RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh, agreed, in the byzantine political mazes of late 20th century trans-cold war LDC's, religion is used as a reactionary tool by most secular politicians, hmmm, what differes from the US moral majority? . Anyway, progressive religious figures, especially those who are socialists and stand up for social justice, whether Ali Shariati or Camillo Torres, are soon gunned down by one faction or another of power brokers or their pawns. jb -Original Message- From: Rakesh Bhandari [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 4:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:20459] Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class Jamil, i cannot comment on your historical analysis of the struggles of the moro people and the chechnyans, but your point against hasty aggregations is surely correct and important. It seems to me that sadat achieved a rapprochment with egyptian jehadi because they (like say the shiv sena in bombay) were effective thugs against organized labor. It is true of course that they later assassinated him, but i would argue that al qaeda with which the the Egyptian jihad seems to have merged are clearly forces of reaction. this political islam of the arabs is a dead end from the perspective of emancipated labor. even if there are anti imperialist elements to al-Qaeda, it promises only the same long night for the working class who in this battle is only being trampled on. Rakesh
RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Wait a minute, are we not all mature adults and academics or at lest readers, thinkers writers? Why should we bed down with the unenlightened radical frings who dredge up the sobriquet Fascist to heap on every man in uniform or unsavoury political or plutocratic character? Fascism is a particular type of corporate socialism, whereby the three fascii (pillars), capital, labour government agree to run society according to a compact. Post WWII Italy's real organization seldom deviated from that model in practice despite various swings between communist and rightist parties in power. In Argentina under Peron it worked well for a while. But then Italians are the majority ethnic group in Argentina. With Spain (Franco) and Portugal (Salazar) you had a varient that involved the church as more the glue binding the three together than a fourth pillar, albeit a rightest glue. Of course National Socialist Germany was a failure compared to Italy as it was too mechanical in its formation, one might think or Wilhelm Reich's work on the Origins of German totalitarianism (exact title ???), which made a good sociological analysis of the authoritarian persona within the family structure where good German women nourished strong young warriors, like Sparta. Does anyone else see correlations between culture and Mediterranean politics, whether European, African or Asian? According to recent work in archaeology and anthropology, corporatist societies, hence politics, may have neolithic roots in Mediterranean and Western Asia worlds. jb -Original Message- From: Rakesh Bhandari [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:20461] Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class when i was off the list jim made comments that make his position much more complex than i thought. i was going on the comments that were in my in box. so jim if have misunderstood you, i apologize. i guess the use of the word fascism is inflammatory...which of course as jim says doesn't mean we should not use it when justified even in a loose sense. Rakesh
Re: Re: Re: Afghanistan class
- Original Message - From: Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey Nick you want abuse. let's get started on another topic: why can't greider or anyone else who writes for the Nation detail the big nation hypocricy represented by the MFA? My abuse will stop the day the liberal left features a big front page article on the double standards of adjustment and transition. I would feel confident that the Northern based anti capitalist globalization movement was moving in the right direction if there was some evidence it understood in some detail what Kunibert Raffer and Hans Singer are saying in The Economic North-South Divide: Six Decades of Unequal Development (Elgar, 2001). See especially the chapter on textiles and apparel. Rakesh If the book was available at the same price as Harry Potter they'd buy it and be as enlightened as you are. Until then they'll have to settle for Trebilcock's and Howse' very affordable and well written The Regulation of International Trade which points out plenty of 'North' hypocrisies. There is more than one direction to any movement. You need to lighten up already. Ian
Re: Re: Re: Afghanistan class
Sabri writes: I don't really follow the fights among Americans, nor do I find them interesting. It is you Americans' business. Raffer and Singer's analysis concerns more than US protectionism; the EU's policies are discussed. For example, Sweden's notorious tariffs on Sri Lankan textile exports. Interestingly, Japan's open criticism of the BWI's idea of structural adjustment is noted. I am more interested in following the fight between Ergin Yildizoglu and Ismet Berkan, about both of whom you most likely have no idea. Aren't you abusing me by furthering this debate I don't think anyone would be on a list if one had to be interested in every debate. I am surprised that mention of the name of the Hans Singer would be so alienating to an economist from the South?! Of course the Singer Prebisch thesis may not be specifically relelvant to Turkey. There was a discussion of how trade should be taught. If the Singer-Prebisch thesis is not evaluated--along with Ricardo's model, the Heckscher-Ohlin theory and Leontiev paradox, and the Samuelson-Stolper equalisation theorem--then what is it exactly that you want to talk about? Rakesh
Re: Re: Re: Re: Afghanistan class
If the book was available at the same price as Harry Potter they'd buy it and be as enlightened as you are. Library. to use the one word answer of which you are so fond, Ian. Until then they'll have to settle for Trebilcock's and Howse' very affordable and well written The Regulation of International Trade which points out plenty of 'North' hypocrisies. There is more than one direction to any movement. still my point remains that this kind of criticism has yet to be front page news in the leading liberal left papers. I must say that the Progressive has been quite superior to the Nation. I would hope that it emerges from this crisis as a serious challenge to the Nation as the leading weekly for the American left. You need to lighten up already. Why? Rakesh
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Afghanistan class
- Original Message - From: Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the book was available at the same price as Harry Potter they'd buy it and be as enlightened as you are. Library. to use the one word answer of which you are so fond, Ian. Right. The public library in Peoria Ill. is going to carry stuff from Elgar. Not to mention the library in Pendelton Oregon or Browsnville Texas. Until then they'll have to settle for Trebilcock's and Howse' very affordable and well written The Regulation of International Trade which points out plenty of 'North' hypocrisies. There is more than one direction to any movement. still my point remains that this kind of criticism has yet to be front page news in the leading liberal left papers. I must say that the Progressive has been quite superior to the Nation. I would hope that it emerges from this crisis as a serious challenge to the Nation as the leading weekly for the American left. There's lots of criticisms of lots of issues that aren't in the liberal left papers. There's lots of things you never discuss and I never discuss and everyone everywhere never discusses. It's bogus puritanism on your part to point what others on the left may not feel is as important as you think a topic is. You need to lighten up already. Why? Rakesh = You ain't winning any allies, or are you aspiring to be a party of one? Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Afghanistan class
Jim tried to discuss this with me offlist. I see no reason to do so. My point remains that Jim seems to have singled out al Qaeda as the clerical fascists and has thus been operating in accordance with the propaganda machine. Jim's basic reply is that just because he did not also call the House of Sa'ud clerical fascists does not mean that he does believe that it is not. Which may be logically true. But since fascism is not an analytical concept but a fighting word in a world at war, it matters politically who is and who is not EXPLICITLY called fascist. So I'll leave it at that. I tried to change the topic: ps I read David Laibman's book on capitalist macrodynamics last night. it's very good. He has thought hard and long. What i appreciate is that he very keenly understands the critique by the non equilibrium thinkers who are challenging the use of simultaneous equations in the analysis of technical change (in particular Alan Freeman). He understands that such an equilibrium methodology cannot be ontologically justfied in the sense that the economy never exists in equilibrium but he justifies its use epistemologically (he does not say that input prices have be set at output prices for the simultaneous equations to become solvable). But then his epistemological defense just brings back the ontological justification--there exists in fact a real tendency, albeit never realized, towards equilibrium. At any rate, Laibman is quite honest in recognizing why his critics are challenging him. By the way, I agree with you Jim that even if you use a temporal concept of value you cannot prove that the cheapening of capital goods will not neutralize upward pressure on the OCC. Even with a temporal concept of value OCC may still not rise. Plus, if the OCC is rising very slowly while the rate of exploitation is rising, the fall in the rate of profit may be so gradual that the mass of surplus value may become insufficient only some time before the sun burns out. That is, the temporal concept of value does not guarantee that the falling rate of profit will in fact be an important force. But the point is that it is possible for viable technical change to result in a rising OCC if one uses a temporal concept. Even with a constant real wage. The Okishio Theorem says it's impossible (Duncan Foley says the same thing), but it assumes input=output prices. Of course by setting constant the rate of exploitation instead of the real wage, Laibman and Foley do show that viable technical change can indeed result in a falling rate of profit. Since both Freeman, et al and Laibman, et al want to limit the robustness of the Okishio Theorem--one by dropping the equilibrium assumption, the other by dropping the assumption of the real wage--one wonders why Marxist academics are now at odds with each other. Rakesh
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Afghanistan class
Right. The public library in Peoria Ill. is going to carry stuff from Elgar. Not to mention the library in Pendelton Oregon or Browsnville Texas. oh, ian, is that where the duke and nyu anti globalization student activists are from? There's lots of criticisms of lots of issues that aren't in the liberal left papers. There's lots of things you never discuss and I never discuss and everyone everywhere never discusses. It's bogus puritanism on your part to point what others on the left may not feel is as important as you think a topic is. oh i see what raffer and singer are discussing concerns basically only poor old idiosyncratic me. maybe the internet is dominated by americans so one has to really attempt to bend the stick in the other direction if we are to have an honest, global discussion about global trade. You ain't winning any allies, or are you aspiring to be a party of one? If I were aspiring to be a party of one, I would not be submitting posts in which I, unlike you, attempt to give my *reasons* for my criticism of Ricardo's trade model or of the one sided misuse of the word clerical fascism. Rakesh
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Afghanistan class
- Original Message - From: Rakesh Bhandari [EMAIL PROTECTED] Right. The public library in Peoria Ill. is going to carry stuff from Elgar. Not to mention the library in Pendelton Oregon or Browsnville Texas. oh, ian, is that where the duke and nyu anti globalization student activists are from? === Then address your concerns with them in a productive manner! Nobody's perfect Rakesh. oh i see what raffer and singer are discussing concerns basically only poor old idiosyncratic me. maybe the internet is dominated by americans so one has to really attempt to bend the stick in the other direction if we are to have an honest, global discussion about global trade. == You need to take Doug's advice, Rakesh. No one activist or scholar can read *every* text on every issue. Do people on this list point out all the books you've never read? Or all the ideas you've never had? Yes the net is US-centric and we should all do what we can to change that. Maybe you should complain to The Nation and The Progressive and Monthly Review about their lack of coverage of the digital divide and it's role as a tool in class struggle? You ain't winning any allies, or are you aspiring to be a party of one? If I were aspiring to be a party of one, I would not be submitting posts in which I, unlike you, attempt to give my *reasons* for my criticism of Ricardo's trade model or of the one sided misuse of the word clerical fascism. Rakesh == I feel no need to critique the Ricardian model anymore than I feel the need to critique phlogiston-caloric theories of heat. I don't care what type of hair splitting goes on with how non-Muslims obsessed with the taxonomy of social kinds identify the authoritarian belligerence of Muslim clerics and their followers who have world views that are apologetic and/or inciting with regards to violence and an obsession with telling people they've never met what's ethical and what's not. Anymore than I give a hoot about what Jerry Falwell thinks about pot smoking and non-marital sex. Ian
RE:Re: Re: Re: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh writes: Jim tried to discuss this with me offlist. I see no reason to do so. My point remains that Jim seems to have singled out al Qaeda as the clerical fascists and has thus been operating in accordance with the propaganda machine. a basic assumption for all of pen-l should be that any interpretation of my writings -- or imputations into my thought -- done by Rakesh should be treated as _prima facie_ a distortion. Therefore I will not reply to the above or anything else he writes. Nor should anyone else. JD _ The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb http://www.thatweb.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Afghanistan class
ian, I feel no need to critique the Ricardian model anymore than I feel the need to critique phlogiston-caloric theories of heat. The latter was not only a reasonable scientific hypothesis but a practical aid. It is well worth the while to understand today why it had a hold on the best minds of Europe and how (lavosier's?) experimental results eventually undermined it. One of the greatest scientific revolutions, no? i heard norton wise's lectures on this, but have forgotten the details. As for Ricardo's trade model, I think we do benefit from developing the most succinct criticism of what it does show and what assumptions are built into it. After all, there are many, many popular dicussions in which it is defended (Krugman, Buchholz, Bhagwati, etc). Samuelson (i think) has called Ricardo's comparative advantage theory the best example of an important and counter-intuitive economic law, i.e., England and Portugal should trade despite the all around absolute advantage of the latter. It is indeed an exciting result which allows us to understand the powerful implications of arguably the most important concept of the 18th century: the division of labor. Why pooh pooh it? I do not understand why there has not been critique of the assumption that supply prices are proportional to labor costs of production. After all, this was at the heart of Marx's critique of Ricardo who attempted to defend the law of value directly, or without mediation. My understanding of Marx led me straight to that assumption in the Ricardian model. My judgement may be wrong that this is a crucial assumption in Ricardo's model, so I welcome criticism. Now your statement puzzles me: Marx hardly thought that Ricardo represented the prescientific past (the so called phlogiston era) of bourgeois economics. Scientific bourgeois economics ends with Ricardo. There are those who have developed powerful reasons to think of Ricardo as basically an ideologue for the industrial class (Rajani Kanth for example), but I am not quite persuaded by this reading. Yet Kanth is well worth reading. A very important corrective, I believe. I don't care what type of hair splitting goes on with how non-Muslims obsessed with the taxonomy of social kinds identify the authoritarian belligerence of Muslim clerics and their followers who have world views that are apologetic and/or inciting with regards to violence and an obsession with telling people they've never met what's ethical and what's not. Anymore than I give a hoot about what Jerry Falwell thinks about pot smoking and non-marital sex. i actually thought the discussion was about more politics and war than the status of religion in ethics. Rakesh
Re: RE:Re: Re: Re: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh writes: Jim tried to discuss this with me offlist. I see no reason to do so. My point remains that Jim seems to have singled out al Qaeda as the clerical fascists and has thus been operating in accordance with the propaganda machine. a basic assumption for all of pen-l should be that any interpretation of my writings -- or imputations into my thought -- done by Rakesh should be treated as _prima facie_ a distortion. Therefore I will not reply to the above or anything else he writes. Nor should anyone else. JD There is an easy way to solve this, Jim. Just send the post in which you refer to both al Qaeda and its opponent the House of Sa'ud as fascists. I said that it seems that you have singled out al Qaeda. You could easily disprove me. Rakesh
RE:Re: RE:Re: Re: Re: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh writes:There is an easy way to solve this, Jim. Just send the post in which you refer to both al Qaeda and its opponent the House of Sa'ud as fascists. I said that it seems that you have singled out al Qaeda. You could easily disprove me. I see no reason to prove my political purity to someone who misrepresents my opionions. Please go away. JD _ The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb http://www.thatweb.com
Re: RE:Re: RE:Re: Re: Re: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh writes:There is an easy way to solve this, Jim. Just send the post in which you refer to both al Qaeda and its opponent the House of Sa'ud as fascists. I said that it seems that you have singled out al Qaeda. You could easily disprove me. I see no reason to prove my political purity to someone who misrepresents my opionions. Please go away. JD Your posts are weird. I don't even know what political purity means. What do you mean by it? Forget the oath, just point me to a single post that disproves that you have been selectively mis-using the charge of fascism, which after all is not an analytical concept but a justification for the use of unbridled violence in the suppression thereof. Rakesh
Re: Re: RE:Re: RE:Re: Re: Re: Re: Afghanistan class
I just got back online. This thread still continues. Please stop! On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:08:39PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: Rakesh writes:There is an easy way to solve this, Jim. Just send the post in which you refer to both al Qaeda and its opponent the House of Sa'ud as fascists. I said that it seems that you have singled out al Qaeda. You could easily disprove me. I see no reason to prove my political purity to someone who misrepresents my opionions. Please go away. JD Your posts are weird. I don't even know what political purity means. What do you mean by it? Forget the oath, just point me to a single post that disproves that you have been selectively mis-using the charge of fascism, which after all is not an analytical concept but a justification for the use of unbridled violence in the suppression thereof. Rakesh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
A desperate Jim D. writes: Can someone tell me how to set up a filter under Microsoft Outlook? Step 1: make sure you're in a mail folder (i.e., Deleted Items) with a prospective filteree's post in the list. Step 2: click on organize on the toolbar, or if you don't use the Toolbar, click on the menu item Tools, then Organize. Your list of posts should now split in two, revealing a new top panel for setting up filtering rules. Step 3: click once in the bottom panel to highlight the aforementioned post Step 4: Next look to Create a rule (the second bullet) and try different options in the little drop-down box (from, sent to, etc.) until the name of the targeted sender of the post shows up to its right. Step 5: Next to the Create button, click on the destination of the unwanted posts (i.e., Deleted Items, Inchoate Ravings, etc.) and click on Create. It will ask you if you want it to sweep up all such posts in that folder. Say yes. You're done. If you are stuck with an older version of Outlook, this will not work since all you can do is filter the whole list or nothing at all. In that case you'll just have to shoot yourself. cheers, mbs
Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh writes: jim, you seem not to get the point. It's awfully presumptuous to say that I missed the point when all I was doing was using ObL as parts of _parenthetical remarks_ to explain the need to look at _both_ the internal class relations _and_ international relations when discussing Afghanistan etc. Jim take your pen-l post of 24th Nov: various sundry by jdevine 24 November 2001 04:01 UTC Thread Index I'm having e-mail problems, so I send at least three pen-l messages off that were lost in cyberspace, all in response to different threads that came off the cloth of Doug tells the truth (or whatever it was called). 1. I commented on JR's bit about how not being exploited by capitalism is worse than actually being exploited. That only applies if capitalism has taken complete charge of a society. If there are other modes of production, it may not be true (it depends on the nature of the alternative). 2. I commented on the similarity of al Qaida and classical European (Hitler or Mussolini-type) fascism. The former involves obscurantist religion, while the latter involves obscurantist nationalism. More importantly, fascism involved cross-class coalitions, with white collar middle class workers being the main constituency, followed by the lumpenproletariat and financed by scared richies (just as the Saudi elite helped finance ObL). 3. I commented on how Mark Jones' attack on Doug Henwood was one (perhaps small) reason why the left stays so small, because people who are on the edge of the left are repulsed by the either you toe the party line that I declare or you're Renegade Kautsky -- or worse. Jim Devine Why didn't you then and why haven't you yet commented on the similarity of the House of Sa'ud and classical European fascism? The House of Sa'ud already doesn't allow a free press, political parties or labor unions. Of course you know this but why are you selectively mis-using the word fascism? At any rate, your point 2 above is weird. the german richies who bankrolled hitler were scared of the german working class (of course this is controversial, and it would be interesting to get into the david abraham controversy); of whom are the sa'udi richies who finance osama scared? You don't say. I just don't get the point of point 2. Rakesh
RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh writes: jim, you seem not to get the point. I wrote: It's awfully presumptuous to say that I missed the point when all I was doing was using ObL as parts of _parenthetical remarks_ to explain the need to look at _both_ the internal class relations _and_ international relations when discussing Afghanistan etc. Rakesh responds by quoting my pen-l post of 24th Nov: ... 2. I commented on the similarity of al Qaida and classical European (Hitler or Mussolini-type) fascism. The former involves obscurantist religion, while the latter involves obscurantist nationalism. More importantly, fascism involved cross-class coalitions, with white collar middle class workers being the main constituency, followed by the lumpenproletariat and financed by scared richies (just as the Saudi elite helped finance ObL). and then says: Why didn't you then and why haven't you yet commented on the similarity of the House of Sa'ud and classical European fascism? The House of Sa'ud already doesn't allow a free press, political parties or labor unions. Of course you know this but why are you selectively mis-using the word fascism? no-one asked me for my opinion of the Sa'udi royal house or of the issue of classical European fascisms and the middle-eastern variety. Nor did I feel moved to express opinions on these on my own, except in my original message (which no-one seems to have paid attention to). It is wrong that because I don't say anything about a topic that I hold to any specific position on that topic. It would be wrong for me to conclude, for example, that because you never post anything about homosexuality (as far as I've seen) that you are either anti-gay or the opposite. At any rate, your point 2 above is weird. the german richies who bankrolled hitler were scared of the german working class... ; of whom are the sa'udi richies who finance osama scared? You don't say. I just don't get the point of point 2. you may have heard that there are a lot of immigrant workers who do the sh*t work in Saudi Arabia, while the SA elite is quite scared of the cultural modernity (improvement in women's social status, etc.) that seems to go with the rise of capitalism, which has been happening in the Middle East. This is superficial, but captures two major parts of what's going on. If anything I say is weird, tell me at the time I say it. Don't digest it in a way to attribute opinions to me that I don't have.
Re: RE: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Max Sawicky wrote: If you are stuck with an older version of Outlook, this will not work since all you can do is filter the whole list or nothing at all. In that case you'll just have to shoot yourself. Or you could convert to Eudora, and avoid all those MSFT security holes. Doug
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
It is wrong that because I don't say anything about a topic that I hold to any specific position on that topic. It would be wrong for me to conclude, for example, that because you never post anything about homosexuality (as far as I've seen) that you are either anti-gay or the opposite. my friend jan carowan posted some quasi foucauldian remarks on categorization by sexual orientation, and earlier on doug's lbo list, i summarized and agreed with john vandermeer's criticism of sociobiological attempts to explain (and thus justify) homosexuality. in short the practices of homosexuality are too varied over time and place to admit of a single reductionist sociobiological explanation. vandermeer's reconstructing biology is a wonderful book. At any rate, your point 2 above is weird. the german richies who bankrolled hitler were scared of the german working class... ; of whom are the sa'udi richies who finance osama scared? You don't say. I just don't get the point of point 2. you may have heard that there are a lot of immigrant workers who do the sh*t work in Saudi Arabia, while the SA elite is quite scared of the cultural modernity (improvement in women's social status, etc.) that seems to go with the rise of capitalism, which has been happening in the Middle East. This is superficial, but captures two major parts of what's going on. well those arab richies are not funding osama because they think he can put a tighter lid on women than the Sa'udis already do! I just don't get this point. but those scared sa'udi richies who are funding osama are doing it because they think he can coopt the mass resistance? Well this is plausible indeed since osama was allowing discontented youth to externalize their aggression away from the repressive govt at home. OK I see your point; this is eminently reasonable. But I still think you set yourself up for misinterpretation by selectively mis-using the word fascism. The whole propaganda machine is selective in just this way: we are told that this is a war for our cherished Western freedoms against clerical fascists who resent pamela anderson. To the extent that you call only the US' opponent clerical fascists, your words fit into the structure of propaganda. I certainly think you should be more careful in the analogies that you decide to develop. Rakesh
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
no-one asked me for my opinion of the Sa'udi royal house or of the issue of classical European fascisms and the middle-eastern variety. Nor did I feel moved to express opinions on these on my own, except in my original message (which no-one seems to have paid attention to). Jim, no one had asked you for the opinion that you do express in many posts. We are lucky for that. No one asked you (as I remember) for your opinion regarding the analogy of Osama to Hitler either. But you made that analogy, not the one of the Sa'udi regime to a fascist one. And why not? You say that one should not infer that you would reject such an analogy just because you did not make it, but it was not unreasonable of me to assume that you were at least more unsure of this analogy than the one you did make. How else does understand why you made the one and not the other? Meaning is the product of both presence and absence. Rakesh
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
I didn't see anything in the Jim's original note that would give Rakesh cause to respond in a combative way. Let's just drop the thread. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
I wrote: you may have heard that there are a lot of immigrant workers who do the sh*t work in Saudi Arabia, while the SA elite is quite scared of the cultural modernity (improvement in women's social status, etc.) that seems to go with the rise of capitalism, which has been happening in the Middle East. This is superficial, but captures two major parts of what's going on. RB writes: well those arab richies are not funding osama because they think he can put a tighter lid on women than the Sa'udis already do! I just don't get this point. the US southern slave-owners didn't fight for their independence in order to tighten control over their slaves. Rather, they did so to _defend_ their control over slaves. It's quite possible for oppressors to be reactionary. but those scared sa'udi richies who are funding osama are doing it because they think he can coopt the mass resistance? Well this is plausible indeed since osama was allowing discontented youth to externalize their aggression away from the repressive govt at home. It's possible that they did it also to buy off ObL. (The German richies thought they could buy off Hitler, after all, so he'd become reasonable like Mussolini.) ... But I still think you set yourself up for misinterpretation by selectively mis-using the word fascism. The whole propaganda machine is selective in just this way: we are told that this is a war for our cherished Western freedoms against clerical fascists who resent pamela anderson. To the extent that you call only the US' opponent clerical fascists, your words fit into the structure of propaganda. I certainly think you should be more careful in the analogies that you decide to develop. Just because GWB -- and his ilk -- almost always misuses words doesn't mean that I should avoid using words. I think that people should (1) face Christopher Hitchens' point that ObL is a horrible authoritarian -- call it fascist or call it anything you want -- and (2) argue against it based on other facts, logic, etc. Simply quibbling over words doesn't help and in fact smacks of apologing for ObL. Instead, we should be arguing that using strategic bombing (etc.) to kill off the Taliban is wrong -- even though they are fascists (or whatever). After all, the Japanese regime of 1945 was really horrible (a friend has documentary evidence that they shared racist theories with the Nazis, deeply -admiring the latter) but that doesn't and didn't justify nuking them. JD
RE: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Goodsen's book is an excellent compression of large amounts of history and geography into an easily accessible form for the novitiate into the Afghan Gordian knot. It seems bizarre that the quasi intellectual right wing (TNR) has branded as pink MESA, which I view as relatively conservative and traditionalist in its academic approach to the Middle East (a term I reject because of its geographic illiteracy and colonial stigma... preferring instead to use the more accurate and neutral, Southwest Asia and North Africa). But the USA is if nothing else a paragon of a middle that sits so far right of centre as to make Keynsians out to be leftists. jb -Original Message- From: michael pugliese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:20437] RE: Re: Afghanistan class See the references in the work by Larry P. Goodsen, Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics and the Rise of the Taliban. Univ. of Washington Press, pb. just pubshed, $22.50. Goodsen studied with L. Dupree, who I gather is a majorfigure in Afghan Studies. Builds on Oliver Roy and Ahmad Rashid, among others. A paper that Goodsen read at the conference of the Mide atStdies Association in 2000 on the Taliban Women, is cited inthe endnotes. MESA, btw, was harshly denounced in a recent TNR or National Review by John J. Miller, if memory serves. Cartoon illustrating the piece had a leftover hippie from the 60's at the chalkboard after having written, America Is Wrong! Michael Pugliese --- Original Message --- From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 12/7/01 9:32:53 AM Pen-l old-timers may be interested in knowing that pen-l alumnus Wojtek Solokowski (sp?) had a letter in the current issue of the NATION [New York], criticizing Chalmers Johnson's blow-back hypothesis. Though the critique was somewhat off-target, I think that Wojtek had a valid point: it's important not to simply think of what's happening in the world outside the US as only a result of US policies (so that ObL is simply a creation of the US war against the USSR in Afghanistan), because that world has its own class structures and struggles (so that ObL also reflects an ensemble of social relations that promotes clerical fascism). If someone knows Wojtek's e-address, please forward this to him. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine I' cc'ing this post to Wojtek. I second Jim on the gist of his post here. According to Dr. Margaret Mills, clerics other reactionaries in the Afghan countryside were gearing up for oppositions to state reform efforts _even before_ Afghan socialists came into power. That said, Afghan clerics other reactionaries would not have had a chance against socialist modernizers without massive aids given to them by US imperialists, Pakistan, etc. On balance, imperial geopolitics had a far larger role in determining the fate of Afghanistan than whatever local oppositions to populist feminist reforms that would have existed independently of US imperialism. That said, PEN-pals can help anti-war anti-imperialist organizers immensely if they post here analyses of Afghan social relations (before, during, after the rise and fall of Afghan socialists), from points of views of historians, economists, sociologists, political scientists, etc. Feminist analyses are especially welcome. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/cjp/
Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Doug Henwood wrote: Max Sawicky wrote: If you are stuck with an older version of Outlook, this will not work since all you can do is filter the whole list or nothing at all. In that case you'll just have to shoot yourself. Or you could convert to Eudora, and avoid all those MSFT security holes. Has anyone else had Jim's experience of not being able to install Eudora on Windows XP? Will that be a general feature of the system? Carrol
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Jim writes: Just because GWB -- and his ilk -- almost always misuses words doesn't mean that I should avoid using words. no but you shouldn't misuse them or use opprobrious language selectively. I think that people should (1) face Christopher Hitchens' point that ObL is a horrible authoritarian -- call it fascist or call it anything you want -- and ah so it comes back to hitchens who asserts falsely that osama bin laden would bring even harsher theocratic rule to Sa'udi Arabia. That's my point: if you want in this context to call osama a clerical fascist--which is fine by me --you should call the House of Sa'ud the same. this is not fight about soft vs. hard clerical fascism within Sa'udi Arabia, ok? Hitchens is simply a liar. Sad to see that you don't understand that. (2) argue against it based on other facts, logic, etc. Simply quibbling over words doesn't help and in fact smacks of apologing for ObL. i'm not arguing about words; i am arguing about the consistent usage of words. You are inconsistent. Instead, we should be arguing that using strategic bombing (etc.) to kill off the Taliban is wrong -- even though they are fascists (or whatever). No we should argue that killing fascists to shore up the rule of fascists in Saudi Arabia is wrong. King Fahd and the Crown prince Abdullah are just our fascists. Am I really being that unclear? Rakesh
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Jim writes: the US southern slave-owners didn't fight for their independence in order to tighten control over their slaves. Rather, they did so to _defend_ their control over slaves. It's quite possible for oppressors to be reactionary. Jim, this is a weird analogy. It's enough that 9/11 is Pearl Harbor and al Qaeda Imperial Japan. Does the royal family have to become the slavocracy? It's possible that they did it also to buy off ObL. (The German richies thought they could buy off Hitler, after all, so he'd become reasonable like Mussolini.) buy him off to do what? perhaps the private capitalist class in Sa'udi Arabia is not as worried about popular discontent as the royal family forcing their way onto the boards of private company? i am just guessing, so are you. is the hitler analogy getting us anywhere especially if there is resistance among private businessmen to the priviliges of the House of Sa'ud which is multiplying as a result of polygamy and thus has to encroach on private business in order to enjoy their luxurious lifestyles? hitchens is always talking about facing new realities, but the whole discourse is overburdened with anachronistic analogies. I have yet to read anything penetrating by Hitchens or you about the nature of the conflicts within Saudi Arabia. I responded to the rest in the other post. Rakesh
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh, ease up please. On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 04:28:11PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: Jim writes: Just because GWB -- and his ilk -- almost always misuses words doesn't mean that I should avoid using words. no but you shouldn't misuse them or use opprobrious language selectively. I think that people should (1) face Christopher Hitchens' point that ObL is a horrible authoritarian -- call it fascist or call it anything you want -- and ah so it comes back to hitchens who asserts falsely that osama bin laden would bring even harsher theocratic rule to Sa'udi Arabia. That's my point: if you want in this context to call osama a clerical fascist--which is fine by me --you should call the House of Sa'ud the same. this is not fight about soft vs. hard clerical fascism within Sa'udi Arabia, ok? Hitchens is simply a liar. Sad to see that you don't understand that. (2) argue against it based on other facts, logic, etc. Simply quibbling over words doesn't help and in fact smacks of apologing for ObL. i'm not arguing about words; i am arguing about the consistent usage of words. You are inconsistent. Instead, we should be arguing that using strategic bombing (etc.) to kill off the Taliban is wrong -- even though they are fascists (or whatever). No we should argue that killing fascists to shore up the rule of fascists in Saudi Arabia is wrong. King Fahd and the Crown prince Abdullah are just our fascists. Am I really being that unclear? Rakesh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Jamil, i cannot comment on your historical analysis of the struggles of the moro people and the chechnyans, but your point against hasty aggregations is surely correct and important. It seems to me that sadat achieved a rapprochment with egyptian jehadi because they (like say the shiv sena in bombay) were effective thugs against organized labor. It is true of course that they later assassinated him, but i would argue that al qaeda with which the the Egyptian jihad seems to have merged are clearly forces of reaction. this political islam of the arabs is a dead end from the perspective of emancipated labor. even if there are anti imperialist elements to al-Qaeda, it promises only the same long night for the working class who in this battle is only being trampled on. Rakesh
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
when i was off the list jim made comments that make his position much more complex than i thought. i was going on the comments that were in my in box. so jim if have misunderstood you, i apologize. i guess the use of the word fascism is inflammatory...which of course as jim says doesn't mean we should not use it when justified even in a loose sense. Rakesh
RE:Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
I wrote: the US southern slave-owners didn't fight for their independence in order to tighten control over their slaves. Rather, they did so to _defend_ their control over slaves. It's quite possible for oppressors to be reactionary. Rakesh writes: Jim, this is a weird analogy. It's enough that 9/11 is Pearl Harbor and al Qaeda Imperial Japan. [I never made that specific weird analogy, BTW, and do not see it as relevant in any way.] Does the royal family have to become the slavocracy? If you read carefully, in context, you'll note that I did NOT say the Saudi royal family was a slavocracy, though they do own slaves (or owned them recently) if I remember correctly. Rather, I was making what's called an analogy, or a simile: the Saudi royal family is in some ways _like_ any oppressive and exploitative class, even though it differs from other such classes in other ways. It doesn't necessarily do things in order to exploit, dominate, oppress _more_. (That, BTW, is typical of capitalism, which as Marx pointed out, is aggressive in its expansionism and even undermines its own _status quo_.) Rather it may do things in order defend its current status and its current degrees of exploitation, domination, and oppression. BTW, to reject analogies is to reject theory, since theory is nothing but a form of analogy, a re-creation in one's mind of empirical reality. It's possible that they did it also to buy off ObL. (The German richies thought they could buy off Hitler, after all, so he'd become reasonable like Mussolini.) RB:buy him off to do what? perhaps the private capitalist class in Sa'udi Arabia is not as worried about popular discontent as the royal family forcing their way onto the boards of private company? i am just guessing, so are you. is the hitler analogy getting us anywhere especially if there is resistance among private businessmen to the priviliges of the House of Sa'ud which is multiplying as a result of polygamy and thus has to encroach on private business in order to enjoy their luxurious lifestyles? Hitler analogies are always over-used, since that guy and his despotism were truly _sui generis_. However, a lot of evidence suggests that the German capitalists did try to buy him off, while capitalist elites often try to buy off populist, socialist, fascist, etc. leaders. They often succeed. BTW, _you_ were the one who brought up Hitler, specifically with reference to German elite's efforts to buy him off. I would guess that the Saudi elite would simply try to buy off ObL in order to deal with the discontent about US bases on Saudi land and their own hypocritical application of Islam. That's one reason, I've read, that the Saudi school system has been increasing dominated by the type of Islamic fundamentalism with which ObL is aligned. hitchens is always talking about facing new realities, but the whole discourse is overburdened with anachronistic analogies. I have yet to read anything penetrating by Hitchens or you about the nature of the conflicts within Saudi Arabia. I was NOT defending Hitchens. I also did not write _anything_ (nor did I intend to write anything) about conflicts within Saudi Arabia until what I wrote above. I am NOT the one to expect penetrating analysis of Saudi affairs from, since I am NOT an expert on that field. The fact that I don't write about Saudi affairs should NOT be used to lambaste me. I also don't write about soccer. I hope that this is the end of this thread. Please stop misrepresenting my opinions. JD _ The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb http://www.thatweb.com
RE:Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
RB writes:when i was off the list jim made comments that make his position much more complex than i thought. i was going on the comments that were in my in box. so jim if have misunderstood you, i apologize. i guess the use of the word fascism is inflammatory...which of course as jim says doesn't mean we should not use it when justified even in a loose sense. apology accepted. Now, please don't do it again. JD _ The simple way to read all your emails at ThatWeb http://www.thatweb.com
Re: RE:Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
BTW, to reject analogies is to reject theory, since theory is nothing but a form of analogy, a re-creation in one's mind of empirical reality. i would first like to reject non illuminating analogies. 9/11: Pearl Harbor; al Qaeda: Imperial Japan; the royal family: slavocracy. i don't deny that there is an inherently metaphorical or analogical basis to thought (and i wish i understood lakoff and lewontin or keller or oyama); but i do think our analysis of what is transpiring is bogged down in poor attempts at understanding via historical analogies. Soon we are going to be told that the key is that osama bin laden fits the ideal type of a weberian charismatic leader along with shamans, hitler, and martin luther. I would guess that the Saudi elite would simply try to buy off ObL in order to deal with the discontent about US bases on Saudi land and their own hypocritical application of Islam. That's one reason, I've read, that the Saudi school system has been increasing dominated by the type of Islamic fundamentalism with which ObL is aligned. hitchens is always talking about facing new realities, but the whole discourse is overburdened with anachronistic analogies. I have yet to read anything penetrating by Hitchens or you about the nature of the conflicts within Saudi Arabia. I was NOT defending Hitchens. I also did not write _anything_ (nor did I intend to write anything) about conflicts within Saudi Arabia until what I wrote above. I am NOT the one to expect penetrating analysis of Saudi affairs from, since I am NOT an expert on that field. didn't this begin with your quoting wojtek on the importance of internal class structure and your asserting that osama is the representive of some fraction that promotes clerical fascism? So it's your idea; tell us what you mean. it's now clear to me that you are saying that this osama class fraction ALSO promotes clerical faction, implying (i suppose) that the ruling class fraction does the same. You weren't explicit on 11/24 and it's not what you explicitly said today. I understand that you have said it before--i missed it. If this is what you are implying, why not just say it? Be subversive. Hitchens has told us that good Americans believe that as bad as the House of Sa'ud is, al Qaeda is even worse. why leave it to the non tenure track brown sucker to say explicitly what is defended in the name of American freedom? be bold man, tell the truth , say it loud. The US is not fighting to preserve an authoritarian govt against an even worse fascist alternative. That's Hitchens' neo Jeanne Kirkpatrick line except she defended authoritarian against totalitarian (not fascist) opposition. there are those who want to argue that US policy in the 80s is not responsible for what osama has evolved into. But even if the blow back thesis can be disproven, it does not follow that present US foreign policy can be left out of a causal account of the potential strength which al Qaeda enjoys today. And that is exactly what hitchens wants to do. from your description it sounded as if wojtek may be lining up behind hitchens who has just updated Jeanne Kirkpatrick Thought for the 21 century. Rakesh
Re: RE:Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Afghanistan class
Rakesh writes: i would first like to reject non illuminating analogies. 9/11: Pearl Harbor; al Qaeda: Imperial Japan; the royal family: slavocracy. SNIP Why don't we bring this thread to an end at this point? I don't think there is anyone on this list who would benefit form its continuation. Best, Sabri
