naming that system
< < < Date Index Re: Economics and law by andie nachgeborenen 14 August 2004 16:07 UTC < < < Thread Index > > > Well, I don't want to get into this distraction on the Russian question, but you could call the system bureaucratic collectivism (Schachtman's term) or the command-administrative system (the perestroichiki's term), or totalitarianism, or lots of things, but the fact is we don't really have a good name for it. How about the 'vanguard mode of production'? Cf. Lebowitz, 'Kornai and the Vanguard Mode of Production' in Cambridge Journal of Economics (May 2000). 8^) michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
stalin quote
Re: Economics and law by Carrol Cox 13 August 2004 17:38 UTC < < < Charles Brown wrote: > > > > CB: Why was there a need to develop the agrarian country ? People had been > surviving in agrarian societies for millenia. For one thing, the USSR existed in a capitalist sea, & as Stalin said in 1930, they had 10 years to catch up with the west industrially, culturally, etc or they would be overrun. (This speech by Stalin was quoted by Carl Oglesby in a book the title of which I now forget, and I have never been able to run down the text in any of Stalin's works that I possess.) Vaguely from memory, it may have been 'Speech to Business Executives' from 1931. michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Re: economics, law and the old soviet economy
Economics and law by Charles Brown 13 August 2004 17:09 UTC by Chris Doss Mainly that was me writing off the cuff while trying to meet a deadline and working through a hangover. It wiould be better to say something like "the shape of Soviet society was determined first and foremost by the need to develop an agrarian country. It succeeded. The rest of teh stuff is fluff." ^^ CB: Why was there a need to develop the agrarian country ? People had been surviving in agrarian societies for millenia. I'm without notes but roughly, as comrade Stalin correctly stated in 1931, we have 10 years in which to catch up or we will be defeated again.In support of Chris' point, I don't recall this statement as having anything to do with building socialism as such. michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
on country comparisons
Paul, I've forwarded your earlier note commenting on my former colleague's reply to him; I'll post his answer if/when I get it. Paul wrote: 11 August 2004 17:56 UTC < < < On 8/7/2004 Mike Lebowitz wrote: I don't know anything myself about the way the PPP is constructed or the neoclassical assumptions that Paul proposed were used. Intuitively, though, it makes real sense to select the PPP measure (ie., something that takes into account prices) over one using market exchange rates. Eg., according to the dollar/cuban peso market exchange rate, we might conclude that Cubans live on the equivalent of $20 USD per month. Anyone think that tells us very much about the Cuban standard of living? michael [Yes this is where most people get drawn into the PPP : the per capita GNI (or GDP) numbers look so low. And they are low, if we think of measuring "living standards" which GNI or any of the national accounts do NOT, they only are a ticker to the market economy without double accounting. Comparing national accounts is only a 'market economy to market economy' basis.] Maybe I've introduced a new question--- I was taking a Cuban monthly wage (let's say 300 pesos) and the dollar/peso street exchange rate (say $25), which would lead one to conclude that Cubans live on $12USD per month. Ie., I wasn't raising national accounting questions as such. Now, a little casual empiricism tells me that living standard for Cubans is nothing like what $12 USD would be in the US. So, I ask, what would be a better measure of the Cuban standard? Intuitively, I am inclined to say--- we need to take into account the things that have zero or nominal prices in Cuba. Are you saying that doing that leads in the wrong direction because to price things completely we end up making neoclassical assumptions? (How sensitive are the conclusions to particular NC assumptions?) I.e., I'm prepared to accept your criticisms of the PPP measure but I'm not certain what exactly you are proposing as an alternative. Paul: [BTW: I don't know how Cuba's national accounts are calculated. The World Bank does not publish any figures at all. I imagine it is largely guesswork by whomever you are citing (UN?); as you know most planned economies used Net Material Product as their equivalent. There can't be a logical conversion factor for the same reasons PPP doesn't work (apples and oranges). In fact, that is how this international comparison business got started (for example Gerschenkron, Alexander A dollar index of Soviet machinery output, 1951). It was quickly grasped (a bit like PPP) as an ideological tool, ultimately with people like Wolfowitz and Pipes jumping in.] You raise here an interesting parallel. If I recall the Soviet growth question, it revolved around the fact that implicitly two different questions were being asked; (a) what is the growth rate using 1927/8 prices and weights (ie., before a significant transformation) and (b) what is the growth rate using later (eg., 1954) weighting and prices. Insofar as sectors with high initial prices grew quite rapidly (and their prices fell relatively), those choosing (b) could scoff at the Soviets who used (a). A first issue, then, is what question do we want to ask? A second consideration is whether we learn anything by asking both questions and establishing a range? In the matter on hand, what is the question we are asking? Taking the Kenya/ Manhattan comparison you raised before, do we ask what it would cost a Kenyan to consume the Kenyan basket in NYC and how that changes over time? Or do we ask what it would cost to consume a NYC basket in Kenya? Or do we say, all of this is going to be artificial--- let's just take the real wage in Kenya and the verifiable currency exchange rate? Is this basically the same question that you were exploring or have I gone off in a completely different direction? in solidarity, michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
on Venezuelan polls, etc
Re: Loath by the rich: Why Hugo Chavez is heading for a stunning victory by Perelman, Michael 08 August 2004 03:03 UTC < < < Thread Index > > > Right wing polls show Chavez loosing. Isn't that correct, Michael L? With the possibility of fraud, can we really expect a victory? --- Michael, All recent polls show Chavez being successful in beating off yet another attack by the Right. (The most recent has the 'No' vote at 63%, and no polls will be published after today.) Keeping in mind, though, the fact that in a highly polarised situation, people (especially in Chavist barrios) may not be revealing their real intentions (and remembering Nicaragua), it's best to stress the importance of pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. The latter is evidenced by the growing organisation of Chavists at the base (unevenly, to be sure) and the determination not to let this be stolen by fraud on 15A. A very strong statement from the April 13th movement that the workers of the informal sector will view a defeat at this point as fraud and a statement from the head of the steelworkers that there will be a general strike and a cutting off of oil shipments in the event of fraud point to likely developments if the 'Yes' vote comes out on top. And, now comrades, I will put on my red 'No' shirt and will join the demonstration that has begun to assemble (and which will probably continue to arrive for a few more hours) in the vicinity of my apartment. in solidarity, michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
in defence of Tariq Ali
Tariq Ali has been criticised for the following statement in an interview: DH: You've said that a defeat of Bush would be regarded globally as a victory. What did you mean? TA: As you know, I travel a great deal, and everywhere I go there is growing anger and if one can be totally blunt real hatred of this administration because of what it did in Iraq - the war it waged, the civilians it killed, the mess it's made, and its inability to understand the scale of what it's done. And from that point of view, if the American population were to vote Bush out of office, the impact globally would be tremendous. People would say this guy took his country to war, surrounded by neocons who developed bogus arguments and lies, he lied to his people, he misused intelilgence information, and the American people have voted him out. That in itself could have a tremendous impact on world public opinion A defeat for a warmonger regime in Washington would be seen as a step forward. I don't go beyond that, but it would have an impact globally. If I were living in the States, I would not organise or vote for Kerry--- for the same reasons that people on the list have given--- although I'm certain that I would prefer to be living under and organising against a Kerry government than a Bush one. Why? Because of all the illusions (about the good capitalist,etc party) that would be retained in the absence of the former and the greater possibility for revealing the nature of the system. But, I wonder if this might not be a bit of a self-indulgent perspective when I think about Tariq's statement. There's no question in my mind that in Cuba (which I visit often) Bush's defeat would be regarded as a victory. Similarly, in Venezuela (where I am) the end of a Bush government would be welcomed. I suspect the same would have been true in El Salvador recently among FMLN supporters (and in another time and setting in Nicaragua). Conversely, the victory of Bush would be viewed as a big defeat... and, indeed, as a mandate for new aggressive international adventures. (Certainly, in Cuba they worry about the implications of a new Bush mandate.) As I see the perspective of those outside the US (which is what Tariq was addressing), the defeat of the Bush government would be seen as providing a bit of space and a bit of hope. But, no illusions. Simply the breathing space that comes when the rulers are disrupted a bit. in solidarity, michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
re PPP comparisons
I don't know anything myself about the way the PPP is constructed or the neoclassical assumptions that Paul proposed were used. Intuitively, though, it makes real sense to select the PPP measure (ie., something that takes into account prices) over one using market exchange rates. Eg., according to the dollar/cuban peso market exchange rate, we might conclude that Cubans live on the equivalent of $20 USD per month. Anyone think that tells us very much about the Cuban standard of living? michael PPP comparisons by sam pawlett 05 August 2004 14:54 UTC < < < Thread Index > > > Take a simple example of Japan and the US. Say the market exchange rate is 110 Yens = One US$. Now take an equivalent basket--in quantity and quality--that contains a burger with fries and a drink. It costs 450 Yens in Tokyo and US$ 2.50 in New York. The PPP exchange rate is then 180 Yens = One US$ (450/2.50). There is nothing imaginary about the PPP exchange rate since it gives you the purchasing power of a country's currency vis-a-vis the US dollar. One thing I've never understood about PPP, is it an attempt to measure -what it is like living in a poor country- or is the idea more modest as the above paragraph suggests trying to demonstrate what the market equivalent amount of currency buys in a given country? For example the PPP GDP or GNP per capita of a country is $US 500. Does this mean that living in that country on that given amount of money is like living in the USA on the same amount of money? PPP (and the averaging and aggregating that goes on) can be misleading.A string sampling bias exists. There are no price differences between countries in goods and services that are offered by MNC's. The costs of Mcdonalds,Bechtel water, Enron nat. gas, or a Blockbuster video is the same across geographical space with very limited differential. The IMF and its coat-tailers always (and ,yes, still) say that the most important economic fundamental is getting prices right. The right price or international market price always seems to be what the good or service costs in the USA. How could it be otherwise, inflation always exists and the bulk of demand for the goods and services offered by MNC's is still in the North hemisphere. Ultimately, the WTO project gets more goods and services to cost what they cost in the USA and Europe. And as that happens, people's access to those goods and services becomes more limited, Bechtel water in South Africa for example. The products offered by local or import substituting businesses cost much less. The marlboro, pizza hut or coca-cola knockoff costs %25 as much. The more foreign based products it counts in its basket of goods, the bigger the PPP number will be. As the world becomes globalized and the stricter that gov'ts enforce WTO rules, the Atlas rather than ppp will come closer to the truth especially with imports and exports being priced in US dollars and the ongoing dollarization of world economies. I don't think this is an unimportant quibble, as it represents trends sometimes called combined and uneven development. Sam Pawlett Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
back to PPP comparisons
imply the number of units of a countrys currency required to purchase the same quantity of goods and services (included in GDP) as one US dollar purchases in the United States. In other words, this exchange rate reflects the purchasing power of each countrys currency vis-à-vis the US dollar. The PPP exchange rate for the poor countries tends to be higher than the market exchange rate because prices of goods and services, especially the non-traded ones, tend to be lower in poor countries than in rich countries. In other words, the purchasing power of poor countries currencies vis-à-vis the US dollar is generally higher than reflected by the market exchange rate. The PPP exchange rate is useful in comparing the differences in the standard of living between countries at one point in time and over time. [1] In both methods, the real (and not nominal) value of GNI and GDP is estimated by taking into account the inflation rates in the country and the United States in each year. A three-year average of exchange rates adjusted for inflation using the countrys GDP deflator is used to convert to the US dollar. <><>Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
international income comparisons, etc
In relation to questions raised by Paul on HDI, etc, a friend has directed me to a recent piece by Robert Wade in New Political Economy. I assume it's in the following issue: Volume 9, Number 2, June 2004 SPECIAL ISSUE: INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT Articles Introduction: Globalisation, Governance and Development, Graham Harrison On the Causes of Increasing World Poverty and Inequality, or Why the Matthew Effect Prevails, Robert Hunter Wade What the World Bank Means by Poverty Reduction, and Why it Matters, Paul Cammack Examining the Ideas of Globalisation and Development Critically: What Role for Political Economy?, Ben Fine 'Truth', 'Efficiency' and Multilateral Institutions: A Political Economy of Development Economics, Alice Sindzingre The International Monetary Fund and Civil Society, Ben Thirkell-White Pro-Poor Politics and the New Political Economy of Stabilisation, Paul Mosley Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Silence shrouds the moral abyss spawned by the war against Iraq
ing moment at which citizens discover that the only cop in town has gone bad. Much is now being made by politicians and pundits of the "failure of intelligence" in presenting an accurate assessment of reality. But the intelligence that failed was not that of the spooks, it was among the elected representatives and the media who abandoned their simple common- sense mandate to challenge, challenge and challenge again any evidence presented to justify killing people. Instead, those who produced contrary views were ridiculed, reviled and bullied in a fashion that is unfathomable for nations wedded to the notion of free speech. Weapons inspectors Scott Ritter and Hans Blix, Prime Minister Jean Chretien, U.S. anti-terrorism expert Richard Clarke and the leaders of France and Germany all expressed doubts about the rationale for war and the existence of weapons of mass destruction. They found themselves dismissed as fools and dupes. Well, somebody was duped all right -- it was the U.S. Congress, the British House of Commons and the people of both countries. When institutions become so desensitized that allegations about the rape of children being videotaped for the amusement of the captors results only in a deafening silence, when the conversation about it must take place outside the mainstream media, every American and every Briton should be asking how their country came to find itself in the service of such values. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Venezuela: prospects for recall (5 June 04)
Re: new megafraud controversy raging in Venezuela: imperialism or Chavez by Perelman, Michael 04 June 2004 21:26 UTC < < < Thread Index What a wonderful example of American imperialism! On a more serious note, Michael, what are the prospects for a recall? -- Hi Michael, I've dated my response because I can only say what it looks like at this very moment. Any discussion of the prospects has to recognise that there is a long history of electoral fraud here, that in addition to the domestic tradition there is the support that can be expected from the usual suspect (which won't bother to function through the National Endowment for Destruction) and, of course, that there is the potential and likelihood of further disruptions to the economy with the idea of creating despair in the population which currently supports Chavez. That said, it is essential to recognise that all that was necessary to trigger the recall referendum was 20% (or roughly 2.4 million) of the electorate from the last time. Very few semi-objective observers last year thought it unlikely that the opposition had much less than 30% support. Although the opposition goal during the signature campaign at the end of last November was to get 3.8 million (thus giving them more than Chavez had received to win--- which would have allowed them to say, "Chavez out now!"), despite an incredible amount of fraud they were well below this. Because of irregularities (some innocent), the Electoral Council threw out many signatures and assigned others to be 'repaired' (ie., people had to show up and prove their legitimacy); in the end, they barely got their necessary signatures. On this count, the opposition does not look especially strong. But, they are organised--- the NED-financed SUMATE organisation has extensive computer records on the electorate, and the party organisations that compose the opposition have experienced, committed and disciplined cadres able to bring out their support. In contrast, the Chavist supporters, although likely more in number, demonstrated on this occasion that they were very poorly organised. The Commando Ayacucho, the group assembled from the various Chavist parties to coordinate this recent campaign (which included the attempt to recall opposition legislators), revealed that it had strong individual spokespeople able to attack the opposition and to make rousing, confident speeches but that it lacked the organisation and discipline to deliver what it promised. (This has led to considerable criticism from the barrios and elsewhere.) So, the central question, I think, is whether the Chavist forces will learn adequately from these events. The referendum campaign is an excellent opportunity to deepen the Bolivarian Revolution and to raise both the consciousness and the organisational capacity of those who support it. It is important to recognise that at every step of the way, the process here has been propelled forward by the action of the opposition. In achieving the threshold for a recall referendum on Chavez, the opposition has provided the government with a gift--- the opportunity to turn this into a request for a mandate on its education, health and social programmes, on its attempt to create a new social economy, indeed into a mandate on the constitution itself. Chavez himself will certainly frame the issues this way. But, the results will depend on the concrete steps taken at the base to organise the masses of poor who have been the principal beneficiaries of the government; if new, effective forms of organisation are not developed--- in the face of everything that the opposition, the Bush government and capital will throw at the government, then a successful recall is possible. In short, to coin a phrase, pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. in solidarity, michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
new megafraud controversy raging in Venezuela: imperialism or Chavez
Published: Friday, June 04, 2004 Bylined to: Patrick J. O'Donoghue Chavez Frias blamed for Miss Venezuela's poor showing in Miss Universe Analyzing the failure of Venezuela to figure in the final 5 candidates of the Miss Universe contest held in Quito, Ecuador, some Venezuelan luminaries are throwing the blame on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias. Beauty contest expert, Julio Rodriguez says political reasons dominated the exclusion of clear favorite, Ana Karina Anez ... "it's due to the tense situation between Venezuelan and the USA ... we must remember that it's a US-based event ... she should have been the last 5 ... I cannot see any other motive." Nidal Nouahied, who designed Miss Venezuela's national dress agrees that politics did enter the contest this year ... "we are talking about a US company that disagrees with the process developing in Venezuela ... Lebanon and Israel are always excluded for the same reason." Star Models Agency director, Elizabeth Linares complains that Ana Karina had everything it takes to win and showed plenty of security ... "tense and stringent relations between Venezuela and the USA will hinder everything we do in international contests ... beauty has nothing to do with politics ... but!" The exclusion of Miss Venezuela broke Venezuela's record of 21 finals ... three times as runner up: Marena Bencomo (1996), Veruska Ramirez (1997) y Mariangel Ruiz (2003). Ruiz says she's as shocked as the rest of the Nation because people were certain the Venezuelan girl would win ... money was no object in the preparing Anez for the event but she rules out the political factor, pointing to the non-political character of the contest. Linares revives the theory that Miss Universe tycoon, Donald Trump is getting his own back after the (Miss Universe Alicia Machado rumpus several years ago but other experts reject the theory outright. Some people suggest that it is time to change the Venezuelan prototype, insisting that future Miss Venezuelas beef up on the question part and learn to speak English. Miss Venezuela organizer, Osmel Sousa admits he wasn't too happy with Ana Karina's performance ... "she was a bit nervous, a bit passive before the preliminary jury." Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PEN-L list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Marxism] The new number one reason to vote Nader From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 13:09:41 -0400 Reply-To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) Dissent Magazine, Spring 2004 Ralph Nader and the Will to Marginality by Todd Gitlin Yes, I love it! The new slogan: 'A Vote for Nader is a vote against Todd Gitlin' is sure to mobilise old SDS'ers. cheers, michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Re: the socialist scholars conference
Re: Rightwing faction purges Socialist Scholars Conference coordinator by Louis Proyect 28 May 2004 17:30 UTC < < < Thread Index > > > Eric Canepa, who is a long-time coordinator of the yearly Socialist Scholars Conference in NYC, has been fired. From what I understand, the prime movers against him were Ian Williams, Bogdan Denitch and somebody named Jeff Gold. Williams and Denitch were well-known supporters of the war in the Balkans and Gold can be described as a Dissent magazine "socialist". SNIP I think it testifies to the pathetic nature of the US Left that it has functioned for so long under the fiction that Bogdan Denitch and 'Company' had anything to do with a Left. It's not only the Balkans-- think about last year's ideological offensive against Cuba. It's hard to feel too much sympathy for Stanley Aronowitz and friends, with their complaints about fleabites after the company they've been keeping. cheers, michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Washington Post on Chavez
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. 2003 VenezuelAnalysis.com Ongoing News, Views and Analysis from Venezuela <><>Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Operation Eternal Racism
very rarely these days)
desert tents, think with some sort of single, collective mind is utterly
ridiculous.
The result is a collection of outrageously broad - and often suspect -
generalisations. Patai asserts, for example, that Arabs "hate" the west.
He backs up this claim with two quotations: one from a book published in the
mid-50s ("Most westerners have simply no inkling of how deep and fierce is
the hate, especially of the west, that has gripped the modernising Arab"),
and another from Bernard Lewis - currently the neocons' favourite historian
- referring to the mood of "many, if not most Arabs" in 1955 (just before
the Suez crisis).
We are also informed (page 144) of "the Arab view that masturbation is far
more shameful than visiting prostitutes".
Whether this is why Iraqi prisoners were forced to masturbate in front of
cameras is unclear, but the only supporting evidence for Patai's claim is a
survey of Arab and US students published in 1954: the US students admitted
to masturbating twice as often as the Arabs, while 59% of the Arabs, but
only 28% of the Americans, said they had visited a prostitute during the
previous 12 months.
In "outlying areas", such as Siwa oasis in Egypt, Patai says, "homosexuality
is the rule, and practised completely in the open". This unequivocal
statement is based on accounts dating from 1935, 1936 and 1950, and, in a
footnote, Patai concedes that they "need to be checked out by an
anthropologically trained observer".
There is also a good deal of confusion in the book between the present and
the past. An Arab man, Patai writes, even if he has four wives, "can have
sexual relations with concubines (slave girls whom he owns)".
All this adds up to an overwhelmingly negative picture of the Arabs.
Positive characteristics are mentioned, but are given relatively short
shrift.
Hospitality and generosity - two highly regarded virtues in Arab societies -
get three and one and a half pages respectively, compared with a whole
chapter devoted to alleged sexual hang-ups.
The book is a classic case of orientalism which, by focusing on what Edward
Said called the "otherness" of Arab culture, sets up barriers that can then
be exploited for political purposes.
The Arab Mind was originally published in 1976, but - according to one US
academic - actually belongs to the "national character" genre of writing
that was popular in comparative politics around the middle of the last
century.
Its methodology, therefore - not to mention much of its content - was
considerably behind the times even when it first appeared.
Patai died in 1996, but his book was revived by Hatherleigh Press in 2002
(nicely timed for the war in Iraq), and reprinted with an enthusiastic
introduction by Norvell "Tex" De Atkine, a former US army colonel and the
head of Middle East studies at Fort Bragg.
"It is essential reading," De Atkine wrote. "At the institution where I
teach military officers, The Arab Mind forms the basis of my cultural
instruction."
In a speech last week, the US president, George Bush, congratulated himself
on having removed "hateful propaganda" from the schools in Iraq.
Perhaps it is now time he turned his attention to military schools in the
US.
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at
Residencias Anauco Suites
Departamento 601
(58-212) 573-4111
fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Fwd: Who is Ahmed Chalabi
tely aware that for Chalabi to continue performing the role of an "effective puppet", he needs a new image, which presents him to public opinion in Iraq and the Middle East not only as "independent" but anti-American. Chalabi is still a puppet. He cannot move without the consent of the Pentagon. With mounting resistance, the US cannot reasonably install a political proxy and expect Iraqis to rally behind him. Whether this strategy will succeed is doubtful and this is one of the main reasons behind the US decision to dump the Iraqi Governing Council. In Iraq, Chalabi is still viewed for what he is, a creature of the CIA. Whether he plays a direct role in the political transition remains to be seen. Whether he integrates a transition government or not, or whether that transition government will actually be formed by July 1st, Ahmed Chalabi will continue to perform an important role on behalf of his US sponsors. He constitutes a go-between in the shady dealings of channeling of foreign investment into Iraq, meaning the confiscation of the country's wealth by a handful of corporations. In this context, he is used as a bridge, between selected Iraqi business collaborators and US companies. His adviser Francis Brookes acts on behalf of BKSH and Associates, controlled by Charles R. "Charlie" Black, Jr. and BKSH acts on behalf of major US investors into Iraq. In turn, Chalabi's nephew Salem Chalabi runs a law firm called the Iraqi International Law Group (IILG). (The Guardian 24 September 2003). The IILG was set up in July 2003 to provide foreign enterprise with the information and tools it needs to enter the emerging Iraq and to succeed, according to its website. Our clients number among the largest corporations and institutions on the planet, (quoted in Brian Whitaker, Zionist Settler Joins Iraqi to Promote Trade, http://www.world-crisis.com/more/30_0_1_0_M13/ ) But it turns out that the IILG based in Baghdad is in fact a proxy for a Washington based law firm, Zell, Goldberg & Co, "which claims to be 'one of Israel's fastest-growing business-oriented law firms". In turn, Zell, Goldberg and Co is the Israeli affiliate of the FANDZ International Law Group. (http://www.fandz.com/ ). Now it just so happens that FANDZ is a partnership between Marc Zell and Department of Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith, who, while on leave from the company, reports directly to Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld. "The FANDZ INTERNATIONAL LAW GROUP was established in 1999 with the formation of Zell, Goldberg & Co. and its alliance with Feith & Zell, P.C" http://www.fandz.com/html/fandz.html In other words, in the complex web of political puppets, law firms and public relations consulting outfits, all roads lead up the ladder to the Pentagon's highest ranks. Chalabi has not been dumped. Quite the opposite. He now emerges with a brand new anti-American image, which contributes to confusing public opinion. He remains America's Number One "intelligence asset" in Baghdad, serving a central role in the economic colonization of Iraq. The ultimate objective of the US led occupation is to confiscate Iraq's resources including its oil wells and gain full control over the national economy. Faced with mounting popular resistance, that desperate process can only be undertaken under the smokescreen of an illusive national sovereignty. ** * The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405D.html The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to forward and or cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For media inquiries: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject line. © Copyright M CHOSSUDOVSKY 2004. Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Chavez and arming the people
Here's an excerpt from an article by Hermann Albrecht of the 'Revolutionary Marxist Current, Venezuela' (a group linked to the Ted Grant/Alan Woods old 'Militant tendency' in the UK) which I posted on another list and which Michael asked me to post here. You can find the whole piece on their site, marxist.com. Another piece covering the Chavez speech is by Marta Harnecker at http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1179 in solidarity, michael But we must stress that Chavez in general has made a shift to the left, one that revolutionary Marxists must support and push forward. On Friday May 14, in a phone interview with the state television channel, VTV, he declared that there are discussions about the "expropriation of any building, property or installation where t! here is proof that these paramilitary groups have been training". We add that these measures of expropriation must be extended to means of production as a whole, the banks, and all property in the hands of the Venezuelan oligarchy which are involved in this attempt to prepare an invasion. This would be the first step towards the complete expropriation of the means of production and the banks in the hands of the Venezuelan ruling class. Even more significant is the speech which closed the march on Sunday. Previously we had already pointed out that it was a mistake if such a mass demonstration were called and not given clear tasks. But this was not the case on Sunday. Chavez pointed out clear aims for the workers' and peoples' leaders. He said that "in every neighbourhood, in every mountain pass, field, university, factory, jungle, in every place where there is a group "revolutionaries must start to organise and to form workers an! d peoples' militias." He added that "it is time for revolutionary s ecurity, to change the concept, reorient it, because we are still working with (old fashioned bureaucratic) IVth republic schemas". Chavez has understood the danger facing the revolutionary process by leaving the bourgeois structures intact upon which the state apparatus, including the Armed Forces, are based. Chavez made an appeal, not only to the existing power structures, but also to the movement of the workers and the people to take the need of arming the people into their own hands. "In the next weeks, with the advice of the National Defence Council, I will start to give out directives and lines, I appeal for the support of the local councils, the social movements, the popular currents ( ) Adult men and women, who are not in the reserve, but who are ready, in a different way, to become soldiers without having to go through the barracks, to receive military training and organise militarily for the defence of the country. ( ) ! Nothing, nor nobody will be able to defeat Venezuela, with a conscious and organised people." The Minister of Defence, Gral Garcia Carneiro has already declared that they are mobilising within the Armed Forces to coordinate these tasks. It is interesting to see the effect that the president's speech had on many layers, since even some of the trade union leaders, who had used conciliatory and pacifist rhetoric until now (calling on people to be passive) have been pushed to change their language. UNT (trade union) leader Marcela Maspero, declared that the UNT is already starting to coordinate its different federations and unions to form these Workers Brigades. (UNT leader Stalin Perez Borge has also declared that the "UNT will ask for a meeting with the defence minister so that the workers' militias can start receiving military training"). It is the responsibility of the rank and file to make sure that these slogans are put into p! ractice. Workers in all factories must demand that their trade unio n leaders become involved and start the formation of these Workers' Brigades. As president Chavez said this is the duty of all. It cannot be left in the hands of the leadership only, we must all be involved, challenging the trade union, party and community leaders to play a role in the immediate organisation of workers' and peoples' self-defence brigades. This is the only way forward. This is the only real defence when faced with the advances of counter-revolution. Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Cuba: Prewar preparations
Dear Friends and Comrades, The following note sent on Wednesday by a US student at the medical school in Havana gives a good idea of the situation in Cuba right now in the aftermath of the new Bush offensive. The fear of a direct US attack in the event of a Bush victory in November is something I was hearing last week when I was in Havana. It is clearly a time to mobilise not only in Cuba. in solidarity, michael I wanted to send this email to all so that you can be aware of what is going on. Some may already know some of this, but things here are getting a little hectic and we will wait and see how everything turns out. The government here thinks that Bush will try to attack this country in order to win the election. The news which we are getting here is that Bush is trying to appease the Cubans in Miami and also because of the upincoming elections and all of the problems which he is presently receiving regarding the war in Iraq, the economy, etc. He has taken measures in order to put even more economic pressure on this country. As a result, this government is also taking measures to counteract this, meaning that it is preparing itself for a possible attack. Also, measures were taken where prices on all products will be raised or no longer sold so that they can be stored in reserves and distributed during a possible attack or war. All of this began on Monday night and so there is alot of speculation and uncertainty about everything. Yesterday I was able to buy a few necesities at a store and I can tell you that it was completely chaotic. Also within 4 hours, the store sold out of all of its products, because people wanted to have emergency items. (This is a huge store which not only sells food, but also sells clothes and many other things.) This chaos also spread to the banks. Maybe the government here knows something about plans others don't, but one thing is certain is that life here will be somewhat unstable at least until the elections in November and depending on what happens (meaning if Bush wins) things will probably get worse. It is said here that Bush needs to scare people in order to get them to vote for him. This could mean an attack there (in the States) or in another country. Or the other possibility is that he will find bin Ladam right before the elections. Hate to bring you the bad news but unfortunately this is the way things are at least over here. Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Cuban response to new Bush offensive
Date Index > > > Re: Marx Conference in Havana just completed by Michael Perelman 14 May 2004 02:00 UTC < < < Thread Index > > > Thank you, Michael, for the excellent report. Thank you. I think people missed a good one. I understand that Cuba was trying to draw back from the dollar economy a bit before Bush acted. Am I wrong? Could you teach us something about the evolution of the cuban economy? Thanks again. Unfortunately, I'm not able to keep up with developments in Cuba as much as I would like because I'm absorbed in Venezuela. I'm sure others know much more. There's no question in my mind that Fidel and many others see the market as corrupting and would like to foster solidarity and to increase moral incentives rather than to let self-interest be in command. However, my sense is that there is no desire to pull back from the dollar economy as such. Cuba desperately needs dollars to pay for imports, and having locals ask their US relatives to send money is important in permitting them to purchase many things like the food, medicine, etc they don't produce. This is especially important in the context of high oil prices (much higher than budgeted for). I think this need has accelerated efforts to economise on the use of the USD. It is important to understand that, although people know that there is the peso economy and the dollar economy in Cuba (and that tourists and increasingly Cubans live in the latter), Cuba really has a 3rd currency-- the convertible peso (which is a perfect substitute for the usd internally); in this particular respect, Cuba is not a dollarised economy because they have complete control over the extent of convertible pesos in circulation--- ie., to this extent they retain their monetary sovereignty. Within the last year, the government has been moving to reduce the circulation of the usd between enterprises, replacing this with the convertible peso and has pushed to get the usd into the central bank faster. Ie., faced with scarcity of the usd for imports, it is economising on its use and substituting the convertible peso for internal circulation. If I'm correct about what is happening, it would be entirely consistent-- in the context of a real threat of reduced usd as the result of the new Bush offensive--- for them to extend this to purchase of consumer durables, ie., to further substitute that peso by requiring people to exchange their usd for these. This could occur while not in any way reducing the demand for usd remittances (and, in fact, prices of these could be increased at the same time). Again, this is only my own speculation as to what is occurring. What is not speculation, on the other hand, is that Cuba remains in difficult economic shape (if only they can succeed in finding that good oil!) and somehow manages to keep going. I hope this helps and stimulates someone who knows more to comment. in solidarity, michael ps. I've seen on tv this morning a massive crowd (and a very tired-looking Fidel) out in front of the US interests building in Havana, protesting the Bush moves. Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Marx Conference in Havana just completed
ve, did quite well on its own). Finally, let me note that the day before the conference there was a pre-conference on Cuba itself (at the same site--- the Palace of Conventions): a morning on the economy and afternoon on politics and society. I found it excellent and could have benefited much from a week of this! Here, as with the conference itself, there was lots of discussion but never enough time. So, while I'm certain other people would pick out different highlights, I think that--- in terms of the quality, the relevance and the extent of participation--- this was the best conference I've been to in Cuba. (My comparison is to the Globalisation conferences, the 'Philosophers' conferences and one organised in February 2000.) In fact, it is one of the best I've ever been to. My understanding is that the organisers were very happy, too. The next conference is planned for May 2006--- two years from now, and the hope is to use the website (www.nodo50.org/cubasigloXXI/ ) for discussions in the meantime. in solidarity, michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
China's new Marxist left?
Steve comments: This is ironical, right? --nope, jonathan is right, that is exactly what michael saw and heard. I heard and saw the same time and again in the Marxist journals and conferences. In fact, I sat in on a meeting of the editorial board of the now defunct (I think?) magazine of the Marxist left in China (whose name now escapes me, Jonathan?). The editors were responding exactly to the argument within Chinese mainstream marxism that captialists are now workers who produce value and therefore belong in the Communist Party. The edition was being put out to refute this idea. I think that journal was called "Pursuit of Truth" and no longer exists. On the other hand, there must be currents within currents in China. Eg., the paper I gave at the Beijing Conference talked about how commodity exchange (while not to be identified with capitalism) creates conditions for the restoration of capitalism because of the nature of people produced under these relations and that only the conscious creation of new social relations, the invading communist society from below, could check this.(I didn't mention China but it was clear what I was talking about.) I learned recently that the paper was translated and published in September in the first issue of a new journal, the journal of the Shanghai School of Economics. Somebody must want to discuss these questions. in solidarity, michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Anauco Suites, Room 601 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
China's new Marxist left
I don't know if you could say that the 'Marxists' were entirely marginalised. At an official conference of Marxist economists in Beijing less than two years ago, I was struck by the vigour with which the assembled Chinese Marxist economists were discussing the law of value--- in particular, how to demonstrate that utility yields value and the capitalist is a productive worker. (All this in response to a call from above for updating the law of value for the modern socialist market economy--- and a week before a number of capitalists received the 'model worker' awards for May Day.) Han Deqiang (mentioned in a note by Stephen as China's best left economist) was not invited to the conference (but instead was speaking to many students). He said he probably was not invited because he didn't agree with the theory of productive forces (ie., that all that matters is that the productive forces advance). He will, however, be at the Marx Conference in Havana in May (along with David Harvey, Samir Amin, Istvan Meszaros, Leo Panitch and a host of others). in solidarity, michael Re: re China's new Marxist left by jjlassen 25 January 2004 20:01 UTC Michael, The academic left is much more marginal in China than in the US, and even more removed from the experiences of the producers than here. Zuo Dapei, wrote a short piece on heterodox economics in China. It gives a sense of what's 'left' in economics (which is, as in the US, *the* hegemonic academic discipline of social science): http://www.chinastudygroup.org/index.php?type=article&id=31 On the hopeful side, a group of leftist academics recent teamed up to set up a book store and meeting place for lectures and movies, called Utopia. If people are passing through, it's the place to go. Their website is at: http://www.wyzxwyzx.com/ (but it's all in Chinese) Cheers, Jonathan Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Anauco Suites, Room 601 Caracas, Venezuela (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
Marx Conference in Havana
Dear Friends and Comrades, Please forgive me for the impersonal nature of this note (and any duplicate postings), but I'm just back to Caracas and am about to go into overdrive. I'm writing to remind you about the Marx Conference, which is scheduled for 4-7 May in Havana (with a series of events in the preceding days). This year, the conference is scheduled to take place at the Palace of Conventions (where it concluded last year); and the format will be 4 commissions with simultaneous translation every morning between 10-1:30 (with additional space for informal group discussions) and then afternoon plenary sessions (also with simultaneous translation) between 2:30 and 7. At this point, the latter (which are conceived as opportunities for wide discussion) are in initial stages of organisation and are likely to range over topics such as imperialism; neofascism, terrorism and local conflict; theoretical-methodological dimensions of anti-capitalist struggle; state and social emancipation; and class struggle and social movements in Latin America. In order to facilitate discussion, presentations in the commissions will be limited to 10 minutes, and the conference organisers are requesting papers of a maximum of 10 pages long (2500 words). The plan is to translate these and to make them available in advance of the conference on the conference website (www.nodo50.org/cubasigloXXI/) . Although the precise nature of the commission groupings will depend on the papers submitted, on the basis of the themes solicited in the conference call and the interest already expressed we do expect, among others, sessions that will explore the theory and practice of Che and other Latin American actors, the modern proletariat, sustainable development as well as others on the theory and experience of socialism. With significant participation from South Africa and Brazil, there is also the potential for exciting exchanges on experiences with neoliberalism in these two important countries. Among the non-Cubans who have already signaled their intention to participate in this year's Marx Conference are Samir Amin, Ricardo Antunes, Azwell Banda, Patrick Bond, Atilo Boron, Al Campbell, Ashwin Desai, Han Deqiang, Theotonio Dos Santos, Julio Gambina, Pablo Gonzalez Casanova, Marta Harnecker, David Harvey, John Holloway, Lau Kin Chi, Istvan Meszaros, Leo Panitch and Emir Sader. If you are thinking about participating, you should check the conference call on the website and should contact Jesus Garcia Brigos, Coordinator of the Academic Committee, with your ideas about a paper (if you wish to present one) at [EMAIL PROTECTED] as soon as possible. To be able to focus on discussion, the sooner that papers are received, the sooner they can be made available to participants. Hoping that we'll see you in Havana for May Day and the Marx Conference. in solidarity, michael --------- Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
venezuelan banker tours
cago, Los Angeles and San Francisco around the third week in January. The title of the tour is Nora Castaneda: Creating a caring economy in Venezuela. Selma James, international coordinator of the Global Womens Strike and Nina Lopez of the GWS Bolivarian Circle in London will accompany Castaneda to provide introductory remarks and translation on both east and west coasts of America. They will also show clips from 'Venezuela -- A 21st Century Revolution.' Phoebe Jones (GWS Bolivarian Circle/US) will coordinate and chair east coast events while Margaret Prescod (GWS Los Angeles, and KPFK presenter) will chair west coast. Contacts: Phoebe Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] telephone 215-848-1120 Margaret Prescod [EMAIL PROTECTED] telephone 323-292-7405 Nina Lopez (Spanish-language inquiries) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
Re: college students again and a question
I agree with Ahmet: radical economists were repressed in the 50s in US universities, and in the early 60s there were no faculty in economics there to teach people who were starting to ask questions. (So, people were self-taught, holding many reading groups.) The enormous upsurge in political activity stimulated by first the civil rights movement and then the opposition to the war created an environment which made demands on economics departments and made possible the hiring of left faculty. Departments actually thought they could be more attractive to students if they hired a few tokens--- in the case of UMass at Amherst, the decision was to create a critical mass to rescue a declining department. But, even the conservative departments of that period seem pretty benign and pluralistic compared to the state of economics departments now. With very few exceptions, it's hard to recommend graduate programmes, and I find myself increasing recommending political science and geography departments because of the possibility of doing political economy within them. I think it will take the combination of mass activity (which will lead even economics students to question again) and declining enrollments in economics (which will direct those instantaneous calculators of pleasure and pain to be guided by their self-interest) to create the environment for the hiring of progressive economists in economics departments. in solidarity, michael Re: college students again and a question by E. Ahmet Tonak 02 December 2003 14:58 UTC < < < Thread Index Radical economists cannot get teaching positions at those universities respected or otherwise if there is no demand for them. The demand itself is always created by the general political and cultural mood. Sometimes, certain segments of society signal/provoke those "mood" swings, e.g. youngsters in the 60's and the landless peasants in contemporary Brazil, etc. I think, what happened in the US universities (as I was told by American friends) in the 60's is one concrete illustration of this connection between academia and society at large, i.e. radicals "infiltrated" to all kind of programs throughout, including economics departments: Marglin of Harvard, Harris of Stanford, Foley of Barnard/Columbia, etc. Am I making sense as an outsider--as another Turk? Ahmet Tonak > > > - Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
Venezuela report on workers-- 26 November 2003
This is the second of two notes on current developments in Venezuela; it is
being sent to a larger distribution list because of its content. Please
circulate widely.
There have been rumours that in private industry (largely unorganised)
workers would be taken to the signature tables by their supervisors to sign
up in the 'Reafirmazo' to generate a recall of Chavez. (It is called the
RE-signing because of the opposition claim that their unsupervised and
constitutionally premature sign-up last February was the first firmazo.)
There is some rather concrete evidence, though, that the pressures upon
private sector workers will be intense.
I have just been shown a card by a leader of UNT (the National Union of
Workers, the new trade union federation formed in August). This nicely
embossed a card for the "reafirmazo' has a place for the bearer's name and
signature and a place where this card is to be stamped. It is being given
by private sector employers to their workers. The card reads (roughly
translated): 'Today I have left my signature and my hello for history, as
demonstration of my desire and will to look for a peaceful, democratic and
electoral exit to the crisis of the country.' What will happen to workers
whose card is NOT stamped is anyone's guess. The real point is that the
pressure being placed upon workers in the private sector is clear. We can
say with certainty that no such pressure was placed upon public sector
workers this last week because we definitely would have heard about it.
This is news that needs to be spread--- especially to trade unionists who
will recognise what such a card represents. Also, it is essential to ensure
that international observers watch for this.
in solidarity,
michael
-
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office Fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
By their words ye shall know them--the venezuelan opposition
From the Venezuelan opposition site, vcrisis.com: an article by Aleksander Boyd (22-11-03) Venezuela does not have MPs, it has clowns. Venezuela does not have independence of powers, it has crawling yes-men running institutions. Integrity is not a pre-requisite in Chavez Venezuela it never was-. Nonetheless the levels of cynicism of the empowered rabble are revolting. All power to the Rabble! - Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
note on the venezuelan media
One of the biggest jokes in Venezuela at this time of the sign-up campaigns for recall are the regulations on the media.(Signing for the recall of 38 opposition members of parliament is occurring right now, and next Friday-Monday will be the signature campaign to call for a recall referendum for Chavez.) The regulation (as reported by opposition source eluniversal.com) is as follows: The CNE announced on Tuesday that regulations ruling the electoral propaganda for recall referenda in Venezuela entered into force. Under these rules, propaganda on TV is limited to two minutes per day and radio broadcasting to five minutes. Anonymous announcements are prohibited. Those who violate regulations in TV/Film commercials could face fines up to $310,206, whereas revocable officials who do not respect them could be fined up to $278,266 Why a joke? Because every opposition channel for the last week has had dusk-to-dawn 'news' and discussion programmes which are focused on one question only--- the 'firmazo', the sign-up campaign to recall Chavez. No regulations on these. in solidarity, michael --------- Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
Venezuela confronts the FTAA
Venezuela confronts the FTAA Michael A. Lebowitz (4 October 2003) Our principle, announced Ramón Rosales (Venezuelas Minister of Production and Commerce) is as much market as possible, and as much state as necessary. What that statement, released at the September 2003 WTO meeting in Cancun, means in terms of so-called international trade agreements can only be understood in the context of what Venezuela was arguing at Cancun. Challenging the effects of free trade on human development, calling for an end to an unjust economic order, for the prioritizing of the fight against poverty and social exclusion, for putting human rights before corporate rights, the Venezuelan position called for a re-emphasis upon the role of public policy as a tool without which it is impossible to achieve the stated goal of equitable, democratic, and environmentally sustainable development. In short, it was a position which directly rejects neo-liberalism and the international institutions intended to enforce it. And, that is precisely the stance taken by the government of Hugo Chavez for the discussions of FTAA. In a statement released in April to delegations participating in the FTAA Trade Negotiations Committee (and oriented to gaining support throughout the continent), Venezuela declared that the FTAA is not merely a trade agreement; it establishes a supranational legal and institutional system that will eventually prevail over the current system in our country. Precisely because of the implications of FTAA for national sovereignty, Venezuela announced that any FTAA agreement would be the subject of a national referendum. Indeed, it pointed out that Article 73 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela requires a referendum: International treaties, conventions, and agreements that could compromise national sovereignty or transfer power to supranational entities ( ) shall be submitted to referendum. In calling for the people to decide, the Venezuelan governments own position would be clear. Ever since the defeated coup of 11 April 2002 and the subsequent opposition sabotage that has produced a crisis, the document noted, Venezuela has a new appreciation of the extraordinary importance of the need for governments to be able to draw on a wide spectrum of public policies to respond to crises (whether environmental, political, or economic), as well as to be able to tackle the challenges and demands associated with fair, sustainable development. The proposal for FTAA would prevent this. Indeed, the government argued, The recent sabotage of PDVSA, the national oil industry, is a pathetic example of everything stated in this document. Widespread democratic involvement, though, should not be limited to a vote at the end. Precisely because of the vast implications of FTAA, Venezuela declared in its statement to the Trade Negotiations Committee, we cannot continue to negotiate as if these were just some trade negotiations in which only experts and specialists in the different areas of commercial and international law need participate. Democratic negotiations need to include in an effective manner all sectors of the population continent-wide because every sector will be affected to some extent by the agreements being negotiated. And, what of those popular sectors in Venezuela at this point? Although trade unions and popular sectors have indicated that they oppose FTAA and all it stands for, the priority is support for the government in its resolve--- support in the face of an opposition aided by the US government and prepared again to do everything possible to remove the Chavez government. The struggle against international capital and its goals at this point in Venezuela is a struggle to maintain and deepen the Bolivarian Revolution. - Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
Marx Conference in Havana, May 2004
ortal (www.filosofia.cu). We shall be working to achieve the widest possible attendance from among those interested in bringing about a better world - which is not only possible, but essential to the very existence of mankind. Permanent workshop 'Karl Marx and the Challenges of the 21st Century' Chairman of the Organizing Committee: Dr Romelia Pino Freyre, Director of the Institute of Philosophy. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] General Coordinator: Roberto Lima Ferrer. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Coordinator of the Academic Committee: Dr Jesús Pastor García Brigos E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nchamach Miller, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Members of the Academic Committee (in alphabetical order of surname): Cuba: Dr Esther Aguilera, Dr Rafael Alhama Belamaric, Dr Talia Fung Riverón, Dr Carmen Gómez García, Dr Norma Gálvez, Marta Harnecker, Dario Machado, Luís Marcelo Yera Dr Ernesto Molina Molina, Dr Isabel Monal, Haydée Montes, Dr Concepción Nieves; Dr Hugo Pons, Dr Rigoberto Pupo, Isabel Rauber, Daysi Rivero Alvisa, Dr Ramón Sánchez Noda, Dr Jorge Luís Santana, Luís Suarez, Prof. Raúl Valdés Vivó. International Academic Committee: Prof. Robert Albritton, Canada; Luciano Alzaga, Sweden; Prof. Samir Amin, Senegal; Prof. Atilio Borón, Argentina; Dr Alexander Buzgalin, Russia; Prof. Al Campbell, USA; Prof. Ken Cole, UK; Prof. Theotonio Dos Santos, Brazil; Prof. Georges Labica, France; Prof. Lau Kin Chi, Hong Kong; Prof. Néstor Kohan, Argentina; Professor Emeritus Michael Lebowitz, Canada; Professor Emeritus István Meszárós, UK; Nchamach Miller, Colombia. - Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
Why Chavez is really dangerous
From eluniversal.com (one of the jineteros of Venezuela): Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa labeled President Hugo Chávez as "a very dangerous person" who, besides destroying Venezuela, has become an example of a populist leader who must be vanquished in a "cultural war." Vargas Llosa took part in a conference on democracy and leadership challenges in Latin America, an event organized by Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think tank. "Chávez is a very dangerous person, not only because he is destroying Venezuela, but also because he is creating a kind of model that under certain circumstances could become popular in the rest of Latin America," he said. "This is a cultural war," added Vargas Llosa. "We must fight and win if we do not want get back to the populist era, which has been so tragic in our history." Venezuela is "evolving increasingly towards a totalitarian system", he said. "Fortunately, the press and mass media have not yet been taken over, but it is something that you could envisage in the near future, unless something happens," he added. - Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
Re: The Revolution Will Not be Shown by AI
Ted, To reach the petition, try http://www.PetitionOnline.com/vendoc/ You can, as I did, paste in the names of AI people to write directly. in solidarity, michael At 12:44 05/11/2003 -0700, you wrote: The links in your message about AI and TRWNBT were apparently HotMail specific, so I couldn't get to the petition. I did send a msg to the AI guy in BC, however. Please re-send with a more direct link to the petition, if you can. I'd like to pass it on the the Albuquerque Center for Peace and Justice, who will almost surely endorse it. Ted Cloak Albuquerque ----- Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
Response to Amnesty Int. ban of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
d potentially create more violence within Venezuela. These reasons are without justification. Firs t of all, the film specifically documents the above-mentioned human rights abuses as a result of opposition forces carrying out an illegal coup detat, dismantling democratic institutions and imposing a blackout on information so facts would not be revealed to either the Venezuelan people or the international community. Additionally, Amnesty International independently selected the film as a part of its festival in Canada. Therefore, the organization must have believed the films subject matter was in line with the festival theme. It was only upon receipt of a petition from opposition forces in Venezuela and their international counterparts that Amnesty decided to remove the film from the festival schedule. Finally, since the film is currently showing in theaters around the world, its viewing at a festival in Vancouver, Canada would no more affect internal Venezuelan politics than any other screening. Amnesty International claims to work in pursuit of universal protection and recognition of human rights and to maintain an independence of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. Yet, by choosing to remove the film from its festival, it is siding with those groups opposing its factual content and documentary perspective. Furthermore, we view this as an outright case of censorship of this important portrayal of historical events central to the theme of human rights and believe it is deplorable that an international defender of human rights would choose to censor in the face of pressure, rather than vehemently protect the paramount right of public access to information. By taking this action, Amnesty International is perpetuating the blackout on information imposed by the coup leaders in Venezuela during April 2002. If Amnesty International is truly concerned with the impartial protection of human rights, it would follow that screening a film that exposes horrific human rights violations would be in line with its mission. We therefore urge Amnesty International to reconsider its decision to revoke the film, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, from the upcoming festival in Vancouver, British Columbia. We also reiterate our profound support for this important chronicle of the unjustifiable coup detat of April 2002 in Venezuela that resulted in innocent lives lost and harmed and the deprivation of basic human rights. Initial endorsing organizations and individuals: - International Womens Human Rights Clinic, CUNY Law School, New York - Venezuela Solidarity Committee in New York - Unión Nacional de Trabajadores (UNT) - Aporrea.org - Opción de Izquierda Revolucionaria (OIR) - Movimineto 13 de Abril - Proyecto Nuestra América - UTOPIA - Juventud de Izquierda Revolucionaria (JIR) - Fundación Cultural Simón Bolívar - Coordinadora Simón Bolívar - Círculo Bolivariano Profesor Alberto Lovera (New York) - Venezuelanalysis.com - Eva Golinger-Moncada - Martín Sánchez The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* Project-X list: initiated for the (re)building of the Left. ----- Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
Further information on new coup planning in Venezuela
Video, Audio, and Documents Released More Evidence of Clandestine Opposition and CIA Activity Revealed By: Venezuelanalysis.com Pro-Chavez legislators Juan Barreto, Nicolas Maduro, and Roger Rondon presented more material today, which implicates the leaders of the union federation and of the CIA in clandestine activity in Venezuela. The new material the legislators presented included documents and a video recording of a presumed CIA operative leaving from the Valencia airport in Carabobo state. The airplane, according to Maduro, is registered to the CIA by the Federal Aviation Administration. The video shows the same individual who, in a video Maduro presented last week, was giving a course in security and surveillance, boarding the airplane. Juan Barreto presented a report by the Disip, Venezuelas national police, which described the arrival and departure of the plane, with the registration N202HG, on July 25th, 2003. The people who boarded the plane were carrying weapons, which is illegal in Venezuelan airports. The report further states that the individuals boarding the plane were with the security firm Wackenhut, which in Venezuela is owned by Isaac Perez Recao, one of the main individuals implicated in organizing last years 2002 coup attempt against President Chavez. The plane, according to Barreto, did not follow the normal migration protocols. Last week, both the U.S. embassy and the security company Wackenhut denied supporting any CIA activity in Venezuela. Leaders of the Union Federation CTV Discuss Plans for Destabilizing the Country Juan Barreto then presented a recording of a phone conversation between the former President of the CTV, Carlos Ortega, and the current CTV President, Manuel Cova. Ortega was one of the oppositions most important leaders, who led, together with the industrial Chamber of Commerce president Carlos Fernandez, the December 2002 oil industry shut-down. After the strike, a warrant for his arrest was issued and Ortega took refuge in the Costa Rican embassy and then applied for political asylum in Costa Rica, which he received and where he currently resides. In the telephone conversation, Cova and Ortega discuss meetings with members of the opposition and Ortegas return to Venezuela. In the course of the conversation, they talk about the other way and that Ortegas return would justify a civil rebellion. Ortega: I will go there and in the meantime the whole program is being planned and well get to it. Cova: Ill do the thing with the other path and the issue of the referendum. Ortega: What is being planned and organized, the contacts, are very advanced, OK? In that moment, in the moment of the mobilization, I will show up. Cova: That would be good. Ortega: It would be the 25th or 30th. In the next few days, I will be there. Cova: Dont give a date. Ortega: No, no, of course not. Cova: This will be very important, for justifying the civil rebellion, because Ortega: The government will fall. Its going to be the biggest mess, in the streets, in Venezuela, this will explode, burst apart Cova: And the opposition, if it does not understand this According to Barreto and Maduro, this conversation supports their argument that there are groups and individuals in the opposition who are working to create general chaos and destabilization during the recall referendum signature collection process, which, in the case of the presidential recall, is to take place November 28 to December 1st. Then, at the end of the recall signature collection process, the opposition would declare it had collected more than enough signatures and would announce a general strike in reaction to the attacks that were supposedly organized by government supporters against the recall signature collection locations. Roger Rondon further announced that a week ago a judge was going to rule in favor of lifting the warrant for Carol Ortegas arrest, with the support of a Supreme Court justice, who had been having discussions with Manuel Cova about this. - Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
terrorist reordering of sentences
From: Jane Franklin, JBFranklins To: Franklin, jbfranklins Date: 10/24/03 1:34 PM RE: Bush Administration now limiting scholarly publishing by Cuban From: "Debra Evenson", INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 10/24/03 9:45 AM New U.S. Treasury Department Rules Cast Chill Over Scientific Publishing Engineers are warning that rules issued by the U.S. Treasury Department this month could restrict the free exchange of scientific information. The Bush administration says the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, with more than 350,000 members worldwide, must stop editing scholarly papers submitted by researchers living in countries under a U.S. trade embargo, or apply for a special license to do so. On Oct. 1 the Treasury Department informed the Institute that editing a research paper is equivalent to providing a service to authors and therefore violates U.S. trade restrictions that prevent U.S.-based organizations from doing business with countries such as Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Sudan. "U.S. persons may not provide [an embargoed author] substantive or artistic alterations or enhancement of the manuscript, and IEEE may not facilitate the provision of such alterations or enhancements," the director of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control wrote in a letter to the IEEE. Trade policy prohibits "the reordering of paragraphs or sentences, correction of syntax, grammar and replacement of inappropriate words by U.S. persons." The IEEE must now apply for a special license to edit papers from researchers in trade embargoed nations. Concerned that it may have otherwise violated U.S. trade laws, the IEEE had already stopped editing papers written by members in the embargoed countries, and had prevented those engineers from viewing its journals online. In a statement issued after the Treasury Department's decision, the IEEE said it would apply for a special license immediately and resume editing papers as soon as the license was granted. Kenneth Foster, a professor of bioengineering and an IEEE member, worries the Treasury Department's decision will have a chilling effect on scientific publishing. "What [the letter] describes as needing a license is exactly what every journal in the world does," he told the Chronicle of Higher Education. From: http://www.caut.ca/english/bulletin/2003_oct/news/sciencepub.asp - Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
Gregory Wilpert on US News& @World Report article
law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. 2003 VenezuelAnalysis.com Ongoing News, Views and Analysis from Venezuela - Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
fyi: reports of Venezuelan opposition plans involving armed commandoes
o, they are not our equals. 16. Your group meetings should be discreet and appear to be informal. Do not arrive together and do not leave in a group ... very important, do not leave a trail. Do not throw away confidential documents. "Now that is is possible and even probable that there will be hostilities, we are prepared to respond and give aid to our army. And if our army does not appear, we will win against he enemy alone. History may judge us as cowards and traitors. Prepare yellow armbands to identify yourself to friends in enemy territory. Urban combat will be explained in detail in the basic manual which we will publish shortly. There are basic skills to get from street to street, break into buildings, infiltrate enemy groupings to clean them out. Do everything to help and nothing to hinder. Make plans to disarm the enemy ... each weapon that you take from them is one less with which to kill us and one more to defeat them. Prepare a supply of Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs ... there is a lot of information in the WWW, read the classic Anarchist cookbook." "If your resistance compatriot falls, forget his/her corpse ... take the weapon and the ammunition which we will need. Always secure an escape route and an alternative if possible, make sure you cover each other's backs and make sure you can get away. Always watch the woofs, balconies and surrounding walls of buildings. Sharp-shooters take vantage points .. let your colleagues know where they are using signals. You can learn how to make smoke grenades on the Internet." The opposition communique continues for many paragraphs more with explicit instructions on how to deal with government soldiers and law enforcement officers which are seen generically as "the enemy." The flow of words goes on to warn that the Bolivarian Circles will try to run "like rats" from (slum areas) Catia, 23 de Enero and Petare to Venezolano de Television (canal 8 VTV) where "we will blitz them ... the CBs will attempt to create scenes to distract the 'patriot army' but we will take on the invading communist professionals." "We will attend the patriot army wounded and take prisoner the Castro-commie traitors. The CBs may take thousands of Venezuelans into concentration camps, for example in the UCV university stadium, but we will liberate them." "The CBs will persecute politicians and dissident military men but we will hide them and devote ourselves to saving the country. Foreign resistance will help us whip their asses so they do not feel secure anyplace." - Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: Phone (604) 291-4669 Fax (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
Report on Venezuelan Labour (8 August 2003)
Dear Friends, I hope you find the following note of interest and will forward it to relevant lists and individuals. in solidarity, michael Report on Venezuelan Labour: the Process Continues Michael A. Lebowitz 8 August 2003 Nationalise the Banks! Take over enterprises that have shutdown and run them instead by workers! Refuse to pay the external debt and use the funds to create jobs! Reduce the workweek to 36 hours! Create new enterprises under workers control!--- These were some of the demands that emerged from the action programme workshop, which were enthusiastically endorsed by delegates to the first National Congress of the National Union of Workers (UNT) of Venezuela on August 1-2. After years of support for neo-liberalism by the Accion Democratica-dominated Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) culminated in that organisations involvement in the (quickly-overturned) coup of April 2002 against President Hugo Chavez and in the CTVs subsequent support for the business federation (Fedecamaras) in the general lock-out of last December-January, UNT (UNETE) was founded in April to provide a voice and instrument for working people. This first Congress brought together more than 1300 registered participants representing over 120 unions and 25 regional federations to determine the general outlines of the new federation--- its internal statutes, election mechanisms, code of ethics, basic principles and action programme. The greatest agreement and passion was over the principles and the action plan. From the workshop on principles came the clear call for the transformation of capitalist society into a self-managing society, for a new model of anti-capitalist and autonomous development that emancipates human beings from class exploitation, oppression, discrimination and exclusion'. This declaration for an autonomous, democratic, solidaristic and internationalist, classist, independent, unitary (representing the whole working class) movement with equality for men and women was cheered by all those present at the plenary session. As occurred at a number of points, the chant emerged--- the working class united will never be defeated'! The meaning of many of these principles became clear in the points endorsed for the programme of action. While the participants were unequivocal in their support for many initiatives of the Chavez government (e.g. the literacy programme, the introduction of Cuban doctors into poor neighbourhoods, housing construction, the law suspending lay-offs and the rejection of FTAA), their positions on nationalising the banks, the external debt, and work hours among other aspects went far beyond the current positions of the government. Further, UNTs independence was demonstrated by its strong positions against specific government ministries--- demanding that inspectors of work who are anti-worker be removed by the Ministry of Labour and criticising the Minister of Health and calling for the declaration of a national emergency in health--- and in its call for reforms within the state itself (to create the revolution within the revolution). Where there was less agreement, however, was with respect to internal statutes and electoral procedures. For some, the Statutes were far too like those of the CTV, an organisation infamous for its lack of internal democracy and its corruption. Here, where there was much potential for division over such matters as recall procedures, term limits, asset declarations, proportional representation, distribution of dues etc, an important decision was made--- go back to the base, i.e., send this back to the individual unions for full discussion of the issues. The same decision was made in relation to decisions about the 76 articles of electoral regulations (even though only 6 were questioned)--- back to the base. Since these were matters critical in providing the basis for, among other things, the finance to carry out the struggle, it was decided that a National Assembly of UNT would be convened within two months to resolve these matters. The first national congress of UNT concluded with a declaration condemning the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and its Plan Colombia. Hasta la Victoria Siempre, Ches motto, could be heard here--- as at other points. The Unete congress was an important step in turning away from what the Minister of Labour Maria Cristina Iglesias has called the evil axis of Fedecamaras and CTV. But, it was not a complete success. For one, in the days before the Congress, UNTs temporary 21 member steering committee (or portions of it) decided that the Unitary Confederation of Workers (CUTV), an affiliate of the World Federation of Trade Unions, which had been involved in the creation of UNT from the outset, could not integrate with its regional organisations; as a result, many of its
Report on Venezuelan Labour (8 August 2003)
Dear Friends, I hope you find the following note of interest and will forward it to relevant lists and individuals. in solidarity, michael Report on Venezuelan Labour: the Process Continues Michael A. Lebowitz 8 August 2003 Nationalise the Banks! Take over enterprises that have shutdown and run them instead by workers! Refuse to pay the external debt and use the funds to create jobs! Reduce the workweek to 36 hours! Create new enterprises under workers control!--- These were some of the demands that emerged from the action programme workshop, which were enthusiastically endorsed by delegates to the first National Congress of the National Union of Workers (UNT) of Venezuela on August 1-2. After years of support for neo-liberalism by the Accion Democratica-dominated Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) culminated in that organisations involvement in the (quickly-overturned) coup of April 2002 against President Hugo Chavez and in the CTVs subsequent support for the business federation (Fedecamaras) in the general lock-out of last December-January, UNT (UNETE) was founded in April to provide a voice and instrument for working people. This first Congress brought together more than 1300 registered participants representing over 120 unions and 25 regional federations to determine the general outlines of the new federation--- its internal statutes, election mechanisms, code of ethics, basic principles and action programme. The greatest agreement and passion was over the principles and the action plan. From the workshop on principles came the clear call for the transformation of capitalist society into a self-managing society, for a new model of anti-capitalist and autonomous development that emancipates human beings from class exploitation, oppression, discrimination and exclusion'. This declaration for an autonomous, democratic, solidaristic and internationalist, classist, independent, unitary (representing the whole working class) movement with equality for men and women was cheered by all those present at the plenary session. As occurred at a number of points, the chant emerged--- the working class united will never be defeated'! The meaning of many of these principles became clear in the points endorsed for the programme of action. While the participants were unequivocal in their support for many initiatives of the Chavez government (e.g. the literacy programme, the introduction of Cuban doctors into poor neighbourhoods, housing construction, the law suspending lay-offs and the rejection of FTAA), their positions on nationalising the banks, the external debt, and work hours among other aspects went far beyond the current positions of the government. Further, UNTs independence was demonstrated by its strong positions against specific government ministries--- demanding that inspectors of work who are anti-worker be removed by the Ministry of Labour and criticising the Minister of Health and calling for the declaration of a national emergency in health--- and in its call for reforms within the state itself (to create the revolution within the revolution). Where there was less agreement, however, was with respect to internal statutes and electoral procedures. For some, the Statutes were far too like those of the CTV, an organisation infamous for its lack of internal democracy and its corruption. Here, where there was much potential for division over such matters as recall procedures, term limits, asset declarations, proportional representation, distribution of dues etc, an important decision was made--- go back to the base, i.e., send this back to the individual unions for full discussion of the issues. The same decision was made in relation to decisions about the 76 articles of electoral regulations (even though only 6 were questioned)--- back to the base. Since these were matters critical in providing the basis for, among other things, the finance to carry out the struggle, it was decided that a National Assembly of UNT would be convened within two months to resolve these matters. The first national congress of UNT concluded with a declaration condemning the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and its Plan Colombia. Hasta la Victoria Siempre, Ches motto, could be heard here--- as at other points. The Unete congress was an important step in turning away from what the Minister of Labour Maria Cristina Iglesias has called the evil axis of Fedecamaras and CTV. But, it was not a complete success. For one, in the days before the Congress, UNTs temporary 21 member steering committee (or portions of it) decided that the Unitary Confederation of Workers (CUTV), an affiliate of the World Federation of Trade Unions, which had been involved in the creation of UNT from the outset, could not integrate with its regional organisations; as a result, many of its
Re: [pr-x] Neoliberal think tanks and the harm they do
;through corporate lobbying, and always by corporate policy, if only in >administered prices. Only the truly devout or the tragically deluded will >deny the reality of corporate-dominated markets-which have themselves become >mechanisms of "command and control." > >Neoliberalism is the positivist force pushing the market into every sphere >of public agency and concern. And by no means is it limited to the United >States. Susan George's A Short History of Neoliberalism describes how >neoliberalism has in fact become global, so to characterize it as a secular >Al-Qaeda is not to exaggerate. Neoliberalism either doesn't see or doesn't >care that marketizing and privatizing means corporatizing. Common property >becomes not just private, but corporate property. > >Al-Qaeda is an international sect of religious fanatics bringing >'enlightenment' to the infidels, and doing violence routinely in the name of >righteous ideology. > >Neoliberalism encompasses an international sect of ideological fanatics, >too. The success of the 12 US foundations was matched in the United Kingdom >by the Adam Smith Institute, and privatization, deregulation, and the manic >stimulation of global "free trade" are pursued, thanks in large part to >strongarming from the IMF and World Bank, in neoliberal governments around >the world. Arundhati Roy describes, in her graceful book, Power and >Politics, the socially disastrous results in India. > >Neoliberalism, too, does routine violence in the name of righteous ideology, >but not to buildings, ships, or airplanes. Neoliberalism does violence to >public life, to "publicness." > >Publicness takes many forms. Community is one. Assets enjoyed in common are >the essence of community, whether we speak of a public library, a state >university, a community theater group, or the national parks. When such >things are privatized, corporate commerce gains and community is diminished. > > >Democracy is another, perhaps ultimate, form of publicness. As the >empowerment of people to govern themselves freely, as they and they alone >see fit, it should be sacrosanct. It is not. > >Much has been written about the corporate purchase of the U.S. government >with campaign contributions. Democracy is under corporate assault, and >everywhere the attack draws strength from neoliberal dogma and initiatives. > > >These initiatives-marketizing, privatizing, deregulating-are not as sudden, >dramatic, and terrifying as airplanes crashing into buildings, but over time >the violence they do is far greater-to the commons, to community, to >democracy. > >* See Covington, Sally, "How Conservative Philanthropies and Think Tanks >Transform US Policy," Covert Action Quarterly, Issue #63, Winter, 1998. See >also the website of Mediatransparency: www.mediatransparency.org. > >This essay, published here with permission of the author, was prepared for >the 2003 Public Interest Environmental Law Conference, University of Oregon >School of Law, March 6-9, 2003. Richard W. Behan's current book is Plundered >Promise: Capitalism, Politics, and the Fate of the Federal Lands (Island >Press, 2001). His forthcoming book is Degenerate Democracy: A Primer on the >Corporate Seizure of America's Agenda. > >Richard Behan holds a Ph.D. in Wildland Resource Science at the University >of California, Berkeley, and for 12 years taught natural resource policy at >the University of Montana. - Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: Phone (604) 291-4669 Fax (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510 [NOTE CHANGE]
[PEN-L:1184] RE: why get rid of the Commerce Department?
In message Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:13:24 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Devine) writes: > As for Peter Burns' question about the GOP actually stimulating > private investment and thus the economy: yes, they can do that. > But such a profits-led boom encourages investment to get further > out of line with consumer demand, implying greater tendency > toward recession. This may be true for a closed capitalist economy or for capitalism-as-a whole, but why should it be true for one capitalist country? Ie., don't we have both a logical and concrete basis to recognise that any individual capitalist country can pursue successfully such policies--- as long as others are not doing the same, that is? cheers, mike ----------- Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382 Lasqueti Island: (604) 333-8810 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1151] Fw: Re: Publications (fwd)
-- From: "A. Gunder Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 27 Oct 1995 18:33:42 -0400 (EDT) To: Michael Lebowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Publications (fwd) Mike: Ppst to PEN-L in response to a query there? gunder -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 17:59:38 -0400 (EDT) From: A. Gunder Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Alan Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Publications Andre Gunder Frank writesby way of info [in response to a compicated message i received about several subjects of which the first was the following]: I wrote two "open letters"< to Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger. they were published many times/places, both separately and together. I list the most "accessible"publihed vrsions below - which is a partial copy of a list i have here. 1 = first letter, 2= secod letter, b=both letters together. ECONOMIC GENOCIDE IN CHILE: EQUILIBRIUM AT THE POINT OF A BAYONET - b Nottingham: Spokeman Books 1976 also eds.in spanish,portuguese, german Open Letter about Chile to Arnold Harberger and Milton Friedman - 1 REVIEW OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS 7,2, Summer 1975: 61-76 BULLETIN OF CONFERENCE OF SOCIALIST ECONOMISTS, London, VI,3, Oct 1975 also 11 other places in spanish,italian,german, french, dutch, english Economic Genocide in Chie- Secod Open Letter to Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger - 2 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, Bombay, June 12, 1976 7 other places in spanish, german references to spcific other langages publications of the same avialble on request from A.G. Frank at [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382 Lasqueti Island: (604) 333-8810 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1145] so many questions...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.cuba Subject: Fidel Castro's Speech at UN Date: 25 Oct 1995 03:39:56 GMT Translation of Fidel Castro's Address to the UN, October 22 1995 Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, Excellencies ... Half a century ago, the United Nations organization was born after the conclusion of a monstrous war. An average of 10 million lives were lost at its peak moments. At present, twenty million men, women and children are dying every year of hunger and curable diseases. Some wealthy nations have a life expectancy of up to 80 years while others have hardly 40. So there are billions whose lives are cut off. How long shall we wait for this carnage to end. The cold war is over but the arms race goes on. And nuclear and military hegemonism perpetuate themselves. How long shall we wait for the total removal of all weapons of mass extermination, for the universal disarmament, and for the elimination of the use of force, arrogance and pressure in international relations. The obsolete veto privilege and the ill use of the security council by the powerful are exalting a new colonialism within the very United Nations. Latin America and Africa don't have one single permanent member of the Security Council. In Asia, India has a population of almost one billion, but it does not enjoy that responsibility. How long, how long shall we wait for the democratization of the United Nations and for the independence and sovereign equality of states to become a reality. How long before non-intervention into the internal affairs of states and true international cooperation take their rightful places. Breakthroughs in science and technology are increasing daily by the numbers. But their benefits do not reach the majority of mankind. They essentially continue to be at the service of a reckless consumerism which is wasting limited resources and seriously threatening life on earth. How long shall we have to wait before rationality, equity and justice prevail in the world. The forests are decreasing, the air is being poisoned, the rivers are being contaminated. Countless species of plants and animals are perishing. The soils are impoverished. Old and new epidemics are expanding grows, and the legions of the dispossessed continue to multiply. Will the next generations reach the promised land pledged half a century ago. How many hundreds of millions have already died without ever seeing it. How many have fallen victims of oppression, hunger, poverty, and unhealthy living conditions. How many more will still die. We lay claim to a world without hegemonism, without nuclear weapons, without interventionism, without racism, without national or religious hatred, without outrageous acts against the sovereignty of any country. A world of respect of the independence and self determination of peoples. A world without universal models that totally disregard the traditions and culture of all the components of mankind. We lay claim to a world without ruthless blockades that cause the deaths of many men, women and children, youths and elders, like noiseless atom bombs! We lay claim to a world of peace, justice and dignity where everyone without exception has the right to well being and to life. Thank you very much. [end] Transcribed by Bob Witanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----------- Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382 Lasqueti Island: (604) 333-8810 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1073] Fw: Andre Gunder Frank Festschrift Forthcoming (fwd)
-- From: "A. Gunder Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:36:07 -0400 (EDT) To: Michael Lebowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Metta Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "P.J. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lucio Teles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, terry burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Urs Muller-Plntenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Arthur MacEwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Andre Gunder Frank Festschrift Forthcoming (fwd) -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 01:09:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Denemark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Andre Gunder Frank Festschrift Forthcoming (fwd) -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 01:08:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Denemark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Robert Denemark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Andre Gunder Frank Festschrift Forthcoming Announcing a forthcoming publication of commissioned essays on world development and world history. THE UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Essays in Honor of Andre Gunder Frank Edited By Sing C. Chew and Robert A. Denemark Table of Contents Chapter 1 On Development and Underdevelopment Sing C. Chew and Robert Denemark Chapter 2 The Underdevelopment of Development Andre Gunder Frank PART 1: ON DEVELOPMENT AND UNDERDEVELOPMENT Chapter 3 On Development: For Gunder Frank Samir Amin Chapter 4 Pathways Toward a Global Anthropology Eric R. Wolf Chapter 5 Underdevelopment: Culture and Geography Philip Wagner Chapter 6 The Debt Crisis Revisited Otto Kreye Chapter 7 Developmentalism: An Eurocentric Hoax, Delusion, and Chicanery Herb Addo Part 2: On Peripheral Regions Chapter 8 Latin American Underdevelopment: Past, Present, and Future Theotonio dos Santos Chapter 9 Asia in the World-System George Aseniero Chapter 10 On the Origins of the Economic Catastrophe in Africa Samir Amin Part 3: On the World Historical System and Cycles Chapter 11 How to Think about World History William H. McNeill Chapter 12 The "Continuity Thesis" in World Development Barry K. Gills Chapter 13 World-Systems: Similarities and Differences Christopher Chase-Dunn Chapter 14 The Art of Hegemony Albert Bergesen Part 4: On Social Movements and Social Justice Chapter 15 Social Movements in the Underdevelopment of Development Dialectic: A View from Below Gerrit Huizer Chapter 16 Frank Justice Rather than Frankenstein Injustice: Homogenous Development as Deviance in the Diverse World Pat Lauderdale Chapter 17 Women's Interests and Emancipatory Processes Virginia Vargas Chapter 18 Underdevelopment and its Remedies Immanuel Wallerstein Appendix: Publications of Andre Gunder Frank January 1996/ 425 pages/ $52.00(h) (72601) / $25.95 (p) (7261X) Sage Publications Inc. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, California, USA 91320- 2218. To order phone (805) 499-9774, fax (805)499-0871, mail P.O.Box 5084, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359-9924, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382 Lasqueti Island: (604) 333-8810 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:971] Re: Marx on socialism
One problem that I can see in Paul Cockshott's references to Marx's comments on communism is that Marx was not always clear as to whether he was referring to communism as a fully developed organic system (one in which all its presuppositions in their communist economic form were produced as results) or whether he was talking about communism as it first appears, when it is in the process of "becoming"--- a process which consists "precisely in subordinating all elements of society to itself, or in creating out of it the organs which it still lacks" (Grundrisse,Vintage/Penguin,278). Certainly, he makes the distinction in the Gotha Critique but one could hardly argue that he exhaustively explored the subject there. We know that the difference he saw between capitalism as an organic system and capitalism in the process of becoming (which should be seen as including not only original accumulation but also up to the point of developing a specifically capitalist mode of production) was profound. So, why should we not acknowledge a similar divide when it comes to a Marxian view of communism? Ie., there is no question that in Marx's view of communism-- once it has developed upon its own foundations-- there is no place for any kind of exchange relation as such. But before that? Please note that this is not at all intended as an argument in favour of conceptions of market socialism but only a cautionary comment about using Marx's statements. Some of my own thinking along the above lines can be found in "The Socialist Fetter: A Cautionary Tale," in the SOCIALIST REGISTER, 1991 (edited by Miliband and Panitch). in solidarity, mike --- Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382 Lasqueti Island: (604) 333-8810 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:869] Re: the kulak question
In message Thu, 12 Oct 1995 14:37:46 -0700, Louis N Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Michael A. Lebowitz wrote: > > >> >> I don't have any problem with your description of "planning" or, >> more accurately, commandism under Stalin. However, I do recall that in >> Lewin's etrlier book, "Soviet Power and Russian Peasants", he argued >> that the middle peasants (serednyak), who were far from rich, produced >> 80% of the grain crop. Also, it has been argued (Nove?) that one of >> the problems was that peasants were responding rationally to the >> movement of relative prices-- ie., increased prices of flax, eggs, >> bacon, etc relative to grain prices > > Louis: > I had an extended debate with Jim Lawler, a professor at the University > of Buffalo, on the NEP over on the Marxism list. He thought that the NEP > should have been a permanent feature of Russian socialism. He echoed much > of what Bukharin argued at the time, and what Stephen Cohen argues > today. I identified with the positions of the Left Opposition at the > time. > I have discovered that enthusiasm for the NEP goes hand in hand with > pro-Mondragon and market socialism notions among academic socialists. It > flows from a deep disillusionment with the "Soviet experiment". > > Rather than trying to answer any of Mike's specific questions, I will > simply present my NEP article (I apologize for the length). All of the above was pretty irrelevant to the questions I was asking, but Louis did provide an answer at the end of his NEP account, which was the sources he was relying upon: > Sources Cited: > > E.H. Carr, "Socialism in One Country" > S. Cohen, "Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution" > I. Deutscher, "The Prophet Outcast" > E.A. Preobrazhensky, "The Crisis of Soviet Industrialization" > Given the amount of research done since, eg, Carr and Deutscher wrote, I would judge that at this point these are just not the last word on these questions. I cited Lewin's book because Louis seemed to regard him as an acceptable authority, but I am sure that there is additional work out there that could answer some of the questions I raised (which I reproduce below). Eg., maybe Barkley knows if any of the old work by the Agricultural Institute (where Chayanov and Kondratieff, among others, hung out until getting hit in one of the earliest purges) has become available in the x-ussr. The questions I asked which Louis did not address included the following: I know the argument that the kulaks brought on the assault with their grain strike, but do you have any evidence to support this and, if it happened, how significant (quantitatively) it was? When you talk about rich peasants, what do you mean by that? Lewin's description makes it appear that many of those called kulaks were hardly what could reasonably be considered rich. (Indeed, in one of Bukharin's "get rich" speeches, he argued that peasants were afraid to put a tin roof on their homes for fear of being called kulaks.) Preobrazhensky, in advancing the Left Opposition economic strategy, was of the view that the peasants could pay, but do you know of any evidence to support that critical judgement? cheers, mike --- Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382 Lasqueti Island (current location): (604) 333-8810 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:804] the kulak question
In message Thu, 12 Oct 1995 05:12:40 -0700, Louis N Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The Left Opposition > favored rapid industrialization, a planned economy and steep taxation > on Kulaks, the wealthy peasants, in order to finance the state sector. > Stalin and Bukharin triumphed and plowed ahead with their rightist > policies. However, in the late 1920's, the rich peasants began to resist > the Soviet government by withholding grain. > (Details on Stalin and planning come from chapter 5 entitled "The > Disappearance of Planning in the Plan" in Moshe Lewin's new book > "Russia USSR Russia" [The New Press, New York, 1995]. This book > is as important in understanding the former Soviet Union as anything > written by Isaac Deutscher or E.H. Carr) I don't have any problem with your description of "planning" or, more accurately, commandism under Stalin. However, I do recall that in Lewin's etrlier book, "Soviet Power and Russian Peasants", he argued that the middle peasants (serednyak), who were far from rich, produced 80% of the grain crop. Also, it has been argued (Nove?) that one of the problems was that peasants were responding rationally to the movement of relative prices-- ie., increased prices of flax, eggs, bacon, etc relative to grain prices w ich were being lowered. I know the argument that the kulaks brought on the assault with their grain strike, but do you have any evidence to support this and, if it happened, how significant (quantitatively) it was? When you talk about rich peasants, what do you mean by that? Lewin's description makes it appear that many of those called kulaks were hardly what could reasonably be considered rich. (Indeed, in one of Bukharin's "get rich" speeches, he argued that peasants were afraid to put a tin roof on their homes for fear of being called kulaks.) Preobrazhensky, in advancing the Left Opposition economic strategy, was of the view that the peasants could pay, but do you know of any evidence to support that critical judgement? Thanks, mike --- Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382 Lasqueti Island (current location): (604) 333-8810 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5835] RE: extended reproduction question
In message Wed, 12 Jul 1995 21:34:21 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John L Gulick) writes: > The extended reproduction of capital requires that the costs involved > in capital goods production fall faster than the costs of consumer > goods production. > > Does anyone know of a Marxist who makes the preceding argument, and if so, > where ? > If you mean by this that Dept I productivity rises more rapidly than Dept II productivity, then this would certainly satisfy Marx's condition for avoiding FROP (which involves lagging productivity in Dept I). Cf. Capital III (Vintage, p.333): With the exception of isolated cases (e.g. when the productivity of labour cheapens all the elements of both constant and variable capital to the same extent), the rate of profit will tend to fall, despite the higher rate of surplus value The basic argument was worked out in the Grundrisse (Vintage, pp.770ff) cheers, mike lebowitz ----------- Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382; fax/modem (with notice):(604) 254-3510 Lasqueti: (604) 333-8810 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5829] Fw: cuban women communicators networking at beijing
your remittance to: 1. Our provisional headquarters: ACNU (UN Cuban Association) Calle J esquina a 25, Vedado. Telephone: (537) 32-4723. 2. MAGIN-UNICEF. Telephone: (537) 33-6094; Telex:S1-3089; Fax (537)33-6288. 3. MAGIN-editorial Pable, Calle II No. 160, entre L y K, Vedado. Telephones: (537) 32-3322, (537) 32-7581. 4. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] We will convey our grattitude directly or by return mail, and we will send you a certificate of solidarity with MAGIN. On behalf of MAGIN's Managing Committee. ----------- Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382; fax/modem (with notice):(604) 254-3510 Lasqueti: (604) 333-8810 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5669] Fw: Re: more yankee chauvinism! 8-)
I sent the following to Eric Nilsson directly but it may be of wider interest./mike > Studies in Political Economy (Subtitle: A Socialist > Review)! We've been coming out for over 15 years--- include on our editorial > board Leo Panitch, Jane Jenson, Colin Leys, Harriet Friedman and a host of > other Canadian left academics,etc, come out 3 times a year. Issue 46 from > the Spring (the summer issue is at my office) has a piece on monetarism in > Canada and the world by a Regulation School theorist, one on public > investment and debt by a left-keynesian, a study of peasants in the > Nicaraguan revolution (plus a response), a consideration of the relatively > autonomous Italian State plus 2 more specific to Canada. Issue 45 had > articles on lean production in Japan, state and market in Hong Kong, > healthcare in Britain. >Look at what you've been missing! The journal address is SPE, SR 303, > Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6. A > US Sub costs $US35 (we just increased the price). Our Editorial > Administrator (ie, the guy what does the work) is Emer Killean, and she can > be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Hope this helps. Glad to see you are doing this! > in solidarity, > mike > --- Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382; fax/modem (with notice):(604) 254-3510 Lasqueti: (604) 333-8810 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5528] forwarded mail from gunder frank
ved the way for the
consolidation of a new generation of financiers clustered around
the merchant banks, the institutional investors, the stock
brokerage firms, the large insurance companies, etc. In this
process, commercial banking functions have coalesced with those
of the investment banks and stock brokers.
While these "money managers" play a powerful role on financial
markets, they are, however, increasingly removed from
entrepreneurial functions in the real economy. Their activities
(which escape State regulation) include speculative transactions
in commodity futures and derivatives and the manipulation of
currency markets. Major financial actors are routinely involved
in "hot money deposits" in "the emerging markets" of Latin
America and Southeast Asia, not to mention money laundering and
the development of (specialised) "private banks" ("which advise
wealthy clients") in the many offshore banking havens. The daily
turnover of foreign exchange transactions is of the order of one
trillion dollars a day of which only 15 percent corresponds to
actual commodity trade and capital flows.
Within this global financial web, money transits at high speed
from one banking haven to the next, in the intangible form of
electronic transfers. "Legal" and "illegal" business activities
have become increasingly intertwined, vast amounts of unreported
private wealth have been accumulated. Favoured by financial
deregulation, the criminal mafias have also expanded their role
in the spheres of international banking.
The Demise of Central Banks
Moreover, the practices of central banks in many OECD countries
have been modified to meet the demands of financial markets.
Central banks have become increasingly "independent" and
"shielded from political influence". What this means in practice
is that the national Treasury is increasingly at the mercy of
private commercial creditors. Under article 104 of the Maastricht
Treaty, for instance, "[c]entral bank credit to the government is
entirely discretionary, the central bank cannot be forced to
provide such credit". These statutes are therefore directly
conducive to the enlargement of the public debt held by private
financial and banking institutions.
In practice, the Central Bank (which is neither accountable to
the government nor to the Legislature), operates as an autonomous
bureaucracy under the trusteeship of private financial and
banking interests. The latter (rather than the government)
dictate the direction of monetary policy. In other words,
monetary policy no longer exists as a means of State
intervention; it largely belongs to the realm of private banking.
In contrast to the marked scarcity of State funds, "the creation
of money" (implying a command over real resources) occurs within
the inner web of the international banking system in accordance
with the sole pursuit of private wealth. In contrast to the
inability of central banks to effectively intervene, powerful
private financial actors not only have the ability of creating
and moving money without impediment, but also of manipulating
interests rates and precipitating the decline of major currencies
as occurred with the spectacular tumble of the pound sterling in
September 1992. What this signifies, in practice, is that central
banks are no longer able to regulate the creation of money in the
broad interests of society (eg. in view of mobilising production
or generating employment). Money creation including the command
over real resources is controlled almost exclusively by private
financiers.
The Instability of Global Financial Markets
Deregulation alongside the development of large public debts have
favoured increasingly unstable pattern on global financial
markets. Since Black Monday, October 19, 1987, considered by
analysts to be very close to a total meltdown of the New York
stock exchange, a highly volatile pattern has unfolded marked by
frequent and increasingly serious convulsions on major bourses,
the ruin of national currencies in Eastern Europe and Latin
America, not to mention the plunge of the new "peripheral
financial markets" (eg. Mexico, Bangkok, Cairo, Bombay)
precipitated by "profit taking" and the sudden retreat of the
large institutional investors...A global financial breakdown can
no longer be ruled out. Moreover, in contrast to the 1920s, major
exchanges around the World are interconnected through instant
computer link-up: instability on Wall Street, "spills over" into
the European and Asian stock markets thereby rapidly permeating
the entire financial system, including foreign exchange and
commodity markets...
ASSESSMENT OF THE HALIFAX SUMMIT COMMUNIQU
---
Michael A. Lebowitz
Economics Department, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: (604) 255-0382; fax/modem (with notice):(604) 254-3510
Lasqueti: (604) 333-8810
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4979] Re: profit-rate equalization
After Alan Freeman's nice collection of Marx-quotes demonstrating that Marx went rather beyond the classicals, it would seem there is little to add other than to comment on the concept of "law" in Marx. In message Thu, 4 May 1995 21:00:25 -0700, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I really don't know what the word "law" means in the phrase > "law of value." Did Marx ever define "law"? Is it like > Gresham's law, a generalization that always works (as far > as I can tell)? Or is it like the "law" of demand, which > isn't always true (since Giffen goods exist)? Or Okun's > "law," an empirical generalization? My guess is that Marx > followed Hegel to use the word > "law" to refer to dialectical tendencies. For Hegel, "law" (as in the case of "the law of gravity") refers to that which is uniform and constant in the chaos of appearance; ie, econometricians come up with laws. The problem, however, is that laws as such (insofar as they never go beyond the sphere of appearance) cannot yield essence; we do not know *why* these regularities are produced. Part of Marx's project is to reveal the extent to which there is an inner basis for the extrinsic laws (eg., the law of value, the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall) identified by the classicals. --- Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382; fax/modem (with notice):(604) 254-3510 Lasqueti: (604) 333-8810 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4280] that "noted economist"
In message Thu, 23 Feb 1995 18:30:02 -0800, Catherine P Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >In pamphlet #3, in the inside, the first line > reads "Have you heard about the noted economist who's located the precise > point where Karl Marx went wrong -- and why it took so long for so many > to realize the fallacy in Marxist logic?" And on the opposite page there > is a picture of Marx with the no symbol, i.e. like a no smoking sign. Could it be that Bohm-Bawerk lives? ---- Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382; fax/modem (with notice):(604) 254-3510 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4180] RE: Cuba
In message Tue, 14 Feb 1995 21:06:55 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Aprapos of Sid Sniad's comments/post on Cuba, what ever happened to
> the proposal that surfaced on the pen-l some time ago that those of
> us interested contribute $100 to a Cuba assistance fund that would
> be redeemable in a couple of years in tourist/travel expenses?
>
> paul phillips
>
Actually, I thought I had reported on that. The idea for Cuban
Friendship Bonds (redeemable in tourist facility expenses in Cuba after a
period of time) was presented to the World Conference on Solidarity with
Cuba in November. Officials from the Cuban Institute for Friendship were
apparently quite favourable to the idea (as were delegates from Canada and
elsewhere who heard it), but development of such a proposal clearly involves
action by the Cuban government (eg., what agency or institute would be
responsible for issuing such bonds) and that is not the type of thing that
occurs quickly. In any event, they have the proposal; I'm hoping to get back
there in late April and would explore the question then again.
One footnote to Sid's post on Cuba: it is important to acknowledge that
the situation remains quite grim (despite a recovery since last summer) and
that the improvements in living conditions, stimulated by gains from tourism
and some foreign investments (many are only announced and others involve
debt/equity swaps), are quite fragile and would be sorely affected by a poor
sugar cane harvest or a rise in oil prices. Ie., some successes
notwithstanding, ending the Embargo is likely crucial to save the Cuban
Revolution and all it represents.
in solidarity,
mike
----
Michael A. Lebowitz
Economics Department, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: (604) 255-0382; fax/modem (with notice):(604) 254-3510
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3862] Re: Cohen and Historical Materialism
Justin Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded to Jim Devine, stating: >The situation with Cohen is more complex than you suggest. In the first >place you dispute only the accuracy of Cohen's scholarship, viz. whether >he has Marx right. Whether or not he does, however, what Cohen produced >was probably the clearest, most precise and coherent, best articulated >statement of a Marxian theory of history we have. Well, Cohen proceeded to argue, reasoning from his understanding of Marx, that capitalism "persists because and as long as it is optimal for further development of productive power and... *is* optimal for further development of productive power."(Karl Marx's Theory of History:A Defence,p. 175). That's clear, precise, coherent, etc all right, but (IMHO) it is a distortion of Marx. On the other hand, "new institutionalists" like Douglas North, O.E. Williamson, Alchian and Demsetz, etc might be inclined to claim it as "the clearest, most precise and coherent, best articulated statement of a ... theory of history we have". cheers, mike Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: (604) 255-0382; fax/modem (with notice):(604) 254-3510 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the continuing Cold War
I'm heading off in a week to participate in a conference (World Conference in Solidarity with Cuba) in Havana on 21-25 November, where the theme presumably will focus upon concrete actions against the blockade and to support Cuba. (It is tied into the Pastors for Peace actions, and rumour is that there will be about 3000 people from around the world there.) If the opportunity presents itself (one never knows), I'm thinking about making a proposal along the following lines Both to focus political solidarity work and to raise critically needed foreign exchange, that a campaign be developed to sell Cuban Friendship Bonds. Such bonds would be in denominations of $100 and would be redeemable after a specified time period (eg., 5 years) in Cuba for tourist accommodations. Ie., the object would be to encourage people to part with money now (with the potential of future tourism) and, especially in the US, to crystallise a challenge to government policies. I would be interested in reactions, suggestions and caveats from penners (especially our high--and low--finance types) as well as any other proposals that people may have to the same end. Also, it would be interesting to connect with any other penners who are planning on going. (US groups are going via Cancun and Montreal, and information is available from the Freedom to Travel Campaign, 415-558-9490.) yours for optimism of the will, mike -------- Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669 Home: (604) 255-0382 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Hayek critique
In message Thu, 27 Oct 1994 02:36:57 -0700, Trond Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The question of how much central planning (as opposed to market > mechanisms) you can have before the system gets inefficient, cannot be > discussed without considering how to organize democracy, politics, the > media. > > A program for this is IMO just as important as an "economic" socialist > program. > > Trond's point is absolutely crucial. In the wake of the experience of what we politely call "actually existing socialism", it has become fashionable (as in "swimming with the current") to declare that central planning as such is inherently inefficient and, accordingly, that markets are the only option (this side of utopia) for socialism. Implicit here is the idea of an optimum size of firm--- and that the inherent contradiction in AES arose from the attempt to control and direct everything but the impossibility of doing so. If, however, we posit a relation in which individual actors proceed to execute central decisions (and, where these decisions are imperfectly or incompletely specified, interpret them in the light of general central objectives), could we still talk about such an inherent contradiction? To pose this question is to note that what is often treated as a technical contradiction (the inherent problem in planning) is, in fact, a social contradiction (the result of the particular productive relations of AES); it further suggests that those who are predisposed to dismiss planning as the result of the experience of AES--- but do so without exploring the roots of that experience in the relations of production of AES--- are rather distant from using a Marxist analysis (whatever they may claim). I interpret Trond to be making this simple point--- let us look at social relations rather than limit our discussion to considering abstractly alternate methods of coordination. cheers, mike PS. Among other bits exploring Hayek, etc, see Fikret Adaman and Pat Devine, "Renewing Socialism" in Studies in Political Economy (Spring 1994) and my "The Socialist Fetter: A Cautionary Tale" in the 1991 Socialist Register. Michael A. Lebowitz Economics Department, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office: (604) 291-4669 Home: (604) 255-0382 --- Currently reachable at Lasqueti Island c/o General Delivery,Lasqueti Island, BC, V0R 2J0; (604) 333-8810
RE: Renaming URPE absolutely?
Just for the record: In Message Sat, 17 Sep 1994 20:49:14 -0700, Fikret Ceyhun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Hundreds of people contributed to the reputation of URPE name and they >have created a credible trade mark for URPE to be recognized and >respected. In one stroke you want to eliminate all of that. Look around, >how many journals or organizations change their names even though their >names may not have "sex" appeal. Also look around, those few changed >their name, what "success" have they had? For example, take a look at >Socialist Revolution, Insurgent socialist, (Canadian) Studies in >Political Economy. Have they created an avalanche of new members? > Studies in Political Economy: A Socialist Review has NOT changed its name in the 15 years since it was founded. In fact, whereas the statement on its inside cover initially stated simply that SPE was "founded to contribute to the development of the socialist political economy tradition in Canada", this was amended about 4 years ago to read that SPE is "an interdisciplinary journal committed to the publication of original work in the various traditions of socialist political economy. Researchers and analysts within these traditions seek to understand how political, economic and cultural processes and struggles interact to shape and reshape the conditions of people's lives. Established in 1979, SPE has become a major forum for people who identify with the struggles to overcome exploitation, exclusion and oppression in Canada and abroad. SPE is especially interested in work by, about and for Canadians, but it aims to be an international journal" As far as I can recall, we haven't had a discussion about changing the subtitle of the journal (although that may have been the subtext in some arguments proposed about the adequacy of "political economy" as a paradigm advanced by some of our pomo types), and at this year's general board meeting the central question was more about whether we shouldn't explicitly orient the journal to the renewal of socialism---ie., whether we shouldn't go against the current rather than with it (as seems to be the proposal by some in URPE). Of course, like other left journals we do not exist in a vaccuum. We worry about our subs and we worry when good articles aren't being submitted. So, let me opportunistically invite you all to (a) consider submitting some of your work to SPE and (b) subscribing and/or getting your university or college library to subscribe. The contents of our forthcoming issue (No. 45) include: Alex Choi, "THe Myth of the Neo-Classical Explanation of NIC's Growth: A Study of Hong Kong" John Price,"Lean, Flexible Fordism at Suzuki and Toyota: A Historical Perspective" Katherine Fierlbeck, "Marketing Care: the Politicization of Health Care in Britain" Lurie Adkin, Review Essay: "Reflections on Environmental Politics, Political Economy and Social Democracy in Canada" As well other pieces on public school teachers and on Volvoism, there is also an obituary by Leo Panitch on Ralph Miliband. Subscriptions within Canada are $30 (3 issues) for individuals and $60 for institutions; outside Canada, they are the same (except they are in US dollars). For subscriptions or editorial correspondence, the address to write is: SPE, SR 303, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6. Tell 'em Mike sent ya! mike lebowitz, econ dept, simon fraser university burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6 (604) 291-4669 office (604) 255-0382 home Currently doing my solar power thing on Lasqueti Island c/o General Delivery, Lasqueti Island, B.C. Canada V0R 2J0 (604) 333-8810
Re: principal/agent & social conscience
Gil Skillman has roused me from my self-imposed silence by asking where my libertarian socialism fits on the spectrum of differing views of socialism. Quite simply (as I argued in my paper at URPE at ASSA in New Orleans which Gil heard), in the same basic camp as Pat Devine, (and his son Jim) and Robin Hahnel and Mike Albert. Further, I would associate myself with Robin's comments about Roemer's coupon primitive reaccumulation. Unlike some others on pen, I DON'T think Roemer's idea should be taken seriously on the Left. After all, wouldn't he conclude that the exploitation which emerged out of the process of growing inequality in property endowment in "coupon socialism" would be "just exploitation" because the path to accumulation was "clean"? Having said this, I would love to read the whole of Bob Pollin's paper. as always, mike mike lebowitz, econ dept, simon fraser university burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6 (604) 291-4669 office (604) 255-0382 home Currently doing my solar power thing on Lasqueti Island c/o General Delivery, Lasqueti Island, B.C. Canada V0R 2J0 (604) 333-8810
Re: GE & Appearances -- NOT
I don't have any particular interest in the question of GE & Appearances; however, there are several problems in the following discussion with respect to the concept of the value of labour-power. In Message Tue, 19 Apr 1994 08:01:15 -0700, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >On Tue, 19 Apr 1994 06:39:39 -0700 Allin Cottrell said: >>A small point in response to one aspect of Jim D's latest >>posting. There is no contradiction in Marx's saying that >>the price of commodities other than labor-power gravitate >>towards their "prices of production" while the price of >>labor-power gravitates towards its value (though there may >>be other problems with this formulation). The point is >>that labor-power, since it is not produced under >>capitalistic conditions, via a process that participates >>in the formation of a general rate of profit, *doesn't >>have* a "price of production" in Marx's sense. >> >That's what I thought. But workers purchase commodities >to facilitate the process of reproducing labor-power. >If these commodities don't sell at value, then labor- >power shouldn't sell at value either, no? > >in pen-l solidarity, > >Jim Devine One implicit suggestion above is that if the prices/prices of production/values of the commodities which form the wage basket of the worker increase (decrease), so also must the value (etc) of labour-power. That is fair enough if we hold to the assumption (maintained as a working assumption in Capital in order to clarify the nature of capital) that the standard of necessity, that wage basket, is given and constant--- i.e., that the worker is paid in vouchers to purchase that given set of commodities. Once we relax that assumption, as we must (and as Marx intended in his projected book on wage-labour),however, the proposition no longer holds. Eg., if prices/prices of production/values of commodities rise, then the money-wage the worker receives declines in real value; it commands a smaller portion of the output of society's labour. Conversely, if they fall, the immediate effect is that the real wage of the worker rises; she is able to increase the size and composition of that wage basket. It is essential to recognise the implications of that critical assumption that Marx made in Capital. Once we relax that assumption, we acknowledge that the only thing that determines the standard of necessity, that wage basket, --- just like the workday (in length and intensity)--- is class struggle. These are questions explored in my Beyond Capital (Macmillan/St.Martins, 1992). The question of whether the price of labour-power gravitates to its value was also raised there. With apologies to the large number of penners who have purchased the book ;-), I'll take the liberty of offering a short and relevant quote from it (in a last-ditch attempt to fend off the remainder tables): "This response of levels of consumption to increases or decreases in real wages underlies what is 'peculiar' about labour-power as a commodity--- the 'historical or social element' it contains. The peculiarity is that *the value of labour-power has a tendency to adjust to its price---rather than the reverse*."(92) cheers, mike mike lebowitz, econ dept, simon fraser university burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6 (currently enjoying the clams on Lasqueti Island-- (604) 333-8810)
