>I come back to my first and main point. The
>equation of financial reform with anti-
>semitism bespeaks political marginalization,
>not any kind of more profound economic
>analysis. The critics of financial reform
>have no political program worthy of the name.
>mbs
The reason that "different" issues have become entangled in this thread appears to be the result of a misunderstanding. I haven't seen anyone (perhaps a post was missed) equate _all_ proposals for financial reform per se, with the danger of rousing to life a virulent antisemitism. Inferences, but nobody has made this the axis of refutation of the mbs proposal. That refutation has already been made: The distinction between financial an "nonfinancial" capital does not hold theoretically (even mbs conceded that he would not make the distinction analytically) and, _therefore_ (if theory means anything!) there is no practical basis for action along these lines that would be an optimal line of advance for leftists, socialists, progressives, populists, etc. - although targeting a chimera might be just what an antisemite or other bigot might desire (oops, there's that cheapshot inference again :-).
>This is sheer science fiction. There is no
>anti Asian moneybags movement visible anywhere.
>And the suggestion that anybody would look
>favorably upon such a thing, owing to some
>non-existent implicit 'logic,' reflects a
>weak argument.
Of course it is science fiction, within the context of a (presently hypothetical) neopopulist movement, because there is no such mass movement scapegoating Asians, Jews or anyone else existent today in the US. There was, however, "a whiff" of Asian-bashing in the Leong (sp?) Gore Buddhist thing and in the Wen Ho Lee matter, emanating as a strictly narrow ruling class/elite, and not mass populist, persecution. This, BTW, follows the European pattern of antisemitism, originating in the ruling class and trickling on down.
On the other hand, there was the ferocious, pogrom-like assault on Korean shopkeepers during the Rodney King explosion in 1991. No elite there.
>The financial crises showed up Asians to be
>victims, or subordinate to Wall Street, if
>anything. Berlet is right insofar as the
>practice of scapegoating most likely would
>point to jews in the U.S. & Europe. Maybe
>to the Chinese in Asia, but the latter wouldn't
>quite be anti-asian.
Yep, precisely to Wall Street. And I guess this is the Berlet referred to: http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/Berlet_Articles.htm
If so, I will check Berlet out, but my initial position is that this is all a matter of fighting the last war, and in addition in the US, the relatively small and ghettoized (however goldplated) Asian population has displaced the actual American Jews (who have become "white") in the role of "the Jew" here, as alien intermediary, right down to the relatively recent legacy of proscriptions against owning land, farming, etc., here in California. So, hypothetically, why can't the "antisemitic impulse" be directed against others who might just as easily (or more easily) fit the bill? Or is the "antisemitic syndrome" always and everywhere directed against Jews - is "essentially" (anti)Jewish?
But back to the hypothesis. I would propose there exists an actual (but still potential) test case brewing here in California: This so-called "power" crisis, actually a market crisis. It has a fairly complete cast of characters:
1) "Wall Street", in the form of Moodys', stock exchange downward pressure on the quality and value of utility stock;
2) "Industrial" corporate capital (technically, utilities): PG&E (N.Cal, both "parent" and "child"), Edison (So.Cal) + numerious out of state power suppliers (plus an ancillary California Power Exchange, I believe not a true commodity board but just a private clearinghouse subordinated to the power suppliers);
3) "Unaccountable state agencies", such as the California PUC, the mysterious California Independent System Operator (CISO), the Fed Energy Dept., and the even more mysterious Fed Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC);
4) Proto-populist "consumer advocates", still in Nader progressive form right now: The well known Harvey Rosenfeld (who put the successful Prop 103, regulating Cal auto insurance, on the ballot) and Bob Finkelstein of the Utility Reform Network;
5) And last but certainly not least, the "popular masses" themselves, for make no mistake (for benefit of out-of-staters) this has become as big a blip on the public radar here as the last two big earthquakes, the Rodney King blowup, Prop 13 and the last "oil crisis" (another phony) in the late 70's. Everybody has been touched in daily, material ways by this still unfolding market farce, and we've yet to feel the full impact. Right now, everybody's waiting in anticipation of just what flavor of shit will hit the fan.
The drama, still in its early stages, has unfolded thus:
1) First, everyone waited until after the election to let the doo-doo drop (nice, that);
2) Then Gov. Grey Davis (a Democrat), the CalPUC and the ulilities had lots of secret, closed door meetings to try and rig the bailout;
3) "Wall Street" kindly waited until after the Christmas holiday week before issuing (out of the mouth of Moodys') a blatant, overt downgrade threat against the utilities, attacking Sacramentos' (the Cal State capital) bailout plan is insufficient. This was publicly and roundly denounced by Rosenfeld as an attempt to "blackmail the people of California" into accepting much higher power rates;
4) Political stalemate then set in at both State and Fed levels as PG&E, Edison slid towards bankruptcy and CISO issued its "Priority X Alerts";
5) Yesterday, the SF Chronicle reported that PG&Es' "parent", PG&E Corp (itself a power supplier and quite profitable, unlike PG&E), ran off with all the loot by arranging a "reorg" in a secret meeting with the FERC (yes, we've been FERC'ed!);
6) And finally, today, Moodys' shoved Edison and the abandoned PG&E "child" down into the very lowest circle of junk bond hell. Default and bankruptcy are imminent. The Cal State Legislature is right now hammering together a plan for State power purchases on an emergency basis. Public power ownership (at least of distribution) is actually on the agenda. What will the SF Bay Guardian do for a cause after this?
I think we can conclude (so far) from all of this, that we definitely got a "feasible reform" in our gunsights here, along mbs' lines, with one key exception. There has definitely been exhibited a need to "democratize" public regulatory agencies, and this drama has certainly featured a swindling "moneybags" capitalist character lurking about as the bad guy. The problem is, in the public eye, the bad guy isn't "Wall Street" and the state agency isn't a bank (i.e., the Fed Reserve). In fact, the most - precisely - feasible bad guy has been the self financing "non financial" corporation (PG&E, Edison, parents and children). They are _all_ quite parasitic. And I would put this forward as initial confirmation of the theory and perspective put forward in this thread by myself and others.
And the good news is, there is no scapegoating of anybody, Asian, Jewish or whatever, even remotely appearing on the horizon. In fact, the leading protopopulist consumer advocate protagonists appear to be from a Jewish background. Or maybe Rosenfeld & Finkelstein are just working the "commie" end of some vast commie-banker cabal working out of Wall Street, eh? :-D
Brad Mayer -Oakland,CA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20010117/6a1c5f31/attachment.htm>