Bush on history
From: Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/19/04 10:14 AM On Sixty Minutes last night , B. Woodward claimed that when asked what history will think of Bush's war on Iraq, Bush responded that we will all be dead when history makes it's judgment. bush belongs to apocalyptic christian sect that believes war and environmental degradation are signs of 'second coming', these people are obsessed with so-called 'end time', bush is apparently 'god's angel' in facilitating this happening - listen to people like billy graham's son, hell, listen to bush himself speak of exporting death and violence around the world, i think that most americans are unaware of this stuff and - surprise, surprise - would not be supportive were they aware... michael hoover ^^^ CB: Gee, I hope this doesn't get criticized as a conspiracy theory. Also, I was wondering if Bush was a crypto-Keynesian or sort of a Keynesian from the crypt. You know, in the long run we are all dead, deficit spending to the max ( poison pill for socialistic programs), low interest rates on the monetary side.
Kerry-nomics (Bush on history)
At 9:54 AM -0400 4/20/04, Charles Brown wrote: Also, I was wondering if Bush was a crypto-Keynesian or sort of a Keynesian from the crypt. You know, in the long run we are all dead, deficit spending to the max ( poison pill for socialistic programs), low interest rates on the monetary side. Kerry is more of a deficit hawk than Bush, for sure. * Dear John Three traps that John Kerry needs to avoid in his bid for the ordinary voter. By Robert Kuttner Web Exclusive: 04.15.04 . . . Kerry's honeymoon [with Democrats] could founder on three key questions -- his budget strategy, Iraq, and his choice of running mate. Kerry-nomics. The Kerry camp, to the consternation of liberals, has now embraced deficit reduction as its economic centerpiece. The policy is sensible as far as it goes. But will it go too far and moot social investment? As economics, the premise is that a repeat of Clinton's performance in reducing the deficits accumulated by Reagan and Bush I will reassure money markets and restore high growth. As politics, the idea is: First, keep it simple. The Clinton era is associated with prosperity. Clinton turned deficits to surpluses. Ergo, Kerry should do likewise. Second, Kerry is being blasted as a big spending Massachusetts liberal. Therefore, bend over backwards to demonstrate that Kerry is more fiscally responsible than Bush. But both premises can go too far. Economically, the deficit indeed should be reduced, but not at the cost of social investment. To increase the supply of good jobs, public investments in energy independence and in the public services that Bush has slashed will be more effective than reducing the deficit to zero. Better to run moderate deficits, and use public outlay to increase the rate of economic growth and job creation. Politically, Kerry will be tagged by the right as a big spender no matter what he does. It's hard to reclaim the case for social investment later if you disdain it now. Rather than trimming, Kerry should be leading, and educating the public on why social outlay is sound economics. Plus, as Walter Mondale painfully learned in 1984, you don't defeat Republicans by being a better deficit-hawk. Clinton governed by cutting deficits, but won election by putting people first. Kerry needs to run the way Clinton ran, not the way Clinton governed. Few ordinary voters care about deficits, and the message they hear is: He'll raise your taxes. . . . http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=rootname=ViewWebarticleId=7598 * -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
We need Support not a Lecture
Morning Star , 20 April 2004 We need support not a lecture (Tuesday 20 April 2004) Richard Bagley INTERVIEW: Iraqi Communist SALAM ALI talks to the Star about the challenges ahead and his party's strategy. IRAQI Communist Salam Ali has a simple message to the anti-war movement in the face of continued violence in Iraq - We don't need to be lectured. In a wide-ranging interview with the Morning Star, the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP) central committee member calls on left critics to understand the complexities and forge alliances with the forces that matter. The ICP has been criticised by some on the left for taking part in the 25-member US-appointed governing council. But the party has also pursued a strategy outside the governing council. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, the ICP, which celebrates its 70th anniversary this year, was well placed to re-establish itself openly across Iraq having operated underground during the dictatorship. Ali says: It is effectively the best organised democratic force in Iraq. The party has expanded very fast. But, he adds, we are trying to expand but not at the expense of quality it's a race against time to build a party and a strong democratic movement to face up to the challenges ahead. In answer to some of the criticisms levelled at the Communists, Ali points out that the ICP was the only major force opposed to the invasion. He adds: We have no illusions whatsoever that the power that will be handed over on June 30 will be total or complete. The Americans will exercise influence on military, security and economic matters, but we hope that it will bring about a new correlation of forces. Ali describes the governing council as a compromise. What we took into account was, first and foremost, where the interests of the people lay, he says. We took into account the fact that people had come out of a war and were under occupation. There was a collapse of not only the regime but the whole state. There were immense difficulties affecting the lives of people. Another path was possible, but it would mean more hardship for the people. In the light of this, says Ali, the governing council was seen as a step forward in the direction of regaining national sovereignty and independence. We were also confident that not everything that the Americans and the occupying forces had planned would work as they wanted, he explains. They have been forced to modify their plans - of course without changing their strategic objectives, we have no illusions about that. He clarifies the current situation on permanent US bases in Iraq and privatisation, describing the refusal of the governing council to sign an agreement on the former. On sell-offs, Ali says that there is consensus on the governing council on retaining the oil industry as an Iraqi state asset. He also reveals that even Bremer and the CPA have decided to shelve any large-scale privatisations for the simple reason that they know it would aggravate not only the economic situation but the social and political situation. One major shortcoming in the situation up to now is the failure to form a broad patriotic and democratic alliance - a very serious shortcoming, he admits. It has meant that on many issues we have had to work very hard to achieve a common stand. To the ICP, a strategy of united political confrontation is the best current method to advance, rather than inflicting more violence on a battered people. The most recent crisis in Iraq has centred around the militia of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who the US occupying forces want to extract from the holy city of Najaf. Ali points out that the political and religious situation in Iraq is not as simple as that portrayed in the media and by the occupying forces. He explains some of the issues behind the continuing confrontation with Sadr. In Iraq, one has to respect the reality of religion and Islam and the Shi'ite sect in particular, he says. But, adds Ali, the centre of authority in Najaf has always tried to distance itself from being directly involved in politics, political life and the affairs of state. The highest Shiite authority in Iraq, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has refused to endorse calls for an armed uprising and, while refusing to negotiate with the Coalition Provisional Authority, has entered into discussions with UN representatives. Until this recent escalation, al Sadr was isolated and weakened in the Islamic Shi'ite camp, says Ali. Many Islamic parties and groups and even the main religious centre in Najaf led by Sistani would like very much to have Sadr defeated. Ali says that Sadr should disband his group and work as a political group like others, rather than resort to intimidation and violence which was directed mainly against his political opposition. He sees the US stance towards Sadr's militia and other forces in Fallujah as inflammatory. Really, they don't command much support, but the way that the Americans have been dealing with them has
Re: We need Support not a Lecture
I think most PEN-L'ers recognize the article on the Iraqi CP that Joel Wendland forwarded as blatant self-justification and requiring no further commentary. One might as well spend time dissecting Chalabi's latest speech. But there is one thing in it that sticks out like a sore thumb: In answer to some of the criticisms levelled at the Communists, Ali points out that the ICP was the only major force opposed to the invasion. Can you imagine that? A country of 25 million and the *only* group that was opposed to the invasion was a sect of a couple of thousand people? What arrogance. What stupidity. This is what happens when you build a left movement that historically identified with the same kind of cynical attitude as the CP of the Soviet Union. It is what made the New Left turn away from the CP in disgust. This is not to say that Communists did not act bravely and often intelligently in Iraq. Rather it is to say that the left *as a whole* needs to stop behaving like the scumbags in Washington who also never acknowledge that they are wrong, like Bush's last press conference. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Kerry-nomics (Bush on history)
At 9:54 AM -0400 4/20/04, Charles Brown wrote: Also, I was wondering if Bush was a crypto-Keynesian or sort of a Keynesian from the crypt. You know, in the long run we are all dead, deficit spending to the max ( poison pill for socialistic programs), low interest rates on the monetary side. Bush is indeed a Keynesian, in the sense that he uses deficit spending to pump up the economy. But he uses supply side rhetoric -- or SS rhetoric pureed with Keynesian rhetoric to create an amorphous goop -- to justify his policies. Worse, the way he institutes Keynesian expansionary policies -- i.e., tax cuts for the rich, military expansionism -- is highly inefficient in terms of getting unemployment down. It is pretty efficient at helping his friends and starving social wage programs. As much of the New Deal-era popular base of the US Democratic Party (labor and minorities) has become weaker, the DP has tried to cultivate a more suburban, more middle-class, and more white constituency. This has meshed well with its claims of fiscal sanity, but hasn't done well for its traditional constituencies or encouraged any kind of loyalty on their part. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
war against journalists?
[After hearing about this story on US NPR and not seeing it in the L.A. TIMES, I googled for it. It's amazing how many _different_ stories come up if you google Iraqi journalists shot US troops.] Posted on Tue, Apr. 20, 2004 U.S. troops kill two Iraqi television employees ASSOCIATED PRESS BAGHDAD - U.S. troops shot to death two employees of U.S.-funded television station Al-Iraqiya on Monday and wounded a third in the central city of Samara, the station said. Correspondent Asaad Kadhim and driver Hussein Saleh were killed. Cameraman Bassem Kamel was wounded after American forces opened fire on them while they were performing their duty, the station announced. The U.S. military had no immediate comment. Thamir Ibrahim, an Al-Iraqiya editor, told The Associated Press he had no details on how the shooting occurred. But it was on the road leading to the city of Samara. Before they reached it, they were fired upon. They were taken to a Samara hospital, he said. We wanted to go (to them) now, but the road is closed, so we will go tomorrow. On March 18, U.S. troops shot dead correspondent Ali al-Khatib and cameraman Ali Abdel-Aziz of the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya news station. Al-Khatib and Abdel-Aziz were shot near a U.S. military checkpoint while covering the aftermath of a rocket attack on the Burj al-Hayat hotel in Baghdad. With the deaths of the two men, at least 24 Iraqi and foreign journalists and media workers have been killed during the Iraq war and its aftermath, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists Web site. Al-Iraqiya began broadcasting on May 13, set up under a Defense Department contract. The Iraq Media Network, which runs Al-Iraqiya and two Baghdad radio station, was conceived during the State Department's war preparations. The TV station gets exclusive interviews with coalition leaders and streams live broadcasts of speeches by L. Paul Bremer, the top U.S. official in Iraq. But most Iraqis continue to get their news from Arab satellite stations based abroad, like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya. Among the journalists who have been killed during the Iraq conflict is Reuters cameraman, Mazen Dana, shot by U.S. troops in August. The military ruled that the soldiers acted in accordance with ruled of engagement because they believed his camera was a rocket launcher, a conclusion Reuters disputed. Another Reuters cameraman, Taras Protsyuk, and Spanish Telecinco cameraman Jose Couso were killed on April 8, 2003, when a U.S. tank fired at the Palestine Hotel where they were staying. The men worked at station Al-Iraqiya, which is funded by the Pentagon. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: We need Support not a Lecture
At 10:38 AM -0400 4/20/04, Joel Wendland posted: Morning Star, 20 April 2004 We need support not a lecture (Tuesday 20 April 2004) Richard Bagley INTERVIEW: Iraqi Communist SALAM ALI talks to the Star about the challenges ahead and his party's strategy. snip One thing of which Ali is certain is that the US has been dragging its feet on the training and equipping Iraqi security forces. Washington has been slow at training and equipping Iraqi security forces because it correctly believes that it can't trust Iraqis trained and equipped by Americans not to turn their guns against Americans rather than Iraqis. Ali sees the UN as having a vital role, but argues that there is no way that elections can be held until the security situation improves - under adequate well-trained Iraqi forces. Unfortunately for Ali, if Iraqis have to wait until the security situation improves before holding elections, they may be waiting for a very long time -- a long wait that will in itself become a source of more anger and violence. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: war against journalists?
Don't forget about the consistent accidental bombing of Al Jazeera offices. On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 09:03:39AM -0700, Devine, James wrote: [After hearing about this story on US NPR and not seeing it in the L.A. TIMES, I googled for it. It's amazing how many _different_ stories come up if you google Iraqi journalists shot US troops.] Posted on Tue, Apr. 20, 2004 U.S. troops kill two Iraqi television employees ASSOCIATED PRESS BAGHDAD - U.S. troops shot to death two employees of U.S.-funded television station Al-Iraqiya on Monday and wounded a third in the central city of Samara, the station said. Correspondent Asaad Kadhim and driver Hussein Saleh were killed. Cameraman Bassem Kamel was wounded after American forces opened fire on them while they were performing their duty, the station announced. The U.S. military had no immediate comment. Thamir Ibrahim, an Al-Iraqiya editor, told The Associated Press he had no details on how the shooting occurred. But it was on the road leading to the city of Samara. Before they reached it, they were fired upon. They were taken to a Samara hospital, he said. We wanted to go (to them) now, but the road is closed, so we will go tomorrow. On March 18, U.S. troops shot dead correspondent Ali al-Khatib and cameraman Ali Abdel-Aziz of the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya news station. Al-Khatib and Abdel-Aziz were shot near a U.S. military checkpoint while covering the aftermath of a rocket attack on the Burj al-Hayat hotel in Baghdad. With the deaths of the two men, at least 24 Iraqi and foreign journalists and media workers have been killed during the Iraq war and its aftermath, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists Web site. Al-Iraqiya began broadcasting on May 13, set up under a Defense Department contract. The Iraq Media Network, which runs Al-Iraqiya and two Baghdad radio station, was conceived during the State Department's war preparations. The TV station gets exclusive interviews with coalition leaders and streams live broadcasts of speeches by L. Paul Bremer, the top U.S. official in Iraq. But most Iraqis continue to get their news from Arab satellite stations based abroad, like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya. Among the journalists who have been killed during the Iraq conflict is Reuters cameraman, Mazen Dana, shot by U.S. troops in August. The military ruled that the soldiers acted in accordance with ruled of engagement because they believed his camera was a rocket launcher, a conclusion Reuters disputed. Another Reuters cameraman, Taras Protsyuk, and Spanish Telecinco cameraman Jose Couso were killed on April 8, 2003, when a U.S. tank fired at the Palestine Hotel where they were staying. The men worked at station Al-Iraqiya, which is funded by the Pentagon. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
super-size me!
From Reuters: McDonald's CEO Cantalupo's death [at age 60] follows the untimely passing of others in the industry. In January 2002, Dave Thomas, 69, founder of No.3 U.S. hamburger chain Wendy's International Inc. died of complications from liver cancer. In December 1999, Wendy's CEO, Gordon Teter, died of a heart attack at age 56. from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25958-2004Apr19.html [luckily, my kid no longer insists that we go to McDonald's.] Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: super-size me!
actually, the web-site was http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNewsstoryID=4881596section=news. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine From Reuters: McDonald's CEO Cantalupo's death [at age 60] follows the untimely passing of others in the industry. In January 2002, Dave Thomas, 69, founder of No.3 U.S. hamburger chain Wendy's International Inc. died of complications from liver cancer. In December 1999, Wendy's CEO, Gordon Teter, died of a heart attack at age 56. from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25958-2004Apr19.html [luckily, my kid no longer insists that we go to McDonald's.] Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: super-size me!
Either they work too hard, or they eat badly... Joel Blau Original Message: - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:46:54 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: super-size me! actually, the web-site was http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNewsstoryID=4881596§i on=news. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine From Reuters: McDonald's CEO Cantalupo's death [at age 60] follows the untimely passing of others in the industry. In January 2002, Dave Thomas, 69, founder of No.3 U.S. hamburger chain Wendy's International Inc. died of complications from liver cancer. In December 1999, Wendy's CEO, Gordon Teter, died of a heart attack at age 56. from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25958-2004Apr19.html [luckily, my kid no longer insists that we go to McDonald's.] Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: We need Support not a Lecture
Louis Proyect wrote: I think most PEN-L'ers recognize the article on the Iraqi CP that Joel Wendland forwarded as blatant self-justification and requiring no further commentary. One might as well spend time dissecting Chalabi's latest speech. But there is one thing in it that sticks out like a sore thumb: In answer to some of the criticisms levelled at the Communists, Ali points out that the ICP was the only major force opposed to the invasion. Can you imagine that? A country of 25 million and the *only* group that was opposed to the invasion was a sect of a couple of thousand people? What arrogance. What stupidity. It is unfortunate (and self-serving?) that this is the response Mr. Proyect gives to this article. First, the specific response to Ali's claim about the ICP's opposition to the war, isn't backed up with another claim, only a rhetorical question. Certainly forces that surrounded Saddam Hussein opposed an invasion, but Ali does not consider them a democratic movement. I know that some on the left in the U.S. were deluded into thinking Hussein was some kind of socialist, but that isn't correct. And the characterization of the ICP as a sect is simply insulting. I know leftists in the U.S. have had that sort of experience, but don't try distort others' histories through your own lens. I think that indeed it does require further commentary as the attempt to preempt useful commentary isn't instructive (other than as to the motives and views of the person who says, no further commentary). The article seems to require an adjustment of the pictures we have constructed in our minds about Iraq. But this particular response was expected, I suppose, and is indicative of some individuals who seem to be still obsessed with their particular versions of the past. As for the mindless comparison to Chalabi and an apparent (and arrogant?) grasp on Iraqi history and its situation that surpasses that of the Iraqi who was interviewed in the article, I might suggest more work and thought. But I'd probably be wasting *breath*. I've come to realize that if I open e-mails labeled Louis Proyect I can expect basically the same thing. Thanks for your thoughts, however. Regards, Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net http://www.classwarnotes.blogspot.com _ Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-uspage=hotmail/es2ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
Re: We need Support not a Lecture
Joel Wendland wrote: Certainly forces that surrounded Saddam Hussein opposed an invasion, but Ali does not consider them a democratic movement. Frankly, I wouldn't consider the CP of Iraq very democratic myself. Or any CP for that matter. I know that some on the left in the U.S. were deluded into thinking Hussein was some kind of socialist, but that isn't correct. And the characterization of the ICP as a sect is simply insulting. I know leftists in the U.S. have had that sort of experience, but don't try distort others' histories through your own lens. Well, once upon a time the CP's were big deals. But that was in another country and besides, the wench is dead. I think that indeed it does require further commentary as the attempt to preempt useful commentary isn't instructive (other than as to the motives and views of the person who says, no further commentary). The article seems to require an adjustment of the pictures we have constructed in our minds about Iraq. Oh please. You are not channelling transmissions from another planet. Marxmail gets regular dispatches from Abu Nasr, who is in contact with Iraqis. We also hear from the WCP of Iraq, as well. Julio Huato, who posts here, is from Mexico. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with him. The problem here is political differences, not access to information. The CP's have a sordid past of cozying up opportunistically to figures like Chalabi. After the Communist Party of Cuba was legalized by Batista in the late 1930s, two party members were invited to join his cabinet. Their statements from that period went overboard in praise of Batista and renounced any revolutionary goals. In the mid-40s, when the CP came to dominate the Cuban trade union movement, it was widely seen as a payoff for years of collaboration with a Batista whose government was becoming more and more repressive. As you can see, there's a pattern here. As for the mindless comparison to Chalabi and an apparent (and arrogant?) grasp on Iraqi history and its situation that surpasses that of the Iraqi who was interviewed in the article, I might suggest more work and thought. But I'd probably be wasting *breath*. Look, comrade, I have given Iraq some thought. My article on the Kurds appears in the Swans special issue. One of these days I may get around to reading Batatu's tome on Iraq, which takes up the question of the CP of Iraq in some detail. But I don't need to read Batatu to understand that sitting on the same governing body as Chalabi is a betrayal to the Iraqi working class, no matter how much Marxish verbiage is deployed on its behalf. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
capitalism = progressive?
I was hoping some expert would answer this message, but it didn't happen. So here's my
effort. If I am incorrect in any interpretation (especially concerning China or
India), please correct me.
{was: RE: [PEN-L] Profit making under capitalism}
MICHAEL YATES wrote:
What exactly about capitalism today is progressive?
Julio Huato answers:
Progress under capitalism is not tidy, but we can tell grain from hay.
The most significant, in-the-face progressive happening that
comes to my
mind is that, in the last 2-3 decades, *capitalist
production* in central
India and coastal China has thrusted (and continues to do so)
large masses
of humanity into modern socialized work and life.
what does socialized work and life mean? The old commune system in China was quite
socialized, wasn't it?
Avoiding such an ambiguous word, I'd say that the agricultural revolutions in India
and coastal China have involved something akin to the primitive accumulation (the
creation of capitalism) described by Marx at the end of CAPITAL volume I. What seems
to be happening is the centralization of the ownership of land in the hands of a small
group of agrarian capitalists and the rise of a large proletarianized (landless) class
that's desperately floating from job to job -- or unemployed.
I understand that these agricultural revolutions are pretty destructive in terms of
the natural environment. That's hardly progressive since the creation of an
environmental crisis presents a barrier to human liberation.
Capitalist production has drastically transformed their working and living
conditions and continues to transform them. It has educated them, connected
them, provided them with elements that -- given time and effort -- they will
use for their own collective emancipation.
The old socialist China was pretty damn good at educating people, as was the old
USSR. As was the old, more social-democratic, version of Indian capitalism. I don't
think capitalism is any better at (formally) educating people. Rather, all else
constant, it's rich countries that are better at education -- because they can afford
it. But the US -- the richest of them all and very capitalist -- is increasingly poor
at educating people.
This is progress in and by itself. If we're too scared about the extra
mouths, while ignoring the extra brains and hands, then we
won't notice.
I don't really know what progress is. If we define it as involving the collective
emancipation of workers and peasants, then China's not doing very well. The
government's pretty repressive toward independent trade unions -- or any independent
political force -- no? The only way it helps people liberate themselves is by forcing
them to fight.
Michael Yates writes:
Wasn't working class struggle necessary for whatever
progressive capitalism did make possible a reality?
that's right. Capitalism -- or state socialism -- only creates _opportunities_ for
human emancipation. These opportunities can only be realized via popular struggle.
On the topic of education, the ideal capitalist education is only for those who can
afford it out of their personal incomes. The proles get training, giving them the
basic skills needed for obeying orders. The reason why education is often better than
that in practice is that people push for something better.
Julio Huato writes:
The progress described above is real enough as it is.
The question of whether the progress is real or not seems awfully subjective. The
point is that it's not capitalism or state socialism that should be given credit for
any moves toward the collective self-liberation of the working classes, since after
all, if the ruling classes had their way they'd replace workers with robots or
zombies. It's the collective struggle of the people against the system that deserves
the credit.
Class systems such as capitalism or state socialism have internal contradictions,
which produce crises and conflict, which create possibilities for improvement. But
those systems shouldn't get credit for the popular upheavals or improvements that
result.
At the same time, it [the progress? capitalism?]
contains the seeds of future progress, of encouraging future
developments in
our planet. On the other hand, the risks of nuclear war,
conventional wars,
environmental decay, etc. are real too.
these risks are encouraged by capitalism itself, no? so capitalism contains the seeds
of major future regress. This hardly answers Mike's question to say that capitalism is
progressive.
Noting that progress
exists under
capitalism doesn't imply waiting for things to evolve
spontaneously, but to
shape their evolution. Still, the pre-requisite of fruitful
action is to
know what the change is about.
??
IMO, first and foremost, communism is not about consumption
possibilities,
but about *productive* capabilities -- i.e., productive
force.
I don't get this distinction:
Re: We need Support not a Lecture
I don't think that this debate is particularly useful here. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: capitalism = progressive?
Capitalism may be more progressive than feudalism, but then I don't know a lot about how live was then. On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 01:45:54PM -0700, Devine, James wrote: I was hoping some expert would answer this message, but it didn't happen. So here's my effort. If I am incorrect in any interpretation (especially concerning China or India), please correct me. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: capitalism = progressive?
Capitalism may be more progressive than feudalism, but then I don't know a lot about how live was then. -- Michael Perelman Although their standard of living may not have been particularly lavish, the people of precapitalistic northern Europe, like most traditional people, enjoyed a great deal of free time. The common people maintained innumerable religious holidays that punctuated the tempo of work. Joan Thirsk estimated that in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, about one-third of the working days, including Sundays, were spent in leisure. Karl Kautsky offered a much more extravagant estimate that 204 annual holidays were celebrated in medieval Lower Bavaria. Michael Perelman, The Invention of Capitalism, Duke University, 2000; p. 17 Louis Proyect Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: We need Support not a Lecture
Michael Perelman wrote: I don't think that this debate is particularly useful here. Because of subject matter or personalities involved? Doug
Re: capitalism = progressive?
feudalism seems to have been very progressive when it came to developing military technology (given the low level at which that technology started). But then again, the word progressive is sort of a catch-all. Is it a synonym for good? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 2:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] capitalism = progressive? Capitalism may be more progressive than feudalism, but then I don't know a lot about how live was then. On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 01:45:54PM -0700, Devine, James wrote: I was hoping some expert would answer this message, but it didn't happen. So here's my effort. If I am incorrect in any interpretation (especially concerning China or India), please correct me. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: We need Support not a Lecture
Because of subject matter or personalities involved? Doug Doug, We all know about whom this comment is and maybe you don't realize but your personality is not significantly different. The thing is, I like and respect both of you. Look, both of you are older than I am, not that I am that young either. Best, Sabri
Re: We need Support not a Lecture
I think it's time for another PEN-L vacation. Enjoy! - Doug Sabri Oncu wrote: Because of subject matter or personalities involved? Doug Doug, We all know about whom this comment is and maybe you don't realize but your personality is not significantly different. The thing is, I like and respect both of you. Look, both of you are older than I am, not that I am that young either. Best, Sabri
[no subject]
it's unclear that the economy can sustain positive real short-term interest rates. I was thinking of Jim's assertion that there are speculative bubbles in some real estate markets, and my suggestion that the same might be true in some commodity markets. A speculative bubble exists whenever a market is dominated by investors (noise traders in the economics literature) with short time horizons who have taken highly leveraged long positions. Real positive short-term interest rates would force noise traders to unwind their positions. The Fed's task, when it decides to raise interest rates, will be to goad noise traders into unwinding their long positions gradually, as opposed to the more likely panicked stampede for the exits. An apt metaphor is trying to let some air out of a balloon without either popping or deflating it. Edwin (Tom) Dickens
Re:
If the Fed
doesn't see it that way, it seems unlikely that it will succeed (except by
accident). The Fed, of course, denies that there's a housing bubble. I don't
know about their attitude toward commodity markets.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-Original Message-From: Dickens, Edwin
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:11
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
[PEN-L]
it's unclear that the economy can sustain positive real
short-term interest rates.
I was thinking of Jim's assertion that there are speculative
bubbles in some real estate markets, and my suggestion that the same might be
true in some commodity markets. A speculative bubble exists whenever a
market is dominated by investors ("noise traders" in the economics literature)
with short time horizons who have taken highly leveraged long positions.
Real positive short-term interest rates would force noise traders to unwind
their positions. The Fed's task, when it decides to raise interest
rates, will be to goad noise traders into unwinding their long positions
gradually, as opposed to the more likely panicked stampede for the
exits. An apt metaphor is trying to let some air out of a balloon
without either popping or deflating it.
Edwin (Tom) Dickens
Re: We need Support not a Lecture
I think it's time for another PEN-L vacation. Enjoy! - Doug Why are you taking offense Doug? I did not insult you. What you don't realize is that whatever the problems you and Lou are having, I don't think neither Lou nor you are the right party, as if in such such situations there can be one party who is right and the other is wrong. I do not support neither you nor Lou in this personal rivalry. Well!.. I happen to side with Lou more often than I side with you but it is not the case that I never side with you either. Come back when you get enough rest please. Best, Sabri
Re: mixed economic signals
Tom: A speculative bubble exists whenever a market is dominated by investors (noise traders in the economics literature) with short time horizons who have taken highly leveraged long positions. I read that noise traders paper by Summers et al. It is just one possible explanation and although there are some noise traders out there, there are other as well. Here is one more theory: Rational irrationality or irrational rationality. Put differently, it is not just noise traders who drive the bubbles. I think heuristics and biases and/or bounded rationality also play some role in this. I remember a very smart friend who believed that the technology stocks would go up forever and, when I had been waiting for the burst of the stock market bubble in 1999, thought I was crazy. Real positive short-term interest rates would force noise traders to unwind their positions. I am more of a believer of systemic imbalances than noise traders. After all, money/credit is created when one party takes the long and the other takes the short position. And sooner or later, whether the long or the short party finds themselves in debt, that is, whoever turns out to be the debtor, the debtor will screw up. And when that happens, money will destroyed. Unlike matter, that can neither be destroyed nor created, money can be both destroyed and created, in other words. As a Turkish saying goes, No matter where you go, I am behind you. So, I my view, neither positive nor negative real short-term interest rates are sustainable, in the long run, that is. Best, Sabri
George W. Kerry on Staying the Course in Iraq
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/kerr-a19.shtml Kerry on Meet the Press: Democratic candidate reiterates support for Iraq war By Patrick Martin 19 April 2004 In an hour-long appearance Sunday on the NBC News program Meet the Press, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry, reiterated his support for the US war in Iraq, while suggesting that it would take the election of a new president for Washington to succeed in mobilizing additional foreign troops and resources to reinforce its grip on the conquered country. Kerry underscored his solidarity with the Bush administration's policy of crushing the mass uprising that has brought together Sunni Muslims in the west-central area of Iraq and Shiites in Baghdad and the south in a common struggle against the occupation forces. Saying the US should send in more troops if necessary to defeat the insurgency and prevent a failure of the Iraq occupation, the Democratic candidate declared, Number one, we cannot fail. Meet the Press interviewer Tim Russert asked Kerry about an op-ed column he wrote for the Washington Post last week, in which he stated: Our country has committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission. Kerry replied by repeating his unconditional endorsement of the American occupation, leading Russert to respond, That sounds exactly like George Bush. The program began with Russert asking Kerry, Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake? Kerry replied, I think the way the president went to war is a mistake. This set the tone for the entire interview, as Russert asked no further questions about the decision to go to war and focused entirely on Kerry's prescriptions for fighting the war more effectively. Kerry made repeated criticisms of Bush's conduct of the war. He said, This administration misled America, and declared that Bush broke faith with his own promises to the country. He added, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. But Russert did not ask how a war based on such lies could be legitimate, and Kerry did not volunteer an opinion. Instead, Kerry again voiced a theme first raised in a speech last week in New York City: that the criteria for a successful completion of the US intervention in Iraq would be the creation of a stable regime, not the establishment of a democracy. Following Kerry's pronouncement that we cannot fail in Iraq, the following exchange took place: Russert: How do you define failure? Kerry: Well, I think failure is the lack of a stable Iraq. I think a failed state in Iraq is failure. Russert: An Islamic regime similar to Iran would be acceptable? Kerry: You could even go further than what I just said and suggest that if we are stuck for a long period of time in a quagmire where young Americans are dying without a sense of that being able to be achieved, I think most Americans will decide that's failure. Russert: Could you accept a Shiite theocracy running Iraq similar to what we have in Iran? Kerry: I think that what is important is to have a pluralistic representation. It doesn't have to be, at least in the early days, the kind of democracy this administration has talked about, though that's our goal and we should remain there. But what is critical is a stable Iraq. In other words, a President Kerry would scrap the messianic and increasingly ludicrous rhetoric of the Bush administration about democratizing Iraq and the entire Middle East, and get down to business: creating the stable conditions required for American capitalism to extract super profits from Iraq's oil resources, under some form of clerical/military dictatorship propped up by American troops. In the course of the interview, Kerry also declared that if he is elected, there could well be 100,000 or more American troops in Iraq a year from now. Kerry went on to say, Tim, let me be very clear to you: We are united around our troops. We support our troops. They're extraordinarily courageous. We have the best military we've ever had in the history of our country, and they deserve a strategy that's going to minimize the risk to them. But I am united, along with everybody else, in knowing that we have to have a success in not having a failed Iraq. That we are united in. This declaration of unity is Kerry's assurance to the American ruling elite that whatever criticisms he may make of the Bush administration's tactics in the war-particularly its dismissal of the views of nominal allies like France and Germany, and its contempt for institutions like the United Nations-he is committed to maintaining US control of Iraq. With its strategic position in the center of the Middle East, and its vast oil reserves, a US-dominated Iraq has become a vital interest of American imperialism, and will not be given up lightly. Reassuring the ruling class has been Kerry's main focus all week. At a public forum at City College in
Re: George W. Kerry on Staying the Course in Iraq
...then why to change? President Bush already has experience in this subject. Democratic candidate reiterates support for Iraq war - Original Message - From: Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:33 PM Subject: George W. Kerry on Staying the Course in Iraq http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/kerr-a19.shtml Kerry on Meet the Press: Democratic candidate reiterates support for Iraq war By Patrick Martin 19 April 2004 In an hour-long appearance Sunday on the NBC News program Meet the Press, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry, reiterated his support for the US war in Iraq, while suggesting that it would take the election of a new president for Washington to succeed in mobilizing additional foreign troops and resources to reinforce its grip on the conquered country. Kerry underscored his solidarity with the Bush administration's policy of crushing the mass uprising that has brought together Sunni Muslims in the west-central area of Iraq and Shiites in Baghdad and the south in a common struggle against the occupation forces. Saying the US should send in more troops if necessary to defeat the insurgency and prevent a failure of the Iraq occupation, the Democratic candidate declared, Number one, we cannot fail. Meet the Press interviewer Tim Russert asked Kerry about an op-ed column he wrote for the Washington Post last week, in which he stated: Our country has committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission. Kerry replied by repeating his unconditional endorsement of the American occupation, leading Russert to respond, That sounds exactly like George Bush. The program began with Russert asking Kerry, Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake? Kerry replied, I think the way the president went to war is a mistake. This set the tone for the entire interview, as Russert asked no further questions about the decision to go to war and focused entirely on Kerry's prescriptions for fighting the war more effectively. Kerry made repeated criticisms of Bush's conduct of the war. He said, This administration misled America, and declared that Bush broke faith with his own promises to the country. He added, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. But Russert did not ask how a war based on such lies could be legitimate, and Kerry did not volunteer an opinion. Instead, Kerry again voiced a theme first raised in a speech last week in New York City: that the criteria for a successful completion of the US intervention in Iraq would be the creation of a stable regime, not the establishment of a democracy. Following Kerry's pronouncement that we cannot fail in Iraq, the following exchange took place: Russert: How do you define failure? Kerry: Well, I think failure is the lack of a stable Iraq. I think a failed state in Iraq is failure. Russert: An Islamic regime similar to Iran would be acceptable? Kerry: You could even go further than what I just said and suggest that if we are stuck for a long period of time in a quagmire where young Americans are dying without a sense of that being able to be achieved, I think most Americans will decide that's failure. Russert: Could you accept a Shiite theocracy running Iraq similar to what we have in Iran? Kerry: I think that what is important is to have a pluralistic representation. It doesn't have to be, at least in the early days, the kind of democracy this administration has talked about, though that's our goal and we should remain there. But what is critical is a stable Iraq. In other words, a President Kerry would scrap the messianic and increasingly ludicrous rhetoric of the Bush administration about democratizing Iraq and the entire Middle East, and get down to business: creating the stable conditions required for American capitalism to extract super profits from Iraq's oil resources, under some form of clerical/military dictatorship propped up by American troops. In the course of the interview, Kerry also declared that if he is elected, there could well be 100,000 or more American troops in Iraq a year from now. Kerry went on to say, Tim, let me be very clear to you: We are united around our troops. We support our troops. They're extraordinarily courageous. We have the best military we've ever had in the history of our country, and they deserve a strategy that's going to minimize the risk to them. But I am united, along with everybody else, in knowing that we have to have a success in not having a failed Iraq. That we are united in. This declaration of unity is Kerry's assurance to the American ruling elite that whatever criticisms he may make of the Bush administration's tactics in the war-particularly its dismissal of the views of nominal allies like France and Germany, and its
Re: We need Support not a Lecture
Actually, I prefer not to have sectarian discussions here. Just as I thought that the Kerry/Bush debate was pointless, unless someone had some very new insight, which I did not see coming in that thread. On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 06:39:52PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: I think it's time for another PEN-L vacation. Enjoy! - Doug Sabri Oncu wrote: Because of subject matter or personalities involved? Doug Doug, We all know about whom this comment is and maybe you don't realize but your personality is not significantly different. The thing is, I like and respect both of you. Look, both of you are older than I am, not that I am that young either. Best, Sabri -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: We need Support not a Lecture
Michael: Actually, I prefer not to have sectarian discussions here. Me too. Indeed, not just here, but everywhere. Enough of this Doug-Louis or Louis-Doug thing! They are in their fifties and are hardly kids anymore. My friends! Before you attack each other, go and watch yourselves in a mirror. At least, this is what I try to do every now and then! Best, Sabri
