Cricket is perhaps the perfect past-time for the well-rounded socialist dandy -- it is a refined, leisurely game, rich in history and in tradition, international in scope and in play, requiring the most aesthetically pleasing uniforms, and rife with the sorts of fascinating issues relating to privilege, race and class that naturally come loaded into any sport spread in popularity through imperialism and colonization. 

The best and most elegant summation of all of these disparate facets of the sport is C.L.R. James' 1963 Beyond a Boundary. A dandy of the Afro-Carribbean Marxist variety himself, James is the perfect guide to the history and culture of the sport: witty, urbane, knowledgeable, quick with a pithy quote or a relevant anecdote, with a deep personal involvement in the sport himself, as a player and a fan. James presumes the reader is intimately familiar with the ins-and-outs of the sport, so cricket novices may find portions of the text a bit intimidating. However, the book is so beautifully written, so warm, humane and clever that even if you don't know your test match from your leg glance, it won't particularly matter.

Windfall Profits Tax = The State decides how much profit a business can make. If they are making 'too much' - the State then gets to take that profit away and redistribute it. That's abject big government Socialism/Marxism wealth redistribution.

Obama conveniently failed to mention oil companies profit margin. Also, he neglected the fact that companies like Exxon Mobil already paid 3 times as much in taxes in 2007 as they made in profits.  And finally, these sort of ads seems to be assuming that oil companies only make money for a few sleazy suit-clad men sitting around at a board meeting. What they don't point out is how many thousands and thousands average joe worker jobs there are in the oil industry.

Speaking of Windfall Profit Taxes, here's what happened when President Carter tried them:

The Congressional Research Service called it total failure. I guess none of that matters though, because it sure feels really good to tax those evil oil bastards. Here's a little more on this crap from the WSJ:

The "windfall profits" tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a "windfall" profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales -- or does it merely depend on who earns it? 

If Senator Obama is as exercised about "outrageous" profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett's outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin -- if that's the relevant figure -- was 11.47%, which beats out the American oil majors.

....consider Google, which earned a mere $4.2 billion but at a whopping 25.3% margin. Google earns far more from each of its sales dollars than does Exxon, but why doesn't Mr. Obama consider its advertising-search windfall worthy of special taxation?

.....The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.

It's what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.

Here's our good ole' buddy Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi babbling on about why she won't allow a vote on drilling:

Gotta love her plan: We will release the Strategic Oil Reserve which will make prices go down...and then what? Not to mention - what happens if we need that oil, for you know - strategeries or something. (Isn't she basically admitting that it's a supply problem anyway?) Also - force the oil companies to drill where it won't be profitable. Like I said before, why not open a tanning salon in the middle of the Sahara while you're at it and see how that works out? Plus, somehow opening up drilling around the US won't make price go down in a more lasting fashion than opening up a little reserve tank that we have here in the states?

Like I said before, I don't think ONLY DRILLING will solve the problem. But I do think we need to do everything possible to fix the problem.

Holed up in a croft in Unst; tea and cigarettes for breakfast; bitten to death by midges.

The Professor disappeared last night and has apparently left the island. Bastard.

Solzhenitsyn has died. Astounding that he survived for so long: a man of great courage and conviction. The link is to Michael Scammell’s obituary in the Guardian newspaper, which concludes:

“Solzhenitsyn will be remembered in the short term as the bard of the Gulag, a fearless tribune who exercised a crucial liberating influence at a decisive moment in Soviet history, but in the context of the ages, his works will be read so long as readers thirst for the truth about life on this planet.”

It’s a shame that such a writer, who had an eventful life, sometimes through no fault of his own, should at the end of his life become seriously ill and suffer a no doubt painful death. His son Stepan was saying that he had a heart attack and a press agency or the Kremlin was saying that it was a stroke. I would hazard a guess that it was a heart attack. He was the same age as my father.

The notoriety accorded to him as the USSR’s quisling was entirely wrongly placed – Solzhenitsyn was a committed socialist. He simply opposed the corruption of the Stalin-led Soviet Union. It’s the great mistake so often made – that those who were trampled upon by the regime would become Russophobe traitors and pawns of the Cold War game.

He did however tear into the West pretty ferociously in a famous speech at Harvard that caused quite a stir.

Having just read it again, it is a very odd speech indeed. It was the attack on the Western way of life that caused the fuss at the time but there’s nothing in the way of comfort for Marxists or Socialist Materialists either. He curses both houses equally for abandoning spirituality. I don’t see that either side can begin to claim him as theirs at least at this point in his life. Fundamentalist Christianity of some sort seems to be the answer in the “cosmic fight” against what he identifies as the forces of Evil.

R.I.P. Alekandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn 11.12.1918 – 3.8.2008

Treptat comunistii castiga tot mai multa influenta in viata politica si elimina pe liderii necomunisti. Astfel, Uniunea Sovietica ajunge sa exercite un control puternic asupra vietii politice si sociale a tarilor din sfera sa de influenta prin partidele comuniste locale.

Sovieticii creeaza un sistem de state satelit care adopta in totalitate modelul centrului - adica al Moscovei. Viata economica, politica, dar si cea culturala (arta va fi subordonata si transformata intr-un puternic aparat de propaganda), nu vor mai putea fi delimitate de controlul Partidului devenit singurul factor de decizie in stat.

Arta, precum si celelalte domenii ale activitatii umane, nu avea cum sa se sustraga controlului si manipularii Partidului asa ca vechile modele artistice sunt inlocuite cu un “realism socialist”.

Karpo Demjanowitsch Trokhimenko - Stalin ca organizator al Revolutiei din Octombrie

Termenul noului curent cultural a aparut pentru prima oara in Rusia intr-un articol din Gazeta Literara unde se preciza ca “in reprezentarea revolutiei proletare, masele cer un realism socialist onest, veridic si revolutionar”. In 1933, Maxim Gorki, in articolul intitulat “Despre realismul socialist“, preciza ca “realismul sovietic este o noua directie esentiala pentru noi si care poate fi cladita doar pe baza unei puternice experiente socialiste“.

Realismul socialist ca doctrina este proclamat in anul 1932 de Comitetul Central al Partidului Comunist al Uniunii Sovietice, creandu-se astfel un standard oficial in arte plastice, literatura si muzica.

Noul curent cultural “reprezenta de fapt o distorsionare a realitatii, o adaptare a ei la cerintele si interesele Partidului care dorea sa detina monopolul asupra adevarului si intelegerii realitatii. Real era doar ce era conform cu viziunea Partidului si nimic altceva .

Nu se punea in nici un caz problema originalitatii, libertatii de expresie sau a creativitatii. Totul trebuia aliniat unui anumit standard, unei politici comune ce viza realizarea unor creatii care sa portretizeze exclusiv lucrurile pozitive si “socialiste” ce se petreceau in tara. O utopie artistica si politica transpusa sub forma unui curent ce se baza pe cenzura si persecutare in cazul artistilor nealiniati.

Isaac Izrailevich Brodskiy - Vladimir Ilich Lenin

In tara noastra, Academia Romana şi asociaţiile profesionale cu tradiţie ca Societatea scriitorilor romani sau Societatea compozitorilor romani au fost desfiinţate şi înlocuite cu unele noi, iar personalităţile neagreate de noul sistem au fost repede înlăturate. În 1948 s-a tipărit un catalog de 522 de pagini, cuprinzând aproximativ 8.000 de titluri de cărţi şi reviste interzise , care mai apoi au fost scoase din bibliotecile publice şi din manualele şcolare.

În 1950, în urma unei decizii la care nu s-a făcut recurs nici în ziua de astăzi, s-a înfiintat Uniunea Artistilor Plastici (UAP), „o formă nouă si superioară de organizare a vietii artistice”, „expresia unitătii metodei de creatie a artistilor din întreaga tară”, care urma să pună „problema asimilării profunde a metodei realismului socialist si a clarificării notiunilor fundamentale ale esteticii marxist-leniniste”. Se creaza revista “Arta Plastica “ devenita ulterior “Arta” care va servi ca organ de propaganda si educare socialista a artistilor si publicului lor.

Realismul socialist urma evidentierea unui simt al concretului, instantiat prin „cunoasterea directă a vietii din fabrici, de pe santiere si din gospodăriile colective”. Operele socialiste trebuiau să sustină „marile actiuni ale poporului”, „victoriile clasei muncitoare” si „actiunile initiate de partid”, dînd exemplul unei „arte publice militante”.

Compozitia tematică, inspirată din „istoria luptelor revolutionare ale poporului român” si din „realitatea imediată a reconstructiei socialiste”, devine instrumentul ideologic privilegiat al reprezentării utopiei socialiste. „Luptele duse împotriva dusmanului de clasă si a fascismului”, activitatea brigăzilor de tineret pe santiere, scenele de muncă din uzine si peisajele industriale propuneau acea „regenerare tematică” care, alături de „pitorescul” peisajelor panoramice si de naturile „statice” ce surprindeau „frumusetile si bogătiile tării”, încerca să impună un nou mod de perceptie a unei lumi supuse „transformărilor revolutionare”. Această nouă perspectivă era sustinută teoretic de întelegerea ei ca expresie a unei „arte de idei”, care se opunea „conceptiilor estetice autonome ale burgheziei”.

Lucrarile prezentau imaginea “omului lumii nou”, iar portretul era considerat „mijlocitorul valorii morale si sociale”, cîtă vreme reprezenta imagini ale personalitătilor progresiste „angajate politic în înfăptuirea revolutiei culturale si a celei tehnico-stiintifice”.

Spiritul colectiv, setea de munca repre­zinta adevaratul continut al vietii iar munca cu oamenii si pentru oameni, supre­ma sursa de fericire personala. Se dorea configurarea unei persona­litati perfecte, in care simtul practic, fondul afec­tiv si intelectual reali­zea­za sinteza-mo­del, iar munca dedicata familiei se imbina cu munca dedicata colectivului.

Arta trebuia sa evoce marile realizari materiale ale regimului , industrializarea ţării, exploatarea rezervelor naturale de minereuri, colectivizarea agriculturii. Muncitorul apare in ipostaze de erou, de supra om care stapaneste natura , el se sacrifica pentru ridicarea societatii socialiste si se autodepaseste mereu petru ca telul sau e unul nobil. Propaganda incerca sa creeze portrete, tipologii care sa convinga omul simplu de maretia sistemului si de faptul ca Partidul e singurul capabil sa-i ofere o viata mai buna.

In literatura romana realismul socialist se afirma in anul 1948 o dată cu ciclul celor trei articole publicate în Scînteia sub semnătura lui Sorin Toma, intitulate “Poezia putrefacţiei sau putrefacţia poeziei”, despre opera poetică a lui Tudor Arghezi. Limbajul este de o duritate extremă şi marchează ruperea totală faţă de valorile trecutului: “Cu un urît mirositor vocabular [...], Arghezi nu face în poezie decât ceea ce a făcut Picasso în pictură, introducând ca material artistic excrementele… Crâmpeie de frumuseţe adevărată se mai întâlnesc pe ici-colo în poeziile lui Arghezi…”

În anul 1950 se înfiinţează Şcoala de literatură “Mihai Eminescu”, cu scopul de a forma o nouă generaţie de scriitori în Republica Populară Romînă. Într-un articol publicat în revista “Viaţa Românească” (nr. 3 din 1951), Mihai Beniuc, în calitate de preşedinte al Uniunii Scriitorilor din România, oferă definiţia poetului realist-socialist: “Acesta trebuie să fie un filozof cunoscător al celor mai înalte idei ale timpului [...], spre care au deschis drum Marx, Engels, Lenin şi Stalin [...], un activist în slujba respectivelor idei”.

Magda Cârneci publica la editura L’Harmattan un volum de referinta atât pentru cercetatorii artelor plastice, cât si pentru cei interesati de regimul comunist român, teza autoarei este ca arta româneasca din perioada 1945-1989 este supusa conflictului între un model ideologic artificial - impus artei cu forta din exterior - si un model estetic, propriu ansamblului artei moderne europene. Autoarea demonstreaza in lucrarea sa esecul unui regim totalitar de a impune un model creativ .

Arta in comunism devenise un aparat al mistificarii , al reansamblarii viziunii asupra realitatii in conformitate cu un model menit sa impuna o noua stare de fapt in concordanta cu interesele Partidului si al ideilor din care el s-a nascut. Creatia artistica ilustra marile idei ale societatii socialiste, sublinia marile teluri ale comunismului glorificandu-le si justificand actiunile celor care se aflau la carma tarii. Realismul socialist era o arta a impartirii realitati in alb si negru in bun si rau, cei ce nu erau alturi de Partid erau impotriva sa, cei ce se opuneau colectivizarii si militau pentru proprietatea privata erau stigmatizati ca fiind chiaburi si dusmani ai poporului.

Materialismul stiintific este reactivarea unei structuri arhetipale arhaice de tip hesiodic, in Theogonia, principiul virtual, Haosul, este matricea nocturnă care se autodiferenţiază generând nivelurile existenţei, de la cosmos până la zei. Darwinismul pe care Marx îl aşeza la baza cosmo-biologiei sale spune ceva similar: că materia anorganică (adică pura pasivitate), printr-un efort secular al hazardului naşte un fruct viu, organic, activ, acumularile cantitative ar fi produs un salt calitativ. De la inferior la superior, omul ar fi devenit astfel coroana evoluţiei si nu a creaţiei. Adevărul nu mai vine de sus (prin revelaţie teologică mijlocită de elitele spirituale), ci vine de jos (prin revelaţie abisală mijlocită de masele materiale).

Principiile materialismul stiintific sunt activate in arta, ea trebuia sa reprezinte si sa se adreseze maselor. Daca inainte raportarea la arta si creatie artistica insemna o asumare a unor trairi personale, intime, in comunism aceasta caracteristica este dizolvata. Tot ce inseamna traire interioara este anulat, exteriorizat spre a fi controlat, manipulat in directia depersonalizarii.

Bibliografie:

Aucouturier Michel, Realismul Socialist, Ed. Dacia, Cluj Napoca, 2001
Magda Cârneci, Artele plastice în România 1945-1989, Ed. Meridiane, Bucuresti, 2000
Vlad Muresean, Comunismul: crima trancendentala, http://vladmuresan.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/comunismul-crima-transcendentala/
http://members.surfeu.at/horvath/realism.htm
http://afronord.tripod.com/thr/srealism.html

Since we're in an industrial age, I think sausages might be more appropriate.

However, I'm willing to stick with the fish analogy for the sake of argument. The Living Jersey blogger is a shining example of someone who has swallowed the simplistic narrative that economic disparity is the fault of the lazy and the poor, and that poverty is a lifestyle choice and nothing else. If that is the case, how presumptuous of a politician to propose government programs which not only limit how much money a hardworking American can make, but also infringe on your right to choose to be poor!

Here's the gist of his argument, if you don't feel like reading the post linked above. The economy is fish, work is fishing, and the man who fishes 12 hours a day is rich, while the lazy man who fishes only 2 hours a day has just enough fish to feed his family, and yet the Democratic Party would be so brash as to complain that one man has more fish than his neighbor.

I can't help but thinking if the rich man has to work 12 hours a day and has a house made of fish, I don't envy him.

Does he see the world as an equal opportunity utopia, where there is one big fish pond where any man may freely take his bounty of fish? Humans interact with eachother (and fish) in a much more complex manner. Someday, somebody is going to have more fish than somebody else. Maybe you're right, maybe it will be because this man fishes 12 hours a day or more, maybe it's because he's smarter or because he's luckier or what have you. Knowing the world we live in, I'd say it's more likely that the fisherman who gets ahead will do so by killing a few other fishermen and stealing their fish or organizing in groups to go raid the ones who live on the other side of the pond.

Regardless of how the fish gap begins, those who have more fish are going to do their best to widen it. They will share their fish surplus with merceneries who will enforce one fisherman's ownership of the pond. Then anyone who wants fish will have to work at his pond, 12 hours a day, catching enough fish to make a big stinking pile for their boss, and yet taking home only what they need to survive, or even less, living on the salted fish their grandparents saved up during better times. Those who can't get a job fishing will be forced to eat worms or rob fish from their neighbors, and if they try to rob from the self-declared owner of the pond, they'll be beaten with a trout.

I could go on with this, but I don't think it's genuinely worth it. You get the joke. The blogger who wrote the fish analogy believes in the perfection of the free market. Only the strong survive, and we as a society evolve into better fishermen.

Certain market controls do not make a communist society, and it is absolutely necessary. A free market is far from what exists today. You never see conservatives complain when the government takes tax money to bail out supposedly important businesses whose own actions threaten their existence. Even today, we're bailing out banks with public money because they irresponsibly rode market bubbles to make temporary profits, and why? Because our system of credit is so important to maintaining the status quo, where some people own the pond and the rest are forced to fish for them. The very existence of government-endorsed currency is an infringement of the free market ideology. If we want a free market, we would have to print money ourselves, and we would be responsible for convincing others that it was worth something.

Here's a more in-depth analysis of my opinion on government aide for the poor.

Living Jersey, go fish.

In the shadow of an enormous cob farmhouse a motley collection of concerned individuals ate, drank and workshopped and enjoyed the random British weather. The attendance ran from peak oil doomers to sustainability professionals (and some who manage both) and the conversation flowed till late at night.

One interesting topic that came up a few times was the feeling that many people in the transition movement and other post-peak circles seem to positively delight in the thought of society collapsing. My view, like Robert Rapier, is that it makes eminent sense to be prepared for the collapse. By all means buy insurance in the form of a plot of land, and teach your kids how to work it. If the worst comes they may well thank you for imparting those skills.

But I'd rather they never need them.

The Marxist attitude that the capitalist society we live in is sick and contains the seed of its own demise has fallen down again and again under the march of technological development. The system wobbles, it wobbles some more, and then someone invents the steam engine, or the car, or the internet and new sources of profits become available. The workers get a new TV and the world carries on.

Yes, the world is an inequitable place. But why the desire to make it equal by returning to the hard pre-industrial life? Surely a better goal is to give everyone the same education, opportunities and quality of life that we enjoy in the UK?

I have a belief in human ingenuity and our ability to see a problem and find a solution.Ok, some we see a little late and there is a risk that this climate change and peak oil double whammy has blindsided us. So buy insurance - be prepared for the worst. But don't give up hope - get on with finding the solution(s).

I'll start posting up some thoughts on new energy sources, new storage technologies, new ways of making resources go further when time allows. Remember, the futures bright - and that's bright green, not bright red.

Recently, a team of photographers, scientists and students traveled to the West African island of Bioko to document the gradual destruction of one of the world's last nature paradises. One of the most shocking problems they encountered is the trade in bush meat. Prohibited by the government to preserve the island's impressive species variety (especially monkeys), the extreme poverty of the local population and the possibility of earning $200 plus for a male drill on the local bush meat markets render such conservation efforts hopeless. National Geographic has a quite moving series of photographs on the issue (as well as a feature article) you can find here. What can we do about this? First, we can donate to the local conservation effort (see NG website) to provide short-term aid. Second, we can support progressive grassroots efforts that support community organizations addressing poverty in Africa (similar to the effort put forth by Work and Hour, to which I provided the link a few days ago). Third, and most importantly, we can choose to oppose the WTO, the global policies of the G8, vote in a manner the shapes and puts pressure on our local governments to address issues of global poverty (and the ecopolitical issues connected to them) and ultimately we can choose to think beyond the damaging confines of capitalism

Please look at the series of pictures documenting the trip to Bioko, especially those of the bush meat market. They are here.

The Liars' Gazette

You may or may not agree with what Sean Matgamna and I have written about the likely forthcoming Israeli attack upon Iran (see post below). But if you disagree, then at least criticise us for what we've actually written, not what you imagine (or have been told) we've written.

I was astonished to read in the comments below my last piece, "Dave O" (ie: Dave Osler of Dave's Part, and  usually a sensible comrade) accusing Sean and I of advocating an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran. I had no idea where he got this impression from...until I saw this week's Weekly Worker. Never mind the feeble-minded drivel like this, or ther libellous crap like this: it's the front page that has clearly influenced even serious comrades like Dave. And it's an out-and-out LIE that Sean Matgamna advocates or would attempt to excuse or justify a nuclear attack by Israel upon Iran.

I defy the CPGB (publishers of the Weekly Worker) to find a single sentence in Sean's article that suggests he's in favour of, or would in any way seek to justify, a nuclear attack on Iran. What Sean (and I) were talking about was a conventional bombing raid like Israel's 2007 attack upon a nuclear weapons site in Syria. Dave had the good grace to admit that he'd been mistaken about that (see comment #76 beneath the previous article, below), and stated that his mistake was a result of taking the Weekly Worker as a reliable source. Hopefully, he and other comrades will learn from that error.

Meanwhile I offer two further comments: firstly, that it's possible that the Weekly Worker / CPGB people are not simply deliberate, conscious liars, but (and I put this forward having met some of them), pathological liars and hysterics who actually believe their own lies. Secondly, it's ironic that this ex-Stalinist sect once sincerely believed in the idea of the "workers' (nuclear) bomb", before being educated out of that and other Stalinist nonsense by ...Sean Matgamna and the AWL.

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Barack Obama the lawyer-organizer could use a crash course in economics. His economic plan's assumptions, based on long-discredited Marxist theories, are wildly wrongheaded.

In arguing for a heavier mix of government, he assumes that capitalism unfairly favors the rich, almost exclusively so, and fails to spread prosperity.

"The rich in America have little to complain about," he carps. "The distribution of wealth is skewed, and levels of inequality are now higher than at any time since the Gilded Age."

Obama cites data showing a yawning gap between the income of the average worker and the wealthiest 1%. He thinks it's government's job to step in and close it — "for purposes of fairness" — by soaking the rich, among other leftist nostrums.

"Between 1971 and 2001," he complains, "while the median wage and salary income of the average worker showed literally no gain, the income of the top hundredth of a percent went up almost 500%."

But such a snapshot comparison would be meaningful only if America were a caste society, in which the people making up one income group remained static over time.

Of course that's not the case. The composition of the rich and poor in this country is in constant flux, as the income distribution changes dramatically over relatively short periods. Few are "stuck" in poverty, or have a "lock" on wealth.

Obama would discover this if only he'd put down his class-warfare manuals and look closely at the IRS' own data.

Take those megarich he vilifies — the top hundredth of a percent. According to a recent Treasury study, three-fourths of them in 1996 fell out of the group by 2005.

Meanwhile, more than half of those in the bottom income group in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005, with more than 5% leapfrogging to the richest quintile.

(It's no fluke: The same high degree of income mobility is seen in prior comparable periods, as well.)

Some poor moved up through personal effort, while many rode an expanding economy. Real median incomes of all taxpayers rose 24%, but the poor registered the biggest gains of all.

President Kennedy understood that a growing economy is like a rising tide that "lifts all boats." Obama, on the other hand, thinks some are lifted and others lowered, as if the economy were a system of locks operated by a cabal of evil capitalists.

He also fails to understand how taxes change behavior. He thinks raising taxes on the most productive members of society won't "curb incentives to work or invest." Even TV news anchor Charlie Gibson knows better.

During a primary debate, the ABC host took Obama to task for proposing a doubling in the capital gains tax. History shows, he pointed out, that raising the cap gains rate actually ends up costing the government revenues.

Obama just didn't get it. "Well, Charlie," he argued, "what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

Forget growth and revenues. Let's just punish those "greedy" investors. It's the same Marxist reasoning behind his plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts: The rich must be made to pay their "fair" share, Obama asserts.

Never mind that the top 1% of taxpayers already pay 38% of the total tax burden, according to recent IRS data, while the bottom 50% bear just 3% of the load.

Obama's economic plan also calls for mandating a "living wage." He plans to saddle retailers with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation, along with a mandate to provide seven days of paid sick leave to workers.

Obama assumes business owners will just eat the added costs.

But restaurants, the nation's second-largest private-sector employer, already operate on razor-thin profit margins. Faced with such mandatory paid benefits, they'll have no choice but to cut staff.

In fact, the last major minimum-wage increase cost the restaurant industry more than 146,000 jobs, the National Restaurant Association says, while restaurant owners put off plans to hire an additional 106,000 employees.

So Obama would get his wage-and-benefits mandate, but lose jobs in an industry that employs the very minorities Obama claims he's trying to help.

"If restaurateurs had their way, every lawmaker would run a small business before starting to legislate," the industry opined in a recent press release.

Lawmakers aren't the only ones. Leftist presidential candidates also could benefit from such a mandate.

“Che Guevara avea, în ceea ce-l priveşte, vocaţie de martir, dar unul nicicând dezarmat.”

Din Guatemala, unde devenise membru al administraţiei lui Jacobo Arbenez (guvern răsturnat de Carlos Castillo Armas cu sprijinul CIA), Ernesto Guevara îi scrie astfel uneia dintre mătuşile lui: “Aici totul este foarte amuzant, împuşcăturile, bombardamentele, discursurile şi alte lucruri care au rupt monotonia în care trăiam”. Scrisoarea este semnată: “nepotul aventurier”. Ajuns în Cuba, luptătorul îi transmite mamei sale (care, nu mă îndoiesc, trebuie să fi fost foarte fericită la citirea acestui rând): “Iată-mă în jungla cubaneză, viu şi însetat de sânge” . Susţine că judecarea inculpaţilor contrarevoluţionari trebuie să meargă rapid, pentru că dovezile nu contează. Recunoaşte, în decembrie 1964, la tribuna Adunării Generale a Naţiunilor Unite că a împuşcat şi că va mai împuşca ori de câte ori va fi nevoie. Etc.

Mai mult, Machover arată în Che Guevara sau mistificarea istoriei cum El Che a recurs la una din vechile practici comuniste: corectarea propriei biografii. Pe scurt, în loc să-şi recunoască tinereţile de hoinăreală prin America Latină, a decis să şi le ambaleze frumos sub eticheta impunătoare de “exil” (vorba lui Machover: “din care ţară? persecutat de ce regim?”). Mai mult, se pare că nici statutul de medic pe care se pretinde că Guevara îl avea (fireşte, sinonim cu un plus de culoare pe nimbul legendar – ce poate fi mai seducător decât un doctor chipeş, mustind de idealuri împotriva sistemului, “exilat” şi gonind pe motocicletă pe tot continentul ca să vestescă, precum un ghiocel, primăvara comunismului american?), nu există şi n-a existat vreodată. Nici un exeget al lui nu a văzut vreodată o diplomă care să-i ateste calitatea de medic. Din nou, etc.

Nu este ceva nou să afirmi că unul din procedeele adorate de postmoderni este demitizarea. Înţeleg prin demitizare procesul prin care orice valoare decantată în timp poate primi, din partea oricărei nulităţi efemere, dar cu tupeu, bobârnace, ciupituri, înjurături, sau poate suferi tentative grosolane de aducere la “scară normală”. Prin demitizare mai înţeleg reflexul pueril al coborârii de pe soclu a unui om cu merite reale. O exaltare a orizontalei. A-ţi tăia ambiţios, sofisticat, ştiinţific, craca de sub picioare, ca Wile E. Coyote. Un divorţ pueril de trecut în favoarea concubinajului multiplu cu nonvalorile vremii, din care cultura rămâne orfană şi fără pensie alimentară.

Ceea ce este bizar este că, în locul demitizaţilor care au ca supremă culpă statutul de model, postmodernitatea livrează figuri care aspiră la acelaşi jignitor statut. Îţi vine să te întrebi, în vremurile acestea atât de obsedate de pragmatism şi precizie, cum a putut oare să se formeze cultul universal al lui Guevara, în condiţiile în care există lucrări precum cea a lui Ricardo Rojo – Vie et mort d’un ami (Paris, Ed. du Seuil, 1968 ) sau a lui Yves Guilbert – La Poudriere cubaine. Castro l’infidele (Paris, La table ronde, 1961), sau cea de faţă, pentru a cărei curajoasă traducere Pro Editura trebuie felicitată. Aş risca un răspuns. Nu e nimic nou să afirmi că lumea are nevoie permanentă de eroi. Eroul de tip clasic este autoritar, se impune singur, are un halou de forţă, are eventual geniu. Eroul de tip clasic se situează departe, într-un spaţiu inaccesibil oricărui profan. El este venerat, de departe, cu un respect îmbibat parcă de o teamă secretă. Imitarea lui impune eforturi personale impresionante, răbdare, adevărate transformări interioare.

Figura lui Che nu este însă una de acest tip. Propaganda intensă l-a coborât din Olimpul eroilor istoriei. În loc de un geniu militar sau un răzvrătit absolut, avem în faţă un fel de top-model, un superman marxist, prêt-à-porter pe bustiere, brelocuri, şorturi şi şorţuri. Un macho care ştie să-şi ridice solemn privirile, de parcă tocmai ar vedea răsărind soarele sfânt al proletariatului din toate ţările. Care îşi joacă, cu un instinct teatral admirabil, trabucul şi basca cu steluţă. Mai mult, propaganda l-a transformat într-un spectru; Guevara “a devenit atemporal”. Mulţumită lui Fidel Castro, istoricilor oficiali şi lui Jean-Paul Sartre, El Comandante, aşa cum se prezintă el acum, în formă de stencil pe tricouri, este greu de identificat, greu de supus analizei. Orice naiv cu orice configuraţie sufletească sau orice nătărău “nemulţumit de sistem” îl pot lua ca model, pentru că din Guevara a rămas numai imaginea. Printr-un salt postmodern, mitul s-a demitizat pe sine. Pentru tinerii rebeli, Guevara este un vas care poate fi umplut cu orice frustrare, orice ideal sau sămânţă de revoltă. Modelul lui Guevara nu este politic, ci (pop)cultural.

Dată fiind această situaţie, este de înţeles de ce crimele lui nu contează şi este previzibil ca, oricâte cărţi de dimistificare a adevăratului Guevara s-ar scrie, cei care-l admiră să nu aibă nici o zguduire de conştiinţă. Nici nu ar avea de ce - un om care-l admiră pe Che Guevara (spre deosebire de un om care-l admiră, spre exemplu, pe Hitler) nu ar comite vreodată, în numele lui, crimele pe care le-a comis el prin Sierra Maestra sau La Cabaña. Adevărul istoric nu numai că nu mai este eludat, dar în sine nu mai are nici un fel relevanţă. Din bulldog sângeros, Che a fost transformat – proces pe care el însuşi l-a demarat încă din timpul vieţii – într-un chihuahua un pic mai viril. Nu mai e nociv. Inflaţia de portrete şi elogii l-a devalorizat iremediabil. Crimele lui nu pot fi conştientizate drept crime adevărate - un individ care joacă Counterstrike nu poate fi cercetat penal. E vorba doar de o consimţire tacită la o (aparent) benignă obturare a simţului realităţii. Căptuşită de astfel de minciuni inofensive, realitatea este mult mai călduţă şi viaţa este mult mai confortabilă (mai ales dacă în căşti răsună victorios Hasta siempre sau altă melodie din cele 20 pe care Wikipedia le listează ca fiind închinate lui).

Bun, şi dacă portul de Guevara nu este nociv, nu cauzează nici cancer (social sau medical), nici gripă aviară, nici impotenţă, ce rost mai au cărţi precum aceasta sau cele din care Jacobo Machover îşi alcătuieşte bibliografia? Răspunsul este dat tocmai de necunoscuta pe care publicitatea a preferat să o ignore: acelaşi adevăr istoric despre care vorbeam mai sus. Mi-ar plăcea ca tinerii cu stea în frunte să se gândească un moment cum ar reacţiona fiul sau nepotul lui Eutimio Guerra (prima victimă a lui Guevara) dacă ar vedea arborat pe pieptul oricărui adolescent portetul celui care i-a ucis tatăl sau bunicul? Aceeaşi senzaţie pe care ar avea-o un fiu sau nepot de evreu spulberat la Auschwitz, Treblinka sau Sobibor, care s-ar plimba prin Occident şi ar vedea tineri cu svastica agăţată la gât şi purtând mândri tricouri cu Fuhrer-ul. Diferenţa majoră e că în Occident purtarea de asemenea însemne este interzisă, pe când stelele roşii pot sclipi în voie pe burtica oricărui june. Politica interzice tot ceea ce publicitatea nu poate reabilita.

Nu este drept faţă de aceştia de mai sus, cum nu este drept nici faţă de un prieten al meu, acum student la jurnalism, care în urmă cu vreo doi ani îmi mărturisea că el crede că trebuie să fie foarte mişto să stai în Cuba, nici faţă de cei care vor citi şi vor crede în această inepţie colosală din cartea Reginei Deforgues – Poetul din Cabaña: “Istoria tuturor ţărilor e făurită din violenţe şi din sânge, dar nu reamintindu-le la nesfârşit [care nesfârşit?, n.n.] se vor înlesni schimburile culturale şi economice între popoare”. Şi peste acestea atârnă greu de tot gândul lui Machover :

“Câţi tineri, câţi studenţi şi militanţi ai mişcărilor revoluţionare urbane, mulţi dintre ei comunişti devotaţi şi sinceri, nu şi-au dat viaţa în lupte dinainte pierdute, în numele concepţiei lui Che despre sacrificiu şi a lipsei sale totale de realism?”

De ce? De Che…

Recenzie realizata de Silviu Man pentru BookBlog si publicata pe Proiectul Arche la initiativa si din vointa ante-numitului.

To properly explain what the Democrat party, and liberals, are all about you have to remove money from the equation. Money makes people stupid. Instead, we'll use fishing.

Suppose there are two guys. One fishes for 2-3 hours a day. In that time he will catch enough fish to feed his family, but not enough to trade for other goods that could give his family a more luxurious standard of living. He spends the rest of his day digging sandcastles. The other guy spends 12 hours a day fishing. He catches enough fish to feed his family and uses the surplus to trade with others. He's living high off the hog and the people he trades with can put food on their table.

Shouldn't we consider the second fisherman a benefit to society? Not the Democrat Party. They look at him as having too much and the first guy as having too little. The free market would allow the successful fisherman to keep the fruit of his labor and the guy who catches enough to feed his family could either decide to work harder at his craft or continue his meager living. While some, they would be called socialists, might be horrified about someone eeking out a living, the fact of the matter is that the guy who only catches enough fish to feed his family has a lower standard of living by choice. He is not willing to pay the necessary price to be successful. Free markets are about the choice to pay the price for success. Either you are willing to pay that price or you are not.

The Democrat Party has a different take on that situation. Where normal people see life playing itself out, and sometimes life will be unfair, Democrats see "market failures" that demand government action so we can live on a collectivist heaven on earth. Their remedy is to have the government take from the successful fisherman to give to the guy who wants to build sandcastles. Any human being with a functioning brain is going to understand what will happen next. Without the incentive to catch more fish, the successful fisherman will cut back. He'll catch enough fish to feed his family, but not many more. Why should he? The government is taking what it is his and giving it to someone who did nothing to earn it. Now everyone in society is worse off because the socialists took away the incentive to be successful.

This is the key difference between not only Democrats and Reublicans, but more importantly those who believe in freedom and those who believe in collectivism and totalitarian forms of government.

clipped from www.interfax-religion.com The Moscow Patriarchate finds no sense in condemning communism as an ideology. "Church doesn't give estimations to political philosophy and political doctrines. When they say Church should condemn communism as philosophy I don't think it's correct," deputy head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin said on air of Russian News Service. He noted there were believers among the Communists and "many people once urged Church to condemn Communism." According to Fr. Vsevolod, "it's difficult" to say what communism is today as "some left political movements speak about ideals of justice. And these ideals are also important for an Orthodox Christian." It is quite a different matter (and according to him, "many priests have positively stated it") that "society and state should condemn crimes of the Bolshevist regime

I find myself in two minds about this.

Yes, there is a sense in which Christians are neutral in relation to worldly political ideologies -- at least in the sense that we should not be wedded to any of them. But it is difficult to see that all political ideologies are equal from a Christian point of view. Some political ideologies are manifestly unjust, and promote injustice.

When, in 1968, South African Christians condemned apartheid as not merely a heresy, but a pseudogospel, they were saying that belief in the ideology of apartheid was not merely incompatible with the Christian faith, but antithetical to it.

"Communism" is a somwwhat wider term, though in the form in which Russian Christians faced it under the Bolsheviks it was not simply an abstract economic ideal of sharing material goods, but in the form of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism it included several other things as well, such as the enforcement of atheism, and the deliberate starvation of large numbers of people. While one can say, as a general principle, that no state system or political doctrine can be preferable to the church, there are also features of some state systems and political doctrines that can be decidedly unacceptable to the church. While the Church should not endorse political parties, or their policies and programmes, it can, and sometimes should, point out policies or aspects of policies that are unacceptable to Christians.

Before we go any further, it's probably necessary to explain to the hard-of-thinking that there's a difference between recognising Israel's right in principle to defend herself (including pre-emptive defence) against an enemy who's on record as seeking her total destruction, and advocating such an attack.

The idea that Matgamna advocates an attack can only be sustained if you ignore the opening paragraph of the article (or if you dismiss it as a cynical ploy to mislead the reader, in which case we don't really have much room for useful dialogue) :

"An attack on Iran will most likely lead to great carnage in the Middle East and beyond, as supporters of Iran resort to suicide bombings in retaliation. There might well be large scale Iranian 'collateral' casualties. An attack would strengthen the Iranian regime and license a smash down on its critics, including working class critics, inside Iran. It would throw Iraq back into the worst chaos."

Those are hardly the words of a pro-bombing hawk, are they?

But it's one thing to oppose such an attack; quite another to argue that if it happens (as both Matgamna and I think it probably will), Israel should be condemned in terms of (as he so accurately describes it) "duff 'anti-imperialism', pretend, one-sided pacifism and hysterical appeals to 'international law' and 'the UN'"

There are those on the "left" (I use the term advisedly) who actually support Ahmedinejad and his nuclear ambitions because his programme for the total destruction of Israel is the same as their own, albeit by use of different (and more realistic) means: the SWP and Workers Power. Then there are those (the CPGB /Weekly Worker spring to mind) who in theory recognise Israel's right to exist alongside a Palestinian state - it's just that they don't think the right to exist (in Israel's case) extends to the right to defend yourself in any way.

The comments in response to Matgamna's piece on the AWL website are at least as interesting as the article itself. The majority confirm Matgamna's prediction that condemnation of Isreal will be in the name of one or more of the following propositions, more or less sincerely held:

1/ The inalienable right of every state to have nuclear weapons - and here a state whose clerical fascist rulers might see a nuclear armageddon, involving a retaliatory Israeli nuclear strike against Iran in the way  a God-crazed suicide bomber sees blowing himself to pieces?

2/ Because Israel has nuclear weapons, and therefore the Arab and Islamic states should have them too?

3/ Because we are unconditional pacifists? We think military action is never justified and therefore Israel has no right to attack Iran, not even to stop it acquiring the nuclear means to mount the ultimate suicide attack on Israel?

4/ Because we would prefer to live in a world where such choices would not be posed, where relations between states and peoples are governed by reason and strictly peaceful means?

5/ Because for choice we would live in a world where the workers of Israel, Iran and Iraq were united in opposition to all their rulers, and strong enough to get rid of them and bring to the region an era of socialist and democratic peace and understanding?

6/ Because Israel would in attacking Iran be only an American imperialist tool against a mere regional power; and that cancels out the genuine self-defence element in pre-emptive Israeli military action against  Iranian nuclear weapons?

7/ Because Israel has no right to exist anyway, and therefore no right to defend itself (This will in fact be the underlying attitude of most of the kitsch left -SM)

8/ Because the Iranian government, Islamic clerical fascist though it is, is an "anti imperialist" power and must be unconditionally supported against the US, Nato and Israel?

9/ Because Israel refuses to dismantle the Jewish national state peacefully and agree to an Arab Palestinian state in which Jews would have religious but not Israeli-national rights and therefore socialists, anti-racists and anti-imperialists must be on the side of those who would conquer and destroy it, even (in this case) with nuclear weapons?

10/ Because we don't deal in vulgar practical choices but in pure historical essences such as "anti imperialism"?

To judge by the responses on the AWL website so far, the vast majority of those who object to what Matgamna has to say, subscribe to a combination of points 2, 5, 8 and 10, with unspoken but clearly-implied support for points 7 and 9. Interestingly, the only arguments predicted by Matgamna that have yet to receive even implied support in the comments boxes are points 1 and 3 - both of which (though mad) have at least the merit of principle and logical consistency.

What Comrade Matgamna is doing here is, in essence, a polemical pre-emptive strike - an attempt (probably futile) to get the "left" to think about the issue before it happens. As Matgamna says:

"Socialists should not want that (ie an Israeli attack -JD) and cannot support it. Our point of view is not that of Israeli or any other nationalism. We want Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian and other workers to unite and fight for a socialist Middle East.

"However, least of all should we back Ahmedinejad, or argue implicitly or openly, that homocidal religious lunatics have a right to arm themselves with nuclear weapons - and that those they say they want to destroy should be condemned for refusing to stand idly by while they  (ie:the Iranian regime - JD) arm themselves to do the job." 

Medan maxisterna såg det kommunistiska samhället inte som en möjlig framtid utan som en självklarhet, det var bara fråga om när. Detta hade den enda sanna vetenskapen marxist-leninismen bevisat med hänvisning till lagen om profitkvotens fallande tendens och dylikt.

Tyvärr lider båda dessa extremistgrupper av samma problem. Nämligen det att inom logiken finns det en regel som heter Humes lag. Denna lag lyder att du kan inte härleda bör från är. Således följer aldrig vad man bör göra från ett vetenskapligt faktum. Detta illusteras bäst med exemplet. Tänk dig att du befinner dig i ett rum, där det finns en bomb. Av det faktum att det finns en bomb i rummet följer inte att du bör lämna rummet. Däremot om du kombinerar din vilja till att inte bli sprängd med att det finns en bomb i rummet, så bör du lämna det. Man kan ju också tänka sig att du var självmordsbenägen, då är det logiska att stanna kvar i rummet.

Så vad har dagens nyliberaler och 70-talets marxister gemensamt? De båda brister i logiken.