>In fact quite often, *within*
>the "black nationalist" movement there are denunciations of "nationalism"
>rather more vitriolic than Rakesh is able to come up with. It is an
>extraordinarily complex "movement" with many variations.
However vitriolic these friendly critics of nationalism may be (and is there anything more absurd than the idea that Afro-Americans constitute an independent nation, though ambitious colored businessmen do emphasize that the purchasing power of blacks is equivalent to many third world nations as a way of encouraging more minority franchising by the big corps, reducing the glorious national project to black owned McDonald's and specially made black Santas for Kwanzaa in the bantustans), many of these vitriolic critics still defended the Million Man March, and seem to have voted for or acquiesced to the formal exclusion of non-blacks from the Black Radical Congress.
I argued that only as part of a congress on the broader problems with the institutionalized left could blacks find allies among other workers (so yes as a first choice I don't think there should be a black radical congress and certainly not one formally closed to non-blacks), understand themselves as part of an actual material force which can meet the material force of capital, and thus overcome the kind of reformism which comes from the sole reliance on capital which follows strategically if one presumes the inherent racism, conservatism and contentment of the non black masses.
That is, if blacks see themselves as an isolated minority--and this supposition is reinforced by racially exclusive fora--to whom can they turn but capital and mustn't they then push forth only those kinds of reforms which may be in its interest: anti-discrimination laws towards the end of removing market imperfections and consecrating the rule of law; the creation of majority minority districts which may have the unintended effect of getting more Republicans elected; business set asides which may help corporations penetrate minority markets, etc.
I have serious doubts that--whatever the sincere intentions of Manning Marable--a black radical congress, standing alone, will not degenerate into a weak form of reformism, the beneficiaries of which will be mostly petit bourgeoisie. In whose interest is the formation of an autonomous black congress? The civil rights establishment of lawyers and politicos who will attempt to convince oppressed blacks that enforcement of anti-discrimination laws are the key to their emancipation? Those politicians who will enlist the support of the black community in their run-offs in majority minority districts? Can an indendent black congress, not integrally connected to a larger movement, do more than this in practical terms? Can a larger movement, drained of the energetic participation of blacks, itself avoid degeneration?
>
>Also, I believe some other posts on this thread have muddied the waters
>with references to Farrakhan. This only shows naivete, and probably though
>unintentionally *racist* naivete about the black liberation movement.
Oh, I am a naive racist, am I? I suggested ways in which an autonomous black liberation movement becomes trapped in petty bourgeois and viciously reactionary politics if it begins with the supposition that isolated and despised, blacks can only turn to themselves and effect, in Cornel West's words, black operational unity in order to achieve power.
> They will have to either join the WSJ or lead very lonely lives.]
Well, if one is not a true believer, one may never feel lonlier than in the midst of conferences organized in terms of her ostensible identity. best, rakesh --------------------------
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pkt/jun98/0306.html
"As the debt gets larger, interest payments grow larger as a percentage of total government disbursements. The recipients of this spending are not the people who need it the most, as determined by our elected representatives, but financiers, speculators and "investors," foreign and domestic. As such, interest payments contribute to the increasing disparity between rich and poor."
Berglund replied:
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pkt/jun98/0322.html
"If the debt and the economy grow in parallel (at the same rate), interest payments will grow in absolute figures but not as a percentage of the GDP (or of the budget's expenditures) if their growth is kept in line with the GDP."
It is not possible for the debt--and here I mean "consumer" debt for which government debt is the surrogate--and the economy to grow in parallel. Producer or manufacturer's debt is of a different form and substance, in that it can be demonstrated that producer debt definitely facilitates ~increasing~ capitalist production, while consumer debt attempts to facilitate, but is unable to rationally accomplish in the long-term, ~increasing~ consumption.
To simplify the analysis as much as possible, assume that 100MU needs to be deficit spent every year in excess of taxation to accommodate "full employment." The deficit spending is not to be funded by "printing" money but by the mechanism of selling to the commercial banking system, each year on the same date, one-year bills at ten percent interest.
At the beginning of the first year, 100MU is borrowed, which is credited to the general operating budget for spending during the year. 100MU = 100MU deficit spending. When the second year begins, 200MU is borrowed, which "rolls over" the first year's debt by paying 100MU against principal and 10MU towards interest, leaving 90MU to be spent from the general budget. 10MU + 90MU = 100MU deficit spending. Likewise, 300MU is borrowed the third year to pay 200MU in principal and 20MU for interest, leaving 80MU for the general budget. 20MU + 80MU = 100MU deficit spending, etc. At the eleventh year, 1100MU is borrowed to pay 1000MU in principal and 100MU for interest, leaving nothing to be spent from the general budget, every dollar of deficit spending now goes directly to the "rentier."
A dilemma arises at the twelfth year. 1100MU is owed for principle and 110MU for interest, which can certainly be "rolled over" as before. This means that there must be 110MU in deficit spending while only 100MU is needed for full employment. 110MU - 100MU = 10MU inflation.
But let's say that, for whatever reason, it is decided that there no longer needs to be deficit spending, that the budget now can be "balanced." From now on, we will simply "roll over" the debt; 1100MU will be borrowed and 1210MU will be collected in taxes for debt service to the "rentier," each year into perpetuity.
Now, we decide to "pay down" the debt. The principal is reduced each year by collecting more in taxes than we spend from the general budget, the difference being applied to the residual principal and accrued interest on the debt. The money supply contracts each year, pure deflation.
3. What Bill Mitchell's and Warren Mosler's "buffer stock" labor models offer us is a slave system for the 21st century--if you do not work, you do not eat. Government employment offices will be set up in every hamlet, village and city to offer "jobs" at an arbitrarily fixed minimal wage to the displaced workers from the closed factories, planting "trees" on "denuded" land. The language they use in their arguments is the impudent language of slavery: Labor is "bought" and "sold." The quotations they cite to support their arguments are from the archives of slavery: "In those parts of Africa where land was still in African hands, colonial governments forced Africans to produce cash crops no matter how low prices were..." This Mosler says is "chartalism," the proud paradigm for his "progressive" reforms. And this his paid sycophants obsessively augment by hyphenation after hyphenation. Far from being the "logical extension" of Post Keynesian thought, it is in retrogression to the mindset of the dark ages.
(written by William Ryan, arch nemesis of Mat Forstater)