[Marxism-Thaxis] very good arguments for taxing the rich
[lbo-talk] Incentive to work (Was Re: Liberal Intellectuals and the Coordinator Class) andie nachgeborenen If you use progressive taxation to control the accumulation of wealth, then you might take away the incentive to work. It would be a matter of very fine-tuning. There's a good deal of evidence that what matters to incentive to work is pretax income, actually. And then there's the obvious fact that if you reduce people's net income by taxation you give them an obvious incentive to work more so the net is higher! I think Geoffrey Hazard once wrote a paper about that, no one paid any attention. Also there's the curious point about diminishing marginal returns (DMR) that advocates of unlimited accumulation never get. An extra 50 dollars is a lot of money to someone earning $33,000 a year, like teachers in Waukegan, IL, but because an extra million dollars is chicken feed to Bill Gates, it doesn't provide him any significant additional incentive to monopolize the software market and violate the antitrust law bundling bad software that you have to buy. So, if you think that people are mainly motivated to work by extra money, and you want people to work, you want your incentives front-loaded, progressivity is a reflection of this obvious fact. Fact is, we don't provide incentives to work, mainly, by giving more money, except to them as don't need it because (a) their jobs are relatively desirable, intrinsically rewarding, or compensated in nonmonetary terms (like prestige), or (b) because DMR means that extra money doesn't matter that much to them as income as opposed to a way of keeping score. We do it on the One Bullet Manager theory that Terrified People Are More Productive: for most people it's not the carrot of extra income, but the stick of joblessness and destitution that drives them to the rat race. Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] cell phone
Is this an urban legend 7/2/2007 3:29 PM REMINDER9 days from today, all cell phone numbers are being released to telemarketing companies and you will start to receive sales calls. .YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THESE CALLS To prevent this, call the following number from your cell phone:888-382-1222. It is the National DO NOT CALL list. It will only take a minute of your time. It blocks your number for five (5) years. You must call from the cell phone number you want to have blocked. You cannot call from a different phone number. HELP OTHERS BY PASSING THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS. It take about 20 seconds. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] cell phone
Yes. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/cell411.asp Jim F. -- Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this an urban legend 7/2/2007 3:29 PM REMINDER9 days from today, all cell phone numbers are being released to telemarketing companies and you will start to receive sales calls. .YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THESE CALLS To prevent this, call the following number from your cell phone:888-382-1222. It is the National DO NOT CALL list. It will only take a minute of your time. It blocks your number for five (5) years. You must call from the cell phone number you want to have blocked. You cannot call from a different phone number. HELP OTHERS BY PASSING THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS. It take about 20 seconds. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] The slow death of Social Democracy?
TLS - July 11, 2007 Holiday reading for Gordon Brown Vernon Bogdanor Sheri Berman THE PRIMACY OF POLITICS Social democracy and the making of Europe's twentieth century 218pp. Cambridge University Press. £40; paperback £14.99 (US $65; paperback, $23.99). 978 0 521 81799 8 Gordon Brown has moved into Ten Downing Street after ten years of Labour government, the longest and most successful period of social- democratic rule in Britain's history. Yet he finds himself heir, not to a living and viable philosophy of government, but to a collection of ideological ruins. His success will depend on whether he can construct anything new out of these ruins, whether he can breathe new life into the dry bones, whether he can discover a new philosophy of government for the centre-left as fruitful as social democracy was in the past. In undertaking this enterprise, he will have much to learn from The Primacy of Politics by Sheri Berman; he would find it a great stimulus to thought, and even, on occasion to disagreement. It would, however, be difficult for him to disagree with the view that The Primacy of Politics is one of the most thought-provoking books on twentieth-century ideologies to appear for many years. Sheri Berman begins by asking why it is that the history of Europe since 1914 falls so neatly into two contrasting periods. Between the wars, the continent was marked by turbulence and crisis, but, for nearly sixty years, its western half has known political stability and high rates of economic growth. What caused this transformation? To this question, two answers have been given. The first suggests that it was a result of the triumph of democracy over its enemies, Stalinism, Fascism and National Socialism; the second claims that it was the philosophy of the market which had triumphed over socialism and communism. Historically, however, democracy and the market have been regarded as in conflict with each other. Liberals from Tocqueville to Hayek feared that the market could not survive the coming of democracy, for universal suffrage would give power to the unpropertied and ill-educated; Marxists in a sense confirmed their fears by predicting that the majority in a bourgeois democracy, the working class, would not tolerate capitalism but would overthrow it, by peaceful means if possible, by violent means if not. Yet, both liberals and Marxists came to be confounded when, in the post-war era, capitalism and the market came to be reconciled. How did this come about? That is what Sheri Berman seeks to explain in The Primacy of Politics. Her answer is that it was an undervalued ideology, social democracy, which formed the ideological basis of the post-war settlement and resolved the central challenge of modern politics: reconciling the competing needs of capitalism and democracy. Social democracy, Berman argues, offers, a genuine third way that preserves both. Historians, she believes, have not noticed this because they have overemphasized the role of the middle classes and liberal parties in achieving this synthesis; yet the key role was played, not by liberals, but by parties of the moderate revisionist Left and by the institutions of the Labour movement. Social democrat was originally a term applied to anyone from the Left who rejected the nineteeth-century liberal economy; it was applied to Karl Kautsky and H. M. Hyndman as well as to Eduard Bernstein and Anthony Crosland. Today, however, it forms but one element in the socialist spectrum, the revisionist element which began with the German social democrat, Eduard Bernstein, the hero of Berman's story. Revisionist social democracy was not, she believes, a mere half-way house between Marxism and liberalism, cobbled together from elements of incompatible traditions; nor were social democrats merely socialists without the courage of their convictions; nor should they be defined, as they were by Crosland, in terms of particular values such as equality. The essence of social democracy lies rather in a distinctive belief in the primacy of politics, and an appeal to social and communal solidarity through mass political organizations people's parties. These, however, are features that social democracy shares with its ideological enemies, Fascism and National Socialism. Social democracy and Fascism, so Berman believes, share a common genealogy, although, of course, social democracy is distinctive in being the only democratic movement of the three. The cover of The Primacy of Politics provocatively juxtaposes posters from the Swedish social democrats between the wars and the Nazis. Both promised work for all. For social democracy, like Fascism and National Socialism, arose out of the crisis of liberalism and Kautskyite Marxism at the end of the nineteenth century, philosophies which denied the primacy of politics and therefore seemed
[Marxism-Thaxis] Smart Ass
Turns out this is an urban legend too. A stranger was seated next to a little girl on the airplane when the stranger turned to her and said, Let's talk. I've heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger. The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the stranger, What would you like to talk about? Oh, I don't know, said the stranger. How about nuclear power? OK, she said. That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat grass, the same stuff. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is? The stranger thinks about it and says, Hymmm, I have no idea. Ahhh! to which the little girl replies, Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know shit? ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Emailing: attachmentTHE PRIMACY OF POLITICS
TLS - July 11, 2007 Holiday reading for Gordon Brown Vernon Bogdanor Sheri Berman THE PRIMACY OF POLITICS Social democracy and the making of Europe's twentieth century 218pp. Cambridge University Press. £40; paperback £14.99 (US $65; paperback, $23.99). 978 0 521 81799 8 Gordon Brown has moved into Ten Downing Street after ten years of Labour government, the longest and most successful period of social- democratic rule in Britain's history. Yet he finds himself heir, not to a living and viable philosophy of government, but to a collection of ideological ruins. His success will depend on whether he can construct anything new out of these ruins, whether he can breathe new life into the dry bones, whether he can discover a new philosophy of government for the centre-left as fruitful as social democracy was in the past. In undertaking this enterprise, he will have much to learn from The Primacy of Politics by Sheri Berman; he would find it a great stimulus to thought, and even, on occasion to disagreement. It would, however, be difficult for him to disagree with the view that The Primacy of Politics is one of the most thought-provoking books on twentieth-century ideologies to appear for many years. Sheri Berman begins by asking why it is that the history of Europe since 1914 falls so neatly into two contrasting periods. Between the wars, the continent was marked by turbulence and crisis, but, for nearly sixty years, its western half has known political stability and high rates of economic growth. What caused this transformation? ^ CB: The political stability of Western Europe was due largely to the need for capitalism to unite against socialism. High rates of growth were due to capitalism having to take on large elements of socialist economy ( termed mixed economy by even bourgeois economists) ^^ To this question, two answers have been given. ^ CB: Well, more than two have been given. The first suggests that it was a result of the triumph of democracy over its enemies, Stalinism, Fascism and National Socialism; the second claims that it was the philosophy of the market which had triumphed over socialism and communism. ^ CB; Third, imperialism won a battle over socialism. Previously, socialism had been winning battles over imperialism. However, it ain't over 'til it's over. ^ Historically, however, democracy and the market have been regarded as in conflict with each other. Liberals from Tocqueville to Hayek feared that the market could not survive the coming of democracy, CB: I can see that Hayek is correct as andie says, but he's ( Hayek, not andie) standing on his head. The market cannot survive democracy coming. That why our still having the market means we don't have democracy yet. We have liberalism, which is fake democracy . ^ for universal suffrage would give power to the unpropertied and ill-educated; Marxists in a sense confirmed their fears by predicting that the majority in a bourgeois democracy, the working class, would not tolerate capitalism but would overthrow it, by peaceful means if possible, by violent means if not. Yet, both liberals and Marxists came to be confounded when, in the post-war era, capitalism and the market came to be reconciled. CB: Capitalism and the market are the same thing. This must be a typo. ^ How did this come about? That is what Sheri Berman seeks to explain in The Primacy of Politics. Her answer is that it was an undervalued ideology, social democracy, which formed the ideological basis of the post-war settlement and resolved the central challenge of modern politics: reconciling the competing needs of capitalism and democracy. Social democracy, Berman argues, offers, a genuine third way that preserves both. Historians, she believes, have not noticed this because they have overemphasized the role of the middle classes and liberal parties in achieving this synthesis; yet the key role was played, not by liberals, but by parties of the moderate revisionist Left and by the institutions of the Labour movement. Social democrat was originally a term applied to anyone from the Left who rejected the nineteeth-century liberal economy; it was applied to Karl Kautsky and H. M. Hyndman as well as to Eduard Bernstein and Anthony Crosland. ^^ CB: To make the point below he should add here and to Lenin. He probably chokes on the name though. Today, however, it forms but one element in the socialist spectrum, the revisionist element which began with the German social democrat, Eduard Bernstein, the hero of Berman's story. Revisionist social democracy was not, she believes, a mere half-way house between Marxism and liberalism, cobbled together from elements of incompatible traditions; nor were social democrats merely socialists without the courage of their convictions; ^^ CB: Once heard a definition of a communist as someone who really means it. ^ nor
[Marxism-Thaxis] Emailing: attachment
Charles is an urban legend in his own mind. ^^ CB: Yes, I 'm actually a Buddhist. I don't think I really exist as a unified self. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The slow death of Social Democracy?
Vernon Bogdanor argued that: -- Social democrat was originally a term applied to anyone from the Left who rejected the nineteeth-century liberal economy; it was applied to Karl Kautsky and H. M. Hyndman as well as to Eduard Bernstein and Anthony Crosland. Today, however, it forms but one element in the socialist spectrum, the revisionist element which began with the German social democrat, Eduard Bernstein, the hero of Berman's story. Revisionist social democracy was not, she believes, a mere half-way house between Marxism and liberalism, cobbled together from elements of incompatible traditions; nor were social democrats merely socialists without the courage of their convictions; nor should they be defined, as they were by Crosland, in terms of particular values such as equality. The essence of social democracy lies rather in a distinctive belief in the primacy of politics, and an appeal to social and communal solidarity through mass political organizations people's parties. These, however, are features that social democracy shares with its ideological enemies, Fascism and National Socialism. Social democracy and Fascism, so Berman believes, share a common genealogy, although, of course, social democracy is distinctive in being the only democratic movement of the three. The cover of The Primacy of Politics provocatively juxtaposes posters from the Swedish social democrats between the wars and the Nazis. Both promised work for all. For social democracy, like Fascism and National Socialism, arose out of the crisis of liberalism and Kautskyite Marxism at the end of the nineteenth century, philosophies which denied the primacy of politics and therefore seemed to countenance quietism, an approach which proved disastrous during the Depression. Thus, although, in both Germany and Italy, the socialists were the strongest political party after the First World War, they proved unable to defend democratic institutions. Moreover, social democracy found itself in retreat in the inter-war years everywhere in Europe except for Scandinavia, because it failed to appreciate the force of patriotism. The doctrine that the worker had no fatherland might, Bernstein conceded, have been true for the German worker of the 1840s deprived of rights and excluded from public life, but by the beginning of the twentieth century, by which time he had voting rights and rights to social security, it had lost much of its truth; and it was given the coup de grâce in 1914 when the German SPD voted for war credits and the Second International disintegrated. On August 2, 1914, declared Adrien Marquet, the French neosocialist who later identified himself with Fascism, the notion of class collapsed before the concept of the Nation. -- In the case of Germany, the Nazis were able to successfully implement social democratic economic and social policies that the German business community would have accepted, if an SPD-lead government had attempted to implement. And the reason for that IMO, is that the Nazis had also taken care to smash the trade unions, thereby alleviating any fears on the part of big business in Germany, that such policies would lead to excessive (from their standpoint) wage hikes. The Nazis were able to, in effect, offer social democracy without Social Democrats. And the business community was willing to put up with this. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Emailing: attachment
-- In the case of Germany, the Nazis were able to successfully implement social democratic economic and social policies that the German business community would have accepted, ^ Would or would not have accepted if an SPD-lead government had attempted to implement. And the reason for that IMO, is that the Nazis had also taken care to smash the trade unions, thereby alleviating any fears on the part of big business in Germany, that such policies would lead to excessive (from their standpoint) wage hikes. The Nazis were able to, in effect, offer social democracy without Social Democrats. And the business community was willing to put up with this. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Emailing: attachment
The German business community was willing to accept from the Nazi regime economic policies that they never would have accepted from an SPD government. When the SPD was in power, their policies were much more cautious than the ones that the Nazis would follow later on. Jim F. -- Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- In the case of Germany, the Nazis were able to successfully implement social democratic economic and social policies that the German business community would have accepted, ^ Would or would not have accepted if an SPD-lead government had attempted to implement. And the reason for that IMO, is that the Nazis had also taken care to smash the trade unions, thereby alleviating any fears on the part of big business in Germany, that such policies would lead to excessive (from their standpoint) wage hikes. The Nazis were able to, in effect, offer social democracy without Social Democrats. And the business community was willing to put up with this. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Anti-dialectics at Marxism 2007
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Marxism_2007.htm ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] [marxistphilosophy] Anti-dialectics at Marxism 2007
This is just stupid, even more stupid than the Trotskyist recitations of dialectics. At 08:43 PM 7/12/2007, Jim Farmelant wrote: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Marxism_2007.htm ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
