[PEN-L:836] Micro-credit
Dear Folks I have jut heard a story concerning micor-credit and Thatcher's son. I would like to know what micro-credit is. Rebecca
[PEN-L:729] Re: Re: Taxpayers
Jim:...shouldn't we add "plus the benefits of welfare-state programs such as unemployment insurance benefits" ? then, the wage struggle is about (1) real after-tax private wages plus (2) the real net social wage (welfare-state benefits minus taxes on wages). IMHO, pushing to raise both of these at the same time is the way to go. Rebecca: I agree that workers struggle can centre around the issue of state spending on welfare for the working class. However this does not validate an argument that claims that state health care etc for the working class forms part of the price of labour power. Warm regards Rebecca
[PEN-L:260] Fw: Belfast Agreement
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_0080_01BDB426.165A1040 charset="iso-8859-1" Date: 20 July 1998 21:25 Subject: Belfast Agreement Hi Comrades, Attached is an interesting and valuable piece from the Sunday Tribune written by Ed Moloney on the Belfast Agreement in relation to human rights etc. Warm regards Rebecca --=_NextPart_000_0080_01BDB426.165A1040 name="belfast.max" filename="belfast.max" VmlHQ2oaAABD AAMAAAEAXQAbAB4BAAEABQAA gMcAAMgBAADI AEgBAMjIAAUAAABWWoCA AAEABQAMAAABAGEAAAEAyAEAABse AFZagAAA AoBFDgAAAFMIWwEAAABcAQAA UGFkZHkgSGFja2V0dABCZWxmYXN0AABF VlrgAAABQAABAAIARgEAAADA//8AAQAA AADGqAIA AABWWiDG AAEAAQAQAIgAiAABAAEAAgBQBcAFyADIAQABAFUAXAAh AAIAWgcFAIgcBAAApAQAAFoHAAD+CwAAZgAAAGQMAABozAwAABi5 AAAcBAAA AAIAAP///wAA ABYWFpUbuppaioqGWoqqkqYWZZoQVVUUVVQBlRVRRUFFSUlVRVlR kVapqmSqamiqaAGVGqKPauKKOWqoupKairraoKq+pmmoAZUalppVVkRFUQZRVVVQVVZVZVgB kBqWqpmqRlpqqZqTeqqmavRBhNvm7mwBji6iopKShprqqaVSlplQAoWVVRVVVAGOAVVWUVJJlVVF lUGVWaAChaqpKaqoAZUDm0qqmaumk6qgpYqqSlgBhBWWVVABkAVlUZSVQVRVFRlQUUmV RYQBhCQBkAWqkqSqkqSqKiug67b6magBlRqmqZoqQKWqWqqSpaammpBVWWlVVAGVBVFVSRVB VVmVVWQBlRZpqqaaSqpmmuqSiqqpaeHvyvitqAGVKqpFqValllJqqqZqoFVpFZVUAZUV VUZllqqaUmVVYRpQqmopqqgBlS69vrqqiqKipYqDqqq6qqDaKqKqqAGVGmlWVVVAQUFRQUJVRUVR UJkWUVVUAZIaaqaqpkqIyuq3kqqGhaGgquQElSqKpqp6RVmZlVVCqapYqVBVFlVZVAGVBVSVVVlF qmWamoFUVVRVUKpqqqmoAZUa64CqqkuKaoqlkqroqKqgam6JpqQBlRZWUVVVRVUBUVVFFVCV VYSSVAGVFpZlqmpKomqqapJmqYpqoftua66YAZUqqqpZqkqqZplRQqoGpRqgZVVVFRQBlRVVVQRF BWVSRlJBVQVVRVGqZAGVA5qupotKKkloqpKmm9mrsaoYaqFIAYQVVlVUAZAFRlVRWUKVVWVF UFUUVVJEAYQqpqqkAZAKlqqmqoJlVmqKob66hqCoAZUqqGqhhkqqpaolgmmqamaQWVRWWFQBlRVk VlFJRRJBVEUVEmGqqKKoaAGVK6Lir4ZKSvhuhpKqmqaOsaqCqgakAYUVVEVZUQGPVVRVVUGS lFpVUFVBVQlUAZUqqJoqokGqpqmqklKoWqGhu5m5qagBiCqqquqqRVVAAosDaqGUUVVQUAGI FVVRVVUKqoACgwJVBQGHBVGoYaqhqAGNJ62quqpKppqqaUKqQAKGAaqWqqlUAZUVlWVVVQVSRVlp QaZVphVhVVgBlRVqqqamTqpqqm6CpWWmaWHuoaikqAGFKWqpqpoCghAEAYsGuqBVFVlQ VAGKFFaVVVoBmpqqqgGKBRVRVRGqalqmqAGJB5a6pLpCmt++QQGKqmqm6qGQoGqppAGCBRUDgwEF BQKEAVRRRAKFQFBZpqQBgimqA5AJVRlVVUaqpqqkAa6bOamoAZUmqlqlpUqqKqaqApqqSaVRlYVZ VVQBhiZlVplmQASLAVllmaVRqlqZqqQBlT36qqqaQFVUVVQGqqu6qqGmqqQalAGFJVlUVVEBhKqp pbgBilQRRQFRlVVQBVQBiSqpmaqiQFAERQGLBqShmhqiqhquoqgBhSqWoqJVAYJVBAKLBpppqWaQ UUEBhRVVUmVFAY/qqqpoAlWR6WqpYqkBhyqiliqKQAUBglUUAYq6oaqqaqZBAYUV FVVRVQGBEASKUQQEQVBZlVZVQQGNKhlqlqoGmqqmagaqpAKGAr/OmqJpAZUpGoKqqkFVVVUlQVVV RVURWVVVYVUBhhUVQVVVQAGBRAKLBppaiqphammaqakBlStpu+aqQKqqpqAFpqqpqaKqqmmZpQGF FVZVVVYBj2VVVWQFUVVVWlBZlQGFKapmaqoBgQQCjEAG6qaqqqKjq6aKqQGVKqioappACmaa kAFVVFWlUZZRUQmUAYUVVFhlVQGPGWpWkAUqaJaqoaqSolqoAYU9LuS6rgWLBqaWaqahkKqkJVQB
[PEN-L:215] Orange marching season
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_0020_01BDB00F.FC971640 charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Comrades There has been much controversy surrounding the question of the Orange parades marching down roads such as the Garvaghy Road in Portadown, Ireland. The view of Sinn Fein, Michael Farrell, co-chairperson of the civil rights association, is that it is valid for these parades in general to proceed once the local residents dont object to them. This position is one that obscures the real nature of Orangeism in the North of Ireland. The point is that Orangeism and its parades are of a cultural, ideological and politically reactionary character. Consequently they are opposed by all revolutionary communists. However that does not mean that communists simply take to the streets opposing such marches whether the march proceeds down a staunchly Orange area or non-Orange community. Practical opposition is a tactical matter and must be considered in context such as the kind of support that exists on the ground among the local masses. As a tactical matter how the practical opposition is to be organised and under what slogans are vitally important. As of present much of the Sinn Fein and Garvagy/Omeau form of organising against marching has an opportunist character which rather than attempting to raise political consciousness reinforces sectarianism even further. However communists can engage in propaganda against such marching at any time. To conclude: The view of Sinn Fein and others seems to be that that Organism has a civil and democratic right to march, but not through areas where the marches are found to be offensive to the local community. This position reinforces the existence of Orangeism and its parades and essentially undermines the call for an end to Orange parades down Garvaghy and other areas. The issue of civil rights and democracy in this context is an illusory one that merely obscures the real state of affairs. The point is that Orangeism and its parades, irrespective of the localities, they toddle through are culturally, ideologically and politically reactionary. Consequently universal opposition to both Orangeism and its theatricals is correct --whether the parades proceed through staunchly Orange or non-Orange communities. Warm regards Rebecca --=_NextPart_000_0020_01BDB00F.FC971640 charset="iso-8859-1" !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN" HTML HEAD META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 = http-equiv=3DContent-Type META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=3DGENERATOR /HEAD BODY bgColor=3D#ff DIVHi ComradesBRBRThere has been much controversy surrounding the = question=20 of the OrangeBRparades marching down roads such as the Garvaghy Road = in=20 Portadown, Ireland.BRBRThe view of Sinn Fein, Michael Farrell,=20 co-chairperson of the civil rightsBRassociation, is that it is valid = for these=20 parades in general to proceedBRonce the local residents dont object to = them.=20 This position is one thatBRobscures the real nature of Orangeism in = the North=20 of Ireland.BRBRThe point is that Orangeism and its parades are of a=20 cultural, ideologicalBRand politically reactionary character. = Consequently=20 they are opposed by allBRrevolutionary communists. However that does = not mean=20 that communists simplyBRtake to the streets opposing such marches = whether the=20 march proceeds down aBRstaunchly Orange area or non-Orange community.=20 Practical opposition is aBRtactical matter and must be considered in = context=20 such as the kind ofBRsupport that exists on the ground among the local = masses.=20 As a tacticalBRmatter how the practical opposition is to be organised = and=20 under whatBRslogans are vitally important. As of present much of the = Sinn Fein=20 andBRGarvagy/Omeau form of organising against marching has an=20 opportunistBRcharacter which rather than attempting to raise political = consciousnessBRreinforces sectarianism even further.BRBRHowever = communists=20 can engage in propaganda against such marching at anyBRtime.BRBRTo = conclude: The view of Sinn Fein and others seems to be that that = OrganismBRhas=20 a civil and democratic right to march, but not through areas where=20 theBRmarches are found to be offensive to the local community. This=20 positionBRreinforces the existence of Orangeism and its parades and=20 essentiallyBRundermines the call for an end to Orange parades down = Garvaghy=20 and otherBRareas.BRThe issue of civil rights and democracy in this = context=20 is an illusory oneBRthat merely obscures the real state of affairs. = The point=20 is that OrangeismBRand its parades, irrespective of the localities, = they=20 toddle through areBRculturally, ideologically and politically = reactionary.=20 ConsequentlyBRuniversal opposition to both Orangeism and its = theatricals=20 isBRcorrect --whether the parades proceed through staunchly Orange or=20 non-OrangeBRcommunities.BRBRWarm=20
[PEN-L:184] Factsheet - Orange marches
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. charset="iso-8859-1" THE MARCHING SEASON In the North of Ireland A Fact Sheet a.. The Marching Season in the Six Northeastern Counties of Ireland spans from April through to December. The majority of these marches are organised by what are termed the Loyal Orders, namely the Orange Order, the Apprentice Boys and the Royal Black Preceptory. b.. In Portadown approximately 40 parades are organised each year by the above groups as well as by other Loyalists groupings, With one exception, that of the return leg of the Drumcree parade along the Drumcree and Garvaghy Roads, all these marches take place in the town centre or other areas of the town which are predominantly Protestant/Unionist. Although all of these marches cause major inconvenience and annoyance, it is only the return leg of the Orange Order's Drumcree parade along the Drumcree and Garvaghy Roads which Catholic/Nationalists actively oppose. c.. The Loyal Orders named above are secret societies from which Catholics are excluded. When a person becomes a member of any of the Loyal Orders, he must swear he has no blood or marital connection with any member of the Catholic faith. The Loyal Orders are exclusively Protestant, Unionist and pro- British organisations. d.. A number of marches by these organisations go through areas which are predominantly Catholic/Nationalist, such as the Garvaghy Road in Portadown and the Ormeau Road in Belfast. Such marches are considered to be akin to Ku Klux Klan marches through coloured communities in the U.S. or marches by neo-Nazi organisations through Jewish or other ethnic communities in Europe. e.. In these disputed areas, the Loyal Orders refuse to meet with residents' groups to discuss rerouting parades and marches away from contentious and controversial routes. f.. The local Member Of Parliament is David Trimble, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, who is a member of the Orange Order. Mr Trimble has also refused to meet with the Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition (his own constituents) and has never responded to any correspondence from the Residents' Coalition. He had no such problems meeting with known Loyalist paramilitaries, such as Billy Wright, also known as King Rat, at Drumcree in July 1997. Wright was the leader of a Loyalist death squad based in the Portadown area which has been responsible for the murders of over 150 Catholics since 1970. Harold Gracey, leader of the Orange Order in Portadown, frequently publicly appeared in Wright's company. For further details of David Trimble's links with Wright and others, read "The Committee" by Sean McPhilemy, published by Roberts Rheinhart. g.. As is the case in all disputed areas, an alternative route which totally avoids the Garvaghy Road area is available to the Orange Order. This alternative route in Portadown (along the Corcrain and Dungannon Roads) is actually the route taken by the Orange Order on their way TO Drumcree. h.. The Loyal Orders allege that residents groups are not representative of local communities. In Portadown, the Catholic/Nationalist population is represented by the Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition - an umbrella group whose membership is drawn from local community-based organisations. i.. Portadown is a predominantly Unionist/Protestant town in County Armagh with a total population of approximately 28,00O. The minority Catholic/Nationalist population of the town is approximately 6,000. Almost all the CathoIic/Nationalist population live in housing estates along the Garvaghy Road or the smaller Obins Street area in the north-western corner of the town. (See Map) Many of those living there were forcibly evicted from their homes in other parts of the town by pro-British Loyalist paramilitaries. j.. A survey carried out in the Garvaghy Road area by the Independent Review of Parades and Marches in 1996 (a British Government agency) found that 93% of the local Catholic community in Portadown were sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the Residents Coalition. k.. 97% of all those questioned in that Survey, and 99% of Catholics, said that parade organisers should take into account demographical and other changes which have occurred in the religious mix of an area. l.. When asked if a parade should go through an area where the religious balance is 10% (or less) Protestant and 90% (or more) Catholic - similar to the make-up of the Garvaghy Road area - NO Catholics in favour of a march going ahead, with 90% of Catholics calling for rerouting or outright ban on such marches. m.. In the 1997 local government elections, two candidates put forward by the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition were both electd, and both Breandan Mac Cionnaith and Joc Duffy now represent their community as members of Craigavon Borough Council. n.. The above official statistics totally contradict the untruths continually put out by the Orange
[PEN-L:35] New coomunist mailing list
To sub to the new communist mailing list: no subject and in message body write subscribe communist to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rebecca
[PEN-L:523] Social welfare
In Ireland the social welfare system is relatively speaking quite generous. Indeed people immigrate into the country to avail of its benefits. On top of that one can avail of social welfare benefits and yet work in the black economy with little fear of being discovered. This is because the state have little or no interest in tackling fraud. We are told by sections of the radical left that the state is cutting back on benefits yet in Ireland they continue to dispense their largesse. Indeed it is even gone so far that only recently the state introduced a system whereby people from "poorer" backgrounds dont require the same qualification in the state exam to be admitted to certain university degree courses. I can offer reason as to why the state engages in such benevolent actions. But I am not always convinced about them. One is that they dispense goodies to this lumpenised section of the masses in order to keep them apolitical and indifferent to elections. In other words they pay them to keep quiet. If they did not dispense these goodies to them their anger would grow this thesis maintains. This then might not be good for capitalist stability. Personally I am not too sure about this thesis even though I have myself offered it as an explanation. My present position tends to be that it is true up to a point. However I still dont believe for one minute that the state, in terms of the needs of capital, has to be quite as kind as it has been. If I am right then this does not square with capital's need to maximise profit. Why does the state deduct funds from surplus value to transfer it to lumpen elements when it does not have to --to that degree I mean? Even in terms of the multiplier effect it does not seem to make much sense. Perhaps some section of the bourgeoisie are benefiting from these probably unnecessary hand outs. Perhaps they benefit form the increased demand that they may generate. Perhaps if these hand-outs were not given out they would not benefit from the advantages of holding back from diminishing the surplus value unproductively. This and other matters dont make sense in terms of capital's needs if we are to accept Marx's Capital as correct. The call by many radical lefties for more funding for the deprived is pure rubbish. This would make sense if the funding was deducted form the profits of the capitalist class. But this is not what happens. What happens is that any increased funding going to the less well off is deducted from the working class or sections of it. This means that extra funding does not mean that the working class is benefiting since it taken with one hand from one section of the working class to be given to another section or lumpen element. So the call by radical lefties for more state spending is entirely misrepresents the situation. An added although internally related explanation is that this situation is an expression of the insanity of capital --its tremendously contradicotry charcater. In other words because capitalism is an inherently contradictory system (is not substantively rational) it thereby throws up lots of crazy situations that dont make sense in a rational context. Rebecca
EMUcharset=iso-8859-1
Folks, I have been examining the matter of the European single currency. Ireland is poised to join it. There are those that say that joining will entail surrendering the power of the Irish state to more freely manage economic policy --monetary, interest rate policies etc. They argue that single currency that will lead to declining living standards. My view is that the conflict between those who are for or against joining up is an inter-capitalist conflict or fight as to how best serve the interests of capital. It is not the business of revolutionaries to opt for one or the other means of "managing" the capitalist economy. It is the business of revolutionaries to opt for socialism and thereby the abolition of all currencies --neither one or the other but socialism. Rebecca
Ireland civil rightscharset=iso-8859-1
The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement Given the sectarian character of the six county capitalist state in the north of Ireland it is clear that full civil rights cannot be achieved without the dynamic of the industrial working class. Given conditions as they existed in 1968 it was just as clear then that the industrial working class would not be available to provide the necessary dynamic that would make full civil rights achievable. In short the industrial working class lacked the necessary class consciousness and corresponding political character to offer itself as this dynamic. To organise a civil rights campaign, under these circumstances, constituted a utopian venture designed to delude the Catholic masses and thereby obstruct the development of their political consciousness. The civil rights campaign was a form by which the development of the unity of the six county working class was to be obstructed. In this way the leadership of that campaign promoted a submerged sectarian agenda. Given the inability of this campaign to achieve civil rights in the absence of the support of the industrial working class the achievement of civil rights within the context of the six county state was impossible. As I intimated the civil rights leadership was petty bourgeois, utopian and sectarian in its politics. The unfolding of events verifies the correctness of this thesis. Given the inability of the civil rights movement to achieve civil rights when confronted by the full resources of the sectarian capitalist state supported by the unionist and loyalist para- and extra- statal forces the only options left open was abject retreat or the development of the civl rights movement into the national struggle. The latter was the course taken. Consequently the leadership of the mass upsurge of the Catholic masses was taken over by the PIRA. The very fluid situation among the Catholic masses led to the replacement of one leadership by another --the civil rights leadership by the PIRA. Since the civil rights leadership was verified by history as politically bankrupt it was replaced by a different leadership --the IRA. Given the failure of the industrial working class (predominantly Protestant) in the six counties to support civil rights the only other alternative was to broaden and deepen the struggle to a new level thereby transforming the civil rights movement into the national struggle. In this way it was hoped that the dynamic underlying the national struggle would serve as a substitute for the absent industrial working class. This was an admission that the Catholic masses were not immanently powerful enough to force through civil rights. The development of the civil rights struggle into the national struggle was an expression of the inherent weakness of the Catholic masses and the necessity of the industrial working as the driving force for any such struggle. The existence of the national struggle constituted a further turning away from the industrial working class by the leadership of the Catholic masses. Such a further shift away from the industrial working class constituted a programme for increased polarisation between Catholic and Protestant worker. Instead of taking the Catholic section of the working class towards the Protestant section of the working class thereby forging a revolutionary unity of the six county working class the formers leadership lead it in the opposite direction thereby promoting sectarianism and guaranteeing that civil rights and the needs of the Catholic masses were never going to be met. The national struggle was to prove essentially just as weak as the civil rights struggle. The national struggle proved inherently weak because again the industrial working class was absent as its driving force. Consequently, in so far as it can justifiably be deemed a national struggle, it assumed the form of a narrow petty bourgeois movement generating all kinds of stratagems, gimmicks etc. as substitutes for the central and necessary dynamic --the industrial working class north and south. Because of its inherent weakness and the inherent weakness of the Catholic masses as a driving force the struggle assumed an elitist character in the form of a guerrilla force that was essentially private in character and independent of the masses. It is the inherent weakness of the national struggle that also explains its leaderships desire to ally itself with this and that petty bourgeois and even bourgeois force including the southern government and the Roman Catholic Church. It is this weakness that explains its crass opportunism and the confidence of the Unionist forces. Indeed as the so called current peace process shows Sinn Fein is even prepared to ally itself with imperialism in the form of Washington and London. Over twenty five years on we are witnessing the truth of this in the present leadership of the struggle --its betrayal of its very own programme through its abject capitulation to the British
McAliskey peace processboundary=----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BD2525.63A7C940
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_0006_01BD2525.63A7C940 charset="iso-8859-1" E:\Documents\235p3b.htm --=_NextPart_000_0006_01BD2525.63A7C940 name="235p3b.htm" filename="235p3b.htm" PEhUTUw+PFRJVExFPkJlcm5hZGV0dGUgTWNBbGlza2V5OiBTaW5uIEYmZWFjdXRlO2luIHNob3Vs ZCBsZWF2ZSBwZWFjZSBwcm9jZXNzPC9USVRMRT4gCjxQPjxIMj5CZXJuYWRldHRlIE1jQWxpc2tl eTogU2lubiBGJmVhY3V0ZTtpbiBzaG91bGQgbGVhdmUgcGVhY2UgcHJvY2VzczwvSDI+CjxQPjxT VFJPTkc+VGhlICJwZWFjZSBwcm9jZXNzIiBzdHJhdGVneSBvZiB0aGUgUmVwdWJsaWNhbnMgd2Fz IGJhc2VkIG9uIGFuIGFsbGlhbmNlIG9mIGFsbCBJcmlzaCBuYXRpb25hbGlzdCBwYXJ0aWVzLCBp bmNsdWRpbmcgYm91cmdlb2lzIGZvcmNlcyBzdWNoIGFzIHRoZSBTb2NpYWwgRGVtb2NyYXRpYyBh bmQgTGFib3IgUGFydHksIGFuZCB0aGUgRHVibGluIGdvdmVybm1lbnQuIEl0IHdhcyBhaW1lZCBh dCBmb3JjaW5nIHRoZSBCcml0aXNoIHRvIG1ha2UgY29uY2Vzc2lvbnMgaW4gdGhlIGRpcmVjdGlv biBvZiBlcXVhbCByaWdodHMgZm9yIHRoZSBuYXRpb25hbGlzdCBtaW5vcml0eSBpbiBOb3J0aGVy biBJcmVsYW5kIGFuZCBvZiBkZXZlbG9waW5nIGNyb3NzLWJvcmRlciBsaW5rcyBiZXR3ZWVuIHRo ZSB0d28gcGFydHMgb2YgSXJlbGFuZC48QlI+VGhlIGluaXRpYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIElSQSBib21i aW5nIGNhbXBhaWduIHJlZmxlY3RzIHRoZSBjcmlzaXMgdGhhdCB0aGlzIHN0cmF0ZWd5IGhhcyBl bnRlcmVkLjxCUj5HRVJSWSBGT0xFWSBzcG9rZSB0byBCRVJOQURFVFRFIERFVkxJTiBNY0FMSVNL RVksIGEgbGVhZGluZyBzcG9rZXNwZXJzb24gZm9yIHRoZSBsYXN0IHF1YXJ0ZXIgY2VudHVyeSBv ZiB0aGUgbWFzcyBtb3ZlbWVudHMgdGhhdCBoYXZlIGRldmVsb3BlZCBhZ2FpbnN0IHRoZSBzeXN0 ZW0gb2YgQnJpdGlzaCBkb21pbmF0aW9uIGluIE5vcnRoZXJuIElyZWxhbmQuPC9TVFJPTkc+PFA+ CjxQPjxTVFJPTkc+IFF1ZXN0aW9uOiBXaHkgZGlkIHRoZSBjZWFzZS1maXJlIGJyZWFrIGRvd24/ PC9TVFJPTkc+CjxQPkZpcnN0LCB0aGUgY2Vhc2UtZmlyZSB3YXMgY2FsbGVkIHdpdGggdGhlIGJl bGllZiB0aGF0IHdpdGhpbiBzb21lIGRlZmluYWJsZSBwZXJpb2QgaXQgd291bGQgYnJpbmcgYWJv dXQgc29tZSBmb3JtIG9mIGRpYWxvZ3VlIHRoYXQgd291bGQgaW52b2x2ZSBTaW5uIEYmZWFjdXRl O2luIGluIGRpcmVjdCBuZWdvdGlhdGlvbnMgd2l0aCB0aGUgQnJpdGlzaCBnb3Zlcm5tZW50LiBB bmQgMTggbW9udGhzIGxhdGVyIHRoYXQgaGFkIG5vdCBoYXBwZW5lZC4KPFA+U2Vjb25kLCB0aGVy ZSB3YXMgYW4gaW50ZXJuYWwgcmVhc29uLiBJZiB5b3UgZ28gYmFjayB0byB0aGUgYW5ub3VuY2Vt ZW50IG9mIHRoZSBjZWFzZS1maXJlLCBpdCB3YXMgcmVjZWl2ZWQgd2l0aCBncmVhdCBlbnRodXNp YXNtIGJ5IHRoZSBSZXB1YmxpY2FuIHJhbmsgYW5kIGZpbGUuIEl0IHdhcyBwcmVzZW50ZWQgYXMg YSB2aWN0b3J5LiBCYXNpY2FsbHksIHBlb3BsZSB3ZW50IGFsb25nIHdpdGggdGhpcyBvdXQgb2Yg bG95YWx0eSB0byB0aGUgbGVhZGVyc2hpcC4gVGhpcyB3YXMgZGVzcGl0ZSB0aGUgZmFjdCB0aGF0 IGF0IG5vIHN0YWdlIGhhZCB0aGUgcmFuayBhbmQgZmlsZSwgaW5kZWVkIGFueWJvZHkgaW4gdGhl IG9yZ2FuaXNhdGlvbiBiZWxvdyB0aGUgbGVhZGVyc2hpcCwgaGFkIGFueSBrbm93bGVkZ2Ugb2Yg dGhlIGxvbmctdGVybSBuZWdvdGlhdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBsZWQgdG8gdGhlIGNlYXNlLWZpcmUuIFRo ZXJlIHdhcyBhIGJlbGllZiBpbiB0aGUgaW5pdGlhbCBzdGFnZXMgdGhhdCBhIGJyZWFrdGhyb3Vn aCBoYWQgYmVlbiBtYWRlIHRocm91Z2ggYSBzZWNyZXQgYWdyZWVtZW50LiBCdXQgdGhhdCB3YXMg bm90IHRydWUuCjxQPkluIGZhaXJuZXNzIHRvIHRoZSBSZXB1YmxpY2FuIGxlYWRlcnNoaXAsIEdl cnJ5IEFkYW1zIFtwcmVzaWRlbnQgb2YgU2lubiBGJmVhY3V0ZTtpbl0gYW5kIG90aGVycyBzYWlk IGF0IHRoZSB0aW1lIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgd2FzIG5vIHNlY3JldCBkZWFsLiBZZXQgdGhlIHRoaW5n IGRpZCBub3QgbWFrZSBzZW5zZSB0byB0aGUgcGVvcGxlIHVubGVzcyB0aGVyZSBoYWQgYmVlbiBh IHNlY3JldCBkZWFsLiBBbmQgc28geW91IHdlbnQgZnJvbSBvbmUgdGhlb3J5IGFuZCBleHBlY3Rh dGlvbiB0byBhbm90aGVyLCB3aXRoIHBlb3BsZSBoYW5naW5nIGluIGFuZCBoYW5naW5nIGluLCBh bmQgdGhlbiBkaXNpbGx1c2lvbiBzdGFydGluZyB0byBzZXQgaW4uCjxQPlNvLCBJIHRoaW5rIGZp bmFsbHkgdGhlIGxlYWRlcnNoaXAgdG9vayBhIGNhbGN1bGF0ZWQgcmlzayBpbiB0aGUgQ2FuYXJ5 IFdoYXJmIGJvbWJpbmcgaW4gb3JkZXIgdG8gcmVhc3NlcnQgaXRzIG93biBhdXRob3JpdHkgd2l0 aGluIGl0cyBtaWxpdGFyeSByYW5rcy4gSW4gbXkgb3BpbmlvbiwgdGhleSBtYWRlIHRoZSBhc3Nl c3NtZW50IHRoYXQgaWYgdGhleSBkaWQgbm90IG1vdmUgYXQgdGhhdCB0aW1lIHRoZXkgd2VyZSBo ZWFkaW5nIHRvd2FyZCBhIHJlYWwgcG9zc2liaWxpdHkgdGhhdCBzb21lIGVsZW1lbnQgb2YgdGhl aXIgb3duIG9yZ2FuaXNhdGlvbiBvciBwZW9wbGUgd2hvIGhhZCBkcmlmdGVkIGF3YXkgZnJvbSBp dCB3b3VsZCwgb3V0IG9mIGZydXN0cmF0aW9uLCBtYWtlIHNvbWUgbWlsaXRhcnkgbW92ZSBvbiB0 aGVpciBvd24uCjxQPgo8UD48U1RST05HPiBRdWVzdGlvbjogSW4gdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXMs IG5vYm9keSBpbiB0aGUgbW92ZW1lbnQgcmVhbGx5IGtub3dzIHdoYXQgdGhlIFJlcHVibGljYW5z IGFyZSBkb2luZy48L1NUUk9ORz4KPFA+VGhhdCdzIG5vdCBhbnkgZGlmZmVyZW50IGhlcmUuIFRo ZSBDYW5hcnkgV2hhcmYgYm9tYmluZyBtaWdodCBoYXZlIHJlc29sdmVkIGFuIGltbWVkaWF0ZSB0 ZW5zaW9uIHdpdGhpbiB0aGVpciBvd24gbWlsaXRhcnkgb3JnYW5pc2F0aW9uLiBCdXQgdGhlIFJl cHVibGljYW5zIHJlbWFpbiBjYXVnaHQgdXAgaW4gdGhlIGxvZ2ljIG9mIHRoZSBwcm9jZXNzIHRo ZXkgc3RhcnRlZC4gQXMgZmFyIGFzIHRoZSBwdWJsaWMgaXMgY29uY2VybmVkLCB0aGV5IHNoaWZ0 ZWQgdGhlIGFpbSBvZiB0aGUgUmVwdWJsaWNhbiBtb3ZlbWVudCBmcm9tIGEgMzItY291bnR5IEly ZWxhbmQgKHNvY2lhbGlzdCBvciBvdGhlcndpc2UpIHRvIGFsbC1wYXJ0eSBwZWFjZSB0YWxrcyBm b3IgYW4gYWdyZWVkIElyZWxhbmQuIEFuZCB0aGUgSVJBIGNlYXNlLWZpcmUgd2FzIGNhbGxlZCBv biB0aGF0IGJhc2lzLgo8UD5TbywgcGVvcGxlIGFyZSBjb25mdXNlZCBhYm91dCB3aGF0IHRoZSBS ZXB1YmxpY2FucyBhcmUgZG9pbmcsIHNpbmNlIHRoZXkgbXVzdCBoYXZlIGtub3duIHRoYXQgYSBy ZXR1cm4gdG8gbWlsaXRhcnkgYWN0aW9ucyB3b3VsZCBub3QgZ2V0IHRoZW0gYmFjayB0byB0aGUg dGFibGUgZWFzaWx5IHdpdGhvdXQgdGhlaXIgYmVpbmcgY29uZnJvbnRlZCBhZ2FpbiB3aXRoIHRo ZSB3aG9sZSBpc3N1ZSB0aGF0IHdhcyBicm91Z2h0IHVwIGF0IHRoZSBiZWdpbm5pbmcsIHRoYXQg
Fw:
-Original Message- From: Jim Monaghan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 29 December 1997 18:46 This was written by a friend on the end of the last Peace initiative Jim Monaghan What's behind the breakdown of the Irish Peace Process? by Gerry Foley The Irish "peace process" was not ended by the flurry of IRA bombings in London in February. At the end of the month, the British and Irish governments announced agreement for the start of all-party talks -- including Sinn Fein, the Irish Republican political organization -- on June 10. So-called proximity talks -- that is, indirectly involving Sinn Fein -- were to be held in March 4-13 to prepare for a new round of negotiations. As a condition for including Sinn Fein in the June talks, London and Dublin insisted on a resumption of the IRA ceasefire. Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein, and John Hume, leader of the bourgeois nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), met with the IRA leadership to discuss renewal of the "peace process." The IRA response was noncommittal, obviously reflecting an uneasiness in the Republican movement over where the peace process had been leading. The IRA statement, released February 29, said: "We listened attentively to the case presented by both leaders and noted their shared commitment to restoring the peace process... "For our part," the IRA leadership continued, "we restated our absolute commitment to our republican objectives, which include the free exercise by the Irish people of our inalienable right to national self-determination. "We also took the opportunity to reiterate what we said on February 9 [the date of the statement declaring the end of the ceasefire], stressing that a resolution of the conflict in our country demands justice and an inclusive negotiated settlement without preconditions. "We pointed out to Mr. Hume and Mr. Adams that the failure of the British government to put in place inclusive negotiations free from preconditions, the abuse of the peace process by the British over 18 months, and the absence of an effective and democratic approach capable of providing an irrevocable momentum towards a just and lasting peace in Ireland, were the critical elements which led to the failure, thus farm, of the Irish peace process." The conditions that led to the "peace process" still exist. The British government and its pro-imperialist allies in Northern Ireland have not crushed the insurgency of the radicalized section of the nationalist population in the Catholic ghettos. On the other hand, the military campaign of the IRA has been effectively contained by the massive British military machine. Politically, the militant nationalists have been clearly isolated and on the defensive for many years. In a blind alley The movement found itself in a blind alley when it proved unable to widen the political breakthrough that it had made in 1980-81 as a result of the mass movement in support of the ten Republican prisoners who starved themselves to death one after the other in protest against the British machinery of repression. This was the basic political context in which Republican leadership began negotiations with the British authorities in 1990, which led to the IRA ceasefire on August 31, 1994. On February 9, 1996, the IRA leadership announced that it was ending the ceasefire. Their statement said: "The [ceasefire] presented an historic challenge for everyone, and an Oglaigh na hIireann [IRA] commends the leaderships of nationalist Ireland at home and abroad. "They rose to the challenge. The British prime minister did not. Instead of embracing the peace process, the British government acted in bad faith with Mr. Major and the Unionist leaders squandering this unprecedented opportunity to resolve the conflict "We take this opportunity to reiterate our total commitment to our Republican objectives. The resolution of the conflict in our country demands justice. It demands an inclusive negotiated settlement. That is not possible unless and until the British government faces up to its responsibilities. "The blame for the failure thus far of the Irish peace process lies squarely with John Major and his government." This statement was followed within hours by the explosion of a truck bomb outside a large building in the Docklands area of London. The blast was claimed by the IRA. On February 15, a small bomb placed by the IRA in a phone box in London's theatre district was defused by police, following an IRA warning. On February 18, a bomb carried by an IRA operative on a London bus exploded prematurely, killing him and injuring several passengers. According to accounts in the British press, about a third of the IRA men killed since the start of the insurgency in Northern Ireland have died in premature explosions of their own bombs. This figure attests to readiness for self-sacrifice of the Republican volunteers but not to a
Diana's death
Dear Folks, Vanity Fair ran an apparently good article on the whole Di thing. I would be grateful is someone would download it to me. Regards, Rebecca
Re: Violence against women
Bill: You make three slightly several different claims here, none of which is persuasive. If sexist violence perpetrated by males against females "has its source in the nature of capitalist society", we should not expect to see it prior to the advent of capitalist relations. Rebecca: Of course you could. The last two world wars have their source in capitalism. Because wars existed prior to capitalism does not mean that wars dont have their source in capitalism. However that does not mean that all wars that ever existed have had their source in capitalism. Just as all male violence against women has not had it source in capitalism (male violence under feudalism etc). I am talking about make violence agasint women that is going on now in capitalist society. I am talking a real ongoing problem. I am talking about something that can be eliminated now. I am not talking about violence that has taken place in some society that preceeded capitalism. THis pastr canot be changed. Bill: This, plainly not the case, leaves this assertion empty. It also is logically flawed---there is no logical connection between capitalist relations and sexist relations, other than they are both unjustified relations of unequal power, hence both intolerable. The two can survive independently quite well, though at any particular time the two can be found together in cozy company, feeding off one another. In order for capitalism to survive, it requires only, by definition, that capitalist relations survive. Rebecca: The above asertions make little sense. The absurd upshot of this is that current relations, practices, institutions are not necessarily capitalist. Then if this is the case there is no capitalist society in any substnative sense of the word. Instead there is a capitalist society that exists alongside of a multitude of other societies or soccial phenomena that only exist in in an external relation to each other. Consequently their existence side by side is one of chance. Contingency is the prevalent form t hen. There is no systemic links between the varied social pehnomena. Rebecca
Violence against women
Below is is a tentative piece of mine on male violence against women that has partly grown out of discussion on the Marxism list on the question of male violence against women. Violence of male individuals against female individuals. Again this form of violence has its source in the nature of capitalist society. It can never be eliminated without eliminating capitalism. Capitalism and this form of violence necessarily go together. Capitalist oppression is mediated or expresses itself through the violent oppression of individual women by individual men. The inverse relation, although it exists, is only marginal against the extent to which it exists in former relation. Does this mean that gender oppression exists in which the male gender is violent towards the female gender? No! Because some men are violent against women it does not logically follow that men are necessarily violent against women. In short, then, male violence against women is not a gendered based violence. The violence of men against women is a specific form assumed by capitalism's violent character. The violence of working class men against working class women is one of the forms by which class violence against the working class is maintained by capitalism. Working class men who inflict violence on working class women are promoting the perpetuation of class violence against the working class as a whole and working class women specifically. Through this form of violence they are promoting a sexist division within the working class. This being so the violence of working class men against working class women is a specific class form by which the capitalist class maintains a violent and oppressive relation to the working class. Violence by working class men against working class women is a class issue. The struggle against violence by working class men to working class women forms an indispensable part of the class struggle against the capitalist class. In short the struggle against violence by men against women forms part of the struggle against the bourgeoisie. This specific struggle forms a part of the struggle for socialism. To attempt to conduct the struggle against male violence on a narrow gender basis is to displace the struggle and thereby defend capitalism. To attempt to reduce violence by men against women to the context of gender is to suggest that the violence has its source in gender; in a specific gender: the male gender. If male violence is gender violence then that means that it is male gender constituted violence. This means the male gender organises and structures its violence against women. This makes men as a whole and not capitalism responsible for male violence. The source of male violence against woman begins and ends with men as a whole. Accordingly male violence transcends class relations and even history itself. This conveniently removes the real source of the violence, capitalism, form view. In this way feminism serves a useful (capitalist blind) bourgeois ideological and political function. To promote the form of the struggle along gender lines is to promote capitalism and thereby undermine the interests of working class women. The struggle against male violence against women must be conducted on a revolutionary basis if it is to be a real struggle against male violence. There is only one real way of conducting the struggle against male violence directed at women --the revolutionary way. To confine the struggle against male violence within gender constraints is not to conduct the struggle at all. By confining it to a gendered context is to confine the struggle to an abstract level that transcends history. It is to turn the struggle from a concrete class question to an abstract naturalist struggle. It is to emancipate the struggle from politics thereby suggesting that class relations play no significant part in the struggle. By focusing on gender difference as a difference that is common to all historical periods feminism is focusing on what is common to all periods instead of the relevant specificity under capitalism. Attention must be focused on the specific form oppression acquires under a specific society --capitalism. To concentrate on what is common to all societies is to concentrate on what is in effect natural and above history. This is to then suggest that historical movement cannot eliminate these characteristics. This means that they cannot be eliminated. If this is the case then one must just accept them living as best one can. Consequently it is a futile exercise to consider these issues. They are differences that are beyond politics. Consequently there obtains an irresolvable contradiction in a feminism that locates the source of the oppressive relations between men and women in gender. But the point is that they are wrong. Oppressive relations between men and women are not located in gender but in historical conditions. The point is that the capitalism, by its very nature, give out largesse even
Against Nature
http://www.channel4.com/news/against_nature/index.html Against Nature.url
Re: U.S. growthboundary=----=_NextPart_000_0039_01BD0228.10952880
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_0039_01BD0228.10952880 charset="iso-8859-1" Shawgi, Would you please explain to me how the unemployment rate underestimates = the unemployment situation. And what is the difference between the = jobless rate and the unemployment rate? Are they not one and the same = thing. Fraternally Rebecca -Original Message- From: Shawgi A. Tell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 05 December 1997 12:19 Subject: Re: U.S. growth =20 =20 =20 Greetings, =20 On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Doug Henwood wrote: =20 Shawgi A. Tell reproduces every tired leftist cliche about the = U.S. labor market in just three paragraphs, an impressive achievement. =20 Please let's not lower the level of discussion. =20 I think it is necessary to avoid focusing on the appearance of things and move directly to the essence of matters. In terms of unemployment, the so-called lowest unemployment rate in the last = few decades conceals numerous realities which have been thoroughly = discussed by many (e.g., Holly Sklar in Chaos or Community? 1995). If one = sees only 4.6% unemployment without looking into the sort and kind of jobs = being created, forgets the bias of "official" data, focuses only on = unemployment as opposed to the jobless rate and so on then one will arrive at = an inaccurate impression of things. One will think that things are actually going well when in fact the opposite is the case. =20 The point isn't that "things are actually going well" - the point = is that they're a lot better than they were 5 years ago. Real wages are = rising, and the race and gender gaps are narrowing. Sure lots of shit jobs are = being created, but that's not the whole story, or you wouldn't be seeing = a pickup in the average wage. =20 But things are not actually going well and they are not "a lot better than they were five years ago." My argument is that things continue to deteriorate and worsen rapidly for the vast majority. = This argument is based on Karl Marx's analysis, which retains its full validity, and the constantly growing mountains of objective and = verifiable data and information indicting the capitalist economic system. =20 For example, according to Dembo and Morehouse, the 1993 jobless rate was nearly 14%. They also conclude that "With each = succeeding recovery period, the *Jobless Rate* has fallen less and less" = (The Underbelly of the U.S. Economy: Joblessness and the Pauperization = of Work in America, 1994). =20 Yes, the official unemployment rate understates reality, but it = always has, and the trend has been down.=20 =20 Then it would be good to avoid using the "official" unemployment rate as a point of departure for analyzing reality. The "official" unemployment rate does not merely "understate" matters. It grossly distorts them. =20 And, if the jobless rate, no matter how you slice it, is at a 24-year low, then Dembo Morehouse's claim is = no longer true. I think this needs to be recognized, explained, and analyzed = for its political significance. =20 But how the jobless rate is sliced is the point. Was not your original question on/about the so-called low unemployment rate? In = the area of women's un/employment, for example, the Census Bureau has = admitted it did things wrong, leading to a gross underestimation of = conditions. =20 Besides other things the 4.6% unemployment rate masks the fact that the productive forces continue to be destroyed by = capitalism. Technological developments are increasingly making the service = sector look more and more like the manufacturing sector. =20 What does this mean? U.S. industrial production continues to rise, = and manufacturing capacity (according to the Fed's industrial production/capacity utilization series) is expanding at the = fastest rate in 30 years. Besides, I thought capitalism was famous for expanding = the productive forces at the expense of everything else. =20 Yes, production does continue to grow, thanks to, among other things, the introduction of automation, but with fewer and fewer workers. From the standpoint of the capitalist class, workers have = always been incidental to the capitalist labor process. And, yes, = capitalism is known for expanding the productive forces. But it is also known for de-skilling. =20 =20 Like all previous socio-economic formations, capitalism has reached a point which is causing the destruction of the productive = forces. The contradiction between the relations and forces of production = under capitalism today are extremely sharp, demanding resolution.
Re: Stags
Hi folks, Can anybody expalin to me in a clear way what is meant by the term STAG in stock market parlance. I know what is meant by bear and bull. Rebecca
Irish Presidential election
Some observations on the presidential campaign in the Irish Republic. Tomorrow there is to be a Presidential election in Ireland. There are five Presidential hopefuls: Mary McAleese, Mary Banotti, Dana, Adi Roche and Derek Nally. According to most o fthe opinion polls McAleese is tipped to win. She is a right wing Catholic academic with a very close relationship to the Catholic hierachy. Despite the office of presidency being mainly ceremonial race itself has had a decidedly political character. The contest has been primarily between the Fianna Fail and the Fine Gael candidates. It has been reduced to a contest between two forms of bourgeois nationalism. The nationalism that places greater rhetorical emphasis on the aspiration of achieving a 32 county Irish republic and the nationalism that supports the continuation of the thirty two county republic with improved relations between the 26 and the 6 county states. The former demonstrates a greater interest in the concerns of the Catholic population in the north. Essentially there obtains only a marginal difference between the two parties. The former laying greater emphasis on republican rhetoric and the latter less. Both are essentially happy with the status quo. Consequently the debate has been a false one. It has been a debate centred around rhetoric and posturing. Even at that the former party has presented this positon in a rather craven suppressed way. It lacks even the confidence to present its token republicanism in an explicit form. This is how little confidence it has in its own images. Indeed in many ways its politics on the surface are that of posturing, images, hints and innuendo. In this way FF presents itself as a multifaceted populist organisation: all things to all people. In this way republican minded voters are seduced into voting for it. Less republican minded voters, on the other hand, are seduced into voting for it because of their belief that it is only mildly and thereby sufficiently and harmlessly republican. FG, on the other hand, wants to present itself as the party of the high moral ground. The party that personifies moral disdain for anything tainted with Provo terrorism and intolerance towards the bigoted unionism. It seeks to present itself as the party that is most understanding and accommodating to unionism. The party with whom unionists can best do business. The party that can be nationalist and yet unionist at the same time. The party of the two sides. In this way they present themselves as the party that can best achieve political and institutional reconciliation of nationalism and unionism. FG wants to present itself as the good guy. The party of the high moral ground, the party free from corruption. Conversely they seek to present Fianna Fail as the amoral and corrupt party that is not concerned with the complexities of the national question and thereby demonstrates insensitivity to Unionism. However the point is that there is essentially no difference between the two political parties. They are both bourgeois partitionist parties. They are both free from the mytical moral ground. The differences being presented to us then are one's of perception rather than policy. Difference of image, rhetoric and style. In a sense both parties are Celtic myths: identity politics. Regarding the national question, economics, social issues and security there is no essential difference between them. Consequently to make themselves electable they must artificially manufacture surface differences. This is analogous to brand difference of commerce. Both parties, in terms of their immediate interests, are merely concerned with securing political power as a means of gaining a greater share of the booty. Capitalism is essentially indifferent as to which of the parties take power. Their primary function for capital is that of sustaining capitalism by deception: creating the illusion of choice. In addition competition between the two parties keeps them, in some ways, on their toes. It makes it harder for them while in power to grow so corrupt and authoritarian that the masses loose confidence in them. It also means that if any one of the parties makes a mess of things there is in existence a government in exile waiting to step into its place. This then serves to protect the system and guarantee capital's continued existence. The individual parties have to justify their existence by manufacturing false differences, surface difference that is not real difference at all. In the presidential election Fine Gael led by John Bruton devised a presidential strategy designed to put Mary Banotti in the Park. The strategy was to "taint" Fianna Fail's presidential candidate by mispresenting her as crypto terrorist. Bruton's remarks on Adam's support for McAleesse formed part of this ground plan. The leaks that followed formed further links in the plan together with Banotti's xenophobic remarks about McAleese which she latter retracted
Re: the crash and politics
Please expalin to me how the crash is a sympton of a long-time monetary crisis. Rebecca Romain Certainly you are not. But that crash is only a symptom of a long-time monetary crisis, and that's this crisis which discredits not only "neo-liberalism", but simply capitalism.
[PEN-L:12501] Russia
Hi Can anybody on this list tell me what the state of the godl reserves of Russia are? Would anyone know how much gold is produced in Russia and what is done with it? Finally are there any books articles etc in electornic or hard print form that they can recommend on the state of the Russian economy as it currently stands? All help is appreciated. Best wishes Rebecca
