Economic Aspects of "Love"

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:30 pm

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/?i ... lack_girls
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/ar ... ack_girls/

January 5, 2012

Brilliant Video Explains the (Racist) Sh*t White Girls Say to Black Girls

First there was Shit Girls Say (see also here and here), which was followed by the more realistic/less sexist Real Shit Girls Say. Now the meme has reached its peak with Shit White Girls Say... to Black Girls, in which Franchesca Ramsey points out all the subtly (and not so subtly) racist things white women often say to their black friends. It is brilliant. Watch it, now, and share with your friends.




American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:40 pm

Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:08 pm

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/20 ... -policing/

HOMOPHOBIA AS GENDER POLICING

by Lisa Wade from Sociological Images, Nov 4, 2010

In Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School C.J. Pascoe explains that taunts of “fag” aren’t really about homosexuality at all, but instead about policing the boundaries of masculinity:





For a pretty scary example, see our recent post in which Yankees fans ganged up on two teenage Red Sox fans using homophobic language.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:16 am

Excerpted from: http://shesamarxist.wordpress.com/quote ... sreadings/

Harry Cleaver – Reading Capital Politically


…Marx’s view of the world. Not only did he repeatedly insist that capital was a social relation of classes, but he also explicitly stated that at the level of the class the so-called economic relations were in fact political relations:

Every movement in which the working class comes out as a class against the ruling classes and attempts to force them by pressure from without is a political movement. For instance, the attempt in a particular factory or even a particular industry to force a shorter working day out of the capitalists by strikes, etc., is a purely economic movement. On the other hand the movement to force an eight hour day, etc., law is a political movement. And in this way, out of the separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing a general social force of compulsion. (51)

Since the class is not monolithic but is divided — capital rules by division — the examination of such struggles necessitates an analysis of the different sectors of the class and their interrelations, especially how the struggles of one sector are, or are not, circulating to other sectors. It is only through a circulation of struggles, in which those of various sectors of the class interlink to become complementary, that real unity against capital is achieved. Without such complementarity, “class consciousness” is only an ideological gloss; with it, “class consciousness” is superfluous.

...the only way for capital to achieve its need for the controllable homogeneity of abstract labor is, paradoxically, through the imposition of heterogeneity, through the division of workers. It is only by dividing and pitting one group of workers against another that capital can prevent their dangerous unity and keep the class weak enough to be controlled. The contradiction between capital’s efforts to unify the class as labor-power through division and workers’ efforts to overcome these divisions to unite against capital is one of the most fundamental and most important characteristics of the class struggle.

In the application of its divide-and-conquer strategy, capital has always used historically given divisions that it inherited from the past, for example, divisions between races, between sexes, between age groups, between ethnic or nationality groups. At the same time, it has transformed, developed, and added to these divisions in innumerable ways. For example, all the so-called technical divisions of useful labor are also divisions of the working class, designed to keep it under control. Thus, we discover in Chapters 13 to 15 of Volume I of Capital that the key to capital’s success in maintaining control over the productive power of cooperation — of the collective laborer in the factory — is its ability to impose a hierarchical wage division on workers that is associated with a certain division of useful labor and that pits them against each other. Similarly the larger divisions of labor, such as the division between town and country, the colonial division of labor, and the division of labor between industrial branches, all serve to divide the working class and help control it. The “division of labor in manufacture,” Marx writes, “on the one hand it presents itself historically as a progress and as a necessary phase in the economic development of society, on the other hand it is a refined and civilized method of exploitation.”26

The wage hierarchy, which is critical to capital’s control of the factory, also plays a crucial role in the larger social factory. Because the money wage as the exchange-value of labor-power is the most fully developed form of exchange between capital and labor, its presence or nonpresence is fundamental to determining both the relation of various parts of the working class to capital and the relations among those parts themselves. The work by Wages for Housework has brought out that in the discussion of the reserve army in Chapter 25 the basic division between the “active” and “reserve” sectors of the class is a division between a waged sector and an unwaged sector. Marx’s own discussion of the key role of the unwaged reserve army in controlling the waged labor army shows how the waged / unwaged division is fundamental. Further work has brought out how all the so-called noneconomic divisions, such as racial, sexual, or national divisions, are also hierarchical divisions and basically wage divisions (in this sense even the hierarchical income divisions of the unwaged are “wage” divisions).27

Capital maintains its control through the dynamic manipulation of these divisions. For example, the success of one sector of the working class in achieving higher wages is used by capital, where possible, to accentuate the wage hierarchy. In this process we can see the intensely political character of this issue within the class struggle. Again and again Marx pointed out how capital quite consciously uses these divisions to maintain control over work as abstract labor. One of his most instructive discussions of this process is worth quoting at length.

Some basic aspects of working-class organization are suggested by this analysis. Because the divisions are hierarchical ones, there are always dominant and dominated sides. In these circumstances the divisions have worked where capital has been able to play on the dominant side’s profiting from the division. The divisions are not imaginary or simply ideological ones that can be overcome with “class consciousness.” Men do benefit from women’s work; whites do benefit from blacks’ lower status; local workers do benefit from immigrant workers’ taking the worst jobs. Therefore, the struggle to destroy the divisions generally finds its initiative in the dominated group, since the other side cannot be expected to always work to destroy its privileges. The efforts to overcome racism, sexism, imperialism, or the exploitation of students in the 1960s were led by the struggles of blacks not whites, women not men, peasants not Americans, students not professors or administrators. It was on the basis of these autonomous efforts that the struggles circulated to other sectors of the class, recomposing the structure of power. To subvert the autonomy of such sectors, as the Left and the unions generally try to do by dissolving them into their own hierarchical organizations, can only act to perpetuate the divisions useful to capital. The actuality of autonomy complicates the meaning of working-class homogeneity against capital. It suggests that working-class unity must be understood as being indirect like the homogeneity of capital (malleability through division). In other words, working-class unity is often achieved only indirectly through complementarity in the exercise of power against capital by different sectors of the class involved in the struggle, not in terms of the illusory kind of direct homogeneity of Leninist institutions.




Selma James – Race, Sex and Class


“There has been enough confusion generated when sex, race and class have confronted each other as separate and even conflicting entities. That they are separate entities is self-evident. That they have proven themselves to be not separate, inseparable, is harder to discern. Yet if sex and race are pulled away from class, virtually all that remains is the truncated, provincial, sectarian politics of the white male metropolitan Left…Let’s put the relation of caste to class another way. The word “culture” is often used to show that class concepts are narrow, philistine, inhuman. Exactly the opposite is the case. A national culture which has evolved over decades or centuries may appear to deny that society’s relation to international capitalism. It is a subject too wide to go into deeply here but one basic point can be quickly clarified.”

“The life-style unique to themselves which a people develop once they are enmeshed by capitalism, in response to and in rebellion against it, cannot be understood at all except as the totality of their capitalist lives. To delimit culture is to reduce it to a decoration of daily life.3 Culture is plays and poetry about the exploited; ceasing to wear mini-skirts and taking to trousers instead; the clash between the soul of Black Baptism and the guilt and sin of white Protestantism. Culture is also the shrill of the alarm clock that rings at 6a.m. when a Black woman in London wakes her children to get them ready for the baby minder. Culture is how cold she feels at the bus stop and then how hot in the crowded bus. Culture is how you feel on Monday morning at eight when you clock in, wishing it was Friday, wishing your life away. Culture is the speed of the line or the weight and smell of dirty hospital sheets, and you meanwhile thinking what to make for tea that night. Culture is making the tea while your man watches the news on the telly.

And culture is an “irrational woman” walking out of the kitchen into the sitting room and without a word turning off the telly ‘for no reason at all.’”

“Our identity, our social roles, the way we are seen, appears to be disconnected from our capitalist functions. To be liberated from them (or through them) appears to be independent from our liberation from capitalist wage slavery. In my view, identity-caste-is the very substance of class. Here is the “strange place” where we found the key to the relation of class to caste written down most succinctly. Here is where the international division of labour is posed as power relationships within the working class. It is Volume I of Marx’s Capital: Manufacture . . . develops a hierarchy of labour powers, to which there corresponds a scale of wages. If, on the one hand, the individual labourers are appropriated and annexed for life by a limited function; on the other hand, the various operations of the hierarchy are parceled out among the labourers according to both their natural and their acquired capabilities. (Moscow 1958, p. 349)“

“In two sentences is laid out the deep material connection between racism, sexism, national chauvinism and the chauvinism of the generations who are working for wages against children and old age pensioners who are wageless, who are dependents. A hierarchy of labour powers and scale of wages to correspond. Racism and sexism training us to develop and acquire certain capabilities at the expense of all others. Then these acquired capabilities are taken to be our nature and fix our functions for life, and fix also the quality of our mutual relations. So planting cane or tea is not a job for white people and changing nappies is not a job for men and beating children is not violence. Race, sex, age, nation, each an indispensable element of the international division of labour. Our feminism bases itself on a hitherto invisible stratum of the hierarchy of labour powers-the housewife-to which there corresponds no wage at all.”

“The social power relations of the sexes, races, nations and generations are precisely, then, particularized forms of class relations. These power relations within the working class weaken us in the power struggle between the classes. They are the particularized forms of indirect rule, one section of the class colonizing another and through this capital imposing its own will on us all. One of the reasons why these so-called working class organizations have been able so to mediate the struggle is that we have, internationally, allowed them to isolate “the working class,” which they identify as white, male and over 21, from the rest of us. The unskilled white male worker, an exploited human being who is increasingly disconnected from capital’s perspective for him to work, to vote, to participate in its society, he also, racist and sexist though he is, recognizes himself as the victim of these organizations. But housewives, Blacks, young people, workers from the Third World, excluded from the definition of class, have been told that their confrontation with the white male power structure in the metropolis is an “exotic historical accident.” Divided by the capitalist organization of society into factory, office, school, plantation, home and street, we are divided too by the very institutions which claim to represent our struggle collectively as a class.”
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:43 am

"They came with the Bible in one hand and the gun in the other.
First they stole gold. Then they stole the land. Then they stole our souls."


--Ginger Hills, Navajo



"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:19 pm

http://www.thecowl.com/2.7830/dorothy-r ... wjf1833Bwc

Dorothy Roberts is a professor of law at Northwestern University and author of the book Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty, which won the 1998 Myers Center Award for Study of Human Rights in North America.

Torture has been the subject of much of the discussion regarding the confirmation of Michael Mukasey, the new United States attorney general, and whether or not he defined the practice of waterboarding as torture.

In her talk, Roberts explored past and contemporary uses of torture. Roberts drew the parallel between U.S. imperialism and white supremacy, saying the U.S. torture of foreigners is done to maintain U.S. supremacy just as violence is done to minorities to maintain white supremacy.

"Listening to her talk was a solidification and expansion of subjects I have already been thinking about and doing research on," said Dr. Mary Bellhouse, a professor of political science who teaches a capstone course on visual culture and power. Bellhouse said she is considering including the essay or the tape of the Academic Media Service recording of the lecture into one of her classes.

Roberts claimed that racial violence creates a racial hierarchy and that the justification for torture, which is being used by the United States, reinforces that hierarchy. She discussed the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and drew parallels to the lynchings that occurred for decades after the Civil War.

"It is not only that race produces torture, torture also produces race by physically forcing black victims into the most subservient posture inscribing their political position in the racial order," said Roberts.

Roberts began her discussion of the violence African-Americans endured by stating that once slavery was abolished, lynching was used to reassert white supremacy.

Roberts said lynching was a form of torture because the first stage of lynching was usually whipping and burning in order to obtain a confession. According to Roberts, the hanging was not the worst part of the lynching since the people's bodies were mutilated prior to being hanged.

Roberts also addressed American and European actions in the colonization of Africa and Asia. She mentioned the atrocities committed in the Filipino Insurrection and the torture tactics used in the Vietnam War to further her point on race and torture.

"There is something about the bodily subjugation and predication of torture that is parallel to the idea that we can classify human beings into biologically distinct people that fall into a hierarchy," said Roberts.

At the talk, the political function of torture was examined by Roberts, who said U.S. lawyers try to define torture so they can commit as much physical pain as possible and that high government officials are involved in the legal strategy for torture.

"Torture is painstakingly defined and defended by the elite legal establishment," said Roberts, who also questioned whether soldiers being convicted for prisoner abuse are the rogues they are convicted as or whether they were following orders.

Torture, according to Roberts, perpetuates the racialized view of who the criminal is. The person torturing the victim is seen as the civilized person and the person being tortured is seen as inferior.

"The act of lynching African-Americans, brutalizing colonized natives, and torturing Muslims thus validates the belief in their dangerous propensities," said Roberts.

Roberts ended her talk by saying that she believed that torture will not be eradicated until racism is eradicated.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:41 am

Image

http://shesamarxist.wordpress.com/2011/ ... -question/

Race, Gender or Class? The Eternal (ly) Annoying Question

Posted: March 23, 2011 | Author: Sycorax |


I like to say that patriarchy preceded capitalism. However, the moment capitalism begun using patriarchy to weave the proletariat’s chains, patriarchy’s days became numbered. What does this mean? I’ll explain. Capitalism cannot be overthrown without overthrowing patriarchy in the same process. This is a controversial statement. For a long time leftists have argued a chicken and the egg question regarding race/gender and class. The question goes something like this:

“Can we overthrow capitalism without ending patriarchy/racism? Can we end racism/patriarchy without ending capitalism?”

The background to this question stems back to whether race and gender had to be addressed or if it was good enough to speak about class broadly without directly challenging racism, sexism and the oppressive gender binary. Old white leftist dudes argued that class came first, and that sexuality, gender and race were all secondary contradictions, they were not the prophesied kryptonite destined to strike a fatal blow to capitalism. Class struggle, they proclaimed, and class struggle alone (waged by workers—usually white and male) were the ONLY stakes that could drive a stake through capitalism’s big ugly heart—by striking at the point of production, these struggles had the power to challenge all relations of exploitation. Around the world, womyn of color and people of color in general responded to the racism and sexism of a white male left by dismissing Marxism as the pseudo-science of old white dudes. Divisions within all these different movements were quickly seized upon and capitalism moved in to co-opt everybody’s struggle.

Today, the profound interconnectedness of race and gender to class is undeniable. And yet, the left is as clueless as ever.

Racists everywhere have heralded the dawn of a post-racist society in the age of Obama, and others speak of a post-feminist world where women have gained financial parity with men. Recently, USA today reported that thegendered wage gaphas shrunk to its smallest margin yet. Newspapers in general are quick to report that this economic crisis has hit men hardest, and that we may be entering a period wherein womyn are more likely to be employed in the paid workforce than men.

The cutting edge of feminist theory posits that there is no womyn subject to speak of, only a series of performances and a discourse that we can disrupt by merely subverting norms and rejecting humanism. These ideas are purposely convoluted to hide the superficiality of their analysis. Many of these theorists are only interested in saying race and class as part of their drum-roll of ism’s they have to touch on or risk critique by other theorists. In reality, the emphasis on discursive deconstruction by feminist and queer academics reveals their separatist politics: they believe in the separation of gender from class, gender as a belief system, with no material basis in society.

On the other hand, today’s left rhetorically acknowledges that race and gender cannot be subordinated to class, but in practice, these elements remain as separated as ever. In order to get a better understanding of what all of this means, we must begin to dig much deeper than merely saying that all oppressions are related. Now more than ever, there is a basis for understanding the material interconnectedness of these systems of oppression, as part of the totality of capitalist social relations.

The Problem with the Chicken & Egg Debate

The debate between whether to prioritize race/gender or class is flawed in two ways. First, it assumed that class was not inherently raced and gendered, which I would argue is wrong. The history of capitalism is the history of a class system that has almost always been stratified along lines of gender, race and sexuality. Second, it sees revolution as an event and not a process of transformation. Viewing revolution in this way assumes that it is some static objective (seize the state!/smash the state!) that is not necessarily interwoven with the subjective forces that accomplish it, so it can be accomplished by a small group of people for the whole, or sections of the class for the whole, etc. How the objective is understood determines where the emphasis is put, whether the objective is seen as a moment: (seize/smash the state!) which may or may not involve or require all kinds of people’s participation, versus a process of transformation wherein social relations of power are challenged and new horizontal modes of power are developed through that process of struggle. As Martin Glaberman points out, Marx saw the revolution as that which produces the new people, or the new socialist society:

There’s an early article and this comes from a different book where Marx says in order to create a new society we need new people. New people are created in activity and we need a revolution not only because the old ruling class can only be overthrown in a revolution, but you need a revolution in order to transform the people making it. So they become qualified to create a certain society. That’s clearly the reverse of what most Marxists think. Most Marxists think you have to change people. You have to convince them and then you make a revolution, but Marx says no. You make a revolution and that will change them.

The two problematic viewpoints (viewing revolution as a single moment, and separating gender/race and class struggle) are in my opinion, related. I’ll explain how.

Race and gender were used deeply and profoundly by capitalism to expand and strengthen itself. Once seized upon by capital, gender and race were used in ways that shaped the world, because they were the mediating factors that determined the shape of its development. As Silvia Federici has written: “capitalist production enhances cooperation in the organization of work, it accumulates differences and divisions within the proletariat through its organization of social reproduction”.

What does this mean? It means capitalism develops the world into a system with an ever expanding division of labor, where certain labors are valued less than others. Race and gender have been the strongest factors determining the shape of that division of labor, so much so that today the lowest rungs of the global division of labor are inhabited by womyn of color. Some argue that womyn of color now constitute, or will soon constitute the majority of the world’s workers, paid and unpaid. Womyn of color all over the world are the worker of choice for capitalists who correctly identify them as the most exploitable workers, because they are located at the bottom of a nexus of structural oppressions.

Race, gender and class are not merely ideological concepts or discursive categories we can subvert through deconstruction. They are words that describe the material contours of power in the social fabric of our world. Its important to note that while capitalism can elevate certain tokens into positions of power, it cannot structurally reorganize the system as a whole. We will not soon see a capitalist economy where black workers are more valuable than white workers, or where womyn workers as a whole are more privileged than men workers.

Furthermore, in the industrialized world, womyn’s ‘progress’ in the paid workforce has been largely on the backs of other womyn (mostly undocumented immigrant women nannies and housekeepers). I would surmise that gains won by the second-wave feminist movement are slowly being eroded below the surface, as nannies are often the first to go when economic crisis hits. As paid domestic work becomes more unaffordable for womyn from upper strata, undoubtedly gender antagonisms between womyn and men as a whole will sharpen. As writers like Evelyn Nakanno Glen have pointed out, the racial division of reproductive labor has largely worked to enable white women to progress without having to challenge the gendered division of labor within their own home (i.e. womyn of color have allowed white womyn to enter the paid workforce without having to challenge their male partners to take up a greater share of reproductive work).

Second-wave feminism’s failure to deeply challenge the unequal gendered division of labor therefore has lead to a situation where womyn continue to be responsible for 80% of domestic work, even though their participation in the paid workforce now equals that of men’s. I believe that the result of all of this will be waves of increased policing of sexuality, homophobia and domestic violence, all hallmarks of increased instability in the home and an increased desire and/or need to police boundaries and reimpose order (both by the capitalist class structural adjustments and by the working class upon itself).

Similarly, the newspapers have all reported a dramatic shrinkage and destruction, all within a very short period, of any black middle class to speak of.This should remind us that all privilege within capitalism is relative, and is always in relation to others. At the end of the day if white workers are suffering, you better believe that black workers will fall in relation to them.

What I believe this begins to demonstrate is that the capitalist system we have is deeply racist, patriarchal and heterosexist. Furthermore, these groups, and terms, are relative, and describe places within a totality of social relations. The history of capitalism is the history of a system that has developed through seizing upon differences and weighing them differently, creating inequalities that perpetuate competition and facilitate exploitation. As capital uses these inequalities and differences to expand itself and develop the world, it shapes everything and everyone in its own image.

Capitalism developed through these systems, and is structured in ways that represent that growth. To overcome racism, heterosexism and sexism, is in many ways is to overcome the identity categories of race, gender and sexuality altogether. These categories can only be overcome when those who currently inhabit them, build power and overthrow the systems that oppress them.

What would a global revolution waged by the working class look like? If you believe, as I do, that the working class must make revolution for itself, and that the future society we want can only be made collectively through a process of struggle and cooperation, then patriarchy will have to be destroyed in order to make revolution because patriarchy is part of the oppressive structure holding large sections of the global proletariat in their exploited position as workers. As I will argue in subsequent posts, racism and patriarchy are so interwoven into capitalism that they cannot be eroded they must be overthrown along with it.

This is why I think the overthrowing of the category of working class in many ways will reflect a necessary overthrowing of the categories gender, race and sexuality. When I say overthrow these categories, I mean in their violent incarnation, as categories that describe or reflect specialized socialization, through the violent exclusion and suppression of others. Just as the working class ceases to be the working class once it overthrows its relation to capital, what will it mean to be a womyn once we no longer accept sexual relations that mirror property relations, and no longer accepts privatized reproductive work as being the responsibility of individuals as opposed to collective society? What will it mean to be queer once we no longer live in a heterosexist society whose cellular model of social organization is the reproductive nuclear family unit?

One only needs to look at Mary Tyler Moore and the I Love Lucy Show to see how dramatically culture can change once material changes are facilitated (such as the dramatic integration of womyn into the paid workforce). Racism, sexism and homophobia are reflections of material inequalities structured into capitalism, and they must be undone in a process of struggle in order to overcome capitalism. I will get into why that is in the next section, on the division of labor.

The Division of Labor i.e. how Womyn, People of Color, and Queers are ‘made’

Once we understand capitalism as a system that works through an ever expanding division of labor along gendered and racial lines, it helps us to conceptualize how this process occurs if we want to understand how to eventually undo these divisions. Marx discusses the historical development of capitalism’s division of labor in his discussion of how manufacture arises within early capitalism. I think his overview of this process is extremely instructive if we believe that to overcome capitalism and get to communism, we must actually overcome commodity relations in production, versus just in circulation (which would mean just nationalizing all industries, or socialism).

Commodity production relations are characterized by production for exchange, this assumes a division of labor in society where each piece of society produces only one particular piece of the totality of what society uses and needs. Capitalism creates its own grave diggers by expanding the division of labor,bringing previously isolated and self-contained communities into relation to one another, essentially creating a worldwide web of interdependence. Think of your own life, you depend on thousands of people around the world for the products you use, wear and eat. Your grapefruit was grown by people in another country, your computer was assembled halfway around the world, etc. We are all brought into a system of mutual dependence because no one region or community is self sustaining in and of itself. Everyone is exporting and importing.

In Chapter 14 of Capital Marx describes how manufacture develops under capitalism. Marx says that in industrializing capitalism, manufacture develops once capitalists begin to bring together many different independent ‘handicrafts’ or stand-alone trades, so that they are all done together under the same roof. So for example, lets say the production of a wheelbarrow. Before, or at early stages of industrialization, the wheelbarrow parts are produced independently in separate stand-alone shops.

So before manufacture, you have a collection of different trades producing independently, each trade can stand alone because it doesn’t produce just one kind of product. A carpenters who produces wheelbarrow parts also produces other wood products or parts. Steel workers who make screws but also other kinds of steel products as well. Each of these, carpenter, and steel worker, have their own little independent hustle. To make the wheelbarrow you’d have to buy a piece from each of these tradesmen. Capitalism changes all of that with the development of manufacture.

Capitalists bring these independent trades together, under one roof. Why? Its more economical to have your own in-house steel worker, your own in-house carpenter. Each of these workers are more efficient because they are specialized steel workers, focused solely on steel work as part of the production of wheelbarrows. After a while, these independent trades become so specialized in their work producing a particular part of a whole that they no longer can be stand-alone trades. They are not steel workers. They are screw-makers.

Once these trades fused together, they could not be taken apart, because each trade is so specialized and tailored, that it is meaningless outside of that totality. The steel workers can no longer be independent steel handicraft workers, making some steel for car production, other steel for wheelbarrow production, etc. They only do one kind of steel making. There has been a one-sided development of their skill, making them dependent on other workers in order for their craft to be useful. They have become highly specialized in one piece of a larger division of labor, steel shaping for WHEELBARROWS, and that is the only kind of work they do. Once you are doing one specialized area of work with your trade, you begin to refine your skills to do that one kind of work, to the detriment and exclusion of every other kind of work you could be doing with that trade.

Over time your skill has become focused, and narrowly developed in this one particular area. Your ability to be useful to a number of people or areas of work has decreased. You entered as an independent stand alone handicraft worker and now you are part of a whole, outside of which you don’t make sense.

This is a good example of how capitalism integrates pieces of existing society into a totality, and that once it does that, it distorts each piece, making each piece an exaggerated specialized piece of the whole, which can no longer stand on its own. In other words, capitalism brings independent pieces into relation with each other, weaving each piece into the totality so much so that each piece is dependent on each other piece. In the process of this specialization, each piece loses a bit of its well roundedness, and gains a degree of expertise in its own narrow area of work.

This is a good framework for understanding how a revolutionary process overcomes race and gender.

Marx also notes that within the division of labor there emerges a hierarchy of labor-powers, meaning some areas of specialization are valued by capital differently than others. Capitalism brings us all into relation with one another, drawing larger and larger areas of the world into its orbit, but in doing so, it seizes upon existing hierarchy and difference within societies, and uses those to structure who gets put in what area of the division of labor. The more that capitalism can use existing structures of difference, the more profitable the division of labor becomes. Why? Because the division of labor is partially preferable to the capitalist due to its ability to break up class unity. If we go into an area where there is an ethnic minority, it makes sense to use that ethnic minority exclusively for one area of the division of labor, and to use the rest of the population for another. It makes even more sense to put the light skinned among them in charge as the managers of the whole operation. Why? Because the more difference, physical, religious and cultural, are used as the ‘logic’ of these divisions of labor, they are accepted more deeply into the psyche of the society which after a while learns to internalize these differences as not simply coincidental assignments within a larger division of labor, but as inherent values or characteristics of their particular tribe, gender, ethnic group, sexuality, etc.

Furthermore, it helps quash unity to do this because each is given a bit more privilege based on hir area within the division of labor, but this privilege is ostensibly based on a characteristic that one must define in relation to the lower ones. To identify with those placed on lower rungs within the division of labor, is to admit, on some level, the falsity of your own privilege.

Aside from those psychological obstacles, there is also a skill sharing that takes place, also known as socialization. Socialization based on race, gender and sexuality, is a kind of skill sharing that takes place from an early age and helps to naturalize certain strengths and weaknesses in people, by disguising the fact that most of these skills require a great deal of training on the part of our mothers, teachers, classmates, elders, etc.

So for example, womyn often get socialized to be caretakers, which is a skill that attunes one to have a highly perceptive sense for the emotional energy and health of others. This “sensitivity” on the part of womyn and insensitivity on the part of men is very often cited as proof of the realness of gender. In one sense, it has a truth to it otherwise it would not be so widespread (the idea that men are emotionally illiterate, insensitive, inconsiderate, etc.) To the extent that it is true, that womyn are more nurturing or sensitive, is a product of their being socialized to grow up feeling responsible for the emotions and actions of everyone around them, as the caretakers within the social division of labor. This is not necessarily a bad trait to have, but because it has come to be what is one of the defining traits that are identified with femaleness, men must necessarily disavow those characteristics or risk being called ‘wussy’ or ‘gay’ or what have you.

In my perspective, the process of struggle is also a process in which skill sharing and skill development occurs. This is a humanizing process, in which we learn to destroy gender and race as categories that are intelligible through the redistribution of all of humanities skills and talents, more evenly. It is also a process in which the lower rungs within the division of labor must assert their value forcibly. Because the lower rungs are valued less, the overriding logic of the system is tailored to the needs and perceptions of the higher rungs. This produces a system of internalized colonization in which oppressed people often identify with the thoughts and feelings of their oppressors more than their own selves, where they judge their own people harsher than they judge others, where they use the yardstick of measurement in the status quo to judge their own people, even though it disadvantages them because it is modeled after a system of values that privilege the powerful group. The process of struggle is a humanizing process in which lower rungs in the division of labor must assert their value by asserting their right to shape their own world in ways that validate their own needs as just as special and necessary as those of anyone else. This is necessarily a confrontational process, though it does not have to be negatively confrontational (but almost always will). The assertion of one’s own needs and interests as being important is necessarily a devaluing of the needs and interests of the powerful group, or a refusal to be responsible for the needs and interests of the powerful group, and this will be received violently on the part of those who are used to having their perception of life be validated. However, the working class collectively benefits from this recalibration of reality, even though it may perceive it as violent at the time.

Why? Because in order for the working class to win it must learn to be united. This does not mean it must homogenize and erase its differences. It means that it must begin to recognize that any assertion of importance to any section of the division of labor over all the others, distorts the entire operation. A class divided cannot stand, as those divisions will always be used by the capitalist who will quickly seize upon them and try to use them to break strikes by offering privileges to certain sections at the expense of the others. Furthermore, as Selma James points out: a win for the higher strata within the working class is not necessarily a win for the lower strata and in fact may constitute a loss for both.

Thus, a working class movement involved in overthrowing capitalism, would have to be composed broadly of every sector of the division of labor, in order to avoid this divide and conquer strategy once and for all. In today’s global economy the working class is composed of largely poor and working class womyn of color, who are located at the lowest rung of today’s global division of labor. Debates assuming divisions between class, race and gender have never been so easily debunked by the reality that today’s global proletariat encompasses millions and millions of mostly young womyn of color, engaged in paid and unpaid labor. A struggle against capital must include them, but because of their location within the patriarchal, racist capitalist system, it would also entail challenging those oppressive systems of power, which limit their participation in class struggle. Womyn of color are today’s worker of choice for capital precisely because of their weakened position within class struggle. Capital understands that womyn are less likely to organize unions because they are more likely to get pressure from husbands and because they are usually hamstrung by the disproportionate responsibility placed upon them to take care of children. Capital understands that womyn are more easily intimidated at their workplaces because they are vulnerable to not only being fired, but being sexually harassed, raped and brutalized by their often male managers. Womyn are more likely to agree to doing piecemeal and flexible work because working from home means they can take care of their children while getting work done. Capital also heavily profits from the double profits that come from womyn workers in service industries where womyn are expected to attract more customers and to be sexually available. Inter-competition among womyn on the basis of age and attractiveness is used by capitalist managers, like in Mexico’s maquiladoras where beauty pageants create an air of objectification and competition among the mostly womyn workforce. I could go on and on. The point of all this is to say that for these womyn to rise up and become co-creators in revolution, it would mean challenging each and every one of these obstacles, and thus it would mean the radical challenging of all systems of oppression, patriarchy and racism included.

That is why I say that the development of the capitalist system through the exploitation of sexism and racism structures the proletariat in ways that require the uprooting of sexism and racism itself altogether.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:31 pm

http://www.eroseffect.com/articles/systemisproblem.htm

THE SYSTEM IS THE PROBLEM*

By George Katsiaficas



Recent media attention to the plight of Iraqi prisoners in US custody portrays the brutality of Americans as exceptional and unique. Sadly, such abuse has a long and tragic history, dating at least to the Vietnam War when suspected Viet Cong were routinely tortured with electric shocks and often thrown out of helicopters. Evidence from the Korean War also indicated US violation of norms of decency—if not international law. In the prison camp on Koje Island, Australian journalist Wilfred Burchett documented dozens of cases of medical experimentation, tattooing of political slogans and torture. In the coming weeks and months, as the court martial of enlisted personnel is covered in world media outlets, the Bush administration’s attempt to blame small fry for the excesses of empire will be little more than a smokescreen hiding a much larger problem.

Between the first Gulf War in 1991 and the current rejuvenation of American-led attempts to reduce the Iraqi people and their oil to instruments of global capital, the neoliberal war against Iraq has cost well over one million lives, mainly from the effects of the UN approved embargo but also from the residual effects of the hundreds of tons of depleted uranium weapons left behind by the US.[1] Alongside the current war against Iraq and threat of war against North Korea, Bush and Co. are today waging wars in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and Colombia (where they are using extensive chemical spraying that affects hundreds of thousands of innocent farmers and their families); they have armed Israel and permit it to overrun and destroy Palestinian towns and cities; they are encouraging the revival of German and Japanese militarism and are attempting to overthrow the Chavez government in Venezuela; they have clamped a decades-long embargo on Cuba; they have withdrawn from the International Criminal Court, scrapped the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Kyoto protocols, and refused to sign a new international protocol to the 1972 biological warfare treaty; they seek to develop new genetic weapons,[2] miniature nuclear “bunker-buster” bombs (in defiance of international treaties to which the US is a signatory) and dramatically increased military spending. Most ominously, Bush and Co. have adopted a new “first-strike” strategic doctrine, replacing decades of US policies based on “deterrence” and “containment.”

When I say Bush and Co., I do not refer only to one man and his administration; it is the system that is the problem. Although American media continually celebrate the distance of current US policies of those from Nazi Germany, during World War 2, President George H.W. Bush’s grandfather owned several large corporations that worked for Hitler and the Nazi regime.[3] Americans celebrate their distance from German and Japanese fascism, but immediately after World War 2, US policymakers made Japan and Germany their new best friends—quickly isolating Russia and, after 1949, China—their former allies in the struggle against fascism. In West Germany and Japan, US administrators quickly embraced former fascist operatives, integrating them into US structures of military and economic control. More recently President Bush I and co-workers like James Baker have been involved with the Bin Laden family in the Carlyle group, a well-connected Washington merchant bank specializing in buyouts of defense and aerospace companies.[4] Thus wars in which millions of people have been killed and continue to be killed should be seen as little more than members of the super-rich jockeying for world power.

No matter who sits in the White House, whether George Bush or John Kerry or someone else, militarism has long been and will surely remain at the center of US foreign policy and economic development. The U.S. Congress has been little better than Bush: among other things, it rejected the nuclear test ban treaty signed by 164 nations and has fully endorsed Bush’s foreign policy on every issue. With Congressional funding, the U.S. now has over 250,000 troops in 141 countries—and it is seeking new bases and attempting to install more troops in places like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. In Northeast Asia, 100,000 US troops are stationed indefinitely.

Since 1948, the US has spent more than $15 trillion on the military—more than the cumulative monetary value of all human-made wealth in the U.S.—more than the value of all airports, factories, highways, bridges, buildings, machinery, water and sewage systems, power plants, schools, hospitals, shopping centers, hotels, houses, and automobiles. If we add the current Pentagon budget (over $346 billion in fiscal 2002) to foreign military aid, veterans’ pensions, the military portion of NASA, the nuclear weapons budget of the Energy Department and the interest payments on debt from past military spending, the US spends $670 billion every year on the military—more than a million dollars a minute.[5] The US military budget is larger than the world’s next 15 biggest spenders combined, accounting for 36% of global military expenditures. Although the main problem is obviously the U.S., nearly two-thirds of global military spending today occurs outside the U.S. Japanese and German militarism are being revived, while in South Korea the military budget was increased by 12.7% for 2003 to more than $14 billion.

In a phrase, military madness defines the world today—no matter who sits at the pinnacles of power in national governments. In the following remarks, I hope to clarify the historical character of this disease.

The Historical Pattern of Violence

Beginning in the sixteenth century, peripheral areas were rapidly assimilated into a capitalist world system based in Europe. Before they became organized as nation-states, white European settlers in America committed genocide to steal the land of indigenous peoples. Besides massacring tens of millions of Native Americans, European colonialists enslaved tens of millions of Africans to build up their new empires. Estimates of the number of Africans killed in the slave trade range from 15 to 50 million human beings. From their earliest days, Northern European settler-colonists practiced biological warfare. Lord Jeffrey Amherst, after whom towns in Massachusetts, New York and New Hampshire are named to this day, was celebrated because he devised a scheme to rid the land of indigenous people without risking white lives. He gave Native Americans blankets carrying smallpox virus, wiping out entire villages under the guise of providing assistance. In the century after the American Revolution, nearly all native peoples were systematically butchered and the few survivors compelled to live on reservations.

Have people in the US apologized for and renounced such violence? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Indeed, towns are still named for Amherst, and one of the fanciest restaurants near prestigious Amherst College is today called the “Lord Jeff.” In a similar vein, white European settler-colonists purposely wiped out the buffalo, seeking to deprive native peoples of their primary source of food. Between 1872 and 1874, it is estimated that 3,700,000 buffalo were slaughtered (only 150,000 of them by Native Americans). From 1874 to 1883, as settler colonialism in the West intensified, some 8 million buffalo were massacred. Far from feeling guilty for this form of biological warfare, “Buffalo Bill” staged a “Wild West” circus-style show for many years, touring not only the East Coast of the US but also Europe, at times even including the great Lakota/Sioux warrior chief, Sitting Bull.

In the name of freedom, the US annexed nearly half of Mexico and slaughtered as many as a million Filipinos, 600,000 on the island of Luzon alone. Between 1898 and 1934 US Marines invaded Honduras 7 times, Cuba 4 times, Nicaragua 5, the Dominican Republic 4, Haiti and Panama twice each, Guatemala once, Mexico 3 times and Colombia 4 times. In 1915, over 50,000 Haitians were killed when U.S. troops mercilessly put down a peasant rebellion.[6] Marines were sent to China, Russia, and North Africa—in short, wherever the masters of US imperialism needed them.

The Killing Fields of Asia

Lest we forget history, we must recall that in Asia in the last half century, the US has slaughtered over 8 million people in regional wars so distant from the US mainland that historians refer to this period as the “Cold” War. In just three years, some five million Koreans perished, the vast majority of them innocent civilians. Although cities were routinely reduced to rubble and ash and the US employed biological weapons,[7] it still will neither admit to nor apologize for these actions. Instead it moved the killing fields to Indochina, where it used more firepower than had been used in all previous wars in history combined, killing three million more human beings and leaving millions more wounded or refugees. Chemical warfare, euphemistically called Agent Orange, was systematic and deadly: over 20 million gallons of Agent Orange were sprayed on Vietnam.[8] For every man, woman and child in South Vietnam, the US dropped more than 1000 pounds of bombs (the equivalent of 700 Hiroshima bombs in total), sprayed a gallon of Agent Orange, and used 40 pounds of napalm and half a ton of CS gas on people whose only wrongdoing was to struggle for national independence.[9] The kill ratio per capita in these two Asian wars was about 1000 times that of wars in Central America and even higher than for the more than 200 other US military interventions during the “Cold War.”

To understand these atrocities, we must look to history. As previously stated, in 1945 Japan and West Germany were quickly made into new best friends of the US. The wartime occupation planned for Japan was sent instead to Korea, where at least 100,000 patriots (some say as many as one million) in the southern part of the country were massacred prior to the official outbreak of war in June 1950. Under the US military government, a massacre in Jeju began in 1948 that killed upwards of 30,000 people out of a total population of 300,000 (some estimates place the number of people killed closer to 70,000). When the 14th Regiment and other members of the South Korean military force organized and armed by the US mutinied in Yeosu and turned their guns on the US-sponsored regime, Captain James Hausmann, a US officer, personally led and organized the Rhee government’s suppression of the insurrection, carrying out reprisals against the population of Sunchon, Yeosu, Kure and other cites that have yet to be acknowledged. The killing fields were brought to Jiri Mountain, where official US military documents complained that the men were too tired from using bayonets to kill prisoners.

As previously mentioned, former Nazi and Japanese-collaborators were hired by the United States in both West Germany and South Korea to help maintain order. Thus Nazi intelligence service personnel, German rocket scientists, and Japanese experts in biological warfare became employees of the US government. Of all these men (very few were women), the most notorious is Colonel Ishii Shiro of Unit 731 of the Japanese Imperial Army. Although he personally oversaw wartime experimentation with biological weapons on thousands of prisoners—including American and British POW’s—Col. Ishii was rewarded for his crimes with amnesty, trips to the US and during the Korean War to South Korea, and lived the remainder of his life with honor and prosperity (as did the other members of Unit 731).[10] In exchange for thousands of slides and dozens of interviews, Col. Ishii and his fellow war criminals were promised immunity in 1946 by Gen Douglas MacArthur and granted immunity from prosecution by the government in 1947.[11] US POW’s were compelled to sign affidavits promising to keep secret their treatment by Col. Ishii’s unit—including daily injections of germ agents. Boxes of files detailing Unit 731’s activities were sent back to Japan by the US military prior to a Congressional investigation. Subsequently, in a “complete search of HQ files” an aide to MacArthur assured investigators that there was nothing in the files about Japanese biological warfare.[12] In fiscal years 1951-1953, the US spent more than $345,000,000.00 on bio-war research, money that developed weapons used in Korea during the Korean War.[13] Although the US government denies to this day that it used biological warfare against North Korea, a mountain of evidence weighs against the US—so much so that scientist George Wald, a Nobel prize Laureate, concluded in 1979 that the US had indeed used them.

Less than a week after the official outbreak of war in Korea, the Earl Stevenson Commission issued a report advocating biological warfare’s use. During the war the US Air Force acknowledges that Unit 406 in Yokohama Japan needed 20,000 white mice per month, and that samples of plague, cholera, anthrax, typhoid and dysentery were available to them. On March 31, 1952, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers issued a report charging the US with War Crimes in Korea—including but not limited to biological warfare—and in 1953 an International Scientific Commission confirmed that biological warfare had been used.[14] Moreover, chemical warfare was also employed. According to the New York Times of August 18, 1952, the US had used five times the amount of napalm on Korea as had been used in all of World War 2.

As early as 1950 the US threatened to use nuclear weapons against North Korea, and dams and dikes were bombed—actions that had been labeled “war crimes” in Nuremberg. The US bombed cities and killed columns of civilian refugees routinely; as in Iraq today it abused and tortured prisoners; in short it used all means possible in a vain attempt to defeat Korean people’s aspirations for independence and unification—and it continues to do so. From 1976 to 1993, “Operation Team Spirit” threatened invasion and nuclear war on the DPRK. Every day US planes capable of dropping nuclear weapons approached the 38th parallel and, at the last minute, veer off. For people in the DPRK, the possibility of a US nuclear attack has thus been a daily reality for decades. In the 1980s and 1990s, North Korea reports more than 7900 provocative acts per year, and the US admits to daily high-altitude surveillance flights over North Korea. Over the years since the armistice, at least ten US planes, including an EC 121 spy plane, have been shot down by the DPRK. In March 2003, the US deployed a dozen B-52 bombers and an equal number of B-1’s to the US Pacific territory of Guam, within range of the DPRK.

In South Korea, the US maintains operational control of the country’s military. Under the SOFA agreement, US troops enjoy immunity from prosecution in Korean courts, leaving thousands of crimes against Koreans unprosecuted or poorly adjudicated. In 1980, the US sanctioned the use of elite troops to suppress the Gwangju People’s Democratic Uprising, resulted in hundreds of deaths.

Has the US apologized for such actions? Of course not, but less well known is the fact that the US continues to deny its responsibility for the above actions. In 1958, the Eisenhower administration even charged three journalists with sedition for reporting US biological warfare. To most Americans, all of the above events are forgotten or at best distant history. The obscenity of murder and mayhem visited upon the world by the United States, however, continues unabated—at the very moment when US policy-makers plan for even wider wars—in which Asia will once again be in the crosshairs of US weapons. Like a contagious disease, US military madness is now a global phenomenon, and East Asia’s importance as a market for military goods has been increasing dramatically. After the end of the Cold War, US arms exports rose from $8 billion in 1989 to $40 billion in 1991, and “East Asia’s share of global defence imports by value almost tripled, from 11.4% to 31.7%. In 1988, only 10% of US arms exports went to the region. By 1997, this had increased to 25%.”[15] According to Kim Kook Hun, a Major General and director of the South Korean Defense Ministry’s arms control bureau, 7 of 17 countries in the world with nuclear weapons or weapons programs were in the Asia/Pacific region, as were 16 of 28 with missile programs, 10 of 16 with chemical weapons and 8 of 13 with biological weapons.[16]

With the revival of Japanese militarism, annual military spending there is now second only to that of the U.S., amounting to some five trillion yen (about $40 billion). In the name of “peace” and humanitarian aid,” international deployment movement of its military (banned since 1945) has resumed, and it threatens to develop nuclear weapons.

The Imperial Crusade

The key recognition here is that expansion of the capitalist world system is the fundamental dynamic underlying the military madness and obscene wars of recent history. For two centuries, progressive thinkers and policy-makers guided by “enlightened” values have presided over the system’s most successful expansion. Conventional wisdom holds that increasing core democracy should mean more enlightened policies in the Third World and improvement in the conditions of life for all human beings, but evidence abounds for just the opposite. The American and French revolutions helped propel the nascent world system centered in Europe into a framework of international domination, concentrating military power in nation-states and accumulating the world’s wealth in the hands of giant corporations and banks.

The dynamic of increasing political democracy in the North coinciding with intensified exploitation in the South has a long history. French colonialists in Vietnam provided a particularly graphic example when they placed a copy of the same statue of liberty that France gave to the U.S. (the one now in New York harbor) atop the pagoda of Le Loi in Hanoi. Le Loi was the national leader who in 1418 had helped defeat the Mongols when they invaded Vietnam. Today he is still regarded as a national hero, a man whose mythology includes Hoan Kiem (Returned Sword) Lake, where the golden turtle that gave him the magical sword he used to drive the Mongols out subsequently reappeared to reclaim the sword—a story not unlike that of King Arthur in British folklore. The placing of a statue of liberty on Le Loi’s pagoda certainly was an affront to the Vietnamese, one symbolizing how the spatial extension of the principles of the French Revolution can be brutally offensive to the Third World.

French colonialism was indeed brutal and deadly: Indochinese recall that dead human beings fertilize each tree in the country’s vast rubber plantations. During the great war against fascism, French exploitation of Vietnam was intensified. In a famine from 1944 to 1945, at least a million and a half and possibly two million Vietnamese starved to death in the North (where the population was under 14 million), at the very time rice exports to France were fueling its liquor industry—a blatant disregard for human life in the midst of the war against “fascism.” In American popular culture, President John Kennedy is often associated with the word “Camelot” and remembered for his beautiful wife. Tragically, it was he—one of the most “liberal” U.S. presidents in history -- who ordered massive use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. Similarly, the strongest French imperial expansionists were staunch anti-clerical “progressives” who regarded themselves as ideological heirs of the French Revolution. They were “enlightened” liberals, much like John Kennedy and members of his administration were “enlightened” liberals who believed they were carrying forth in the tradition of the U.S. revolutionary heritage and Manifest Destiny.

Under the direct influence of its great revolution, France proclaimed a crusade against Algerian slavery and anarchy and, in the name of instituting orderly and civilized conditions, was able to break up Arab communal fields of villages, including lands untouched by the “barbarous” and “unenlightened” Ottoman rulers. As long as Moslem Islamic culture had prevailed, hereditary clan and family lands were inalienable, making it impossible for the land to be sold. But after fifty years of enlightened French rule, the large estates had again appeared and famine made its ugly appearance in Algeria.

In the name of civilization and liberal democracy, the British destroyed the communal ownership of village land in India, structures that had sustained local culture for centuries, a communal tradition surviving invasions by Persians, Greeks, Scythians, Afghans, Tartars, and Mongols but which could not, as Fukuyama would insist, resist the perfection of the liberal principles of the British state. Under British enlightenment, large estates developed and peasants were turned into sharecroppers. In 1867 the first fruits of British liberalism appeared: in the Orissa district of India alone, more than one million people died in a famine. Such famines were hardly indigenous to India, with its “backward” traditions (according to European values), but were brought by the “enlightened” liberalism of European democracy, through the spatial extension of the principles of “democratic” capitalism.

These references to history underscore my point that no matter who sits in the White House, the problem is not the person: it is the system. The best of modern US presidents exemplifies my point. JFK’s presidency is regarded today as one of optimism and hope, of peace and prosperity. Yet it was Kennedy who initiated Agent Orange spraying in Vietnam, thereby putting himself in the same category as Saddam Hussein as heads of state who have sanctioned the use of chemical warfare. Indeed, Hussein’s Hallabja massacre pales by comparison: instead of one attack, JFK continued chemical warfare for years, killing and maiming untold thousands of people. During the Cuban missile crisis (precipitated by the US invasion at the Bay of Pigs), JFK took the world to the brink of nuclear disaster as well. Bush’s nuclear threats on North Korea’s decision to develop a nuclear deterrent follow in the footsteps of JFK’s bullying of Cuba. While Kennedy enforced the Monroe Doctrine in the nuclear age, Bush applies it to the whole world.

Civilization or Barbarism?

I have indicated how European capitalist “civilization”—even its most “enlightened” forms—systematically slaughtered native peoples and created a centralized world system that demands militarism as a key organizing principle. If this were simply past history, we could all breathe a sigh of relief. But these very tendencies are today stronger than ever. According to the United Nations, in the 1990s more than 100 million children under the age of five died of unnecessary causes: diarrhea, whooping cough, tetanus, pneumonia, and measles—diseases easily preventable through cheap vaccines or simply clean water. UNICEF estimates that up to 30,000 children under the age of five die of easily preventable diseases every day in the Third World.[17] Kofi Annan declared in 2001 that as many as 24,000 people starve to death every day.[18] Altogether one billion people are chronically malnourished while austerity measures imposed by the IMF have resulted in a drop in real wages in the Third World and declining gross national products in many countries. While 70 percent of the world’s wealth is in the hands of 20 percent of its population, one in ten human beings suffers starvation and malnutrition.

Despite—or more accurately, because of—the spatial extension of liberal values in the period after World War II, there were four times as many deaths from wars in the forty years after World War II than in the forty years prior to World War II. From 1992 to 2002, the world’s total income increased by an average of 2.5% per year. Yet the number of poor increased by 100 million. Of the top 100 biggest economies, 51 are corporations, not countries. The top 1% of the world has the same income as the bottom 57% and the disparity is growing.[19] While the world spends something like a trillion dollars a year on its militaries, one adult in three cannot read and write, one person in four is hungry, the AIDS epidemic accelerates and we are destroying the planet’s ecological capacity to sustain life. The absurdity and tragedy of such a world is made even more absurd and tragic by the profound ignorance and insensitivity of the wealthiest planetary citizens regarding the terrible plight of human beings in the periphery.

In such a world, of course, there can be no lasting peace. As long as the wretched of the earth, those at the margins of the world system, are dehumanized, branded as terrorists, and kept out of decision-making, they have no alternative but to carry out insurrection and wage war in order to find justice. In order to remedy this irrational system, a crucial task is to redefine what civilization means. We know what it is not for the billion or more “wretched of the earth” for whom increasing planetary centralization and dependence upon transnational corporations, militarized nation-states and the international axis of evil mean living hell. With the passing of time it becomes more obvious that this same “civilization” squanders humanity’s wealth, destroys traditional cultures wholesale, and plunders the planet’s natural resources.

The structural violence of an economic system based upon short-term profitability is a crisis that all peace and justice movements will have to address. Even if some of the above irrationalities of the present system are reduced, the structural contradictions of the system will inevitably be displaced to other arenas. As long as vast social wealth remains dominated by the “enlightened” and “rational” principles of efficiency and profitability, there will be militarism, brutal degradation of human lives and unbridled destruction of the natural ecosystem—rather than constructive use of humanity’s enormous social wealth. A few hundred multinational corporations today control this social wealth through the most undemocratic of means and for ends benefiting only a small minority. According to the logic of “enlightened” neoliberal economics, these corporations must either grow or die. Only a fundamental restructuring of the world system can lead us toward an ecologically viable life-world, one in which we decentralize and bring under self-management the vast social wealth of humanity.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* Speech prepared fro delivery at the May 18 Foundation conference on the occasion of the 24th anniversary Gwangju People’s Democratic Uprising. katsiaficasg@wit.edu

[1] Depleted uranium has been used in armor-piercing projectiles because of its extreme density. The Pentagon has admitted that 320 metric tons of DU was left on the battlefields of Iraq but Russian estimates placed the amount closer to 1000 metric tons. DU has a half-life longer than the age of the solar system and has been linked to Gulf War syndrome and thousands of deaths and deformed fetuses in Iraq. A UK researcher estimated that half a million people would die from its radioactivity in Iraq before the end of the 20th century. See Neil Mackay, “US forces' use of depleted uranium weapons is 'illegal'” Sunday Herald, 30 March 2003 (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_040103F.shmtl).
[2] Hartmann, Thom, “The Genetically modified Bomb,” Common Dreams News Center, September 10, 2003, http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0910-15.htm, Anburasan, Ethirajan, “Genetic Weapons: A 21st Century Nightmare?” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Oct. 12, 2003, http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_03/u ... e/txt1.htm.
[3] Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City, which were being conducted by Prescott Bush. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland `` Bunny '' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush. Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corporation, long managed by Prescott Bush and his father-in-law George Herbert Walker, were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act on Nov. 17, 1942. In this action, the government announced that it was seizing only the Nazi interests, leaving the Nazis' U.S. partners to carry on the business. These and other actions taken by the U.S. government in wartime were, tragically, too little and too late. President Bush's family had already played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany; in financing and managing the buildup of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war against the U.S.A.; and in the development of Nazi genocide theories and racial propaganda, with their well-known results. The 1942 U.S. government investigative report said that Bush's Nazi-front bank was an interlocking concern with the Vereinigte Stahlwerke (United Steel Works Corporation or German Steel Trust) led by Fritz Thyssen and his two brothers. After the war, Congressional investigators probed the Thyssen interests, Union Banking Corp. and related Nazi units. The investigation showed that the Vereinigte Stahlwerke had produced the following approximate proportions of total German national output:
50.8% of Nazi Germany's pig iron
41.4% of Nazi Germany's universal plate
36.0% of Nazi Germany's heavy plate
38.5% of Nazi Germany's galvanized sheet
45.5% of Nazi Germany's pipes and tubes
22.1% of Nazi Germany's wire
35.0% of Nazi Germany's explosives
From George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin (Executive Intelligence Review, January 1991). Online at http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
[4] See “The Bush-bin Laden Connection,” by Andrew Wheat, The Texas Observer, 11/9/2001, http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticl ... icleID=480, or do a google search for “Bush Bin Laden” and dozens of sources will appear.
[5] Andreas, p. 39.
[6] See the illustrated book by Joel Andreas, Addicted to War: Why the US Can’t Kick Militarism (Oakland: AK Press, 2002).
[7] International Scientific Commission on Biological Warfare in Korea and China, Report, 1952. Available from Koreatruthcommission@yahoo.com.
[8] Although incredible, this number was understated by half in terms of the amount of dioxin sprayed, according to BBC News. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2954729.stm. “Previous research has found that some Vietnamese have 200 times the normal level of dioxin in their bodies.”
[9] See my edited volume, Vietnam Documents: Vietnamese and American Views of the War (New York: ME Sharpe, 1992) p. 146.
[10] For further information on US/Japanese biological warfare see Hal Gold, Unit 731: Japan’s Wartime Human Experimentation Program (Tokyo: Yenbooks, 1996); Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932-1945, and the American Cover-Up (London: Routledge, 1994); and Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman, The United States and Biological Warfare (Bloomington: Indianan University Press, 1998).
[11] Harris, p. 118.
[12] New York Times, 27 December 1949, p. 16.
[13] Endicott and Hagerman, op. cit., p. 48.
[14] The US tested biological warfare in the early 1960s in South Korea, Okinawa, Egypt and Liberia, using its tests to develop technical expertise subsequently utilized in South East Asia. The government also conducted tests in September 1962 at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado. Governor John Love was denied access to the base while senior Japanese military officers were granted extensive tours.
[15] Tim Huxley and Susan Willett, Arming East Asia (International Institute for Strategic Studies/Oxford University Press, 1999) p. 23.
[16] Michael Richardson, “Fears spread that other Asia nations will seek nuclear arms,” International Herald Tribune, June 6, 2002, p. 5.
[17] “UN Says Millions of Children Die Needlessly” by Elizabeth Olson, New York Times, March 14, 2002, p. 13.
[18] “’Time to Act’ on Hunger, Annan says,” International Herald-Tribune, June 11, 2002.
[19] See Arundhati Roy, “Not Again,” The Guardian, September 27, 2002.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:08 am

http://www.thenation.com/signupad/15473 ... black-ops/
Blackwater's Black Ops

Jeremy Scahill September 15, 2010 | This article appeared in the October 4, 2010 edition of The Nation.



Over the past several years, entities closely linked to the private security firm Blackwater have provided intelligence, training and security services to US and foreign governments as well as several multinational corporations, including Monsanto, Chevron, the Walt Disney Company, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and banking giants Deutsche Bank and Barclays, according to documents obtained by The Nation. Blackwater's work for corporations and government agencies was contracted using two companies owned by Blackwater's owner and founder, Erik Prince: Total Intelligence Solutions and the Terrorism Research Center (TRC). Prince is listed as the chairman of both companies in internal company documents, which show how the web of companies functions as a highly coordinated operation. Officials from Total Intelligence, TRC and Blackwater (which now calls itself Xe Services) did not respond to numerous requests for comment for this article.

One of the most incendiary details in the documents is that Blackwater, through Total Intelligence, sought to become the "intel arm" of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm.

Governmental recipients of intelligence services and counterterrorism training from Prince's companies include the Kingdom of Jordan, the Canadian military and the Netherlands police, as well as several US military bases, including Fort Bragg, home of the elite Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), and Fort Huachuca, where military interrogators are trained, according to the documents. In addition, Blackwater worked through the companies for the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the US European Command.

On September 3 the New York Times reported that Blackwater had "created a web of more than 30 shell companies or subsidiaries in part to obtain millions of dollars in American government contracts after the security company came under intense criticism for reckless conduct in Iraq." The documents obtained by The Nation reveal previously unreported details of several such companies and open a rare window into the sensitive intelligence and security operations Blackwater performs for a range of powerful corporations and government agencies. The new evidence also sheds light on the key roles of several former top CIA officials who went on to work for Blackwater.

The coordinator of Blackwater's covert CIA business, former CIA paramilitary officer Enrique "Ric" Prado, set up a global network of foreign operatives, offering their "deniability" as a "big plus" for potential Blackwater customers, according to company documents. The CIA has long used proxy forces to carry out extralegal actions or to shield US government involvement in unsavory operations from scrutiny. In some cases, these "deniable" foreign forces don't even know who they are working for. Prado and Prince built up a network of such foreigners while Blackwater was at the center of the CIA's assassination program, beginning in 2004. They trained special missions units at one of Prince's properties in Virginia with the intent of hunting terrorism suspects globally, often working with foreign operatives. A former senior CIA official said the benefit of using Blackwater's foreign operatives in CIA operations was that "you wouldn't want to have American fingerprints on it."

While the network was originally established for use in CIA operations, documents show that Prado viewed it as potentially valuable to other government agencies. In an e-mail in October 2007 with the subject line "Possible Opportunity in DEA—Read and Delete," Prado wrote to a Total Intelligence executive with a pitch for the Drug Enforcement Administration. That executive was an eighteen-year DEA veteran with extensive government connections who had recently joined the firm. Prado explained that Blackwater had developed "a rapidly growing, worldwide network of folks that can do everything from surveillance to ground truth to disruption operations." He added, "These are all foreign nationals (except for a few cases where US persons are the conduit but no longer 'play' on the street), so deniability is built in and should be a big plus."

The executive wrote back and suggested there "may be an interest" in those services. The executive suggested that "one of the best places to start may be the Special Operations Division, (SOD) which is located in Chantilly, VA," telling Prado the name of the special agent in charge. The SOD is a secretive joint command within the Justice Department, run by the DEA. It serves as the command-and-control center for some of the most sensitive counternarcotics and law enforcement operations conducted by federal forces. The executive also told Prado that US attachés in Mexico; Bogotá, Colombia; and Bangkok, Thailand, would potentially be interested in Prado's network. Whether this network was activated, and for what customers, cannot be confirmed. A former Blackwater employee who worked on the company's CIA program declined to comment on Prado's work for the company, citing its classified status.

In November 2007 officials from Prince's companies developed a pricing structure for security and intelligence services for private companies and wealthy individuals. One official wrote that Prado had the capacity to "develop infrastructures" and "conduct ground-truth and security activities." According to the pricing chart, potential customers could hire Prado and other Blackwater officials to operate in the United States and globally: in Latin America, North Africa, francophone countries, the Middle East, Europe, China, Russia, Japan, and Central and Southeast Asia. A four-man team headed by Prado for countersurveillance in the United States cost $33,600 weekly, while "safehouses" could be established for $250,000, plus operational costs. Identical services were offered globally. For $5,000 a day, clients could hire Prado or former senior CIA officials Cofer Black and Robert Richer for "representation" to national "decision-makers." Before joining Blackwater, Black, a twenty-eight-year CIA veteran, ran the agency's counterterrorism center, while Richer was the agency's deputy director of operations. (Neither Black nor Richer currently works for the company.)

As Blackwater became embroiled in controversy following the Nisour Square massacre, Prado set up his own company, Constellation Consulting Group (CCG), apparently taking some of Blackwater's covert CIA work with him, though he maintained close ties to his former employer. In an e-mail to a Total Intelligence executive in February 2008, Prado wrote that he "recently had major success in developing capabilities in Mali [Africa] that are of extreme interest to our major sponsor and which will soon launch a substantial effort via my small shop." He requested Total Intelligence's help in analyzing the "North Mali/Niger terrorist problem."

In October 2009 Blackwater executives faced a crisis when they could not account for their government-issued Secure Telephone Unit, which is used by the CIA, the National Security Agency and other military and intelligence services for secure communications. A flurry of e-mails were sent around as personnel from various Blackwater entities tried to locate the device. One former Blackwater official wrote that because he had left the company it was "not really my problem," while another declared, "I have no 'dog in this fight.'" Eventually, Prado stepped in, e-mailing the Blackwater officials to "pass my number" to the "OGA POC," meaning the Other Government Agency (parlance for CIA) Point of Contact.

What relationship Prado's CCG has with the CIA is not known. An early version of his company's website boasted that "CCG professionals have already conducted operations on five continents, and have proven their ability to meet the most demanding client needs" and that the company has the "ability to manage highly-classified contracts." CCG, the site said, "is uniquely positioned to deliver services that no other company can, and can deliver results in the most remote areas with little or no outside support." Among the services advertised were "Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence (human and electronic), Unconventional Military Operations, Counterdrug Operations, Aviation Services, Competitive Intelligence, Denied Area Access...and Paramilitary Training."

The Nation has previously reported on Blackwater's work for the CIA and JSOC in Pakistan. New documents reveal a history of activity relating to Pakistan by Blackwater. Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto worked with the company when she returned to Pakistan to campaign for the 2008 elections, according to the documents. In October 2007, when media reports emerged that Bhutto had hired "American security," senior Blackwater official Robert Richer wrote to company executives, "We need to watch this carefully from a number of angles. If our name surfaces, the Pakistani press reaction will be very important. How that plays through the Muslim world will also need tracking." Richer wrote that "we should be prepared to [sic] a communique from an affiliate of Al-Qaida if our name surfaces (BW). That will impact the security profile." Clearly a word is missing in the e-mail or there is a typo that leaves unclear what Richer meant when he mentioned the Al Qaeda communiqué. Bhutto was assassinated two months later. Blackwater officials subsequently scheduled a meeting with her family representatives in Washington, in January 2008.

Through Total Intelligence and the Terrorism Research Center, Blackwater also did business with a range of multinational corporations. According to internal Total Intelligence communications, biotech giant Monsanto—the world's largest supplier of genetically modified seeds—hired the firm in 2008–09. The relationship between the two companies appears to have been solidified in January 2008 when Total Intelligence chair Cofer Black traveled to Zurich to meet with Kevin Wilson, Monsanto's security manager for global issues.

After the meeting in Zurich, Black sent an e-mail to other Blackwater executives, including to Prince and Prado at their Blackwater e-mail addresses. Black wrote that Wilson "understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit basis protecting the Monsanto [brand] name.... Ahead of the curve info and insight/heads up is what he is looking for." Black added that Total Intelligence "would develop into acting as intel arm of Monsanto." Black also noted that Monsanto was concerned about animal rights activists and that they discussed how Blackwater "could have our person(s) actually join [activist] group(s) legally." Black wrote that initial payments to Total Intelligence would be paid out of Monsanto's "generous protection budget" but would eventually become a line item in the company's annual budget. He estimated the potential payments to Total Intelligence at between $100,000 and $500,000. According to documents, Monsanto paid Total Intelligence $127,000 in 2008 and $105,000 in 2009.

Reached by telephone and asked about the meeting with Black in Zurich, Monsanto's Wilson initially said, "I'm not going to discuss it with you." In a subsequent e-mail to The Nation, Wilson confirmed he met Black in Zurich and that Monsanto hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and worked with the company until early 2010. He denied that he and Black discussed infiltrating animal rights groups, stating "there was no such discussion." He claimed that Total Intelligence only provided Monsanto "with reports about the activities of groups or individuals that could pose a risk to company personnel or operations around the world which were developed by monitoring local media reports and other publicly available information. The subject matter ranged from information regarding terrorist incidents in Asia or kidnappings in Central America to scanning the content of activist blogs and websites." Wilson asserted that Black told him Total Intelligence was "a completely separate entity from Blackwater."

Monsanto was hardly the only powerful corporation to enlist the services of Blackwater's constellation of companies. The Walt Disney Company hired Total Intelligence and TRC to do a "threat assessment" for potential film shoot locations in Morocco, with former CIA officials Black and Richer reaching out to their former Moroccan intel counterparts for information. The job provided a "good chance to impress Disney," one company executive wrote. How impressed Disney was is not clear; in 2009 the company paid Total Intelligence just $24,000."


Continues at: http://www.thenation.com/signupad/15473 ... black-ops/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:54 pm

http://www.coloursofresistance.org/549/ ... can-value/

Sexual Domination in Uniform: An American Value

by Linda Burnham, courtesy of War Times



The Abu Ghraib portraits of sexual humiliation and submission have exposed the unbelievably tangled strands of racism, misogyny, homophobia, national arrogance and hyper-masculinity that characterize the U.S. military. Militarized sexual domination is neither “contrary to American values” nor simply the work of a few “bad apples.” It is, rather, a daily practice.

The “bad apples” defense is both unspeakably inadequate and completely disingenuous.

While narrowing the scope of inquiry to individual transgression may provide a convenient protective shield for the military, it also deflects attention away from very troubling realities. The photos of Abu Ghraib reveal as much about our nation as they do about the soldiers of the 372 nd Military Police Company.

As our president made clear, the intent of the invasion and occupation of Iraq was to bring the Iraqi opposition to its knees. Why then the surprise that soldiers would be thrilled to comply so literally? The scenario in which an Iraqi man kneels with the penis of another in or near his mouth shocked us all. But our leaders’ call for the naked humiliation of Arabs and Muslims was not so muted that only a few stray soldiers heard.

Army Equates Weakness with Female

Iraqi prisoners were made to wear women’s underwear. Those who battled for women’s equal right to serve should take heed. Degradation and weakness are still equated with the female in this man’s army.

Much has been made of the role of Private Lynndie England, the thumbs-up girl of prisoner abuse. Her culpability seems manifest and, back on home turf, England will have to fight for her soul the best way she knows how.

But England is the second cover girl for the Iraq installment of the U.S. military’s sexual integration story. Jessica Lynch was the first. Two fresh-faced, working-class, small-town girls eager to escape the limitations of location and station. Escape they did, into the welcoming arms of an institution that used one to rally the nation, spinning a narrative of the endangered but plucky female, rescued from the dark barbarian hordes. It will use the other as sacrifice to assuage the anxieties of a troubled nation.

In her role as dominatrix over Iraqi men, England exposed the sexualization of national conquest. As a participant in the militarized construction of the masculine she inaugurated a brand new, frightening archetype: dominant-nation female as joyful agent of sexual, national, racial and religious humiliation. How’s that for liberation?

Lynndie England aside, the scenes at Abu Ghraib depict sexual domination as a feature of military hyper-masculinity. The horrific Denver Post revelations of the sexual assault and rape of multitudes of servicewomen are a further indication that sexual domination in uniform is hardly a rarity.

Military Demands Sexual Sacrifice

Our military is built upon the daily subjugation of the sexual lives of thousands upon thousands of women to the sexual appetites of servicemen overseas. Subordinating the national interests of countries the world over to the geo-political interests of the U.S. seemingly requires the sexual sacrifice of some portion of these nations’ women–poor women, always.

Military prostitution is viewed as rest and relaxation, entertainment for the troops. While the purported “goal” of the sexual humiliation of Abu Ghraib prisoners was to extract vital information, the photos tell a more twisted story. The cheery faces tell us that dramatizing the metaphoric rape of the Iraqi nation by acting out the sexual domination of Iraqi men was big fun.

Casting themselves as directors and actors in the drama of sexual humiliation, the prison guards clearly believed that they could do whatever they wished, and thoroughly enjoy themselves in the process. Was it un-American for them to think so? Not when the core message of their commander-in-chief to the Iraqi people has been, in essence, “You will bow down to our capacity to dominate, and we will exercise that capacity despite global opposition.”

The struggle over assigning culpability has taken on the character of a high-stakes political tango. That struggle will intensify. Although there’s no question but that everyone responsible, from the immediate perpetrators on up, must be held to account, culpability runs far deeper.

It may be hard to get up in the morning and face this fact, but we are, collectively, as guilty as hell. We elect representatives who feed the military monster. We honor sadistic hyper-masculinity, awarding those who portray it best with governorships. We devote vast resources to bondage and discipline in our criminal justice system. And we lie to ourselves unceasingly.

The world is weary of, and profoundly angered by, this country’s tattered claim of innocence.

The soldiers at Abu Ghraib pulled back the curtain on their perverse enactments so that we may see who we are. Do we have the courage to look? Do we have the will to change?


Linda Burnham is the executive director of the Women of Color Resource Center in Oakland, Calif.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:18 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/1 ... sfeed=true

Undercover police officers' lies wrecked lives, say women they duped

Legal action lays bare the heartbreaking stories of women who had relationships with men who were not all they seemed

Paul Lewis and Rob Evans
guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 December 2011

Image
Undercover officer Mark Kennedy was exposed when his girlfriend found his real passport.

Police spy Mark Kennedy traces his downfall to a startling discovery by his then girlfriend. In the summer of last year, they were abroad on holiday together when she came across his real passport in the glove compartment of his van, he has said.

She thought she had been going out for years with a committed environmental activist calling himself Mark Stone.

But here was his passport with a different name – Mark Kennedy. Once again he lied and claimed that it was one of many passports he had acquired while he was smuggling drugs, a key part of fake identity.

But the spy's big lie was about to be rumbled. Further investigation by her and her fellow political campaigners established that he was in fact an undercover policeman sent to infiltrate green and anti-war groups for seven years.

That discovery set in train a series of disclosures which have begun to lay bare a covert police operation to infiltrate political groups over the past four decades.

Now comes news of a planned lawsuit which could expose more of a particularly controversial part of that secret operation.

Eight women who say they unwittingly formed intimate long-term relationships with undercover policemen for up to nine years have started legal action against police chiefs.

Their planned lawsuit highlights heartbreaking stories of women who fell in love with men they believed could have been their soulmates.

But they have discovered that those men lied to them for years about their real identities, pasts and backgrounds – a fundamental part of anyone's existence.

They have described how they were betrayed in different ways, both political and personal.

In legal papers, they say the undercover policemen deceived them "by pretending that they were also political activists who shared their values, aims and broad political outlook".

Some of the men are said to have been married at the time and had children, but concealed this part of their life completely from them.

The women do not wish to be named as they want to prevent further intrusion into their privacy and will be asking a judge for anonymity during the legal proceedings. They consider that their private lives have already been grossly invaded in the most intimate way by the police spies.

Two however have previously talked to the Guardian.

One, Laura (not her real name), told her story as she wanted to warn police chiefs that their undercover operation "wrecks lives".

She was an environmental activist who had a relationship in 1999 and 2000 with "Jim Sutton", whom she believed was a fellow campaigner. They had what she called "a blissfully in-love relationship" until he suddenly left to go travelling in Turkey and South Africa.

She was left confused and spent more than a year trying to find him, travelling to South Africa. They met again in a chance encounter in 2001. By then, he had come off his undercover deployment and admitted that he was a policeman whose real name was Jim Boyling.

Laura says he deceived her again by claiming that he was going to quit his job, but never did. She believes that his undercover training enabled him to deceive her again at a time when she was in a state of shock and trauma.

On Friday she said he claimed that "he was a turncoat, had been converted to the cause but was at risk from his employers, in order to create further deceit about his intentions, further entrapping me deeper into a relationship that I would never have entered in the first place".

"The responsibility for the lasting damage this has caused me and our children goes right back to the undercover operation by the Metropolitan police and the training they gave him in the art of duplicity." They divorced in 2008.

Boyling denied any wrongdoing, adding that – as the lawyers for the women "have indicated they intend to bring an action against the Metropolitan police – the proper venue to determine whether there is any truth in the allegations is the court and not the media".

Another, Jenny (also not her real name), had an 18-month relationship in the 1980s with a man who called himself Bob Robinson. But in reality he was Bob Lambert, an undercover policeman tasked with infiltrating animal rights and environmental groups.

She fell deeply in love with him, but he said he had to flee to Spain as Special Branch wanted to arrest him for his political activities. She was heartbroken, but only discovered his true identity this year.

After his undercover work was exposed in October, he apologised to her for tricking her into having the relationship with him, admitting that it was part of an elaborate attempt to make his fake identity more credible. She had not been politically active.

In the legal papers, Harriet Wistrich, the lawyer from the Birnberg Peirce law firm representing the women, says that in the cases of four women, the relationships ended when the men suddenly disappeared.

The men, she says, claimed "variously that they were depressed, that they needed to sort their heads out, that they needed to go on the run from the police, that they wanted a period to go travelling".

The true reason, she says, is that the police spies had been "ordered by their superiors to end the undercover operation".

The depth and breath of the allegations, stretching from 1987 to 2010, directly challenge the claim by police chiefs that their undercover officers are not "under any circumstances" permitted to sleep with the people they are spying on.

Jon Murphy, the chief constable of Merseyside and the police chiefs' spokesman on the issue, told the Guardian in January that it was "never acceptable" and was "grossly unprofessional".

He said: "It is a diversion from what they are there to do. It is morally wrong because people have been put there to do a particular task and people have got trust in them."

More recently, Murphy has said that undercover officers "never" form relationships with the targets of surveillance in order to bolster their fake identity.

Last month, Murphy said: "The reality is from time to time, people will develop relationships that go beyond what they should. It is the responsibility of supervisors to monitor closely and ensure that does not happen."

But the mounting evidence suggests that for years, police chiefs have known about the sexual relationships and either approved of them or turned a blind eye, preferring not to question, for example, where their officers were getting their information from.

Kennedy says he did not tell his superiors about his relationship with one of the women, although he says it was "unrealistic" to believe that they did not know.

Pete Black, an undercover officer who infiltrated anti-racist groups in the 1990s, has said that sex was widely used as a technique to blend in and gather intelligence.

He has described an informal code that the spies should not fall in love with the women – or allow the women to fall in love with them.

In the legal papers, the men are accused of spying on a wide range of anti-capitalist, anti-war and animal rights groups as well as environmental campaigns such as Reclaim the Streets and Earth First.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby crikkett » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:40 am

I don't remember a gay marriage thread?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le2299574/

Ottawa does about-face on same-sex marriage for non-Canadians
kirk makin
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jan. 12, 2012 3:59AM EST
Last updated Thursday, Jan. 12, 2012 8:46AM EST

The Harper government has served notice that thousands of same-sex couples who flocked to Canada from abroad since 2004 to get married are not legally wed.

The reversal of federal policy is revealed in a document filed in a Toronto test case launched recently by a lesbian couple seeking a divorce. Wed in Toronto in 2005, the couple have been told they cannot divorce because they were never really married – a Department of Justice lawyer says their marriage is not legal in Canada since they could not have lawfully wed in Florida or England, where the two partners reside.

Alison Wearing, the daughter of homosexual parents, poses for a photograph at her Stratford, Ontario home Sept. 29, 2011. Studies are showing that children raised in such families are 'better adjusted' than those from traditional families.

The government's hard line has cast sudden doubt on the rights and legal status of couples who wed in Canada after a series of court decisions opened the floodgates to same-sex marriage. The mechanics of determining issues such as tax status, employment benefits and immigration have been thrown into legal limbo.

The two women – professionals in the their early 30s – cannot be identified under a court order. But Martha McCarthy, a prominent Toronto lawyer who represents them, said the government's about-face is astonishing.

"It is scandalous," she said in an interview. "It is offensive to their dignity and human rights to suggest they weren't married or that they have something that is a nullity."

Ms. McCarthy, who played an instrumental role in the fight to legalize same-sex marriage, said Ontario has tried to duck the volatile test case by deferring to the federal government.

"It is appalling and outrageous that two levels of government would be taking this position without ever having raised it before, telling anybody it was an issue or doing anything pro-active about it," she said. "All the while, they were handing out licences to perform marriages across the country to non-resident people."

The latest development threatens to transform Canada from an international beacon for the rights of gays and lesbians to a nation that discriminates against them, Ms. McCarthy said.

Same-sex marriage was effectively legalized by the courts in 2004. A year later, the Liberal government of then-prime-minister Paul Martin passed a bill enshrining it in law. More than 5,000 of the approximately 15,000 same-sex marriages that have taken place since then involved couples from the United States or other countries.

In a response to Ms. McCarthy's court application, federal lawyer Sean Gaudet tied the federal position to two central propositions. First, he said, couples who came to Canada to be married must live in the country for at least a year before they can obtain a divorce. Second, same-sex marriages are legal in Canada only if they are also legal in the home country or state of the couple.

"In this case, neither party had the legal capacity to marry a person of the same sex under the laws of their respective domiciles – Florida and the United Kingdom," Mr. Gaudet stated. "As a result, their marriage is not legally valid under Canadian law."

Under this reasoning, the federal government would recognize the validity of marriages that take place in Canada provided the same-sex partners come from a state or country that also recognizes same-sex marriage.

Evan Wolfson, president of a New-York-based gay rights group, Freedom to Marry, said the federal position will be a major embarrassment for Canada internationally. He said it is too early to predict what effects the move may have on child custody, spousal support or asset division for estranged same-sex couples who were married in Canada.

"One of the benefits that marriage gives to families is security and clarity," Mr. Wolfson said. "They don't have to deal with a tangle of uncertainty. If the Canadian government is serious about trying to cast doubt on people's marriages, it not only insults their dignity and hurts them personally, but it raises all sorts of complex legal and economic questions for everyone who deals with them – employers, businesses, banks, and on and on."

Beyond the financial implications, Ms. McCarthy said, same-sex couples have looked to marriage to provide a sense of belonging and inclusion in the community. "They returned home with marriage certificates that they got on their wedding day showing everybody they were legally married," she said. "They gave them to their employers, their benefits people and all kinds of other third parties. And Canada participated in that."

Their divorce application will be considered next month by an Ontario Superior Court judge. They are asking the judge to either craft an exemption allowing them to divorce or to strike down any legislative provision that has the effect of preventing them from doing so.

"At no time were they advised by either the provincial or federal governments that their marriage was not valid," the application states. "In addition to the emotional distress caused to the joint applicants, they specifically incurred legal and travel costs associated with a marriage that was promoted by the provincial and federal governments, and which is now being denied."

The couple's application says they believed Canada would afford them the respect of ending their marriage legally. "Without this, they cannot move on from this chapter in their lives," it says. "It is legally and procedurally unfair for a government to grant the right to marry, to perform such marriages, and then leave the Joint Applicants with absolutely no remedy."

Ms. McCarthy said California, which recently faced a similar problem, passed a law recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages involving non-residents so they could obtain divorces. "That's exactly what we could do here," she said. "But it requires legislative action, and that is not something that has happened with great speed in relation to gays and lesbians in the past."

In an e-mail Tuesday, Mr. Gaudet said he forwarded a request for an interview to his superiors. His department provided no further response.
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:23 pm

Just saw your post crickett, as I was about to post this:

Hidden in the Open: A Photographic Essay of 140-Years of Black Male Couples

by Jorge Rivas, Tuesday, January 10 2012


Historian Trent Kelly has collected 146 rare vintage photographs of black male couples from the past 150 years.

Although the large majority of the pictures depict gay couples, the collection also includes images of families and friends but they all have one thing in common: they capture images of love.

Below is a snippet of why Kelly started the collection along with a few photos from his archive.

Historically, the Afro American gay male and couple has largely been defined by everyone but themselves. Afro American gay men are ignored into nonexistence in parts of black culture and are basically second class citizens in gay culture. The black church which has historically played a fundamental role in protesting against civil injustices toward its parishioners has been want to deny its gay members their right to live a life free and open without prejudice. Despite public projections of a “rainbow” community living together in harmonious co-habitation, openly active and passive prejudices exist in the larger gay community against gay Afro Americans.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image



Lastly, if you skip to the 4:30 minute mark you can see an interview with the historian who’s archived this collection of images.





We’re ending the day as often as possible by celebrating love. We welcome your ideas for posts. Send suggestions to submissions@colorlines.com, and be sure to put Celebrate Love in the subject line. You can send links to videos, graphics, photos, quotes, whatever. Or just chime in to the comments below and we’ll find you. Be sure to let us know you’ve got the rights to share any media you send.

To see other Love posts visit our Celebrate Love page.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:56 pm

Latina Moms Show Love for Their LGBT Kids


American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:10 pm

Love for Abuela Grillo: Myth Reflecting Reality





This beautiful short film, inspired by a myth from the Bolivian lowlands, was created by a group of Bolivian animators in collaboration with The Animation Workshop of Denmark. When Abuela Grillo (Grandmother Grasshopper) sings, it rains, and in a country marked by water shortages, the film is a response to the privatization of Bolivia’s water resources by foreign corporations. The Cochabamba water wars of 2000 saw massive protests by the indigenous community to retain access to their water supply, which eventually pressured their government to revoke the international contract.

Screened first in Denmark at a Bolivian Climate event, Abuela Grillo has since been shown in Cochabamba at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, a justice-focused alternative in response to the shortcomings of the 2009 U.N. Climate Conference. With music by the renowned Bolivian singer Luzmila Carpio, traditional Quechua singing weaves indigenous melody through the film, further illuminating the cultural roots of this fight for the universal right to pure water.

All movements have their artists, and it is their work that marks the victories and struggles with a powerful sense of love, determination and creativity.


.
Last edited by American Dream on Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Data & Research Compilations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest