alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Karl's last words were "Go on, get out – last words are for fools who haven't said enough."To his housekeeper, who urged him to tell her his last words so she could write them down for posterity.
Jacques R. Pauwels is the author of The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War and would make another useful addition to the analysis of the 2nd World War for the library.http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Good-War-America/dp/155028771A collection of his online articles gives a taste of its contenthttp://jacquespauwels.net/ARTICLES.php"The Power Elite was also divided with respect to the handling of foreign affairs. In the 1930s, the US military had no plans, and did not prepare plans, to fight a war against Nazi Germany. On the other hand, they did have plans war against Great Britain, Canada, Mexico – and Japan.The owners and top managers of many American corporations – including Ford, General Motors, IBM, ITT, and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey, now known as Exxon – liked Hitler a lot; one of them – William Knudsen of General Motors – even glorified the German Führer as “the miracle of the 20th century.”[2] The reason: in preparation for war, the Führer had been arming Germany to the teeth, and the numerous German branch plants of US corporations had profited handsomely from that country’s “armament boom” by producing trucks, tanks and planes in sites such as GM’s Opel factory in Rüsselsheim and Ford’s big plant in Cologne, the Ford-Werke; and the likes of Exxon and Texaco had been making plenty of money by supplying the fuel Hitler’s panzers would need to roll all the way to Warsaw in 1939, to Paris in 1940, and (almost) to Moscow in 1941. No wonder the managers and owners of these corporations helped to celebrate Germany’s victories against Poland and France at a big party in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York on June 26, 1940!American “captains of industry” like Henry Ford also liked the way Hitler had shut down the German unions, outlawed all labour parties, and thrown the communists and many socialists into concentration camps; they wished Roosevelt would mete out the same kind of treatment to America’s own pesky union leaders and “reds,” the latter still numerous in the 1930s and early 1940s. The last thing those men wanted, was for Roosevelt to involve the US in the war on the side of Germany’s enemies, they were “isolationists” (or “non-interventionists”) and so, in the summer of 1940, was the majority of the American public: a Gallup Poll, taken in September 1940, showed that 88 percent of Americans wanted to stay out of the war that was raging in Europe.[3] Not surprisingly, then, there was no sign whatsoever that Roosevelt might want to restrict trade with Germany, let alone embark on an anti-Hitler crusade. In fact, during the presidential election campaign in the fall 1940, he solemnly promised that “[our] boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”[4]That Hitler has crushed France and other democratic countries, was of no concern to the US corporate types who did business with Hitler, in fact, they felt that Europe’s future belonged to fascism, especially Germany’s variety of fascism, Nazism, rather than to democracy. (Typically, the chairman of General Motors, Alfred P. Sloan, declared at that time that it was a good thing that in Europe the democracies were giving way “to an alternative [i.e. fascist] system with strong, intelligent, and aggressive leaders who made the people work longer and harder and who had the instinct of gangsters – all of them good qualities”!)[5] And, since they certainly did not want Europe’s future to belong to socialism in its evolutionary, let alone revolutionary (i.e. communist) variety, the US industrialists would be particularly happy when, about one year later, Hitler would finally do what they have long hoped he would do, namely, to attack the Soviet Union in order to destroy the homeland of communism and source of inspiration and support of “reds” all over the world, also in the US.While many big corporations were engaged in profitable business with Nazi Germany, others now happened to be making plenty of money by doing business with Great Britain. That country – in addition to Canada and other member countries of the British Empire, of course – was Germany’s only remaining enemy from the fall of 1940 until June 1941, when Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union caused Britain and the Soviet Union to become allies. Britain was desperately in need of all sorts of equipment to continue its struggle against Nazi Germany, wanted to purchase much of it in the US, but was unable to make the cash payments required by America’s existing “Cash-and-Carry” legislation. However, Roosevelt made it possible for US corporations to take advantage of this enormous “window of opportunity” when, on March 11, 1941, he introduced his famous Lend-Lease program, providing Britain with virtually unlimited credit to purchase trucks, planes, and other martial hardware in the US. The Lend-Lease exports to Britain were to generate windfall profits, not only on account of the huge volume of business involved but also because these exports featured inflated prices and fraudulent practices such as double billing.A segment of Corporate America thus began to sympathize with Great Britain, a less “natural” phenomenon than we would now tend to believe. (Indeed, after American independence the ex-motherland had long remained Uncle Sam’s archenemy; and as late the 1930s, the US military still had plans for war against Britain and an invasion of the Canadian Dominion, the latter including plans for the bombing of cities and the use of poison gas.)[6] Some mouthpieces of this corporate constituency, though not very many, even started to favour a US entry into the war on the side of the British; they became known as the “interventionists.” Of course, many if not most big American corporations made money through business with both Nazi Germany and Britain and, as the Roosevelt administration itself was henceforth preparing for possible war, multiplying military expenditures and ordering all sorts of equipment, they also started to make more and more money by supplying America’s own armed forces with all sorts of martial material.[7]If there was one thing that all the leaders of Corporate America could agree on, regardless of their individual sympathies towards either Hitler or Churchill, it was this: the war in Europe in 1939 was good, even wonderful, for business. They also agreed that the longer this war lasted, the better it would be for all of them. With the exception of the most fervent pro-British interventionists, they further agreed that there was no pressing need for the US to become actively involved in this war, and certainly not to go to war against Germany. Most advantageous to Corporate America was a scenario whereby the war in Europe dragged on as long as possible, so that the big corporations could continue to profit from supplying equipment to the Germans, the British, to their respective allies, and to America herself. Henry Ford thus “expressed the hope that neither the Allies nor the Axis would win [the war],” and suggested that the United States should supply both sides with “the tools to keep on fighting until they both collapse.” Ford practised what he preached, and arranged for his factories in the US, in Britain, in Germany, and in occupied France to crank out equipment for all belligerents.[8] The war may have been hell for most people, but for American “captains of industry” such as Ford it was heaven."http://www.globalresearch.ca/fall-1941-pearl-harbor-and-the-wars-of-corporate-america/28159
A friendly but realistic critique of the Rolling Jubilee program of Occupy.http://jacobinmag.com/2012/11/the-problem-with-strike-debt/"is purely symbolic." [given the figures and sums involved]"Occupy has inherited a lot of American populism’s obsession with finance as the root of all evil, without connecting it to the rest of the system."…"their call for debt repudiation also seems not to have been fully thought through. The world economy nearly collapsed a few years ago because maybe 10% of debtors were unable to service their debts. If we were to return to something like that, we’d return to the verge of collapse or beyond. And such a collapse wouldn’t hurt just the 1%. Workers’ pensions would be jeopardized. Banks would fail, and millions could lose their savings. Unemployment would rise towards 1932 levels of 25%. If you’re jonesing for systemic collapse in the hope of building something better out of the rubble, then be honest about it. But don’t expect to get much support for the agenda…"The author offers the very practical solution within the system for individuals to escape debt albeit not a collective struggle one – file for bankruptcy.
This article on the 1907 banking crisis written on the eve of the establishment of the Fed Reserve, made interesting reading…definitely a feeling of deja vuhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/sanial/1913/general-bankruptcy.htm"Of course, the purchasing power of the plutocracy had not been reduced, and that class continued in its wasteful habits of luxury. Of the middle class the purchasing power had at first been somewhat affected, but with the recovery of prices its ability to consume was fully restored while its further ability to accumulate surplus profits, though less than formerly, became again an important factor. The whole burden of the crisis fell upon the wage-working class. Its purchasing power, even at its highest, is always very small as compared with the total product of the country. It had been steadily reduced by the rise of prices in the later years of capitalist prosperity. It was now further reduced by enforced idleness. ""In the natural course of capitalist development the Banking Power obtained supreme command over the activities of the nation. In that elevated position it lost all sense of economic responsibility, public duty and moral principle. For the purpose of illicit gain it diverted the immense wealth in its keeping from the beneficent channels of production into the maleficent channels of speculation…Unscrupulous in all its methods, it has corrupted the public powers and made them the instruments of its despotism. In its rough ride over the nation, it has, however, reached a point where it must fall under the weight of its iniquities. Nothing can save it from the consequences of its misdeeds. Its collapse is inevitable. Shall the people — the working people — allow themselves to be buried in the ruins of the banking structure? In their own hands lie the means of their own salvation. The last day of the Banking Power should be the last day of the Capitalist System and the first day of the Socialist Commonwealth."Sadly the system continued to stagger from one crisis to another.
"Nevertheless, it should be plain by now that any speaker from TZM is merely expressing their own opinion and not necessarily the current message which Peter Joseph is attempting to get over. ""James Phillips who describes himself as the Project Co-ordinator for TZM Education."Doesn't the fact that he has an "official" title cloud the issue of stating a personal opinion or whether representing the TZM's overall position. Does he offer a disclaimer for the responsibility of his speech at the beginning of it?
Another link of interest http://singularityhub.com/2012/11/12/1-million-robots-to-replace-1-million-human-jobs-at-foxconn-first-robots-have-arrived/ It seems like there is a possibility that this discussion takes us into the realm of the singularity, where such stuff as nano tech and 3D printing brings the cost of production very close to zero in resources and labour input.
"they probably think we should all speak like Stephen Hawking."With the sophistication of voice synthesisers these days where he could talk like Cary Grant or umpteen other versions, why does he choose to stick to the Dalek?
You may find this link of interest.http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/14-11-2012/122802-robots_food-0/Robots in farming
Our blog SOYMB has touched on this issue a couple of times. Herewhat it said. Foxconn has been heavily hit by labor issues over the past few years. To improve productivity and product quality it has declared it will introduce 1 million robots over the next three years to replace many of its workers – that it equals the number of operational robots worldwide.Once the cost of labor exceeds the cost of deploying robots, it is clear what a company will have as its workforce. Robots can work 24 hours a day, need no incentives to stay or payments to social security, but instead provide better output for routine work with higher efficiency and accuracy. Although the upfront investment is significant, established Chinese companies can afford it.Taking the molding industry as an example, the average salary of a worker is 1,500-1,800 yuan ($230-280; 180-220 euros) a month. Adding the cost for food and accommodation, the total cost for a worker is at least 2,000 yuan a month. As a robot can only execute certain tasks, 20 percent of the work remains to be done by a human worker. With the price for robots ranging between 20,000 and 30,000 yuan, the investment can be usually recovered within one to two years. The prices for robots have fallen as a result of technological improvements and the beginning of mass production. Robots have an average life span of 12-15 years, so the economics for a decision in favor of machines can be compelling.http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2012/01/happy-chinese-new-year.html====================Foxconn already had 10,000 robots and would increase the number to 300,000 next year and a million within three. Wages in the region have risen by around a third over the past year, experts estimate, as the proportion of young workers shrinks and their expectations rise. Manufacturers are seeking to improve productivity, or shift production inland or overseas, as Foxconn has already done, with huge new plants in Chengdu, Chongqing and Zhengzhou and one site in Vietnam.[update, also in the Philippines and now rumours of a factory in the US]"As labour costs rise, companies will have to invest more in automated facilities. But we shouldn't get carried away; there is still a lot of cheap labour out there," said Tom Miller, of Beijing-based economic consultancy GK-Dragonomics.Alistair Thornton of IHS Global Insight, suggesting other companies would follow suit. "Workers can command higher wages and are less willing to settle for lower ones. You can no longer just double your workforce to double your output.""I am suspicious," said Liu Kaiming, of the Institute of Contemporary Observation, which supports workers in Guangdong. "Machines can do it, but think about the cost … overall, workers are still much cheaper. This is probably just for sensational effect, to put pressure on workers."Prof Huang Renmin, director of the institute of labour market research at the China Institute of Industrial Relations, agreed. "This is the trick capitalists use to threaten workers," he said.SOYMB suspects both views have truth. What improved machinery must do for the capitalist, if it is to justify its cost, is to increase the productivity of his workers (his rate of extraction of surplus value from them) to give a rate of profit equal to, or above, the average. The greater the outlay on fixed capital, however, the more dependent such profitability is upon the continuing buoyancy of the economy. But, of course, capitalism is incorrigibly cyclical and unpredictable. Expensive machinery lying idle in a slump represents growing losses for capital, to be set against the profits made in better times. In slumps, too, the real price of labour power is driven down—as we have seen in the first half of the 1980s. This makes more labour-intensive processes relatively cheaper and more profitable, offsetting the advantages of capital-intensive methods. Moreover, labour can be dismissed with a week's notice. Machinery can not. These considerations have made capital particularly slow to introduce automation, especially when wages are low. Capitalism is in a bind – it wants to use as much labour as it can as little as possible.http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2011/08/chinese-capitalism.html
A slightly better link to Occupy strategy and Debt.http://inthesetimes.com/article/13984/you_are_not_a_loan/Is a campaign against debt in part an argument for a stronger welfare state?Jodi: Debilitating medical and student debt are the result of a market approach to medicine and education. So if Strike Debt grows, we could see demands for free healthcare and free universities. Once people stop thinking of banks as entitled to interest and fees, then we may also decide as a society that public sector workers, pensions and basic infrastructures are more important than playing the bankers’ game.Mike: Strike Debt could serve as the basis for a campaign to reestablish education, health, civic infrastructure and income maintenance as part of our basic commons, not to be auctioned off for the benefit of the few……..Occupy has to this point resisted making demands. But could a broad demand for something like debt cancellation advance the movement at this stage?Pam: Many of us believe that cancellation of some sort is inevitable; the question is who will have their debts canceled and who will not. But I don’t think we’ll see one demand, even as it relates to debt, coming out of Occupy.Pete: One year into the movement, we need to sustain the bonds that have been forged between Occupiers working on different issues in different parts of the world. How do we do this without demands? We shouldn’t be afraid of raising “mini-demands” under the broad banner of Occupy, whether we are student debt resistors or environ- mental activists fighting nuclear power. Together, we are all demanding a more just and sustainable world….
However over 2 million pledged to vote for Jesus in the election. How many actually did, who knows.One aspect that the WSPUS should consider is the actual mechanics of the write-in vote which isn't universal in America and rules vary from state to state even for those that permit it. Be a useful link to provide for future elections. SOYMB blog recommended a write-in if the state permitted it on a couple of posts.This evangelical website summarises the rules and regulations for write ins. A double-check would be in order and the information used for the next election.http://votingforjesus.com/writein.htmGary Johnson of the Libertarians got a million votes, Jill Stein of the Greens half a million.
i read the latest stunt being advocated in the US is to buy and then right off the debt, a jubilee, as the original meaning of the word was.http://www.alternet.org/occupy-buy-and-relieve-peoples-debtIt is, of course simply a publicity stunt, with no practical application. According to the Federal Reserve, median household debt in America has risen to over $75,000. In credit card debt alone the figure is $798 BILLION . Outstanding student loan is a TRILLION dollars. 8 MILLION Americans are in mortgage arrears.It is linked to call for a government bail-out of debters rather than a challenge to the existence of capitalism. That has to be the aspect we concentrate upon. There's no solution without abolition.
"Led by the State?" and did they "precede" a genuine shift in attitudesNot always the case is it. Anti-smoking legislation was the result of decades of campaigning by health professionals. Womens groups were in the forefront of highlighting and demanding legal protection for wives and other women. Health and safety regulations the result of lobbying by trade unions and again health professionals.Environmental laws are another area that appear to be State originated within the government departments but arise from researchers and scientists. Its not so much they are repealed when its suits them, its more they are forgotten, the inspectors re-assigned.Certainly in regards to workers health and safety, there is a general move by employers to relax the enforcement of them on grounds of "red tape" holding back the "recovery".Others are seen by the capitalists as social benefits passed in the past such as public health sanitation and food safety laws. The advantage to the ruling class as a whole takes precedence over the disadvantage of one section. Its why the rich always argue about where government spending should go to.I understand what you are saying. We have laws about racial language. In Scotland, traditional football songs have been banned for their religious inflamatory lyrics. Not supported by the bigoted fans who insist their freedom of speech is being infringed, as do the EDL in regards to their anti-Islam protests, but it's accepted as reasonable proscriptions on public behaviour by the majority and the State accused of becoming the Nanny State.
i wouldn't tar the whole of Occupy with the same brush but there is a definite trend of so-called working groups appearing to represent Occupy opinion. I have no idea just under what authority of the general assemblies they have to speak for Occupy as a whole.I think we were worried about the undemocratic entryism of Trots into Occupy but it seems that the economists are more successful in providing Occupy with a reformist direction. The crisis was avoidable and is also solvable, just change the rules of the stockmarket and some banking legislation and, hey presto, we end inequality and poverty. A return to the American Dream. Capitalism is being presented as a system that can be tamed rather than economic system which is inherently unstable and chaotic. Changes such as retrrn to Glass-Steagall or a Volckner Rule are called for as if would have managed to stop past recessions…the Dot Com Bubble, the Asian Tiger Bubble. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_slumpWhile some in Occupy demand a capitalism without crisis we must emphasis that capitalism causes hunger death and pestilence… it is the system that unleashes the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse. The exploitative nature of capitalism has to be repeated ad nauseum.At times, i wish i had the academic technical skill to refute particular reforms.
