[PEN-L:2090] Re: Malcolm X
At 01:57 PM 12/01/99 -0500, Doug H. wrote: I just haven't read enough on my own to know how much Malcolm X turned on the NOI... I am no expert on this topic, but George Breitman's _The Last Year of Malcolm X: The Evolution of a Revolutionary_ (New York: Pathfinder, 1967; 1992) is pretty convincing, on all the topics raised - meeting the KKK, his break with the NOI, about women, relations with whites, Jews, socialism, etc. Even if you don't accept all of Breitman's interpretations regarding context, etc., the quotes from Malcolm X on these points deserve at least the same consideration as other, usually better publicized statements. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:1909] Daimler and Macdonalds
Before anyone rushes out to buy Daimler stock with December's extra bi-weekly cheque because of Valis' hydrogen fuel cell hype, this is really being developed by their 'partner' here in Vancouver, Ballard Power. Their stock just dropped because of problems reported in their experimental engines installed in public transit buses (in Chigago, I think). Ford is another 'partner'. Ballard is one of those stock market wonders that has yet to sell a product other than its name, plus Daimler's, Ford's and the other signers-on. BTW, it always talks about how the hydrogen cell emits only H2O, but their production cells apparantly will actually use natural gas or even gasoline. But don't ask me what a fuel cell is, I don't understand how it works even though I hope it does. On a much more important topic, I'm happy to report that the MacDonalds workers in nearby Squamish have won a Labour Board challenge by the employer against their 61% strike vote. The Canadian Auto Workers Union refuted the employer's claim that workers had been hoodwinked into voting for a strike. The union reports some progress in negotiations under a mediator - e.g. agreement on seniority and no harassement clauses. Under B.C. labour law, a first contract may be imposed by the labour board if one cannot be reached through negotiations. From the workers point of view they often do not amount to more than the employer's obligation to recongize the union as sole bargaining agent and a minimalist grievance procedure, but this is better than nothing. The CAW has blamed MacDonald HQ for the problems in negotiations, saying they could have reached agreement if it was only the local franchise owner involved. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:1580] Re: Re: FDI
Tom Kruse raised the World Bank report that FDI in LDCs has a modest effect on jobs in the DCs, and Micheal P. noted that outsourcing (which may not even involve FDI) may be a more common vehicle for DC job loss. It seems to me the outsourcing issue is better discussed in terms of international trade than FDI. However, I agree the report may miss a lot of impacts if it relied on the convention definition of FDI, which includes a lot less than I used to assume. My reading of the fine print indicates that FDI data, for example, excludes: - MNC investments that are financed by borrowing within the host country, e.g. from host country banks (or even foreign banks operating in that country). - MNC investments financed by re-invested profits of subsidiaries in the host country (unlike the US, many countries exclude retained earnings from annual flows of FDI, because they do not cross a national border). So, if Bombardier of Canada uses profits from its auto seat cover plant in Bolivia plus more cash borrowed from the local Royal Bank of Canada to start producing auto engines for export to Canada, this is not 'FDI'. This topic gives me the excuse to ask about another issue: How much outward FDI is actually by third parties, e.g. how much of the FDI from the UK to the EC is actually carried out by US subsidiaries in the UK? In Canadian balance of payments accounting this used to be called "non-resident equity in Canadian investments abroad", but they no longer keep track of it. At last count it was about 30% of total outward Canadian FDI. Any ideas or comparative studies on what this number would be in other countries? Bill Burgess At 12:38 PM 15/12/98 -0800, you wrote: In response to Tom's question below, I suspect that the Bank of International Settlements may be correct in so far as they go. The norm is not for a company to remove jobs via direct investment in a facility abroad. Outsourcing is a more likely route. Outsourcing need not involve direct investment. Besides, the Bank statement is unclear if t would even pick up the direct investment that leads to outsourcing. For example, GM wants to outsource an auto part. I invest in a shop in Bolivia to make the part, but not direct investment links the change to GM's laying workers off. Tom Kruse wrote: We read: BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1998 [snip] Outflows of foreign direct investment from rich to poor countries are having only a limited negative impact on employment in source economies, according to the Bank for International Settlements. ... "Fears that jobs are being destroyed in the industrialized countries when multinational enterprises invest in low-wage countries are only in part supported by the evidence," according to a working paper prepared by the bank. ... The authors point out that because of the low degree of substitution between employees in parent companies and their affiliates abroad, even where there may be some displacement of home-country workers due to Foreign Direct Investment, "such effects are likely to have been only moderate" ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-9). Comments anyone? This would seem to really challenge the "exporting manufacturing and other good jobs" thesis of globalization. I suppose we'd first need to know what "only in part" means. And what exaclty does substitution mean? That the overseas worker directly substitutes the US worker? What if in the transfer of the production process innovation occurs, eliminating a one-to-one correpsondence between jobs before in the US and jobs after overseas? Any insights? Tom Tom Kruse Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-4) 248242 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:1384] Re: Re: Re: The New Boss
I'm with James Craven that Native's right to travel and trade across the Canada-US border must be defended. Sometimes there are explicit treaties on this; in other cases this right, like other national rights, they have not yet been recognized by the government, but they should still be unconditionally defended. (I also look forward to "a world without borders" - for everyone, but that is a slightly different issue...) On the other hand, I agree with Ken Hanley on defending the Wheat Board as a means of defending farmers against capitalist market irrationality and the Cargill-type monopolists of the world. Unfortunately, some farmers in Canada and in the U.S. mistakenly think the Wheat Board is the problem, just as some workers think the union is the problem. It does not help when the leadership is bad, but a bad union is still better than no union, and the point is to make it a good union. Also many Natives are farmers and many farmers are Native. Actually, what motivated me to write this was just picking up a fascinating book by Sarah Carter, _Lost Harvests_, which looks at how Indians in the prairies in Canada DID begin to farm (or tried to, but were defeated by the Indian Act., etc.). I don't know how, concetetely, this particular clash of rights should be resolved, but I think Ken agreed the Wheat Board should exempt such Native trade, which seems right. It is not likely to injure the larger interests of farmers. A phrase from Raymond Williams come to mind, quoted by David Harvey in his recent book: "The defence and advancement of certain particular interests, properly brought together, are in fact the general interest." I completely agree with Jim that Canadian nationalism has no place here. And IMHO the attack on the Wheat Board is not the result of the FTA or NAFTA but, primarily, Canadian capitalist interests. But I also think that saying "the Canadian Government is more often an out-and-out whore of US imperialism" is doubly wrong. Canada is itself imperialist, and this gets lost when terms like whore are used. I assume it is a derogatory reference here, which I also think wrongs whores. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:1333] Re: McDonalds question
Tom Kruse asked about MacDonalds. In the town of Squamish, here in British Columbia, the Canadian Auto Workers union (formerly the Canadian wing of the UAW) have certified the only MacDonalds in North America (at least I think it is the only one; another franchise in Quebec was unionized a few months ago, but immediately shut down by the owner, probably to defeat the unionization effort). One of MacDonald's legal tactics here has been to argue that workers under the age of 18 could not sign union cards, or dues check-off forms - that, as minors, their parents or guardian's signatures were required. This argument has been turned down in three Labour Board hearings. At least for the moment MacDonalds is not appealing it up the line, but their attitude is pretty clear: Too young to have rights, but not too young to be exploited! This union drive was started by young workers still in high school. One young worker's father, a union member, suggested they contact the CAW. Squamish is a "mill town", traditionally focused on lumber, sawmills and the nearby pulp and paper mill, and its union tradition is probably one reason the drive got underway here. (Of course, the forest industry is currently in deep depression, and generally in long term decline - in number of mills and number of workers, that is, not in output). In one TV interview I saw, a young woman worker, a high school student, said that the main issue in this union drive was not higher wages, but more respect. Negotiations for the first contract are underway with the local franchise owner, but it is well know that MacDonalds headquarters maintains very close connections on anything about unions. I'd be interested if Tom could describe more about the protest against MacDonalds opening in Bolivia (I'll pass it on to the union here), since I am sure (some) issues in Bolivia are different than in North America. Bill Burgess At 08:54 AM 07/12/98 -0400, you wrote: Dear Listmembers: The frist McDonalds in Cochabamba, Bolivia is to open on Friday. We are preparing a protest of sorts. I am writing for help in putting together info. I have the piece by Liza Featherstonein LBO 86, a couple of list posts, but nothing else. I would greatly appreciate ANY critical infomration on McDs, especially profitability, business and labor practices. Also, I vaguely remember The Economist did a Big Mac index, which compared the cost of Big Macs the world over, as a sort of globalized index of costs/values. Does anyone have the citation? We would like to see where Bolivia stands on the global Big Mac index. Many thanks! Tom Tom Kruse Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-4) 248242 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1193] Re: Re: pen-l questions
At 01:59 PM 03/12/98 -0500, Jim Devine wrote:
...But are political economists to leave economic theory to the
neoclassicals?...
Louis replied:
...I think something else is going on, which I am in no position to
evaluate. In the deepest economic crisis since WWII, there is virtually no
discussion of it on PEN-L. This is not caused by "off-topic" posts but by
something else. As Brutus said, "The fault is not in the stars..."
I would vote for more engagement with economic theory on Pen-l. If it
happens to not be a point I am interested in/have time for at the momement,
I can always delete it, like I am sure most of us to do many "off-topic"
points that come down the pike. For example, I did not follow the labour
market issue Jim referred to, but I did appreciate it was raised. When I
have time I will return to a point Jim made about turnover times of
constant capital a while ago (though I am not suggesting a narrow focus on
value theory, etc. for the list).
I also think Louis has put his finger on something very important, the near
silence (especially theoretical, analytical, as opposed to
political-Political) on world economic prospects, crisis, etc. Jim has also
tried to raise this point, like recently providing his excellent paper on
the 'Great' one on his web page. Someone raised Brenner's article in NLR
awhile ago, but I was dissapointed no discussion ensued. (Partly this is
because I have not had a chance to read it, and I was hoping someone would
preview one point or another. I don't think it is wasting other's time to
share impressions and opinions of things that come out - including
mainstream press reports, especially if commented on.)
I can't belive that members of a list with this name are not all thinking
pretty seriously (if not necessarily coherantly) about the big economic
picture.
Or am I wrong - does anyone think Louis P. and the World Bank are playing
'chicken Little' ("the sky is falling; the sky is falling!")?
My apology for urging you to do as I say more than as I do.
Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:1072] NAFTA effects
I'm wondering if, based on the results reported below, we should conclude NAFTA has been 'good' for Canada and Mexico, just like our bosses said it would be. NAFTA's CASUALTIES Employment effects on men, women, and minorities by Jesse Rothstein and Robert Scott In an effort to avoid these methodological pitfalls and to provide a more comprehensive, accurate picture of NAFTAs effects, the model used in this report takes into account both imports and exports and uses industry-level trade, price, and demographic data. In total, NAFTA resulted in a net loss of 394,835 jobs in its first three years. On the whole, imports from Mexico and Canada destroyed a gross total of 797,315 job opportunities. Net losses, after including the gains from exports, were 394,835 jobs. The NAFTA job losses are skewed toward high-wage jobs.
[PEN-L:988] Re: CPs as Stalinist
At 10:48 AM 10/11/98 -0800, Jim Devine wrote As I interpret it, recent social history of the CP-USA suggests that this characterization (which follows the tradition of Theodore Draper and the Cold War consensus) is much much too simple, if not pernicious. The "slavish obedience to the Kremlin" part applied best to the top leadership, but even they would interpret the "line" to serve their own goals. The rank and file of the CP, on the other hand, often didn't care much about the party line as it applied to slavish devotion to the USSR. It seems to me this actually makes Brad's point about the **political** definition of Stalinism. CP leaders defined Stalinist politics in the USA, not rank and file members who may or may not have believed or followed them, for other reasons. I recently re-read Victor Serge's book _From Lenin to Stalin_. In his description of how many 'old Bolshevics' capitulated to Stalin's murderous campaign against the Left Opposition, he provides a powerful statement of the political premium on **not** repeating lies and slanders, or even being silent, on the excuse that the Party is still "building socialism" and will "correct itself" later. (Serge also details how the capitulators were generally executed or died in the camps anyway). CP members everywhere made these choices, including here. Some of them split or were expelled in order to remain communists rather than become Stalinists, on all the big political issues of the day. Sure, many went off the rails, but without their choice most of us would only know the Readers Digest line: Stalinism=communism. Back to Althusser: I may be wrong it was Althusser, but I think I remember a quote from him defending the Stalinist argument that there is only one party in the working class and the rest are objectively counter-revolutionary (OK, I don't actually remember the "objectively counter-revolutionary" part, but I think the *main* point is the same). Sure, he may have changed his mind, but this is what CP members said and acted on, no matter what they thought in private. Hitler became Chancellor while the CP congratulated themselves for their electoral gains against social democracy. Stalinists are not the only political tendency to swing from ultra-left to the right and back again, but I would argue that Althusser's legacy is not unlike these politics. I can't endorse L. Proyect's praise of Althusser for re-thinking the Stalinist base-superstructure. There is a clear line from Althusser to postmodernists and other idealists who drop the base completely and think only of superstructure (OK, more exaggeration, but the main point is obvious). Any day now the opposite error will become fashionable again. When the CP was larger, as during the Popular Front period of the 1930s, there were all sorts of people who supported the CP because it was against capitalism and serious about changing and/or abolishing capitalism or because it was actively fighting fascism. Yes, and the Popular Front was the veering to the right after the ultra left binge where social demcracy was the "twin" of fascism, and Hitler became Chancellor while the CP congratulated themselves for their 'victory' in taking votes from social democracy. Once the only party of the working class, the CP now opted to subordinate the working class to the 'democratic' bourgeoisie. And then there was Spain The rank and file tried to make the CP their own, so that the political pull on the organization was not just from the top. Given the facts that (1) the party needed its members to hand out leaflets, speak to members of the public, participate in activities, etc.; (2) the party leadership wanted a large party; and (3) the leadership's ability to dictate to the membership was limited (lacking, for example, a capitalist boss's ability to sack his or her employees), the membership had an impact on the practical interpretation of the line and on many of the details that had not been filled in by Moscow or the top leadership. The membership had an impact on the _practice_ of the party, even if it may have had limited impact on its theory. Yes, of course, but what is the *point* of a communist party if not *good* political leadership? The CPUSA political leadership chose Stalinism. After a period of time for tests about whether this will change it becomes obvious the CP became a Stalinist party. Otherwise why bother with political categories? I also think that if you look seriously at the record of the old USSR-type economies, you'll find that these systems weren't simply a reflection of their leaderships' goals. The leaders themselves were shaped and selected according to the logic of the organizations they rose to the top of and led. Same point - what is the point of a communist government if not organizing the transition to socialism? Even if it is trying, but making errors - even fatal errors? Stalinism is not communists making errors. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:265] Re: Re: rising rate of profit
At 11:40 AM 23/07/98 -0700, Michael P. wrote in reply to Jim Devine's question on (rising) profit rates in the US: I can think of several reasons. Perhaps the most important is outsourcing. If I have little domestic investment, outsource inputs, and just assemble them output/per capital should increase. Has the increase in outsourcing really been so great as to account for a signficant portion of the rise in profits? And, I get lost in the accounting, but wouldn't only *foreign* outsourcing affect *aggregate or average* US profit rates in this way? Also, I presume Jim's data is for US operations and excludes foreign subsidiaries, but if not, what difference would that make? Jim mentioned that the organic composition of capital falls as (fixed) capital/output rises. If Michael is right about outsourced inputs (which are part of circulating constant capital) the trend in the OCC might change (quite apart from unproductive labour, etc.), since the OCC includes both fixed and circulating constant capital. Years ago I estimated circulating c at about 1/3 of fixed c in manufacturing in Canada (on a "flow" basis, i.e. raw materials and energy plus inventories /capital consumption allowances). I think Mosely and others fail to properly count circulating c (or, more to the point in trend analysis, changes in the ratio of circulating to fixed capital). As I recall, Mosely uses business inventories for circulating c, which is problematic given the different (presumably, but also unknown) rates of turnover of raw material, goods in process and finished goods which are included under this one figure. I confess I find the high (average or aggregate) non-financial profit rates a puzzle. Bill Burgess
Re: Democrats and NAFTA
Nathan Newman wrote: The fact remains that three-quarters of Democrats were willing to defy corporate America, the almost united opinion of the pro-NAFTA press, and their own President to stand on principle and vote against NAFTA. Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan were "willing to defy corporate America" too. Bill Burgess
Re: globaloney
It is the politics of most 'globalization' talk that is the problem. Evading the cardinal difference between 'globalizer' and 'globalized' countries. Populist not socialist opposition to market domination. Relying on capitalist states (protectionism). Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663 University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150
direction of causality
The question of the relation between short skirts and recessions prompts me to ask if anyone can comment or refer me to a discussion of 'dialectical' econometrics, e.g. that takes seriously the notion of interdependent wholes. When I ask my less econometrically challenged friends about this they mumble about Bayesian techniques. BTW, when I did an econometrics course, the example was interest rates in London England and the number of prostitutes arrested in Melbourn (sp?) Australia. We were given the data from a published paper (I remember the R squared was about .72), though I don't know from where (or if our leg was being pulled). Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663 University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150
Indian peoples in Canada
There have been several posts lately on Pen-l about Native land claims in
Canada and the residential school system.
For those interested, the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision upholding
aboriginal title (Delgamuukw [the name of the first of the plaintiffs in
this case] v. British Columbia) is available at :
http://www.droit.umontreal.ca/doc/csc-scc/en/rec/html/delgamuu.en.html
Residential schools are discussed in some detail in Chapter 10 of Volume 1
of the 1997 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report. The entire
report is available at
http://www.libraxus.com/rcap/rcap_entry.htm
and Chapter 10 is at
http://www.libraxus.com/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/finale.nfo/query=*/doc/{@21}?
Just one quote:
"The Aboriginal leader George Manuel, a residential school graduate, was
rather more blunt. The schools, he wrote, were the laboratory and
production line of the colonial system
the colonial system that was
designed to make room for European expansion into a vast empty wilderness
needed an Indian population that it could describe as lazy and
shiftless
the colonial system required such an Indian for casual labour
"
The Royal Commission report includes a discussion on terminology - Indian,
aboriginal, First Nations, Metis, metis, Native, etc. I used "Indian" in
the subject head of this post only to encourage those interested to take a
look.
BTW, the final volume and recommendations of the Royal Commission report
would be a great reference for an assignment on cost-benefit analysis. They
try to show it would cost less to address Native land claims, etc. than
continue the status quo.
Bill Burgess
Re: david harvey
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Louis Proyect wrote: Well, that's the problem. As I have pointed out a number of times, the Bolsheviks had a much more radical view on ecology. Percentage-wise, much more land was protected from development in the former Soviet Union in the 1920s than in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. I am afraid that Harvey, for all his brilliance, is not aware of this. This amalgam between the Nazis and environmentalism first came up in the 1970s, when the Springer press in Germany wrote unceasingly about Nazi youth in lederhosen going out on nature hikes. It is depressing to see David Harvey raise this canard in 1998. You may be right Harvey is unaware of the Bolshevic record. It is an imporant point we need to know more about. I'm sceptical about calling it "radical ecologist" though. Calling Nazis radical ecologists is a bit strained too, except in Harvey's context of how some wings of the movement embrace authoritarian subordination of human interests to the preservation of a very particular 'nature'. Don't you worry about how bioregionalists would enforce 'natural' boundaries? To be honest I don't know about the actual Nazi record on these points; perhaps someone can comment? However, I think it is wrong to sneer at concern for wildlife, old-growth forests, etc. If anything, the bourgeois wing of the movement (this is a I don't find sneering in Harvey's book. It's more a question of political priorities and orientation, which is certainly legit. And what does Harvey get in an uproar over? The use of the word "vulnerable". This is really stupid. Everybody understands that the planet I looked at the passage again. Harvey credits Foster a lot, but takes him to task because "the very idea that the planet is somehow "vulnerable" to human action...repeats in negative form the hubristic claims of those who aspire to planetary domination." His sees nothing in Foster's "argument that cannot be made broadly compatable with a segment of corporate capital's concerns to rationalize planetary management for their own interests". I don't know if this is right or not, but I do see the need to cut right through the "we're all in the same lifeboat/planet" line. Bill Burgess
david harvey
I'm glad Louis P. intends to look at David Harvey's new book more
carefully, because I think Harvey has been somewhat misrepresented (there
are clearly also real political differences).
Harvey is no point-of-production-only 'Marxist'. Quite the contrary. I
don't know what he said on this at the forum Louis referred to; given how
he has been hammered for 'totalizing metanarative' etc. in his 1989 book on
postmodernism, perhaps he occasionally has to restate the facts of life
about class society. (My own take on his 1989 book is that while correctly
trying to relate the emergence of pomo to the changing nature of
capitalism, he fails to really incorporate the crucial intermediary in his
explanation, namely class.) Harvey has been trying to bring space and place
into Marxism for decades.
The point Harvey makes over and over in his 1996 book _Justice, Nature and
the Geography of Difference_ is the impossibility of referring to nature,
the environment, etc. as separate or external to human society. I would
have thought Louis would appreciate his provocation that "...in a
fundamental sense there is nothing unnatural about New York city..."(p. 186).
It is not sectarian in the least to identify the class content in different
environmentalist positions, or to note the reactionary edges (he reminds us
the Nazis were the first radical ecologists to hold state power). Harvey's
political complaint is that middle class environmentalism fixates on
non-urban 'pristine nature', while cities choke from pollution and the best
way to locate toxic waste sites is to visit lower-income minority
communities. I don't think Lenin's "tribune of the people" set aside
his/own own class politics, in fact they are what makes it possible to take
up broader concerns.
It is also unfair to suggest Harvey closes his eyes to ecological
constraints to (current) society. He repeats the elementary materialist
fact that planet earth can be altered but not destroyed. As I recall it,
his criticism of apocaliptic accounts is more for their de-politicising and
demoralizing effects (this is never a socialist stance) as it is any
particular evaluation of the scientific evidence on this point.
Harvey does take a crack at Michael Perelman, along with Ted Benton and
James O'Conner, for the way they take up the issue of natural limits
("capitulation to capitalist arguments" - p.146). However, he also notes
the obverse error has been all too common among Marxists, and goes on to
think about what a more adequately dialectical formulation of the problem
might be. I didn't find any breakthrough, but the effort deserves more
respect than Louis' comments suggest.
Bill Burgess
Re: U.S. will not sign MAI (fwd)
On Sat, 14 Feb 1998, Sid Shniad wrote: Bill, I have a methodological question: why is there a single "real reason" involved? This implies that the real actors are capitalists and that the actions of the little folk in striking, demonstrating,etc. are merely incidental. Or am I missing something? It's not methodological so much as it is a different political assessement of what MAI means. I agree MAI should be opposed, but I think it is a proposed deal among the thieves rather than some qualitative new form of thievery (which is how it is perceived by much of the MAI opposition e.g., in Canada, by anti MAI leaders like Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke). Our efforts should be focussed on the time honored issues of the labour and social movements. IMHO, placing too much weight on the question of the MAI is a political diversion, and I think we exagerate our success if we think it was primarily pressure from below that has now stalled it. I guess I'm a 'doubting Thomas' on the issue of MAI. Bill Burgess
Re: primitive communism
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Doug Henwood wrote, about Louis saying "What about giving land back to the Indians as they are doing in Canada?": Is this really going to happen? I find it nearly impossible to believe that a capitalist government would ever sign over significant amounts of land to aboriginals, no matter how solid their claim. Am I being too cynical? Alas, not too cynical. Of course further struggle can change things. Louis is right to note the very important recent Supreme Court decision in Canada upholding Indian title to land. It probably affects the province of B.C. most, because the British colonial and then provincial government here never got around to "negotiating" treaties of any kind over most of B.C., whereas there are scraps of paper covering much of the rest of Canada where it is written the Indians agreed to extinguish their title to the land. The capitalist spokespersons most opposed to land settlements here are almost apoplectic about the Supreme Court ruling, that, in effect, BC has been violating Indian property rights and Canadian law for over 100 years. However, it should also be noted that the Supreme Court laid down very restrictive criteria for claiming title, including uninterupted occupation and use, and stated that acknowledging title does not mean that Canada and B.C.do not also have property rights and jursidiction. As I understand it the Court really said compensation must be paid for expropriating Indian land, and urged negotiations to settle these issues. This is still a huge legal victory, but no land has been given back (except minor adjustments to reserve boundaries, and to the extent that the new Territory of Nunavut composed of parts of the old Northwest and Yukon Territories includes very partial Inuit self-rule over this majority Inuit jurisdiction). An agreement in principle between BC, Canada and the Nisgaa people has been signed to create a Nisgaa territory in the Nass Valley in BC near the Alaska border, but it has not been ratified by B.C. and Canada, and in any case amounts to less than 10% of the original land claim and would subject the proposed Nisgaa jurisdiction to almost all Canadian and BC laws.(If interested, check out the Nisgaa web site). Bill Burgess
Re: Swastika (was Starr)
On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, valis wrote, about my worry that Buchannan-type forces benefit most from the pornoization of politics, noting the Nazis' promises of purpose and morality in government: True enough at a glance, Bill, but weren't conditions in late Weimar far worse in every way? We have a ways to go yet, though I'm not making an argument for complacency. You are right; I didn't intend to suggest we are there yet, and crying wolf on fascism happens too often. My point is that the degeneration of politics (the stuff on TV) wins right wing populists (and the darker forces as well) more converts than it does socialists, and this should inform our reactions. (I couldn't help be pleased, in some ways, that Clinton went _up_ in the polls, thinking that perhaps it reflects a strong sense of fairness, due process, etc. However, it also might tip the balance on if/when to murder more Iraqians...) Bill Burgess
Re: Ken Starr
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, James Heartfield wrote: Permanent scandal is getting to be the norm for the political process in most countries. Yes, and I admit spending longer than usual watching the news because of Clinton's latest, even though it seems to me on a bigger canvas it should be apparant that this kind of 'politics' ultimately benefits the Pat Buchanans of the world the most. Less and less debate about the economy, civil rights, foreign politics, etc.; more and more character assasination, the politics of resentment, the 'pornoization' of politics. Didn't the Nazis step into this kind of atmosphere to bring purpose and morality back into government? Bill Burgess
Re: The situation in Cuba
ot;using market mechanisms to build socialism", but rather to foster what Che called the "new man". You may think this is what they say rather than what they do, but it _is_ what they say. At least it is what Castro and the central CPC leaders say. There are lots of Cubans who thought the capitalist or the USSR way was the way to go. They _lost_ the debate in the CPC, at least for now. - the state has actually advertised its "labour discipline" as a selling point to potential foriegn investors What is wrong with that? It is a huge selling point, i.e. an incredibly well-education and trained labour force, healthy and without problems of child care availability, etc., accustomed to working collectively, unlikely to have to strike because of the protection assured by virtue of the role of the unions, CPC and government in the economy, etc. etc. Lest we forget, the Cuba Workers Confederation is not an autonomous workers organization - it is a state body! It's newspaper, Trabajadores, is a state paper! Depending what you mean by "autonomous". Throughout the crisis, the Union position has been indistinguishable from other state bodies. Indeed, the union has demanded that workers develop 'discipline, efficiency and a new mentality', as this is what is required in the new partnership with global capital. Not true; there have been real sharp debates over many questions - but they are issues "within socialism", and since you don't think it exists, I suspect they wouldn't seem relevent. Discipline, efficiency and a new mentality _are_ needed to move forward to socialism. In Cuba these terms do _not_ have the connotation you put on them. The second part of your statment is a slander: no Cuban unions talk about a "new partnership with global capital", and nor does the government or CPC. So what the Union Congress says is one thing; what you will hear speaking with displaced workers on the street corner is something very different. Yes, often this is the case. If it wasn't you'd have to wonder. I'd add that some Cubans I spoke to who had no job said they could work if they wanted to, but the minimum wage was too low or the work, often agriculture-related, was too hard. As I said above, this is not unemployement as we know it in capitalist countries. It is poverty. State farms were officially named co-ops, yes. You are referring here to the 'basic units of cooperative production'. Here's the deal with these. Workers collectively 'own' the machinery and the harvest; land, however, remains in state hands, production quotas are set by the state, and the coop can only sell its produce to the state, at government-set prices. The country's established pay scales do not apply, but rather wages vary according to productivity, a measure intended to establish a subsistence-based incentive to labour - sounds alot like pieve-work/ commission to me! There is nothing unsocialist about piece-work/commission pay! The state privatizes machinery, so workers now have to pay for repairs and replacements themselves; the state privatizes the harvest, so a bad year is the responsibility of the workers, and so that workers are responsible for their own subsistence. But the state retains control over land, and over the price produce will be sold at? Over all, the state has simply renounced its responsibility for the subsistence needs of farmers without surrendering its control over production quotas, market prices, and land use. My point was that the turning _some_ state farms into co-ops was a step backward in the generally progressive trend of extending wage labour. But in this case it was a necessary and positive step 'backwards', because of the burden of a bureaucratic layer in state farms who stood in the way of producers having more direct say (and in agriculture, above all, this is crucial, because it is a labour of nurture), and who ate up too much of the output. There is still extensive _private_ (gasp!) ownership of agricultural land in Cuba too. Probably the most positive thing about the Cuban revolution is that it did not forcably collectivize agriculture. It is nonsence to say that the Cuban government has given up its responsibility to the subsistance needs of farmers: these measures, following the initiatives of the former state farm workers themselves, were to _increase_ their subsistance needs, by attacking bureaucratic management approaches which had failed. Bill Burgess
Re: The situation in Cuba
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Sid Shniad wrote, about the TINA line: How do you keep from careening along this slippery slope once you've set foot on it? Seems to me that this was the issue posed by Brian's interventions. I agree this is a real question, but I thought Brian's intervention tried to bypass the problem altogether by not even considering the difference between tactical concessions and strategic concessions (poor choice of words here, but all I can think of right now). Castro explains each of these measures as concessions, as necessary evils, as forced on Cuba by circumstances beyond its control. That they are accepted as a _strategy_ is carefully rejected. Social democracy el all around the world turn them from evils into virtues, and they don't even have to change their strategy because that was it all along. The strategy in Cuba is still to build socialism by appealing to the higher qualities that human beings are capable of, not individual greed, and to go down to defeat before submitting to imperialism. The concessions to foreign capital are still minor exceptions in the Cuban economy, and firmly within the control of the Cuban state. As tricky as it is, this problem is trivial compared with the real challenges in Cuba. For example, just how _do_ you overcome bureaucratic tendencies in economic management that stifle workers intitative and morale, especially in a poor country? This was the whole theme of the "rectification campaign" against the USSR-type methods that had prevailed for the previous decade or two. Much more interesting issue for this list, IMHO. Bill Burgess Bill Burgess
Re: Pope Scolds Capitalist Neoliberalism Embargo
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote: What I am arguing is that Cuba, as well as most other Soviet block countries did not create internationalist momentum other than ideological appeals and political organizations. What they were really after, however, was a protection of their budding economies from foreign competition. In that respect, the Soviet-style revolution was merely an effort to catch up with capitalist advances elsewhere, not to transcend those advances. Cuba is different than the Soviet block countries were. The CPC program states that the interests of of the Cuban revolution are subordinate to the world revolution (or words to that effect). They "risked everything" (Castro) to turn back the South African invasion of Angola - AGAINST the policy of the USSR, including its condition that Soviet supplied weapons NOT be used outside Cuba. Nelson Mandela has said the that Cuban role in Angola is what made the liberation of Namibia and South Africa possible.. My first cab driver in Cuba was a Black vetran of Angola, who expressed incredible pride for having helped defeat the South African racist army, and was very clear he _volunteered_ to go. "[Protect their budding economies from competition"? Yes, from the London sugar cartel and the IMF. But Cuba genuinely wants to trade with the US and other capitalist countries. X-Albanian and n.Korean-style isolationism are not socialist virtues. Bill Burgess
Re: The situation in Cuba
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Sid Shniad wrote: Query: given the outrageous hostility of the States and the enormous economic difficulties facing Cuba today, how does allowing (encouraging?) increased income differentials (to the point where women are forced into prostitution) help address the underlying problems? In solidarity with the Cuban people, Sid This issue certainly hit me on a trip to Cuba a few years ago. And the arguments made by the leadership of the Cuban Federation of Women that the 'amateur prostition' in Cuba was different than in capitalist countries because it was not out of real need but rather for luxuries, etc. - i.e. was not really prostitution - was hardly reassuring. Castro's welcome to the Pope was a wonderful example of staying on the moral high ground. I think that closing one's eyes to the fact that people are selling themselves is a dangerous shortcut. However, it would be unfair to say the Cuban government encourages prostitution. For example, contrary to the claims by Brian that there is no difference between the Cuban and Canadian governments in terms of cutbacks to social services, the Cubans have "not closed a single hospital or school or daycare". This common phrase may be an exageration, but the basic point is that austerity has NOT been imposed on the backs of the working class, but on the whole country. Compare this to the IMF approach adopted by any capitalist governments in other poor countries in the world. No one who has been to Cuba and any other country can deny the difference in social standards and basic social solidarity. Ironically, the equality of Cuban austerity is one of the reasons we see CBC or CNN reporting on doctors and achitects selling their bodies. It's not news when an unemployed garment worker and single mother becomes a prostitute. Access to dollars is central to the issue of prostitution and income inequalities in Cuba. We could pretend that a socialist government could avoid their corrupting influence by banning dollars or even going back to the earlier restricted access to a parallel dollar market (and the latter was loathed as a double standard by Cubans I met, even if most agreed it was necessary). But when your main trade partner and source of most foreign exchange vanished off the map but you are still 90 miles from Miami? Bureaucratic corruption would explode and you would be criminalizing half the citizenry. It was also obvious to me that if cops were to arrest all the black-marketers I saw on Havana streets, most of those in jail would be Black. I have read that workers in many tourist centres volunteered to do what had been done officially by the previous approach, i.e. turn over (part of) their dollar earnings to the local hospital, day care, etc. I don't know how widespread this is, but it is a more encouraging perspective than promoting a corrupt bureaucracy and having a cop looking over every shoulder. Bill Burgess
Re: The situation in Cuba
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Brian Green wrote: What I AM saying is that Castro (and others in the Cuban leadership) have in the last few years begun to rely on the same excuses as rulers elsewhere to justify anti-popular and anti-worker legislation - namely, the logic of 'There is no alternative" (to use Istvan Meszaros' term). Specifics, please on the "anti-popular and anti-worker legislation"! Or at least some reference so we know what you are talking about. For example, "income tax" has now been imposed on Cubans for the first time. Sounds like 'anti-worker' legislation, just like in Canada, except that in Cuba it only applies to income from private enterprise. What's anti-worker about insisting everyone pay their share, not just those who work for the state? productivity - the state demands ever-increasing yields to boost economic growth, while workers consistently find new ways to resist all such attempts to make them work more for less - Increasing yields is the ONLY way to overcome material poverty in Cuba. And the accounts of the recent union congresses and CPC convention are dominated by discussion of how workers can better organize to do this - themselves, in their own organizations, not waiting for some state bureaucrat to tell them what to do. My own personal experience may be a trivial example, but I saw this process in action in Cuba, working for a week in hospital construction. another framework for the accumulation of capital and the extension of waged labour. I know, this is a serious and complex issue, the difference between capitalism and socialism. But aside from the concessions to foreign ownership, which are still minimal in Cuba and not any question of principle, what "accumulation of capital" is taking place? Surely you don't think that renting out a room in your own house is a threat to socialism. And "the extention of waged labour" is a good thing; actually, it has been necessary to take a few steps back on this. Some state farms have been turned into co-ops in order to get rid of a layer of functionaries who were unproductive, and to promote more control by and higher incomes for the actual producers. This is a good thing, not bad. As Sid pointed out, the current reform in Cuba hearkens back to the NEP -- and rather than simply spout off about the lack of alternatives, perhaps we should be asking ourselves these questions: where did the NEP lead? Socialism is not like instant coffee. It is easy to make mistakes in the inevitable NEP-type stages necessary to overcome economic crises, but it is no solution to ignore the crisis, which is what it seems to me you are arguing. and if the supposed solution consistently resides in the adoption of capitalist solutions to boost growth, then perhaps we need to reconsider our conception of socialism. If we don't do this, and if we don't critically analyze the socialism that has existed, how are we supposed to avoid making these same mistakes in the future? Fidel Castro says this in EVERY speach he gives. Don't you listen? Why do you think that despite the incredible pressure, the Cuban government is the only one on earth who still says capitalism is bankrupt and socialism is the only solution - and are acting accordingly? Re: Sid's note on stories that the Cuban government, in effect, pimps by encouraging prostitutes to have their customers spend more dollars. I know that Sid doesn't mean it this way, but this sounds like the kind of absurd stuff that comes out of the Cuban rightist forces in Miami. I expressed my unease about how the Federation of Women explained prostitution, but there is no doubt they and the government oppose prostitution, and are trying to find ways of combatting it. Their approach is to not victimize the prostitutes like the laws here do, but as I understand it, prostitution is still illegal. Perhaps someone else knows more about this? Bill Burgess
Re: Fidel religion, capital embargo
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Brian Green wrote: Cuba is fully integrated into world capitalism...profit is the Cuban state's bottom line... Are you saying the world market dominates Cuba the way it does, say, Mexico or s. Korea? What about the state monopoly on foreign trade? Profit is the bottom line? The Cubans are doing more and more sharp cost accounting (every economist should favour that!) and making decisions accordingly. But where are the capitalists, and what exactly would you have liked the government to do differently, given the circumstances? Bill Burgess
Re: marriage and prostitution
On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Fleck_S wrote: prostitution and marriage are the two most common occupations of women - Even in the poorest countries in the world surely the first part of this claim is untrue (assuming something close to a conventional definition of prostitution). Bill Burgess
Re: prostitution
On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote: there is a better chance a woman being brutalized by someone with whom she is in non-commodified relationship (a boyfriend or a husband) than by a 'john' in the commodified sexual act. This is not only too much faith in the equality of buyer and seller in the market, it is too bleak a view of most (physical and emotional) relations between men and women to be taken seriously. There is a very good reason for the 'socialist moralism' regarding prostitution - it reflects the plebian horror of falling into poverty, privation, dependency, lumpenization, etc. The middle class can afford a more 'objective'view, and a more romantic one. Bill Burgess
Re: Marx on Native Americans
Doug Henwood wrote: Can anyone recommend anything good to read on Native Americans/Indians? I found Ronald Wright's _Stolen Continents_ a real education. His account of the Spanish conquest is incredible. If I remember correctly, Wright estimates that 9/10s of the Indian population died from new diseases before the actual military conquest occurred. New research on the (much later) contact here along the Fraser River in B.C. also suggests that 9 out of 10 died in smallpox epidemics (previous research had estimated death rates of about 25%). Such estimates have real political importance, particularly in light of the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision that Indians DO have title to much of the land mass of Canada (including most of BC), and establishing continuous occupation and use as one of the criteria for proving title. I look forward to more discussion of the alliances between Indians and the French and British and Americans against each other. Any effort to paint Indians as reactionary for lining up with the British against the Americans is surely out of line. I happened to go to a high school named after the Indian leader Tecumseh, who provided the majority of the actual fighting forces on the British side in the war of 1812, but who was abandoned in battle and killed, and the British promises to provide land for his fighters were, of course, never honored. But they didn't tell us about that in high school! Canadian marxist historian Stanley Ryerson quotes an 18th century historian about the Iroqois strategy: "to hold the scale evenly balanced betwen the two [white] nations, whose mututal jealosy the Iroqois sought by both and ensured their safety". Similarly, he quotes a New York official of the alliances in the earlier French period: "To preserve a balance between us and the French is the great ruling principle of modern Indian politics." Bill Burgess
Re: Canada
Doug Henwood wrote: I hear this from a lot of Canadians - the implication being that Canada didn't have a debt problem. With a structural budget deficit of over 5% of GDP in 1991, net government interest payments also over 5% of GDP, and the second-highest net government debt position in the G-7 (after Italy), I'd say those are numbers too big to ignore. With a net international investment position of -41% of GDP in 1996, I'd say that Canada still has a debt problem. When you've got a big debt, your creditors call the shots, no? Or am I missing something here? I think the OECD numbers include government enterprises, and in Canada this means the provinically owned Hydros, who are very large borrowers, and so skew the comparison a bit if comparable utilities are not government owned. However there is no doubt that Canadian capitalism is a big borrower. It is also true that there was a tendency in the campaign against free trade to promote a near-conspiracy theory that the Bank of Canada interest rate hikes were part of a secret side deal to the FTA itself. In other words, the job losses were blamed on 'free' trade rather than reflecting something more fundamental about Canadian capitalism. Still, the articles at the time (including in the WSJ, that Tom Walker referred to) which compared Canada to Mexico and some other 'third' world countries are absurd. Linda McQuaig's book provides a great description of how this was a deliberate campaign to 'convince' us of the need for austerity. Canada may be a big borrower but it is also itself a major lender. Total outward FDI is only 5% less than inward FDI. And while total foreign liabilities are 1.7 times those of total foreign assets, this ratio has not increased *dramatically* compared to previous decades. Net foreign liabilities were 42% of GDP in 1996, but they also hit 42% in 1961. I don't have the figures at hand, but I'd be surprised if Canada's net foreign liabilities as a share of GDP have increased much more than that of the OECD average. Bill Burgess
Re: dead girls in China
signficantly the social status of one-fifth of all the women and girls in the world was raised by the Chinese revolution. Has any other society done more in less time? Bill Burgess
Re: dead girls in China
I understand that most of the gap in the number of girls as opposed to boys in China is due to *under-reporting* of girls rather than female infanticide. If the first born is a girl, if she is not reported a second child may be the desired boy. China's one child rule is a reactionary measure, but one-sided reports are no better. Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663 University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150
Re: Lenin-Stalin
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Ricardo Duchesne wrote: Turning the question around, however, I think Lenin has to be criticized for his "merciless" disposition toward those in the left who were not with the Bolsheviks. Perhaps, perhaps not. But even if so, this is hardly comparable to Stalin's (later) record. Rather than accepting Trotsky's 1903 comments on the party, how about allowing for a little human agency? Bill Burgess
Re: Reason, Abu-Lughod
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Ricardo Duchesne wrote: This statement is both wrong in fact and theory. The Gulag was a creation of Stalin, whose ascendancy to power was made possible, to a large degree, by Lenin's creation of a highly centralized political party - as Trotsky had predicted back in 1903. (Yes, I know about the letters. But up until them, Lenin relied, without much complaint, on Stalin's hard, merciless, callous political methods. What "hard, merciless, callous, political methods" did Stalin practice while Lenin was still alive? Accepting the land policy of the majority party among peasants (SRs) and welcoming them into the government? Bending over backwards to maintain the support of peasants (the NEP)? Upholding the right of national self-determination? Were there any "confessions" by German agents who had managed to worm their way into the Party' leading bodies while pretending to be revolutionaries for several decades? Bill Burgess
Re: Marx on colonialism
Ajit wrote:
history. As long as one holds that historical and dialectical materialism
is the 'true' theory and the road to truth (as Lenin did), then many crimes
against humanity can be justified in the name of history and human destiny.
A Stalin can always justify killing millions of innocent people in the name
of history and human destiny.
This is too much. Crimes against humanity are/have been justified on
*many* grounds. Stalin's justifications ("agents of Germany"; forced
collectivization; crushing minority nationalism) were all the *antithesis*
of Lenin's Marxist approach, which is not driven by "history and human
destiny" but flesh and blood men and women in class-divided society.
Bill Burgess
Re: Do the Jews Own America?
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Louis Proyect wrote: This raises some very interesting issues. Part of the problem is that American Jewry *is* an important part of the ruling class. It *does* wield enormous power in Hollywood, real estate, retail and Wall Street investment banking. This economic base allows it to shape the policies of the Democratic Party, including the pro-Zionist tilt. Leni Brenner's book "The Jews in America" does a good job pointing this out, including the fact that the Jews are the main financial base of the Democratic Party. While one could argue that they are underrepresented in heavy industry, petrochemical, transportation, agribusiness, etc., I hardly expect this fact to sway the thinking of somebody who takes Nazi propaganda seriously. But as you know it is not only those inclined to take Nazi propaganda seriously who emphasize the division between finance etc. and industry. Keeping the signficance of the former in proper proportion is necessary to argue against the conspiracy theories. So if there is any accessable summary of corporate ownership/control by ethnicity I would appreciate the reference. And are Jews the main financial base of the Republicans as well? Bill Burgess
Re: Do the Jews Own America?
I appreciated Wojtek's point of how simple logic and clear context is
often better than numberjumbo. But Louis is right about how concrete
evidence is ignored/avoided. As Lenin liked to say (according to a list of
all-time citations I saw, Lenin comes right after Shakespeare), "Facts are
stubborn things." Statistics may be a shadow on the wall, but at least
there is something substantial projecting that shadow, whereas the usual
evidence for conspiracy theories is more like personal annecdote ("My
cousin knows a guy who has had 17 bosses and all them were Jews.")
I was the one who asked Louis for references on this, and I still think it
would help me to refer my friends to a serious study on this question,
especially since, as has been pointed out, Jews *are* prominently
represented in certain sectors of the economy. Pomoists have had too much
success in encouraging rarified discourse in place of serious
empirical investigation. Academics have the time and resources to do the
latter and this is one way we can be most useful.
--------
Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663
University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150
Re: Truth?
Ricardo D. wrote My problem with this is that adding "sides" to an argument does not constitute by itself a dialectical approach. Marxist have the wrong habit of thinking that if they connects "x" to "y", then they are dialectical. Moreover, how many sides does one incorporate before denconstructing the essential core of marxism? One of the points I got out of Lebowitz's _Beyond Capital_ is the criteria for evaluating the adequacy of a concept (I think this is related to "how many sides..."). As I understand it, Marx, following Hegel, argued that all suppositions should also be results (e.g. see in _Capital_ where he explains in machinofacturer rather than manufacture is the characteristic form of production under capitalism). I think this helps define the (differing) relevence of various sides, which I take to be your concern about the 'essential core of Marxism'. Also, I wouldn't want to try to represent _Beyond Capital_, but I think it's point is not *adding* sides to _Capital_ but begining to elaborate sides that were always there but that Marx could not complete. Bill Burgess
Re: Truth?
Paul Z. wrote: Bill, I haven't seen the Anderson work (have others?), but it sounds curious. Why would Stalinism promote 1908 Lenin except as part of the Lenin cult it wanted? just as it used Marx when useful. Paul Louis P. added some useful detail on the political background to Anderson's book. I think I would agree with him that the emphasis on Hegel can be taken too far, but I do think it is a tonic against 'vulgar materialism' (Lenin, 1914), thus important to identifying the real record of Marxism on the philosophical points discussed relative to pomoists and others. As I think Paul suggests above, "even the devil can quote the scriptures for his own purposes". It seems that 1914 Lenin was very inconvenient for Stalinism, where a kind of mechanical, party-dictated philosophy is a tool for sectarian political ends. It is similarly the preferred foil for opponents of Marxism. Louis already noted that in 1980 Lenin's specific purpose was to oppose Bogdanov. Since I don't know enough on all this I would be interested in any comments on whether this 1908 position is as crude as Louis suggests. Anderson certainly suggests Lenin in 1914 was admitting he was a vulgar materialist in 1908, but this is an example of where I wonder if he does not go too far. I'd also be interested in whether the Johnson-Forest tendency (Anderson's political pedigree) agreed with Trotsky's emphasis on dialectics in opposing the characterization of the USSR as capitalist (see_In Defence of Marxism_), since Anderson lumps Trotsky in with all the others who forgot the Hegel in Marx. An example of how attention to Hegel helps is Mike Lebowitz's _Beyond Capital_, which is a very convincing and important demonstration of how many understandings of Marx's project are so one-sided, and the need to develop the 'political economy of workers' that Marx had projected as part of _Capital_ but was not able to get to. Lebowitz also refers to 1914 Lenin, and the latter's aphorism to the effect that as a result of not reading Hegel's _Science of Logic_ 'Marxism' had not understood Marx for the previous 50 years. James Devine has frequently recommended this book on Pen-L and it really is unfortunate how little attention it has received. Bill Burgess
Re: Truth?
I just happened to skim through Kevin Anderson's _Lenin, Hegel, and Western Marxism (U of Ill. Press, 1995) who argues Lenin's position in his 1908 Empirocriticism shifted by 1914 when he re-read Hegel to try to come to grips with Social Democracy's support for war. Thus the Philosphical Notebooks are Lenin's more mature view on such questions, and Andersons also tries to illustrate this in later debates like over trade unions. Anderson suggests Stalinism has upheld Lenin in 1908 and suppressed his later and more nuanced, dialectical approach. Engels also gets a few boots. This is a very crude summary. My reason for offering it is to ask for more discussion on this issue, since I too am tired of the continual suggestions that 'classical' Marxism ever claimed ABSOLUTE truth or that subjectivity in knowledge is a pomo discovery. At the same time it does seem to me that Stalinism did infect a lot of left thinking, and that we need to be sharper in the contest still being fought between materialism and idealism, etc. Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663 University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:12625] Re: Third World economic decline (fwd)
Louis Proyect wrote: Leaving aside the question of growth per se, the real question is capital formation. Indonesia and the "tigers", etc. will never join the first rank of imperialist nations. This is historically precluded. I tend to agree with this, but the "Asian miracle" is a big question, and I'd like to see more discussion of this issue, comments on recent books, etc. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:12624] Re: Culture
On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, Doug Henwood wrote: For some reason, it's popular in PC copyediting circles to capitalize Black but not white. I've never understood the reason for this. I asked editors at two now-defunct publications, the Guardian and CrossRoads, why they did this, and neither could explain it. Isn't this because (at least in the US) Black is a nationality while white is not? If the context makes this political designation appropriate there is good reason to capitalize. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:12334] Re: NAFTA
Last weeK I dashed off a criticism of some "talking points' against NAFTA fast-fastacking that had been posted on PEN-L. I argued they blamed Mexicans for increased bad food and (illegal) drugs in the US; that blaming NAFTA for job losses let capitalism off the hook; and that citing 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico was hypocritical. I thought these were yuppie-Perot reasons for opposing NAFTA. - Several people replied that it was unregulated markets in Mexico (not Mexicans) that were being blamed for bad food. Max Sawicky complained my "translation" mirrored the mainstream media's characterization of anti-NAFTA sentiment as xenophobic and racist. Unfortunately I do think this characterization of the *campaign* against NAFTA is (partly) true. Not that the pro-NAFTA forces are any less guilty, and worse. Both frameworks are rotten. We should reject, not support Perot, Buchanan type arguments by clearly opposing NAFTA on the basis of the interests of working people in both (and all) countries. Complete silence on one side is complicity with the dominant voice. Michael Pereleman noted that it is not blaming Americans to assert that WTO regulations make it difficult to keep steroids and growth hormones out of food in European countries. I'm not sure how this point connects to NAFTA on Mexico. Should be oppose increasing access to out markets by all countries whose health and safety regulations are less stringent than our's (i.e. most of the world)? Are pesticides really the problem or is capitalism the problem? I agree with most of Erik Leaver's points on food (and I was relieved that apparantly I was not the only one to feel the talking points were one-sided). In my opinion, another good food-related reason to oppose NAFTA is how it has helped push indigenous farmers off communally-owned land in Mexico. I think many farmers in the US, who are also being pushed off their land by the banks and agribusiness can identify with this. I also like it because it gets out of the usual framework of thinking of our interests as consumers. No one commented on the arguments about NAFTA reductions in border inspections being responsible for more illegal drugs in the US. It is hard to *not* translate this into a call for more border cops, inspections, searches, etc. with all this means for immigrants, refugees and ordinary working people. This is the Perot-Buchanan-Democrat-Republican line. For a world without borders! I had said that "blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without NAFTA would be just fine". Max Sawicky replied: "Self-evident rubish. It implies there would be jobs without NAFTA that are gone as a result of NAFTA. Nobody thinks the left's job is done if NAFTA goes down. Sheesh." I'm still scratching my head on this one. The (original) claim was that "...NAFTA is responsible for the loss of nearly half-a-million U.S. jobs." NAFTA caused those job losses. If you *don't mention* the role of capitalism, corporate greed, etc. they are not included as causes. No NAFTA, no job losses caused, no problem. It seems to me Max's approach is to wait until NAFTA is killed by Ross Perot arguments and *then* get on with the left's job of explaining how rotton capitalism is. Erik Leaver posted some points about the tendentious use of statistics on NAFTA's job effects. We had the same in Canada about the impact of Canada-US 'free' trade: some anti 'free' traders made wild claims about job losses due to its implementation and completely ignored the effect of the recession or capitalist crisis. When this line became untenable the fallback was a near-conspiracy theory that the recession was caused by the Bank of Canada's high interest policy ...implemented at the behest of *US* corporations. Its not domestic capitalists but foreign capitalists that are blamed, in other words not capitalism at all, but foreigners. I had complained about the 'border ecology' argument. Shouldn't we favour a "massive increase" in industry in this country underdeveloped by imperialism, including by allowing freer access to the richest market in the world? Are jobs for Mexican workers only OK if the pollution stays away from out border? Or should they all locate in Mexico City? I'm sure we all favour rational, balanced, minimally-polluting economic development in Mexico, but they can't wait for world socialism for us to support it, and to do so without giving up anything on protecting ecology everywhere. Another point to link our interests in the US and Canada with those in Mexico against these trade deals: the ne-nationalization of Mexico's petroleum industry, which is another blow against their right to develop independently of imperialism. -------- Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663 University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:12359] Re: NAFTA
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Max B. Sawicky wrote (about our difference on blaming NAFTA for job losses): The left's job is to strive for practical, incremental gains in a way that points to larger solutions. I agree with this, but I disagree you can "point to larger solutions" by blaming job losses on NAFTA in a way that is virtually indistinguishable from Perot et all. I'm not suggesting maximum program everywhere, all the time, but the left should raise proposals in a way that unites our side and brings out our common interests, not reproduces those that e.g. are imposed by imaginary lines on the earth's surface. Now we seem to be getting closer to your argument, which seems to be a brief for trade liberalization so that Mexico can escape its underdevelopment. Is this how you think Mexico will develop? It sounds like by your criteria, to paraphrase you, "capitalism in Mexico 'with freer access to the richest market in the world' would be just fine." Except that I did try (whether adequately or not) to "point to the larger solution" in both the US/Canada and Mexico. And yes, I am in favour of 'trade liberalization' if by that is meant freer access for oppressed countries to world markets. Aren't you? This does not mean support for NAFTA or other trade agreements that are designed to consolidate the power of imperialism (and in this are not different than all their other economic policies, even if this one is more weighty than some). Your alternatives seem to consist of: a world without borders capitalism is rotten a "massive increase" in industry in this country underdeveloped by imperialism, including by allowing freer access to the richest market . . . dispossession of Mexican peasants from their land oppose denationalization of Mexican oil To clarify: it was * against* the "dispossession of Mexican peasants from their [communal] land". Michael Perelman asked if we should not have the right to pass protective regulations in a city or state or country. Of course, and I'm all for improving the regulations. But he goes on to say "The problem is that capitalists use trade organizations to break down the protection of local control". First, on the *strictly formal* level, and please correct me if I am wrong, I don't think NAFTA stops countries from adopting national regulations etc. It mainly imposes a certain kind of 'template' on these, which I understand as a kind of a pro capitalist trade 'template'; an extention of the direction GATT moved in for decades, e.g. no 'discrimination' against capitalists on the basis of (certain specific) nationalities. If Michael is saying our stance on trade should be based on something like "protection via local control" under capitalism, well, I just can't agree, because it seems to me like tilting at windmills, or weaving ropes out of sand, or some such metaphor. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:12230] Re: FAST TRACK ALERT; Heads Up: Son of NAFTA
Michael is right. I apologise for not stating whom he was quoting. Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663 University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150 On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Michael Eisenscher wrote: Bill and List: I would appreciate it if, when you reply to an article I have posted, you identify the author rather than me or make clear that I am not the author but only the person who posted the article. To read Bill's response, one would think I wrote the comments on NAFTA. I will take full responsibilty for my own thoughts and comments. I don't want to be held responsible for the range of views expressed in articles I repost. The alternative is that I simply cease posting other people's material to the list. Thanks, Michael At 08:59 AM 9/9/97 -0700, Bill Burgess wrote: On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Michael Eisenscher quoted: 1)NAFTA has created new problems. Our food supply is less safe. Due to the increase in border traffic in meat and produce, more food with dangerous pesticide residues or bacteria is getting to our kitchens. Less than 1 percent of the imports of fruit and vegetables coming from Mexico is inspected at the border. The diminished inspection rates along our border has resulted in an unprecedented flow of illegal drugs. Along our southern border, the drugs and uninspected foods are coming across in over-large, often unsafe trucks, which have increased access to U.S. highways under NAFTA. Instead of creating jobs, as the pro-"free trade" corporate lobbyists predicted, NAFTA is responsible for the loss of nearly half-a-million U.S. jobs. Instead of cleaning up the environment along the U.S.-Mexico border, water and air pollution have increased. A massive increase of industries has pushed the border ecology to the breaking point. Blaming Mexicans for bad food and drugs is a reactionary approach. Blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without NAFTA would be just fine. Citing 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico is incredible hypocracy. These are yuppie Perot arguments - lets oppose NAFTA for **good** reasons! Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:12207] Re: FAST TRACK ALERT; Heads Up: Son of NAFTA
On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Michael Eisenscher quoted: 1)NAFTA has created new problems. Our food supply is less safe. Due to the increase in border traffic in meat and produce, more food with dangerous pesticide residues or bacteria is getting to our kitchens. Less than 1 percent of the imports of fruit and vegetables coming from Mexico is inspected at the border. The diminished inspection rates along our border has resulted in an unprecedented flow of illegal drugs. Along our southern border, the drugs and uninspected foods are coming across in over-large, often unsafe trucks, which have increased access to U.S. highways under NAFTA. Instead of creating jobs, as the pro-"free trade" corporate lobbyists predicted, NAFTA is responsible for the loss of nearly half-a-million U.S. jobs. Instead of cleaning up the environment along the U.S.-Mexico border, water and air pollution have increased. A massive increase of industries has pushed the border ecology to the breaking point. Blaming Mexicans for bad food and drugs is a reactionary approach. Blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without NAFTA would be just fine. Citing 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico is incredible hypocracy. These are yuppie Perot arguments - lets oppose NAFTA for **good** reasons! Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:12011] Re: forced sterilization
The report I heard on this said the Nazis (in Germany) modeled their law on Swedish practice, not vice versa. Forced sterlization of 'retarded' women (I believe some men as well) also occured until recently in various parts of Canada, e.g. a suit by a women in Alberta over this has recently been in the news. Bill Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] home (604) 255-5957 fax c/o (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:11199] Re: imperialist competition?
On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Terrence Mc Donough wrote: Competitiveness is also effective in that it provides an umbrella for two different strategies. One is Jim D's competitive austerity of which the U.S. and Britain are the exemplars. [Indeed, it would not be inaccurate to describe it as the Anglo-Saxon Strategy.] The other promotes competitiveness through the control of monopolized markets, technology and scarce skills. This is the so-called "high productivity" strategy. The proceeds of a successful implementation of this strategy are to be divided between capital, labor and social services. It hopes this income will maintain local demand. This might be labelled the Continental Strategy. The problem is not that this strategy cannot work (it's working very well in Ireland at the moment) but that it requires extraordinary luck to remain at the cutting edge of technology and skills. Sooner or later the high productivity economy is overtaken by competition and the austerity strategy imposed. Terrence previously noted he no longer agreed that NAFTA and EU were blocks of imperialist competition (my words here). Can the two strategies described above not qualify as the form this competition takes (in part)? James Devine suggests there are tendencies towards a world state. I think it is important to keep eyes fixed on the very real rivalries that dominate even the most advanced prototype, the EU. Can any of the major countries (UK, France, Germany) accept a real common currency without blowing up? I doubt it. They have not even been able to meet their own deficit schedules, and this in good times. As for the position of smaller powers, whether in Europe or, e.g. Canada, NZ, if we don't draw a basic line between imperialist status and imperialized status *before* considering relative vulnerabilities within the former group I think we have given up the most important point Lenin ever made. Terrence rightly noted this discussion was occuring in terms of metropole powers, and this is its major flaw, in my opinion. US hegemony partially functioned during the long post WW2 boom; those days are over. The military fact of the USSR blunted open rivalry between imperialist powers for awhile, but its (partial) demise opens more room for fighting over profit potentials. We're leaving off the economy from political economy if we don't connect this to the wars happening, including Iraq and intervention in Yugoslavia. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:11151] Re: shun him!
Shunning is better than cutting someone out of the list, but it takes a high degree of agreement and self-discipline among listers. I sometimes despair at the little room that is often allowed for (what I think are) ideas worth hearing, or if not worth hearing, at least better heard than held secretly. However, Karl's comments were sexist in a way that I don't think most of us would tolerate in a face-to-face conversation, or at any public event we had any responsibility for. I say thank you Michael P. for kicking him out. This is not censorship. It is our right to a democratic atmosphere for discussions, and that requires prompt action against the kind of blatant and aggressive sexism I read in Karl's first couple of messages (I am assuming the rest were more of the same, because I didn't read through them). Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663 University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:11099] Re: Re: Interimperialist Rivalry (III)
I had written: *If* the "main contradiction" was between capitalism and socialism I would agree Lenin's approach needs transplant surgury. and Jim Devine replied: I don't know about "main contradiction," but the cold war sure did dominate the world political economy from about 1946 until 1989. Things have changed a lot since then, suggesting that the end of the cold war had major effects. I was trying to be a little ironic with "main contradiction". The point is that some argued that now that socialism existed (USSR and/or China), the struggle between it and capitalism eclipsed Lenin's original 'age of imperialism' approach. And very sincerely: there have been big events since 1989 but I'm interested in what you see as the _basic_ change in world politics. Intensified competition, yes, but between nation-states? US auto workers working for US-based companies, for example, used to compete with Japanese auto workers working for Japan-based companies. But now they compete with workers employed by foreign factories of US-based companies, while Japan-based companies hire US workers. Something has changed. I agree there are changes, including more of the inter-penetration that always existed to some degree (was it GM or Ford that had big factories in Dresden, Germany during WW2, for example). I'd like more reasons on why this process is seen to be a _qualitative_ change relative to the link between capital and national states. The trade laws do include protectionist measures, but the long-term trend since WW II has been for these to go away. So far, there is no sign of that trend being reversed. (It's intensified with NAFTA and GATT.) True, but the trade blocks (EU, NAFTA) are a form of competition between those groups of imperialist countries. And if/when there is a "crash" it might not take long for these agreements to come unravelled. I interpret the expansion of NATO as part of Clinton's effort to sell more US arms. Ironically, it also undermines the effectiveness of NATO as an organization, by bringing in some relatively weak countries. I guess the point is to sell them arms but keep them from using them against Russia. I think this explanation is much too narrow. Perhaps this reflects a difference on how big the changes since 1989 have been. I'm sure we do agree that the S8 is really the G7 with Russia there for window dressing. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:11093] Re: inter-imperialist rivalries (III)
James Devine wrote: I find Lenin's discussion of overproduction to be a bit confused. However, I do think that the competitive austerity I talked about in the longer missive is encouraging over-production on a global scale. That's very different from Lenin's nation-based overproduction. I don't see the distinction your are making re *nation-based* overproduction. I would argue the competitive austerity you described is imposed by capital as their 'solution' to growing overproduction. Is there a better way of understanding its root cause? The US war against Vietnam doesn't quite fit with Lenin's theory since it was part of the US war against a non-capitalist country (the USSR), while Lenin assumes the world is capitalist. Lenin's characterization was of an epoch of (inter-related) imperialism, war and revolution, and so Vietnam fits fine. I don't think it is right to say the US war against Vietnam was aimed at the USSR. It was a war against national liberation, including the right to choose another social system. *If* the "main contradiction" was between capitalism and socialism I would agree Lenin's approach needs transplant surgury. In his reply to Shawgi Tell, Jim Devine suggests that imperialist economic competition is "fading", and that MNCs are de-nationalizing. But aren't the 'free' trade agreements we've been discussing a form of *intensified* competition, and which we all know are crammed with protectionist measures and could easily be erased tomorrow in favour of more explicit protectionism? Many argue any serious de-nationalization of firms is another 'globalization' myth, as state power (ultimately backed by military power) remains essential to protect both their general *and particular* world corporate interests. I still have yet to see convincing evidence for any notion of general de-nationalization of capital. Jim Devine also tied Lenin's notion of finance capital to German-style banking, and downplayed the likelyhood of military conflict between the US and Russia. I have never understood why the difference between German and British banking matters much for his approach to imperialism. Can someone explain this? On Russia: Sure, the collapse of the USSR has left the US virtually unchallenged militarily, but considering that the US just re-invented NATO as a noose around Russia's throat by admitting a handpicked three neighbours (and refusing others) I don't think it is right to downplay the ongoing danger of war. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:10474] Re: Bill Burgess Misinformation
Apparantly this post did not make it out the first time it was sent. But if you did receive it my apologies for the duplicate. On MAY 24 Paul Phillips wrote: A quick check of th World Fact Book shows that, of all the major industrial (G7 and OECD) countries, Canada has the lowest percent of military expenditure as % of GDP with one exception, Japan. (Canada, 1.6%: Japan 1.0 %). Perhaps this is not insignificant as I suggested in my post, but it is surely minimal and I would argue virtually a minimal level necessary for air-sea rescue, coastal and fishery servailance, and contribution to peace keeping. This was in response to my May 22 rejection of Paul's May 21 suggestion that "In Canada today the military budget is miniscule..." Arguing that this was another example of the false view of Canada as a near semi-colony, I wrote that if my memory was correct, Canada was in the "mid to upper range of advanced capitalist countries in military expenditures/GDP". Well, I have to admit it, Paul's subject heading above is correct. The World Competitiveness Report I had cited places Canada, not in the "mid to upper" range in ME/GDP, but in the mid to lower range. Using NATO's definition of military expenditures, Canada's rate of 1.86% in 1993 was still higher than that for NZ, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, Ireland, Japan, and Austria, and not too far behind, for example, Italy, Germany and Sweden at, respectively, 2.05, 2.06 and 2.32%. (The US rate was 4.66 and the Russian rate 27.05% (!!!). Looking at the list again and given the countries Canada leads, I suppose it would be even more fair to say it is in the lower end of advanced capitalist countries in terms of ME/GDP. Turning the page in this book, I see that in terms of absolute military expenditures (ME), in 1993 Canada ranked 9th in the world at US$ 10.27 billion. It follows the US, China, Russia, France, Germany, UK, Japan and Italy. I'd also agree it would be misleading to say this puts Canada in a "mid to upper range"; it is dammed near part of the top range! I don't know how the World Fact Book calculates the ME/GDP rate or what year Paul cited, but the UN 1996 Human Development Report ranks Canada in a similar fashion as above for 1994. The SIPRI Yearbook 1996 also lists Canada ahead of most NATO countries in the number of soldiers and spending on equiptment (behind the US, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK (and presumably also France, which is not listed). It also notes Canada was 12th in the world in major conventional arms exports and 15th in imports between 1991 and 1995. So, yes, Paul's heading was correct. It was also rather one-sided. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:10448] More on Canada's military
On Sat, 24 May 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about Canada's military spending: Perhaps this is not insignificant as I suggested in my post, but it is surely minimal and I would argue virtually a minimal level necessary for air-sea rescue, coastal and fishery servailance, and contribution to peace keeping. What about NATO and NORAD expences (or are these not imperialist military alliances)? I hope this approach on military spending didn't make it into the Alternative Budget that Paul wrote about. $10. billion would go a long way if spent on shorter work time without loss of pay, useful public works and restoring social programs! Paul also wrote: I gather from Bill's comments that he thinks that Canada's peace keeping efforts are "imperialistic". Well, perhaps he might make his point in one specific case or another, but I would like to see him defend this position in Cyprus, Bosnia and/ or Haiti. Yes I do think Canada's "peacekeeping" is keeping peace for imperialism, including in these cases. Victor Levants's book on Canadian complicity with the US in Vietnam provides excellent evidence on that example. Another topical example is the Congo (though I can't provide many sources on this, because it is based on some rather scattered reading and conversations recently. If others have more information on this history I would greatly appreciate sources): In 1960, the Congo was a flashpoint in the world struggle against colonialism and imperialism, alongside Algeria and Cuba. Patrice Lumumba, the first PM of the Congo was a revolutionary nationalist and anti-tribalist. Shortly after formal Congolese independence was won in 1960, the head of the mineral rich Katanga province, Moise Tshombe, tried to seceed with Belgian military support. Lumumba appealed to the UN to protect Congolese independence and force the withdrawl of Belgian troops defending Tshombe in Katanga. The UN did send in troops. However, rather than UN forces acting against the Belgian troops and Katanga rebels, they were used to close the airports when Lumumba asked for Soviet airplanes to fly his troops to Katanga, and to block his accesss to the radio station to appeal for support against a Belgian and US backed coup by President Kasavubu. Lumumba was arrested by Congolese forces recognized by the UN, beaten savagely in the presence of Swedish UN soldiers, and then murdered while being flown to his enemies in Katanga. The US Senate Commitee found that the Director of the CIA, John Foster Dulles, had ordered Lumumba's assasination as "an urgent and prime objective". The UN "peacekeepers" in effect were the armed force that guaranteed Lumumba's defeat and the consolidation of imperialist power in Africa. Canadian troops played a key role in the Congo operation, being responsible for the communications and coordination centre, and so were well aware of the machinations against Lumumba. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:10279] Re: More on Canada
On Sun, 18 May 1997, Tom Walker wrote: In reply to my comments, Bill Burgess wrote, If we agree that nation states are still important, isn't it important to also identify exactly who has power in them, and specifically whether domestic or foreign capital predominates? Tom relied: Yes, it's important to identify who has power but, since the exercise of power will have different consequences in different situations, I don't see the need -- or even in many cases the feasibility -- for exact calculation of the domesticity or otherwise of capital. At any rate, I'd be hard pressed to see Conrad Black as somehow more benign that, say, the Body Shop just because he's Canadian, eh? Not an exact calculation, just one that tries to bring evidence to bear on the common perception among left and progressive forces in Canada that this country is a semi-colony (or something approaching it, or in ever-greater danger of slipping into this status, etc.). I hestitate to risk misquoting Sid S. again, but hasn`t he said this, for example, and connected it to (what I call) a nationalist basis of opposition to the FTA, NAFTA, MAI, etc.? In a similar vein, Paul Phillips also just made a commment to the effect that Canadian military expenditures are insignificant, which I think suggests Canada is not a "real" power. Of course, not compared to the US, and Canadian military expenditures are not as large relative to GDP as they are in a number of other countries, but neither are they insignificant. Im still on holidays and dont have my source (World Competitiveness Report) but if memory serves, Canada is in the mid to upper range of advanced capitalist countries in military expenditures\GDP. Apart from their recent uncharacteristically useful role in flood relief, th Canadian Armed Forces spend most of their time helping keep the world safer for imperialism, and in particular, Canadian imperialism. I agree there is little relevent difference between capitalists x and y in Canada. It is the left-nationalist school that has tended to insist otherwise. Some even suggest that the Canadian government\state acts in substantial part for foreign capital (rather than for domestic capital, as is usually presumed in other advanced capitalist countries). For example, PM Mulroney was characterized as a "traitor" for pushing "free" trade with the US, rather than being understood as representing the best interests of Canadian capital in a context of growing imperialist competition, trade blocks, threats of protectionism, etc. Mindful that other Pen-lers are by now probably weary of my "rant" (or was it "rail"?) against Canadian nationalism I will now try to limit myself now to new or different points or useful discussion of the evidence on this question. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:10197] Re: The EU: against wishful thinking
On Sat, 17 May 1997, Tom Walker wrote (about my comments about Sid S's
comments):
At any rate, I think it's too easy to confuse terms like
"internationalism"
and "nationalism" as if they were opposites or alternatives. I don't see any
inconsistency in strategically pursuing a "commitment to internationalism"
by acting within the context of national policies and national
organizations. Specifically, on the issue of the regulating trade and
investment, I don't see any alternative at the present time. This is how it
was under "good old capitalism" and it's really no different now.
I accept that I may have posed the nationalism\internationalism issue a
little too starkly. I agree we have to work in national contexts and
organizations, and don't think I suggested otherwise.
What I see Sid as arguing against is the kind of doomsday/pollyanna scenario
that tells everyone to abandon hope of seeking more progressive (or less
regressive) policies from national governments because, after all, "their
hands are tied, all the power is now global". The complement is a kind of
wishful thinking that the emerging supra-national institutions of capitalism
can somehow be made more responsive to working class needs, if only we'd
stop diddling around at the national level. And that's such an abstract
position, I can't even imagine what it could mean practically -- meditation?
levitation?
I agree completely with this. My point is that too often 'globalization',
foreign capital, etc. are too often posed as the big problem, and so
distract from the struggle for reforms at home. If the big problem is at
home (as I tried to show earlier for Canada using data on foreign control)
then I think an emphasis on nationalist measures is misplaced. My
understanding was that Sid S. saw such measures as more generally
appropriate (at least in part) because one of main ways that capitalism
has changed is a qualitative rise in foreign penetration of national
economies. I apologise if this was a false characterization.
...I'm not saying the supra-national institutions are impervious to
pressure, just that the _main_ way to put pressure on them is to put pressure on the
national governments that accede to them.
And an excellent example is the French rail strikes a few months ago,
that put out a strong message that if workers in Europe are pushed too
hard they still have the capacity to fight back.
By the way, remember the good old
days when we could use the word "imperialism" and even "U.S. imperialism"
with impunity?" I remember tortured debates on the left about what the
nature of the Canadian state was -- whether Canada was a "sub-imperialist
power" or a "colonized nation", whether or not to lend comfort to "petit
bourgeois nationalism", etc. As an American draft dodger, the arguments
seemed sort of academic to me, mainly because I couldn't see any point to
answering such questions "decisively". Even the "nation-state" is to some
degree an abstraction.
If we agree that nation states are still important, isn't it important
to also identify exactly who has power in them, and specifically whether
domestic or foreign capital predominates?
Bill Burgess also asked,
What do you see as the main difference? Is it not that in the golden age
Capital could afford some concessions whereas since about the mid 1970s
labour productivity growth and real profitability have been stagnant, and
so Capital has had to become more aggressive ("brutal", as Bill R. put
it)?
This is a provocative way of putting the question -- that capital can no
longer "afford" keynesian welfare state concessions. I suspect that long
waves are lurking somewhere in the background of this question and that the
stagnant labour productivity growth and real profitability have as much to
do with Ernest Mandel as they do with time series data (Doug Henwood are you
there?).
Not long waves, but the notion that there are longish periods of growth
and then stagnation, and that the shift from one to the other is the
backdrop for increased capitalist "aggression" (rather than growth in foreign
penetration, globalized production, etc.)
On Monday, May 12, Jim Devine posted an analysis from Dean Baker of the
Economic Policy Institute talking about the profit boom and I quote the
first two paragraphs:
Corporate profit rates reached a new peak in 1996 and are now at their
highest level since these data were first collected in 1959. The Bureau of
Economic Analysis reports that the before-tax profit rate rose to 11.39%
last year, up from 10.78% in 1995, and the after-tax rate rose to 7.57%, up
from 7.01%. The previous peak rate for before-tax profits was 11.29% in
1966, and the previous peak for after-tax profits was 7.03% in 1994.
The rise in profit rates is even mor
[PEN-L:10185] Re: The EU: against wishful thinking
Re Jerry's post below: I'm not interested in the epithets (well, not here, anyway). I thought one useful point of the discussion was identifying what has changed in capitalism and what has not, and how to make that judgement. If my characterizations on points is wrongheaded just say so and how. I did appreciate at least part of Sid S.'s caution against the previous form of PI-PN discussion and I will try to avoid the slippery parts of the slope. Bill Burgess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663 University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150 On Sat, 17 May 1997, Gerald Levy wrote: Bill Burgess wrote: Sid S. wrote; Are you serious about not seeing the difference between neoliberalism and "good old [postwar] capitalism"? Yes. Of course there are differences, but I don't see the *significant* difference implied by a position that replaces a traditional committment to internationalism with a position where nationalist measures are now seen as central to protecting working class interests (which I understand to be your opinion). If I understand what you mean above, it translates into: Bill = internationalist Sid = nationalist ergo Bill = "traditional" proletarian Marxist Sid = "revisionist", "reformist, "nationalist" (add additional epithets of your choice). Bill thus, like Dorothy, has discovered the Straw Man. Beware of matches, Sid. Jerry
[PEN-L:10183] Re: The EU: against wishful thinking
Sid S. wrote;
Are you serious about not seeing the difference between neoliberalism and
"good old [postwar] capitalism"?
Yes. Of course there are differences, but I don't see the *significant*
difference implied by a position that replaces a traditional
committment to internationalism with a position where nationalist measures
are now seen as central to protecting working class interests (which I
understand to be your opinion).
What do you see as the main difference? Is it not that in the golden age
Capital could afford some concessions whereas since about the mid 1970s
labour productivity growth and real profitability have been stagnant, and
so Capital has had to become more aggressive ("brutal", as Bill R. put
it)?
Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:9864] Re: MAI and Foreign Control in Canada, Globaloney
On Fri, 2 May 1997, Rosenberg, Bill wrote (excerpts only): Sid Schniad's and Doug Henwood's figures on speculation and foreign investment in the world economy, and Bill Burgess's on Canada were interesting. I'd always had the impression Canada was more neo-colonised than New Zealand. However you might like to consider these figures for New Zealand: ...However, the picture is considerably different in foreign investment, to the extent it can be estimated. The last official figures for foreign ownership of assets (a la Bill Burgess) were in 1982-83, which indicated foreign companies had 25.6% of the paid-up capital of the companies in the survey (which was not complete). 36.8% of tax-assessable income and 32.4% of dividends paid went to these foreign companies. Just to clarify: the figures I quoted for Canada were for foreign **control** (ownership of more than one half of voting equity or its equivalent (or one-third if this voting block is more than the next two ownership block combined). These figures do **not** capture **portfolio** investment. e.g. there is large portfolio investment in Canadian hydroelectric companies, but control remains "Canadian resident". Since 1989 there have been official statistics on New Zealand's International Investment Position, which shows assets held in New Zealand by foreigners and overseas assets held by New Zealand residents. Foreign investment in New Zealand (including portfolio) has risen from NZ$51 billion to NZ$97 billion from 1989 to 1995 and New Zealand investment abroad from NZ$7.2 billion to NZ$23.4 billion. The net position has gone from -NZ$44.1 billion to -NZ$73.3 billion. By this measure, the ratio of inward FDI to GDP was 14.4% in 1989 and 46.7% in 1995. Outward FDI to GDP was 1.3% in 1989 and 13.4% in 1995, though one wonders whether some of these increases are simply because Statistics New Zealand have got better at measuring. The data in front of me, which does not include portfolio investment (it is taken from the UN World Investment Directory) yeilds an inward FDI/GDP ratio of about 7.8% and outward FDI/GDP of 5.6% in 1992 for New Zealand, i.e. considerably less than Canada's 19.5% and 14.1%. So by this standard, Canada is more foreign dominated than New Zealand. Almost the entire New Zealand financial sector is foreign owned. This is perhaps one important difference - the banks and near-banks in Canada are heavily Canadian controlled. Some of the effects: - when the economy "booms" to the extent that company profits increase, the current account goes worse into deficit because of the increasing dividend and interest payments abroad. - a dysfunctional exchange rate. It is set by interest rates attracting foreign investors and foreign investor "confidence" in the New Zealand government rather than "real" transactions. - hence New Zealand has a chronic, worsening, current account deficit (currently 4.2% of GDP) and steadily increasing foreign debt. Private foreign debt has risen from 9.8% to 54.6% of GDP between 1983 and 1996, though government foreign debt has fallen, offsetting the rise. Total foreign debt has risen from 46.7% to 79.1% of GDP in the same period. - funnily enough, it wrecks the monetarist Reserve Bank's attempts to control inflation using the exchange rate (encouraging it to rise to reduce internal prices) and interest rates. Higher interest rates increase the exchange rate because they attract foreign investors, threatening inflation targets and damaging exporters. Importers of course don't reduce their prices when the exchange rate rises. - craven foreign-investor-friendly policies by New Zealand governments, with which you'll be familiar. Why should we protect national capitalists via opposing the MAI, etc, asked Bill Burgess. In New Zealand's case, primarily to reduce dependence on foreign capital, which is demonstrably leading government policy. I don't disagree with your analysis of the effects on the "national" economy, balance of payments, etc. But I don't think it is workers or socialists responsibility to solve the problems of capitalist economies. Isn't the point that we **can't** do this, that there **is no real solution** under capitalism? I don't mean this in an ultra-left sloganeering fashion, but as the analytical framework for our policy interventions, which I should focus on protecting working people today while aiming towards the socialist alternative. But a few other figures I calculated from the Top 200 are interesting: - after-tax profit per employee was $20,000 for New Zealand companies, and $29,800 for foreign companies - though they took half the operating surplus, they employed only 18% of the full-time workforce. - turnover per employee was lower for foreign than New Zealand companies in most industrial classifications. New Zealand's overall rate of growth in labo
[PEN-L:9873] Re: MAI and Foreign Control in Canada, Glo
I had written that:
The data in front of me, which does not include portfolio investment
(it is taken from the UN World Investment Directory) yeilds an inward
FDI/GDP ratio of about 7.8% and outward FDI/GDP of 5.6% in 1992 for New
Zealand, i.e. considerably less than Canada's 19.5% and 14.1%. So by this
standard, Canada is more foreign dominated than New Zealand.
And Bill Rosenberg replied:
I can't reconcile these two sets of figures for New Zealand! Using
Statistics New Zealand's International Investment Position figures,
in 1992 the ratios were 31.1% inwards in 1992 and 15.8% outwards
(we're talking stocks here, not flows aren't we?).
Bill Burgess:
I'm sorry, I don't have my sources at hand to help figure out
why our numbers are so different, and I am shortly leaving on holidays for
3 weeks. I did have some older OECD data for 1989 on my shelf here and it
yeilds the same ratios I quoted above. I hope I did not make a mistake on
the date of the first numbers I quoted, but in any case it seems unlikely
there could have been such a change in 3 years to 1992.
Bill Rosenberg also wrote:
..I don't fundamentally disagree with your analysis either. But
(1) recent experience has shown that policies favoured by foreign
capital are considerably more brutal towards workers, and less
susceptible to pressure, even than the previous reactionary regime.
There are logical reasons for this to be so. Hence these policies
are important for the protection of working people. They are a
necessary but not sufficient condition.
(2) As a matter of their self-interest, I don't think (what remains
of) the New Zealand national capitalist class can survive under
these conditions: they become simply compradore capitalists with a
very shakey future. There are contradictions between the policies
being followed.
Bill Burgess:
Are these brutal policies really the result of **foreign**
control/domination? I don't think the capitalists in either Canada or New
Zealand needed foreign inspiriation or prompting; in my humble opinion our
respective governments act first and foremost in the interests of national
capitalists. Of course they are constrained by the world market
("investment climate" etc.), and so smaller and more open economies like
NZ and to a lesser extent Canada are more vulnerable than US, Japan or
Germany. Is there any evidence those "policies favoured by foreign
capital" are not **also** favoured by capital at home?
Bill Rosenberg:
But as a matter of record, foreign
ownership of our large privatised corporations like Telecom and New
Zealand Rail has led to dramatically falling employment in them,
despite them having previously been "rationalised" by the government
in processes designed to get them ready for sale. In addition,
firms have been taken over and their production moved to another
country, losing jobs in New Zealand. So in practical terms, foreign
ownership *has* reduced employment.
Bill Burgess:
But are not domestic capitalists **also** shedding workers?
Aren't NZ capitalists **also** investing abroad and moving production
abroad? Is it really "foreign ownership" that has reduced employment, or
is it **capitalist** ownership?
Bill Rosenberg:
Solving the problems of foreign
control are a prerequisite to solving the other problems: to repeat,
they are necessary, but not sufficient. It is a delusion to attempt a
*purely* nationalist solution. It is also a delusion to think that
socialism (or even reformist measures significantly favourable to the
working class) can be attained while the economy is foreign controlled.
Bill Burgess:
When you say "prerequisite" in a country like New Zealand I think that
goes too far. In my humble opinion, we have too much historical
evidence already on how nationalism aimed at foreign capital is highly
toxic to the unity and militancy (to say nothing of the socialism)
required to fight the offensive by our governments and employers. If New
Zealand and Canada were really semi-colonies then nationalism **would** be
a central plank in any socialist platform, but when I look at where
these countries are in the pecking order of world capitalism I don't think
such a characterization can be sustained.
Bill Burgess
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
home (604) 255-5957
fax c/o (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:9823] Re: MAI and Foreign Control in Canada
AFTA if I understand it correctly. We now have such things as control of marketing such as the Canadian Wheat Board, marketing boards etc. but new rules and agreements attempt to dismantle them. National policies might involve subsidies if it were thought to be in the public interest etc. and protection from foreign imports etc.etc. But all this is being eroded. I think we should oppose the FTA, NAFTA and MAI, but **not for nationalist reasons**, because this only deepens the hold capitalism has over us all. I am not an expert on NAFTA and it is hard to get 2 people to agree on what the energy provisions really mean, but I'm told there is nothing to prevent rebates to Canadian consumers, and the restrictions against reducing exports are in terms of a running share of market (and so can be reduced over time, just not **instantly**). I mention this because I think that, unfortunately, ***for a change**, the right has been more honest than the left about the actual contents of the FTA and NAFTA. But in any case, my question is still why socialists would want to subsidize ***Canadian*** capitalists with lower energy costs, or deny power to fellow workers in the US during some cold snap? And even if you are right about FTA or NAFTA provisions, are these really **any different** than other pro-capitalist laws and institutions that all struggles against oppression and exploitation face? I hear nothing from Burgess about such matters or nationalisation. In fact nationalisation and taking into public ownership seems to be the last bloody thing the left ever talks about nowadays. A fucking disgrace. By the way Canadian farmers voted in favor of retaining monopoly marketing of barley just recently. Some light in the gloom. I can't agree more with your apparant frustration that the left hardly talks about nationalization, public ownership, economic planning etc. And I agree it was a tremendous victory that farmers turned back the effort to gut the Wheat (marketing) Board. My point is that Canadian socialists have spent most of their time and effort attacking **US** imperialism when these are the kinds of things we should really be discussing and acting on. Bill Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] home (604) 255-5957 fax c/o (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:9798] Re: MAI and Foreign Control in Canada
Shawgi Tell noted a couple of days ago that foreign control of corporate revenues in Canada rose by 1.3 points to 29.8% of the total in 1995, and that this was the second largest yearly rise ever recorded. I don't know Shawgi's point of view on this question, but the implication of his observation is consistant with the usual conception of Canada as a semi-colony which is slipping further under US domination as a result of 'free' trade agreements. The **nationalist** opposition to MAI that I questioned last week is also (partially) rooted in such approaches. What does the data on foreign control really say about this issue? I prefer to argue this using data on *assets* (a stock variable) rather than *revenues* (a flow variable), since the latter is heavily influenced by the business cycle and foreign controlled firms are concentrated in sectors with higher revenue-to-asset ratios. Statistics Canada's figure for foreign control of all corporate assets in Canada rose to 21% in 1995. This increase restored foreign control to the 21% rate previously reached in 1990, and is only up 0.5 percentage points since 1988 (the first year for which this data for *all* industries is available). In other words there has not been much of a change. While foreign control rose in *non-financial* sectors to 24.3%, this was partially offset by a slight drop to 17.6% in *finance and insurance* sectors. Nor does the data on *US* control of *all* corporate assets indicate any great increase attributable to the FTA or NAFTA, at least so far. While the 11.4% US control of all corporate assets in Canada in 1995 is a notable increase over 1994 (when it was 10.8%), it is only 0.4 points higher than in 1988, the year before the FTA took effect. For most of this period it has been lower than before 'free' trade. Perhaps most important, and contrary to the usual assumptions, the level of foreign control in Canada has **declined substantially** over the last few decades. The data series on foreign control of *all* industries only goes back to 1988, but if we assume the trend here has been similar to that for the *non-financial* half of the corporate economy (for which the earlier data is available), then the current range of foreign (and US) control in Canada is lower than it has been for about half a century! Foreign control of *non-financial* industries peaked in the early 1970s, but Canadian capitalists have regained about one-third of all non-financial assets in Canada since then, and they have retained the decisive control they have always had over the *financial* half of the economy. One measure that highlights the strength of Canadian capital is that Statistics Canada reports that in 1992 they controlled 96.5% of the assets of the *25 largest enterprises* (corporations grouped under common control) in Canada. The rate of foreign control for *all* industries in Canada cited above (and that for the largest 25 enterprises) is considerably lower than the *non-financial* rates Canadian nationalists have traditionally cited for their purposes. However, it is true foreign control is higher in Canada than in most - but not all - major OECD countries. Other countries do not collect data on foreign control comparable to that cited above, but if we use OECD data on the ratio of the stock of (inward) FDI to GDP as a basis, foreign control in the UK (!!) and the Netherlands is **higher** than in Canada. Further, the level of inward FDI should be considered in tandem with that of outward FDI. *Canadian* capitalists hold more FDI *abroad* per Canadian than do their competitors in the US, Japan, Germany and France relative to the latters' populations. In recent years, the flow of Canadian FDI to the US has *exceeded* US FDI coming into Canada. I think this is a pretty impressive record, and to bring it back to the MAI issue, one that makes we wonder why we would want to offer Canadian capitalists national protection from their foreign competitors. I live in Canada so I've concentrated on the usual suggestion that protectionism is more appropriate here than in other imperialist countries. Since I'm working on a paper on this point I would appreciate any comments and criticism on at least ***this aspect*** of the debate. Bill Burgess University of B.C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] home (604) 255-5957 fax c/o (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:9798] Re: MAI and Foreign Control in Canada
Shawgi Tell noted a couple of days ago that foreign control of corporate revenues in Canada rose by 1.3 points to 29.8% of the total in 1995, and that this was the second largest yearly rise ever recorded. I don't know Shawgi's point of view on this question, but the implication of his observation is consistant with the usual conception of Canada as a semi-colony which is slipping further under US domination as a result of 'free' trade agreements. The **nationalist** opposition to MAI that I questioned last week is also (partially) rooted in such approaches. What does the data on foreign control really say about this issue? I prefer to argue this using data on *assets* (a stock variable) rather than *revenues* (a flow variable), since the latter is heavily influenced by the business cycle and foreign controlled firms are concentrated in sectors with higher revenue-to-asset ratios. Statistics Canada's figure for foreign control of all corporate assets in Canada rose to 21% in 1995. This increase restored foreign control to the 21% rate previously reached in 1990, and is only up 0.5 percentage points since 1988 (the first year for which this data for *all* industries is available). In other words there has not been much of a change. While foreign control rose in *non-financial* sectors to 24.3%, this was partially offset by a slight drop to 17.6% in *finance and insurance* sectors. Nor does the data on *US* control of *all* corporate assets indicate any great increase attributable to the FTA or NAFTA, at least so far. While the 11.4% US control of all corporate assets in Canada in 1995 is a notable increase over 1994 (when it was 10.8%), it is only 0.4 points higher than in 1988, the year before the FTA took effect. For most of this period it has been lower than before 'free' trade. Perhaps most important, and contrary to the usual assumptions, the level of foreign control in Canada has **declined substantially** over the last few decades. The data series on foreign control of *all* industries only goes back to 1988, but if we assume the trend here has been similar to that for the *non-financial* half of the corporate economy (for which the earlier data is available), then the current range of foreign (and US) control in Canada is lower than it has been for about half a century! Foreign control of *non-financial* industries peaked in the early 1970s, but Canadian capitalists have regained about one-third of all non-financial assets in Canada since then, and they have retained the decisive control they have always had over the *financial* half of the economy. One measure that highlights the strength of Canadian capital is that Statistics Canada reports that in 1992 they controlled 96.5% of the assets of the *25 largest enterprises* (corporations grouped under common control) in Canada. The rate of foreign control for *all* industries in Canada cited above (and that for the largest 25 enterprises) is considerably lower than the *non-financial* rates Canadian nationalists have traditionally cited for their purposes. However, it is true foreign control is higher in Canada than in most - but not all - major OECD countries. Other countries do not collect data on foreign control comparable to that cited above, but if we use OECD data on the ratio of the stock of (inward) FDI to GDP as a basis, foreign control in the UK (!!) and the Netherlands is **higher** than in Canada. Further, the level of inward FDI should be considered in tandem with that of outward FDI. *Canadian* capitalists hold more FDI *abroad* per Canadian than do their competitors in the US, Japan, Germany and France relative to the latters' populations. In recent years, the flow of Canadian FDI to the US has *exceeded* US FDI coming into Canada. I think this is a pretty impressive record, and to bring it back to the MAI issue, one that makes we wonder why we would want to offer Canadian capitalists national protection from their foreign competitors. I live in Canada so I've concentrated on the usual suggestion that protectionism is more appropriate here than in other imperialist countries. Since I'm working on a paper on this point I would appreciate any comments and criticism on at least ***this aspect*** of the debate. Bill Burgess University of B.C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] home (604) 255-5957 fax c/o (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:9586] Re: MAI
I skimmed parts of this earlier discussion but didn't realize most considered that the issue had already been beaten to death or that wounds were still too tender to touch. I can go along with that, but I don't think the issue will go away. Bill Burgess On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Sid Shniad wrote: Dear Bill, In order to save Penners the agony of going through the entire debate one again, may I suggest that you do a search of the Pen archives and read the debate between the Progressive Nationalists and the Progressive Internationalists (the terms were Tom Weiskopf's) that took place in the context of the onset of NAFTA? Cheers, Sid Shniad Any (further) entrenchment of 'free' market conditions that facilitate exploitation should be opposed. But the objections to the OECD proposals on FDI I've heard so far (like the campaign against NAFTA and the FTA) seem to be mainly national-protectionist. They leave the impression the problem is not capitalism but foreign capitalism, i.e., not capitalism at all but foreigners! Why should national capitalists have an edge over foreign capitalists (in OECD countries)? Bill Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] home (604) 255-5957 fax c/o (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:9566] Re: MAI
Any (further) entrenchment of 'free' market conditions that facilitate exploitation should be opposed. But the objections to the OECD proposals on FDI I've heard so far (like the campaign against NAFTA and the FTA) seem to be mainly national-protectionist. They leave the impression the problem is not capitalism but foreign capitalism, i.e., not capitalism at all but foreigners! Why should national capitalists have an edge over foreign capitalists (in OECD countries)? Bill Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] home (604) 255-5957 fax c/o (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:9142] Re: more on Cuba
Steve Zahniser asks that I elaborate on my suggestion that Helms-Burton (H-B) should be seen in light of inter-imperialist trade competition. My point is that while Washington is trying to starve out Cuba, H-B is also a weapon against its rivals (Canada, Europe). It is a way of insisting the US is first among equals (especially on the extraterritoriality issue). This is why WTO "free" traders oppose it, not because it is unfair to Cuba or even less that they support Castro. The Canadian and European positions on H-B that I quoted show the US has partially succeeded in this arm-twisting. I think we still disagree about the reasons for US policy. There are more than 3 decades of evidence of the profound bipartisan hostility to the Cuban revolution. My argument is that this record is trivialized by regarding it as illogical. I went too far in implicating Steve Z. in particular, but my experience is that you can't build a solid solidarity movement against an illogical policy, because most people just wait for it to play itself out (how can you reason with irrational people?) and fail to appreciate the political stakes involved (which include survival of the only government in the world worthy of the name internationalist and socialist). I don't agree with Steve that Clinton's maneuvers on H-B reflect a softer position: didn't he gain the anti-Castro vote in Miami by taking an even harder line in the elections than Dole (and Bush before)? But I do agree (and this was my original point), that the anti-Castro Cuban vote is not Clinton's main motive. Bill Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] home (604) 255-5957 fax c/o (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:8956] Re: Canada and Cuba
Paul Phillips argues that I share Jesse Helm's criticism of Canada on
Cuba and that it hurts Cuba and Canada to suggest the latter's policy is
motivated by imperialist greed.
Well, I think Helms is right that Canada is putting it's own commercial
interests first. I think it is also worth putting the Helms-Burton
initiative in the context of growing trade tensions between the US and
its competitors including Canada but especially Europe.
The main disagreement Paul and I have is that he argues that
Canada's position ("our position") has been to support Cuba's right to
self-determination. I wish this was true (and have long worked for it to
be so), but it is not.
Like other imperialist powers the Canadian government opposes the
extraterritoriality of Washington's Cuba policy and shares the opinion of
most that the US embargo is not an effective tactic against Castro.
However, it shares Washington's basic aims in Cuba and has said so many
times, including while voting for the annual UN resolution against the US
embargo (where, incidently, it always focuses its criticism on the
extraterritoriality issue; I have never seen a clear statement opposing
the embargo in principle). Canada's ambassador to the US recently said
Canada agreed with the US on the need to establish "democracy, a free
market and human rights" in Cuba. I think we should recognize that these
words really mean "a return to capitalist exploitation".
When Foreign Affairs Minister Axworthy visited Cuba recently he played up
the human rights angle. This shows that Canada has come into line with the
December EU resolution on Helms-Burton that stated that a "democratic
system of government must be installed in Cuba as a matter of priority"
and that expanded aid and trade to Cuba would "depend on improvements in
human rights and freedom". This is not defence of self-determination, it
is using slanders on human rights to attack the Cuban revolution.
I'm sure Paul would agree how genuine the Canadian government's concern
for human and political rights is in s. Korea or Somalia, for example. Why
give them so much credit on Cuba? He points to the aid to Cuba financed
by the Canadian government, but it is an old story that where aid flows,
investments follow more easily. There is a widespread myth that Canada is
some kind of semi-colony that can identify with fellow victims of
imperialism. The truth is that Canadian investments abroad are even larger
than those of the US in relative terms.
I'm all in favour of Cuba taking every advantage of the split between the
US and Canada, and milking every diplomatic statement for all its worth.
However, it is our job here in Canada to be more frank about the
situation. I'm sure we agree
we should do everything we can to pressure the government for policies
favouring more trade and aid. But I don't think we can be very effective
here if we believe the government shares our support for the Cuban
people.
Finally, Steve Zahnister suggests the US policy is idiotic even from a
capitalist viewpoint, and is the result of internal US politics. I think
this approach is a serious mistake too. I think it minimizes how
consistant and deep the (bipartisan) hostility to Cuba has been since
1959, and so how important they feel it is to defeat the example of the
Cuban revolution. The problem is that Steve's approach tends to also
minimize the importance of solidarity with the Cuban revolution for us in
the US and Canada.
Bill Burgess
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
home (604) 255-5957
fax c/o (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:8936] Re: Cuba
If by "Canada" in the last paragraph below you mean the Canadian government, it seems to me this suggestion is very wrong. Ottawa plays the soft cop while Washington is hard cop. Look at Ottawa's position on the 'pilots to the rescue' incident. However, they insist on the right to continue to profit wherever they like, including in Cuba where they have the advantage of no US competition. The latter is one of the benefits of being the soft cop. I can't agree Ottawa's position on Cuba reflects any sympathy or identification with the Cuban revolution. It shows their determination to defend independent Canadian imperialist interests. Bill Burgess On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to thank Shawgi for posting Fidel's speech and the Granma article on the net. I would also like to point out, in furtherence of his previous posting about Walmart's decision to take Cuban made PJ's out of their Canadian stores, that the company under Canadian pressure decided to sell Cuban PJs again but that now the American government is again trying to enforce US law in Canada by pressuring (prosecuting?) Walmart's American head office. This is the most intolerable form of American imperialism that I can imagine. It disgusts me that Americans put up with such clearly anti-humane behaviour on the part of their government. I suspect that one of the major reasons why Canada has continued to support Cuba is that we would like to have the guts to stand up to the American bully, but that since we don't, we will cheer on the little guy who has the courage to do so. If this is so, "Three cheers!". Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Bill Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] home (604) 255-5957 fax c/o (604) 822-6150
[PEN-L:8666] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
In a recent post Doug Henwood mentioned the likes of "swaptions", "Butterflies" and a couple of other rare money species. Could you explain what these are? Bill Burgess Vancouver
