cynicism and the sugar market
Sweet smell of cynicism Charlotte Denny Monday January 19, 2004 The Guardian Davos, the annual talk-fest of corporate leaders and politicians, is supposed to be the meeting place of the inner elite of globalisation. Business deals are made in the corridors while trade ministers hammer out tricky details in the latest negotiations. But when Britain's trade secretary Patricia Hewitt arrives at the Swiss ski resort this week, she may find it lonely. Neither Pascal Lamy, Europe's top trade negotiator nor his American counterpart Robert Zoellick will be there, a sign that the global trade round launched two years ago in Doha is as frozen as the slopes outside delegates' windows. The American presidential election and the changeover of EU commissioners virtually rule out any chance of picking up the pieces of the round that broke down in Cancún last September. Ms Hewitt will no doubt make the usual warm statements about Britain's desire to see developing countries gain a fair deal in the negotiations. But for a real assessment of whose interests British trade policy really works in, look no further than the attempts to clean up Europe's absurd sugar market. In a bizarre reversal of geography, Europe is the world's largest exporter of white sugar even though it costs twice as much for European producers to grow the stuff than farmers in poor countries. The high prices European consumers pay for sugar subsidises European exports which destroy the livelihoods of more efficient farmers abroad. In any sane world, Europe would import most of its sugar from countries such as Colombia, Malawi, Brazil, Guatemala and Zambia. Instead European sugar is dumped abroad at below cost prices, putting farmers who could otherwise sell in local markets out of business. The biggest beneficiary in Europe is the sugar industry, handed a monopoly by Brussels to process at fixed prices, making companies like British Sugar one of the most profitable in the food sector. Four years ago, Mr Lamy tried to reform the sugar market, when Europe introduced its much hyped "everything but arms" deal under which exports from the world's poorest countries are supposed to enter Europe without tariffs or quotas. British Sugar got together with its fellow beneficiaries and ensured sugar was excluded from immediate reform. Instead, sugar quotas for developing countries will be gradually increased over the next 10 years, not at the expense of European farmers but of the small handful of former colonies allowed a tiny slice of the market. Ms Hewitt agrees that the situation is scandalous and has to be reformed. The mandate on the regime runs out next year, and the government has been consulting on alternatives. Don't hold your breath expecting radical reform however, when European agriculture ministers hammer out a final deal later this year. In Whitehall, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is in charge. The reformers at the DTI are impotent against the sugar lobby, among the most determined in Whitehall, and the reluctance of other European countries to take on their farmers. British Sugar has formed an unholy alliance with Tate and Lyle, the company which processes the tiny amount of sugar imported from former colonies. The two have already started a sophisticated lobbying campaign. This time, British Sugar is presenting itself as the "friend" of the developing world - or at least those privileged few countries allowed a slice of the action - conveniently glossing over how, thanks to its lobbying last time, this group bore most of the costs of the last botched reform. The sugar lobby says that unpicking the arrangement would open the door not to the poorest countries but to big sugar farmers in Brazil and Australia. In a truly cynical twist, they argue that the system is good for poor countries. In fact the beneficiaries in the developing world are largely winners through the historical accident of having been European colonies, not through any attempt to design a policy to help the poor. Of the 17 countries allowed to export into Europe, only four are classified by the World Bank as truly poor. Four fifths of the market is dominated by just five countries - Mauritius, Fiji, Guyana, Swaziland and Jamaica - none of which is classified by the Bank as least developed. Impact Research commissioned by the European commission shows that full liberalisation of the sugar market would cut European production from 20m tonnes a year to 6m tonnes. Under the regime, 1.9m tonnes is imported from the developing world: with liberalisation this would rise to 10m tonnes while EU exports would fall to zero. The impact of this on the world sugar market would be dramatic - global sugar prices would rise by 30%, making an enormous difference to the livelihoods of millions of small farmers around the world. European consumers would be better off as well, even with higher world sugar prices, given that European prices are three times the worl
WTO and the future of global finance
http://www.aei.org/docLib/200401091_keyfinal19.pdf The Doha Round and Financial Services Negotiations Sydney J. Key The AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WA S H I N G T O N , D . C . 2003 Printed in 2003 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. The views expressed in publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI. The views expressed by the author in this publication should not be interpreted as representing the views of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or anyone else on its staff.
Re: some questions for Michael Moore
> Carrol Cox said: > > This is what I mean by saying leftists should give > up the myths of DP > cowardice or stupidity. Assume that DP leadership > knows what it is doing > and has as much courage as any given bunch of > leaders from either party. > Then if you still want to vote for Dean or Clark or > whoever, fine -- but > don't strengthen liberal mythology while doing so. > I agree with Carrol here and would include any kind of neo-Bersteinian strategy (e.g. social democratic political stewardship of the capitalist State evolving into a communist society) in the category of left mythology. Michael Moore is a liberal (conservator of the capitalist system), not a revolutionary. He is doing what he can to get the social conservatives and neo-cons out of direct State power. As I think Michael Perleman indicated, one very good thing that could come out of a DP victory over the RP would be the setting of a different, perhaps more critical political tone in the USA. The person in the President's seat is the one who sets that tone. Best, Mike B) = But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, fancy to reality, the appearance to the the essence...illusion only is *sacred*, truth *profane*. Nay, sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness. Ludwig Feuerbach Preface to the Second Edition of THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Re: some questions for Michael Moore
Carrol Cox said: This is what I mean by saying leftists should give up the myths of DP cowardice or stupidity. Assume that DP leadership knows what it is doing and has as much courage as any given bunch of leaders from either party. Then if you still want to vote for Dean or Clark or whoever, fine -- but don't strengthen liberal mythology while doing so. John Gulick sez: Forgive me for parrotting the most conventional of Beltway conventional wisdom, but if DP diehards took their _realpolitik_ seriously and were committed to nominating a slightly-less-odious-than-Bush (from their point of view, not ours) type, they should back someone like Edwards (or Graham before he backed out) in order to peel off the segment of conservative white males necessary to clip Bush's wings in swing states such as Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee (maybe even North Carolina and Virginia), and so on. Or take the opposite tack: back to the hilt a considerably-less-odious-than-Bush type, namely Sharpton, do massive black and brown voter reg drives, and win the Southwestern states and those Southern states that have the black belt slicing through them, no pandering to conservative white men necessary. Since the latter approach is utterly unimaginable, as long as one accepts the hideous constraints of _realpolitik_, the DLC logic is actually the electorally winning option. Unless shit really blows up in Iraq or there's a severe accumulation reversal, the Dean-Kerry-Gephardt "middle ground" (as it were) is sheer folly. (I put Clark in this camp as well because Rove and his team of tricksters would successfully hammer him as an uptight and fussy cardboard general whose colleagues despised him). OK, I promise to take my banal pundit's dunce cap off. John Gulick _ Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here. http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx
Re: Nixon and Labor
Not really. New Labor won. Clinton coopted Rockefeller republican policies and won. The Repugs have moved so far to the right that it will be hard to coopt them. On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 06:44:16PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: > Michael Perelman wrote:>I meant that the Dems. will disintegrate if they do not pay > attention to > the alienation of labor. < > > I don't think so. Why can't the Dems go the way of "New" Labour in the UK? wasn't > that what Clinton/Gore/Lieberman/DLC is all about? > > Jim D. > > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Michael Moore et al
Lou Proyect said: Matt Gonzalez was a lifelong Democrat, but decided to run as a Green in SF. He got 47 percent of >the vote, a very good indication of what is possible. John Gulick says: Regardless of what disposition Marxists, radicals, left-liberals, etc. take toward electoral politics in general and conjunctural support for Democratic Party politicians in particular, this analogy doesn't wash for a number of reasons. 1) The demographics of San Francisco are highly unrepresentative of the US as a whole, most notably the uniquely left-leaning character of its popular political culture. 2) The Democratic Party machine (in bed with big downtown business service capital) is the "establishment" in San Francisco. There is no significant Republican bloc to speak of in the local ruling class, and there is no significant "angry white male" mass base to woo with authoritarian populist appeals. Hence Marxists, radicals, left-liberals, etc. are not confronted with the specter of "lesser evilism" -- the DP machine is clearly and obviously the "greatest evil." 3) I have not seen a detailed disaggregation of the voting results, but my sense of things is that Gonzalez rode to near victory on the back of the huge population of left-liberal twenty- and thirty-something college graduates and post-graduates in San Francisco -- not the working class (especially the African-American black working class, disgusted with but still well-folded into the DP machine by virtue of Willie Brown's cronyistic 8-year reign). Here in "flyover country" (southern Appalachia) things really _are_ so different. Regardless of occupation/income etc., in this neck of the woods something like 5 out of 6 white men who actually voted in the 2000 President election pulled the lever for Dubya. DLC centrist nostrums, John Edwards-style pseudo-"economic populism," or third party class appeals are not going to bring these critters back into the fold. John Gulick Knoxville, TN _ Find high-speed net deals comparison-shop your local providers here. https://broadband.msn.com
Re: Nixon and Labor
Michael Perelman wrote:>I meant that the Dems. will disintegrate if they do not pay attention to the alienation of labor. < I don't think so. Why can't the Dems go the way of "New" Labour in the UK? wasn't that what Clinton/Gore/Lieberman/DLC is all about? Jim D.
Re: Nixon and Labor
Dan Scanlan wrote:
>
> Carrol wrote...
>
> >Gore knew how he could win, and he deliberately and on principle did not
> >choose that route.
>
> Dunno about the "on principle" part. What principles were at work
> when he failed to follow the dictums in his own book when he was
> vice-president and what principle kept him counting made-for-teevee
> chads instead of bringing the force of law against the state of
> Florida for disenfranchising black voters on their way to the polls?
>
The core principle of the DP since the 1930s: There shall be no direct
involvement in politics of masses of people, and no presidential
candidate shall risk instigating such involvement. At least in public
(perhaps Jackson was in on the deal from the beginning) Dukakis promised
in 1988 to provide money to local groups to engage in get-out-the-vote
campaigns. That was the core of the "peace treaty" between the
leadership of the DP and the Jackson movement (Jackson was, of course,
never a part of that movement himself). That promise was not kept for
principled reasons. ("Principled" does not refer to the goodness or
badness of the principles involved. Hitler's "Final Solution" was
principled, not opportunist.)
Carrol
Re: some questions for Michael Moore
John Gulick wrote: > > It doesn't necessarily mean that "lesser-evilism" is > tactically or strategically wrong-headed (or right-headed > for that matter). But some intellectual consistency > would be nice. This is what I mean by saying leftists should give up the myths of DP cowardice or stupidity. Assume that DP leadership knows what it is doing and has as much courage as any given bunch of leaders from either party. Then if you still want to vote for Dean or Clark or whoever, fine -- but don't strengthen liberal mythology while doing so. Carrol
Re: some questions for Michael Moore
John Gulick wrote: > > Both of these groups are prepossesed with the most muddled of > convictions -- willing on the one hand to entertain the > most way-out single-note conspiracy theories about Iraq being > about nothing other than enriching Halliburton and Bechtel, I don't know or claim to know the motives behind the Iraq War, but I am pretty sure that to pose the question in terms of Bush administration is to pose the wrong question. The U.S. ruling class (in spite of some grumbling in _Foreign Affairs_) is still essentially supporting the war. That is what needs explanation, and clearly Halliburton and Bechtel (as well as Bush's xtian fundamentalism or whatever) have nothing whatever to do with that support. A tentative prediction. The U.S. will pull out of Iraq under whatever Republican president follows the next DP president. No Democrat will pull the troops out. Carrol
Re: Nixon and Labor
I meant that the Dems. will disintegrate if they do not pay attention to the alienation of labor. Although the way things are going, without any protest, labor will also be gone. The Bush admin. has been very effective in undermining labor, especially public sector labor. On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:15:59PM -0800, Dan Scanlan wrote: > Michael wrote... > > >You might be correct, but then they will be gone within a decade. > > Could you clarify this? Is "they" labor or the Dems? > > Dan > > > > -- > -- > > Purge the White House of > mad cowboy disease. > > -- > > > END OF THE TRAIL SALOON > Alternate Sundays > 6-8am GMT (10pm-midnight PDT) > http://www.kvmr.org > > > > "I uke, therefore I am." -- Cool Hand Uke > "I log on, therefore I seem to be." -- Rodd Gnawkin > > Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube: > http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: some questions for Michael Moore
Perelman said: The Dean campaign might be more like the McCarthy campaign. Gulick sez: That's probably a better analogy. Both Dean and McCarthy are/were cut from the same Rockefeller Republican mold, a mold that resonates with the habitus of the liberal arts college-types who project all kinds of fantasies upon their standard-bearers. Although I must add, something about the Dean campaign (not that I've been following what is going on on the ground closely) vaguely reminds me of the phenomenon lampooned in _The Candidate_ -- at least before the Dean train began to leave the station and the carpet-bagging Gores, Bradleys, and Harkins of the world hopped on board. Hopefully some of the Deanies will learn that problem is not Bush but the system. In my puny estimation what is needed is both less and more than a "systemic" critique. The real problem is that many Deanies suffer from acute cognitive dissonance. Based on what I have read on the left-liberal and liberal blogs, many Deanies have something approaching a systemic critique when it comes to Bush and the blocs of big capital with whom the Repugs are currently aligned. But no such insight is applied to Dean and the trilateralist world view he incipiently represents. It doesn't necessarily mean that "lesser-evilism" is tactically or strategically wrong-headed (or right-headed for that matter). But some intellectual consistency would be nice. John Gulick Knoxville, TN _ Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up fast & reliable Internet access with prime features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1
Re: Michael Moore and General Clark
--- Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Ballard wrote: > > > > > > No you silly boy. I mean that we have to engage > in > > the class struggle over the social product of > labour > > until we're strong enough to take it all i.e. > abolish > > the wages system. > > How does "we" get defined? I define we as the people who are hired to produce the social wealth in the society--the working class. I define myself as a member of this class. > How are conflicts within that "we" (racism, sexism, > skill levels, income > differences, etc.) overcome? The way I see it, we will have to decide tactically how to deal with those strategic questions ourselves as we live. We will argue about our tactics, to be sure and we will decide who has the better idea about how to proceed. If we decide to organize ourselves democratically, from the grassroots up, our organization and power will grow along with our consciousness. > > How does one struggle _directly_ over "the social > product"? Usually through organized, co:ordinated efforts at one's place of employment. For instance, "If the employer doesn't give us more vacation time each year, we will either take vacation time on the job or withdraw our labour in some other way e.g. strike." To the degree that this organization become classwide, co:ordination and power and the acquisition of ownership and control of the wealth our class produces can increase. > How does struggle over the "product" (union > struggles?) increase "our" > strength? To the degree that we control and/or own the wealth we produce and as that control/ownership increases, we become more powerful and self-confident about the prospect that we can change things to make us freer. > How are strategic and tactical differences among > "us" resolved? Through debate and democratic decision making. Each person in the organization has an equal political share in the organization. > How does begging the DP for handouts increase "our" > strength? Begging doesn't help, it only tends to perpetuate a servile mentality. Only by being for ourselves, by insisting on our freedom, by recognizing our interests and the material interests of the employing class will always be at odds, by class conscious praxis do we get any of our social product back. The psychological dynamics which perpetuate the dialectic of lordship and bondage are inimical to the movement towards greater freedom and power for ourselves. > How do "we" know when we are strong enough? It depends on what we're doing. When we decide that our organizational strength is able to overturn the social relation of Capital as opposed to merely modifying the power relationships, the social revolution will be made. > What general procedures are involved in taking it > "all"? Those tactics will be worked out by the workers themselves in the particular circumstances they find themselves in at the time that they think they are able to accomplish that task. Personally, I prefer the tactic of organizing a classwide, classconscious union which I think would provide the power necessary to change social relations. > Do "we" proceed directly from capitalism to > abolition of the wages > system? It depends on how well we are organized, how well we have been able to incubate the new society through this organizing process, within the womb of the old one. > > How do "we" (in our hundreds of millions around the > world coordinate our > activities? I'd suggest an elected, global, classwide co:ordinating council which would carry out the mandates which were given to it by the various constituencies around the globe. Of course, I'm only one person and the concrete decisions on this sort of thing would be made by the grassroots, democratically organized majority--if they were accepting my point of view. How do you answer your questions? Regards, Mike B) = But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, fancy to reality, the appearance to the the essence...illusion only is *sacred*, truth *profane*. Nay, sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness. Ludwig Feuerbach Preface to the Second Edition of THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Re: Nixon and Labor
Michael wrote... You might be correct, but then they will be gone within a decade. Could you clarify this? Is "they" labor or the Dems? Dan -- -- Purge the White House of mad cowboy disease. -- END OF THE TRAIL SALOON Alternate Sundays 6-8am GMT (10pm-midnight PDT) http://www.kvmr.org "I uke, therefore I am." -- Cool Hand Uke "I log on, therefore I seem to be." -- Rodd Gnawkin Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube: http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan
Re: Nixon and Labor
Carrol wrote... Gore knew how he could win, and he deliberately and on principle did not choose that route. Dunno about the "on principle" part. What principles were at work when he failed to follow the dictums in his own book when he was vice-president and what principle kept him counting made-for-teevee chads instead of bringing the force of law against the state of Florida for disenfranchising black voters on their way to the polls? Dan Scanlan
Re: some questions for Michael Moore
The Dean campaign might be more like the McCarthy campaign. Neither McCarthy nor McGovern were aggressive campaigners though. I think that the McCarthy campaingn energized lots of young people, some of whom moved to the left. Others became Dem. functionaries. Hopefully some of the Deanies will learn that problem is not Bush but the system. On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:55:17PM -0800, John Gulick wrote: > > What I have to say here is ephemera to be sure, but while I too find Dean's > shoot-from-the-hip > _style_ refreshing, if anything he is doing more to shut down than open up a > critical discussion > of Bush. All he is doing is animating the conviction of his followers that > Bush is evil incarnate. By > his followers, I refer in the main to two groups -- one, the hard-core DP > faithful who have jumped > on the bandwagon, and two, the naive left-liberal student types, many of > whom seem to be under > the illusion that Dean is the second coming of George McGovern (as many in > the bourgeois press suggest) rather than Jimmy Carter. Both of these groups > are prepossesed with the most muddled of > convictions -- willing on the one hand to entertain the most way-out > single-note conspiracy theories > about Iraq being about nothing other than enriching Halliburton and Bechtel, > and on the other hand > to embrace a candidate who has publicly stated he won't deprive the Pentagon > of a red cent and > whose foreign policy advisory staff is filled to the gills with CFR types > and Clyde Prestowitz. All of this reflects the paucity of US political > culture. > > John Gulick > Knoxville, TN > > _ > Find high-speed net deals comparison-shop your local providers here. > https://broadband.msn.com -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: some questions for Michael Moore
Michael Perelman wrote: I don't know about the rest of you, but I am finding this discussion very useful. My interest -- not necessarily support -- of Dean is that his style might open up a critical discussion of Bush, showing other Dems. that you can stand up to those bastards. John Gulick: What I have to say here is ephemera to be sure, but while I too find Dean's shoot-from-the-hip _style_ refreshing, if anything he is doing more to shut down than open up a critical discussion of Bush. All he is doing is animating the conviction of his followers that Bush is evil incarnate. By his followers, I refer in the main to two groups -- one, the hard-core DP faithful who have jumped on the bandwagon, and two, the naive left-liberal student types, many of whom seem to be under the illusion that Dean is the second coming of George McGovern (as many in the bourgeois press suggest) rather than Jimmy Carter. Both of these groups are prepossesed with the most muddled of convictions -- willing on the one hand to entertain the most way-out single-note conspiracy theories about Iraq being about nothing other than enriching Halliburton and Bechtel, and on the other hand to embrace a candidate who has publicly stated he won't deprive the Pentagon of a red cent and whose foreign policy advisory staff is filled to the gills with CFR types and Clyde Prestowitz. All of this reflects the paucity of US political culture. John Gulick Knoxville, TN _ Find high-speed net deals comparison-shop your local providers here. https://broadband.msn.com
Re: Michael Moore and General Clark
"Frederick Emrich, Editor, info-commons.org" wrote: > > > So we're reduced to the old, "If you don't know, then I'm certainly not > going to tell you," are we? I've been telling and telling and telling from the very beginning of the LBO-talk list. I must have generated (along with Yoshie Furuhashi and several others) 10s of thousands of words in that telling. Moreover, anyone can learn for her/himself very quickly. Go to work tomorrow to get your local city council to pass a resolution condemning the Patriot Act. You will find very quickly that the first thing you have to do (and for quite a while the _main_ thing) is to locate those already more or less sympathetic to your cause. Then you have to start talking to and arguing with each other about how you will find a few more. And then a few more. That is how it's always been done; that's how it will always be done. I don't see why it's so fucking complicated. Carrol
Re: Nixon and Labor
You might be correct, but then they will be gone within a decade. On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 06:39:47PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote: > > > Michael, on what grounds do you assume that the Dems _want_ to resolve > that alienation? The opposite seems to me the case. The whole existence > of the DP is dependent on preserving the alienation of labor. > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Nixon and Labor
michael wrote: > > Yes, but his group also understood the alienation or labor and how the Dems were > unable to address it. > Michael, on what grounds do you assume that the Dems _want_ to resolve that alienation? The opposite seems to me the case. The whole existence of the DP is dependent on preserving the alienation of labor. We would not say that Bush was _unable_ to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Why should we assume that those who voted to support that invasion did not sincerely believe he was right? After all, it was a DP president who initiated and signed the legislation demanding a change of regime in Baghdad. I think it is dangerously weakening of the left to suggest that DP practice flows from anything else but sincerely and strongly believed principles. They are not cowards. They are not stupid. (Probably on the whole there is more political savvy among the DPs then among the Republicrats.) Dukakis knew how he could win, and he deliberately and on principle did not choose that route. Gore knew how he could win, and he deliberately and on principle did not choose that route. If leftists choose to support (or vote for) a DP candidate, they should at least do so with open eyes, knowing and acknowledging that they are supporting someone who is in principle opposed to what leftists stand for. A necessary (though of course not sufficient) precondition for the creation of a left in the u.s. is for those engaged in that process to forever give up the myth of cowardly or stupid DP leadership. Carrol
Re: some questions for Michael Moore
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am finding this discussion very useful. My interest -- not necessarily support -- of Dean is that his style might open up a critical discussion of Bush, showing other Dems. that you can stand up to those bastards. Except for Dennis K. and Sharpton, no Dems. seem willing to take on Bush. Henry Waxman might be the only other voice and he is far from a leftist. What the Dems say is important because it could allow us to communicate a more critical message. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Michael Moore et al
Lou Proyect said: Matt Gonzalez was a lifelong Democrat, but decided to run as a Green in SF. He got 47 percent of >the vote, a very good indication of what is possible. John Gulick says: Regardless of what disposition Marxists, radicals, left-liberals, etc. take toward electoral politics in general and conjunctural support for Democratic Party politicians in particular, this analogy doesn't wash for a number of reasons. 1) The demographics of San Francisco are highly unrepresentative of the US as a whole, most notably the uniquely left-leaning character of its popular political culture. 2) The Democratic Party machine (in bed with big downtown business service capital) is the "establishment" in San Francisco. There is no significant Republican bloc to speak of in the local ruling class, and there is no significant "angry white male" mass base to woo with authoritarian populist appeals. Hence Marxists, radicals, left-liberals, etc. are not confronted with the specter of "lesser evilism" -- the DP machine is clearly and obviously the "greatest evil." 3) I have not seen a detailed disaggregation of the voting results, but my sense of things is that Gonzalez rode to near victory on the back of the huge population of left-liberal twenty- and thirty-something college graduates and post-graduates in San Francisco -- not the working class (especially the African-American black working class, disgusted with but still well-folded into the DP machine by virtue of Willie Brown's cronyistic 8-year reign). Here in "flyover country" (southern Appalachia) things really _are_ so different. Regardless of occupation/income etc., in this neck of the woods something like 5 out of 6 white men who actually voted in the 2000 President election pulled the lever for Dubya. DLC centrist nostrums, John Edwards-style pseudo-"economic populism," or third party class appeals are not going to bring these critters back into the fold. John Gulick Knoxville, TN _ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Michael Moore and General Clark
Mike Ballard wrote: > > > No you silly boy. I mean that we have to engage in > the class struggle over the social product of labour > until we're strong enough to take it all i.e. abolish > the wages system. How does "we" get defined? How are conflicts within that "we" (racism, sexism, skill levels, income differences, etc.) overcome? How does one struggle _directly_ over "the social product"? How does struggle over the "product" (union struggles?) increase "our" strength? How are strategic and tactical differences among "us" resolved? How does begging the DP for handouts increase "our" strength? How do "we" know when we are strong enough? What general procedures are involved in taking it "all"? Do "we" proceed directly from capitalism to abolition of the wages system? How do "we" (in our hundreds of millions around the world coordinate our activities? Carrol
Re: some questions for Michael Moore
In today's New York Times magazine there is an interesting article about a woman who has worked hard her whole life but keeps falling further and further behind. It is titled "A Poor Cousin of the Middle Class" and is written by David K. Shipler. I want to urge Michael Moore to read this and ask himself some questions. What will General Clark do to help this woman and millions like her if he becomes president? What in his experience might make him grasp the nature of her plight? Can anyone be more isolated from the trials and tribulations of the real world than a career military officer? At least a guy like Clinton made a couple of good appointments, to the NLRB, etc. But does Clark even know what the NLRB is? There are two million in prisons and jails in the US, half black. What does Moore think Clark will do about this? In general, what space exactly will open up if Clark gets elected? Will protesters be allowed to get any closer to him? Moore's endorsement is not a good sign. If a man this progressive can do this, what cop out, sell out, opportunism can surprise us? Michael Yates - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Michael Moore et al >This way we do not become captive to a candidate and his political>shifts. This is how I understand the meaning of an anybody but Bush>movement. We build a movement with criteria and then accept the need>to vote for the democratic candidate that best measures up. In this>way we are building political awareness without abandoning an important>arena for organizing.>>Marty Hart-LandsbergI want to suggest another way of looking at these questions. The sameindividual who is a life-long Democrat can earn the support of the leftsimply by running against the Democrats--even though his or her policiesare absolutely the same as they've always been. That was the story of HenryWallace who ran basically on New Deal politics, but as the candidate of theProgressive Party. By the same token, when life-long Republican SenatorRobert Lafollette ran as the presidential candidate of an earlier versionof the Progressive Party in 1924, the Comintern hailed this as a big stepforward for the working class. When I was in the Trotskyist movement, webacked Charles Stokes when he ran as an independent since his campaignmight inspire black political action. When he returned to the DemocraticParty fold, we did not--even though he had the same program. Lots ofradicals had high expectations that Jackson might bolt from the DemocraticParty when he launched the Rainbow Coalition, which unfortunately nevertook on a life of its own. Jackson's rainbow politics, a mixture ofopportunism and populism, never changed much but it would have made a lotof sense for us to back an independent Rainbow Coalition bid. Matt Gonzalezwas a lifelong Democrat, but decided to run as a Green in SF. He got 47percent of the vote, a very good indication of what is possible.Generally speaking, the candidates of a new, forward-looking party (likethe Republican Party of the 1850s) have had a prior career in establishmentpolitics. Our hope is that a new party that is independent of the Democratsand Republicans will begin to attract politicians with a mass base and apopulist message as the social crisis deepens. But the bottom line is thatwe need to break with the Democrats and the Republicans politically tohasten that process. When radicals back a Democrat or Republican (asopposed to ordinary people going to vote on election day), it retards ourmarch toward fundamental social and economic change.Louis ProyectMarxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Michael Moore et al
This way we do not become captive to a candidate and his political shifts. This is how I understand the meaning of an anybody but Bush movement. We build a movement with criteria and then accept the need to vote for the democratic candidate that best measures up. In this way we are building political awareness without abandoning an important arena for organizing. Marty Hart-Landsberg I want to suggest another way of looking at these questions. The same individual who is a life-long Democrat can earn the support of the left simply by running against the Democrats--even though his or her policies are absolutely the same as they've always been. That was the story of Henry Wallace who ran basically on New Deal politics, but as the candidate of the Progressive Party. By the same token, when life-long Republican Senator Robert Lafollette ran as the presidential candidate of an earlier version of the Progressive Party in 1924, the Comintern hailed this as a big step forward for the working class. When I was in the Trotskyist movement, we backed Charles Stokes when he ran as an independent since his campaign might inspire black political action. When he returned to the Democratic Party fold, we did not--even though he had the same program. Lots of radicals had high expectations that Jackson might bolt from the Democratic Party when he launched the Rainbow Coalition, which unfortunately never took on a life of its own. Jackson's rainbow politics, a mixture of opportunism and populism, never changed much but it would have made a lot of sense for us to back an independent Rainbow Coalition bid. Matt Gonzalez was a lifelong Democrat, but decided to run as a Green in SF. He got 47 percent of the vote, a very good indication of what is possible. Generally speaking, the candidates of a new, forward-looking party (like the Republican Party of the 1850s) have had a prior career in establishment politics. Our hope is that a new party that is independent of the Democrats and Republicans will begin to attract politicians with a mass base and a populist message as the social crisis deepens. But the bottom line is that we need to break with the Democrats and the Republicans politically to hasten that process. When radicals back a Democrat or Republican (as opposed to ordinary people going to vote on election day), it retards our march toward fundamental social and economic change. Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Tribunal on Iraq Occupation
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] Newsletter of the BRussells Tribunal Content: Intro Participants The format of the hearing Fundraising and Finance Practicalities Appendices: List of participants Provisional Schedule Charter of the BRussells Tribunal Introduction We know it is high time for some news from Brussels, but we waited till things were more or less getting shaped. We had a fundraising, information and support event on December the 8th at Les Halles de Schaerbeek, Brussels, which turned out to be a real success. Several speakers, people of fame, were stressing the importance of the initiative. Following this event, many more organizations joined the project and signed the platform text. We are now having a really broad platform of Belgian NGO's, peace organisations and cultural institutions (see our website for names). Besides this we are member of the World Tribunal on Iraq which is a large network supported by many organisation of the World Social forum. There will actually be a hearing on Iraq in Mumbai in January. We will be represented there. Participants As we are getting closer to the date of the hearing (14th-17th April), we are attempting to make a final schedule of the Tribunal and we would like to let you know who recently accepted to participate at this day. We are very happy to announce that Hans von Sponeck, UN assistant secretary general for Iraq till 2000, and Denis Halliday, UN assistant secretary general for Iraq till 1998, will be collaborating. We are really glad Scott Ritter, former UN weapon's inspector in Iraq, has accepted to be a witness. And so has Eman Khammas, director of Occupationwatch in Iraq. Felicity Arbuthnot has accepted to be part of the prosecution team. Karen Parker has accepted to lead the prosecution. To sum it all up, that gives the following repartition: As Commission: prof. François Houtart (chairman), Nawal El Saadawi (Egyptian writer and feminist activist), Samin Amin (Egyptian theorist of neocolonialism) and Denis Halliday. As witnesses we have: Tom Barry (Policy Director of the Interhemispheric Resource Center: IRC), Neil MacKay (Home Affairs and Investigations Editor of the Sunday Herald), Saul Landau (internationnaly-known scholar, author, commentator and film maker, affiliated with the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona), Michael Parenti (internationally known award winning author and lecturer), Immanuel Wallerstein (the historian of capitalism, author of the monumental The Modern World System), Jean Bricmont (a committed professor of theoretical physics of the Université Catholique de Louvan-La-Neuve), Geoffrey Geuens (assistant at the Communication and Information Section of the University of Liège, Belgium. Author of Tous pouvoirs confondus- Etats, Capital et Médias à l'heure de la Mondialisation), Jacques Pauwels (history and Political Science analyst, author of: 'The Myth of the Good War- The USA in WWII), Michel Collon (author of Attention Médias and Liar's Poker), Armand Clesse (Director of the Luxemburg institute for European and International Studies) and Hans von Sponeck, who offered both options: to be member of the commission or witness. After consideration we would rather ask him to be a witness. As we have his collegue Denis Halliday in the commission. Scott Ritter has just accepted to come and testify. As prosecutors we propose: Karen Parker, Felicity Arbuthnot, and William Rivers Pitt¨(political analyst for the Institute for Public Accuracy, IPA, author of 'War in Iraq' and 'The Greatest Sedition is silence'). As Defense we will ask Robert Kagan and send an open invitation letter to the PNAC website itself (once we are just one step further with participants and schedule). We invited David Brooks in response of his article of january 7th in International Herald Tribune to come and show that all that is said on neocons and PNAC is fantasies. In case no one shows up or even when they do, Jim Lobe, one of the utmost specialists on PNAC, has proposed to take up the defense as 'amicus curiae'. [Biographies can be found on our website http://www.brusselstribunal.org/participants.htm) The Format of the hearing We have decided to take the concept of 'tribunal' in one of its senses: a commission of inquiry. We will adapt the form of a parliamentary hearing or commission of investigation like the Hutton commission, not only because: a) we have no real legal power; b) we want to avoid a mock tribunal, a people's court of which the outcome is known beforehand and c) most important, because our topic is not strictly legal. But for reasons of drama and exchange of arguments we have kept a prosecution team and a defense. Prof Klein, legal specialist, has made a concise charter for this hearing, which is pasted below. The oral testimonies will be based on written testimonies, that are added to the dossierThey will be published in the proceedings for which we are building a consortium of editors.
Re: Michael Moore and General Clark
--- Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Ballard wrote: > > > > > > > > We have to take what we can get until we're class > > consciously organized and therefore powerful > enough to > > take it ALL back. > > You mean that there will come a wonderful day when, > having gone to bed > voting for the DP, we awaken the next morning to a > glorious dawn of > class consciousness. Wow! > > Carrol No you silly boy. I mean that we have to engage in the class struggle over the social product of labour until we're strong enough to take it all i.e. abolish the wages system. If the DP gives us more back than the RP, which is usually the case a la FDR and so on, then so be it. Best, Mike B) = But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, fancy to reality, the appearance to the the essence...illusion only is *sacred*, truth *profane*. Nay, sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness. Ludwig Feuerbach Preface to the Second Edition of THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
FW: Action Alert on Iraq
Title: Message This is indeed a horrible, even pornographic video, which I watched yesterday. The military is basing its defense on a 4-5 foot pipe which can be clearly seen as one of the men hand's it off to another in another vehicle (tractor by memory), stating that it could well have been a piece of a rocket launcher (homemade?). There is nothing to suggest violence or intended violence in the mens' actions on the ground. Stan, could you comment on this defense? Thanks, A. This link is to a video from inside an Apache helicopter in Iraq. The Apache is hovering at close range, flying no evasive maneuvers, suggesting there is no sense of threat to the bird from the ground. It shows [through forward looking infared, at close range] three vehicles that have been stopped on the road, with passengers, none of whom are armed. Then it shows (with audio from the chopper) the systematic murder of all four people, with casual “Good, okay”s as each person is annihilated. These are war crimes. There is also one case in which a victim is wounded and the command is passed along (and casually obeyed) to finish him off. This will disturb those unfamiliar with war. But pass it along anyway. People must see what is being done in their names. Also send it to you Senators and Representatives with this explanation and demand an investigation. Send it to the media and challenge them not to give the military a pass on this. This kind of thing seldom escapes the military censor, so it needs to be widely distributed and acted upon. Download and save the video, so there is never any chance of it being disappeared. Distribute widely. http://www.thecia.net/users/stewarte/apachehit.mpg
Re: Michael Moore and General Clark
- Original Message - From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Michael Moore and General Clark > Doug Henwood wrote: > > > > Carrol Cox wrote: > > > > >Doug Henwood wrote: > > >> > > >> Carrol Cox wrote: > > >> > > >> >You mean that there will come a wonderful day when, having gone to bed > > >> >voting for the DP, we awaken the next morning to a glorious dawn of > > >> >class consciousness. Wow! > > >> > > >> If that day doesn't come, will there be a day when we go to bed not > > >> having voted for the DP, but done things unspecified, we awaken to a > > >> glorious dawn of class consciousness? Could you flesh out those > > >> things unspecified? > > > > > >Put my comment back in the context of the precise post it was responding > > >to. > > > > I've been reading your stuff for years, and I still can't figure out > > your idea of a political strategy. On the one hand, you - correctly, > > I think - invoke the importance of a mass movement, but on the other > > you say it can't be built by "converting" the nonradical to the > > cause. So I'm completely mystified as to how this essential mass > > movement can come into being, other than by some political equivalent > > of spontaneous combustion. > > > > Doug > > I think you may honestly be ignorant of political history, and thus > actually can't understand that what I advocate is absolutely nothing > new, but what every single left movement of any momentum whatever, from > local reforms to successful overthrow of the state, has always > practiced. > > It is simply bizarre to divide the population into the "radical" and the > "non-radical." And if you can't see how bizarre that is, I can't help > you. > > Carrol So we're reduced to the old, "If you don't know, then I'm certainly not going to tell you," are we?
investment question
I got this response to Joanna's question offlist. This is not investment advice! Mr. Coyle is correct in his response but I also wanted to expand on two possible negatives facing fixed income. 1 - Fast approaching over supply of US Debt - 375B deficit last year, projected 600B current year, and next year This would imply over 15% increase on gvt debt of close to 6 trillion in two years, nearly 10% this year alone. I don't know where the oversupply point will come, depends on global hunger for the green back. 2 - The greenback has declined 20% against the Euro in 2 years. If this trend were to continue, there is a point at which foreign holders will bail on US debt. It hasn't started as yet, due mostly to the fact that the loss in currency was offset by the gains in the last 10 years in the bonds themselves - decreasing interest rates = increasing values as Mr. Coyle pointed out. If (big if) it does happen that foreign holders decide there is too much risk (currency or other) and start to sell holdings, look out below, as it would snowball into fiscal disaster for the US. Here is an article that explains how the f/x interventions of late have actually helped bonds - http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=4126469 Now, if holders decide to sell both dollars and bonds watch out. http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2004/01/05/daily78.html Shows Japan owns 673.5B in foreign reserves, mostly US denominated. That is a massive holding - although they wouldn't sell for fear of invasion. China, on the other hand, doesn't give a @#$% about what the US thinks and has stated their intention to buy Euros openly. http://fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn/200201/07/eng20020107_88188.shtml The real trouble would start if other central banks decide to do the same. The same would happen as back in the 80's when global central banks decided to sell gold holdings in favour holding US Treasuries. Gold has yet to recover and may be 5 - 10 years before the prices start to move up (when viewed from the Euro perspective) The above chart is from http://www.kitco.com/weekly/paulvaneeden/jan122004.html and implies that the "surge" in the price of gold is nothing more than a decline in the value of the US dollar Again, this is by no means investment advice! -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Nixon and Labor
Yes, but his group also understood the alienation or labor and how the Dems were unable to address it. "Devine, James" wrote: > didn't Nixon communicate with labor elites and conservatives (e.g., the Teamsters) > or with the rank & file in a demagogic way? > > don't we want to talk to the rank & file in a non-demogogic way? > Jim > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sat 1/17/2004 7:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: > Subject: [PEN-L] Nixon and Labor > > > > I have been looking over an interesting article > > Cowie, Jefferson. 2002. "Nixon's Class Struggle: Strategic > Formulations of the New-Right Worker." Labor History (August). > > You can read it on line > > http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0348/3_43/91201898/p1/article.jhtml?term= > > It suggests that Nixon was able to get a good feel for how to communicate > with labor. > > Let me know what you think about it. > > If a Nixon can figure out how to reach out effectively, why can't we be > equally creative??? > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
corporate broadcasting system kills peace
Title: corporate broadcasting system kills peace CBS Cuts MoveOn, Allows White House Ads During Super Bowl By Timothy Karr MediaChannel.org NEW YORK, January 17, 2004 -- The nearly 100 million viewers expected to tune in to next month's Super Bowl on CBS will be served up ads that include everything from beer and bikinis to credit cards and erectile dysfunction. They will also see two spots from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. What's missing from America's premiere marketing spectacle will be an anti-Bush ad put forth by upstart advocacy group MoveOn.org. The group had hoped to buy airtime to run "Child's Pay", a 30-second ad that criticizes the Bush administration's run-up of the federal deficit. CBS on Thursday rejected a request from MoveOn to air the 30-second spot, saying "Child's Pay" violated the network's policy against accepting advocacy advertising, a company spokesperson told reporters. At the same time, CBS is allowing ads placed on the docket by the White House's anti-drug office. For the third year in a row the White House has paid between $1.5 and $3 million each for 30-second spots during the broadcast. The 2004 ads, produced for the White House by Ogilvy & Mather are expected to convey a message similar to their previous Super Bowl spots. While CBS would not reveal the content of the upcoming ads, previous White House Super Bowl spots drew a controverial link between casual drug use and the financing of global terrorists. Writing about the previous ads, LA Weekly media critic Judith Miller reported that their message plays well into Bush's anti-terror campaign because it keeps ordinary citizens under siege and the war on terror central in their minds -- an objective which in 2004 serves the president's re-election strategy well. CBS does not consider the White House ads to cross the line of advocacy. "We are fallible human beings who do not have Solomon-like wisdom but try to make rational decisions based on the ads we receive," Martin Franks, executive vice president of CBS told MediaChannel. "Taking into account the deep pockets in play in this election we don't want to appear to favor one side over the other." MoveOn is now working the "back channels" at CBS, either via local affiliates or through others within the network to get "Child's Pay" on during the Super Bowl this year, said Wes Boyd, MoveOn co-founder. Boyd claimed that the networks do place advocacy ads during the Super Bowl. Moveon.org worked with Washington's local ABC affiliate WJLA in 2003 to air "daisy" -- an ad based on the famous Lyndon Johnson 1964 campaign commercial -- which urged President Bush to let the UN Iraqi inspections work. "It's not clear to me that the White House ad is a PSA as opposed to advocacy ad," Boyd said. "This is about CBS and where they draw the line. It's very arbitrary and capricious when certain ads are accepted while others are not. The networks don't reveal their guidelines leaving the public unaware of the process." Franks would not comment when asked about previous White House Super Bowl ads that equated the war on drugs to the war on terror. These ads appeared in 2002 on the Fox network, which aired the NFL championship that year, and in 2003, on ABC. Franks would not reveal the content of the White House ads planned for CBS' February 1 broadcast. As a matter of policy CBS does not comment on ad submissions in advance of broadcast, Franks said, adding that there is "a thorough vetting of every ad that appears on CBS. End of sentence." MoveOn.org has run afoul of Viacom, CBS' parent company, in the past. In February 2003, the grass-roots advocacy group-solicited donations from its email members to raise $75,000 to place an anti-war ad on billboards in four major American markets. The group claims that they raised the amount from members in two hours. When they approached Viacom Outdoor -- a division of Viacom and the largest outdoor-advertising entity in North America -- the company refused to post the ads, according to MoveOn. In March 2003 MTV, another Viacom-owned entity, refused to accept a commercial opposing war in Iraq, citing a similar policy against advocacy spots that it says protects the channel from having to run ads from any cash-rich interest group whose cause may be loathsome. "The decision was made years ago that we don't accept advocacy advertising because it really opens us up to accepting every point of view on every subject," Graham James, a spokesman at MTV told the New York Times. The youth-oriented music station regularly airs recruitment ads for the U.S. Army. According to Adage.com, Super Bowl 2004 will also include product spots for AOL, Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline, Daimler Chrysler, FedEx, FritoLay, GM, H&R Block, Monster WorldWide, the NFL, Pepsi Cola, Philip Morris, Procter & Gamble, Sony Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Universal Studios, Visa USA, and Warner Brothers. A survey of 1,000 adults conducted last year by Eisn
Re: Michael Moore and General Clark
Carrol, you know better that this sort of communication. On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:30:13PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote: > > I think you may honestly be ignorant of political history, and thus > actually can't understand that what I advocate is absolutely nothing > new, but what every single left movement of any momentum whatever, from > local reforms to successful overthrow of the state, has always > practiced. > > It is simply bizarre to divide the population into the "radical" and the > "non-radical." And if you can't see how bizarre that is, I can't help > you. > > Carrol -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Michael Moore and General Clark
Doug Henwood wrote: > > Carrol Cox wrote: > > >Doug Henwood wrote: > >> > >> Carrol Cox wrote: > >> > >> >You mean that there will come a wonderful day when, having gone to bed > >> >voting for the DP, we awaken the next morning to a glorious dawn of > >> >class consciousness. Wow! > >> > >> If that day doesn't come, will there be a day when we go to bed not > >> having voted for the DP, but done things unspecified, we awaken to a > >> glorious dawn of class consciousness? Could you flesh out those > >> things unspecified? > > > >Put my comment back in the context of the precise post it was responding > >to. > > I've been reading your stuff for years, and I still can't figure out > your idea of a political strategy. On the one hand, you - correctly, > I think - invoke the importance of a mass movement, but on the other > you say it can't be built by "converting" the nonradical to the > cause. So I'm completely mystified as to how this essential mass > movement can come into being, other than by some political equivalent > of spontaneous combustion. > > Doug I think you may honestly be ignorant of political history, and thus actually can't understand that what I advocate is absolutely nothing new, but what every single left movement of any momentum whatever, from local reforms to successful overthrow of the state, has always practiced. It is simply bizarre to divide the population into the "radical" and the "non-radical." And if you can't see how bizarre that is, I can't help you. Carrol
Re: Michael Moore et al
It seems to me, following on Jim Ds comments below, that our job in this election period should be to develop criteria for people to use when thinking about voting. In other words, we need to get working people to see that a strong and accountable public sector is desirable and feasible. That free trade agreements are bad. That labor law reform is needed. That U.S. foreign policy is unacceptable. And so on. Then we can take those points and discuss which candidates might be better or worse and on that basis talk about conditional support. We can show how we do not have the right or perfect candidate, and that we will never have one as long as existing political conditions remain unchanged. But that there are candidates better or more favorable to the changes we want then is Bush. This way we do not become captive to a candidate and his political shifts. This is how I understand the meaning of an anybody but Bush movement. We build a movement with criteria and then accept the need to vote for the democratic candidate that best measures up. In this way we are building political awareness without abandoning an important arena for organizing. This is a matter of how we do our political work. From this pespective I think it is easy to see why jumping from one candidate to another, like Dean can win, no Clark can win, at this stage is a bad strategy. Marty Hart-Landsberg Quoting "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Carrol writes: > > >But those urging us to > support the DP this year are telling us to postpone once more the > effort > to build a mass left movement. Supporting the DP intead of focusing > on > our real task of mass-movement building can leave the u.s. helpless > against fascism down the road.< > > in the US at least, the electoral system seems fixed, especially at > the national level. We're always forced to choose the lesser of two > evils, both of whom win via big campaign contributions or their own > personal wealth. Of course, these days, they're neo-liberals of one > sort or another. A third-party effort gets trashed as being a > "spoiler." It's like Max Weber's iron cage. If elections could change > the system, they'd be illegal. So maybe we should just ignore it, > leaving the voting decision to individual consciences. > > Our energy should be going to the extra-electoral arena, which will > be the source of any future social-democratic movements. > > In this perspective, voting for (say) Dean or General Clark isn't > "supporting the DP" as much as an individual cry of helplessness in > the moment. Real political change comes from collective effort to > change the balance of power. > > Jim D. > >
Re: Michael Moore et al
Carrol writes: >But those urging us to support the DP this year are telling us to postpone once more the effort to build a mass left movement. Supporting the DP intead of focusing on our real task of mass-movement building can leave the u.s. helpless against fascism down the road.< in the US at least, the electoral system seems fixed, especially at the national level. We're always forced to choose the lesser of two evils, both of whom win via big campaign contributions or their own personal wealth. Of course, these days, they're neo-liberals of one sort or another. A third-party effort gets trashed as being a "spoiler." It's like Max Weber's iron cage. If elections could change the system, they'd be illegal. So maybe we should just ignore it, leaving the voting decision to individual consciences. Our energy should be going to the extra-electoral arena, which will be the source of any future social-democratic movements. In this perspective, voting for (say) Dean or General Clark isn't "supporting the DP" as much as an individual cry of helplessness in the moment. Real political change comes from collective effort to change the balance of power. Jim D.
Re: Nixon and Labor
didn't Nixon communicate with labor elites and conservatives (e.g., the Teamsters) or with the rank & file in a demagogic way? don't we want to talk to the rank & file in a non-demogogic way? Jim -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 1/17/2004 7:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [PEN-L] Nixon and Labor I have been looking over an interesting article Cowie, Jefferson. 2002. "Nixon's Class Struggle: Strategic Formulations of the New-Right Worker." Labor History (August). You can read it on line http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0348/3_43/91201898/p1/article.jhtml?term= It suggests that Nixon was able to get a good feel for how to communicate with labor. Let me know what you think about it. If a Nixon can figure out how to reach out effectively, why can't we be equally creative??? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Michael Moore and General Clark
Carrol Cox wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: Carrol Cox wrote: >You mean that there will come a wonderful day when, having gone to bed >voting for the DP, we awaken the next morning to a glorious dawn of >class consciousness. Wow! If that day doesn't come, will there be a day when we go to bed not having voted for the DP, but done things unspecified, we awaken to a glorious dawn of class consciousness? Could you flesh out those things unspecified? Put my comment back in the context of the precise post it was responding to. I've been reading your stuff for years, and I still can't figure out your idea of a political strategy. On the one hand, you - correctly, I think - invoke the importance of a mass movement, but on the other you say it can't be built by "converting" the nonradical to the cause. So I'm completely mystified as to how this essential mass movement can come into being, other than by some political equivalent of spontaneous combustion. Doug
Re: Michael Moore and General Clark
Doug Henwood wrote: > > Carrol Cox wrote: > > >You mean that there will come a wonderful day when, having gone to bed > >voting for the DP, we awaken the next morning to a glorious dawn of > >class consciousness. Wow! > > If that day doesn't come, will there be a day when we go to bed not > having voted for the DP, but done things unspecified, we awaken to a > glorious dawn of class consciousness? Could you flesh out those > things unspecified? Put my comment back in the context of the precise post it was responding to. Carrol > > Doug
Re: Michael Moore and General Clark
It seems, really, that there are two issues here: 1) whether to vote DP in 2004 2) whether it's important to organize something like a labor party The answer to both seems to be yes, though I fear 2) won't really happen until after the economic collapse. Joanna Doug Henwood wrote: Carrol Cox wrote: You mean that there will come a wonderful day when, having gone to bed voting for the DP, we awaken the next morning to a glorious dawn of class consciousness. Wow! If that day doesn't come, will there be a day when we go to bed not having voted for the DP, but done things unspecified, we awaken to a glorious dawn of class consciousness? Could you flesh out those things unspecified? Doug
Re: Michael Moore and General Clark
Carrol Cox wrote: You mean that there will come a wonderful day when, having gone to bed voting for the DP, we awaken the next morning to a glorious dawn of class consciousness. Wow! If that day doesn't come, will there be a day when we go to bed not having voted for the DP, but done things unspecified, we awaken to a glorious dawn of class consciousness? Could you flesh out those things unspecified? Doug
Re: Nixon and Labor
Shane Mage wrote: > > Michael wrote: > >Lakoff's framing is very important. We don't know how to do it -- at > >least I have not figured out how. > > But it's the simplest thing in the world--always has been. Just > establish virtually monopoly control over all the means of > mass communication. Good luck. :-) I frequently disagree with Shane, but I think his explanation here is correct and all other explanations are not only false but are serious obstructions to building a mass movement. All the other posts in this list seem to me to be utterly defeatist, in so far as they seem to assume that "left" means getting votes for the reactionary DP. I haven't thrown away a career and spent thousands of hours (and $) over the last 35 years just to moan about how the DP campaigns. Carrol
Re: Michael Moore et al: To Louis
Hari: Well, Lenin viewed those SD parties as "bourgeois" parties. Certainly if you read his writings with the British (Dreadnought & Pankhursts etc) in mind, that is clearly the intent. No, he did not see them as bourgeois parties. The Kadets in Russia were a bourgeois party, as are the Republican and Democratic parties. A popular front is an alliance between a working class party, either CP or SP, and such parties. The Comintern understood that it was departing from traditions when it called for such alliances in the late 1930s (and onwards.) Do you mean to say that the Greens can get such people out? I mena more generally than in the SF area? The Greens do seem able to reach Latino voters, but have a serious problem reaching blacks. What are yours & others recommendatiosn on the best sources of that history? I'd recommend C. Vann Woodward's book on Tom Watson, the populist leader for one. For a more bird's eye view, I'd recommend Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States". Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Is China the next bubble?
(Spoke to an old friend from the Trotskyist movement last night, who had returned from a 2-week vacation trip to China. Two things stuck out. One was the hyper-development that is like nothing he has ever seen, not even in his home-town Los Angeles. There are vast commercial and residential developments all around Peking and Shanghai that dwarf anything he saw in his previous trip 15 years ago. The other thing was the persistence of socialist consciousness, even in the most unlikely places. One of his hosts was what might be described as a yuppie living in a lavish apartment with an impressive view of Peking. She was as committed to communism as anybody on this mailing list and saw China's current stage of capitalist development as a necessary first step to achieving a classless society. In other words a kind of neo-Kautskyism.) NY Times, January 18, 2004 Is China the Next Bubble? By KEITH BRADSHER DONGGUAN, China THE prospectus for China Green Holdings Ltd. looks a little like a seed catalog. Color photographs show the corn, cabbage, pickled plums and other vegetables that the company exports, mostly to Japan. There is even a helpful list of the growing times for broccoli, cauliflower and sweet peas; it is tucked between tables showing that the company earned $14.1 million on sales of $31.2 million in its last fiscal year. Though China Green's business literally involves small potatoes - cubed and shipped in plastic bags - its initial public offering in Hong Kong was anything but. Retail investors put in bids to buy more than 1,600 times as many shares as were available for sale, making it the most oversubscribed I.P.O. ever in Hong Kong. The stock jumped 58 percent last Tuesday, its first day of trading. Japan had its bubble in the late 1980's, when the Imperial Palace grounds in Tokyo became worth more than all the land in California. Thailand and Indonesia had their bubbles in the mid-1990's, when speculators and multinationals poured money into what seemed like a Southeast Asian miracle. The United States had its Internet and telecommunications bubble in the late 1990's, when stock prices looked as if they could rise indefinitely and unemployment kept hitting new lows. Each of those bubbles ended badly, with millions of families losing their savings and many losing their jobs. As 2004 begins, China's economy looks as invincible as the Japanese, Southeast Asian and American economies of those earlier times. But recent excesses - from a frenzy of factory construction to speculative inflows of cash to soaring growth in bank loans - suggest that China may be in a bubble now, especially on the investment side of the economy. Bubbles can last years before they pop, but they seldom deflate painlessly when they do. Nobody knows how harmful a sharp economic slowdown would be to China, a country undergoing huge social changes, like the migration of peasants to the cities. The Communist Party rests its legitimacy on delivering consistent annual increases in prosperity. The Chinese government is showing concern. In the last few weeks, the central bank has tried to dissuade banks from reckless lending while the government has bailed out two of the largest ones, to prepare them for possible hard times as well as planned stock sales. The State Council, China's cabinet, has warned that it will discourage further construction of new factories in industries like aluminum and steel, whose capacity has grown swiftly in the last three years. Because China is now so important to the global economy and to global political stability, the possibility of economic trouble is starting to draw serious attention among economists and China specialists. Huge billboards in Guangdong Province commemorate Deng Xiaoping's decision a quarter-century ago to allow capitalism to gain a foothold in a few cities here in southeastern China. Practically ever since, China's astounding economic growth has provoked warnings that the boom may not be sustainable. Year after year, China has proved the worriers wrong, although there have been a few missteps along the way, most notably when inflation surged temporarily and foreign exchange reserves withered in the early 1990's. But even by Chinese standards, things have been moving at a blistering pace of late. Official statistics, which the government tends to smooth so as not to indicate big booms or busts, show that the economy expanded 8.5 percent last year, despite the fact that growth came to a virtual halt during the second quarter because of an outbreak of SARS. According to independent economists, however, the Chinese economy actually expanded at an annual pace of 11 percent to 13 percent through the second half of last year. Strains are already showing. Blackouts have become a problem in a majority of China's provinces, as families with new air-conditioners and refrigerators compete with new factories for electricity. Auto sales soared 75 percent last year, as prices in a market protected fr
Re: Michael Moore et al -Carrol Cox
CC: "4. If a real fascist (or some new kind authoritarian populism) were to arise in the U.S. it could not be defeated by DP politicians. It could only be defeated by the unity of a _real_ social democratic party _and_ the 21st c. equivalent of a communist movement. But those urging us to support the DP this year are telling us to postpone once more the effort to build a mass left movement. Supporting the DP intead of focusing on our real task of mass-movement building can leave the u.s. helpless against fascism down the road." Ok - I see what you are saying. So please let me see even clearer what it is like down there: What "mass-movement building" - are we/you talking about? hari
Re: Michael Moore et al: To Louis
Louis: I am clear that I misunderstood you - when you clairfy in tihs ntoe that you are not an 'abstentinis'. With repsects to the "Green party" I suppose you are quite aware of infomration on "Portside" today, that they won a signficant vote (I think in the SF area). My apologies, I caught one strand fo your views. As for your further comments: 1) "Lenin's tactics, especially those laid out in "Ultraleftism, an Infantile Disorder", were intended to gain advantages for the revolutionary movement at the expense of the social democracy using "critical support". He never intended that they be extended to bourgeois parties." Well, Lenin viewed those SD parties as "bourgeois" parties. Certainly if you read his writings with the British (Dreadnought & Pankhursts etc) in mind, that is clearly the intent. 2) You say: "These are exactly the kinds of people who do not vote. They lack the identification with Howard Dean's mix of Birkenstock-NPR outrage and conventional Democratic Party economic policies, let alone the snarling visage of the party in power." Do you mean to say that the Greens can get such people out? I mena more generally than in the SF area? 3) " I am advocating a return to the electoral policies prior to the late 1930s when for the very first time in our history the radical movement tied its fate to the Democratic Party. Our traditions are those of the Populists, the Progressives, the Socialist Party and every other electoral formation that struggled to break the stranglehold of the 2-party system." What are yours & others recommendatiosn on the best sources of that history? Thanks, hari
Re: Nixon and Labor
Michael, In the interview Lakoff mentions that he has a thing called The Rockridge Institute -- presumably in the Rockridge area of Berkeley/Oakland -- maybe he'll take us on as a project. Gene Michael Perelman wrote: Lakoff's framing is very important. We don't know how to do it -- at least I have not figured out how. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Nixon and Labor
Eugene Coyle wrote: If a Nixon can figure out how to reach out effectively, why can't we be equally creative??? Short answer: because in the last thirty years we've been mired in identity politics...rather than class politics. Joanna
