*----------------------------------------------------------* | | | x x x x x x x xx xxx xxx xxx | | xx xx x xx xx xx x x x x x x Issue #33 | | x x x x x x x x xx x x x xx xxx | | x x x x x x x x x x x x 01/12/87 | | x x x x x x x xx x xxx xxx | | | |----------------------------------------------------------| | Newspaper of the Maoist Internationalist Movement | *----------------------------------------------------------* US bombs Iran, kills fishers in Gulf By MC5 and MC99 "US warships sank two Iranian oil platforms and Navy commandos raided another in the Persian Gulf on Monday in retaliation for a missile attack on a U.S. registered oil tanker." (Detroit Free Press, 10/20/87, p. 1) "The Reagan administration announced Monday [10/19/87] morning that four U.S. destroyers had fired 1,000 rounds from their five-inch guns on two platforms of an Iranian oil facility in international waters." (Ibid.) The United States justified the attack with references to Iranian attacks on US bloc shipping in the Gulf and the reputed role of the oil platforms as a military base. On October 15, Iran hit the "the Sungari, an American-owned tanker flying the Liberian flag" with a missile. On October 16th, Iran hit "the Sea Isle City, a Kuwaiti-owned tanker flying the American flag." (New York Times, 10/23/87, p. 7) Previously, US helicopters had attacked three Iranian speedboats on October 8th. The most recent incident as MIM Notes goes to press indicates what the US means by its literal "shoot first" policy in the Gulf. The US navy fired machine guns on three Arab fishing boats in the Persian Gulf and killed an Indian fisher, Bekwan Kangee on November 4. The United States states that it is making international waters in the Gulf safe for use against Iranian and Iraqi attack. After the US aggression, Iran attacked Kuwait's main offshore oil terminal and caused it serious damage on October 22nd. (Ibid.) Iran considers Kuwait its enemy in the war with Iraq. Democrats support President The Democratic Party as a whole supported the bombing of Iran. The most-quoted Democrat prior to the bombing was Senator Sam Nunn, the chair of the Armed Service Committee: "The Iranians should be aware that if they do use those missiles in a way that jeopardizes American ships, they are subjecting themselves to possible and probable retaliation." (New York Times, 10/17/87, p. 4) Although the press focused on the reaction of moderate and conservative Democrats, those considered more liberal also supported the bombing. Senator Edward Kennedy's office (DMA) told MIM that he "supported the President' s action and thought it was appropriate." Senator Alan Cranston's office had this to say: "the Senator has not given a position. . . no senator criticized the attack." Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, the governor of Massachusetts "supports the president. . . when vessels are fired on we should be able to retaliate." He added that the Gulf needs "a multilateral UN force. . . to maintain peace," according to his office. Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) had a lengthy statement prepared in support of the bombing: "Destruction of the oil platform seems to be a measured response given the circumstances in which we find ourselves in the Persian Gulf. An appropriate response was necessary. But this clear exchange of hostilities is added cause for invoking the War Powers Act. We were left with no choice but a military response which is why I have expressed concern about the reflagging effort from the beginning. We need to protect the freedom of the seas in the Gulf, but it should not be unilateral. We need the help of other nations." So the most liberal presidential candidate admits that even if he were in office, he would be "left with no choice but a military response." Indeed, his call for the involvement of other nations is ominous and indicates on what scale the problem in the Gulf is. Jesse Jackson Jesse Jackson, in the opinion of this author, is the Democrat, who because he seems promising to progressive people, is the most valuable in co-opting people into the Democratic Party. Indeed, numerous supposedly Marxist- Leninist groups have dissolved because of the hope they found in Jackson's campaign. These activists want to be among the rainbow communities so as to pull people into radical politics, whether Jackson fails or succeeds. More than one organizer for Jesse Jackson has admitted to MIM that Jackson is opportunist. These same organizers say that they are able to campaign for Jackson on the basis of any platform they choose. According to Jackson's Washington and Chicago offices, however, Jackson has only one stand on the Persian Gulf. Jackson supported the oil platform bombing calling it a "tactical, surgical strike within the boundaries of international law." The War Powers Act is moot According to Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.VA), "the U.S. response... was minimal and appropriate." (Detroit Free Press, 10/20/87, p. 5a) Likewise, House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX), "it was necessary to make a demonstration that the Iranians cannot willfully and at their whim attack U.S. vessels without expecting measured retaliation." (Ibid.) So popular was the move with Democrats that the call to invoke the War Powers Act took on a different meaning than that wished by some naive liberals. The Democrats supported the invocation of the War Powers Act so that Reagan could prove the public fully supported the war against Iran. A key example of this was that of former president Carter: "Mr. Carter said that Congress would probably not overrule the President's policy if the War Powers Resolution were invoked, and that doing so would 'help alleviate the worldwide belief' that Congress overwhelmingly disapproves of the current naval buildup in the Persian Gulf." (New York Times, 10/17/87, p. 4) On Wednesday, October 21st, the Senate voted to call on the President to issue a report on hostilities on the Gulf and give the Senate 30 days to respond. The Senate did not call on the president to uphold the War Powers Act. The bill has no teeth and even some Democrats thought it was "mishmash (Detroit Free Press, 10/22/87, p. 1) Pentagon selects journalists to report Gulf war In July Marines aimed machine guns at a chartered boat of journalists who attempted to cover the progress of US- escorted tankers through the Gulf. The journalists involved left. The Pentagon only allows 10 people from the press to cover the Gulf military actions. The Pentagon determines when it is safe (by its standards) for the 10 people to release the news reports. The 10 reporters traveled in two groups of five on the cruiser Fox and the destroyer Kidd. The first reports from actual action in the Gulf were allowed through by "Defense Secretary" Caspar W. Weinberger. He "'immediately approved' the release of the first pool dispatch once it arrived at the Pentagon, Sims [Pentagon spokesperson] said." (Los Angeles Times, 7/22/87, p. 10) According to one of the AP reporters, Tim Ahern, however, the military did in fact censor reports from the ships. In the first place, the first reports from the Gulf were held by the Pentagon for three days: "It wasn't until days later that we found out that those reports had been held back at the Pentagon, supposedly because they breached operational security by reporting about future military events. I didn't think that was so, nor did any of the other reporters, but we didn't have much avenue of appeal aboard the ships." (Washington Journalism Review, 10/87, p. 17) Later buried in the story, Ahern also admits that the Navy changed his stories Captain David Yonkers of the Persian Gulf Flotilla changed at least two aspects of Ahern's stories. "The first concerned a reference to beer drinking, which Yonkers eliminated because he said it wouldn't look good to readers back in the United States if they knew Navy officers had been drinking during such an important mission." "The second occasion came on July 23, when I wrote a piece about the upcoming last day of the convoy. I detailed how and when we were going to pass Farsi Island.... Yonkers objected to putting specifics into the story, so we fudged the details and then sent the story." (Ibid.) These facts appear buried in Ahern's story about his trip to the Gulf. Ahern has no major criticisms of the system which let him, along with 9 other people from major capitalist syndicates, be the first to report from the Gulf. Those who can obtain the Washington Journalism Review of October 1987 should do so to read how intimate the relationship is between the US government and the media: The media has no problem when the government picks the select number of journalists who it wants for its missions, decides when the reporters can report or participate, changes their stories and limits their travel except within the military boats themselves. Ships hit by Iran were not in international waters The two tankers that Iran hit with Chinese Silkworm missiles on October 15th and 16th were in Kuwaiti waters. The United States is claiming to protect international shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, but its retaliation against Iran for the destruction of Kuwaiti ships indicates that Kuwait is little more than a protectorate of the United States. (Indianapolis Star, 10/17/87, p. a3; Los Angeles Times, 10/17/87, p. 1) "The tiny emirate of Kuwait has become a prime target for Iranian retaliatory strikes largely because it provides financial assistance to Iraq and allows war materiel to pass through its ports en route to Iraq." (Los Angeles Times, 10/16/87, p. 6) Kuwait is "contributing billions of dollars and allowing Iraqi military supplies through its ports." (New York Times, 10/23/87, p. 7) The United States admitted that Iranian attacks on Kuwait are not US business. (New York Times, "U.S. Calls Latest Iran Raid An Issue for Kuwait Alone," p. 7) Shipping and oil capitalists pushed for retaliation "'If one of these vessels [US controlled vessels without the US flag--ed.] were being attacked, we would like to see the United States authorized to intervene and stop the attack,' said Thomas S. Wyman, director of governmental and public affairs for Chevron, the San Francisco oil giant." (Los Angeles Times, 10/17/87, p. 12) Wyman went on to say that it should not matter what flag is on a ship in the Gulf. The United States should protect its "vital interest" in the Gulf. Chevron only sends three or four tankers to the Gulf each month, but it spoke for a number of oil shippers in its lobbying of the Reagan administration. Chevron pointed out that 40% of US controlled oil shipped to the US from the Gulf does not travel in US registered ships. (Ibid.) Also supporting the reflagging is the US Mideast Force. Perhaps seeking glory, promotion or greater resources, Rear Adm. Harold Bernsen has asked for permission to attack Iranian gunboats "'stalking civilian oil tankers."' (St. Petersburg Times, 10/16/87, p. 16a) Press bias is obviously against Iranians The New York Times (10/20/87) wrote stories about the bombing of Iran that totaled more than 100 inches in length. Almost all of the coverage was based on the comments of the U.S. government or shipping executives. Below, MIM Notes quotes all the Iranian reactions that the New York Times found fit to print: "At the United Nations, an Iranian delegate said "several innocent people" had been killed in the attack, but the assertion could not be confirmed." (p. 1) "Before the shelling began, the Iranian installation was warned by radio messages that an attack was imminent. Receipt of the message was acknowledged, and Iranians were seen leaving the platform in a small boat, according to the Secretary." [This is a second-hand report of the IraniansÕ reaction as relayed by the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Caspar W. Weinberger to the New York Times, ed.] (p. 6) "Iran vowed today to deliver a "crushing blow" against the United States in revenge for the raids on its offshore platforms in the Persian Gulf. "We're sending so much over there that the water level of the gulf is going to go up two or three inches when it's all done.Ó -- Reagan administration official. "The United States has entered a swamp from which it can in no way get out safely," said the director of Iran's War Information Office, Kharrazi. He said Washington was now embroiled in a full-fledged war with Iran. "The remarks, released by the official Iranian press agency, were the first Iranian reaction to the raids on the platforms, which the United States said were used as radar and speedboat bases for preying on shipping. "[At the United Nations, Iran's envoy, Said Rajaie Khorassani, described the target of the attack as an "oil terminal" without military significance and said "several innocent people were killed." He acknowledged his country was behind the missile attacks against two ships in Kuwaiti waters last week, but called the action a justified measures (sic.) against a nation supporting Iraq in its war with Iran. One ship was Kuwaiti-owned but registered in the United States; the other was American-owned and registered in Liberia.]" The Iranians got one-half inch on page one out of seven and one-half inches. Three quarters of an inch for the second-hand U.S. government report of the Iranian reaction appeared on page six. Then on the last page of coverage of the bombing in the New York Times, Iran got a whopping four inches. (p. 8) Meanwhile, Britain's reaction also received three inches on the same page. All together, Iran had its views explained or quoted for a total of five and one-quarter inches. The next day contained no coverage, so it was not the case that the New York Times did not have the time to report more of a response. While the New York Times is the best major newspaper in the United States, it is still a crude mouthpiece for the Pentagon, shipping executives and various Reagan officials. History--a review of hostilities The bombing of the Iranian oil platform was not an isolated military act on the United States' part. On October 8th, US helicopters attacked and sank between one and three Iranian gunboats in the Persian Gulf. The two sides dispute who fired first. (Los Angeles Times, 10/10/87, p. 8) The last issue of MIM Notes neglected to mention an important conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran that the imperialists are trying to inflame--the Arab vs. Persian conflict. Friday, July 31st, at least 402 people died in Mecca when Saudi Arabian police fired on Iranian demonstrators. Mecca is an Islamic holy city in Saudi Arabia. At least 275 of the dead were Iranians. (The Plain Dealer, 8/4/87, p. 2a) After the riot, Iran called for the overthrow of the Saudi government for the first time. (Los Angeles Times, 8/3/87, p. 1) There is also more information in on the role Soviet economic and military competition had in driving the U.S. into Gulf intervention. In April, Kuwait made an agreement with the Soviet Union "to lease three small tankers from the Soviet Union, which will provide a naval escort to and from Kuwaiti ports." (The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, p. 5a) Indeed, the US attempt to have all the states of the Middle East as its dependents figures into the Kuwaiti request for US military escort in the Persian Gulf. Having heard that the United States is supplying Iran in its war with Iraq, Kuwait decided to "test" the US commitment to protecting the "moderate gulf states" from "Iranian aggression" according to a Kuwaiti official. (Ibid.) In reality, as of October 16, 1987 Iraq had attacked 258 commercial ships, while Iran had attacked 142. (The Indianapolis Star, 10/17/87, p. a3) Iranian military actions are partly response to US provocations In the past, Iran has indicated that its actions in the Persian Gulf are at least partly responses to the US military force there. "As long as there are foreign forces in the gulf, it is quite natural to use such means to block approaches," said Iran's Kamal Kharazi of the Supreme Defense Council. Iran, however, has denied responsibility for mines that have caused the destruction of various tankers in the Gulf. Some evidence for this is that Iranian oil has spilled as a result of the mine attacks. Iran claims that both the United States and Iraq are also using mines in the Persian Gulf. Even if Iran is the only country putting in the mines, it is not in the Iranians' interests to blow up their own oil, unless there is a larger threat such as the United States in the Gulf. Iran also claims not to want to block free navigation in the Gulf, but it has said that the US "is trying to find justification for its presence" in the Gulf. (Los Angeles Times, 8/21/87) US punishes China for arms trade with Iran Despite the fact that no one has gone to jail yet for the Iran-contra scam, the US has imposed a high-tech embargo to China because China has sold Silkworm missiles to Iran. Meanwhile, the US is preparing finally to put a ban on Iranian imports including oil. It will also act to cut off exports to Iran that could be useful to terrorists. Of course, in perfectly hypocritical order, the US will act against China first: "the trade curb. . . was imposed as President Reagan was poised to announce a ban on most trade with Iran. . . Oil and other imports would be cut off, as well as exports of all goods that could even be vaguely useful to terrorist groups." (New York Times, 10/23/87, p. 1) Typically, China has denied arms sales to Iran, as it has denied most controversial arms sales before, including nuclear sales to South Africa. According to the US, the US showed China photographs of China's shipping the arms to Iran, but China still denied the sales. If this high-tech embargo has any teeth, it will be an interesting test of the government in China. Is the Chinese government a mere lackey of US imperialism? Certainly, the US role in the Chinese economy has become much more important since 1976, but is it big enough so that the US can make China act as a dependent vassal? The actions of the US seem to indicate that the US considers China a dependent state, not a partner in imperialism. China continues to learn from the West "In one of the worst environmental disasters on record in China, an estimated 20,000 people were poisoned when a fertilizer factory dumped toxic chemicals into a river and contaminated the source of water for thousands of people." (Los Angeles Times, 3/21/87, p. 1) "'The leaders of the chemical factory did not take immediate measures to stop the continuing contamination. "' Apparently, the clean-up project was still unfinished in March; even though, the disaster took place on January 2nd. "'When you do not pay attention to environmental protection, but only go after developing production, production cannot be developed, and even more importantly, a higher price will have to be paid economically, and this is very harmful to the masses,"' said Environmental News in China. (Ibid., p. 10) Confucius makes open comeback in China Scholars met in China to discuss Confucius at the end of August and the beginning of September. Contrary to The Sun's article on the conference, however, this is certainly not the first discussion of Confucius in China's history since 1949. During the Cultural Revolution, the Gang of Four led discussions and rallies across the country to criticize Confucius. (The Sun, 9/3/87, p. 22a) Cai Shangsi, a professor at Fudan University, said that Confucius represented old ideas that needed to be conquered He also reportedly said "another cultural revolution" would be needed. A colleague, in defending Cai's views against a Columbia University professor, said, however, that Cai was not referring to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. MIM is not able to assess this information, whether or not Cai really desires the uprooting of reactionary ideas. China goes to pure private farming Since the counterrevolution after Mao's death, the Chinese state capitalists have had China's peasants engage in quasi- private farming. In that farming the state has assigned families plots of land for their use. There were only two restrictions that the family sell a certain minimum of its product to the state and that the family not sell the land it was on. Now, the Chinese state capitalists are going to allow peasants to buy and sell their land. That is to say, a family can transfer its plot to someone else. (Ann Arbor News, 10/26/87, p. C1) Farming in China is hence capitalist in the sense of private capitalist. Many so-called leftists in the United States have said that capitalism only exists where there is private property. Well, now even by their own standards, China is capitalist. How Deng learns from the West: Going for Western plastic surgery With the disgusting aping of everything Western in China these days, the latest trend is eyelid operations. A surgery procedure costing between one-fifth to one month's salary of an average worker makes Chinese eyes appear less slanted and more Western. Other operations give Chinese people larger noses and breasts. Breast operations cost between two and three years' salary. We can only hope that the prohibitive costs will prevent people from having them. Even skin creams for lighter complexions are reportedly popular. (New York Times, 4/30/87, p. 17) While it is unavoidable in this author's opinion, that human bodies will become increasingly synthetic as science advances, the operations that the counterrevolution in China is promoting are not for the health of the patient. On the contrary, the operations contribute to the mental subjugation of the Chinese people to Western ideals of beauty and fashion. More evidence of the left eddy in China last summer In mid-August, 5,000 citizen volunteers helped put 800 street peddlers out of business in Beijing. The peddlers were accused of speculation, swindling and tax evasion. (Christian Science Monitor, 8/24/87, p. 7) In Guangzhou, hundreds of other peddlers had the same fate. (Ibid.) Prison inmates in Ohio seek to join IWW The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) claim that over 400 inmates in Ohio have sent cards in requesting union membership. Inmates in Ohio make road signs, license plates and furniture and grow vegetables for the penal system, but they are only allowed to make $24 a month. Apparently, prison officials have blocked IWW organizing in various ways. The officials claim that the IWW represents a threat to the health and safety of the prisoners. (The Plain Dealer, 8/4/87, p. dl, d7) "Defense" increasingly dominates academic research spending The "Department of Defense" claims to only fund $930 million in research at universities in the United States, but that figure is twice what it was ten years ago by the DOD ' s own figures. (Los Angeles Times, 4/12/87, p. 32) LA Times review criticizes 'Platoon' from Latino point of view By MC Zero and MC5 According to Gregg Barrios, Platoon is a movie without any believable or significant Latino characters. Yet, statistics show that Mexican-Americans constituted 10% of the population of the Southwest during Vietnam but 19.4% of the Vietnam War casualties. In 1965, Blacks suffered 23.5% of the combat deaths in the Army while serving as only 10% of the armed forces in Vietnam. (Los Angeles Times, Calendar, 4/19/87, p. 2) At the same time, Platoon was praised for localizing the Vietnam war for the folks at home. Holding up one white boy who choose to enlist for macho reasons instead of resist at home in no way forces the issue. Amerika still refuses to admit total defeat or acknowledge the Vietnamese government. Naturally, the US is still completely unsympathetic toward the Vietnamese efforts to stop Pol Pot's genocide. Stock market crash reveals parasitic nature of economy How is it possible that the stock market could fall 22.6% in one day? (New York Times, 10/20/87, p. 1) Since August 25th, the Dow Jones index of stock prices fell 36%. Stocks are supposedly the paper deeds to the means of production in the United States. Just as there are ownership forms for cars and houses, there are ownership papers for the factories, machines and everything else corporations need to produce. Yet, the fall of 36% in the average prices of stock shares does not mean that something destroyed 36% of the factories, machines and other means of production in the United States! No, the actual property is still there. What has changed so much is the perception of the monetary value of the stocks. Under capitalism, everything is expressed in monetary terms. A share of stock does not refer to a particular building or a particular machine. Rather, a share is really a deed for some fraction of a company's value. It is up to the market to determine what the monetary value of a share of stock is. This is an inherently speculative activity. There is no right or wrong answer as to the value of a stock in monetary terms. In addition, there are good reasons why the monetary value of a stock should change. For instance, if an incompetent management takes over a plant, the machinery and buildings can become as good as useless. If management can't produce anything with its machinery, then that machinery is worthless. This is one of the real reasons for merger mania. When a capitalist such as T. Boone Pickens finds a poorly run company, he can offer the company's shareholders a higher price for their stock. Pickens would say, "look with your assets, we could make a lot more profit; that's why I want to buy your stock and get rid of the old management." So the price of a stock depends partially on the competence of the company's management, and that competence is measured in terms of profit generated. When, the whole stock market fell 36%, however, it did not mean that managers suddenly increased their incompetence. Indeed, the capitalists themselves do not claim that there is a real reason that could explain this: "We don't know how to interpret it, and we don't think anyone else does either," said John A. Rolls, executive vice-president of the United Technologies Corporation. (New York Times, 10/20/87, p. 48) The slight rise in interest rates, the persistence of the trade deficit and the continued war in the Persian Gulf are not sufficient real reasons to account for the stock market's sudden decline. That is why Marxists distinguish between real, actual and physical forces in the economy on the one hand and speculative, fetishistic and illusionary forces on the other hand. The Great Paper Shuffle Eight percent of the New York City work force is employed in the securities trade. (New York Times, 10/20/87, p. 48) In 1977, 77,000 worked in the securities trade. By 1987, that number was 157,000. The total exceeds 250,000 when one counts the lawyers, accountants and computer operators directly involved in Wall Street. That means there are over 250,000 people working on deciding how much a stock is worth in New York alone! And, the best justification for this is that someone has to analyze the companies to see if they have competent management! Yet, when the whole market falls 36% in two months, one has to conclude that there was simply a lot of speculation going on. Wall Street people were paper-shuffling their way to profits until the whole house of cards came tumbling down. In this most recent paper-shuffle, the bourgeoisie unintentionally erased over $ l trillion of wealth in monetary terms! (New York Times, 10/20/87, p. 1) But that $1 trillion is not anything real! The $1 trillion loss can have real effects, but only because under capitalism how much money one has affects how much one is willing to purchase. The $1 trillion loss says nothing about the needs of the public or the physical ability of the U.S. economy to satisfy those needs. Socialism undermines monetary calculation Under socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat sees to it that profit is not the goal of the economy. What matters is the real economy and what is useful to the proletariat. Marx pointed out this problem in capitalism in his greatest work, Capital. He distinguished between use-value and exchange-value because he knew that what was most useful to the proletariat was not necessarily the same thing as what was most profitable to sell, thanks to speculation and other distortions inherent to an economy that chases money. Under socialism, the goals will be expressed in terms of barrels of oil, tons of corn and pairs of pants. Capitalism is incapable of directing its energies in this direction. The people on Wall Street chase after goals expressed in money terms. In contrast, the proletariat counts real work, real products and real needs. Role of foreign investment in the United States is increasing In explaining Wall Street's previous bull market, there was some talk of Japanese investment's raising the prices of US stocks. After all, the earnings to price ratio was supposedly several times better in the US than in Japan. Many liberal radical economists have said that high interest rates and a strong dollar in the early '80s financed US expansion, as foreign investors sent dollars back to the United States. Even as late as 1987, when interest rates are relatively low, it appears that foreigners are funding the trade deficit. As Rep. John Bryant (D-Tex.) said, "America has been selling off its family jewels to pay for a night on the town." (Los Angeles Times, 8/3/87, p. 5) In other words, instead of producing for export, Americans are selling the means of production to foreign capitalists to pay for consumption of Japanese VCRs, Korean cars and Arab oil. The Democrats and social-democrats are invoking nationalism in calling for protectionism. They want to save American jobs and the means of production for Americans. This, however, should not be MIM's position according to MC5. What is most amazing about foreign investment in the United States is that it is yet another mechanism of imperialist parasitism. The United States can have a trade deficit of $ 15 billion a month, and still, other countries will loan the United States the money to pay for it. For example, Japan alone loaned the United States 35% of the money the United States government borrowed from citizens and foreigners in long-term loans in 1986. (Ibid.) "At some Treasury auctions, Japanese investors alone have bought as much as two-thirds of long-term United States Government bonds." (New York Times, 10/23/87, p. 27) The United States now owes other countries more than they owe the United States. Another possible source of funds for the US is indicated in a rising chorus in the press to get Japan and other countries to foot the bill for US military spending. Donald J. Trump, who is a Òreal-estate magnate, casino operator and corporate raider with a fortune of $3 billion drew a bigger audience than have any of the Republican candidates [in New Hampshire]" (New York Times, 10/23/87, p. 9) by calling for Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Japan to pay for the military. What will happen if the United States continues to sell its assets? Will the United States be able to maintain its imperialist parasitism? At least one answer is that the United States' ruling class will go to war at least in part to maintain the US living standard. In other words, if the imperialists value their alliance with the labor aristocracy in the United States, the imperialists will go to war to seize the resources with which to continue paying off its allies in the Euro-Amerikan population of the United States. Already the billionaire Trump has suggested that the US attack Iran and seize its oil wells. He added, "I'm tired of nice people already in Washington.... I want someone who is tough and knows how to negotiate. If not, our country faces disaster." (New York Times, 10/23/87, p. 9) Whatever methods the US imperialists use to maintain US parasitism, it is important to keep a close eye on trends. Foreign investment is thought to total $1.3 trillion in the United States. $200 billion is direct investment. "Carnation Co. is Swiss. Doubleday, RCA Records, Celanese and General Tire are all German. Dale Corp., the giant jewelry retailer, is Canadian. Purina Mills, Smith and Wesson, and J. Walter Thompson advertising agency are British." (LA Times, Ernest Conine, "The Invasion by Foreign Investors," Ibid.) In the last five years, Japanese direct investment has more than tripled to over $25 billion. Yet, European investment is about 10 times larger. Television networks denied Reagan live coverage, then put him in news Reagan asked for television time on Wednesday October 14th to denounce the critics of the Robert H. Bork nomination for the Supreme Court. Showing off their integrity, the networks claimed that Reagan's statement of position was not newsworthy and turned him down. Later, however, the networks put Reagan's statement in the Wednesday-night newscasts anyway. "It's getting harder to distinguish the tail from the dog," read a rare criticism of the mass media by the mass media. (Los Angeles Times, 10/16/87, p. 1) MIM to social democrats: Poverty in US is not always increasing The percentage of people living in poverty (as counted by the government) dropped to its lowest level since 1980. "It shrank from 14% in 1985 to 13.6% [in 1986 ed] ." (Los Angeles Times, 7~31/87, p. 13) Median family income also rose 4.2% to $29,460. Median family incomes should set all-time records this year. Thus, the middle class is doing well for now. That fact is not contradicted by the fact that the gap between rich and poor is expanding: "The top 20% of all households, which represented those with incomes above $45,980, collected 46.1% of all household income, an increase from 44.2% in 1980 and 43.3% in 1970. Meanwhile, the lowest 20% --those with incomes below $10,250, collected just 3.8%, a decrease from 4.1% in both 1970 and 1980." (Ibid.) Monthly Review stressed just such figures in its most recent issue as if to say that the US middle class is in trouble. Social democrats stress such figures to show that movements to expand the welfare state have a material basis, that there are a lot of potential supporters of social democracy. As revolutionaries, we let the social democrats organize for welfare reform The people we seek to organize are not in the middle class. Nor do we believe that Americans are suddenly becoming poor and amenable to radical change. Even the fact that the gap between rich and poor is expanding does not mean that the bulk of Americans is no longer middle class. In fact it is still possible to get richer while one's share of income decreases. Drug trade is rooted in capitalism, not individual kingpins In early February, the United States successfully extradited a cocaine kingpin from Colombia--Carlos Enrique Lehder Rivas. Six months later, however, cocaine exports from Colombia reached new records. Drug barons in Colombia simply bought up and intimidated more of the Colombian government. (Ann Arbor News, 8/16/87, p.1) A foreign narcotics expert came close to a natural Marxist analysis of the problem: "He [Lehder--ed.] was mainly involved in transportation, but there were plenty of people ready to take his place.... The arrest disrupted nothing." Marxists always stress that the problem is the system or the structure of society, not individuals. The fact that Lehder was so easily replaced shows that the problem is the high profits found in the cocaine trade, not particularly crafty drug dealers. The drug business is very big business: in 1985 "illegal sales of cocaine, heroin and marijuana totaled about $50 billion in this country." (Los Angeles Times, 3/18/87) No plan of attack that leaves capitalism and high profits for the drug trade in place can ever solve the drug problem. Unemployment Unemployment is the lowest since 1979--5.9% (Chicago Tribune, 10/3/87) Repression continues for some in South Korea The South Korean regime arrested eleven accused leftists for charges going back to March. The leftists supposedly support the interests of North Korea. According to police, the leftists distributed 80,000 pamphlets that call the S. Korean regime "'military fascists exploiting the masses to serve the interests of American and Japanese imperialists and Korean monopoly capitalists."' (Los Angeles Times, 10/16/87, p. 8) The arrest of the leftists will contribute to Roh Tae Woo's presidential campaign, which is a campaign for order and unity. Meanwhile, more than 20 primary and secondary school teachers are on a hunger strike because they were fired by the government. Chung Young Hoon, for example, incurred the wrath of his superiors because he did not order his fifth- grade pupils to "say a silent prayer at a monument to the late Syngman Rhee." (Ibid., p. 9) Inkatha movement strikes out violently Quisling Black leader Gatsha Buthelezi of South Africa has initiated violence against the United Democratic Front--a movement group led by the African National Congress. In the first three months of 1987, the UDF suffered 45 deaths at the hands of Buthelezi's Inkatha movement. In return, five members of Inkatha suffered death. The President of the ANC, Oliver Tambo, has asked Archbishop Desmond Tutu to intervene with "'Christian mediation."'(Los Angeles Times, 4/17/87, p. 1, 8, 9, 10; see also Los Angeles Times, 3/18/87, p. 7)) The South African ruling class and far right activists in the United States sometimes portray Buthelezi as a Black "moderate" who is preferable to radicals seeking to overthrow apartheid with violence. Regent Deane Baker at the University of Michigan opposed the awarding of an honorary degree to ANC leader Nelson Mandela and offered Buthelezi as a nonviolent alternative. Such propaganda efforts by the far right require that we have a working knowledge of the Black political leadership in South Africa and not just cheer for anybody who is Black in South Africa. Black market thrives in Nicaragua (See article, Los Angeles Times, 5/3/87, p. 1; also 3/18/87) Inter-imperialist rivalry holds back trade, production Norway's state-owned arms corporation has shipped the Soviet Union " 140 computers capable of running sophisticated machine tools" according to Norwegian authorities. (New York Times, 10/23/87, p. 27) The same company had a hand in Toshiba sales to the Soviet Union, which caused Toshiba to take out full-page ads in the US to apologize. The Western countries have agreements and laws not to sell state-of-the-art technology to the Soviets that could have military application. Not surprisingly, individual capitalists do not have an interest in upholding these laws, so they sneak materials to the Soviet Union any way they can. Maoists don't care whether or not the Soviets gain military advantages from the sales. It is interesting, however, that once again rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union actually holds back business and the development of the productive forces. Some high-tech companies may have a strong enough interest in trade with the Soviet Union that they would push for detente. The capitalist class, as a whole, however, still would prefer to open the Soviet bloc for trade on its terms, namely terms of subjugation. Still, it is possible that the US imperialist bloc will opt for a new era of imperialist collaboration that would involve US economic penetration of the Soviet bloc in exchange for reduced military conflict between the US and USSR and high-tech for the Soviet bloc. Such an alliance would facilitate super-exploitation of the Third World also. For example, the US has recently sought Soviet and Chinese help in subjugating Iran on US terms. At first, those efforts seemed successful, but now both the Soviet Union and China have refused to tow the US line. The Soviets have denounced US "imperialist aggression" against Iran and China is continuing to arm Iran. Many feminists oppose surrogate mothering In a previous issue, MIM Notes treated the Baby M case. From reading Off Our Backs, an article in MIM Notes concluded that feminist opinion had started to consolidate against the Baby M ruling. Off Our Backs then printed up a follow-up article from a point of view supporting the Baby M ruling, which said that feminist opinion was still divided. MIM Notes had omitted information about who had pushed for the consolidation of feminist opinion on this subject. It was Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Phyllis Chesler, Gena Corea, Letty Cottin Pogrebin and Marilyn French among others who filed a brief in the Baby M case. According to these feminists the real issue was the "commercialization of reproductive technologies." (Los Angeles Times, 7/31/X7, p. 1, part V) MC0 comments: Potentially these ideologues are simply after the reproductive monopoly. Would they also fear a device that would free the female work force from the cumbersome chore of childbearing? As the author said in the previous MIM Notes, no communist should believe that surrogate contracts are voluntary and hence fair. No communist should oppose Whitehead and support Stern on these grounds. On the other hand, it is not possible to fight capitalism and patriarchy by moving to legally restrict the offering of womb services. The Guardian and Frontline in addition to pro- Whitehead feminists have erred in implying that the womb is not commercialized already. Surrogate mothering is only an open expression of what occurs normally in the United States within fertile couples. When men dominate women through the institutions of marriage, the church and the workplace, no one rushes to file a brief showing how the economic power of men influences the shape of every male-female relationship in the United States. Indeed, in typically reformist fashion, these feminists opposed to the commercialization of the womb, not only missed the boat when capitalism started, but also they open the door to pre-capitalist, reactionary social agendas. To a large extent, the New Right would like to portray the marriage institution as religiously sacred and out of the financial reach of even the ultrarich -- not a subject of the marketplace. The New Right is happy to say that the womb should not be commercial; God willed marriage (and capitalism) etc. Therefore, even the restriction of the already existing commercialization of the womb is not necessarily a good thing. To act to prevent the commercialization of surrogate mothering is to give a certain reactionary myth reality in the rare circumstances of surrogate mothering. * * * Editors of this joint issue of MIM Notes and MIM Theory: MC0, MC5 Contributors in this issue: MC0, MC2, MC5, MC6, MC7, MC99 Unless otherwise stated MC5 is the author of articles. MC0 and MC5 jointly edit the articles. New subscription price is $1.50 an issue for as many issues as desired. Maoist Internationalist Movement, PO Box 3576, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 3576.