Far, far worse than the Agent Orange used by the U.S. in Vietnam that took decades
to be acknowledged for its destructive qualities, DU not only kills and maims, but will continue to kill for countless centuries.
Used in weapons ranging from shoulder-mounted rockets and missiles to our largest bunker-busting bombs, each time one explodes, millions of tiny dust-size toxic uranium particles fly into the air, soil and water, to be carried aloft in sandstorms and helicopter takeoffs and landings where air currents carry them far and wide. Just nine days after the massive U.S. bombings began in Iraq in 2003, the radiation level in England soared to 19 times the natural rate.
Readily inhaled, even small amounts lodge in the lungs and can lead to lung and many other cancers.
At the same time individuals become DU-contaminated, their DNA is permanently altered, and they are subject to bearing children who are miscarried, premature, still-born, or with minor to extreme birth defects.
On my 2001 visit to Iraq with the Veterans for Peace Iraq Water Project, in meetings with medical, scientific and university experts, we were given an epidemiological study that documents the proven deadly effect DU is having on the health and reproductive lives of the suffering Iraq people. Other than this, very few if any of these studies have been allowed to leave Iraq. We also were given dozens of pictures of extremely deformed babies born there. Iraq has reported that 56 percent of all new cancer cases occur in children age 5 or younger.
Several international news services claim that well over a million Iraqis have died as a result of the DU bombing.
Despite restricted release of U.S. veteran birth defect data, Florida-based Birth Defect Research for Children did a study that showed that Gulf War veterans parented 2 to 4 times more children with 31 specific birth defects than those who had not served in the Gulf.
Meanwhile, denial still controls center stage here.
In December 2007 in Stars and Stripes, Dr. Michael Kilpatrick , deputy director of the Pentagon's Department of Health Affairs, stated the U.S. military had yet to discover a case of an American service member becoming ill due to its use of depleted uranium over the past few decades.
Back in August 2004, Glen Lamartin, director of Pentagon defense systems, wrote Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona that none of the guided bombs or cruise missiles that the U.S. used in Iraq or Afghanistan contained uranium of any type.
In September 2007, the Public Health Surveillance Organization reported that the "VA withholds data for up to 70,000 veteran cases a year from U.S. cancer registries.”
If DU is so harmless, why did we bring a huge shipload of DU-contaminated soil from Kuwait to a waste depot in our Northwest while publicly stating that Iraq is totally responsible to clean up their own toxic waste now that they have oil money that can pay for it?
Since the 1991 Gulf War, close to 2 million of our troops and government and contract workers have cycled in and out of Iraq, some on their fourth and fifth tour of duty. All possibly DU contaminated.
In the last few years, four states have passed bills mandating DU contamination testing for all their Gulf National Guard veterans. To date, I have not heard of any testing being done. Could the $1,000 cost of the state-of-the-art test be the cause?
I have proposed to the members of the congressional Armed Services and Veterans Affairs committees that they mandate offering DU contamination tests to all veterans who served in the Gulf since 1991, and also, early pre-natal birth defect testing for all prospective military parents where one or both have served there. No response as yet.
This January, the Sun-Times Media Group Quote Info reported that the magnitude of the complications and damage related to the use of such radioactive and toxic weapons on the environment and the human population mostly results from the intended concealment, denial and misleading information released by the Pentagon about the quantities, characteristics and areas in Iraq in which these weapons have been used.
The American and British occupation forces are totally responsible for:
1. forbidding any release of statistics related to civilian casualties after the U.S. invasion
2. refusing to clean up contaminated areas
3. depriving international agencies and Iraqi researchers the right to conduct full DU-related exploration programs to prevent further damage.
This is the best evidence that the occupation forces are covering up conclusive evidence of the harmful health impacts of depleted uranium.
So much for our humanitarian interventions!
-----
Bud Deraps (peacebud @ earthlink.net) is a retiree in St. Louis whose grandchild was killed in Iraq.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The depleted uranium cover-up
From: PWW
The best-kept secret in America today is the deadly effect our depleted uranium (DU) weapons are having, not only on our enemies, but on our own loved ones who have served in our wars since the 1991 Gulf War where DU was first used.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Video of Sam Webb taking on conservative host Glenn Beck
Communist Party National Chair, Sam Webb was a featured guest on conservative host Glenn Beck’s show on Fox News earlier tonight.
Beck has been running a series on the show called “Road to Socialism” which makes that claim that government programs for working people = big government = socialism. Did he make the same argument amount the corporate welfare and war spending that actually bloated the national debt? Didn’t think so.
I love that Beck is either is afraid of what Comrade Sam had to say, or he doesn’t know how to have an intellectual debate because all he can do is shout over Sam or resort to bringing up Stalin rather than debating how the policies of the ultra-right have run this country into the ground.
Beck has been running a series on the show called “Road to Socialism” which makes that claim that government programs for working people = big government = socialism. Did he make the same argument amount the corporate welfare and war spending that actually bloated the national debt? Didn’t think so.
I love that Beck is either is afraid of what Comrade Sam had to say, or he doesn’t know how to have an intellectual debate because all he can do is shout over Sam or resort to bringing up Stalin rather than debating how the policies of the ultra-right have run this country into the ground.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Nationalize that! Why should Alice and Mike give a damn about failing banks?
From: PWW
UPDATED ARTICLE
Alice is 31 years old. Her husband Mike was just laid off and she is worried about losing hers given the economic decline. They would like to buy a house but that’s out of the question now, and they want to start a family but worry about how they’ll manage. Why should Alice, Mike and the rest of us give a damn about failing banks? Does it really affect ordinary working families?
To try to make sense of all the talk about bank bailouts, nationalization and socialism, we put a few questions to our People Before Profits columnists John Case and Art Perlo.
1. What is the appropriate and necessary role of banks?
Case: Banking serves two important roles: a) to make loans sustained by collateral — loans of all types are a key mechanism of broad commercial activity, and of economic growth; and b) to serve as brokers for investment. These two services are in some conflict with each other, and should, like accounting and investment, be separated.
Banks play an important role as secure repositories of wealth (your savings) as low-risk, federally insured, institutions.
Investment banking firms, conversely, attract the interest of high-risk, high-return, activity. They are major funding sources for investment in innovation. Of course federal grants and many tax-protected foundations have significant impact on such investment as well.
The weakness of regulation of banking has been amply demonstrated in the current crisis. However the weakness of a fully nationalized bank system would likely be insensitivity or inflexibility with regard to investments that promote local and regional economic diversity. In addition, how to both encourage and test innovation —without bringing society to its knees — is a profound question to which there may be no easy answer.
Perlo: Even progressive economists often concentrate too much on getting the financial system working, whatever that means, instead of asking what parts of the financial system are necessary to get the economy working for working people.
Ordinary people and businesses use the financial system for legitimate purposes — to store money and hopefully maintain a small financial cushion, to build savings, and to have access to the funds through checking accounts and debit cards (ATMs). These functions are in no immediate danger. If a bank fails, these accounts are insured, the FDIC takes over and runs the bank until it can be sold to another bank, and customers don't see any interruption in service. In some countries, the post office provides some basic retail banking services.
The financial sector provides credit. To ordinary people for home mortgages, car loans and credit cards. To business for startup and expansion and as a bridge over slow periods. While these are necessary functions, they have been expanded beyond all reason. A record level of consumer income is now going to pay interest on these debts. Of the value created by workers, a larger share is appropriated not by their direct employers, but by the financial industry. The situation for business is similar, with massive indebtedness.
The problem right now is not primarily that banks are not making loans. It is that in previous years, they made too many loans, beyond the ability of consumers or businesses to repay.
Someone paying 60 percent of their paycheck in mortgage, car and credit card payments doesn't need more credit — they need more income and less debt. A business (whether General Motors or the car wash down the street) is in trouble because there are too many cars and too many car washes for any reasonable economic scenario, much less the diminished demand of today’s economic crisis. Many businesses cannot and should not be saved. Huge businesses like GM need to be restructured to produce stuff that is useful. Business needs customers. The best thing for that is more and more fiscal stimulus, spent on useful and necessary goods and services. This results in direct purchases from many businesses, and by boosting employment and wages enables workers to patronize business. Many businesses would benefit from higher general wage levels, although some would not. Access to credit is necessary for business, but is not the main problem.
2. What is the difference between nationalization and socialism?
Case: Nationalization is a public takeover solution to the collapse of a private, capitalist enterprise considered too big or systemic to fail. Socialism, historically, is a social system in which public interests and institutions override private ones in the "commanding heights" of the economy. Socialism is based on a working class ideology, in the main, and thus advances the broadest-based democratic principles and institutions that define and govern the public interest.
Thus nationalization is a step toward socialism to the extent that democracy, and working class empowerment, is expanding. However in the absence of expanding democracy — that is, in the hands of corrupt, compromised and unaccountable forces — nationalization can mean a harmful centralization of power.
The true socialist path is through successive waves of major social and industrial revolutions and reforms, expansion of democratic rights, and successful adaptation to technological changes that further empower communication and mobility and cooperation across the world.
The nationalization challenge before the United States now cannot succeed without greater democratic guidance.
Major banks and investment firms are outright insolvent, yet by virtue of their immense size and diversity of interests, their collapse would paralyze many large national and international markets. Attention is currently focused on the finance and banking industry, and auto. It is up to working people to make their mark upon this period. If we can insure that health care, retirement and education rights for all are measurably advanced, are made more secure, which can only happen through a real increase in the truly socialized portion of our mixed economy, then we shall have succeeded. If all unemployed are offered an opportunity to serve in building the new infrastructures and services that must sustain a recovered economy, we shall have succeeded — the nationalizations of 2009 will be true steps toward socialism.
Perlo: Socialism is working class power — working class control of the political and economic direction of the country. That includes various forms of public ownership (local, regional, national) of key economic resources, along with public regulation of important private-sector companies.
Socialism would eliminate the speculation from the financial industry, and would use finance to direct the country's resources toward investment in infrastructure, industry and services that advance the public good.
Nationalization can be part of, or move in the direction of, socialism. But what has been happening in this crisis could best be regarded as "lemon nationalization" and has nothing to do with socialism. The U.S. government steps in, cleans up the mess made by private banks, pays premium prices for worthless stock and pays salaries and bonuses to executives instead of throwing them in jail. If the government does take formal ownership, the plan is to clean them up financially, but not interfere in the way they are run, and turn them back to private investors (probably at a bargain price) as fast as possible.
We should fight not only to improve the financial terms of nationalization, but to dismantle the parasitic functions of nationalized banks and focus on providing economically useful services.
3. In the past, some developing countries, such as Nasser’s Egypt, nationalized various industries but the people remained in poverty, social problems persisted, democracy was not implemented, etc. Some call that "state capitalism." Is that pertinent to what is being discussed now?
Case: Yes, the failure of large scale nationalization — socialization — can have more than one cause. Socialization works better for large-scale production than small. And the ideals of socialism and communism can only arise out of a well-rounded development of an economy, reforms in services, taxation, law and regulation, expansion of democracy and, above all, a dramatic rise in the level of culture, education and skills of the working class.
Witness the tragic circumstances of many resource-rich nations where those with the most guns seize the national wealth for themselves, but are in turn corrupted by it, typically selling themselves to foreign oil and mining interests, on whom they become dependent. These circumstances often do not promote real economic growth, but instead a very distorted, cancerous growth in inequality or militarism, or both. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, Nigeria, Malaysia and many other countries bear the scars of the "resource rich curse." This form of phony nationalizations, or degraded socialisms — it's possible one could put much of the post-90s Russian recovery under Putin in this category — is not the path to real socialism.
Perlo: Nationalization was often necessary for any progress in sectors where national or international capital would not invest. National steel, energy and other industries laid the basis for a better economy, less completely dependent on foreign capital. But benefits were unevenly distributed, and there was a tendency (as with the energy companies PEMEX in Mexico, PDVSA in Venezuela) for massive corruption and a self-perpetuating bureaucracy to develop. Thus, in Venezuela, it took a massive struggle including resisting a coup attempt and overcoming a bosses' strike for the popular government to actually gain control of the state-owned oil company.
In any capitalist society, it is an ongoing struggle to have popular control over government-owned or government-regulated companies and industries. But at least if it is government-owned, there is the possibility that we can exercise some level of control through the democratic process, however flawed.
4. What is "partial nationalization" as is currently being discussed?
Case: Partial nationalization means the government takes partial ownership of a corporation. The sharp struggle in Congress on what constitutes control in the public interest is reflected in the confusion of interpretations that now surround the term "nationalization."
The first version (Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson): the government takes preferred shares in exchange for its capital infusion. Preferred shares a) get bigger dividends than common shares; and b) in a bankruptcy, are paid off before common shares. But (c) they have no vote in electing the board of directors, or choosing management.
The second version (Obama Treasury Secretary Geithner): a) the government has the option to trade preferred for common (voting) shares; and b) the government will "stress test" the banks to determine their actual value. This sets the stage for seizing control to protect the public interest in exchange for absorbing all bad assets of insolvent institutions — effectively the same as nationalization.
Perlo: The government pays the freight, but existing stockholders and management keep control.
The bank bailouts have transferred massive wealth from the people to the finance capitalists. It's not only executive pay and bonuses — every dollar of dividends paid out is theft from the people.
Economist Dean Baker explains how this works with Citigroup:
"The government originally lent $25 billion to Citigroup at below-market interest rates in the first wave of TARP lending. In December, it lent another $20 billion and guaranteed $300 billion in bad assets. (The guarantee was almost certainly worth more than $30 billion annually, given the quality of the assets.) On that day, $20 billion would have been sufficient to buy Citi in its entirety on the stock market. So the question is, how can the taxpayers own anything less than 100 percent of Citi, if its preferred shares (the form of the loans) are converted to common shares? Why is this anything other than a huge gift to Citi's shareholders and top executives?"
5. Is the government in the current circumstances actually able to "run" banks and companies such as auto better than the private sector?
Case: The government can run basic commercial and personal loan operations, even the mortgage business, for awhile. The question is: what are the tasks that only government can perform? The whole groundwork of the recent government bailout and takeover activities was to restart lending. But it turned out that restarting lending can't be turned on by hooking up a cheap money spigot to pump cash in an insolvent structure. Substantial restructuring of finance capital must take place. But finance capital is incapable, it appears, of performing its own correction without bringing society to a standstill, or worse, instability.
Similarly in auto manufacturing, the restructuring necessary to engineer and produce the new "American green transportation system" must involve massive publicly coordinated management in order to succeed.
So, government must manage the restructurings, including evaluating the parts that should remain public indefinitely.
Perlo: Most of the necessary functions can be run perfectly well by civil servants. It is not rocket science to look at mortgage applications and apply well-known formulas to them. Lower-level and middle-level managers and professionals, as well as all the unemployed graduates of college business courses, would probably jump at a chance of a government job with steady pay and benefits, performing a real public service. The more exotic functions, like bundling mortgages, slicing them and selling them to investors, are largely parasitic, and should be eliminated. It is hard to imagine government technocrats doing a worse job than the management of the U.S. auto and financial industries.
6. What kind of nationalization or other measures should and realistically can be pursued by the Obama administration, given the current balance of forces, to further the answer to #4 and 5? Short and long term?
Case: Finance is the immediate target. For many reasons both national and international in scope, stability and consumer confidence in the commercial banking sector must be restored. Auto is not far behind, and a long train of hurting industrial manufacturing operations, on the border of bankruptcy or below, will also be seeking help on this. The key for us is: let’s not do "bailout", but takeover, where restructuring is what is required. Restructuring will mandate high-tech do-overs of as much manufacturing as possible. If so, the new jobs created will not be the old jobs. After restructuring is completed is the time to determine what must remain nationalized, and what parts can perform their function better in a competitive market environment.
The long term is determined by the technologies we deploy today, and the new ones we imagine and bring to life to relieve and enhance human labor tomorrow.
Perlo: Build up a public sector banking industry that does the most necessary banking functions for people and business. This is a formidable task, but should be doable. Don't even try to fix the whole banking system as it exists.
suewebb @ pww.org
UPDATED: March 2, 2009, with Art Perlo interview
UPDATED ARTICLE
Alice is 31 years old. Her husband Mike was just laid off and she is worried about losing hers given the economic decline. They would like to buy a house but that’s out of the question now, and they want to start a family but worry about how they’ll manage. Why should Alice, Mike and the rest of us give a damn about failing banks? Does it really affect ordinary working families?
To try to make sense of all the talk about bank bailouts, nationalization and socialism, we put a few questions to our People Before Profits columnists John Case and Art Perlo.
1. What is the appropriate and necessary role of banks?
Case: Banking serves two important roles: a) to make loans sustained by collateral — loans of all types are a key mechanism of broad commercial activity, and of economic growth; and b) to serve as brokers for investment. These two services are in some conflict with each other, and should, like accounting and investment, be separated.
Banks play an important role as secure repositories of wealth (your savings) as low-risk, federally insured, institutions.
Investment banking firms, conversely, attract the interest of high-risk, high-return, activity. They are major funding sources for investment in innovation. Of course federal grants and many tax-protected foundations have significant impact on such investment as well.
The weakness of regulation of banking has been amply demonstrated in the current crisis. However the weakness of a fully nationalized bank system would likely be insensitivity or inflexibility with regard to investments that promote local and regional economic diversity. In addition, how to both encourage and test innovation —without bringing society to its knees — is a profound question to which there may be no easy answer.
Perlo: Even progressive economists often concentrate too much on getting the financial system working, whatever that means, instead of asking what parts of the financial system are necessary to get the economy working for working people.
Ordinary people and businesses use the financial system for legitimate purposes — to store money and hopefully maintain a small financial cushion, to build savings, and to have access to the funds through checking accounts and debit cards (ATMs). These functions are in no immediate danger. If a bank fails, these accounts are insured, the FDIC takes over and runs the bank until it can be sold to another bank, and customers don't see any interruption in service. In some countries, the post office provides some basic retail banking services.
The financial sector provides credit. To ordinary people for home mortgages, car loans and credit cards. To business for startup and expansion and as a bridge over slow periods. While these are necessary functions, they have been expanded beyond all reason. A record level of consumer income is now going to pay interest on these debts. Of the value created by workers, a larger share is appropriated not by their direct employers, but by the financial industry. The situation for business is similar, with massive indebtedness.
The problem right now is not primarily that banks are not making loans. It is that in previous years, they made too many loans, beyond the ability of consumers or businesses to repay.
Someone paying 60 percent of their paycheck in mortgage, car and credit card payments doesn't need more credit — they need more income and less debt. A business (whether General Motors or the car wash down the street) is in trouble because there are too many cars and too many car washes for any reasonable economic scenario, much less the diminished demand of today’s economic crisis. Many businesses cannot and should not be saved. Huge businesses like GM need to be restructured to produce stuff that is useful. Business needs customers. The best thing for that is more and more fiscal stimulus, spent on useful and necessary goods and services. This results in direct purchases from many businesses, and by boosting employment and wages enables workers to patronize business. Many businesses would benefit from higher general wage levels, although some would not. Access to credit is necessary for business, but is not the main problem.
2. What is the difference between nationalization and socialism?
Case: Nationalization is a public takeover solution to the collapse of a private, capitalist enterprise considered too big or systemic to fail. Socialism, historically, is a social system in which public interests and institutions override private ones in the "commanding heights" of the economy. Socialism is based on a working class ideology, in the main, and thus advances the broadest-based democratic principles and institutions that define and govern the public interest.
Thus nationalization is a step toward socialism to the extent that democracy, and working class empowerment, is expanding. However in the absence of expanding democracy — that is, in the hands of corrupt, compromised and unaccountable forces — nationalization can mean a harmful centralization of power.
The true socialist path is through successive waves of major social and industrial revolutions and reforms, expansion of democratic rights, and successful adaptation to technological changes that further empower communication and mobility and cooperation across the world.
The nationalization challenge before the United States now cannot succeed without greater democratic guidance.
Major banks and investment firms are outright insolvent, yet by virtue of their immense size and diversity of interests, their collapse would paralyze many large national and international markets. Attention is currently focused on the finance and banking industry, and auto. It is up to working people to make their mark upon this period. If we can insure that health care, retirement and education rights for all are measurably advanced, are made more secure, which can only happen through a real increase in the truly socialized portion of our mixed economy, then we shall have succeeded. If all unemployed are offered an opportunity to serve in building the new infrastructures and services that must sustain a recovered economy, we shall have succeeded — the nationalizations of 2009 will be true steps toward socialism.
Perlo: Socialism is working class power — working class control of the political and economic direction of the country. That includes various forms of public ownership (local, regional, national) of key economic resources, along with public regulation of important private-sector companies.
Socialism would eliminate the speculation from the financial industry, and would use finance to direct the country's resources toward investment in infrastructure, industry and services that advance the public good.
Nationalization can be part of, or move in the direction of, socialism. But what has been happening in this crisis could best be regarded as "lemon nationalization" and has nothing to do with socialism. The U.S. government steps in, cleans up the mess made by private banks, pays premium prices for worthless stock and pays salaries and bonuses to executives instead of throwing them in jail. If the government does take formal ownership, the plan is to clean them up financially, but not interfere in the way they are run, and turn them back to private investors (probably at a bargain price) as fast as possible.
We should fight not only to improve the financial terms of nationalization, but to dismantle the parasitic functions of nationalized banks and focus on providing economically useful services.
3. In the past, some developing countries, such as Nasser’s Egypt, nationalized various industries but the people remained in poverty, social problems persisted, democracy was not implemented, etc. Some call that "state capitalism." Is that pertinent to what is being discussed now?
Case: Yes, the failure of large scale nationalization — socialization — can have more than one cause. Socialization works better for large-scale production than small. And the ideals of socialism and communism can only arise out of a well-rounded development of an economy, reforms in services, taxation, law and regulation, expansion of democracy and, above all, a dramatic rise in the level of culture, education and skills of the working class.
Witness the tragic circumstances of many resource-rich nations where those with the most guns seize the national wealth for themselves, but are in turn corrupted by it, typically selling themselves to foreign oil and mining interests, on whom they become dependent. These circumstances often do not promote real economic growth, but instead a very distorted, cancerous growth in inequality or militarism, or both. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, Nigeria, Malaysia and many other countries bear the scars of the "resource rich curse." This form of phony nationalizations, or degraded socialisms — it's possible one could put much of the post-90s Russian recovery under Putin in this category — is not the path to real socialism.
Perlo: Nationalization was often necessary for any progress in sectors where national or international capital would not invest. National steel, energy and other industries laid the basis for a better economy, less completely dependent on foreign capital. But benefits were unevenly distributed, and there was a tendency (as with the energy companies PEMEX in Mexico, PDVSA in Venezuela) for massive corruption and a self-perpetuating bureaucracy to develop. Thus, in Venezuela, it took a massive struggle including resisting a coup attempt and overcoming a bosses' strike for the popular government to actually gain control of the state-owned oil company.
In any capitalist society, it is an ongoing struggle to have popular control over government-owned or government-regulated companies and industries. But at least if it is government-owned, there is the possibility that we can exercise some level of control through the democratic process, however flawed.
4. What is "partial nationalization" as is currently being discussed?
Case: Partial nationalization means the government takes partial ownership of a corporation. The sharp struggle in Congress on what constitutes control in the public interest is reflected in the confusion of interpretations that now surround the term "nationalization."
The first version (Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson): the government takes preferred shares in exchange for its capital infusion. Preferred shares a) get bigger dividends than common shares; and b) in a bankruptcy, are paid off before common shares. But (c) they have no vote in electing the board of directors, or choosing management.
The second version (Obama Treasury Secretary Geithner): a) the government has the option to trade preferred for common (voting) shares; and b) the government will "stress test" the banks to determine their actual value. This sets the stage for seizing control to protect the public interest in exchange for absorbing all bad assets of insolvent institutions — effectively the same as nationalization.
Perlo: The government pays the freight, but existing stockholders and management keep control.
The bank bailouts have transferred massive wealth from the people to the finance capitalists. It's not only executive pay and bonuses — every dollar of dividends paid out is theft from the people.
Economist Dean Baker explains how this works with Citigroup:
"The government originally lent $25 billion to Citigroup at below-market interest rates in the first wave of TARP lending. In December, it lent another $20 billion and guaranteed $300 billion in bad assets. (The guarantee was almost certainly worth more than $30 billion annually, given the quality of the assets.) On that day, $20 billion would have been sufficient to buy Citi in its entirety on the stock market. So the question is, how can the taxpayers own anything less than 100 percent of Citi, if its preferred shares (the form of the loans) are converted to common shares? Why is this anything other than a huge gift to Citi's shareholders and top executives?"
5. Is the government in the current circumstances actually able to "run" banks and companies such as auto better than the private sector?
Case: The government can run basic commercial and personal loan operations, even the mortgage business, for awhile. The question is: what are the tasks that only government can perform? The whole groundwork of the recent government bailout and takeover activities was to restart lending. But it turned out that restarting lending can't be turned on by hooking up a cheap money spigot to pump cash in an insolvent structure. Substantial restructuring of finance capital must take place. But finance capital is incapable, it appears, of performing its own correction without bringing society to a standstill, or worse, instability.
Similarly in auto manufacturing, the restructuring necessary to engineer and produce the new "American green transportation system" must involve massive publicly coordinated management in order to succeed.
So, government must manage the restructurings, including evaluating the parts that should remain public indefinitely.
Perlo: Most of the necessary functions can be run perfectly well by civil servants. It is not rocket science to look at mortgage applications and apply well-known formulas to them. Lower-level and middle-level managers and professionals, as well as all the unemployed graduates of college business courses, would probably jump at a chance of a government job with steady pay and benefits, performing a real public service. The more exotic functions, like bundling mortgages, slicing them and selling them to investors, are largely parasitic, and should be eliminated. It is hard to imagine government technocrats doing a worse job than the management of the U.S. auto and financial industries.
6. What kind of nationalization or other measures should and realistically can be pursued by the Obama administration, given the current balance of forces, to further the answer to #4 and 5? Short and long term?
Case: Finance is the immediate target. For many reasons both national and international in scope, stability and consumer confidence in the commercial banking sector must be restored. Auto is not far behind, and a long train of hurting industrial manufacturing operations, on the border of bankruptcy or below, will also be seeking help on this. The key for us is: let’s not do "bailout", but takeover, where restructuring is what is required. Restructuring will mandate high-tech do-overs of as much manufacturing as possible. If so, the new jobs created will not be the old jobs. After restructuring is completed is the time to determine what must remain nationalized, and what parts can perform their function better in a competitive market environment.
The long term is determined by the technologies we deploy today, and the new ones we imagine and bring to life to relieve and enhance human labor tomorrow.
Perlo: Build up a public sector banking industry that does the most necessary banking functions for people and business. This is a formidable task, but should be doable. Don't even try to fix the whole banking system as it exists.
suewebb @ pww.org
UPDATED: March 2, 2009, with Art Perlo interview
Russia communist leader slams 'dirty' local elections
Original source: morningstaronline.co.uk Russian communist leader Gennady Zyuganov slammed local elections on Sunday as "the dirtiest in the last 15 years" after the ruling United Russia Party won an average 66 per cent of votes.
The Communist Party of the Russian Federation came in a distant second place.
It is as yet unclear whether the pro-Kremlin Liberal Democrats or Fair Russia came third.
Oleg Morozov, one of United Russia's leaders, claimed that the vote had demonstrated the voters' approval of Moscow's efforts to tackle the economic crisis.
But Russia's only independent election monitoring organisation Golos alleged "mass violations" in several regions.
The greatest number of complaints came from Tatarstan, where United Russia garnered 80 per cent of the vote.
"There have never been such dirty and unforgivable elections," Mr Zyuganov stormed, claiming that authorities in Tatarstan had prevented the Communist Party from running political broadcasts.
He also alleged that Communist MPs had been intimidated in the industrial region of Bryanskhe and that he had been barred from addressing a meeting there.
The CPRF did score one victory over Mr Putin's party, garnering nearly 50 per cent of the vote in the election of a city legislature in Tver.
Chavez win is people’s victory
From: PWW
Venezuelans on Feb. 15 approved a constitutional amendment removing term limits on elected officials. The door is now open for Hugo Chavez to run for a third presidential term in 2012.
The outcome provoked a replay of divergent voices. The New York Times editorialized about a “standard-issue autocrat.” The Washington Post complained of “overwhelming control [by Chavez] over virtually every government institution.” Yet ex-Cuban President Fidel Castro observed, “The destiny of the peoples of ‘Our America’ depends greatly on that victory.”
Coinciding with the 10-year anniversary of the Chavez presidency, the referendum serves as a milestone for changes that have marked the period.
Commentators now see power in Venezuela as resting upon popular mobilization and elections, the latter notable for transparency, efficiency and fairness.
“Venezuelan democracy is the most legitimate in the entire continent, and probably the world,” analyst Pascual Serrano claimed, citing international observers. Another observer heralded “the new political culture” and “pacific and exemplary” behavior of voters.
Atilio Boron sees removal of term limits for those who govern well as a “necessary counterpart” of Venezuela’s capacity to remove sub-par leaders through recall. Mexico’s La Jornada daily commended Chavez for his “respectful attitude towards Venezuelan political institutions.”
Venezuela’s 10-year record of resisting U.S. imperialism and promoting Latin American integration stands as another achievement. Chavez “broke with imperialist colonialism that was wasting Venezuela and condemning the immense majority of its people to economic, social, and political misery,” declared Pedro Antonio Honrubia. The referendum outcome was “very bad news for the empire,” said Boron.
Socialist revolution has brought forth remarkable social advances. Infant mortality dropped from 24 first-year deaths per 1,000 babies to 12; deaths in childbirth fell; poverty plummeted from 60 percent to 26 percent; “extreme poverty,” from 25 percent to 8 percent.
Over half the population enjoys free, first-contact health care from the Cuba-assisted Barrio Adentro system. Most of Venezuela’s 300 hospitals have been upgraded. Since 2003, a total of 4,031 new community health centers have opened.
Vegetable production rose 24 percent in 10 years, cultivated acreage, 45 percent. Big landowner acreage dropped 32 percent. State-operated Mercal stores providing cheap food supply 14 percent of all food consumed.
Now 16 million Venezuelans (population 27 million) are enrolled in schools or adult education. In 1998, there were 28 university students per 1,000 inhabitants; now there are 80. Unemployment dropped in 10 years from 11.3 percent to 7.8 percent. (Data is from Sirio Lopez Velasco (rebelion.org) and Mark Weisbrot (cepr.net).)
Passage of the constitutional amendment stimulated discussion on the future course of Venezuela’s socialist revolution. The Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV) weighed in after mobilizing for the campaign. The year before Chavez had demanded its dissolution.
According to the PCV’s Tribune Popular web site, Chavez warrants support for his dedication to national liberation. Approval of the constitutional amendment “signified … ongoing advance toward socialism … a moment of sharpened class struggle.” Yet the Party’s Central Committee, meeting Jan. 24-25, characterized “the popular revolutionary movement as lacking unity, combativeness, and the material force of a vanguard organization of the proletariat.”
After the vote, PCV Secretary General Oscar Figuera applauded “unity of action and leadership of all the forces.” Voters had “deepened the popular sovereignty in the democratic exercise of their rights.” Speaking to reporters, Figuera endorsed the fight against “corruption, inefficiency, and excess bureaucracy” highlighted by Chavez during his victory speech. The remedy would be “strengthening of popular power,” especially in workplaces.
Figuera reiterated an earlier proposal for “the formation of the socialist workers’ councils … to confront these ills.” The PCV called for expanding “collective or social property.” Nationalizing the financial system would be a start, “now during the crisis of capitalism.”
Gregory Wilpert asserted on Venzuelanalysis.com that the Bolivarian Movement's excessive dependency on President Chavez poses risks. He suggested the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, leading formation of the Bolivarian revolution, must strengthen party structures and develop new leaders. He agreed the government should combat crime, corruption and insecurity. Strategies must be developed to support social programs while oil prices fall. Participatory democracy requires a boost to circumvent incumbent office holders.
Economist Luciano Vasapollo, a leader of the Network of Italian Communists, served as an international observer of referendum voting. Interviewed afterwards by Tribune Popular, the visitor praised the vote as “validating the revolutionary process and reinforcing class-based, worker, and popular democracy.” Time is now available, he explained, to strengthen the PSUV and “construct a popular, class-based government.”
atwhit@roadrunner.com
Venezuelans on Feb. 15 approved a constitutional amendment removing term limits on elected officials. The door is now open for Hugo Chavez to run for a third presidential term in 2012.
The outcome provoked a replay of divergent voices. The New York Times editorialized about a “standard-issue autocrat.” The Washington Post complained of “overwhelming control [by Chavez] over virtually every government institution.” Yet ex-Cuban President Fidel Castro observed, “The destiny of the peoples of ‘Our America’ depends greatly on that victory.”
Coinciding with the 10-year anniversary of the Chavez presidency, the referendum serves as a milestone for changes that have marked the period.
Commentators now see power in Venezuela as resting upon popular mobilization and elections, the latter notable for transparency, efficiency and fairness.
“Venezuelan democracy is the most legitimate in the entire continent, and probably the world,” analyst Pascual Serrano claimed, citing international observers. Another observer heralded “the new political culture” and “pacific and exemplary” behavior of voters.
Atilio Boron sees removal of term limits for those who govern well as a “necessary counterpart” of Venezuela’s capacity to remove sub-par leaders through recall. Mexico’s La Jornada daily commended Chavez for his “respectful attitude towards Venezuelan political institutions.”
Venezuela’s 10-year record of resisting U.S. imperialism and promoting Latin American integration stands as another achievement. Chavez “broke with imperialist colonialism that was wasting Venezuela and condemning the immense majority of its people to economic, social, and political misery,” declared Pedro Antonio Honrubia. The referendum outcome was “very bad news for the empire,” said Boron.
Socialist revolution has brought forth remarkable social advances. Infant mortality dropped from 24 first-year deaths per 1,000 babies to 12; deaths in childbirth fell; poverty plummeted from 60 percent to 26 percent; “extreme poverty,” from 25 percent to 8 percent.
Over half the population enjoys free, first-contact health care from the Cuba-assisted Barrio Adentro system. Most of Venezuela’s 300 hospitals have been upgraded. Since 2003, a total of 4,031 new community health centers have opened.
Vegetable production rose 24 percent in 10 years, cultivated acreage, 45 percent. Big landowner acreage dropped 32 percent. State-operated Mercal stores providing cheap food supply 14 percent of all food consumed.
Now 16 million Venezuelans (population 27 million) are enrolled in schools or adult education. In 1998, there were 28 university students per 1,000 inhabitants; now there are 80. Unemployment dropped in 10 years from 11.3 percent to 7.8 percent. (Data is from Sirio Lopez Velasco (rebelion.org) and Mark Weisbrot (cepr.net).)
Passage of the constitutional amendment stimulated discussion on the future course of Venezuela’s socialist revolution. The Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV) weighed in after mobilizing for the campaign. The year before Chavez had demanded its dissolution.
According to the PCV’s Tribune Popular web site, Chavez warrants support for his dedication to national liberation. Approval of the constitutional amendment “signified … ongoing advance toward socialism … a moment of sharpened class struggle.” Yet the Party’s Central Committee, meeting Jan. 24-25, characterized “the popular revolutionary movement as lacking unity, combativeness, and the material force of a vanguard organization of the proletariat.”
After the vote, PCV Secretary General Oscar Figuera applauded “unity of action and leadership of all the forces.” Voters had “deepened the popular sovereignty in the democratic exercise of their rights.” Speaking to reporters, Figuera endorsed the fight against “corruption, inefficiency, and excess bureaucracy” highlighted by Chavez during his victory speech. The remedy would be “strengthening of popular power,” especially in workplaces.
Figuera reiterated an earlier proposal for “the formation of the socialist workers’ councils … to confront these ills.” The PCV called for expanding “collective or social property.” Nationalizing the financial system would be a start, “now during the crisis of capitalism.”
Gregory Wilpert asserted on Venzuelanalysis.com that the Bolivarian Movement's excessive dependency on President Chavez poses risks. He suggested the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, leading formation of the Bolivarian revolution, must strengthen party structures and develop new leaders. He agreed the government should combat crime, corruption and insecurity. Strategies must be developed to support social programs while oil prices fall. Participatory democracy requires a boost to circumvent incumbent office holders.
Economist Luciano Vasapollo, a leader of the Network of Italian Communists, served as an international observer of referendum voting. Interviewed afterwards by Tribune Popular, the visitor praised the vote as “validating the revolutionary process and reinforcing class-based, worker, and popular democracy.” Time is now available, he explained, to strengthen the PSUV and “construct a popular, class-based government.”
atwhit@roadrunner.com
Monday, March 2, 2009
African American Communist: W.E.B. Du Bois (1868-1963)
From: the Communist Party USA
Black History Month Special
Part of a series on African American communists in US history.
W.E.B. Du Bois was the first African American to receive a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He encountered socialist ideas while he was studying in Germany, where he occasionally attended rallies of the German Social Democratic Party. A pioneer of U.S. sociology and prolific author, Du Bois was one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and was the first editor of its journal the Crisis.
In 1961, after a lifetime of scholarship and activism, he joined the Communist Party USA, saying "Capitalism cannot reform itself. Communism—the effort to give all...what they need and to ask of each the best they can contribute—this is the only way of human life."
He died in Ghana, West Africa, where he had moved to work on the Encyclopedia Africana. His death was announced from the podium at the March on Washington where Dr. King made his historic "I have a dream" speech.
For more information: 100th anniversary of The Souls of Black Folk
For more information: Application for membership in the CPUSA by W.E.B.DuBois
(Compiled by Kevin Lindemann)
Application to join the CPUSA by W.E.B. Du Bois, 1961
From: the Communist Party USA
W.E.B. Du Bois
Dear Dr. DuBois:
In reply to your letter of October 1, in which you make application for membership in the Communist Party of e United States, allow me to relate the following:
I read it before our National Board on October 13th, where it was greeted with the highest enthusiasm and responded to with many heartfelt testimonials to the titanic labors which you have performed over a glorious span of 60 years of dedicated services and leadership in the cause of human progress, peace, science and culture.
Already in 1906 in your historic “Address to the Country of the Niagara Movement,” you had perceived the main line of development of our century, and wrote these prophetic words:
“The morning breaks over the hills. Courage brothers! The battle for humanity is not lost or losing. The Slav is rising in his might, the yellow minions are testing their liberty, the Black Africans are writhing toward the light, and everywhere the laborer is opening the gates of opportunity ad peace.”
And so it has come, and is coming to pass. And knowledgeable people everywhere are mindful of the fact that your selfless labors and mighty works have been a powerful contribution to the dawn of our new epoch, the epoch of the final triumph of man over all manner of oppression, discrimination and exploitation.
You (the first Negro to receive the Doctor of Philosophy degree from Harvard University in 1895) are the acknowledged Dean of American letters and most eminent living American scholar.
As editor, sociologist, historian, novelist, poet, publicist, lecturer and organizer you have made enduring contributions. Your life is a monumental example of achievement for all Americans.
For 50 years you have been a tireless champion of the national liberation of the African peoples and new Africa’s wise counselor and “elder statesman.”
For more than 60 years you have been the foremost philosopher, theoretician and practical organizer of the Negro people’s glorious freedom struggle.
You have authored numerous books, each of which is a weapon against colonialism, racism and imperialism, and for the victory of the cause of peace, freedom and brotherhood of peoples.
You have raised your voice powerfully and incessantly against war machinations, for world peace and disarmament, for friendship with the socialist countries and coexistence between the two world social systems.
Your act of joining the Communist Party at this time not only expresses that recognition of the new world reality, of the great turn of the people of the world toward socialism for the solution to mankind’s need for peace, brotherhood and well-being, but it constitutes an invitation and a challenge to men and women of science and culture, to creative thinkers of all countries, to the Negro masses and their outstanding leaders, both here and aboard, to avail themselves of the social science of Marxism-Leninism and the fraternity of the Communist Parties to give new to their cause and their works.
You have chosen to join our Party precisely at the time when with brazen effrontery to the trends of the times, the most backward, ultra-reactionary forces in our country’s national life have temporarily dragooned the Supreme Court’s majority into upholding the most flagrantly unconstitutional thought-control laws—the McCarran and Smith Acts—designed to muzzle free speech, ban freedom of association, persecute Communists and suppress our Party.
This is symbolic of the personal courage and heroics exercise of social responsibility which have characterized your service and leadership to the people’s cause throughout your life.
Dear Dr. DuBois, welcome in to the membership of our Party! The title of Party member is an honorable and worthy title, worn with pride b the most dedicated and farseeing, the best sons and daughter of the workers and peoples of all lands in the first ranks of the struggle for mankind’s happy future.
With comradely greetings,
Gus Hall
(Reprinted from Fighting Racism: Selected Writings by Gus Hall, International Publishers, 1985)
Black History Month Special
Part of a series on African American communists in US history.Application for Membership in the Communist Party by W.E.B. Du Bois
Gus Hall
Communist Party of the USA
New York, New York
On this first day of October 1961, I am applying for admission to membership in the Communist Party of the United States. I have been long and slow in coming to this conclusion, but at last my mind is settled.
In college I heard the name of Karl Marx, but read none of his works, nor heard them explained. At the University of Berlin, I heard much of those thinkers who had definitely answered the theories of Marx, but again we did not study what Marx himself had said. Nevertheless, I attended meetings of the Socialist Party and considered myself a Socialist.
On my return to America, I taught and studies for sixteen years. I explored the theory of socialism and studied the organized social life of American Negroes; but still I neither read nor heard much of Marxism. Then I came to New York as an official of the new NAACP and editor of The Crisis magazine. The NAACP was capitalist-oriented and expected support from rich philanthropists.
But it had a strong socialist element in its leadership in persons like Mary Ovington, William English Walling and Charles Edward Russell. Following their advice, I joined the Socialist Party in 1911. I knew nothing of practical socialist politics and in the campaign on 1912 I found myself unwilling to vote for the Socialist ticket, but advised Negroes to vote for Wilson. This was contrary to Socialist Party rules and consequently I resigned from the Socialist Party.
For the next twenty years I tried to develop a political way of life for myself and my people. I attacked the Democrats and Republicans for monopoly and disenfranchisement of Negroes; I attacked the Socialists for trying to segregate Southern Negro members; I praised the racial attitudes of the Communists, but opposed their tactics in the case of the Scottsboro Boys and their advocacy of a Negro state. At the same time, I began the stud Karl Marx and the Communists; I read Das Kapital and other Communist literature; I hailed the Russian Revolution of 1917, but was puzzled by the contradictory news from Russia.
Finally in 1926, I began a new effort; I visited the Communist lands. I went to the Soviet Union in 1926, 1936, 1949 and 1959; I saw the nation develop. I visited East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland. I spent ten weeks in China, traveling all over the land. Then this summer, I rested a month in Rumania.
I was early convinced that socialism was an excellent way of life, but I thought it might be reached by various methods. For Russia, I was convinced she had chosen the only way open to her at the time. I saw Scandinavia choosing a different method, halfway between socialism and capitalism. In he United States, I saw Consumers Cooperation as a path from capitalism to socialism, while in England, France and Germany developed in the same direction in their own way. After the Depression and the Second World War, I was disillusioned. The progressive movement in the United States failed. The Cold War started. Capitalism called communism a crime.
Today I have reached my conclusion:
Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.
Communism—the effort to give all men what they need and to ask of each the best they can contribute—this is the only way of human life. It is a difficult and hard end to reach—it has and will make mistakes, but today it marches triumphantly on in education and science, in home and food, with increased freedom of thought and deliverance from dogma. In the end communism will triumph. I want to help bring that day.
The path of the American Communist Party is clear: It will provide the United States with a real third party and thus restore democracy to this land. It will call for:
- Public ownership of natural resources and of all capital.
- Public control of transportation and communications.
- Abolition of poverty and limitation of personal income.
- No exploitation of labor.
- Social medicine, with hospitalization and care for the old.
- Free education for all.
- Training for jobs and jobs for all.
- Discipline for growth and reform.
- Freedom under law.
- No dogmatic religion.
W.E.B. Du Bois
Response by Gus Hall, General Secretary, Communist Party USA
Dear Dr. DuBois:
In reply to your letter of October 1, in which you make application for membership in the Communist Party of e United States, allow me to relate the following:
I read it before our National Board on October 13th, where it was greeted with the highest enthusiasm and responded to with many heartfelt testimonials to the titanic labors which you have performed over a glorious span of 60 years of dedicated services and leadership in the cause of human progress, peace, science and culture.
Already in 1906 in your historic “Address to the Country of the Niagara Movement,” you had perceived the main line of development of our century, and wrote these prophetic words:
“The morning breaks over the hills. Courage brothers! The battle for humanity is not lost or losing. The Slav is rising in his might, the yellow minions are testing their liberty, the Black Africans are writhing toward the light, and everywhere the laborer is opening the gates of opportunity ad peace.”
And so it has come, and is coming to pass. And knowledgeable people everywhere are mindful of the fact that your selfless labors and mighty works have been a powerful contribution to the dawn of our new epoch, the epoch of the final triumph of man over all manner of oppression, discrimination and exploitation.
You (the first Negro to receive the Doctor of Philosophy degree from Harvard University in 1895) are the acknowledged Dean of American letters and most eminent living American scholar.
As editor, sociologist, historian, novelist, poet, publicist, lecturer and organizer you have made enduring contributions. Your life is a monumental example of achievement for all Americans.
For 50 years you have been a tireless champion of the national liberation of the African peoples and new Africa’s wise counselor and “elder statesman.”
For more than 60 years you have been the foremost philosopher, theoretician and practical organizer of the Negro people’s glorious freedom struggle.
You have authored numerous books, each of which is a weapon against colonialism, racism and imperialism, and for the victory of the cause of peace, freedom and brotherhood of peoples.
You have raised your voice powerfully and incessantly against war machinations, for world peace and disarmament, for friendship with the socialist countries and coexistence between the two world social systems.
Your act of joining the Communist Party at this time not only expresses that recognition of the new world reality, of the great turn of the people of the world toward socialism for the solution to mankind’s need for peace, brotherhood and well-being, but it constitutes an invitation and a challenge to men and women of science and culture, to creative thinkers of all countries, to the Negro masses and their outstanding leaders, both here and aboard, to avail themselves of the social science of Marxism-Leninism and the fraternity of the Communist Parties to give new to their cause and their works.
You have chosen to join our Party precisely at the time when with brazen effrontery to the trends of the times, the most backward, ultra-reactionary forces in our country’s national life have temporarily dragooned the Supreme Court’s majority into upholding the most flagrantly unconstitutional thought-control laws—the McCarran and Smith Acts—designed to muzzle free speech, ban freedom of association, persecute Communists and suppress our Party.
This is symbolic of the personal courage and heroics exercise of social responsibility which have characterized your service and leadership to the people’s cause throughout your life.
Dear Dr. DuBois, welcome in to the membership of our Party! The title of Party member is an honorable and worthy title, worn with pride b the most dedicated and farseeing, the best sons and daughter of the workers and peoples of all lands in the first ranks of the struggle for mankind’s happy future.
With comradely greetings,
Gus Hall
(Reprinted from Fighting Racism: Selected Writings by Gus Hall, International Publishers, 1985)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
