About admin

| Add my circles on Google+ :

Pressure Obama!

Dear Colleagues,

I am kind of fed up with Obama’s penchant to compromise and wind up falling further behind in taking care of his obligation to the hardworking people in our country, trying to get the culprits represented by the right wing to compromise and finding himself stuck in the mud.  He is doing an address tomorrow and, as a member of his (probably) thousands of correspondents in a kind of kitchen cabinet over the years since he ran for the nomination, I took the liberty of sending him a very sharp letter today before he makes his speech tomorrow. I am sending you a copy of this letter.  I am not sure that it will even reach him, but we have to try, although organizing the masses to do the same is our responsibility.

Sincerely,

Sidney J. Gluck

 

Dear President,

In response to your letter recalling the promise of your victory with the support of the average working member of the vast coalition that elected you, your letter sounds hollow.

Our problem is your desire to make comprises that seems to be your conception of ruling.  What you do not see is that you cannot compromise with the far right of the Republican Party unless you expose their connection with the billionaires who are, in fact, shaping the direction of our country.

I am apprehensive about your speech tomorrow as I sense you have tried to find a middle ground, where you have been stuck with few real accomplishments to help the average person in our country.

The only way out of our economic crisis is not the bailout of big money but the reconstruction of our economy in three directions. First, create jobs by executive orders and establish a Works Progress Administration to rebuild our infrastructure. The second thing is to help industry grow with federal money since finance capital and the banks refuse to loan money our own industries. At the same time, welcome foreign capital, including from China, to build industries and various forms of exchange that will grow the economy and create jobs.  The third thing is: get out of the wars! The people in our country are not gaining anything by it.  Our expenditure on the military budget is not only unwise but also unnecessary because, as you very well know, China is developing as an economic power not as a military power and is part of the world development of underdeveloped countries.  Look at the relationship between India and China, the two largest developing countries, who still have a long way to go to reach our level of development.  And even if China reaches the same productivity as we do, they still have three to four times as many people to take care of and is hardly something that should trouble us.

Peace, peace, and take care of the people! I know that this means a fight on your part, but that is what we elected you to do.  You owe it to the majority in the country.  I hope you can shape your remarks beyond compromise.

Sincerely,

Sidney J. Gluck

The Difference Between The Economic Structures Of China And The US

Dear colleagues,

There are discussions and negotiations going on between the US and China as a result of the US superpower turning on the military developments on both sides, even though China, in its planned economy, has maintained a purely defensive budget to protect its territory and now appears to be expanding its defenses to include the China Seas.  This has been provoked by free movements of military naval ships in the waters, which includes getting Vietnam to allow all ships to stop in their ports.

The development of a bi-polar world in this century is inevitable because of the rise of China as an economic power and not in the direction of emulating superpower, which includes massive military arms and aggression.  China never sent a soldier out of its country in five thousand years (with two weeks of exception in 1957 which were withdrawn under the direction of the UN).  The main difference between the two countries lies in their economic structuring.  In the United States, it all depends on investments based upon profitability for individual capitalist enterprises.  On the other hand, in China, the economic development of the country is based upon a national plan, in 5-year divisions, and overrides all investments and social expenditures.  These really are two kinds of economies.  One, in fact, has made the military a major factor in its own productivity while neglecting industrial development for its citizens.  In China, it is quite the opposite and will continue to be that way in the hopes that the current conference that is taking place, which was projected by the April 2nd, 2010 annual budget of the Pentagon, will be harnessed and bring sensibility and diplomacy to US-China relations, notwithstanding national differences.

The President of China is, at this moment, in conference with President Obama (we believe in order to develop diplomatic arrangements to deal with economic differences and avoid military conflict).  In this regard, we have just received the Beijing Review, which contains two articles that will clearly introduce you to China’s economic plans.  The subjects are “Mapping A Steady Course” and “A New Way To Trade”.  We are sending you copies and would appreciate you comments.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “A New Way To Trade” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/business/txt/2010-12/17/content_319913.htm

Click HERE to view “Mapping A Steady Course” at  http://www.bjreview.com.cn/Cover_Story_Series/2010-12/20/content_321756.htm

The Emerging Difference Between US Superpower and China’s Economic Power In A Bipolar World

Dear Colleagues,

We all know that the relationship between China and the US is key to the development of a bipolar economic world system in the 21st century and that the US and China are the main centers of the opposing poles.  Historically, the US, as an economic superpower, has dominated world development.  China, in the last thirty years, has demonstrated a rate of economic growth never achieved by a capitalist country, even though it remains two-thirds underdeveloped.

The difference is not one of “superpowership”.  A superpower is both economic and military. In their domestic and foreign policies, the US and China differ.  The US has been in two major world wars, three major Asian wars, and is in the process of developing a military alliance in the Southeast Pacific and China Sea region whereas China is concentrating on economic relations and on boosting economic cooperation to the benefit of developing countries as well as the Western capitalist countries in Europe.  China has joined with Brazil, Russia, and India in an organization called BRIC for friendly and economic association.  The Premier of China has visited the European nations recently and last week was in India (following President Obama’s visit a few weeks ago).

As for the Korean situation, the United States has a military alliance with South Korea.  Furthermore, the real difference between North and South Korea, which is being avoided by South Korea and the US, is the settling of the boundary between North and South, which is the cause of the tensions since the 1950s (particularly the islands in the undecided border areas between South and North).  No doubt North Korea has been influenced by China not to react to the military maneuvers as we learned from the press this week.

The difference between the US and China’s foreign policy are the military alliances and the program of the US pentagon, which appears to be usurping the primacy of presidential control of foreign policy.  China’s approach is not one of a developing superpower since there is no threat of military occupation or confrontation.  It is a historic character of China for over thousands of years.  It therefore functions in international relations without a military threat.  A good example of their foreign policy techniques can be found in an article on Eurasian exchanges from the Beijing Review of late October which we attach.  We welcome exchanges on the subject since we are planning an extended piece on the question of superpower and US and China foreign policies.  We always appreciate your comments and are particularly interested in developing understanding of the difference between the two poles.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “Eurasian Exchanges” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/world/txt/2010-10/18/content_304357.htm

 

Great Wikipedia Entry On The Bombardment of Yeonpyang

Dear colleagues,

Though many would raise eyebrows at the suggestion that Wikipedia be referenced for truth rather than truthiness, it seems that we have stumbled across an article which is actually worth reading. Wikipedia’s article on the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong and the recent tensions between North and South Korea is, as of now, very well done. We especially suggest that you take a look at the “International Reactions” section. It is extremely amusing to see how each nation responded to the conflict (especially when one considers the ideological disposition of each country).

Please, feel free to let us know your opinions. Enjoy!

Sincerely,

Ashoka Jegroo

Assistant to Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “The Bombardment of Yeonpyeong” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong

Economic Warfare: The US Dollar

Dear Colleagues,

I have just caught up with an article on the currency conflict between the US and China.  It actually appeared in the Beijing Review early in November just before the G20 Summit in Seoul on November 11th.  It lays out the battle from the Chinese point-of-view (which apparently the G20 acceded to).

The currency question is not the basic one since the question of trade is the real issue.  Therefore, the RMB relationships to major currencies are not the determining factor.  It actually gives four diagrams of the Yuan’s central parity to the currencies of the US dollar, the EU Euro, the Japanese Yen, and the British pound, which visually indicate that only the US dollar has dropped in parity whereas the other three major currencies have all gained from June 21 through October 26.  It also makes a comparison of the trade surplus of China and the history of trade surplus of the USA. We are most impressed with the third alternative calling for international negotiations at which “the Chinese government could agree to increase the flexibility of the exchange rate regime but maintain control over the pace of the Yuan appreciation” (again, diplomacy as distinct from economic warfare).  It is unfortunate that the economic war being pressed by the USA obfuscates the real facts of currency relations.  We hope this article will fill that gap for us.

Sincerely,

Sidney J. Gluck

Click HERE to view “Battling Over Currencies” at http://www.bjreview.com.cn/quotes/txt/2010-11/01/content_311735.htm

My Heartfelt Cry for Decency In Our Country

Dear Colleagues,

We are sharing with you a letter to President Barack Obama from one who is on his list of persons around the country from whom he requests answers to problems and advice.  The distortion of information about China has reached a serious warlike content, which Obama is not counteracting and is actually being used as a front for finance capital’s drive to retain its dominance in the world economy (note his visit to India).

Furthermore, we are sharing this with you to introduce China Wire (a copy of a recent issue in being included with our letter to Obama) to show realities in China’s dealing with economic and social problems – in this case, water.  We recommend that you tune in to China Wire since, from time to time, they come through with a good deal of information with a positive approach to China and world relations.  It is becoming one of our important sources.  You will find all the information for the contacts on this copy.  I suggest you pick up the last six months of their periodic editions on various subjects. We recommend highly that you get their issue of November 21st, “News From China For The World” which includes a vast series of subjects dealing with civil society and international relations.

Sincerely,

Sidney J. Gluck

December 1, 2010

Attn President Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

When you first ran for the nomination as the Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2008, I wrote you a letter to call your attention to the fact that 21st century international relations should be handled through diplomacy rather than the military.  While you did not acknowledge the letter, you did publicly express that sentiment during your bid for the nomination.  Since then, we have had correspondence in what you might call a pocket kitchen cabinet, probably numbering in the low thousands, to which I have responded consistently.

The present development of foreign policy under the aegis of the Pentagon is hardly the promise that you made in your bid for support.  There is great danger in current developments of a military alliance and maneuvers in the waters around China without considering the unresolved diplomatic problems among the Asian countries (in particular, the failure to follow through with agreed borders between North and South Korea for over fifty years).  Nor is there mention of the fact that South Korea has engaged military development and joint action with the USA.  Little is being said or done to extinguish fires that are beginning to kindle.  It is a letdown and a danger to world relations.  The cover-up is a constant distortion of China’s economic and political relations, which are essentially peaceful and based on fair trade and mutual development of underdeveloped countries.  Much is made of Chinese capital (private and social) being invested in developing (in Africa in particular) and developed countries which result in positive gains for all.

True, there is economic competition.  That is not new.  But, the differences must be settled on the economic level in a diplomatic manner rather than building up the image of the Chinese enemy responsible for the economic problems that we face because of the distortions in our own economy (which have negatively affected fourteen million people without any sight of rehabilitation).  The only exception – hurrah! – is the fact that corporations in the third quarter of this very 2010 have made more profit than any quarter in the last generation.  There is no doubt that support of military production is reflected in these profits.

Mr. President, you owe it to us to stop joining in the parade of making China the culprit for our own economic dislocations.  I recommend that you follow what Roosevelt did: set up a WPA (Works Progress Administration) to bail out working people since the federal government had paid attention to bailing out finance capital while failing to stimulate loans to industries willing to expand and develop our own economy with high tech and generation of jobs.  This is your great challenge to fulfill your promises and the heartfelt desire of the tremendous movement which elected a black president for the first time in the hope that it would lead to a change in our economic and social direction.  It brought forth a tremendous reaction from the wealthy far right who are succeeding in taking pieces of the federal government, but you are not publicly leading the people through giving them the facts of what is happening.  You are allowing a smokescreen to be developed in the image of a foreign competitor and turning it into the military solution of legitimate differences in points-of-view.  Why don’t you read the articles in the New York Times that appeared in their news of the week on the legitimacy of economic differences between China and the USA (with a good part of the world agreeing with those sentiments)?

You are at the cusp of all these developments, which demand a clear and honest expression of the differences to be settled peacefully and a warning about developing an aura of misrepresentations and a development of military alliances.  Turn us away from economic and military warfare.  Get back to the promise of peaceful growth and world cooperation.

Sincerely,

Sidney J. Gluck

P.S.  Enclosed is considerable material on China’s involvement in human problems, whether they are internal or external, and dealings with its East Asian neighbors’ problems for mutual improvement, which is published by a private organization in China called “Moving Mountains”.  They deal with human problems of social importance in a non-profit mode.  These are services that we should be emulating instead of creating rumors about negatives as being the dominant features of China’s economic and governmental form.  In the name of peace, please reflect a balance in our relationship and settle matters diplomatically.

The National Content of Socialism

Dear Colleagues,

For those who believe that social change in an industrialized society leads to socialist economic and political relations, it is interesting to note that in each country the forces for change of capitalist domination vary and reflect the history, the culture, and the economic base of each individual country.   In political struggles, there is no guarantee that the forces for change unerringly move forward.  Internal conditions and external influences operate at all times in combinations peculiar to each country.

An interesting article appeared in The Economist on socialist developments in Sweden which gives insights to the political battles for social change towards a more harmonious society. I do not agree that the developments in Sweden are the death of socialist ideals and renewal though it is suffering a political setback in Sweden.  I would like to share this with you.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “The strange death of social-democratic Sweden” at http://www.economist.com/node/17039151

The Trouble With Asking China to Act Like the US: Why China Says No

Dear Colleagues,

For those of you who do not have access to the weekend New York Times, we want to call your attention to an interesting, fairly well-balanced approach to understanding the relationship between China and the US in these times when the US is creating confrontations with dangerous possibilities of an anti-China military alliance on top of the pressures for economic revaluations of currency (which has been rejected by most countries).  There is one section that indicates the position of the right-wing Republicans, which is an indication of the military direction of dealing with China.  Unfortunately, North Korea is not making it easy, but we hope that China can restrain them from military provocations.

Would like to have your opinions.

Sincerely,

Sidney J. Gluck

Click HERE to view “Asking China To Act Like The US” at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/weekinreview/28cooper.html?_r=1

Interesting View Of Economic And Political Changes In Latin America

Dear Colleagues,

Just came across an interesting short article from the Christian Science Monitor on the historic changes in Latin America, its general rejection of dominance by US capital, and the diminution of the political influence of the wealthy classes in a good number of countries.  It augurs well for developing countries not only in Latin America but also in their relations with other countries around the world, especially East Asia.

It is a definite indication of a 21st century development of a bi-polar economic world that will develop despite US finance capital’s worldwide privatization drives.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

Click HERE to view “Want To Slash Poverty? Look To Latin America” at http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/2010/1122/Want-to-slash-poverty-Look-to-Latin-America

Sharing Responses

Dear Colleagues,

We received two poetic responses to our recent e-mails: one on dealing with China’s association with ASEAN nations and the other on the finance capital posting with Sam Webb.  They are so beautifully expressed that I wish to share them with you.  They read like unfolding history in poetic cadence.

Sincerely,

Sidney Gluck

—–Original Message—–

From: sxxxxxxxx@aol.com
To: sjgluck@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 22, 2010 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: China’s Positive Relations: The Association of SouthEast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

Professor,

It’s intersting. The US has been shouting for weeks that China is actively devaluing its currency without offering a shred of evience to substantiate this claim while, at the very same time, we’re printing dollars faster and faster. It’s the blatant hypocrisy which is destroying our nation from within. China didn’t do this to us. WE did this to ourselves. The other nations continue to develop meaningful multilateral agreements. China is quickly gaining the trust of the developing world. We are nowhere to be found in these deliberations. We are like a dog howling at the moon. No one any longer cares what we do or say. America has backed itself into a corner of growing irrelevance. The future will go to the intelligent and productive, not the well-armed. The ash heap of histoy beckons. How long will it be before we’re officially declared defunct as the world’s greatest deadbeat?

Franklin L. Johnson

—–Original Message—–

From: Max Armand <mxxxxxxxx@live.com>
To: sjgluck@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 18, 2010 3:03 am
Subject: RE: A Welcome Voice From The Left

Mr. Gluck,

I would highly suggest that you completely remove the Obama millstone from around your neck. Any attachment to him will only retard any efforts toward radical social change. Any mass movement that forms against the Establishment will most certainly have to be against the Presidency itself and thus against Obama. And though I have become quite skeptical of those who wave the banner of “democracy”, the majority of people feel a deep dissatisfaction with the current dominant form of social organization. The ruling classes emit cold sweats at the thought of all those persons who yet to be shaken to consciousness.

Obama’s attempts to work with the Right do not surprise me at all. While protecting himself from physical harm may also be on his mind, the main form of “self-protection” that Obama engages in is the protection of his own class, the beneficiaries of hierarchical Power.

As for my “tearing down” of the CPUSA, I must confess that I thought I was actually quite gentle with them. But to quote a wise man: “Criticism dealing with this content is criticism in a hand-to-hand fight, and in such a fight the point is not whether the opponent is a noble, equal, interesting opponent, the point is to strike him.” Whatever the CPUSA may have done in the past, we know that they are now only one of many pseudo-revolutionary organizations presented to consumers by capitalist society as tolerated outlets for their dissidence and dissatisfaction with the status quo. They are the alcohol of the masses.

Now, of course there are differences between Democrats and Republicans which cannot simply be dismissed. But the pseudo-opposition between the two major parties only serves to better obscure a real, hidden unity between them. As I have said before in a message to you, the liberals have shown themselves to be better defenders of Capital and the State than the conservatives. Voting for a progressive Democrat may make life more tolerable in the short-term, but the goal of anyone who desires the abolition of modern bourgeois society should be to make life more joyous in the long-term.

Regards,

Max Armand