Re: Re: Re: Chavez Returns
Bush and his State Dept. should be pinned to the wall on this. Charles Jannuzi = By who, space aliens? Ian 'Should be' should be 'will be', but it won't be. 'Should be' should be 'can be', but it probably won't be. Still, with Chavez's reversal of fortunes, and with even many conservatives there backing their constitution, I'm waiting for another miracle. CEJ
Re: Chavez
At 14/04/02 10:46 -0700, Michael Pugliese quoted from marxism-thaxis [BTW Michael the format comes out rather unreadably. Were you using web email or an email package? Did you unwrap the text? I have tried to unwrap part of it below] I think this argument is interesting because Dave B, whose comments on my remarks come first, presents a left application of the the idea of intensifying the dictatorship of the workers and poor peasants as the remedy for saving the revolution. Chavez however wisely appealed for national unity on his return to power. That of course does not preclude vigilance about securing control of the armed forces and other centres of power, but it is in conformity with my argument that in a developing country in very unfavourable world conditions the political appeal of a radical regime must be much wider than merely to its core supporters. So are you saying that the great majority can be mobilised by a left bourgeois leader like Chavez to win against global capital, or does a revolutionary party and program need to intervene to call for the building of soviets and a workers militia? That IMO opinion points to the need for an agenda that is not exclusively socialist, but is new democratic, embracing civil rights issues but from a progressive social perspective. 'Not exclusively socialist' can only mean part bourgeois. That is the class confusion of the popular front. The communist program embraces bourgeois civil rights but it recognises that workers have to overthrow the bourgeois state to realise any real workers democracy. Let us hope Chavez can stay and this has an impact on the global balance of forces. It will take more than hope. The lessons of similar regimes, the Popular Unity in Chile, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the popular revolution in Ecuador in 2000, all show that if there is no worker and poor peasant seizure of power, the right will regroup and stage a counter-revolution against the masses. Dave B BTW I most certainly do think it is possible, and a duty, to clarify how a great majority of the population of all countries can be won over to support inroads against the power of global capital. Chris Burford
Re: man bites dog
Good article except it doesn't really analyze the US strategic trade plans or how even the EU hasn't really been able to stand up to these plans. Again, trade and finance are always high on the agenda of the NSC , and the NSC is the ruling council of the US (most people think wrongly that special military policy and the handling of foreign policy crises are the purposes of the NSC). Charles Jannuzi
Re: Argentina, Australia and Canada
Louis: You said: But I am trying to address the question of whether Argentina is qualitatively different from Great Britain. My purpose in these posts is to answer a current within Marxism that asserts that there is no difference. In that case you were complicating matters by referring to other cases (e.g. Canada and Australia). I simply responded to what I perceived as a critique of the (very widely held) view that there are significant historical similarities between the economies of Argentina and Australia. In regard to the following: I am trying to help Marxists make elementary distinctions that will help them carry out solidarity work, not develop a class analysis of Great Britain or Canada. and I am dealing with the question of national oppression and You don't seem to find the category imperialist meaningful in the sense that Lenin did. Not necessarily. I would ask: why would Marxists any longer seek solidarity with bourgeois nationalists, except in the now rare circumstances where the formal national question has never been resolved? The world has changed a great deal since Lenin's lifetime: in particular, there are now very few cases of formal/legal/military/direct control. Do you not see decolonisation since 1945 as a major historical event? Isn't there a world of difference between imperialism in India in 1920 and Argentina in 2002? But Australia is not a semicolony in the sense that Argentina is. Why not? Pushing countries around is not the same as imperialism. Because the USA is hegemonic, it can influence economic and political affairs across the globe. But it has a different kind of relationship to Latin American countries than it does to European countries. Does European include Australia? That will be good news to the miniscule conservative faction that has floated the idea of EU membership. If your Europe does include Australia, then there is evidence of more than hegemonic interference by the US in economic and political affairs here. There is a wealth of literature that has explained this, from Baran-Sweezy to Wallerstein. Those are my ideological influences. What are yours? I agree strongly with the classic formulation that ideology is false consciousness. If you mean theoretical influences, then my view is that there is no substitute for Marx's own method (even if I disagree with the way he used it on some occasions). There is also a powerful bourgeoisie that includes people like Rupert Murdoch. This is not a good example; News Corporation has been based in New York for years. Murdoch is also now a US citizen, if that means anything. I'm sure there are ex-Argentine billionaires as well. Let Argentine capitalists off the hook? If you want to have a discussion with me, don't put words in my mouth. I apologise and hope to read a full discussion of their activities. Regards, Grant Lee.
Re: Chavez Returns
Bush and his State Dept. should be pinned to the wall on this. Charles Jannuzi = By who, space aliens? Ian 'Should be' should be 'will be', but it won't be. 'Should be' should be 'can be', but it probably won't be. Still, with Chavez's reversal of fortunes, and with even many conservatives there backing their constitution, I'm waiting for another miracle. CEJ Argentina, Palestine, now Venezuela -- the credibility of the Empire is plummeting fast! -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
NED Support for the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers
* Venezuela The American Center for International Labor Solidarity $60,084 To support the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) to effect reforms intended to increase rank and file control over decision making. ACILS will conduct courses for regional federations of the CTV, focusing on problems and challenges for unions in a changing world, restructuring of labor organizations, and establishing internal elections for union leadership. http://www.ned.org/grants/00programs/grants-lac.html#Venezuela * -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Re: Re: Argentina, Australia and Canada
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:29:15 +0800, Grant Lee wrote: I would ask: why would Marxists any longer seek solidarity with bourgeois nationalists, except in the now rare circumstances where the formal national question has never been resolved? In my last reply to you, I urged you not to put words in my mouth. Now, once again, you would accuse me of seeking solidarity with bourgeois nationalists. Therefore, after replying to you this final time, I will ignore your future remarks on this thread. I have not accused you of seeking solidarity with imperialist powers, have I? The world has changed a great deal since Lenin's lifetime: in particular, there are now very few cases of formal/legal/military/direct control. Do you not see decolonisation since 1945 as a major historical event? Isn't there a world of difference between imperialism in India in 1920 and Argentina in 2002? No, I do not see decolonization as a major historical event. Imperialism deals with class relations, not which flag is flying over a country. This is the reason that Hugo Chavez calls his movement Bolivarist. He understands that all of Latin America remains under the control of imperialism, despite formal independence. Why not? Why is Australia not a semicolony? Because it ranks number 2 in the world in terms of Human Development, according to the UN (http://www.undp.org/hdr2001/), with a GDP per capita of $24,574. If it were a semicolony, these figures would not obtain. -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 04/15/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: BLS Daily Report
Sabri Oncu wrote: Hey, I also hired a few science Ph.Ds from very respectable schools for boring programing jobs (Ravi would know what I mean if I say they were required to write FORTRAN programs) for about $50K. i see what you mean, but fortran is a pleasure compared to what a lot of software was written in back in the days: cobol! ;-) with the downturn in the economy strange things such as salary bargaining have cropped up: i heard a story the other day from a friend, who was earning in the six figures doing the trendy new stuff (SAP or some such), that at a recent interview, towards the end, he was given an option to beat the minimum salary that previous candidates had been willing to take! a recent issue of business week published various upbeat predictions (including one from the dean of columbia's b-school) about how mba's are going to be back up, in order to make up for the fact that b-school graduates are doing poorly: the data mentioned in the article mentioned as low as 60% recruitment rates for fresh top b-school graduates, and the disappearance of 5 figure sign-on bonuses etc. the best way to stay above the water and keep up with a yuppie lifestyle, at this point, seems to be to either biotech or somehow position oneself in the defense pipeline... --ravi
Operation Anaconda: The Rest of the Story
From the LA Times, Cheers, Ken Hanly Operation Anaconda Leaves Bitterness in Its Wake Afghanistan: Residents of battle-torn region say the U.S. bombed their homes and killed their relatives. By DAVID ZUCCHINO, Times Staff Writer GARDEZ, Afghanistan -- Every morning, a forlorn procession of the bereft and the defeated gathers at the gates of the governor's pale yellow compound in this weather-beaten provincial outpost. There are widows and orphans and stooped old men, all of them bearing tales of misery and loss written in flowing Persian script on slips of paper. These are sullen, bitter people. They are so angry, angry at the Americans, said Gen. Sahib Jan Loodin Alozai, the deputy governor of Paktia province, who processes the complaints. They blame the Americans for all their troubles. Nearly a month has passed since American-led Operation Anaconda ended here in the silver-capped mountains of eastern Afghanistan. Now the Americans are targets of residual hate and resentment in a province where support for the Taliban and the Al Qaeda terrorist network remains strong. Some petitioners claim that American airstrikes killed their relatives. Others claim that their homes were destroyed by American bombs or missiles. Farmers complain that American soldiers have blocked access to their fields, ruining their spring planting season. People on the street glare and curse at passing American reporters. A Canadian reporter was seriously wounded last month by a grenade tossed into her vehicle a few miles outside town. This is Pushtun country. Many people here are hostile to foreigners and sympathetic to the Pushtun-dominated Taliban. In their view, the Americans are Christian invaders who installed an interim government in Kabul dominated by the Pushtuns' ethnic rivals, Tajiks from the north. In place of routed Taliban fighters, the Americans have helped install Pushtun commanders and fighters of the Tajik-dominated Northern Alliance in and around Gardez. These veterans of Afghan civil wars teamed with the American-led coalition forces to drive Taliban and Al Qaeda forces from their redoubt in the Shahi Kot valley, 25 miles southeast of here. Even with the enemy on the run, the Americans and their Afghan allies are confronting a wellspring of sympathy that allows the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces to feed and arm themselves while they regroup. Unsigned leaflets, known as shabnama, or night letters, have appeared urging Afghans to kill or kidnap foreign--especially American--journalists, troops or aid workers. According to local officials, Taliban and Al Qaeda survivors have withdrawn to the south and east, into the mountains of neighboring Paktika province. They say others have retreated to the Pakistani Pushtun tribal area known as Waziristan. Fears of Resurgence But some are still active in the Shahi Kot valley, according to Capt. Steven O'Connor, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition forces. O'Connor said rockets were fired several miles from coalition troops on April 3, causing no casualties but heightening fears of an enemy resurgence. Maj. Tony de Reya, a British intelligence officer, said Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters are engaged in a tactical pause. Abdul Rahim, a U.S.-backed commander in Gardez, said that although there might be as many as 900 surviving Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters to the south and east, none are left in his town. The only Al Qaeda and Taliban around here are dead ones, Rahim said over a steaming lunch of meat and rice inside a command post. Rahim, a wiry little man with a hooked nose and a deep sunburn, said his men continue to find enemy corpses, weapons, ammunition and training manuals inside caves in the valley. About 50 caves have been cleared and destroyed and a handful of suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured, he said. American and coalition forces are conducting clearance operations south and east of the Shahi Kot valley, Rahim said. Special Forces troops launch missions from an adobe fortress guarded by Afghan gunmen on the southern outskirts of Gardez. From time to time, American helicopters swoop low over the rooftops as they head south in search of signs of the enemy. But in Gardez, many consider the Americans the enemy. Two incidents, in particular, have stoked passions here. On Dec. 20, American warplanes killed 50 to 60 people in a convoy in Paktia. Survivors said the victims were tribal elders headed to Kabul, the Afghan capital, for the inauguration of interim Prime Minister Hamid Karzai. The Pentagon said the dead were Taliban members who had opened fire on the planes. On March 6, the Pentagon has acknowledged, women and children were among 14 people killed by an American airstrike on an Al Qaeda convoy fleeing the Shahi Kot valley. The civilians were family members traveling with Al Qaeda fighters. There were women and children in that convoy, Sayed Aminullah, an Afghan worker for CARE International in Gardez, said of the March
Chavez Returns
Chavez Returns by Sabri Oncu 14 April 2002 08:09 UTC Top World News 04/14 03:26 Venezuela's Chavez Returns to Presidential Palace From Prison By Peter Wilson, Alex Kennedy, Patrick Gordon, and Toby Muse -clip- Chavez's return follows a day of rioting by his supporters Saturday that left at least nine dead and dozens injured as thousands of his supporters seized the presidential palace, demanding his reinstatement. Only three days ago, 12 people died and more than 100 were injured when his opponents demonstrated, leading to Chavez's ouster by the military. CB: Amazing how the vaunted bourgeois democratic presses don't know democracy when they see it : Not rioting but real democracy in action, the masses as the ruling class, a revolutionary defense of democracy, real Leninist democratc centralism , Rob. All power is with the People in Venezuela !
Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert)
Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert) by bantam 13 April 2002 13:35 UTC So much for Hayek and his precious bloody price mechanism (sorry, Justin) ... and so much for Lenin and his precious bloody democratic centralism (sorry, Charles). ^^^ CB: Sorry, Rob, Leninist democratic centralism is alive and well in Venezuela , where all power resides with the masses and their elected representatives in the CENTER ! Viva Bolivarian Bolshevism ! So much for bloody , middle class, fake democracy.
Re: Chavez Returns
Is Chavez out of the woods yet? He has virtually no control over the media, as I understand it. The army is divided. And the US is dissatisfied. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2861123,00.html -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert)
G'day Charles, Sorry, Rob, Leninist democratic centralism is alive and well in Venezuela , where all power resides with the masses and their elected representatives in the CENTER ! Viva Bolivarian Bolshevism ! Either we're talking about different 'democratic centralisms' or we're watching different Venezuelas. Or both. So much for bloody , middle class, fake democracy. Er, at least I tried to attach an argument to my speculative rant ... Cheers, Rob.
Re: Chavez Returns
That is why Gordon Brown's plan for a global Marshall Aid plan is more progressive for democratic forces in less powerful countries, than Bush's policies. (Still of course imperialist.) Chris Burford The US isn't an economic engine that it once was: * Financial Times 4 February 2002 ...Given the country's huge net debtor position of about $2,700bn in 2002, will even more sharply rising foreign indebtedness be a problem in the future? For the US, it will not be a problem in the usual sense -- ie, when creditors suddenly demand their money back from an impecunious and overstretched debtor. Because the world is on a dollar standard -- the dollar is the definitive currency in making inter-national payments and US debts to foreigners are all dollar-denominated -- the US cannot literally go broke. As long as the dollar's purchasing power over goods and services remains stable, the US economy collectively (though certainly not every household and company in it) can always find a way to roll over existing dollar claims held by foreigners. By serendipity, America's central position in the world's monetary system gives the country a virtually unlimited international line of credit. Hence its ability to run trade deficits for the past 20 years without having to pay higher interest rates on that dollar-denominated debt as it was accumulated by foreign creditors. Nevertheless, a big problem remains: an across-the-board decline in America's international competitiveness into the new millennium. As the real value of the dollar appreciates from the extraordinary capital inflow with continuing US trade deficits, aircraft exporters such as Boeing will become less and less competitive with Airbus of Europe, steel producers will continually claim unfair foreign dumping, movie moguls will shoot more films abroad, high-technology industries will outsource even more, and so on. US productivity growth could well diminish. Already, American companies and unions are becoming even more protectionist -- which puts the World Trade Organisation at risk in trying to preserve free multilateral trade. Another consequence is that the world's richest, most mature industrial economy is essentially draining the rest of the world of capital. This is particularly hard on emerging markets and other developing countries. Declining support for the US's modest overseas development programmes for poor countries may be no bad thing but inadvertently grabbing the lion's share of internationally available private financial capital certainly is http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=Viewc=Articlecid=FT3UP7CPAXClive=true * No second coming of the Marshall Plan for you. :- -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
New War Times and Palestine Leaflet
From: War Times [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New War Times and Palestine Leaflet List-Subscribe: http://www.mailermailer.com/x?oid=05376w Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:49:24 -0400 (EDT) Dear All, We hope this note finds you well. Palestine is on the frontlines. The outcome of that struggle is crucial not only to the Palestinians and Israelis, but to the future course of Bush's war on terrorism. On our Website you can download a two-page (or back-to-back) leaftlet on Palestine and distribute it either by email or in hard copy as widely as you wish. It is located at http://www.war-times.org/pdf/palestine020405.pdf. That leaftlet consists of the Palestine coverage that appears in the new issue of War Times, which will be off the press on April 12. If you wish to distribute 25 or more copies, please email us IMMEDIATELY at [EMAIL PROTECTED] The issue also covers: Bush's dangerous new nuclear policies, a powerful anti-war statement by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, excerpts from an interview with a senior UN arms inspector in Iraq, an update on secret detentions and the case of Rabbih Haddad, an article about Youth Facing War in East Los Angeles, and a piece about anti-war activity in the labor movement. We are also still in great need of funds to keep going. Tax-deductible donations can be made to War Times at our website, www.war-times.org, or by writing a check to EBC/War Times and sending it to 1230 Market Street, PMB 409, San Francisco, CA 94102. We thank you for all of your efforts for peace and justice, and for your ongoing support of War Times. Sincerely, The War Times Staff -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Re: Re: Chavez Returns
- Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] As the real value of the dollar appreciates from the extraordinary capital inflow with continuing US trade deficits, aircraft exporters such as Boeing will become less and less competitive with Airbus of Europe, steel producers will continually claim unfair foreign dumping, movie moguls will shoot more films abroad, high-technology industries will outsource even more, and so on. US productivity growth could well diminish. = I don't see how the claim regarding Boeing follows. Big Bird is moving production into China, Israel and other countries largely due to offset agreements which are part of the sales contracts it negotiates. The US Gov. has a special commission set up to investigate job losses in the US as a result of these sales contracts. To the extent that Big Bird is able to set up shop in non-US locales and achieve rapid learning-by-doing productivity gains coupled with significantly lower unit labor costs per plane, they'll remain competitive. I leave aside the ridiculous subsidies the company gets for/from it's Gov. contracts and it's violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in procuring sales Ian
Wed., April 17: Destroying Freedom to Save It
Destroying Freedom to Save It: Implications of the USA PATRIOT Act A Panel Discussion on Liberties in Crisis Sponsored by The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio The Ohio State University College of Social Work The Social Welfare Action Alliance The Student International Forum Wed., April 17, 7-9 PM The Main Lounge of the Ohio Union (2nd fl.) 1739 North High St. (@ the corner of High St. 12th Ave.), Columbus, OH Panelists: * Brad Koogler, Board Member, ACLU of Ohio * Christine Link, Executive Director, ACLU of Ohio * Nasser Kashou, Muslim Students' Association * Sonny Sandhu, Asian/Pacific-American Law Students Association History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure. -- Justice Thurgood Marshall For more information, contact: Yoshie Furuhashi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 614-668-6554; or Keith Kilty, [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 614-292-7181. Please download the flyer for the event at http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/April17a.doc and spread the word! -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Bomb threat in Washington
Does anyone know anything about this? Sabri + Top World News 04/15 14:23 Washington Banks Closed After Police Get Bomb Threat (Update4) By Anna Marie Stolley Washington, April 15 (Bloomberg) -- Banks in Washington closed today as a security precaution after a bomb threat was received by local police. Charlene Sloan, a spokeswoman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said Washington police received a call from the Netherlands yesterday, advising of a possible bomb at an unspecified national bank in the city. The bureau sent a security advisory to area banks earlier today. Bank personnel are simply reminded to be vigilant of their surroundings and the events occurring around them, the bureau said in a statement. The bomb threat comes as local police face a busy week providing security for various events, including a pro-Israel rally at the U.S. Capitol today and planned protests at the twice- annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank next weekend. A march opposing U.S. anti-terror policies is planned for Saturday. The FBI said it knows no connection at this time between the bomb threat and the protest activities, Sloan said. The caller warned that a bomb would be detonated at noon today, the FBI said. The caller said he learned his information from an informant and mentioned the type of explosives that would be used. The FBI said it does not have reason to assign a high degree of credibility to the threat; however, due to the specificity of the information provided, the bureau decided to issue a warning to banks. Bank Closings SunTrust Banks Inc., the 10th largest U.S. bank, closed its 23 metro Washington branches and evacuated employees around 11 a.m. Washington time, bank spokesman Barry Koling said. Wachovia Corp., the fourth-biggest U.S. bank, said it closed about 25 offices in the Washington area, but it plans to open those locations tomorrow. Riggs National Corp., the biggest Washington-based bank, closed 34 branches and its headquarters building shortly after 11 a.m., said spokesman Mark Hendrix. He estimated that half of its 1,500-person workforce was sent home. BBT Corp., the fourth-biggest southeastern U.S. bank, decided to close its seven branches in Washington at about 12:30 p.m., said spokeswoman A.C. McGraw. Adams National Bank, a community bank based in Washington, locked the doors at its five branches after local police personally delivered the warning to each office. Adams was still doing business with its known customers, said David Glaser, the bank's senior vice president. We're a community bank, and we know most of our customers by face, he said. Officials with Citigroup Inc. and Allfirst Financial Inc., which each have about a dozen branches in Washington, didn't immediately return phone calls for comment. ATM Lines Customers at downtown Washington banks were greeted with signs announcing that the offices would be closed until tomorrow. While some notices attributed the closings to a security alert, others provided no reason. Pedestrians continued to walk past bank branches, and customers lined up at automatic teller machines, in many cases just feet from the front doors of the branches. The Comptroller of the Currency, an arm of the Treasury Department that regulates national banks, issued a proclamation allowing banks it regulates to close ``at their discretion'' due to the FBI security warning. There are 195 bank offices and branches within the District of Columbia, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s Web site. By early afternoon Washington time, employees had begun returning to two Bank of America Corp. office buildings at 730 15th St. NW and 1801 K St. The bank's 30 area branches are scheduled to open tomorrow, bank spokeswoman Mary Waller said. We are comfortable to have our associates in those buildings, said Waller, declining to say whether the third- biggest U.S. bank conducted bomb searches of the buildings.
Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert)
Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert) by bantam 15 April 2002 17:36 UTC Date Index G'day Charles, Sorry, Rob, Leninist democratic centralism is alive and well in Venezuela , where all power resides with the masses and their elected representatives in the CENTER ! Viva Bolivarian Bolshevism ! Either we're talking about different 'democratic centralisms' or we're watching different Venezuelas. Or both. ^ CB: I'm talking about V.I. Lenin, leader of the Bolsheviks and the Russian Revolution in 1917, and his theory of democratic centralism, which is very well demonstrated by the overwhelming majority of the masses of people in Venezuela since 1998 and their authentic representatives in the Party led by President Chavez. What are you talking about ? ^^^ So much for bloody , middle class, fake democracy. Er, at least I tried to attach an argument to my speculative rant ... ^^^ CB: The evidence for my argument is all over the world news for the last few days, and specifics of the argument should occur to you without my spelling out for you , but here it is. The middle class mass that demonstrated and gave a pretext for the coup by the Venezuelan oligarchy, represented a minority of the whole population, and thus democracy in this situation was represented by Chavez and his organizations. The masses in the streets backed up their center. About as vivid an example of democratic centralism as there ever was. Of course, the masses have to have a republican structure , i.e. it is not direct democracy, in their struggle with the bourgeoisie. They have to have leaders because the struggle with the bourgeois requires strategy and tactics, in analogy to a military conflict. The class struggle has aspects that are like war ( Should be obvious from the whole history of the 20th Century). It is democracy with a socalled center: democratic centralism. This term was originated by Lenin, and Venezuela's governing Party is good example of its practice since 1998.
Re: Re: Barbara Rosenberg on the Anthrax Inquiry
Here is a relevant part of the article, Cheers, Ken Hanly Rosenberg offers two possible reasons why the agency is moving slowly and claiming publicly that it has no suspects yet. One is a fear that damaging and embarrassing details about secret U.S. biodefense programs might become public. As she explains, Anybody with the expertise and background of the likely perpetrator has very likely been involved in a whole series of secret projects. So, she continues, the FBI may not want to apprehend the likely suspect because if he is arrested, he may very well threaten to disclose some of this information. The other possible reason she offers is the need to acquire sufficient, definitive evidence to convict the perpetrator, whom she and the FBI believe is a male. I see no reason, however, for doing the dumb things that the FBI is doing. Among the smokescreen of silly activities Rosenberg cites are FBI letters to 32,000 U.S. microbiologists seeking information, when only about 200 of them are or have been associated with biodefense research, and thousands of flyers sent to central New Jersey residents asking them if they recognize handwriting that was likely disguised by the perpetrator. If those activities are attempts to deflect the suspect from thinking the FBI is after him, they are not going to fool him, Rosenberg says. Nor, she says, are the FBI's public utterances that it really has no idea who did it, when I know it has been given names and some information that makes a few people, at least, significant, serious suspects. Although press reports say Rosenberg knows who the perpetrator is, she insists she does not. I have information about a very likely suspect whom, I believe, is probably the perpetrator. Whether the FBI has the same view of it, I don't know. But I do know the FBI is interested in this person. Rosenberg offers a portrait of the likely suspect on FAS's website. The FBI also describes him on its website link called Ameritrax. She believes a middle-aged American carried out the anthrax attacks, although she says she can't rule out ... an accomplice. Indeed, other experts argue that the only way to explain the geographic diversity of the attacks is to assume more than one person carried them out. From her sources inside the biodefense program, Rosenberg has come to believe that the suspect worked at a U.S. military research facility, most likely USAMRIID, in the mid-1990s. She posits that he now likely works for a Washington, D.C., area defense contractor. On the FAS website, Rosenberg writes that the suspect probably knows William C. Patrick III and has probably learned a thing or two about weaponization from him, informally. Patrick developed biological weapons at Fort Detrick before the U.S. program was shut by President Richard Nixon in 1969. A Dec. 3, 2001, New York Times article describes a classified report dated February 1999 that discusses responses to a mail-delivered anthrax attack. According to the Times article, Patrick wrote the report for a contractor working for a federal agency. Rosenberg speculates that if the perpetrator of last fall's anthrax terror had access to materials he used in the attacks, he also must have security clearance or some other means of accessing classified information. He might have read the classified report and used it as a model for the attack, she concludes. She has gone even further by suggesting on BBC's Newsnight program of March 3 that a secret CIA field project to test the ramifications of sending anthrax through the mail went badly awry. Her premise is that the person selected to carry out the test might have decided to use it for his own not CIA purposes and targeted the media and the Senate. On the BBC program, reporter Susan Watts said that Patrick denied being the author of the 1999 classified report. And the CIA told Newsnight, in a statement read after the program was broadcast, that it rejects Rosenberg's theory out of hand and knows of no project to test the impact of letter-delivered anthrax. The FBI tried to convince me that it was, in fact, doing its job. Maybe the FBI is doing its job as it sees it. I think it is doing it in a terribly inefficient way. WHY, THEN, did the suspect carry out the attacks? Rosenberg believes his motive is personal, that he is angry at some government agency or policy. A secondary motive akin to increasing the scope and power of the biological defense program would probably be to his liking, she says. He undoubtedly, since he's involved in it, stands to gain by increasing the biodefense program, she adds. She rather doubts that he got the anthrax from his current place of employment. Instead, she, like others, suggests that he probably got the Ames stain from USAMRIID, but that is just a guess. He might have taken the anthrax when he left USAMRIID. Or, she says, he might have gotten it since then because I am told that people who have worked there in the past, people who are known,
RE: Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert)
In leftist theory, democratic centralism refers to the organization of the revolutionary political party. The theory says that when a party's membership decides on a policy (a line, a program) it is binding on members of that party, including its leadership. Though they may disagree with it at party forums, they should not do so openly, when non-party people are around. Though there are likely organizations in Venezuela that are organized in a democratic centralist way, the mass demonstrations in favor of Chavez don't fit that description unless they are simply as part of a party. It looks to me instead that there's a lot of spontaneity going on. That is, people were demonstrating in favor of Chavez because they liked him, not because they belonged to a party-type organization. The Bolivarist organization did not simply orchestrate the anti-coup movements. (Of course, if my facts are wrong, I'd like to be told.) BTW, in practice, most democratic centralist organizations end up not being democratic. The rank and file end up being manipulated by the central committee or its leader, i.e., end up being passive followers rather than active, democratic, participants. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 1:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:24943] Bureaucracy (speculative rant alert) ... G'day Charles, Sorry, Rob, Leninist democratic centralism is alive and well in Venezuela , where all power resides with the masses and their elected representatives in the CENTER ! Viva Bolivarian Bolshevism ! Either we're talking about different 'democratic centralisms' or we're watching different Venezuelas. Or both. ^ CB: I'm talking about V.I. Lenin, leader of the Bolsheviks and the Russian Revolution in 1917, and his theory of democratic centralism, which is very well demonstrated by the overwhelming majority of the masses of people in Venezuela since 1998 and their authentic representatives in the Party led by President Chavez. What are you talking about ? ^^^ So much for bloody , middle class, fake democracy. Er, at least I tried to attach an argument to my speculative rant ... ^^^ CB: The evidence for my argument is all over the world news for the last few days, and specifics of the argument should occur to you without my spelling out for you , but here it is. The middle class mass that demonstrated and gave a pretext for the coup by the Venezuelan oligarchy, represented a minority of the whole population, and thus democracy in this situation was represented by Chavez and his organizations. The masses in the streets backed up their center. About as vivid an example of democratic centralism as there ever was. Of course, the masses have to have a republican structure , i.e. it is not direct democracy, in their struggle with the bourgeoisie. They have to have leaders because the struggle with the bourgeois requires strategy and tactics, in analogy to a military conflict. The class struggle has aspects that are like war ( Should be obvious from the whole history of the 20th Century). It is democracy with a socalled center: democratic centralism. This term was originated by Lenin, and Venezuela's governing Party is good example of its practice since 1998.
.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
On 2002.04.17 02:30 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: G'day Charles, Sorry, Rob, Leninist democratic centralism is alive and well in Venezuela , where all power resides with the masses and their elected representatives in the CENTER ! Viva Bolivarian Bolshevism ! Either we're talking about different 'democratic centralisms' or we're watching different Venezuelas. Or both. So much for bloody , middle class, fake democracy. Er, at least I tried to attach an argument to my speculative rant ... Cheers, Rob. 1.Binary scheme of democracy and centralism a correct reading of Lenin$B!G(Js work makes clear that Lenin never made a binary scheme of democracy and centralism. Lenin speaks about centralization of leadership by the party, decentralization of responsibility to the local sections, and obligation of regular reporting and publicizing within the party as condition to realize them, and centralization of secret function and specification other functions of movement. as for democracy-inner-party democracy, he regards it as a condition to realize centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility to local sections, in other words, as a historical concrete or a variable form. When we are going to speak something about centralism, it is necessary to make clear what is to be centralized. Without making this point clear, a $B!H(Jword$B!I(J of centralization of power can be made to work by itself, and directly applied to the bureaucratic organization and system of order and command. That brings about an unnecessary binary opposing democracy against centralism and individual against organization and the scheme comes to sway its power. What is to be centralized is leadership pf the Party. The greatest possible centralization is necessary for ideological and practical leadership of all the sort of movements of proletariat. At the same time the greatest possible decentralization is necessary for the responsibility to the local sections in order to keep the leadership of the party and decentralization of responsibility to the local sections may be compared to both sides of a medal. From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of centralization of power is not considered as a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership has been put forward. Centralism is considered only as $B!H(J command from above$B!I(J , and democracy becomes a mere means in pursuit of this. Thus the leadership becomes something irrelevant to the Party, i.e. bureaucratic, administrative direction (commands). And the party organization itself can be made up from the binary scheme of democracy and centralism. we must revive a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility as a content of power centralization. On the one hand there should be $B!H(J the smallest number of the most homogenous group of professional revolutionaries( Letters to a comrade on our organization tasks -V.I.Lenin. Collected works vol6 248p), and they should centralized many elements of the leadership of the revolutionary movements as far as possible. On the other side$B!I(J the greatest number of the most diverse and heterogeneous groups of the most varied sections of the proletariat (and other classes of the people)(op. ct. 248p) should take part in the movements and bear the responsibilities to the Party. In order to accomplish this, party cells, groups and circles etc, should give the most precise and fullest information of the content of their works to the leadership (the system of the regular report). while the leadership should publicize the real state of movements and the real content of the Party except the secret function (the inner-party publicizing principle, the obligation of the information of the leading organs to the membership). Secondly, under this leadership should be centralized secret functions and other functions of the movements should be specialized as far as possible. This is an outline, which Lenin considered as the most essential principle of the Party organization and a organizational ideology of the whole rule of the Party. Lenin speaks, $B!H(J the ideology of the centrism shows in principle how to solve many organizational problems in part as well as in detail$B!I(J(One Step Forward, two Step back- V.I.Lenin collected Works vol. 7) and $B!H(J an ideology of the centralism as a single and principle ideology should determine the whole rules of the party#(po. cit,) Concerning the necessity to carry through centralism as a principle pf the party organization, Lenin argued from many points of view in What to be done or Letter to a comrade on our organizational tasks, and worked out an actual plan of organization. Centralism is the principle of the party organization which determine the party organization and works at any time and place as long as it should be a Party
BLS Daily Report
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2002: One important measure of U.S. inflation rose sharply last month as the surge in world oil prices since mid-January began to work its way through the economy, the Labor Department reported Friday. Producer prices for finished goods rose 1 percent last month, the largest monthly increase since the beginning of last year, principally because of a 5.5 percent jump in energy prices. That included a 21.3 percent increase in the prices refiners charge for gasoline following a 4.5 percent rise in February. However, the rising cost of energy -- evident in recent weeks to motorists at the gas pump -- so far does not appear large enough to derail the U.S. economic recovery. It would take a much larger and more sustained oil price shock to seriously damage the economy, partly because it is significantly less dependent on oil than in the past, analysts say. The University of Michigan said its monthly index of consumer sentiment fell slightly for the first part of this month instead of rising as most financial analysts had expected. University analysts attributed the decline to concerns about inflation (John M. Berry, The Washington Post, April 13, page E1). Escalating oil and energy prices, particularly for gasoline, pushed wholesale prices up 1 percent in March, compared with increases of 0.2 percent in February and 0.1 percent in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported April 12. The price of finished energy goods rose 5.5 percent in March compared with a 0.4 percent increase in February. The so-called core rate of wholesale inflation -- finished goods minus food and energy -- rose 0.1 percent (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). Sharply higher gasoline costs drove up wholesale prices in March by the largest amount in 14 months, the government reported today. In addition, shoppers hit by higher energy bills, spent modestly on other items. The government reports released today suggested that the economy was hitting some rough patches. Though many economists believe that the surge in energy prices is temporary and note that oil prices have retreated, the increase helped make consumers less willing to spend (Associated Press, The New York Times, April 13, page B4). Businesses worked off excess stocks of unsold goods in February for the 13th month in a row, potentially setting the stage for ramped-up production in the future. The Commerce Department reported today that unsold goods on shelves and back lots fell by a seasonally adjusted 0.1 percent in February. The drop came even as businesses' sales declined by 0.9 percent. One of the biggest sources of the national economy's weakness has been aggressive inventory liquidation by businesses. To cope with lackluster sales, manufacturers sharply cut production and companies ended up heavily discounting merchandise, which began piling up as the economy slowed (Jeannine Aversa, Associated Press, http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/361432p-2932024c.html). More than 7 months after September 11, some of the heightened workplace precautions predicted in the days following the attacks haven't materialized. For example: Just 15 percent of employers reported that background checks on employees are more comprehensive now than before September 11, according to an online poll by the Society for Human Resource Management. Just 18 percent of human resource professionals reported their companies had been restricting business travel, according to a November survey by workplace law firm Jackson Lewis. About half of Americans say its very or somewhat likely there will be another attack, a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll showed. That's down from more than 80 percent in October. But demand for security guards remains high in areas such as Boston, New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, experts say. If there's a decline, it's more like a denial that something will happen, said Guardsmark CEO Ira Lipman, adding that tapering demand has been seen in some small towns and the South. And some mail precautions have also persisted. The Jackson Lewis survey found about half of companies had changed mail handling procedures since September 11 (USA Today, page 1B). Faculty salaries at the nation's colleges and universities rose 3.3 percent in the current academic year to an average of $62,895, the largest increase in 11 years, the American Association of University Professors reports. The association's report predicts that the increase in faculty salary will be smaller in 2002-03 because of the economic downturn that peaked after the events of September 11. The sagging economy did not dent the current raises because they were set at the end of the last school year. The report showed sharp differences in pay among the nation's academic institutions, with research universities and the most selective colleges paying professors far more than colleges that focus on drawing students from their
Nader
Friends, I was doing some house cleaning and came across an old e-mail where I saw this article: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/nad-m30.shtml What is your assessment of this article from the Fourth International? Sabri P.S: No flame wars please!
Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
Miyachi wrote: From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of centralization of power is not considered as a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership has been put forward. Dear Miyachi, I have served at a few of the most Stalinist institutions in the world: US financial corporations. They talked about centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility incessantly. This is the way the US financial corporations are organized and I doubt that non-financial corporations are significantly different. Responsibility without authority is one of the most painful experiences I have ever had, where, in this context, with authority I mean ability to make decisions. What is the point of decentralized responsibility if those who are responsible have no ability to make decisions? Best, Sabri
Venezuela: Not Another Banana-Oil Republic by Gregory Wilpert
NACLA, I think, had a recent piece by Wilpert. M.P. Received: 4/14/02 11:09:37 PM From: Gregory Wilpert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Add to People Section To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Subject: Venezuela: Not Another Banana-Oil Republic MIME Ver: 1.0 Attachments: Part Number: 1 Part Type: Plain Text Dear Friends, here is my latest analysis of the recent events in Venezuela. Anyone who has a website or a print publication is welcome to reprint this article. Apologies to Spanish-speakers, as I have not had a chance to translate this. In Solidarity, Greg Venezuela: Not a Banana-Oil Republic after All By Gregory Wilpert The Counter-Coup It looks like Venezuela is not just another banana-oil republic after all. Many here feared that with the April 11 coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela was being degraded to being just another country that is forced to bend to the powerful will of the United States. The successful counter-coup of April 14, though, which reinstated Chavez, proved that Venezuela is a tougher cookie than the coup planners thought. The coup leaders against President Chavez made two fundamental miscalculations. First, they started having delusions of grandeur, believing that the support for their coup was so complete that they could simply ignore the other members of their coup coalition and place only their own in the new government. The labor union federation CTV, which saw itself as one of the main actors of the opposition movement to President Chavez, and nearly all moderate opposition parties were excluded from the new democratic unity cabinet. The new transition cabinet ended up including only the most conservative elements of Venezuelan society. They then proceeded to dissolve the legislature, the Supreme Court, the attorney general's office, the national electoral commission, and the state governorships, among others. Next, they decreed that the 1999 constitution, which had been written by a constitutional assembly and ratified by vote, following the procedures outlined in the pervious constitution, was to be suspended. The new transition president would thus rule by decree until next year, when new elections would be called. Generally, this type of regime fits the textbook definition of dictatorship. This first miscalculation led to several generals' protest against the new regime, perhaps under pressure from the excluded sectors of the opposition, or perhaps out of a genuine sense of remorse, and resulted in their call for changes to the sweeping democratic transition decree, lest they withdraw their support from the new government. Transition President Pedro Carmona, the chair of Venezuela's largest chamber of commerce, immediately agreed to reinstate the Assembly and to the rest of the generals' demands. The second miscalculation was the belief that Chavez was hopelessly unpopular in the population and among the military and that no one except Cuba and Colombia's guerilla, the FARC, would regret Chavez' departure. Following the initial shock and demoralization which the coup caused among Chavez-supporters, this second miscalculation led to major upheavals and riots in Caracas' sprawling slums, which make up nearly half of the city. In practically all of the barrios of Caracas spontaneous demonstrations and cacerolazos (pot-banging) broke out on April 13 and 14. The police immediately rushed-in to suppress these expressions of discontent and somewhere between 10 and 40 people were killed in these clashes with the police. Then, in the early afternoon, purely by word-of-mouth and the use of cell phones (Venezuela has one of the highest per capita rates of cell phone use in the world), a demonstration in support of Chavez was called at the Miraflores presidential palace. By 6 PM about 100,000 people had gathered in the streets surrounding the presidential palace. At approximately the same time, the paratrooper battalion, to which Chavez used to belong, decided to remain loyal to Chavez and took over the presidential palace. Next, as the awareness of the extent of Chavez' support spread, major battalions in the interior of Venezuela began siding with Chavez. Eventually the support for the transition regime evaporated among the military, so that transition president Carmona resigned in the name of preventing bloodshed. As the boldness of Chavez-supporters grew, they began taking over several television stations, which had not reported a single word about the uprisings and the demonstrations. Finally, late at night, around midnight of April 14, it was announced that Chavez was set free and that he would take over as president again. The crowds outside of Miraflores were ecstatic. No one believed that the coup could or would be reversed so rapidly. When Chavez appeared on national TV around 4 AM, he too joked that he knew he would be back, but he never imagined it would happen so fast. He did not even have time to rest and write some poetry,
Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
- Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:11 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24950] Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism Miyachi wrote: From the viewpoint of Stalinism, the content of centralization of power is not considered as a pair of centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility, but only centralization of leadership has been put forward. Dear Miyachi, I have served at a few of the most Stalinist institutions in the world: US financial corporations. They talked about centralization of leadership and decentralization of responsibility incessantly. This is the way the US financial corporations are organized and I doubt that non-financial corporations are significantly different. Responsibility without authority is one of the most painful experiences I have ever had, where, in this context, with authority I mean ability to make decisions. What is the point of decentralized responsibility if those who are responsible have no ability to make decisions? Best, Sabri = To protect the leadership. It's called the musical chairs theory of unaccountability. Ian
RE: Nader
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/nad-m30.shtml What is your assessment of this article from the Fourth International? The object of Nader's critique is spending programs that provide public subsidies to corporations. I don't necessarily buy his position, but it's a perfectly respectable left statement. This stuff, incidentally, is a very small part of the budget. The tax breaks are much more important. The author reveals his/her stupidity with: In assessing this altogether remarkable article, one is obliged to assume that Nader's professed hope in Bush's ability to oppose the influence of corporate fat cats is merely a journalistic device aimed at currying favor with the new administration. Otherwise the piece has multiple inaccuracies. I'm not going to unpack them all. I would advise any interested party to try and verify any assertion before taking it at face value. mbs
The Coup *Will* be Televised: Hugo Chavez's Downfall and the Venezuelan
Jon Beasley-Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.art.man.ac.uk/spanish/jbm.html http://www.art.man.ac.uk/lacs/ -- The Coup *Will* be Televised: Hugo Chavez's Downfall and the Venezuelan multitude by Jon Beasley-Murray So this is how one lives a modern coup d'tat: watching television. Venezuela's coup (and coup it is, make no mistake) took place in the media, fomented by the media, and with the media themselves the apparent object of both sides' contention. But while South America's longest-standing democracy was brought down in the confused glare of media spectacle, any attempt to turn this spectacle into narrative or analysis must also take into account, first, oil and, second, the general breakdown of Latin American political legitimacy, of which this coup has been just one (particularly bloody) symptom. In Caracas, Venezuela's capital, everyone has been watching television over the past few days: every restaurant, shop, and business has had a television on, showing almost constant news coverage, and diners and shoppers have been dividing their attention between what they are consuming and what they are seeing of developments in the ongoing crisis that came to a head last night with the overthrow of president Hugo Chavez. For several months now, support for (now former) president Chavez's once overwhelmingly popular regime has been in steady decline, in part as a result of a relentless assault by both the press and the television networks. In response, Chavez took to decreeing so-called chains, in which he obliged all the networks to broadcast his own--often long and rambling--addresses to the nation. The media only redoubled its opposition, subverting the broadcasts by superposing text protesting against this abuse of press freedom, or for instance by splitting the screen between Chavez's speech on the one side and images of anti-government demonstrations on the other. Moreover, through the media came more and more calls for the president's resignation or, failing that, for the intervention of the military. The military has now answered these calls. The trigger for the most recent convulsions has been (predictably enough) a battle for control of Venezuela's oil. The country is the world's fourth largest producer, and the third largest exporter of oil to the United States; the state oil company, PDVSA (the world's largest oil company and Latin America's largest company of any kind), is crucial to the economy as a whole, and among Chavez's policies had been the attempt to rejuvenate OPEC and to run PDVSA according to national and political priorities rather than simply acceding to market demands. Two weeks ago, the president sacked several members of the company's board of directors, replacing them with his own allies. The management immediately cried foul, initiating a production slowdown, and taking up a position at the vocal centre of anti-government protest. At the weekend, Chavez replaced more board members, and on Monday the union federation Confederacion de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV) and the national chamber of commerce, FEDECAMERAS, allied with the oil industry's management and joined to call a general strike for Tuesday 10th. While the opposition gathered to demonstrate around the headquarters of PDVSA, in Caracas's opulent East Side, those loyal to the government congregated around the presidential palace in the more working class and dilapidated city centre. Tuesday night Chavez decreed another chain, declaring to the nation that the strike had been a failure; in response, the coalition of union, business, and oil management declared that the strike had been 100% successful (of course, the truth was somewhere in between) and announced, first, another day's general strike and, then, the following day, that the strike would be indefinite. The atmosphere in the city became palpably tenser. Opposition supporters, mainly from the middle and upper classes, drove through the city, the national flag and the black flag of opposition waving from the electric windows of their four-wheel drive vehicles, while a broader spectrum of opponents added to the cacophony by banging pots and pans from their windows (exchanging shouted insults with government supporters) either when Chavez appeared on television or, on those days when he was off the screen, at pre-arranged times in the evening. Encouraged by this show of support, anti-Chavez forces called for a march within the East Side for Thursday morning. On the day of the march, the two hundred thousand demonstrators then continued on beyond their stated destination, heading for the city centre and the core of the president's power base. Undoubtedly this was a provocation (and almost certainly planned in advance), but at this point the two sides had become so polarised that confrontation was inevitable. The final moments of Chavez's regime began that
Re: The Coup *Will* be Televised: Hugo Chavez's Downfall and the Venezuelan
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:38:49 -0700, Jon Beasley-Murray wrote: The current regime lacks any legitimacy, however much it may have paraded invented rituals for the cameras, and will survive only through repression or apathy. But the multitude is waiting for other alternatives, and other possibilities The multitude is waiting for other possibilities? This must be a reference to Spinoza-ist communism which will be ushered in by broken Starbucks windows. I would think the one thing that Argentina and Venezuela dramatize is the need for the working-class to organize itself politically as a class in order to create a new STATE that reflects its own needs. Both Venezuela and Argentina are potentially wealthy countries that can provide a level of income and security that are much higher than Cuba's, let alone the average 3rd world country. It continues to amaze me that these silly quasi-anarchist formulas about the multitude have any credibility. With hunger and disease rampant in Argentina, the STATE can deliver food and health care that is urgently needed. By polemicizing against the need for SOCIALISM let alone a left social democratic or populist government in the Chavez or Peron mold, the autonomists reveal themselves to be an anti-working class current. They are for pie in the sky in the future, while people go to sleep hungry today. -- Louis Proyect, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 04/15/2002 Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org
Will China shake the world? by LIU YUFAN
From:International Viewpoint [EMAIL PROTECTED] FI press [EMAIL PROTECTED] FI-press-l Fourth International Press List -- Will China shake the world? LIU YUFAN concludes his analysis of the state and civil society in contemporary China (see IV 338 for part one) Social services under the impact of market reform THE lack of opportunities for education has always been an important fact or in understanding poverty. Among the rural poor in China, illiterate or semi-illiterate peoples account for an exceptionally high proportion. Unfortunately the Chinese government has withdrawn from providing univers al educational opportunities to its citizens. Although the Chinese economy h as grown over 600 per cent since 1979, the share of expenditure on education relative to GDP has grown little. Between l979 and l992, the average annu al expenditure on education accounted for 2.88 per cent, which is far lower than the 4 per cent average of many developing countries. The figure has further been lowered to 2.49 per cent in l997. What money there is for education is syphoned off into urban areas at the expense of rural, and post-secondary education eats up a disproportionate ly large part of the fund. Rural education expenses are largely met by local towns and villages. However, many of them are simply too poor to build an d maintain school buildings and pay teachers adequate salaries. Currently, there are 50,000 village and township governments in debt to the tune of RMB 200 billion. And although official enrolment rates for primary school s are as high as 98.9 per cent, the drop out rate is also high. A report by the World Bank in l999 stated that 30 million children were n ot enrolled at all, of which two thirds were girls. A survey indicated that, among 125 villages and towns, the wages for over 60 per cent of teachers were not paid on time. Many schools survive by forcing pupils to work wit h little or no pay. In March 2001, an explosion in a Jiangxi primary school killed 50 students as they were assembling firecrackers. In urban areas the situation is also deteriorating. College students now have to pay large sums of money to enrol, a far cry from the situation 15 years ago. Free elementary education has evaporated in many cities. Due t o a lack of funding, and also an eagerness to get rich, many schools now engage in commercial activities ranging from renting out office space to direct involvement in business themselves. These conditions have given ri se to a new type of school; so called 'sparrow schools', thus named for thei r size. In a primary school in Guangzhou, one of China's wealthiest cities, 820 students crowd into a small school with a total usable area of 1,700 squa re metres. The school can only afford one small basketball court in which th e children can play. This is a luxury compared to several other schools nearby, which possess no play area and allow their students to do exercis es on the footpath. According to the law, property developers should build o ne primary and one secondary school for every 100,000 people housed. However , in the course of redeveloping old areas, it is common for developers to simply ignore these laws. Hence the 'sparrow schools'. As to the children of rural migrant workers, their right to education is simply denied. Urban officials do this on the grounds that they are rural residents under the hukou system (or household registration system). This means that rural migrants are not officially regarded as urban residents even though they may have worked and lived in a city for years. When Li Sumei, a migrant to Beijing from Henan province, founded the Xingzhi Migrant School in l994, there were nine pupils. It has since grown to accommodate 2,000. Yet the city government still refuses to grant any school educating migrant children an official school permit, therefore leaving them at the mercy of officials. In this environment Xingzhi Schoo l has been forced to relocate five times in seven years. The flip side to this coin is that entrepreneurs and high-ranking officials are able to se nd their children to elite private schools or send them abroad. In the health sector, while the rural population continues to be excluded from free health care, the free or at least partially free health care system which the urban working population once enjoyed is now largely gon e or being privatized. During the past 10 years, 'user pay' has become the guiding principle, mainly on the grounds that the old health care system was thought to encourage wastage of valuable medicine and resources. Now employees have to contribute 2 per cent of their wages - which are alread y very low - and employers 6 per cent to workers' personal medical accounts .. Most medical expenses are to be funded by
Fw: Margolis on the tail wagging the dog
Sorry about the blank message! Cheers, Ken Hanly Why Bush dances to Sharon's tune Israel's right-wing Likud party dominates U.S. Mideast policy through a powerful lobby in the American Congress By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor Who really is running America's Mideast policy? Last week, the astounded world saw the grotesque spectacle of President George W. Bush pleading in vain with Ariel Sharon, leader of a nation of only 6.3 million people which receives almost $5 billion in annual U.S. aid, to cease laying waste the Occupied West Bank. Ignoring worldwide condemnation and demands from the UN Security Council, Sharon ordered his armour, much of it American-supplied, to accelerate shooting up and bulldozing Palestinian towns, refugee camps and all symbols of Palestinian identity or statehood. Twenty years ago, Sharon invaded Lebanon, to crush Palestinian terrorism. His big guns and warplanes blasted Beirut for three weeks, killing 17,000 civilians. Today, he remains determined to hold Arab lands Israel conquered in 1967 and to destroy any hopes or vestiges of a viable Palestinian state. President Bush and senior aides Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell were left looking weak, indecisive, and inept. Bush clearly is a political soulmate of ultra-hawk Sharon; they share a mutual detestation for Yasser Arafat and, it would seem, for Arabs in general. Bush has been encouraging Sharon's attacks on Palestine for months. But Israel's invasion of the West Bank - reminiscent of Soviet tanks crushing Hungary in 1956 - gravely threatened America's Mideast client regimes, so Bush had to demand Sharon relent. SHEER FARCE In an act of sheer farce, Powell was sent on a slow boat to Israel, via Madrid and Morocco. Before Powell even arrived, former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu summoned fawning U.S. senators and arrogantly informed them Powell's mission would fail. While the rest of the world condemned Israel's invasion and destruction of the Palestinian ghettos, not a peep was heard from the White House, Congress or America's media about Israel's violation of U.S. law in using U.S.-supplied armour and warplanes against civilians. Nor about Israel's violation of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws. There were no protests when Israel's Shimon Peres described massacres of Palestinian civilians by Israeli soldiers. Nor even a tut-tut when Sharon named to his cabinet a fanatical right-wing general who advocates ethnic cleansing of Palestinians - the same crime for which the U.S. pursued Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic. To be sure, there is deep and justified sympathy in the U.S. for the frightful suffering Israel has endured at the hands of suicide bombers, and its need for self-defence. Still, why was America alone in defending Israel's ruthless punishment of the Palestinians? How could Bush, only a few weeks ago, still bathing in the bogus glory of a military triumph against a few thousand medieval tribesman in Afghanistan, be so suddenly made to look foolish and impotent by events in the Mideast? Simply put, Sharon's right-wing Likud party has come to dominate U.S. Mideast policy through its powerful American lobby, which guides Congress. Under pressure from the Israel lobby, 89 out of 100 senators and at least 280 congressmen recently demanded Bush give Sharon carte blanche to crush Palestine. As the Israeli writer Uri Avnery wryly noted, if the Israel lobby gave orders to repeal the Ten Commandments, Congress would vote in favour. America's media is strongly pro-Israel and averse to dissenting views. A coterie of hawkish, Israel-first neo-conservatives dominates media opinion-making and the Pentagon, leading the charge for a war against Iraq, Iran, and Syria. One even helped to write Bush's foolish axis of evil speech. Tight U.S. mid-term elections are approaching. Bush does not want to anger American Jewish voters who believe Israel is in mortal danger. GEORGE SR. ROASTED Bush obviously recalls that when his father sought to pressure Israel to halt building illegal settlements, Bush Sr. was unfairly roasted by the media as an anti-Semite and forced to back down. No wonder Sharon can thumb his nose at the White House. Bush likes to talk tough, but this crisis has shown him to be the exact opposite. In Texas, they'd say, big hat, no land. Bush has so far failed to take any real action to halt America's Mideast interests being undermined by the bloodbath in Palestine and Israel. The best way to protect Israelis from terror attacks is to withdraw their 200,000 illegal settlers and end their colonial rule over the West Bank, Gaza and Golan; divide East Jerusalem into Jewish, Muslim, and Christian sectors, have NATO troops police peace accords and either normalize relations with the Arabs, as the Saudis propose, or build a wall to isolate Israel from its neighbours. This cannot be done so long as settlements remain. Sharon is dead set against this sensible idea. He needs to be
RE: Fw: Margolis on the tail wagging the dog
I think it's a mistake to put so much emphasis on the Israeli lobby's impact. As Seumas Milne argued in the GUARDIAN awhile back, the reason why the U.S. elite favors Isreal is because the latter is the most loyal strategic ally that the U.S. has in a very strategic (read: oil) area. The Israeli lobby exploits that. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Ken Hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:57 PM To: pen-l Cc: Cy Gonick; Sid Shniad Subject: [PEN-L:24957] Fw: Margolis on the tail wagging the dog Sorry about the blank message! Cheers, Ken Hanly Why Bush dances to Sharon's tune Israel's right-wing Likud party dominates U.S. Mideast policy through a powerful lobby in the American Congress By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor Who really is running America's Mideast policy? Last week, the astounded world saw the grotesque spectacle of President George W. Bush pleading in vain with Ariel Sharon, leader of a nation of only 6.3 million people which receives almost $5 billion in annual U.S. aid, to cease laying waste the Occupied West Bank. Ignoring worldwide condemnation and demands from the UN Security Council, Sharon ordered his armour, much of it American-supplied, to accelerate shooting up and bulldozing Palestinian towns, refugee camps and all symbols of Palestinian identity or statehood. Twenty years ago, Sharon invaded Lebanon, to crush Palestinian terrorism. His big guns and warplanes blasted Beirut for three weeks, killing 17,000 civilians. Today, he remains determined to hold Arab lands Israel conquered in 1967 and to destroy any hopes or vestiges of a viable Palestinian state. President Bush and senior aides Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell were left looking weak, indecisive, and inept. Bush clearly is a political soulmate of ultra-hawk Sharon; they share a mutual detestation for Yasser Arafat and, it would seem, for Arabs in general. Bush has been encouraging Sharon's attacks on Palestine for months. But Israel's invasion of the West Bank - reminiscent of Soviet tanks crushing Hungary in 1956 - gravely threatened America's Mideast client regimes, so Bush had to demand Sharon relent. SHEER FARCE In an act of sheer farce, Powell was sent on a slow boat to Israel, via Madrid and Morocco. Before Powell even arrived, former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu summoned fawning U.S. senators and arrogantly informed them Powell's mission would fail. While the rest of the world condemned Israel's invasion and destruction of the Palestinian ghettos, not a peep was heard from the White House, Congress or America's media about Israel's violation of U.S. law in using U.S.-supplied armour and warplanes against civilians. Nor about Israel's violation of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws. There were no protests when Israel's Shimon Peres described massacres of Palestinian civilians by Israeli soldiers. Nor even a tut-tut when Sharon named to his cabinet a fanatical right-wing general who advocates ethnic cleansing of Palestinians - the same crime for which the U.S. pursued Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic. To be sure, there is deep and justified sympathy in the U.S. for the frightful suffering Israel has endured at the hands of suicide bombers, and its need for self-defence. Still, why was America alone in defending Israel's ruthless punishment of the Palestinians? How could Bush, only a few weeks ago, still bathing in the bogus glory of a military triumph against a few thousand medieval tribesman in Afghanistan, be so suddenly made to look foolish and impotent by events in the Mideast? Simply put, Sharon's right-wing Likud party has come to dominate U.S. Mideast policy through its powerful American lobby, which guides Congress. Under pressure from the Israel lobby, 89 out of 100 senators and at least 280 congressmen recently demanded Bush give Sharon carte blanche to crush Palestine. As the Israeli writer Uri Avnery wryly noted, if the Israel lobby gave orders to repeal the Ten Commandments, Congress would vote in favour. America's media is strongly pro-Israel and averse to dissenting views. A coterie of hawkish, Israel-first neo-conservatives dominates media opinion-making and the Pentagon, leading the charge for a war against Iraq, Iran, and Syria. One even helped to write Bush's foolish axis of evil speech. Tight U.S. mid-term elections are approaching. Bush does not want to anger American Jewish voters who believe Israel is in mortal danger. GEORGE SR. ROASTED Bush obviously recalls that when his father sought to pressure Israel to halt building illegal settlements, Bush Sr. was unfairly roasted by the media as an anti-Semite and forced to back down. No wonder Sharon can thumb his nose at the White
Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
To protect the leadership. It's called the musical chairs theory of unaccountability. Ian Hey Ian, In the world of finance, what you said is called saving ass or ass saving, depending on which one you like more. If you are someone with some authority and have those below you with lots of responsibility, whenever there is a screw up, you can try to point fingers at them to save your own ass. This is why it is called ass saving in those circles. It doesn't work forever though. At some point, the unit you are in charge screws up so badly that a security guard escorts you to the door, as I have witnessed many, many times. Here is a fictitious story which covers not just ass saving but also one reason why most financial corporations loved this thing called out-sourcing: Suppose, for whatever reason, the executives of a firm that manages about $360 billion decide to install an enterprise wide risk management system. Actually we know: they want to monitor their portfolio managers, so that they can point fingers at them when there is a screw up. Now, consider a Managing Director of Information Technology at this firm. As an Information Technology Managing Director, suppose that this person has no idea about modern portfolio theory, so-called Litterman decomposition, Value at Risk and cannot even tell the difference between say duration and maturity of a fixed income asset, which means she knows nothing about risk management. Further, she knows nothing about stochastic processes, term structure models, option pricing, CAPM and all that garbage either, which makes her a complete idiot in the eyes of those who know about that stuff, like myself, that is. So, she hires first, say, Reufers, a very respectable firm, of course, but no less idiots than her as far as risk management goes, as consultants to manage the installation project and naturally they screw up, say, after a year. By firing them, she saves her ass but since she is still in trouble, she this time hires, say, IBN, another respectable firm, of course, but no less idiots than her as far as risk management goes, as consultants to manage the installation project and naturally they screw up, say, after a year. By firing them, she saves her ass once again but since she is still in trouble, she this time hires, say, Orakle. Do you think she can survive if Orakle screws up too? And this fictitious story ends with me saying that I had seen her escorted out by a security guard, after Orakle screwed up. For your information, in this fictitious story, the first two of the firms mentioned were there, that is, Reufers and IBN. By the way, IBN consultants cost this particular money management firm from $2500 to $5000 daily, depending on their seniority, or, should we say, stupidity. Best, Sabri
Marshall Aid plan
At 15/04/02 13:59 -0400, Yoshie quoted : Financial Times 4 February 2002 Another consequence is that the world's richest, most mature industrial economy is essentially draining the rest of the world of capital. This is particularly hard on emerging markets and other developing countries. There are enormously important points in the whole passage from the FT. I of course accept that there will not be any Marshall Aid plan for Europe, but I do not think it is quite that The US isn't an economic engine that it once was: If anything we are seeing an intensification of the uneven accumulation of capital on a world scale. Not only must the US have its indefinite line of credit cut, but there must be an active global programme to transfer funds to the capital poor countries. Brown who is a dedicated opportunist will have noticed some of the points made in the FT article. We do not know quite how it will emerge. I suspect the sub- or regional imperialisms will produce a plan for recycling global money that is semi-independent of the dollar. This might involve the equivalent of issuing IMF special drawing rights, and a Tobin type tax. Yes of course there are difficulties but there are considerable difficulties for leaving capitalism in remaining unreformed. As the article points out the growing power of the dollar also presents difficulties for the USA. And as for the cost of being terrorist-proof in a global economy? Chris Burford
India's software, IT services exports up 40%
Business Standard Tuesday, April 9, 2002 ECONOMY Software, IT services exports up 40% Our Corporate Bureau in New Delhi India's exports of computer software and IT-enabled services grew close to 40 per cent in rupee terms in 2001-02 at Rs 38,500 crore as compared to Rs 27,500 crore registered in the previous financial year. In dollar terms, the growth during the period was 31.43 per cent due to the depreciation of rupee against the dollar, the Electronics and Computer Software Export Promotion Council (ESC), said in a statement. As per provisional figures compiled by the ESC, combined exports of computer software and hardware touched Rs 44,300 crore during April-March 2001-02, as against Rs 32,288 crore a year earlier, posting a growth of 37.20 per cent. In dollar terms, the growth was 28.79 per cent with combined exports of $9 billion during April-March 2001-02 as compared to $7 billion in the same period the previous year, ESC said. Steady growth in the exports of computer software is the combined effect of software giants setting up bases in India to meet their global software requirements in the aftermath of September 11, DK Sareen, executive director, ESC said, commenting on the factors behind the healthy two-digit growth. He said gradual market penetration by India in non- traditional markets like the European Union, Australia, Japan and China and increased receivable from IT-enabled services like back-office operations, had also contributed to the growth in exports. Export of electronics hardware grew at 21.4 per cent for April-March 2001-02 as compared to the same period in the previous year, ESC said. In absolute terms, the electronics hardware exports clocked Rs 5,800 crore in the fiscal 2001-02 as compared to last year's Rs 4,788 crore. Giving out the outlook for the year ahead, ESC has said that the infotech sector is looking at aggressive export figures. We are looking at the aggregate export figures to ascertain the top destinations of exports and top players , said Sareen. Business Standard Ltd. 5, Pratap Bhavan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002. INDIA Ph: +91-11-3720202, 3739840. Fax: 011 - 3720201 Copyright Disclaimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Fw: Margolis on the tail wagging the dog
But this loyal strategic ally has no oil and is opposed by US Arab allies who do have the oil. By its intransigence in refusing to withdraw from Palestinian authority areas and by its oppression of Palestinians Israel complicates rather than helps the US control oil producing states in the region. It also threatens the stability of states such as Saudi Arabia whose population is increasingly anti-US precisely because of the US support for Sharon and silence about Israeli atrocities. Certainly one could expect support for Israel as a strategic ally but how is Israel loyal when it deliberately ignores US presidential demands to withdraw. Israeli actions make a planned attack on Iraq much more difficult--by alienating all of Iraq's neighbours and also threatens stability in places such as Bahrain which are militarily important for the US. Israel is not loyal to the US. Quite the opposite. Israel is willing to stand up to the US if it feels it is in its interest to do so. It can do this because of the political power of the Israel lobby and fellow Christian right travellers etc. and because Bush is just unwilling to risk the political flack of standing up to Sharon. Powell now has gone even further and is suggesting that Arafat need not be part of a peace conference suggested by Israel. The bowing and scraping before Sharon is amazing. I will have to admit though that it was kind of Sharon to allow Powell to see Arafat in the first place--of course after Arafat had explicitly and in Arabic as demanded condemned Palestinian as well as Israeli terrorism. This was no doubt a reward to the US for being so one-sided and also silent about Israeli atrocities while vocal about Palestinian suicide bombers. The European Union officials couldn't get a pass to go in and visit from Sharon. They havent been nice enough. No doubt the Israel lobby is also aided by the weapons producers lobby since Israel is an important customer. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 6:32 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24958] RE: Fw: Margolis on the tail wagging the dog I think it's a mistake to put so much emphasis on the Israeli lobby's impact. As Seumas Milne argued in the GUARDIAN awhile back, the reason why the U.S. elite favors Isreal is because the latter is the most loyal strategic ally that the U.S. has in a very strategic (read: oil) area. The Israeli lobby exploits that. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Ken Hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:57 PM To: pen-l Cc: Cy Gonick; Sid Shniad Subject: [PEN-L:24957] Fw: Margolis on the tail wagging the dog Sorry about the blank message! Cheers, Ken Hanly Why Bush dances to Sharon's tune Israel's right-wing Likud party dominates U.S. Mideast policy through a powerful lobby in the American Congress By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor Who really is running America's Mideast policy? Last week, the astounded world saw the grotesque spectacle of President George W. Bush pleading in vain with Ariel Sharon, leader of a nation of only 6.3 million people which receives almost $5 billion in annual U.S. aid, to cease laying waste the Occupied West Bank. Ignoring worldwide condemnation and demands from the UN Security Council, Sharon ordered his armour, much of it American-supplied, to accelerate shooting up and bulldozing Palestinian towns, refugee camps and all symbols of Palestinian identity or statehood. Twenty years ago, Sharon invaded Lebanon, to crush Palestinian terrorism. His big guns and warplanes blasted Beirut for three weeks, killing 17,000 civilians. Today, he remains determined to hold Arab lands Israel conquered in 1967 and to destroy any hopes or vestiges of a viable Palestinian state. President Bush and senior aides Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell were left looking weak, indecisive, and inept. Bush clearly is a political soulmate of ultra-hawk Sharon; they share a mutual detestation for Yasser Arafat and, it would seem, for Arabs in general. Bush has been encouraging Sharon's attacks on Palestine for months. But Israel's invasion of the West Bank - reminiscent of Soviet tanks crushing Hungary in 1956 - gravely threatened America's Mideast client regimes, so Bush had to demand Sharon relent. SHEER FARCE In an act of sheer farce, Powell was sent on a slow boat to Israel, via Madrid and Morocco. Before Powell even arrived, former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu summoned fawning U.S. senators and arrogantly informed them Powell's mission would fail. While the rest of the world condemned Israel's invasion and destruction of the Palestinian ghettos, not a peep was heard from the White House, Congress or America's media about Israel's violation of U.S.
Re: Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
- Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Ian, In the world of finance, what you said is called saving ass or ass saving, depending on which one you like more. If you are someone with some authority and have those below you with lots of responsibility, whenever there is a screw up, you can try to point fingers at them to save your own ass. This is why it is called ass saving in those circles. It doesn't work forever though. At some point, the unit you are in charge screws up so badly that a security guard escorts you to the door, as I have witnessed many, many times. Here is a fictitious story which covers not just ass saving but also one reason why most financial corporations loved this thing called out-sourcing: Suppose, for whatever reason, the executives of a firm that manages about $360 billion decide to install an enterprise wide risk management system. Actually we know: they want to monitor their portfolio managers, so that they can point fingers at them when there is a screw up. Now, consider a Managing Director of Information Technology at this firm. As an Information Technology Managing Director, suppose that this person has no idea about modern portfolio theory, so-called Litterman decomposition, Value at Risk and cannot even tell the difference between say duration and maturity of a fixed income asset, which means she knows nothing about risk management. Further, she knows nothing about stochastic processes, term structure models, option pricing, CAPM and all that garbage either, which makes her a complete idiot in the eyes of those who know about that stuff, like myself, that is. So, she hires first, say, Reufers, a very respectable firm, of course, but no less idiots than her as far as risk management goes, as consultants to manage the installation project and naturally they screw up, say, after a year. By firing them, she saves her ass but since she is still in trouble, she this time hires, say, IBN, another respectable firm, of course, but no less idiots than her as far as risk management goes, as consultants to manage the installation project and naturally they screw up, say, after a year. By firing them, she saves her ass once again but since she is still in trouble, she this time hires, say, Orakle. Do you think she can survive if Orakle screws up too? And this fictitious story ends with me saying that I had seen her escorted out by a security guard, after Orakle screwed up. For your information, in this fictitious story, the first two of the firms mentioned were there, that is, Reufers and IBN. By the way, IBN consultants cost this particular money management firm from $2500 to $5000 daily, depending on their seniority, or, should we say, stupidity. Best, Sabri === And just who was the fool who hired the MDIT? Who was the fool who assigned her the task of search and implementation ? Why are they not gone? Ian
Re: Binary scheme of democracy and centralism
And just who was the fool who hired the MDIT? Who was the fool who assigned her the task of search and implementation? Why are they not gone? Ian They were the ones who possessed the centralized power. They are not gone because we, who worked under them, way below the corporate hierarchy, had no means to say: Fuck you! When you sign up for a financial corporation, or any corporation for that matter, you accept the hierarchy that comes with it and know that you need to give them a 15 day notice before you leave but they can get rid of you any time of their choosing. By the way, it is not that I had not tried to stop this foolishness. I tried to convince some friends that if we stick together and rise up collectively, we could stop all that shit but they thought I was crazy. They told me that this is not the way businesses work in the US. If you rise up collectively, they get rid off you immediately, they said. Those fools never understood that although the ones with the centralized power could get rid of us one by one as individuals, they cannot get rid off all of us at once, for otherwise they would have no subjects to exercise their power on, or to put it differently in this context, to exploit for profits. How could I have convinced those fools to say no to power. After all, this the US, the land of opportunities, freedom, democracy, etc. Is it not? I guess I gave enough reasons for why I hate centralized power this much. Sabri
RE: RE: Fw: Margolis on the tail wagging the dog
Just a side note...ad hominem! Eric Margolis was one of a zillion Western journalists that trekke to Afghanistan in the 80's to do some Reaganite agit-prop for the anti-Soviet mujahdeen. Wrote a book reprinted after 9-11. If I had time to do a search on Margolis and Hekmatyar, the leader who loved to throw acid in woman's faces, I betcha I'd find some tributes. Forwarding stuff by right-wingers (like another Canadian columnist, whose name escapes me now who was anti-NATO during the anti-Milosevic bombing campaign and had in earlier years done lotsa agit-prop for Jonas Savimbi) is well... Michael Pugliese --- Original Message --- From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 4/15/02 3:32:05 PM I think it's a mistake to put so much emphasis on the Israeli lobby's impact. As Seumas Milne argued in the GUARDIAN awhile back, the reason why the U.S. elite favors Isreal is because the latter is the most loyal strategic ally that the U.S. has in a very strategic (read: oil) area. The Israeli lobby exploits that. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Ken Hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:57 PM To: pen-l Cc: Cy Gonick; Sid Shniad Subject: [PEN-L:24957] Fw: Margolis on the tail wagging the dog Sorry about the blank message! Cheers, Ken Hanly Why Bush dances to Sharon's tune Israel's right-wing Likud party dominates U.S. Mideast policy through a powerful lobby in the American Congress By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor Who really is running America's Mideast policy? Last week, the astounded world saw the grotesque spectacle of President George W. Bush pleading in vain with Ariel Sharon, leader of a nation of only 6.3 million people which receives almost $5 billion in annual U.S. aid, to cease laying waste the Occupied West Bank. Ignoring worldwide condemnation and demands from the UN Security Council, Sharon ordered his armour, much of it American-supplied, to accelerate shooting up and bulldozing Palestinian towns, refugee camps and all symbols of Palestinian identity or statehood. Twenty years ago, Sharon invaded Lebanon, to crush Palestinian terrorism. His big guns and warplanes blasted Beirut for three weeks, killing 17,000 civilians. Today, he remains determined to hold Arab lands Israel conquered in 1967 and to destroy any hopes or vestiges of a viable Palestinian state. President Bush and senior aides Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell were left looking weak, indecisive, and inept. Bush clearly is a political soulmate of ultra-hawk Sharon; they share a mutual detestation for Yasser Arafat and, it would seem, for Arabs in general. Bush has been encouraging Sharon's attacks on Palestine for months. But Israel's invasion of the West Bank - reminiscent of Soviet tanks crushing Hungary in 1956 - gravely threatened America's Mideast client regimes, so Bush had to demand Sharon relent. SHEER FARCE In an act of sheer farce, Powell was sent on a slow boat to Israel, via Madrid and Morocco. Before Powell even arrived, former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu summoned fawning U.S. senators and arrogantly informed them Powell's mission would fail. While the rest of the world condemned Israel's invasion and destruction of the Palestinian ghettos, not a peep was heard from the White House, Congress or America's media about Israel's violation of U.S. law in using U.S.-supplied armour and warplanes against civilians. Nor about Israel's violation of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws. There were no protests when Israel's Shimon Peres described massacres of Palestinian civilians by Israeli soldiers. Nor even a tut-tut when Sharon named to his cabinet a fanatical right-wing general who advocates ethnic cleansing of Palestinians - the same crime for which the U.S. pursued Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic. To be sure, there is deep and justified sympathy in the U.S. for the frightful suffering Israel has endured at the hands of suicide bombers, and its need for self-defence. Still, why was America alone in defending Israel's ruthless punishment of the Palestinians? How could Bush, only a few weeks ago, still bathing in the bogus glory of a military triumph against a few thousand medieval tribesman in Afghanistan, be so suddenly made to look foolish and impotent by events in the Mideast? Simply put, Sharon's right-wing Likud party has come to dominate U.S. Mideast policy through its powerful American lobby, which guides Congress. Under pressure from the Israel lobby, 89 out of 100 senators and at least 280 congressmen recently demanded Bush give Sharon carte blanche to crush Palestine. As the Israeli writer Uri Avnery wryly noted, if the Israel lobby gave orders to repeal the Ten Commandments, Congress
Re: Argentina, Australia and Canada
Louis, I'm sorry you feel that way. I took your reference to Lenin meant that you favoured the national front tactics of the early 1920s, which did involve bourgeois nationalists (in dependent countries). Imperialism deals with class relations, not which flag is flying over a country. I agree. But why then would Lenin have bothered to seek ties with bourgeois independence movements in the European overseas empires? Because he believed there could be no workers' revolution until formal national questions had been solved. In nearly all cases they have been, showing both the emptiness of nationalism and the futility of alliances between marxists and nationalists. This is the reason that Hugo Chavez calls his movement Bolivarist. He understands that all of Latin America remains under the control of imperialism, despite formal independence. I suggest nearly all of the world remains under the control of imperialism in the sense in which you use the word. Why is Australia not a semicolony? Because it ranks number 2 in the world in terms of Human Development, according to the UN (http://www.undp.org/hdr2001/), with a GDP per capita of $24,574. If it were a semicolony, these figures would not obtain. In 1900, Australia had a much higher standard of living relative to the rest of the world --- in fact probably the highest --- when it was officially six British colonies and dominated by British finance capital. The standard of living has declined significantly since then. What would the highest stage of colonialism/imperialism mean if not direct rule for the purposes of economic exploitation? (Exploitation being inherent in all capitalist relations of production.) Regards, Grant Lee.
Re: Nader
Max Sawicky The object of Nader's critique is spending programs that provide public subsidies to corporations. I don't necessarily buy his position, but it's a perfectly respectable left statement. This stuff, incidentally, is a very small part of the budget. The tax breaks are much more important. I thought a tax break was a form of public subsidy. To move the topic onto something that might be related, depending on your state of mind: When you look at the enormous size of the federal budget and realize just how little it actually does for most of the American people, you have to ask, Why? If you ask why, you see part of the reason is the wastefulness in government contracting. Huge contracts to companies specializing in government 'services', and this goes way beyond defense contracts (though people wrongly think 'defense' contracts are limited to hardware fulfillment). Some of the companies owned by Carlyle Group are standouts in overpriced contracts poorly fulfilled. For example, IT Group. It has a long list of government contracts in an array of services, but, as far as I can tell, the reason it went bankrupt was that it long ago stopped completing the services it was contracted for. Charles Jannuzi
