Re: Doug tells the truth

[Sabri Oncu]

> I am sure Michael will want this thread closed
> for content, as he did in November, but perhaps
> Max can clarify where the technical problem is.
>
> Chris Burford

Such things happen every now and then. Virus is definitely one
possibility, a very long and very slow trip with delays around
the world is another, unintentionally saving a message as draft
after deciding not to send and not deleting it is another, as it
is possible to trigger it unintentionally later, you name it.
There is too much about this virtual world that we don't know.

No matter what, I think Chris is right: this is a technical
issue.

Best,

Sabri

Re: Re: RE: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................

[Chris Burford]

At 17/05/02 00:28 -0400, you wrote:

>Where the fuck did this come from? And why is it dated Nov 24 2002?
>
>Doug


The letter from Mark Jones quoted by Max was originally sent on Fri, 23 Nov 
2001 16:04:31 +

Although Max sent a number of posts on this thread on 26 Nov I can find no 
record of this post then, nor any post by him dated 24 November.

Max clearly has a problem with his date line now as the recent post comes 
up also on my email list as 24 Nov 200*2*

However on the web page it is posted as 17 May 2002 02:43 UTC

  Virus? Serendipity? Political Freudian slip? Gremlin's human or otherwise?

I am sure Michael will want this thread closed for content, as he did in 
November, but perhaps Max can clarify where the technical problem is.

Chris Burford

Re: Re: RE: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................

[Michael Perelman]

I wrote to Max an hour ago trying to find out the origin of this.  Mark
has not been here for some time.

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 12:28:18AM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Max Sawicky wrote:
> 
> >MJ:  "The truth"about Doug 'I'm no pacifist' Henwood is that he, too, is in
> >favour of US policy, that is, Henwood favours the policy of bombing Afghan
> >towns and cities, he favours the random and/or mass slaughter of Afghanis,
> >he favours the destruction of whatever remains of the social infrastructure
> >in Afghanistan, in short he favours the kind of war of exterminism which
> >
> >mbs:  There is no evidence that 'bombing towns and cities', random
> >and/or mass slaughter, or 'destruction of whatever . . . ' are policies
> >of the USG, nor that they have been carried out.  This is simple hysteria
> >for the consumption of one-note anti-imperialists.  One could imagine
> >cogent critiques of the U.S. campaign, but not any beginning as above.
> >One could even connect the Russian campaign to U.S. machinations,
> >thanks to Zbig's zbig mouth.  Why engage in this sort of b.s.?
> 
> Where the fuck did this come from? And why is it dated Nov 24 2002?
> 
> Doug
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................

[Max Sawicky]

MJ:  "The truth"about Doug 'I'm no pacifist' Henwood is that he, too, is in 
favour of US policy, that is, Henwood favours the policy of bombing Afghan 
towns and cities, he favours the random and/or mass slaughter of Afghanis, 
he favours the destruction of whatever remains of the social infrastructure 
in Afghanistan, in short he favours the kind of war of exterminism which 

mbs:  There is no evidence that 'bombing towns and cities', random
and/or mass slaughter, or 'destruction of whatever . . . ' are policies
of the USG, nor that they have been carried out.  This is simple hysteria
for the consumption of one-note anti-imperialists.  One could imagine
cogent critiques of the U.S. campaign, but not any beginning as above.
One could even connect the Russian campaign to U.S. machinations,
thanks to Zbig's zbig mouth.  Why engage in this sort of b.s.?

MJ: for example the Russian state has carried out in Chechya in recent years. 
The collapse of Afghan society as a result of the combined efforts of  US 
bombing and the insertion of Russian ground forces, troops, tanks etc, 
under the Northern Alliance flag, is creating not just a humanitarian 
catastrophe but prime-time genocide in Afghanistan. Henwood does support 

mbs:  there were more indications (false, as it turned out) of impending
genocide in Kosova than thus far in Afgh.

MB: this ongoing genocide. He is a 'voter for war credits', a person who has 
surely lost any shred of credibility as a spokesman of the left. You cannot 
be of the left while supporting US genocide in Afghanistan. Now, weasel 
words about supporting this or that "bit of" a policy can not help him 
slide out his moral complicity in the US genocidal assault on Afghanistan, 
and  no self-serving caveats about being against bombing but in favour of 
oher kinds of administering death should blind us to the truth of his 
politics: it is a cowardice and an instinct for personal survival, nothing 
more, that motivates it.

mbs:  how DH's article advances his 'personal survival' is beyond me.
The way to do that would be to follow Hitchens.  Unless one reasons
that supporting a campaign against terrorism might mitigate against
further attacks on NYC that threaten DH directly.  I guess this is what
Huey Newton meant by revolutionary suicide.

MJ: When assessing 'the truth' of Henwood's politics, let us begin with this 
obvious fact -- the man is simply a craven apologist for exterminism, for 
US imperialism in its newest and most lethal guise.
Mark Jones

mbs:  one might be tempted to invoke the WWII analogy if one hadn't
spent some time here on PEN-L and learned that the justice of WWII 
is a controversial matter.  So let us invoke the October revolution and
ask whether it is possible that innocents were not harmed, and whether
in light of that, the revolution was rendered invalid.  If not, then we have
a kind of selective pacifism at work here (not a new thing, BTW).  No
violence by the U.S. state can be justified, and any violence by anything,
and I do mean 'thing,' against the U.S. state is properly met, for all
practical purposes, with indifference.

Let's kill this thread: was Re: Doug tells the truth, etc.

[Michael Perelman]

I think that we can drop the title of this thread.
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Doug tells the truth, etc.

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>  > Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here.  Doug, Steve, Joan
>>  Robinson, etc. are saying that under capitalism it's better to be
>>  employed than unemployed; Ali, Paul, etc. are saying that capitalism
>>  on the periphery is very much worse than other modes of production &
>>  especially so when compared to formerly existing socialism.
>>  --
>
>To be "unemployed" is to be within capital's orbit (ie it's a distinction
>that applies to populations constructed statistically by nation-states and
>super-national bodies.) Robinson is saying that being outside of that orbit
>is far worse than being in it. That is, even unemployment within the orbit
>of capital is better than whatever states of work life are available in
>other modes of production, given the encroachment of capital on those
>worlds. (As I recall, she is referring to Latin American "development"
>during the Cold War.)
>
>In that sense, I think Robinson would disagree with Ali, Paul etc., and
>probably argue that capital is a better mode of production even in its
>peripheral guises, given the misery entailed in being outside capitalist
>modernization when the forces supporting that modernization are at work. You
>might argue that Doug misapplied Robinson's idea, but he did so not to give
>sanction to capital, but to reinforce that the context in which one is
>"outside" of capital's circuits is one in which capital's existence
>next-door makes life worse than if there were no encroaching, competing
>social forces for capitalist modernization. You also might argue, pace
>Mark's comments, that Afghanistan and its shadow economies are perfectly
>good examples of Robinson's idea.
>
>Christian

As I wrote in another post, I think that capitalism at present 
doesn't modernize the periphery; if anything, it tends to 
de-modernize, producing an increasing number of dissolved nations, 
failed/failing states, criminalized transnational networks of 
production/distribution/consumption, & reactionary ideologies 
(including fundamentalist Islamism but far from limited to it) to go 
with them, all of which have been barely managed by the Empire's 
police actions, UN protectorates, & the like.
-- 
Yoshie

* Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: 

* Anti-War Activist Resources: 
* Anti-War Organizing in Columbus Covered by the Media: 

Re: Doug tells the truth, etc.

[Christian Gregory]

>
> Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here.  Doug, Steve, Joan
> Robinson, etc. are saying that under capitalism it's better to be
> employed than unemployed; Ali, Paul, etc. are saying that capitalism
> on the periphery is very much worse than other modes of production &
> especially so when compared to formerly existing socialism.
> --

To be "unemployed" is to be within capital's orbit (ie it's a distinction
that applies to populations constructed statistically by nation-states and
super-national bodies.) Robinson is saying that being outside of that orbit
is far worse than being in it. That is, even unemployment within the orbit
of capital is better than whatever states of work life are available in
other modes of production, given the encroachment of capital on those
worlds. (As I recall, she is referring to Latin American "development"
during the Cold War.)

In that sense, I think Robinson would disagree with Ali, Paul etc., and
probably argue that capital is a better mode of production even in its
peripheral guises, given the misery entailed in being outside capitalist
modernization when the forces supporting that modernization are at work. You
might argue that Doug misapplied Robinson's idea, but he did so not to give
sanction to capital, but to reinforce that the context in which one is
"outside" of capital's circuits is one in which capital's existence
next-door makes life worse than if there were no encroaching, competing
social forces for capitalist modernization. You also might argue, pace
Mark's comments, that Afghanistan and its shadow economies are perfectly
good examples of Robinson's idea.

Christian

Re: Re: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................

[Michael Perelman]

Doug went into more detail in LBO, but Stephen, you should not pile onto
the flames by attacking Mark.

On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 07:12:22AM -1000, Stephen E Philion wrote:
> 
> --Wierd, on other lists I've not seen any evidence of this. He's
> challenged the likes of Leo Casey on LBO and Soc. Register List, disagreed
> with Max Sawicky on the LBO list on the current bombing campaign.
> Any evidence that Doug supports the current  bombing campaign or is this
> just one more of a series of smears?
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................

[Stephen E Philion]

Mark in the apoplectic mode contends:

"The truth"about Doug 'I'm no pacifist' Henwood is that he, too, is in
favour of US policy, that is, Henwood favours the policy of bombing Afghan
towns and cities, he favours the random and/or mass slaughter of Afghanis,
he favours the destruction of whatever remains of the social
infrastructure
in Afghanistan, in short he favours the kind of war of exterminism which
for example the Russian state has carried out in Chechya in recent years.
The collapse of Afghan society as a result of the combined efforts of  US
bombing and the insertion of Russian ground forces, troops, tanks etc,
under the Northern Alliance flag, is creating not just a humanitarian
catastrophe but prime-time genocide in Afghanistan. Henwood does support
this ongoing genocide.


--Wierd, on other lists I've not seen any evidence of this. He's
challenged the likes of Leo Casey on LBO and Soc. Register List, disagreed
with Max Sawicky on the LBO list on the current bombing campaign.
Any evidence that Doug supports the current  bombing campaign or is this
just one more of a series of smears?

Steve



Stephen Philion
Lecturer/PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
2424 Maile Way
Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
Honolulu, HI 96822

Re: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>When assessing 'the truth' of Henwood's politics, let us begin with this
>obvious fact -- the man is simply a craven apologist for exterminism, for
>US imperialism in its newest and most lethal guise.
>
>

Oh, he's worse than that. He's a running dog of the imperialist bourgeoisie, 
a flak for genocide; he has volunteered to personally eviscerate Afghan 
babies with his teeth, provided that they can be shipped to NYC. He is the 
personaification of evil, a renagade, a traitor, and enemy of the people. He 
throws Marx in the face of the people like ground glass, and should be shot 
like a mad dog!

Vyshinsky

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Re: Doug tells the truth..........................

[Michael Perelman]

Doug seems to suggest that since Afghan. has been relatively untouched by
globalization, the link between terror and globalization has yet to be
proved.

Of course, I have not heard of any Afghani terrorists; supposedly many of
the hijackers on S 11 were from Saudi Arabia.
 -- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Doug tells the truth..........................

[Michael Perelman]

whoa, Mark.  Rather than characterize Doug as a craven apologist, let him
elaborate if he wants to do so.
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Doug tells the truth..........................

[Mark Jones]

"The truth"about Doug 'I'm no pacifist' Henwood is that he, too, is in 
favour of US policy, that is, Henwood favours the policy of bombing Afghan 
towns and cities, he favours the random and/or mass slaughter of Afghanis, 
he favours the destruction of whatever remains of the social infrastructure 
in Afghanistan, in short he favours the kind of war of exterminism which 
for example the Russian state has carried out in Chechya in recent years. 
The collapse of Afghan society as a result of the combined efforts of  US 
bombing and the insertion of Russian ground forces, troops, tanks etc, 
under the Northern Alliance flag, is creating not just a humanitarian 
catastrophe but prime-time genocide in Afghanistan. Henwood does support 
this ongoing genocide. He is a 'voter for war credits', a person who has 
surely lost any shred of credibility as a spokesman of the left. You cannot 
be of the left while supporting US genocide in Afghanistan. Now, weasel 
words about supporting this or that "bit of" a policy can not help him 
slide out his moral complicity in the US genocidal assault on Afghanistan, 
and  no self-serving caveats about being against bombing but in favour of 
oher kinds of administering death should blind us to the truth of his 
politics: it is a cowardice and an instinct for personal survival, nothing 
more, that motivates it.

When assessing 'the truth' of Henwood's politics, let us begin with this 
obvious fact -- the man is simply a craven apologist for exterminism, for 
US imperialism in its newest and most lethal guise.

Mark Jones

At 23/11/2001 07:18, you wrote:
>< http://www.thenation.com  >
>FEATURE STORY | Special Report
>
>Terrorism and Globalization
>by DOUG HENWOOD

Re: Doug tells the truth....

[Chris Burford]

At 22/11/01 23:18 -0800, you wrote:
>< http://www.thenation.com  >
>FEATURE STORY | Special Report
>
>Terrorism and Globalization
>by DOUG HENWOOD

Doug's ability to "doubt everything" serves him well in this journalistic 
article which for the audience, may be more creative than coming up with 
pat correct answers.

But to produce pat answers, which can only indicate one way that the 
momentum of the two discourses might unite -

the transducer between poverty and terrorism is the murky role of the 
national bourgeoisie, that neither the left nor the right wish to analyse 
in any detail for their separate reasons.

But it is clear the Al Qaida is a polymorphous organisation with an 
ideology and a structure that crucially in class terms can embrace members 
of the high intelligentsia, bourgeoisie dependent on the state capitalist 
sector of an oil economy, or more independent national bourgeois.

The shifts in positions within these strata (almost too ill defined to be a 
class except in abstract terms) within Saudi Arabia, will be the crucial 
*indirect" fall out of the war in Afghanistan.

While there is massive poverty and inequality on a world scale, ideologies 
like the primitive communistic monotheism of islam, will advance themselves 
to represent the confused interests of the dissatisfied national 
bourgeoisie outside the metropolitan capitalist homelands.

Its reactionary confused nature and the way it strangely combines with 21st 
century features are a product of the unstable class position of this 
national bourgeoisie.

And on a global scale the thrust of Doug's article, IMHO, is that indeed 
the agenda has to shift to a global one of what juridical and 
representative forms of global governance have sufficient authenticity and 
acceptance to be viable. It is vital therefore that the present war is 
criticised not from a pacifist point of view but from the point of view of 
its failings as a just war.

For example only last night on BBC Newsnight the Liberal Democratic Defence 
spokesperson and the Conservative Defence spokesperson, both card carrying 
members of the Coalition against Terror, were falling out over this crucial 
question: if the CAT derives its legitimacy from the dangers of terrorism 
to everyone, will it not fundamentally damage the authenticity of the war 
if the Northern Alliance massacre 5000 non Aghan defenders of Konduz? The 
argument between Campbell and Jenkins mirrors in another form the crucial 
difference of emphasis within the CAT between the British and US positions.

The global political agenda requires rather than anti-US imperialism an 
acceleration of the dynamics of global civil society in which the 
contradiction between Empire and  Multitude will be resolved in the coming 
decades through management of global capital.

Chris Burford

London