[Marxism] Financial Power in Crisis- Panitch and Konings

["brad bauerly" <bbauerly@xxxxxxxxx>]

New article on the nature and crisis of US lead financial integration and
crisis in Historical Materialism.  If anyone wants it and does not have
access, just email me.

brad

*

Abstract
*

Th is essay examines the questions raised by the present fi nancial crisis
through an enquiry into

the institutional foundations of American fi nance. We view with some
scepticism strong claims

concerning the disastrous outcome for the structural dynamism of the global
fi nancial system

and America's position in it. Many critical political economists tend to
take the system of global

fi nancial markets as their point of departure and then locate the US in
this system. Such

approaches, however, generally fail to do justice to the decades-long build
up of US fi nancial

power and do not capture many of the organic institutional linkages through
which the American

state is connected to the world of global fi nance and which are responsible
for its imperial sprawl.

In many ways, fi nancial globalisation is not best understood as the
re-emergence of international

fi nance but, rather, as a process through which the expansionary dynamics
of American fi nance

took on global dimensions. Because the present system of global fi nance has
been shaped so

profoundly by specifi cally American institutions and practices, it will not
do to evaluate the

changes and transformations of this system on the basis of either an
abstract, generic model of

capitalism or mere extrapolations from conjunctural crises. Crisis and
instability are part and

parcel of the dynamics of imperial fi nance and so are the managerial
capacities developed by the

US state. Th e most important questions that should occupy critical
political economists therefore

have to do not with what appear to be external challenges to US fi nancial
power (or the putative

opportunities for progressive change opened up by them), but, rather, relate
to the ways in which

the imperial network of intricate, complex and often opaque institutional
linkages between the

US state and global fi nance is managed and reproduced.
Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 3:36 AM, <marxism-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Send Marxism mailing list submissions to
>        marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        marxism-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        marxism-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Marxism digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re:  New Deal (Carrol Cox)
>   2.  Trotsky on the New Deal (Andrew Pollack)
>   3.  change address (Mike Alewitz)
>   4. Re:  Down with Apartheid Publishing! [was: Call for essays
>      for July 2009 issue of Socialism andDemocracy] (johnaimani)
>   5. Re:  The Madoff Victims: Schadenfreude, Not Anti-Semitism
>      (Einde O'Callaghan)
>   6.  New Deal: Racism, and imperialism (Charles Brown)
>   7. Re:  Down with Apartheid Publishing! (glparramatta)
>   8. Re:  New Deal: Racism, and imperialism (S. Artesian)
>   9. Re:  One State Solution Gains Supporters ( L?ko Willms )
>  10.  Census Bureau Economic Briefing Room (S. Artesian)
>  11.  Rev. James Bevel Dies Noted Civil Rights Activist (David Walsh)
>  12.  Facing the Economic Crisis (Greg McDonald)
>  13. Re:  The Madoff Victims: Schadenfreude, Not Anti-Semitism
>      (Philip Dunn)
>  14. Re:  New Deal (Jim Farmelant)
>  15. Re:  Facing the Economic Crisis (Charlie)
>  16. Re:  The Madoff Victims: Schadenfreude, Not Anti-Semitism
>      (Einde O'Callaghan)
>  17.  The world we live in [was Re: One State Solution Gains
>      Supporters] ( N?stor Gorojovsky )
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:01:01 -0600
> From: Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] New Deal
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>        <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <495529ED.DFF4ED84@xxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
>
> Joaquin Bustelo wrote:
> >
> > I agree with abu
>
> I must not be the only one on the list who can't keep up with the
> avalanche of posts -- and therefore would appreciate ALWAYS being able
> to identify EASILY the post being responded to. I don't  have the
> slightest idea who "abu" is (i.e., what his or her 'official" sener's ID
> is). Hence I down't have the wildest idea of what is being satirized
> here.
>
> Carrol
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:08:26 -0500
> From: "Andrew Pollack" <acpollack2@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] Trotsky on the New Deal
> To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
>        <Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
>        <2fa1449b0812261108t16ef9465x27cf649fc1299d98@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> The piece Gary referred to on Dec. 11th is at:
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/04/marxism.htm
> (with a different title).
>
>
> -------------------------
> Remember: Catch a new episode of "Live Wire" every Monday, Wednesday
> and Friday at:
> http://andycomix.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:09:54 -0500
> From: Mike Alewitz <alewitz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] change address
> To: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <B1BCF8FB-AEB8-46C0-B250-74797C302AE5@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=WINDOWS-1252;   format=flowed;
>        delsp=yes
>
>
>
> Hi Louie
>
> I'd like to change my mailing address on Marxmail, but the interface
> won't send me my password which is long forgotten. Can you please
> switch me to Alewitz@xxxxxxxxxxx from alewitzm@xxxxxxxxx Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
> ?In a society that has abolished every kind of adventure
> the only adventure that remains is to abolish the society.?
>
> _____________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >> MIKE ALEWITZ
> >> Associate Professor
> >> ____________________________________
> >>
> >> Art Department/ Central CT State University
> >> 1615 Stanley Street/ New Britain, CT  06050
> >> ___________________________________
> >>
> >> Office: 860.832.2359/ Mobile: 860.518.4046
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:33:44 -0800
> From: "johnaimani" <johnaimani@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Down with Apartheid Publishing! [was: Call for
>        essays  for July 2009 issue of Socialism andDemocracy]
> To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
>        <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <41995A7CC2424D1E9053BB30722DD0A9@D4PKYZ41>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> <<Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:21:12 -0500
> From: "Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] Down with Apartheid Publishing! [was: Call for
> essays for July 2009 issue of Socialism andDemocracy]
>
> I challenge the political wisdom and integrity of contributing to
> supposedly "socialist" journals that form a integral part of copyright
> cartels and media monopoly mafias like Rutledge.>>
>
> There is much to be said for the comrade's thoughts.
>
> I had to go through the ropes in order to extract from the group
> the right to reprint my contribution to the present issue of S & D.
>
> I was finally able to extract the following:
>
> Hi John,
>
>  As long as it's your own compilation of articles/work, then it's fine if
> you reference
>
> first publication in Socialism & Democracy.
>
> Didn't like it but did it as I felt that the Marxian economic argument
>
> for immigration contained therein ought be included in a compilation
>
> entitled "Radical Perspectives on Immigration".
>
> JAI
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:47:22 +0100
> From: Einde O'Callaghan <eindeoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Madoff Victims: Schadenfreude, Not
>        Anti-Semitism
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>        <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <495534CA.3020908@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dbachmozart@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > by Daniel McGowan / December 22nd, 2008
> >
> It has been brought to my attention that Daniel McGowan and his
> organisation "Deir Yassin Remembered" fish in very murky waters. I quote
> from a message posted by Tony Greenstein, a British anti-Zionist
> activist, on another list:
>
> > McGowan is the the Executive Director of an organisation called Deir
> > Yassin Remembered.  Except it isn't very good at remembering Deir Yassin.
> > instead it has collected together a bunch of anti-Semites, holocaust
> > deniers and other misfits such as Paul Eisen, Jeff Blankfort, Israel
> > Shamir etc.  Anti-Zionist Israelis such as Jeff Halper, Lea Tsemel and
> > Michael Warshawski resigned in protest at these developments some years
> ago.
> >
> > McGowan himself visited last year Ernst Zundel, a notorious neo-Nazi
> > revisionist in prison in Germany for holocaust denial (I don't want to
> get
> > into a debate about whether hd'ers should be imprisoned - my view is they
> > shouldn't - but I wouldn't visit these sick dogs) when there are
> thousands
> > of asylum seekers unjustly imprisoned if he was really looking for
> someone
> > to visit.
>
> I hope that will be the last post of an article by McGowan that we'll
> see on this list.
>
> Einde O'Callaghan
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:18:02 -0500
> From: "Charles Brown" <charlesb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] New Deal: Racism, and imperialism
> To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <495503BA.84C9.00BF.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> Anthony Boynton
>
> -clip-
>
> Some people on this list are discussion whether or not the New Deal
> was
> successful. Look around you. It was wildly successful and anyone living
> in
> the capitalist 21st century should be able to discern.
> ^^^
> CB: Yes, Anthony, accurately appraisal.  Unions could be charged as
> criminal syndicalism before the National Labor Relations Act. There was
> no Social Security , unemployment insurance or welfare. By the way,  as
> Black people are overwhelmingly working class, the New Deal helped Black
> people more than white people.  Black people who had previously voted
> overwhelmingly Republican because of Lincoln, rapidly began to shift to
> voting for Democrats _because_ of FDR.  Lou Pro's analysis has to assume
> that he makes a better assessment of the New Deal and FDR  on racism and
> anti-racism than Black people themselves did. That's a grievous error on
> Lou Pro's part. No, Black people got it right, and knew where their
> interests were best being served better than Lou's analysis here.
>
> ^^^^
>
> There were no....
> socialist revolutions in the United States. None in Western Europe,
> none in
> Japan...
>
> FDR''s New Deal saved capitalism. US capitalism, and as a result world
> capitalism.
>
> The only way that you can even talk about the possibiilty that it was
> not
> successful, is if you divide it into a "domestic" policy and an
> "international" policy. But that would be wishful thinking contrary to
> historic facts.
>
> How successful FDR was prior to the entrance of the USA into World War
> II
> (and after, too) should not be judged by statistical tables, in any
> case.
> The New Deal's success should be judged on how well it was able to
> prevent
> the collapse of markets from creating the conditions for social
> revolution
> in the USA.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: And on the establishment of legal unions, Social Security,
> unemployment insurance, welfare, WPA.  FDR also strong armed the Supreme
> Court to throw out "Substantive Due Process", which sought to uphold
> free enterprise. These were significant reforms benefitting the working
> class, including Black people, "the Negro People".
>
> ^^^^
>
> To prevent the full development of those conditions, Roosevelt had to
>
> 1) Reorganize the capitalist class.
>
> 2) Regulate markets
>
> 3) Give hope to the working class and petty bourgeoisie that
> capitalism
> could work for their benefit.
>
> 4) Make whatever concessions were necessary to limit mobilizations of
> the
> working class and poor, especially to maintain such mobilizations as
> local
> and regional, and esepecially to prevent economic struggles from
> becoming
> political challenges to the two party system.
>
> The massive mobilizations of the working class in the USA won those
> concessions. The great strikes of 1933, and the wave of sit-downs in
> 1937
> were the reasons FDR and the New Deal acted to extend legal rights to
> unions, and to twist the arms of capitalist businesses to recognize
> unions.
> More than these things, those mobilizations were always behind every
> move
> towards any kind of social legislation by the New Deal.
>
> How limited the gains of the working class were under the New Deal can
> be
> easily seen by looking at its policies on race and immigration. The
> border
> with Mexico was closed, segregation was maintained and defended in
> every New
> Deal program.
>
> ^^^
> CB: The benefit to Black people was not in direct attacks on Jim Crow ,
> lynching etc. by FDR. The benefits to Black people, as they were fully
> conscious of, were in the benefits to the whole working class. Black and
> white, unite and fight as workers together.  Black people consciously
> benefitted from the working class gains of the New Deal, and that's why
> they rapidly shifted to the Democratic Party from the Republican Party.
> Otherwise , what's the explanation of Black people switching parties in
> this period ?
>
> ^^^^
>
> The fact that US capitalism had reached a historic dead end by 1931,
> meant
> that the New Deal's only long term (relatively long term) solution lay
> in
> the reorganization of world capitalist markets to benefit US
> capitalism.
>
> FDR's foreign policy began by defending the imperial interests of the
> USA in
> Latin America, Asia, and Europe. By 1937 it was becoming clear that
> FDR
> would lead the USA into the coming world war, and his foreign policy
> became
> more and more focused on alliance with Great Britain.
>
> All of that old history is extremely relevant for the new epoch that
> we
> have just entered in the last few years.
>
> Capitalism is again at a dead end. Both in the USA, and globally.
>
> Obama is almost certain to try to craft a New "New Deal".
>
> Obama seems like a very serious, intelligent, above all else, cautious
> bourgeois politician. I think his actions so far show that he intends
> to,
>
> 1) Reorganize the capitalist class.
>
> ^^^
> CB: Naw, I don't think the capitalist class is going to have Obama
> reorganize it (smile).
>
> ^^^^
>
> 2) Regulate markets
>
> 3) Give hope to the working class and petty bourgeoisie that
> capitalism
> could work for their benefit.
>
> ^^^
> CB: He doesn't come across as much of a salesman for capitalism.  He's
> not the one for this job either.
>
> ^^^^^
>
> 4) Make whatever concessions were necessary to limit mobilizations of
> the
> working class and poor, especially to maintain such mobilizations as
> local
> and regional, and especially to prevent economic struggles from
> becoming
> political challenges to the two party system.
>
> ^^^
> CB: Yep, I think he is the one to make _big_ "concessions? to the
> working class. He is going to make the objective crisis force him into
> making really big ?concessions? to the working class. As you say
> below, the failures are getting to be pretty spectacular, and he can
> just allow those spectacular failures to force changes. But as he
> emphasizes , the change will come from the ?bottom up?, as when he
> heartily supported the sit-in at Republic. He can endorse mobilizations
> from ?below?. So, our job is to get things going from ?below? to
> ?make? him do it.
>
> ^^^^^
>
> ^^^^
>
> He will be very careful about reorganizing the capitalist class,
> because he
> does not want to make too many enemies.
>
> ^^^
> CB: No, he will not be the one to reorganize the capitalist class.
>
> ^^^^
>  After all, he already has a lot.
> Likewise for regulating markets, but since they are failing so
> spectacularly
> at the job they are supposed to do according to neo-liberal,
> neo-conservative dreams, he may have to move more quickly here than in
> any
> other sphere. by itself, Obama's election has given hope to the
> working
> class and oppressed - not just of the USA, but of the world. How long
> Obama
> can cash in on that hope is an important point for the "tempo" of the
> struggle, but at some point he will have to do something more tangiible
> to
> maintain hope in his leadership.
>
> What that will be depends in large part on how, when, and where the
> working
> class and oppressed begin to mobilize themselves.
> ^^^^^
> CB: Exactly. Like he says right out : Change comes from the bottom up.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>  That will also determine
> in large measure what kinds of concessions the New "New Deal" makes to
> the
> working class and the oppressed.
>
> Obama and his administration look like they will be pragmatic,
> offering
> nothing if they do not have to, offering as little as they think they
> can
> get away with when they need to.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: No ,he looks more like he will offer as much as he can get away
> with for the working class.
>
> ^^
>
> This pragmatism is already shaping Obama's appointments and policy,
> but
> nobody should think that the Obama New New Deal has already taken
> shape.
> That will depend on how the class struggle develops.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: This is importantly correct. All the petit bourgeois leftist
> whining is premature.
>
> ^^^^
>
> Anthony
>
>
>
>
> This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc.
> www.surfcontrol.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 08:21:21 +1100
> From: glparramatta <glparramatta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Down with Apartheid Publishing!
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>        <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <49554AD1.6010104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Surely in this day an age of blogs, yahoo groups etc. and the ability to
> mask identitities etc. Marxist activist-academics -- or IT savvy
> assistants -- could find a way to post their articles on the Internet to
> also make them available to the entire activist left and avoid legal
> ramifications.
>
> Of course, online journals such as Links International Journal of
> Socialist Renewal (http://links.org.au), Monthly Review, Climate and
> Capitalism, (parts of ) Znet and others alway welcome such contributions
> (but can't pay and rely on donations to survive) -- and we make can them
> widely available to the global activist left free of charge. Perhaps
> activist/academics and others should consider sharing their articles (or
> versions of them) with us.
>
> Louis Proyect wrote:
> > I have access to Socialism and Democracy, Rethinking Marxism, Social
> > Text, Science and Society, New Left Review, and Historical
> > Materialism through my Columbia University library privileges. If you
> > ever need me to send an article, don't hesitate to ask.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:10:54 +0100
> From: "S. Artesian" <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] New Deal: Racism, and imperialism
> To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
>        <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <66FAC4BEBCF64452BFB871B93B447755@dmsthinkpad>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8";
>        reply-type=original
>
> I've had a good day.  Lunch in the sun in Paris, a fine bottle of Bordeaux,
> afternoon at Jeu De Paume and L'Orangerie, and I get attacked by both Mark
> Lause and Abu Hartal-- AND I Got Rhythm, so who could ask for anything
> more?
>
> Abu claims I am a sectarian because I refuse to acknowledge that
> unemployment was cut in half in FDR's first 2 terms-- that would be be from
> 1932-1940.  First, I didn't discuss unemployment.  I pointed to no
> improvement in living standards over the improvements generally accruing
> prior to the depression.  Secondly, we are talking about the impact of the
> New Deal programs, and not the run up to WW2, so I would kind of want to
> limit the discussion to the period 1927-- prior to the depression-- to
> 1938,
> when all the New Deal stimulus came to naught in the collapse of that year.
>
> I would recommend to all-- Abu, and Charles, and anybody who wants to
> embrace the New Deal-- that they spend some time looking at the Statistical
> Abstracts for the US for those years.
>
> There you will see, in referring to living standards, that death rates per
> 1000 of the population declined  .4% between 1927 and 1932, and then rose
> .3% between 1932 and 1937.  Deaths of those under five years of age
> continued to decline between 1932 and 37, but only at half the reate
> achieved between 27 and 32.
>
> You will also see that average weekly wages in manufacturing increased 33%
> in manufacturing between 1934 and 1937, only to fall 9% between 37 and 38,
> and please keep in mind that 1932-1933 was the nadir, the lowest of the low
> in the depression.
>
> Working hours per week which had increased 12% between 34-37 declined 7.7%
> between 37 and 38.
>
> In the 1939 Statistical Abstract, "Wage Rates for Common Labor in 13
> Important Industries" are essentially unchanged until 1937 when they leap
> up
> as capital experiences a momentary recovery, ony to fall back slightly in
> 1938.
>
> Regarding employment and payrolls, the Statistical Abstract uses an index
> measurement with the 3 year avg, 1923-1925 as the base of 100.   1929
> employment which measured 106% of the average was not exceeded at any point
> to 1937, falling  back in 1938 by some 20% to its 1934 level..
>
> Payrolls had fallen to 46% of the base measure by 1932, from a 110% level
> in
> 1929.  In 1937 payrolls peaked at 102% of the base, only to drop
> dramatically (by about 25%) in 1938.
>
> Those interested should also look at farm output, income, etc, since
> agriculture still demanded so much labor time.
>
> I could go on and on about this-- the point being is that the New Deal did
> nothing plus or minus for the recovery of capitalism-- it was neither
> betrayal nor salvation; this notion of state interventions VS the market is
> baloney-- capitalism never developed without both.
>
> Now I am no more a sectarian in my refusal to embrace the New Deal than Abu
> is a would be Second International Menshevik Social Democratic compromiser
> capitulationist in his embrace of the New Deal.  Actually I'm less of mine
> than he is of his.  But this is not a choice between FDR and Hoover; Hayek
> and Keynes.  That's not what was at stake in the 1930s; and that clash of
> ideologies was neither the cause nor the solution to the depression. Abu
> himself recognizes it, if not then, at least now, I THINK, when,if  he
> states quite correctly, that Japan's recovery from the long recession of
> the
> 1990s [hard for me to tell if that is the period he is referring to]
> depended more on cutting labor costs than all of the Keynesian policies put
> together.  Exactly.  Japan succeeded in creating a new underclass, a
> permanently underemployed, superexploited working class right at home.
> Coming to a prefecture near you... your own private 3rd world.
>
> We, that is Marxists, do not embrace the New Deal; it was a capitalist
> program for the purposes of capital accumulation. We no more embrace it
> than
> we embrace the depression that preceded and accompanied it; no more than we
> embrace the world war the followed it-- no more than we embrace Vargas'
> Novo
> Estado, Huey Long's would- be Peronism,  Kennedy's New Frontier, Johnson's
> Great Society, Obama's Yes We Can Can.
>
> And I still want to know why the Pointer Sisters are not giving the
> invocation at the inaugural; why Anita and Bonnie and June and Ruth aren't
> headlining the whole she-bang.
> I would be so excited.  I would Jump. Automatic-ally.
>
> Note to Charles:  Could you provide some information on exactly what
> benefits were delivered to African-Americans during the New Deal.  In the
> South.   I have no dispute with the benefits bestowed by the waves of
> industrial unionism in the North,( but the source for those waves, and the
> reasons for its success are not in the New Deal).  I am specifically
> interested in the agricultural South.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:06:35 +0100 (MEZ)
> From: " L?ko Willms " <lueko.willms@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] One State Solution Gains Supporters
> To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
>        <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <002-1b0f5549-37933.044@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset="utf-8"
>
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:32:33 EST, Dbachmozart@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > She is not the first Palestinian activist to promote the concept. The
> late
> > Palestinian-American intellectual Edward Said suggested in 1999 that
>  classical
> >  Zionism has provided no solution to Palestinian presence...
>
>  it is actually the historical program of the Palestinian struggle for
> democracy and national sovereignty, not only as the program of the PLO
> under Arafat, which they later abandoned for the vain hopes for an
> independent arab-Palestinian state on the 22% of Palestine not occupied by
> the colonial settler state in 1948, but it was also the program of the
> democratic forces in the UNO counterposed to the colonial division voted by
> a
> majority of the UN General Assemply in November 1947, with the political
> support by the USSR and other countries influenced by the Kreml.
>
>
> Comradely,
> L?ko Willms
> Frankfurt, Germany
> --------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:14:55 +0100
> From: "S. Artesian" <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] Census Bureau Economic Briefing Room
> To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
>        <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <93E96EE938B447B3A5B5C9FA999A78E9@dmsthinkpad>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Durable Goods Orders
>
> http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/m3/adv/pdf/durgd.pdf
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:38:44 -0800 (PST)
> From: David Walsh <davidrail68@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] Rev. James Bevel Dies Noted Civil Rights Activist
> To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <897697.1524.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
> By Dorothy Rowley
> AFRO Staff Writer
> (December 23, 2008) - The Rev. James L. Bevel, who served as a top
> lieutenant to Martin Luther King Jr. before helping to organize the 1995
> Million Man March on Washington, has died. He was 72.
>
> At the time of his death in Springfield, Va., on Dec. 19 from pancreatic
> cancer, Bevel?s legacy had become clouded by a conviction this past spring
> for having sex 10 years ago with one of his then-teenage daughters. He had
> been living in Northern Virginia when the crime occurred.
>
> According to the Associated Press, the four-day trial divided members of
> Bevel's large family, with relatives testifying for both the prosecutor and
> defense. He was sentenced in October to 15 years in prison and had served
> time prior to being released in November on bond while the case was on
> appeal.
>
> At the time of his release doctors said he had only a few months to live.
>
> In the 1960s, Bevel was a leader in both the Southern Christian Leadership
> Conference and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, two of the
> most tenacious organizations that led efforts to desegregate the South.
>
> As a key figure in civil rights marches in Selma, Ala., Bevel had also been
> the architect of the 1963 Children?s Crusade in Birmingham, Ala.
>
> His fight to desegregate downtown Birmingham stores prompted police to
> respond with fire hoses and attack dogs against peaceful protesters. The
> Baptist preacher had also rallied young people in the city to get involved
> in civil rights demonstrations ? something King and other advisers objected
> to.
>
> Bevel was also active in the anti-war movement and greatly influenced King,
> whom Bevel encouraged to confront the Vietnam War more directly.
>
> After King's assassination in 1968, Bevel helped lead many of King's
> unfinished efforts, such as a demonstration to support striking sanitation
> workers in Memphis.
>
> But in the decades following King?s death some of Bevel?s critics began to
> note a change in his behavior, saying he?d taken on an erratic demeanor,
> such as in 1992 when he was vice presidential running mate to political
> extremist Lyndon LaRouche. At the time, LaRouche was in federal prison for a
> tax conviction.
>
> Born to sharecroppers on Oct. 19, 1936, in Itta Bena, Miss., Bevel was one
> of 17 children. He had stints in the Navy and graduated in 1961 from
> Nashville's American Baptist Theological Seminary.
> Married four times, he reportedly fathered 16 children with nine women.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:31:17 -0500
> From: Greg McDonald <sabocat59@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] Facing the Economic Crisis
> To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <C85251B3-CBC5-4D41-9899-8ED79D39A9E9@xxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;
>        format=flowed
>
> Facing the Economic Crisis
>
> By Prof. Stanley Aronowitz
>
> Global Research, December 26, 2008
> The Bullet
>
> The main news these days is the global economic crisis, an event
> ascribed by economists and most pundits alike to a "financial"
> meltdown caused by the irresponsibility of mainly, but not
> exclusively, U.S. lending institutions and consumers in offering --
> and accepting -- "sub-prime" mortgages. The variable mortgages,
> initiated during the credit driven bubble of the 1990s, and welcomed
> by the Clinton administration but accelerated in the first six years
> of the new century, require home buyers to put no money down.
> Interest rates, which begin at 5%-9% are fated to rise within a few
> years, after which they could double, triple or more. In September
> 2008 we began to hear of massive foreclosures in almost all sections
> of the country as the first round of ballooning rates took effect,
> and the projections for 2008 and 2009 were for 2 million homes, six
> percent of the U.S. total to go into serious default. New home
> construction came to a screeching halt and commercial building
> suffered only slightly less pain.
>
> In a few weeks of October, bloated with bad loans they themselves had
> sold, several major banks had failed, prompting the Fed to inject
> billions of dollars ostensibly to save them from bankruptcy and
> liquidation; others, like Merrill Lynch merged with more stable
> partners. But the historic Lehman Brothers was fated to fail when the
> Treasury Secretary and the Fed chair refused to extend bailout funds.
> Of course, goliaths like Citibank, Bear Sterns, the insurance giant
> AIG and a few others were deemed by the Treasury Secretary, former
> Goldman Sachs executive, Hank Paulson "too big" to be allowed to go
> under. By the end of the month the banking system, which held
> trillions of dollars in "bad" paper -- unredeemable mortgage,
> business and credit card loans -- was teetering on disaster, and the
> crisis was widely described as a "financial meltdown." Almost all
> leading investment banks disappeared and those that remained were
> converting to traditional commercial banks.
>
> By October, mobilized by Paulson and backed by the Fed chair, Ben
> Bernanke, Congress quickly passed a massive $700-billion bailout to
> financial institutions without scrutinizing the fine print. For
> different reasons, only a significant band of arch-GOP conservatives
> and a few liberal Democrats were prepared to let the system collapse
> in the hopes that either the market would self correct -- the
> Smithians -- or, in the case of the progressives, force an extensive
> re-regulation that had been rescinded by the Carter administration
> and a Democratic Congress in 1978 and followed rigorously by
> Democratic and Republican administrations alike. We don't like to
> recall bad memories, but it is useful to remember that the Clinton
> administration initiated a program of corporate "self-regulation"
> that further weakened the system and the Bush regulators simply went
> on a long vacation in every field, most dramatically its neglect of
> all manner of investment and commercial transactions that has led to
> the infamous Madoff scandal.
>
> The purpose of the bailout legislation was to permit the government
> to purchase vast quantities of the bad securities at, or near,
> nominal value, in effect, a major infusion of cash into the banking/
> insurance systems, without imposing stringent conditions on how they
> must spend the money. However, within weeks of President Bush's
> signing the bill into law, in the wake of the banks refusal to loosen
> consumer and business credit Paulson announced that this strategy was
> being replaced by a policy of purchasing bank shares, a direct
> infusion of cash in return for which the government would assume a
> measure of temporary partial ownership of banks that chose to apply
> for help, but would not, as the British government did, assume
> outright ownership and management of the system. Nor, as it turned
> out, did the Federal government closely supervise the use of the
> funds they had so generously given. Within weeks, complaints
> resounded throughout the economy that the banks were not loosening
> their lending policies but, instead, were holding the money close to
> their chests. Of course, business loans were tightened, but many
> would-be buyers of homes, cars and other durable goods, let alone
> borrowers of much needed cash to pay their bills were turned away on
> one pretext or another, most notably because their credit rating was
> not top of the line.
>
> Economic Recession and the Jobs Crisis
>
> Meanwhile, jobless rates began their steep ascent. The November 2008
> figures showed that 513,000 jobs had been lost and applications for
> jobless benefits soared. In fact, for at least seven consecutive
> months the economy had shed jobs and the official unemployment rate
> crept up to more than 6.5% or 10 million. In reporting the
> spectacular job losses, even the New York Times ran a complimentary
> investigative story that argued the official figures were only a
> fraction of the extent of joblessness. According to the Times the
> number of discouraged job seekers who left the labour market,
> premature retirees who had no prospects but to accept inadequate
> pensions, and recent high school and college graduates who simply did
> not look for work, might swell the actual figure by four or five
> percent. At 11% actual unemployment, the number increases from 10 to
> about 13 million.
>
> By early December, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
> reported that the economy had been in recession since December 2007,
> a year before they declared the recession "official." This
> revelation, which any sensible observer knew for at least a year,
> caused no leading politician or economist to ask why the information
> had taken so long to be determined and revealed. The conservative
> NBER explained that it often takes that long to check their
> calculations and come up with a definitive judgment. That they felt
> obliged to offer an explanation responded to the unspoken suspicion
> that the delay had something to do with the presidential election.
> Many believe that if the recession had been declared in the midst of
> an election season, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama
> could have repaired to Hawaii for much more than a few days.
>
> The NBER admission that the economy was in recession at least ten
> months before the financial meltdown, poked a huge hole in the
> initial view that excessive and wanton lending was at the core of the
> troubles and that the crisis was essentially financial in nature.
> Since 2002 the emerging recessionary signs were assiduously ignored
> by all virtually mainstream quarters. Fall 2006 witnessed the
> beginning of sagging economic growth, by the measure of aggregate
> Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which includes spurious categories
> within the service sector, falling housing prices that prompted a
> severe slowing of new housing starts and sales, and gradual increases
> in jobless applications.
>
> Stagnation of manufacturing employment belied glowing reports of
> healthy increments in retail sales, on the premise that industrial
> production was no longer an important indicator of economic health.
> That throughout the first decade of the new century plants continued
> to close and reduce workforces, and not only in the Midwest but in
> the South as well, was not registered as signs of a slowdown in the
> midst of so-called "prosperity" were barely noticed in official
> circles. According to the conventional wisdom, the U.S. economy was
> "post-industrial" -- well on the way to realizing the prognostication
> that ours was a service economy, and it was better to let others like
> the Chinese and Koreans to produce material goods because industrial
> production caused pollution, and were inconsistent with our
> collective aspiration to become a nation of what Bill Clinton's Labor
> Secretary, Robert Reich had termed "symbolic analysts." If the U.S.
> remained a major producer of food, armaments (for national security
> reasons), aircraft, heavy machinery such as machine tools, trucks and
> specialty steels, these were necessary to maintain our trade
> balances, but were not otherwise fundamental for insuring economic
> health. Our future lay in specializing in various forms of
> "immaterial" production.
>
> So, we could afford to lose the remnants of the once huge garment and
> textile production industries and, in the future, the U.S. might not
> be the center of basic steel and car production. That foreign auto
> companies were locating production facilities in the Southeastern and
> border states was a testament to the idea that union labour, not
> corporate malfeasance, had produced the steep decline in
> manufacturing. Software, research, and the growth of higher
> education, both as the center of innovation and, in terms of
> employment and capital formation, a major industry, pharmaceuticals
> and other activities linked to the health care industry, and
> entertainment would surely fill the gap left by the demise of the
> "rust belt," even if some regions of the South had suffered capital
> flight and become a major source of foreign investment, especially
> automobiles. And so what if the past thirty years were times of wage
> stagnation and decline, we had perfected a magnificent credit system
> (the main spur to consumption) that seemed to know no limits.
>
> The bare truth is that what has been taken as economic expansion
> since the early 1970s was a symptom that the United States (and the
> UK and other European countries) have survived a genuine period of
> economic decline by means of a dramatic increase in the creation of
> huge amounts of fictitious capital. Fictitious capital is money that
> has no material basis, but is a speculation on future economic
> performance. Fictitious capital is an ordinary function of the credit
> system. Manufacturers borrow and lend money from each other and from
> banks to finance purchases of raw materials and labour on the promise
> of a near-term repayment when the value of their respective products
> were realized through sales, either within the production sector or
> through wholesale and retail purchases. But when these loans are
> exchanged by banks to businesses and non-commercial consumers on a
> long- term basis at exorbitant interest rates, and these loans become
> the basis of at least 2/3 of economic activity; when consumers or
> business owners, some of which are banks themselves, default on a
> large scale on payments, and the bubble bursts the whole system
> reverberates collapse.
>
> Which is exactly what happened in Fall 2008. Small producers,
> retailers and building contractors routinely borrowed money from
> banks or other lending institutions with which to purchase raw
> materials, rent stores or industrial facilities and hire labour on
> the premise that consumers who purchased their goods, and not only
> homes would, in turn, receive loans from lending institutions and
> have income sufficient to pay their credit debt on time. For nearly
> two decades real estate boomed, prices of all commodities -- food,
> clothing, homes and other durables -- climbed. The accumulation of
> debt, which underlay the fictitious accumulation of capital on a wide
> scale, finally collapsed like a house of cards. As Rick Wolff has
> argued the discrepancy between high levels of labour productivity --
> abetted not only by falling wages but also by labour-saving
> technological changes -- has led to over accumulation. We have
> entered what Marx has termed a "realization" crisis -- commodities
> cannot be sold at profit rates that are sufficient to stimulate
> further investment in plant, equipment, construction and the labour
> that underlies them and other affected industries. In order to
> alleviate their inventory glut business up and down the line is
> obliged to reduce prices, but this tactic may take years before
> capital investment on a grand scale resumes. But as long as deflation
> lingers new investment is bound to remain tepid. Then comes the
> period of layoffs, falling prices, to the point where in many cases
> the value of the mortgage loan, for instance, exceeds the exchange
> value of the home. Wallowing deep underwater this leads to
> foreclosures and a precipitous decline of housing starts and sales of
> used homes.
>
> Another hidden fact: for thirty five years, the private sector has
> not produced a net increase in jobs. The growth of jobs in computer-
> mediated services and software production was counterbalanced by
> losses in manufacturing; mergers and acquisitions in the retail
> industry were barely matched by growth in fast food employment. In
> the past decade as the private sector failed to create new jobs but
> relied increasingly on contingent and temporary labour to meet their
> short-term labour requirements, the public sector -- especially
> education and health care -- became the main source of new, decent
> paying jobs. And as the Federal government abdicated responsibility
> for a variety of services, state and local bureaucracies added jobs.
>
> Of course, besotted by the conventional neoliberal ideology that only
> the private sector is a job creator, economists and politicians
> conveniently ignored this fact and continued to insist that whatever
> the service, the private sector can do it better, and more
> efficiently. What net increases in private sector employment occurred
> were largely, if not exclusively, the result of contracts awarded by
> federal, state and local governments who adopted both the mantra and
> practice of privatizing public goods. Although industrial production
> held steady, factory jobs stagnated during the boom because computer-
> mediated production began to dominate key industries and, contrary to
> the hype that computer-based manufacturing creates more jobs than it
> destroys, the reverse is actually the case. And, eventually the
> technology sector, of which the bubble in software and communications
> (dot.com) companies were the leading edge, burst. As early as 2000,
> this sector began to experience mass layoffs, the effects of which
> were notices for about fifteen nano-seconds but quickly relegated to
> the back burner.
>
> The Obama Administration and the Employment Challenge
>
> Fast forward to U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's post-election
> series of declarations about the crisis: where five prior
> administrations beginning with Carter relied on monetary policy to
> address economic problems(reduction of interest rates were their
> major tool) had strenuously avoided using the tool of fiscal stimulus
> to address economic grief. Repeating his campaign promise, the
> President-Elect said his administration would create (or save) 2.5
> million jobs in his first term. Immediately, he pledged to find huge
> funds, presumably by issuing tens of billions in treasury bills
> (previously known as deficit financing) that the Chinese and some
> American investors would buy, to address the serious deterioration of
> America's infrastructure -- roads, bridges, urban streets, schools,
> public facilities, and the like. In a flash, state after state
> reported they had billions of dollars worth of projects "ready to
> go." Given the depth of the crisis, we can expect an Obama
> administration to inject more substantial funds that the tiny $25-
> billion it originally pledged. Some jobs will be created, to be sure,
> but we should not expect miracles.
>
> To begin with, Obama has warned that the 2.5 million job figure is a
> long term projection. How much money would it take to create 1
> million jobs, about 7% of current unemployment? This is a tricky
> calculation. Would the program(s) be contracted out to private
> employers or would the government be the direct employer? If
> contracts are let at 30% gross profits, fewer jobs would be created.
> And what average wage would be offered? Would the government insist
> on "prevailing wages" as in the current construction industry? If the
> new jobs paid 50% above the poverty level, for example, they would
> match the current national average of about $15 an hour. The sum
> required to create a million jobs at prevailing wages, would range
> from $50 to $75-billion depending on whether the Obama administration
> replicated the New Deal practice of government as direct employer or
> continued the extant policy of privatization.
>
> We have seen almost no discussion of the real problem of job
> composition, particularly the relation of skilled to unskilled labour
> in the stimulus package, issues of training and education and the
> role of unions in these programs. And, of course official policy
> remains tied to the illusion that technology is a net job creator.
> For example, lost in the rush to stimulate the economy by
> infrastructure development is a little known fact: unlike the Great
> Depression era when the federal government undertook road building as
> a major employment program on the basis largely, of manual labour,
> today's road construction industry is highly mechanized. The main
> "forces" of construction are earth-moving machines, machine spreaders
> to lay down asphalt and concrete (which are produced, automatically,
> on trucks). Manual labour is still employed, but not nearly to the
> extent as the older production regime.
>
> On the other hand, school, hospital, recreation facilities and other
> public buildings employ a variety of mostly craft labour:
> electricians, plumbers, carpenters, among other crafts and a fairly
> substantial corps of labourers to haul materials and perform
> finishing work. Facilities construction would do more for alleviating
> unemployment for the skilled, less for the semi- and unskilled. Then
> there is the question of costs: capital intensive activities are
> expensive, but not nearly as costly as human labour. So, unless the
> administration intends to build facilities as well as improve roads
> and such infrastructure as water treatment and waste disposal plants,
> the job payoff might not be as substantial as Obama believes.
>
> Then there is the problem of contracting out these activities. During
> the Depression, the Works Projects Administration, a government
> agency, was the direct employer; today, in the era of privatization
> federal and state governments often contract to private companies to
> perform these tasks. This means that profits must be factored into
> all expenditures; like the privatized U.S. health care system, it is
> more expensive than socialized production and the job payoff is less.
> Moreover, under this contracting regime there are fewer controls over
> hiring practices; people of color tend to be shortchanged. In which
> case, the level of oversight would need to be much more stringent
> than any administration has been willing to implement. What is the
> warrant for believing that Clinton era appointees will be willing to
> reverse past practices, especially if the Obama administration wishes
> to reassure the private sector?
>
> Obama promises to create millions of "green" jobs. Some of these
> might be included in infrastructure plans, if windmills, geothermal,
> solar and other alternative forms of energy are substituted for
> existing power stations that run on oil and coal. Capital could be
> raised to build or reconvert metalworking factories to produce these
> products; water treatment and waste disposal plants might be
> constructed and put on line to fulfill the "green" objective. But
> there will be the problem of the administration's apparent fondness
> for nuclear energy as a "clean" source or its flirtation with
> chimerical "clean" coal projects. In our haste to applaud an apparent
> jobs program, we need to examine what kind and how many jobs green
> and infrastructural activities will produce.
>
> The most promising sources for job creation on a large scale are in
> services, environmental maintenance, and the arts. One of the least
> understood aspects of the 1930s New Deal's WPA (Works Progress
> Administration) was its many cultural, service and clean-up
> activities, all of which were labour-intensive. Youth were sent into
> the forests and fields to clean them up; rivers and streams were
> cleaned by manual labour. The federal government created a system of
> national parks and allocated funds for cities and towns to build
> playgrounds, swimming pools and sponsored a program of public housing
> construction. Artists, writers, theatre people, social service
> workers, health care workers and many other groups were put to work
> in local communities, some directly employed by the Feds and some
> employed by local governments and non-profit organizations using
> federal funds. Writers, musicians and artists were sent into schools
> to teach and to paint murals. There has been little or no discussion
> of this aspect of job-creation in recent times, although the Johnson
> and Nixon administrations did create and finance "public service"
> programs, some of which had training and education aspects.
>
> A Left Challenge to the Obama Administration?
>
> In his announcement of appointees to cabinet and key administrative
> posts dealing with the economy and with business regulation Obama
> revealed that, contrary to his campaign mantra of "change," nearly
> all of these crucial appointees were recruited from the alumni of the
> Clinton administration. From National Economic Council chair,
> Lawrence Summers to his appointee to chair the Securities and
> Exchange Commission, Mary Shapiro, Obama has signaled to the
> financial sector that, despite brave talk about rigorous business
> regulation, they have little to worry about. None of his key
> appointees has a reputation that might inspire fear among those who
> have benefited from the long wave of business deregulation and
> bailout that began in 1976.
>
> In mid-December, after a virtual unconditional giveaway to banks and
> insurance companies of $350-billion by the Bush administration, half
> of the $700-billion bail-out package remained to be disbursed. On
> December 19, President Bush announced a $17-billion bridge loan to
> the major auto corporations. The remaining $333-billion could be
> spent on assisting homeowners suffering foreclosure or its imminent
> threat and putting a substantial down payment on the job creation
> part of the stimulus program. But there is little hope that this
> scenario will come about unless organized labour and social movements
> insist on such emphasis. For this to happen, some of Obama's most
> fervent supporters on the Left would have to cut the assumed six
> months honeymoon short. They would be required to actively intervene
> on a number of fronts:
>
> 1. a set of proposals for a labour-intensive jobs program to
> accompany infrastructure development; 2. demand the governments be
> the direct employer, and only absolutely necessary private contracts
> be let for specialized services; 3. demand that the new jobs pay a
> living wage at least equal to the national average; 4. demand
> creation of labour-intensive jobs in public services and the arts; 5.
> demand enactment of the Conyers Bill HR 676 providing medicare for
> all. Universalizing health care would create hundreds of thousands of
> new jobs; 6. implement the Green Jobs program by re-opening and
> retooling abandoned auto and parts plants as well as building new
> plants to produce solar panels, windmills, geo-thermal machinery,
> water treatment technology and waste disposal products. These should
> be owned and operated by workers' cooperatives as well as letting
> contracts to existing manufacturers of these goods; and 7. demand
> rigorous oversight of employment programs to insure employment
> opportunities for blacks, Latinos women and the disabled.
>
> Progressives have advanced hope that Obama will usher in a 'new' New
> Deal. But the New Deal of yesteryear was never intended to pull the
> United States out of the depression. While it did employ more than a
> million workers in government projects, even considering that these
> might have produced three times or 3 million jobs, as late as 1940,
> unemployment hovered at about 20% of the labour force. What the New
> Deal accomplished went well beyond its relatively modest economic
> impact; more important was its ideological and political force.
>
> In contrast to Herbert Hoover and the first New Deal's focus on
> stimulating economic activity by pouring capital into business
> corporations, controlling prices and wages in order to foster profits
> and limiting its direct aid to the unemployed to feeding the hungry,
> the so-called "second" New Deal put money in the pockets of the
> jobless through public works and service programs, promised to save
> small farms from foreclosure through government purchases of crops
> and paying farmers to retire part of their growing capacity in a land
> bank. But it was the farmers themselves who, through direct action
> and mass organizing, sometimes prevented evictions, created
> cooperative enterprises to oppose the big processing corporations
> and, even before the depression became official, created their own
> political vehicles.
>
> And, after the mass industrial strikes of 1933 and 1934 conducted
> without a legal framework for union recognition, in 1935 the National
> Labor Relations Act guaranteed workers the right to organize unions
> of their own choosing, established a procedure for official union
> recognition and collective bargaining, and outlawed company unions
> and competitive unionism within the same bargaining unit. In short,
> the second New Deal was a consequence of a popular upsurge, not only
> the brainchild of FDR and his advisors. It remains an open question
> as to whether the organizations at the base of the Obama
> administration will match, let alone exceed, the achievements of the
> New Deal. There is little or no prospect that, within the current
> framework of neoliberal, market capitalism, the deepening economic
> crisis can be significantly reversed. Will the Left urge direct
> action to address the crisis, open a dialogue about its capitalist
> roots and propose possible radical solutions? ?
>
> Stanley Aronowitz teaches at the City University of New York and is
> the author of Left Turn Forging a New Political Future (2006). A
> slightly different version will appear in the forthcoming issue of
> Situations (#5).
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:17:36 +0000
> From: Philip Dunn <hyl0morphster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Madoff Victims: Schadenfreude, Not
>        Anti-Semitism
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>        <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <1230344256.5190.9.camel@pdunn2-40gb>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> The posting by Daniel McGowan / December 22nd, 2008 seems to have
> vanished. Thank Goodness for the Google Cache!
>
> As the news of Bernard Madoff?s colossal fraud focused on America?s most
> ?important? Jewish tycoons and moguls, it was only a matter of hours
> before the story was spun around their victimhood with the usual cudgels
> of ?anti-Semitism? and the Holocaust. In Israel, columnist Bradley
> Burston spun the story best by declaring, ?The anti-Semite?s new Santa
> is Bernard Madoff. ? The Aryan Nation at its most delusional couldn?t
> have come up with anything to rival this.?
> As the list of Madoff?s ?victims? grows, their common characteristic is
> not philanthropy, but rather political Zionism. Virtually all have
> worked to build a Jewish state with little regard, and often downright
> hatred, for the non-Jewish population living there.
> The money from this type of mogul or ?ganzer macher? has been used to
> dehumanize and depopulate non-Jews in Palestine for over 120 years. But
> in spite of creating a strong Israeli economy based on guns, diamonds,
> and security services and in spite of walling Arabs in Bantustans in the
> West Bank and in the KZ lager known as Gaza, they have failed. Non-Jews
> outnumber Jews within the borders controlled by Israel, which makes a
> mockery out of calling it a Jewish state.
> Schadenfreude is defined to be largely unanticipated delight in the
> suffering of another which is recognized as well deserved. Political
> Zionism deserves scorn and derision; it is racist and antithetical to
> what Americans profess to hold self-evident: that all men and women are
> created equal and that we should share equal rights of citizenship. When
> rich Zionists lose a piece of their portfolios, especially to the guile
> of one of their own, it is a delight.
> The press was first to report Madoff?s pilfering of the Robert Lappin ?
> Charitable? Foundation, an organization whose ?mission is helping to
> keep our children Jewish, thus reversing the trend of assimilation and
> intermarriage.? If the reader has trouble seeing the blatant racism
> here, substitute ?White? for ?Jewish? and imagine it was the stated goal
> of the David Duke Charitable Foundation.
> While Mr. Burston found Madoff?s bilking of ?fellow Jews, even Holocaust
> survivors? particularly outrageous, there are those who find divine
> justice in seeing one fraud defraud another. Elie Wiesel and his
> Foundation for Humanity would certainly qualify. Here is a man who has
> made millions peddling his narrative on the deaths of Jews in World War
> II; his novel, Night, is mandatory reading for most high school
> students; questioning it in any way invites charges of ?anti-Semitism?
> and ?Holocaust Denial.? He has been feted by Presidents and holds dozens
> of honorary degrees. If there were a CEO of the Holocaust Industry (a
> term coined by Norman Finkelstein), surely it would be The Great
> Weasel.
> Wiesel?s Foundation claims to combat indifference, intolerance and
> injustice through programs to promote acceptance, understanding, and
> equality. Yet he remains persistently indifferent to over 60 years of
> suffering of the Palestinian people and treats them with silence or as
> the ?untermenschen? his people once were under the Nazis. Wiesel boasts
> of having worked for the terrorists of the Jewish Irgun, not as a
> fighter but as a journalist, and he steadfastly refuses to apologize for
> the massacre by his employer at Deir Yassin. As a devout Zionist there
> is no way he can endorse one state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights
> of citizenship for all.
> Other victims of Madoff?s deception, like the Shapiro Family Foundation
> and the Chais Family Foundation, are undoubtedly genuinely philanthropic
> and well-meaning. But insofar as their gifts support Jews-only
> education, medicine, and social programs in Israel, they deserve the
> derision that would be accorded to Aryan philanthropists or others who
> support a racist state, one whose very laws favor one chosen group over
> all the rest.
> Madoff?s clients were not just generous Jews; they were Jews who
> directly or indirectly support the racism inherent in political Zionism.
> They support the assimilation of Ethiopian Jews (a noble enterprise),
> but reject the assimilation of Israeli Arabs and the Palestinians caged
> in West Bank and Gaza. They support ?birthright? trips for young
> American Jews in hopes they will settle in Israel, but not the
> ?Birthright Unplugged? educational trips of Hannah Mermelstein or the
> work of Jeff Halper?s Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions.
> Madoff?s wealthy victims build ever more Holocaust memorials with the
> message ?Never Forget? but ignore the current siege and starvation of
> Gaza to which they contribute financially and by their silence. Like The
> Great Weasel, they simply dismiss the analogy as ?unworthy.? Where is
> the Spielberg movie of the Gaza ghetto that isolates three times as many
> people as the Warsaw Ghetto and in worse conditions? Where is the
> support for _Righteous Jews_ (http://www.righteousjews.org/) like former
> Princeton University law professor Richard Falk, who calls what Israel
> is doing to the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza ?a crime against
> humanity?? Falk has condemned the collective punishment of the
> Palestinians in Gaza as ?a flagrant and massive violation of
> international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth
> Geneva Convention.?
> Cast in terms of their impact on the struggle for Palestinian human
> rights, it is difficult not to plead guilty to schadenfreude caused by
> the greed of Bernard Madoff. In fact, my only regret is that Edgar
> Bronfman and Alan Dershowitz were not among his preferred clients.
> Daniel McGowan is Professor Emeritus at Hobart and William Smith
> Colleges.
> He can be reached at: _mcgowan@xxxxxxxx (mailto:mcgowan@xxxxxxx) . _Read
> other articles by Daniel.
> (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/author/DanielMcGowan/) .
>
> (
> http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/12/the-madoff-victims-they-richly-deserved-it/
> )
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:47:22 -0500
> From: Jim Farmelant <farmelantj@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] New Deal
> To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <20081226.214723.4660.3.farmelantj@xxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:24:03 +0000 abu hartal <abuhartal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> writes:
> >
> >
>
> > Second, today's New Deal exponents say that the
> > reason the New Deal was not more effective was that fiscal policy
> > was too timid. But in fact firms alreadysuffering low profitability
> > were scared that the power of the sack would diminishand that FDR
> > would be too supportive of labor. It was not reduction of
> > veterans'benefits or other federally created final demand that had
> > investment demandcollapse in 1937. It was the exhaustion of
> > inventory accumulation, coupled withdim prospects for profitability
> > from new investments--prospects dimmed by the appearanceof mass
> > labor unrest.  Now I am not saying that the higher rate of
> > exploitation  would havespurred capital accumulation on with the
> > prospect of higher profits. But unemployment insurance, public works
> > and pro-labor policies  did not save the day thenand they won't now.
>
> Keynes, himself. it should be pointed out, had some awareness of these
> factors and pointed them out  in his, "An Open Letter to President
> Roosevelt"
> (http://newdeal.feri.org/misc/keynes2.htm).  There he wrote:
>
> "You are engaged on a double task, Recovery and Reform;--
> recovery from the slump and the passage of those business
> and social reforms which are long overdue. For the first,
> speed and quick results are essential. The second may be urgent too;
> but haste will be injurious, and wisdom of long-range purpose is more
> necessary than immediate achievement. It will be through raising high
> the prestige of your administration by success in short-range Recovery,
> that you will have the driving force to accomplish long-range Reform.
> On the other hand, even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects,
> impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the
> business world and weaken their existing motives to action, before
> you have had time to put other motives in their place. It may over-task
> your bureaucratic machine, which the traditional individualism of the
> United States and the old "spoils system" have left none too strong.
> And it will confuse the thought and aim of yourself and your
> administration by giving you too much to think about all at once."
>
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Save $15 on Flowers and Gifts from FTD!
> Shop now at http://offers.juno.com/TGL1141/?u=http://www.ftd.com/17007
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:48:26 -0800
> From: Charlie <charles1848@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Facing the Economic Crisis
> To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <4955A58A.3060306@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Aronowitz writes: "Another hidden fact: for thirty five years, the
> private sector has not produced a net increase in jobs." It's hidden
> because it is not true. Private sector jobs have gone from 63 to 115
> million. He could have said that private sector "goods producing" jobs
> as measured by the BLS have not increased. However, that excludes
> transportation and utilities, which are among the industries the BLS
> puts in "service providing" versus "goods producing."
>
> Charles Andrews
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:27:07 +0100
> From: Einde O'Callaghan <eindeoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] The Madoff Victims: Schadenfreude, Not
>        Anti-Semitism
> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>        <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <4955E6DB.9080308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Philip Dunn wrote:
> > The posting by Daniel McGowan / December 22nd, 2008 seems to have
> > vanished. Thank Goodness for the Google Cache!
> >
> There may be a reason why the message has vanished. As I wrote yesterday
> Daniel McGowan fishes in very murky waters associating himself with
> Holocaust deniers and even open Nazis. Not every anti-Zionist is
> acceptable as an ally for Marxists. Below is what I posted yesterday:
>
> > Dbachmozart@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > by Daniel McGowan / December 22nd, 2008
> >> >
> > It has been brought to my attention that Daniel McGowan and his
> > organisation "Deir Yassin Remembered" fish in very murky waters. I quote
> > from a message posted by Tony Greenstein, a British anti-Zionist
> > activist, on another list:
> >
> >> > McGowan is the the Executive Director of an organisation called Deir
> >> > Yassin Remembered.  Except it isn't very good at remembering Deir
> Yassin.
> >> > instead it has collected together a bunch of anti-Semites, holocaust
> >> > deniers and other misfits such as Paul Eisen, Jeff Blankfort, Israel
> >> > Shamir etc.  Anti-Zionist Israelis such as Jeff Halper, Lea Tsemel and
> >> > Michael Warshawski resigned in protest at these developments some
> years ago.
> >> >
> >> > McGowan himself visited last year Ernst Zundel, a notorious neo-Nazi
> >> > revisionist in prison in Germany for holocaust denial (I don't want to
> get
> >> > into a debate about whether hd'ers should be imprisoned - my view is
> they
> >> > shouldn't - but I wouldn't visit these sick dogs) when there are
> thousands
> >> > of asylum seekers unjustly imprisoned if he was really looking for
> someone
> >> > to visit.
> >
> > I hope that will be the last post of an article by McGowan that we'll
> > see on this list.
> >
> Nothing has appeared to make me change my mind and I hipe the reposting
> will also be removed from the archive.
>
> Einde O'Callaghan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:36:56 -0300
> From: " N?stor Gorojovsky " <nmgoro@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] The world we live in [was Re: One State Solution
>        Gains   Supporters]
> To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
>        <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
>        <2fa158550812270036o1add5c1bla451e7eb2102db6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2008/12/26 L?ko Willms <lueko.willms@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:32:33 EST, Dbachmozart@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >
> > the historical program of the Palestinian struggle for
> > democracy and national sovereignty ... was also the program of
> > the democratic forces in the UNO counterposed to the colonial
> > division voted by a majority of the UN General Assemply in
> > November 1947, with the political support by the USSR and other
> > countries influenced by the Kreml[in].
>
>
> Yes, it should be remembered that the world we live in was shaped by
> such a reactionary constellation of forces that their less
> undemocratic fractions were wiped away with a single sweeping stroke
> between 1945 and 1950. And this was really global.
>
>
> --
>
> N?stor Gorojovsky
> El texto principal de este correo puede no ser de mi autor?a
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
>
>
> End of Marxism Digest, Vol 62, Issue 79
> ***************************************
>



-- 
Brad Bauerly, B.A., M.A.
Ph.D., Candidate in Political Science
York University, Toronto CA.
647-285-6221 or 647-345-2072
bauerly@xxxxxxxx; bbauerly@xxxxxxxxx
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu