Re: Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
Unfortunately, I cannot find the article (even using their search engine) on the ZNet website. Perhaps, this is because it was only recently posted to their activism email forum and is not yet on the website. You might be interested in the website if you're not already familiar with it: http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm . There is also an affiliated site at http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/zmagtop.htm, and an activism school accessable via http://www.zmag.org/ . I'll forward the article directly to whomever lets me know. Just send your address to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fredrick, I will need your address, too.) Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederick Emrich, Editor, info-commons.org Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism A URL is also better because it provides some reference data and because it eliminates pesky email reader formatting problems. I encourage everyone to post a URL whenever possible, whether or not you also include full text of an article. Peter, if you have it could you please either post the URL for the story to the list or send it direct to my email address (listed below)? Thanks, Frederick Emrich, Editor commons-blog (http://info-commons.org/blog/) RSS Feed: http://www.info-commons.org/blog/index.rdf info-commons.org (http://info-commons.org/index.shtml) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism > This article is very long for the list. It is better to post a small > part and a URL if possible. > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
Here's the article that I promised to post on the World Social Forum. It appeared on ZNET's activism list. Warning: it's long, but, I think, worthwhile. Peter Hollings SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE GLOBAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT (And an eye-witness account of the World Social Forum) Yo comrades Hi everyone... Here is an article I just whipped together recently upon arriving back in Australia. Beware though... It's pretty long. It prints out to about 14 pages. Some feedback about the ideas contained within would be great. And for those in Perth, it would be good to get some dialogue happening about a possible Perth Social Forum as well. In solidarity, Marco Hewitt --- SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE GLOBAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT (And an eye-witness account of the World Social Forum) There is no doubt that neo-liberalism is in crisis. It's crisis is that of it's own legitimacy. Its imperial ideology and institutions are increasingly being called into question and attacked by the global citizenry informed by a new global consciousness. UK writer and activist, George Monbiot, actually believes that we may be on the verge of a new 'metaphysical mutation', a rare moment in history which sweeps away old systems and revolutionises the way people think, the world over. Historical examples are the emergence of Islam and Christianity, and the Enlightenment period. In the present day, there has been an explosive rebirth of fresh thinking and new ideas about human possibility and potential, and an outright rejection of the TINA doctrine (There Is No Alternative). What we are witnessing is a rediscovery of human agency and a new optimism about our collective power to change the world. The World Social Forum in January this year in Mumbai, India, saw the gathering of 100,000 people - 70,000 of them Indian of every state, caste, class, religion, and ethnicity, and 30,000 of them from overseas from 120 different countries - to express their opposition to neo-liberalism, exchange experiences, create and strengthen alliances, discuss and debate alternatives, and celebrate the growing global culture of resistance and revolt. The slogan that was popularised in Porto Alegre, "Another World is Possible", echoed in every hall and tent, under every tree and on every dusty crowded street of the Nesco Grounds that hosted the mammoth forum. The WSF's shift to India this year reflected its recognition of the need to broaden its reach and involve a greater number of individuals and social movements from the African and Asian continents at the sharp end of imperialism and neo-liberalism. After all, the first three forums had largely been confined to European and Latin American social movements. Mumbai has a suitably radical history, being the birthplace of India's independence movement in 1885, as well as the birthplace of India's very first trade union in 1890. India's national liberation movement in the Forties inspired all subsequent national liberation movements, throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Important and heroic struggles continue to be waged all over India, such as the struggles against the dam project in the Narmada Valley, against the Coca-Cola plant in Plachimada, and against the Western companies responsible for the gas tragedy in Bhopal. Initially there were hesitations about holding the Forum in Mumbai, seeing that it is over-crowded and polluted, and does not have the advantage of a progressive local government like in Porto Alegre. There were fears that conservative forces would try to sabotage the event but this did not happen. The forum's move to India turned out to be highly successful. Mumbai is home to nearly 20 million people, half of whom either live in slums or on the streets. The sheer degree and conspicuousness of urban poverty in Mumbai shocked many international participants of the forum. Filthy, pencil-thin beggars, mainly women and children, flocked to the forum gates. They were a sobering reminder to all forum participants of the urgency and importance of humanity's task in building "another world". In the hundreds of conference halls and tents of the forum, the poor could no longer be talked about in the abstract; they were living and breathing just beyond the forum's perimiters. The forum in India resolved to adopt, as its main themes, opposition to imperialist globalisation, patriarchy, and militarism, and in order to address the specific concerns of South Asia (while still maintaining a global perspective), opposition to casteism and racism (descent-based oppression, exploitation, exclusion, and discrimination), and communalism (religious sectarianism and fundamentalism). In the weeks leading up to the World Social Forum, several startling billboards sprung up around Mumbai. For example, one billboard had the format of a huge postcard on which was written, "Dear George
Re: Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism
Jurriaan Bendien wrote: "you have to affirm the validity of what people are already doing, and demonstrate how they could work together more effectively, in a way that is really beneficial to them, as well as having a real political effect." I've been following this thread on RS, noting the despair of change, etc., and just wanted to let you know that I read a really nice essay on the World Social Forum. I'll post it later when I get to my other computer. There are people out there who see hope. No, perhaps they are not turned on to some grandiose revolution, but there are millions of us, whether we're Marxists, Socialists, Progressives, Greens, anti-Globalists, environmentalists, etc., etc., that are thinking many of the same things and, what's more important, sharing, to a large degree, goals. I do not have time now to give this the thought that it deserves, but I have several litte ideas. First, I think about the Internet an an enabling technology. The Internet could be a very valuable tool. As an example, I think the Bush administration has underestimated the power of the Internet to share informattion and facilitate organization. I doubt that the Administration anticipated the way information would leak around the barriers erected by the corporate media: consider the kidnapping of Aristede. A second thought is that any force for change is helped and motivated by knowing what it has accomplished and where it is going -- this is in addition to the information sharing and organizing aspects of the Internet mentioned above. I'm talking here about metrics. It's nice to know that 80,000 people turned up for the WSF at Mumbai. It'd be nicer to see a listing of specific initiatives agreed to be undertaken and the progress achieved on each. This is the stuff of facilitating the self-organization of groups: the information is up there for all to see, take credit, or corrective action. Another thought would be that within the context I have described there might emerge specific initiatives. For example, specific corporations might be targeted for a boycott. Similarly, products from a specific country and that country's currency might be boycotted. Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jurriaan Bendien Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 10:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] Reply to Louis Proyect on revolutionary socialism Louis wrote: >B-52's raining Volkswagen size bombs on peasant villages recruited me to socialism, not elegant descriptions of the "benefits" of a future world. I do not see how the one need exclude the other, and it really avoids the question of what would "recruit" young people to socialism these days anyway. The very term ""recruiting" is problematic, because this suggests that people are being conscripted into a military service under a Marx commander, a Marxist boss. And this is one of the factors which gave rise to autonomism in the first place. People search for forms of association which are no longer ruled by people who claim to have all the answers in advance, whether religious or secular, but who through respect for dialogue and individuality can show the benefits of joint work. They reject grand narratives not because they necessarily hate grand narratives or disagree with them, but rather because they cannot find a place for themselves in those grand narratives - the big story wasn't developed from their story, but somebody wanted to impose a big story on their story. What I think you really need to understand is why somebody would become a politically organised socialist in the first place. If you disregard the labels, there are in the USA literally millions of "unconscious socialists" - they live their lives in conformity with principles which can only be described as Marxist, class conscious or socialist etc. even if they do not call it that. There is little point in lecturing these people on calling things by the politically correct names, as you might as idealist in a university, which is indeed likely to be counterproductive for ordinary folks, rather, the challenge is how you could get them to cooperate in a way which both benefits them, and has a real effect. If you recognise that this is the problem, then you can begin to make an analysis which really answers that problem. But a dogmatic, sectarian stance cannot solve it. It cannot even frame the problem. In the 40-60,000 strong Dutch Socialist Party (even if in your terms it is "reformist"), it is recognised that the motivational structures different groups of potential socialists is different, they are "interpellated" by different themes. Thus, an honest socialist, leftist or Marxist would say: I believe that the most important priority for me is to work on such-and-such a theme, issue or prob
A Brief History of Corporations
Title: Message Appropro our discussion on corporations, I thought this might be of interest. Some related webpages can be accessed via the links at the bottom. [>] Peter Hollings Source: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/KnowEnemy_ITT.html Know Thine Enemy A Brief History of Corporations by Joel Bleifuss In These Times magazine, February 1998 Corporations can't cast a ballot, but they do vote with their wallets. In the 1995-96 election cycle, corporations and corporate PACs contributed $147 million to candidates running for federal office. The United States is one of the few democracies where such donations are legal. The Supreme Court affirmed the right of corporations to pay for electoral campaigns in the 1978 case First National Bank v. Bellotti. Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis Powell explained that giving cash to influence the outcome of an election "is the type of speech indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual." Indeed, under the prevailing interpretation of the Constitution, corporations have the same rights as individuals. This was not always the case: American corporations gained these protections in the 19th century, when the Supreme Court, in a series of rulings, defined the relationship between business and the state. Those rulings shielded companies from government regulation and thus allowed the corporation to become the dominant form of economic organization. [In] the 21st century, the combined gross revenues of the 200 largest corporations exceed the GDP of all but the nine richest nations. In this context, it is important to know how corporations came to hold such sway over our everyday lives, and what can be done about it. The first corporations appeared in 17th-century Europe, during capitalism's infancy. At the time, the government chartered all corporations-that is, it gave them a specific public mission in exchange for the formal right to exist. The United States was settled by one such corporation, the Massachusetts Bay Company, which King Charles I chartered in 1628 in order to colonize the New World. The practice of chartering companies was a crucial part of the mercantile economic system practiced by the epoch's great powers-Holland, Spain and England. By allowing investors to pool their capital, the monarch made it possible for companies to launch ventures that would have been beyond the means of one person. And in exchange for the charter, companies expanded their government's wealth and power by creating colonies that served both as sources of raw materials and as markets for exported goods. But in the 18th century, the Enlightenment challenged this model of economic organization by putting forward the idea that people need not be subjects in feudal structures but could act as individuals. American revolutionaries, inspired by radical notions of "unalienable rights" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," fought for independence not only from the Crown, but from the corporate bodies it had chartered. The Boston Tea Party, for example, was a protest against the British East India Company's monopoly of Eastern trade. Another critic was Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations was published in the same year as the Declaration of Independence. Influenced by John Calvin, Smith believed that human resourcefulness and industry were earthly signs of God's favor, and thus that wealth obtained in a market economy was an _expression_ of "natural justice." Smith, however, did not think that corporations were a natural part of this order. Arguing that large business associations limit competition, he wrote, "The pretense that corporations are necessary to the better government of the trade is without foundation." In the infancy of the republic, Americans gave little thought to corporations. In 1787, fewer than 40 corporations operated in the United States. By 1800, that number had grown to 334. Like the British corporations before them, these companies were typically chartered by the state to perform specific public functions, such as digging canals, building bridges, constructing turnpikes or providing financial services. In return for this public service, the state granted corporations permanence, limited liability and the right to own property. American manufacturers began to form corporations only when trade with Europe was shut down by President Thomas Jefferson's embargo of France and Britain from 1807 to 1809 and by the War of 1812. In order to supply the domestic market with the manufactured goods that had previously come from England, Americans formed new companies to amass the capital needed to build factories. The rise of these associations-created not to fulfill a public mission, but
Re: Economic terrorism
Osama bin Laden was quite specific in his demands in several of his fatwas. I don't have access to it right now, but I believe it was his "First Message to America" that outlined demands to restore the Palestinians to their land and remove US forces from the Muslim Holy Land in Saudi Arabia. I think these demands were credible, in part because he had no apparent motive to be dishonest, moreover they were public demands, and, within the Muslim community would necessarily have had to have apparent sincerity and weight to draw adherents. What I think is interesting is to analyze the strategic choices made by the USA from an economic perspective. Prior to 9/11, as I recall, we had military expenditures in the area of $50 billion annually in the Middle East. Compare this with oil imports that I believe were in the area of $10-15 billion. Now, with Afghanistan, Iraq and all the other initiatives stretching all the way east to the Philippines and north to Mongolia, we're probably spending over $100 billion/year. And these costs are probably dwarfed by all the different costs, real, opportunity, imputed, etc., of economic terrorism. If we were to view the strategic choices made by the US as strictly a matter of achieving energy security in the most cost-effective way, the decisions made were/are clearly nonsensical. For less money we could simply enlarge our strategic petroleum reserve to buffer any interruption in supplies and withdraw from the Middle East. So, and this is my real point, there must be other reasons for our actions. And we must be willing to spend enormous sums for these reasons, whatever they may be. In part, I think the answer is that literally pouring money in a hole in the ground doesn't yield the same Keynesian effects as military expenditures. So there are probably political and institutional factors at play. Any thoughts? Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 2:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Economic terrorism Interesting. The Irish had specific demands. What are Al Quaida's? Some we know, but just getting out of Saudi Arabia and giving some land to Palastine would not likely be enough -- even if there were a strong political base that the group represented. Economic terrorism is probably effective. If the Palestinians kept up the Intifada much longer -- especially if they were able to make tourism dangerous -- might hurt the Israeli economy, but it might also enourage more private and public aid from the US. This is certainly a murky area. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
FW: Ellsberg defends Kerry against Republican charges of "treason"
This appeared on Daniel Ellsberg's list and I thought it might be of interest. Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: Ellsberg.Net Email List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 4:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Ellsberg defends Kerry against Republican charges of "treason" Ellsberg.Net Email List www.ellsberg.net The Salon Interview: Daniel Ellsberg By David Talbot February 19, 2004 [excerpts] Feb. 19, 2004 | They fully supported America's decision to go to war in Vietnam. In fact, they firmly believed that the U.S. should have fought the war even more aggressively. This would, of course, have cost more American lives and even more Vietnamese lives. And it risked certain confrontation with China, even nuclear war. But damn it all, they were for it, if that's what it took America to win! This is the position George W. Bush claims he held as a young man during the Vietnam War. It was also the position held by his top policymakers and advisors, like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. In fact, they still think it, as Bush made clear to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press." Yes, they ached for a fuller, that's right, bloodier war, one with no "political" restrictions on our military, as Bush put it. But here's where it gets complicated: They didn't actually want to shed any of their own blood. Bush, as we all know by now, used family pull to get into the safe haven of the National Guard, where we are absolutely certain he kept at least one dental appointment, but are somewhat vaguer about the rest of his service record. As for his vice president, well, he had "other priorities" . . . . John Kerry has a much better war story to tell the American people than Bush: He not only served, he was a hero who saved men's lives. So the president's aggressive political machine, as ever taking the offensive when it senses its own weakness, is trying to find a way to wound Kerry before Bush loses any more blood. Here's the new GOP line of attack, as demonstrated by Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespie, New York Times columnist David Brooks, the National Review, and all the usual TV frothers (none of whom found a way to serve his country in Vietnam, or today in Iraq): yes, Kerry was a decorated hero, but he betrayed his fellow soldiers when he came home by denouncing the war, casting shame on their great sacrifice. (Newt Gingrich, another draft-dodging hawk, announced last weekend that Republicans would play the traitor card, by tarring Kerry as a "Jane Fonda antiwar liberal.") The fact that most veterans returned from Vietnam as disillusioned with the war as Kerry was -- and that many of these gray-haired warriors are rallying around his campaign today -- puts a bit of a crimp in the Republican strategy. But that has not stopped Karl Rove and company from continuing to bang this drum. . . . TALBOT: The Republicans are attacking Kerry now for betraying his fellow Vietnam veterans by condemning the war after he returnedŠ ELLSBERG: They are? Amazing! I don't even like to hear this. It makes me gag. Is this something new, I haven't heard about this? This is just obscene. I hate to hear this. The fact is that Kerry's group, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, upheld the honor of this country. TALBOT: Kerry's GOP critics are saying he's a political waffler because he questioned the war before he went, but then went to Vietnam anyway. And then he publicly denounced the war after he returned. ELLSBERG: As I said, this is making my flesh crawl, to hear George Bush, who went into the National Guard to stay out of Vietnam, even though he supposedly supported the war ... TALBOT: Yes, not only did he support the war, but he thought the U.S. should have fought it harder ... ELLSBERG: You mean he wanted those other guys to fight it even harder. He wanted his fellow airmen, who were not in the National Guard, but in the Air Force, to put themselves much more at risk in killing people in North Vietnam, dodging SAMs [surface to air missiles], while he dodged his monthly duties in Alabama in an outfit that was preparing for war in Europe, should that arise. And of course he's at one with virtually all of the neocons in that respect. Cheney had "other priorities" during Vietnam and apparently spent the war in a secure location somewhere, I guess in Arizona. Rumsfeld had indeed flown in the Air Force in the 1950s, so no lack of courage there, just to fly those planes takes courage. But I noticed that Rumsfeld, who's exactly my age, did not manage to use his military training in any way in Vietnam. He was too old presumably to go there as a flyer. But there were lots of jobs for him in Vietnam if had wanted, but he chose to sit out the war back here. I joined the service -- the Marines -- just about the same time he di
Re: Administration too quiet in wake of Haiti upheaval
Title: Message I read more than one report to the effect that for the duration of the 20-hour flight to Africa Arsitede wasn't even informed of his destination. It hardly seems like a voluntary trip, nor, even minimally respectful of his rights. Peter Hollings -Original Message-From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Devine, JamesSent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:52 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Administration too quiet in wake of Haiti upheaval does anyone know why Aristide would go to the Central African Republic, of all places? did he have any choice? (If I were he, I'd go somewhere else, such as Nigeria or Belize.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message-From: Diane Monaco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:48 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L] Administration too quiet in wake of Haiti upheaval Administration too quiet in wake of Haiti upheaval By JESSE JACKSON The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 3/3/04 So much for all that talk about democracy. President Bush dispatched Marines to Haiti to secure order -- after his administration forced the elected leader of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, into exile. Now the administration will determine who gets to run Haiti. For the Bush administration it was clear: The Haitian voters had put their faith in the wrong man, so he had to go. President Bush then ridiculously announced that the "Haitian constitution is working," as if words could turn night into day. The U.S. government never liked Aristide. The neo-cons loathed him as a messianic dreamer who believed in redistribution of wealth. The ideologues of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank disdained him. The CIA's covert operators viewed him as an ideological adversary. The Haitian elites enlisted lobbyists from both parties to undermine him. The Haitian military, which he disbanded, despised him. The Papa Doc death squad murderers loathed him for stripping them of power. So when the Haitian "opposition," led by that same elite, fed the thugs, former death squad killers, gun-runners and drug dealers that formed the armed rebellion against Aristide, the United States did nothing. The toppling of a democratically elected president -- however flawed his administration -- should not be treated as business as usual. We need congressional hearings to probe the administration's role in this. Was the CIA connected to its former agents who were leading the rebellion? Were the neo-cons who run Latin America for the State Department signaling the Haitian opposition that the United States wouldn't stand by Aristide? Did Bush hold off any assistance to Aristide in order to force his exit? This coup sends a chilling message to leaders across the world. Turns out all that rhetoric about supporting democracy as a centerpiece of U.S. policy is just words, not policy. This administration values governments that protect private investment and stability for U.S. multinationals. Stable dictatorships are preferred to unstable democracies. It runs up massive trade deficits and maintains cordial relations with the Communist dictatorship of China, but topples Haiti's elected president. As we learned in Florida four years ago, Bush is all for elections, but only if they come out the right way. Jesse Jackson is a Democratic Party activist based in Chicago. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.
Re: any comments?
OK, here's a comment: Since the trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund are personally liable for the savings of the beneficiaries and Greenspan has now put us on notice that further lending of trust funds to the US Government is in jeopardy of not being repaid, we should put the Trustees on notice that we, the beneficiaries, will sue all present and future trustees personally for any reduction in our benefits. Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Ballard Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] any comments? --- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > March 2, 2004/New York TIMES > NEWS ANALYSIS > Medicare and Social Security Challenge > By EDMUND L. ANDREWS > > In theory, the two giant trust funds are > accumulating huge surpluses > that can be used to pay for benefits when the baby > boomers retire and > the systems start taking in less than they are > paying out. In practice, > those surpluses are being spent, and the government > will probably have > to borrow enormous sums to meet its obligations to > retirees. The wages system is the greatest robbery in history. The amount of wealth which is stored away for wage-slaves once they retire is being squandered. > "It is time to start telling people the truth," said > Laurence Kotlikoff, > a professor of economics at Boston University and a > longtime analyst of > the issue. "Suggesting that some minor adjustments > to Social Security > will solve the problem is doing a disservice." I doubt whether the good professor will be telling the truth about how the working class has increased its productivity many times over during the decades when the baby boomers were creating wealth for the capitalist class and that the major adjustment that needs to be made is to siphon off a portion of that wealth (by taxation--who care really how it's done) and put it into social security. After all, that would be silly and besides he's got his tenure to think of. > Mr. Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, > provoked a political > tempest when he told members of the House Budget > Committee last week > that Congress needed to trim future Social Security > and Medicare > benefits to head off a fiscal calamity in decades to > come. It's the same old tired song of the ruling class: workers must sacrifice so that WE the deserving can lap up the cream. > Mr. Greenspan proposed adjustments in how the > government increases > benefits to keep up with inflation and suggested > pushing back retirement > ages to better reflect increased life expectancy. Actually, just the opposite should happen. Workers should retire earlier so that reserve army of labour shrinks, solving both the unemployment problem and the miserably low wages which the lower strata of the working class receive for services rendered. The adjustments which should be made have to do with adjusting the rate of surplus value extracted from the ever more productive working class. > Democrats immediately attacked the proposed cuts, > saying they would be > unnecessary if President Bush had not been running > up large annual > budget deficits just before millions of baby boomers > reach retirement > age. > > "Cutting Social Security benefits is not the way to > rein in the > irresponsible Bush budget deficit,'' chided Senator > Tom Daschle of South > Dakota, the Senate Democratic leader. A correct observation from the left-wing of the capitalist bird. > President Bush and Republican lawmakers distanced > themselves as well, > saying that much of the problem could be averted by > setting up private > savings accounts. A ridiculous proposal which plays to the ignorance of the working class about who actually produces the wealth and who retains the lion's share. > But as precarious and uncertain as long-range > forecasts are, most > experts agree that the combined challenges of Social > Security and > Medicare are too big to be addressed without > politically painful > remedies. The bourgeois are ever ready to sacrifice to the last proletarian. The workers should return the favour. Unfortunately, the constant drum beat coming from their ever turned on TVs will fill their poor open minds with bourgeois arguments. After all, Jesus suffered, so you must suffer. The Bible and the TV tell us so. > The number of retirees is expected to soar from > about 40 million today > to more than 76 million by 2030, which means that > fewer dollars will be > coming in from payroll taxes and many more dollars > will be going out in > retirement and medical benefits. Like I said, take out of the suplus value which is being
Re: dems, etc
The mandatory service bill is a poison pill. It will make unjustified war unpopular and unsustainable. Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Johansen Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 9:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] dems, etc What of the contradiction here: if the right really wants to get behind a draft, why is it that the sponsors in the House are Conyers and Rangel, who would be in favor because 1) selective service this time would, in the bill drafted, not allow loopholes for the privileged, and 2) the absence of a 'patriotic' rationale for this blighted war in the minds of more and more people could very well spell disaster for the sitting administration? Ralph - Original Message - From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:20 PM Subject: Re: dems, etc snip > * For Immediate Release: > Wednesday, January 8, 2003 > Contact: Andy Davis (202) 224-6654 > > Hollings Sponsors Bill to Reinstate Military Draft > Senator cites current heavy use of reserves and national guard, need > for shared sacrifice > > WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings last night introduced the > Universal National Service Act of 2003, a bill to reinstate the > military draft and mandate either military or civilian service for > all Americans, aged 18-26. The Hollings legislation is the Senate > companion to a bill recently introduced in the House of > Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rep. John Conyers > (D-Mich.). > > Specifically, the bill mandates a national service obligation for > every U.S. citizen and permanent resident, aged 18-26. To that end, > the legislation authorizes the President to establish both the number > of people to be selected for military service and the means of > selection. Additionally, the measure requires those not selected > specifically for military service to perform their national service > obligation in a civilian capacity for at least two years. Under the > bill, deferments for education will be permitted only through high > school graduation. . . . > > <http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/press/2003108C06.html> * snip
Re: dems, etc
Title: Message Well, I am unsure that the system can be reformed from within. But, two initiatives come to mind: 1) Attempting to constrain the hegemonic American system from without through popular initiatives (perhaps coordinated through the World Social Forum) to boycott the products of any country that was not a signatory to the treaty forming the International Criminal Court; and, 2) Reforming the system from within by reducing corporate influence over the political process. The second would be difficult because the system would resist an change that threatens currently-vested interests. So, it will take focused, coordinated public pressure. Probably a range of measures would be necessary, such as, restricting corporate contributions, making the lobbying process more transparent, etc. Peter Hollings -Original Message-From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan ScanlanSent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:30 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L] dems, etc Do we need to keep huge pressure on the Dems? Hell yes. The best way to do that is to push from the left and don't vote for them. Bush has a long way to go before he kills as many people in Iraq as Clinton did, estimated at more than 1 million (compared to current estimates of tens of thousands in this war segment). Getting rid of Bush doesn't get rid of Bushism (a euphemism for black-hearted corporate control of government). None of the Democratic candidates, including Kucinich, is attacking the poison in his own party. What we are experiencing today is the result of the dismal failure of the Democrats to act Democratically when they controlled all three houses. They're as corporate as Republicans. They're just not as up front (i.e., transparent) as Bush. Notice they don't even try to appeal to (and thereby expand) the 10 percent of Republican voters who say they are embarrassed by Bush. I don't have a solution. Just pondering. I would, however, work to elect Kucinich if he chastised the Democratic Party and introduced articles of impeachment in the House. Perhaps he's too wrapped up in the run for the presidency to use this Constitutional tool to start a national discussion more significant than the present made-for-teevee situation comedy posing as a people governing itself, in which he is given a mere walk-on role. (Impossible? I reckon, since most of the members of the House of Representatives are complicit in the treason, notably passing the Patriot Act. But we do need a new national conversation, one based on what we set out to do as a nation. You know: general welfare, domestic tranquillity, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness -- that stuff.) Dan
Re: The economy - a new era?
I might guess that the Bork theory aluded to had either of the following underpinnings: a) more concentration in US markets would allow higher profit margins there, enhancing the capability of subsidizing entry into foreign markets; or, b) a "size matters" argument that the bigger you are, the more readily you can raise capital, etc. What was Bork's argument? It would seem that, the nature of it would enable us to judge its "progressivity". For example, the subsidy argument, by penalizing US consumers, wouldn't seem a progressive effect at all. What role the Japanese style of industrial organization and protectionism have to bear? Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era? Actually, the Reagan years were more important. The Chicago school, especially Robert Bork, made the case that antitrust hobbled American corporations in the international market. On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 03:08:28PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: > my 2 kopeks: it was under Clinton (or perhaps under Bush I or even Reagan) that anti-trust was shelved. The idea was that with globalization of competition in product markets, anti-trust wasn't needed. Of course, not all products have globalized markets... > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Eugene Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 2:14 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era? > > > > > > Has the US economy entered a new era? > > > > It seems to me that the US Department of Justice, along with other > > relevant agencies, has lost interest in enforcing antitrust laws. > > > > I think we are back to the 1880s and 1890s, where "Trusts" and "pools" > > will rationalize capacity for the good of all? > > > > Banks and insurance companies agglomerate. Electric power > > generation is > > falling into fewer and fewer hands, and those hands are more and more > > financial institutions. Big oil gets bigger. Big steel consolidates > > while the steel market sags. ADM and Cargill thrive while > > the number of > > farmers shrinks. > > > > Am I generalizing from the worst possible input, anecdotal evidence? > > > > I've always loved anecdotal evidence -- I continue to believe what is > > before my eyes. I believed that smoking cigarettes caused > > lung cancer. > > I still do, actually. > > > > But clue me in: Are we moving to tight oligopoly everywhere > > in our economy? > > > > PEN-l doesn't much discuss economics, as Michael complains. > > But when it > > does, it discusses macro. Anybody looking at market structure? > > > > Gene Coyle > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: The economy - a new era?
My 2 cents: I read recently that a top Microsoft lawyer is moving over to head the ABA's anti-trust section. I recall that there was an exchange of staff between Microsoft and the DOJ just after their settlement in 2001. Also, consider the Tunney Act proceeding wherein the judge was supposed to consider "public interest". I think there were about 30,000 negative comments. Tunney himself commented that the intent of the act was being frustrated. I don't have any empirical evidence, but I think there is a pattern. Possibly, there is a rational purpose, such as making US firms more competitive in global markets, but I suspect it's just crony capitalism. Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eugene Coyle Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 5:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L] The economy - a new era? Has the US economy entered a new era? It seems to me that the US Department of Justice, along with other relevant agencies, has lost interest in enforcing antitrust laws. I think we are back to the 1880s and 1890s, where "Trusts" and "pools" will rationalize capacity for the good of all? Banks and insurance companies agglomerate. Electric power generation is falling into fewer and fewer hands, and those hands are more and more financial institutions. Big oil gets bigger. Big steel consolidates while the steel market sags. ADM and Cargill thrive while the number of farmers shrinks. Am I generalizing from the worst possible input, anecdotal evidence? I've always loved anecdotal evidence -- I continue to believe what is before my eyes. I believed that smoking cigarettes caused lung cancer. I still do, actually. But clue me in: Are we moving to tight oligopoly everywhere in our economy? PEN-l doesn't much discuss economics, as Michael complains. But when it does, it discusses macro. Anybody looking at market structure? Gene Coyle
Re: The Ice Age Cometh
For some good information on the abrupt climate change theory I recomment the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute's website: http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/ct_abruptclimate.htm . Peter Hollings -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Burford Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 6:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The Ice Age Cometh As I read the article it is broadly consistent with information available at the Science Museum in London about the Gulf Stream being dependent on a cold deep counter-current flowing southwards. (Although I am a bit uneasy about the idea of it joining the Pacific around the bottom of Africa (!) ) The simplified explanation I have heard is that the cold deep current is caused by mass of the frozen ice over the Arctic Ocean. The present rapid shrinkage of this ice cap is therefore the mechanism that could bring an end to the Gulf Steam. I have not heard the argument about fresh water flushings. That would seem to get into more complex models of fluidics. But the broad picture of a delicately poised system that could oscillate rapidly between two states, is consistent with the more recent orthodox status of chaos theory. Capitalists and non-capitalists alike have to address the fact that we live in a complex interacting biosphere. That may be bad news for humanity. But it certainly undermines the capitalist faith in the virtues of private ownership of the means of production, and of socially and environmentally blind production. The zeiteist is becoming increasingly unfriendly to simplistic capitalist solutions. It requires at the very least the highly socially conscious integrated perspectives of finance capitalism, which, indeed, could be the eve of the socialist revolution. When does the remodelling of BP to mean Beyond Petroleum lead to a change mediated perhaps just by a wave of focus groups, into a belief that production must be for the people, and that the financial figures have got to be seen as an abstraction? Then a phase shift has occurred. Stably unstable systems. Where the change will occur first is hard to predict. Politically or environmentally. Chris Burford Chris Burford :London. - Original Message - From: "Mike Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 12:28 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The Ice Age Cometh > --- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm no expert on this, but it sure seems that any > > kind of global change in the average temperature > > would disrupt weather patterns all over the world, > > causing severe winters, droughts, etc. > > > > I'm just an aspiring prolo-author. But the noises > coming out of the Establishment press indicate that > we're in BIG trouble because of the ineptitude of our > philistine ruling class. > > More here: > http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print/0,15935,582584,00.html > > Hopefully, we'll "sublate" the capitalist system > before it's too late. > > Regards, > Mike B)
