Mexico city, but I do not see much practical work done here on the Palestine issue. If you could be more specific I would appreciate it. Thus, perhaps, some of us might get involve. Thanks. Ignacio At 08:43 p.m. 04/04/02 -0800, you wrote: Friends, I know that PEN-L is more than just an academic list (hey, this is a praise, not an insult) but nevertheless I wanted to forward this from WSN to PEN-L. The original can be found here: http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/wsn/2002/msg00481.html and I chopped the e-mail Yonca, the author of the message below, forwarded to WSN. Here is another website, a Canadian sent in response her message: http://www.globalartinfo.com/artist/ione_citrin/index.html#pics He suggested clicking on tears there. Sabri -- Original message My Dear Collegues, There have been a lot of messages coming through this list that focus on the violence going on in the Middle East. I don't know if it is appropriate to do it here, but I would like to call all of you to do something about what is going on in Palestine. I know this is a list designed to do academic discussions, but considering the philosophy of this list, I believe we should (and can) do more than just discussing among ourselves because it simply does not change anything. I really enjoy the discussions in this list. I find these theoretical debates useful to improve my thinking and enrich my academic work. However, it seems everything remains at the theoretical level. What we do here unfortunately does not improve the conditions of people who are suffering right now. In my own humble country (Turkey), and even in another humble country in which I work (Mexico), academics are in the forefront of political criticism and opposition to human rights violations, inequalities and other injustices. A lot of them are part of what we may call progressive political movements and organizations. I am amazed by the pacifism of the American ones. How can academics be that much separated from the real life? (I know there are academics involved in practical work, but I am afraid most are not the critical ones.) I know a lot of people in this list are from other countries, but I am assuming that the majority is from the US. The US has most of the influential academics in social sciences. Can't you/we do something more than theoretical debates? I was in the ISA Convention last week in New Orleans. Every year I enjoy the panels there. Most of the papers presented are critical ones that point out social, political and economic injustices. But at the same time, when I step out of the Convention hotel, I wonder how much these discussions are connected to what is actually going on. No matter how much we criticize neoliberalism, for instance, it is there spreading with full speed through national and international institutions. And our discussions simply do not change that trend much. It just gives me pain to watch what has been going on in the world, particularly in the Middle East as it looks like the one that needs the most urgent attention now. It does not matter to which religion or nation we belong to. What matters is that we are just watching violence and massacre. It may feel like it is a problem far out there, but it is a real human tragedy which none of us can ignore. For centuries human beings have been doing the mistake of remaining passive in the face of tragedies of this kind. Usually, before they finally decide to do something, a lot of lives are lost, suffering is deepened, and a lot of hatred is spread to produce an even more unsafe future for all. What is going on in Palestine is very very unacceptable. Most of the people who are in this list are here because they have critical minds. If we are more aware of the world's injustices, inequalities, and suffering compared to the rest of the people, there should be a way to use our intellectual power and try to reverse these problems. You may think I am naive to think about such a possibility of making a change, but I rather be naive and take the responsibility than be passive and let things continue. Yes, the hegemony is strong, and yes, the international institutions are coopted, but we can do a little attempt to change that order, I guess. Or at least show to the leaders that what they have been doing is unacceptable for us and we want them to stop it. Ideas inspire people, but it is eventually people who do changes. In short, words cannot stop the violence going on, but actions can. I am aware that what we can do is quite limited. However, at least we can prepare a petition letter for the Israeli government that is responsible of this tragedy and the US government that is encouraging it some kind of a written condemnation letter. Or you may encourage such a movement in the organizations you belong to. Because I am not a senior academician nor a citizen of a developed country, I believe I am not
RE: Iraq and Middle East
Hmm, one could say instead that Sharon has precluded the possibility of Bush attackng Saddaam by his invasion of the PA. You want more informed speculation, trey Luttwak here. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020408-221163,00.html Michael Pugliese --- Original Message --- From: Karl Carlile [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 4/4/02 10:28:05 PM The war on terror, as it misleadingly called by Bush, including Bush suggestion to launch a war against Iraq may have encouraged the sustained and intense aggression mounted by Sharon against Palestinian Arabs. Because such a war might encourage Saddam to launch an attack on Israel may feel the need to wipe out its internal Palestinian opposition --an opposition that might join up with Iraq in such a war-- and even push the Arab population into Jordan. Here is what may be a classic example of Bush's aggressive strategy contributing to international instability. Bush, if he really intends to attack Iraq, may support such action by Sharon. Click below to access Communism List site: http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ Yours etc., Karl Carlile
Re: Re: Fwd: A call for action for Palestine
I have enormous admiration for the courageous young peace activists in Palestine today. I do have a problem relating to Sabri's original note -- not with the note itself, of course. I remember in Berkeley during the 1960s, some people repeatedly calling upon the students for action: this is the most important protest in the world. Students would respond, only to be told three days later that they must rise up to protest some seemingly unrelated action. The brutality in Palestine is unconscionable. When is the last time we heard about East Timor? Or has it fallen off the map? Even Colombia no longer merits a mention. I think what is missing is an overall narrative to tie things together so that each crisis does not appear as an unrelated episode -- so that the activists in various social justice movement can draw upon the strength of each other. Of course, various sects have their own narratives, but I would like one without the sectarianism. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Bureaucracy
keeping this short, since time is short. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine CB: I still don't see any good usage or rigorous usage of bureaucracy in what you have said. Hierarchy or elite is better for all the purposes mentioned. And bureaucracy has anti-socialist connotations historically ,for example, in the Reaganite anti- Big Guvment demogogy. Actually, bureaucracy is a PRO-socialist concept -- or rather it can be. Being opposed to the rule by unelected officials is directly addressing the valid concern of workers and other oppressed groups that replacing the old bosses will simply lead to the establishment of new bosses. (cf. the rock song by the Who.) The left should also be opposed to big government (as we see it in the real world), but attach new meaning and emphasis to this opposition: we want the government to be under the people's thumb, not vice-versa. I'm all in favor of the welfare state under capitalism or USSR-type modes of production, but we have to be very aware that the way this welfare state is and was organized involves _paternalism_ and _top down decision-making_ without democratic accountability. I wrote: BTW, the _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary_'s first definition of bureaucracy is a body of nonelected government officials. That's the way I would define it, without restricting it to governments. Corporations have bureaucracies, too. CB: This continues the anti-socialist, pro-corporate/private sector connotation PRECISELY ! The dictionary does NOT include corporate hierarchies and elites. You had to add that. The common meaning of the word has the politically anti-socialist, pro-private business connotation , just as I said. Nobody who reads the dictionary definition will know of your addendum. That's why I added it. I think it's important for people to know that corporations are run like miniature GOSPLANs (planning bureaucracies), with the corporate Party Line being handed down by the CEO and Board of Directors to the middle managers to the rank and file, in class bureaucratic style. I wrote:This doesn't fit with my experience: waiting in line at the California DMV (before they improved the system) or the L.A. Department of Water Power, it seemed to me that the folks at the counters who were supposed to help me had some power (discretion), the power to delay and to block. Contrary to some Weberian conceptions, the top bureaucrats didn't have complete control over these folks at the bottom of the hierarchy. CB: Is this the type of problem you are referring to when referring to the Stalinist or Egyptian bureaucracy ? No. If that was all that happened in Stalinism, some time delays at the DMV and the like, you wouldn't have much to complain about it. the Stalin-era bureaucratic revolution from above was clearly quite different from the relatively stable bureaucratic rule in the era after Stalin. The DMV experience is closer to the latter, with lower-level bureaucrats having little pieces of power, able to block many initiatives from above. The Stalin-era revolution from above also involved power at the lowest level, though it was different. It's not as if Stalin was able to tell the lowest-level Party officials what to do at each step. I think that a lot of the worst excesses of the agricultural purge -- the elimination of the kulaks as a class -- involved petty officials striving to prove their loyalty to the state, in hopes of surviving and rising to the top, by being more revolutionary (i.e., zealous) in abusing the kulaks and ordinary peasants. (Of course, this was not simply a function of bureaucracy. The problem was that the CPSU didn't have a political base amongst the peasantry. The experience was quite different than, say, Mao's rural efforts.) Upon instituting your power from below system, initially there will be plenty of such instances of formerly-petty clerks exercising a bit of power. That will be a sign that your bottom up system is in place. Of course , the job of clerk will be a rotating one. Everybody gets a chance to do some civic duty in the small administrative tasks that will be necessary. sounds nice. How does it work in practice? (BTW, I use Charlie Andrew's schema as a good first description of how socialism should be organized.) I wrote: the state refers to the monopolization of the use of force within the geographical region, while the government refers to the top decision-making bodies. The bureaucracy would refer to the controlling organization -- including the military and police hierarchies -- that holds the state together, givng the government control over the state. (Of course, there are non-state governments, such as Afghanistan currently, where everthing is in flux.) CB: How does holding the state together give control to the government ? if the state use of force and similar governmental functions aren't controlled using some kind of social organization, the government
Re: RE: Bureaucracy
- Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:12 AM Subject: [PEN-L:24690] RE: Bureaucracy keeping this short, since time is short. = I thought time is money, now you economists are changing the rules, AGAIN! :-) Ian Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine CB: I still don't see any good usage or rigorous usage of bureaucracy in what you have said. Hierarchy or elite is better for all the purposes mentioned. And bureaucracy has anti-socialist connotations historically ,for example, in the Reaganite anti- Big Guvment demogogy. Actually, bureaucracy is a PRO-socialist concept -- or rather it can be. Being opposed to the rule by unelected officials is directly addressing the valid concern of workers and other oppressed groups that replacing the old bosses will simply lead to the establishment of new bosses. (cf. the rock song by the Who.) The left should also be opposed to big government (as we see it in the real world), but attach new meaning and emphasis to this opposition: we want the government to be under the people's thumb, not vice-versa. I'm all in favor of the welfare state under capitalism or USSR-type modes of production, but we have to be very aware that the way this welfare state is and was organized involves _paternalism_ and _top down decision-making_ without democratic accountability. I wrote: BTW, the _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary_'s first definition of bureaucracy is a body of nonelected government officials. That's the way I would define it, without restricting it to governments. Corporations have bureaucracies, too. CB: This continues the anti-socialist, pro-corporate/private sector connotation PRECISELY ! The dictionary does NOT include corporate hierarchies and elites. You had to add that. The common meaning of the word has the politically anti-socialist, pro-private business connotation , just as I said. Nobody who reads the dictionary definition will know of your addendum. That's why I added it. I think it's important for people to know that corporations are run like miniature GOSPLANs (planning bureaucracies), with the corporate Party Line being handed down by the CEO and Board of Directors to the middle managers to the rank and file, in class bureaucratic style. I wrote:This doesn't fit with my experience: waiting in line at the California DMV (before they improved the system) or the L.A. Department of Water Power, it seemed to me that the folks at the counters who were supposed to help me had some power (discretion), the power to delay and to block. Contrary to some Weberian conceptions, the top bureaucrats didn't have complete control over these folks at the bottom of the hierarchy. CB: Is this the type of problem you are referring to when referring to the Stalinist or Egyptian bureaucracy ? No. If that was all that happened in Stalinism, some time delays at the DMV and the like, you wouldn't have much to complain about it. the Stalin-era bureaucratic revolution from above was clearly quite different from the relatively stable bureaucratic rule in the era after Stalin. The DMV experience is closer to the latter, with lower-level bureaucrats having little pieces of power, able to block many initiatives from above. The Stalin-era revolution from above also involved power at the lowest level, though it was different. It's not as if Stalin was able to tell the lowest-level Party officials what to do at each step. I think that a lot of the worst excesses of the agricultural purge -- the elimination of the kulaks as a class -- involved petty officials striving to prove their loyalty to the state, in hopes of surviving and rising to the top, by being more revolutionary (i.e., zealous) in abusing the kulaks and ordinary peasants. (Of course, this was not simply a function of bureaucracy. The problem was that the CPSU didn't have a political base amongst the peasantry. The experience was quite different than, say, Mao's rural efforts.) Upon instituting your power from below system, initially there will be plenty of such instances of formerly-petty clerks exercising a bit of power. That will be a sign that your bottom up system is in place. Of course , the job of clerk will be a rotating one. Everybody gets a chance to do some civic duty in the small administrative tasks that will be necessary. sounds nice. How does it work in practice? (BTW, I use Charlie Andrew's schema as a good first description of how socialism should be organized.) I wrote: the state refers to the monopolization of the use of force within the geographical region, while the government refers to the top decision-making bodies. The bureaucracy would refer to the controlling organization -- including the military and police hierarchies -- that holds the state together,
Re: Why the Enron-Andersen mess goes way beyond the US
Charles Jannuzi (and others) no doubt would be interested in Frank Partnoy's testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Partnoy is also extremely critical of the ratings agencies. Partnoy wrote the investment banker insider story, F.I.A.S.C.O., a few years ago and is now a law prof. at UCSD. There's a longer law journal article by him on the questionable role of financial gatekeepers at the second link below. http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/partnoy.htm http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/79-2/p491%20Partnoy.pdf Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: Truly Wierd
Here is a more recent article on the same prosecution. There has been a long history of attempts of the US to apply their trading with the enemy ban to Canadian firms going as far back as trade wtih Communist China while the Chinese Communists were still bad guys but Canada had diplomatic relatiions with China Cheers, Ken Hanly POSTED AT 2:38 AM ESTFriday, April 5 Embargo verdict puzzles Canadian By JOHN IBBITSON From Friday's Globe and Mail Philadelphia - James Sabzali, who calls himself Jim, spent Thursday in his comfortable suburban Philadelphia home with an electronic bracelet around his ankle, something his wife finds particularly hateful. It's so dehumanizing. You're on a leash. Big Brother really is watching, Sharon Sabzali said in an interview. Mr. Sabzali, 42, is trying to come to terms with the realization that he may be going to jail for something he thought was perfectly legal: selling water-purification chemicals to Cuba. As a Canadian working in Canada, he believed he was not subject to the U.S. embargo on trade with the Communist island. A Philadelphia jury on Wednesday convicted Mr. Sabzali and two senior executives of Bro-Tech Corp. of trading with the enemy and conspiracy, making Mr. Sabzali the first Canadian to be convicted under the laws enforcing the U.S. government's 42-year-old embargo against Cuba. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for June 28. The prosecution is recommending a jail term of at least three years. Meanwhile, Mr. Sabzali is restricted to the Philadelphia area, the ankle bracelet allowing police to track his movements. It's just so difficult to believe this could be happening, he said. The whole situation is beyond explanation. While a U.S. jury has pronounced Mr. Sabzali and Bro-Tech guilty, the implications of that decision for Canadian companies that trade with Cuba and have ties to the United States remain unclear. Canadian officials puzzled Thursday over the verdicts of guilty and not guilty the jury delivered on the 77 charges brought before them. Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham said government lawyers are still examining the outcome of the case. He's a Canadian citizen, I understand, and a resident of the United States, so clearly the United States courts have jurisdiction, Mr. Graham said. But apart from that I cannot comment until I've been briefed. In Ottawa, a Foreign Affairs Department spokeswoman said the government has been in contact with Mr. Sabzali and will continue to monitor developments closely. The situation is complex because he resides in the U.S., and because he was indicted for acts committed in the U.S. as well as Canada, Marie-Christine Lilkoff added. What is clear is that a Canadian businessman who was so good at his job that he got promoted to the head office in the United States is now a convicted felon, much to his bewilderment. It's just overwhelming, he said, his voice shaking. Mr. Sabzali was born in Trinidad and immigrated to Canada as a toddler with his parents, who were teachers. He grew up in the industrial Ontario town of St. Catharines, and met his wife when they were both students at Hamilton's McMaster University, where he studied for a degree in science. In 1980 he had his first, fleeting moment in the public spotlight when he ran for the Rhinoceros Party in the federal election. Chemistry is relatively dry, he observed, so to lighten life, he did gigs as a stand-up comic. It was simply a neat experience, to go to these meetings and tell jokes. After graduation, the married couple moved to Sarnia, where Mr. Sabzali got his feet wet in the chemical-sales business. They then moved back to the Hamilton area, and in 1990 he signed a freelance contract to represent Bro-Tech through its Canadian subsidiary, Purolite Canada. He found a ready market in Cuba for the company's ion-exchange resins, which filter and purify liquids (mostly water, but it works for everything from blood to sugar). He estimates he visited Cuba about two dozen times, forming an attachment with a hard-working, well-educated, sincere people. In 1995, Bro-Tech offered him the job of marketing director for the firm, and in 1996 the Sabzalis and their two young children moved to a pleasant neighbourhood outside Philadelphia. Today they live in a spacious two-storey, grey-stoned home in the affluent Winwood suburb. Almost as soon as they arrived, Mr. Sabzali heard that U.S. Customs officials were asking about the shipments to Cuba. He said he was not concerned because, even if there was a problem, I figured it wasn't going to affect me. I'm a Canadian. But when Mr. Sabzali moved to the United States, he clearly subjected himself to U.S. jurisdiction, Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Poluka said Thursday in an interview. In 2000, Mr. Sabzali and the company's senior executives were charged, but it took until last month for the case to go to trial. The jury deliberated 17 hours before reaching its verdict. Thursday, the
Re: Fwd: A call for action for Palestine
Michael writes: I think what is missing is an overall narrative to tie things together so that each crisis does not appear as an unrelated episode -- so that the activists in various social justice movement can draw upon the strength of each other. Of course, various sects have their own narratives, but I would like one without the sectarianism. And likewise here. Sabri
FW: Argentine Economists' Alternative Proposal Translated
Re: Louis' Argentina piece: Regarding the January 24, 2002 proposal of Argentine economists of the University of Buenos Aires, setting out an alternative, non-freemarketneoliberal, program -- An english translation of this program is now up on the Monthly Review website at http://www.monthlyreview.org/0402becerra.htm
Water
(For many on the left, the terms ecological crisis or vulnerable planet are interpreted either as millenarian diversions from tasks facing the working class or as a failure to embrace supposedly orthodox Marxist concepts of the relationship between man and nature--which boil down to a kind of leftish version of Atlas Shrugged. In fact these terms not only are intrinsic to the kind of analysis Marx was developing during a time of crisis around soil fertility, they also relate to the class struggle unfolding at this moment. (Here are three items worth considering. First, a report from In These Times about the role of water in the most recent conflicts between Israel and Palestinian. Next, an excerpt from an article in the latest New Yorker (Leasing the Rain) by William Finnegan about the recent revolt in Cochabamba, Bolivia over the government's decision to charge money for water. Finally, an excerpt from an article in the latest Harpers (Eternal Winter) by Tom Bissell about the disastrous consequences of cotton farming on Lake Aral, a vitally important resource that cannot be replaced. The New Yorker and the Harpers article are not online, but definitely worth tracking down if you are interested in such matters, as all clear-thinking radicals should be.) In These Times, August 21, 2000 Water Wars By Charmaine Seitz A botched deal leaves Palestinians high and dry As temperatures in the West Bank hover just above 100 degrees, water is on everyone's mind. Three years of scant rain have dried out the area and now a previously scarce resource has become paltry. But reports of the drought's severity pale in comparison with preliminary studies showing that crucial Palestinian water resources, as accorded by Israeli-Palestinian agreements, are already overexploited. The United States, in an overzealous effort to provide Palestinians with water and improve the climate for peacemaking, may be partly at fault. When Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967, all control of local water resources was turned over to the Israeli military administration. By the time Palestinians and Israel signed an initial peace agreement in 1993, the Israeli water carrier was pumping 80 percent of underground reserves to Israeli citizens in Israel and the West Bank settlements. The rest of the water resources were channeled to Palestinians, allotting them only one third of Israeli per capita use. During interim peace talks, the two sides agreed in 1995 that Palestinians had the right to use a limited amount of water from the eastern aquifer, the only underground aquifer lying completely inside the West Bank. The other two West Bank aquifers were left until final status talks, which were underway at Camp David as In These Times went to press. At the time of the initial agreement, Israel said that these other aquifers were already overexploited by its own pumping and hence, not much use to Palestinians anyway. Israeli engineers hypothesized that the eastern aquifer could produce up to 21 billion gallons of water annually, in addition to the water already being extracted. But that amount still would not bring the 2 million West Bankers up to World Health Organization standards for healthy living. Further, Palestinian engineers suspected that the Israeli estimates of the aquifer's possibilities were too high, but their resources were limited -- all real data remained classified by Israel throughout the negotiations. The Palestinians eventually accepted the data and agreed to Israel's terms. Since then, Palestinians slowly have discovered that the eastern aquifer has little to offer them, and may already be overused. Soon after the agreement, Palestinian tests found that as much as 60 percent of the aquifer's water is contaminated by salty springs near the Dead Sea. A July report by the Millennium Engineering Group, a U.S. firm, estimates that only 25 percent of the water from the eastern aquifer can be used safely. The Palestinian Water Authority is now concerned that the aquifer could be in dire trouble and further drilling as planned might be disastrous. But eager to encourage regional peace by aiding Palestinian development, the United States has continued with its massive efforts to expand Palestinian water production, despite indications as early as 1998 that the eastern aquifer was already overexploited. Four years ago, USAID pledged $ 211 million to the project over an 18-year period. Another $ 52 million in loans is coming from the World Bank and the European Investment Bank. So far, USAID has directed the digging of four new production wells and this year will commence the drilling of 11 more wells that can extract 13.2 billion gallons of water a year. But if the aquifer can only yield as much as 5.2 billion gallons annually, according to the Millennium report, the USAID project may be for naught. From the beginning, Palestinians and the planning
Global Eye---Divine Afflatus
This is from the Moscow Times...cheers Ken Hanly Global Eye -- Divine Afflatus By Chris Floyd You will be much relieved to know that President Bush's witless dithering while the Holy Land burns is, in fact, a manifestation of the will of God. That's because Witless was appointed to his post not, as you might think, by five corrupt bagmen on the Supreme Court, but by the Almighty Himself. The revelation of this divine anointing was proclaimed at a Texas church this week -- on Easter Sunday no less -- in the presence of Bush the Father and Bush the Son. The latter received the Word of his apotheosis with a humble chuckle and lordly nod of his head, AP reports, as the Reverend Michael Taylor of Canaan Baptist Church looked back on the glorious five weeks of recount litigation that parked Junior's blessed butt in the Oval Office. My friend, President Bush, for us who believe, that day of the counting it was all over but the shouting, cried Taylor, as the rafters rang with Amen! from the congregation. The recount result, Taylor said, was the will of God, who appoints those who are in authority to be there. (Including, of course, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Slobodan Milosevic, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar, Idi Amin, Ayatollah Khomeini, King George III -- God's little sunbeams every one, raised up and confirmed in power by His mighty hand.) Taylor promised there would be blessings to the believer on the final day of reckoning, but warned that God would take a break from meddling in electoral politics to launch the most terrifying judgement on the unbelievers, who will burn in eternal hellfire for their failure to subscribe to the narrow set of superstitions, prejudices and self-selected cultural norms embraced by a certain number of white American fundamentalists in the early 21st century. Braced by this message of exquisite theological subtlety, Bush ran out and ordered the divinely appointed leader of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, to denounce terrorism by making a speech, in Arabic, to that effect to his people. At that very moment, of course, Arafat was barricaded in his office by the divinely appointed Ariel Sharon, with no electricity and no access to communications, save for a few cell phones with fading batteries, and Israeli tanks pointing their gun barrels at the door. Bush also urged Arafat to use his Palestinian Authority police to do more to round up suspected terrorists. At that very moment, of course, Israeli military forces were arresting and/or shooting Palestinian Authority police by the hundreds and destroying their offices all across the West Bank, effectively destroying their ability to operate in any capacity whatsoever. Hellbound disbelievers in Bush's divine wisdom might be forgiven (as if hellbound disbelievers could be forgiven, of course!) for thinking these presidential adjurations were nothing more than the senseless blatherings of a weak and ignorant mind overwhelmed by events. But as always, hellbound disbelievers would be wrong. Yes, it's true that Bush's words bore little relation to reality (when do they ever?), but surely we have learned by now that there is method in his mouthing madness. He can spew any number of contradictions -- such as supporting a United Nations call for Israeli withdrawal while also approving the Israeli incursions, and so on -- for one simple reason: He doesn't care. Bush doesn't care how many Palestinian grandmothers are shot dead on their way to the hospital by Israeli snipers. He doesn't care how many Israeli teenagers are blown to bits at Passover celebrations. He doesn't care how many Palestinian children grow up in squalor and captivity, how many Israeli children live in fear and trembling every day of their lives. He doesn't care how brutalized both peoples become, how hardened by hate, their humanity numbed and diminished by killing. For 14 months, Bush sat on his hands, downgrading the peace process to a backwater for low-level functionaries and retired errand boys. The unfolding horror in the Holy Land was only a sideshow to the main events: the coming invasion of oil-rich Iraq and the projection of U.S. dominance over oil-rich Central Asia. Plans for the attack on Afghanistan were finalized (and communicated to the Taliban) in the summer of 2001 -- well before bin Laden's pre-emptive strike. And of course, Daddy's folly in keeping Saddam in power after the Gulf War -- and Daddy's crimes in betraying the Shiites and Kurds who, at his urging, rebelled against the Iraqi regime -- must be erased from history; that was a given from Day One of Junior's administration. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be left to simmer -- even at a high heat -- as long as it didn't spill over and interfere with grand strategy. The death and suffering of those trapped in the conflict meant nothing to a man busy reordering the world according to God's will -- and the greed of his partners. But now the pot has boiled over
