I find it interesting to note how most every element of this report on the Greek crisis is international. The bond markets, the currency trading and speculating, the EU, the IMF all operate at and with an international perspective.
The only notable exceptions to this are the Greek unions! Clearly, the Greek working class is being corralled into their own corner of the world, with the union bureaucracy riding herd.
I think it’s time for working people to expand their horizons and adopt methods and actions based on an international perspective.
It’s time for an old-fashioned “stampede”!
25 March 2010
In reference to the removal of rice tariffs under his administration, Bill Clinton says, “I had to live every day with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else.”
Nobody else? Really? My heart, she bleeds for Mr. Clinton’s pain!
If he really cared about the consequences, he would be advocating for a removal of such tariffs, rather than an expansion of low-wage jobs. Instead, he is partaking now in driving the Haitian population back into virtual slavery. His interests have nothing to do with those of the Haitian people, nor any people below a certain economic level. Disgusting.
24 March 2010
I would say that forcing workers “to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes” goes beyond criminalization, and brings outright slavery back into the economic system.
22 March 2010
A very nice article on Big Star’s Alex Chilton. I also wanted to thank you for all your wonderful contributions to the WSWS on matters of film, music and politics. I have learned so much culturally and politically from WSWS commentators like Joanne Laurier, David Walsh and yourself. You are the only “left”/socialist group through which I have learned to sharpen my mind broadly speaking and cut through the contradictions of many of the post-68 leftists.
Sincerely and in solidarity,
24 March 2010
Before Bush senior, American policy in the Middle East relied on corrupt compliant regimes and Israeli military force. After the First Gulf War, the American elites toyed with some notion of traditional military Imperialism. The direct application of military force followed by the establishment of an American military garrison. As events unfolded after the last Iraq war, it became clear this policy would require an American army much larger than its current force. A standing American army of perhaps a million, perhaps 2 million. The costs would be astronomic unless conscription was introduced. And whatever the net benefit in terms of the price differential of a gallon of oil for American producers and populace, these would be swamped by the new costs of the military occupations. So the American elites are looking again at the old strategy. But the policy of occupations has undermined it. Compliant regimes in the region have all observed the limits of American military power. As have their subjugated populations. And these grow more hostile to their American-controlled despotisms.
Secondly, the Israeli government has undermined its propaganda, which painted Israel as a modern Sparta. What the Israeli military supplied that the American military required were invincible soldiers on the ground. But the myth of invincibility of the Israeli military was destroyed in the last invasion of Lebanon. Fighters from Hezbollah stopped the Israeli army literally in its tracks. And since the Israeli military is preparing to have another go, that is where the requirement for bunker-busting bombs actually comes from. Hezbollah’s TV station survived all the previous attempts to put it out of action. The many contradictions that exist in the Middle Eastern policy of the American elites are now active. They are prevented by their past acts from returning to their old policy. Yet they have no coherent alternative. Meanwhile, the regimes in Iran and Syria publicly celebrate the leadership of Hezbollah, and apply what they can of its military tactics.
25 March 2010
One use to say, “Who has the gold makes the rules.” In this case, one could say, “Who has the gun breaks the rules.” What else can one expect when a robber has the rules and the gun?
25 March 2010