[PEN-L:3895] papal economics
Following from Doug's comments, I would like to relate a short anecdote: Shortly after I joined the economics faculty at the University of Manitoba, I ran for union rep for our faculty constituency which, at that time, was composed of the Economics Department and the Department of Religious Studies. I came second to a Mennonite Minister who was a prominent member of the Religious Studies department. Shortly afterward, however, he became head of his department which made him ineligible to be "shop steward" and hence I, having polled second in the election, was appointed as the new union rep. Many in the university wondered at the organization of the constituency that included economics and religious studies until it was pointed out that there was a strong affinity of thought -- both were based on faith and a belief in the divine hand! Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:3894] Re: papal economics
On Sat, 21 Jan 1995, Doug Henwood wrote: > At 3:36 PM 1/20/95, Jim Devine wrote: > > > >Should we apply the policy that most US catholics follow (i.e., > >ignore him)? or waste time attacking him? > > Sorry to clutter the list with theological dispute, but what the hell does > it mean to be Catholic if you don't accept the church, the pope, and the > rest of the hierarchy? Be a Whiskeypalian, or some other kind of renegade, > but why be Catholic? I had a friend in Ann Arbor who headed the AFSC office there who was a gay commie Quaker Catholic. I asked him the same question, and he gave me an answer with a lot of church father citations and other heavy theology stuff that even this ex-parochial shul-bucher couldn't follow. Catholicism was quite important to him though. Personally, I think it was part of the appeal of Communism to a lot of people who were privately horrified at Stalin, Brezhnev, et. al.--being part of a worldwide movement, etc. He related stringly to Vatican II and liberation theology. > > >As the Holy Roman > >Catholic Church was to feudalism, the World Bank/IMF is to > >capitalism. It's a better use of time to attack the latter, no? > > No no no! Don't take anticlericalism away from us! Religion is - often? > always? I'm open to argument - a system of domination and mystification, a > myth that people take literally. Call me old fashioned but it all seems > like superstition to me, and Enlightenment dinosaur that I am, I want it to > go away. Well, I too have an instinct about wanting to see the last king strangled in the guts of thye last priest. But I think Marx was right: religion will not vanish, if it ever will, until the social conditions of its existence are overcome. In the meantime we secular leftists had better meditate on why churches are full and rich and why our meetings and organizations are sparse and poor. > > Religious metaphors are not inappropriate for analyzing what's wrong with > the WB/IMF complex. A system that promises salvation if certain painful > measures are taken; it's based on faith rather than reason and experience; > and it sends its emissaries on "missions." The Vatican & 19th St - hit 'em > both! --Justin Schwartz
[PEN-L:3893] Re: papal economics
On Sat, 21 Jan 1995, Doug Henwood wrote: > Sorry to clutter the list with theological dispute, but what the hell does > it mean to be Catholic if you don't accept the church, the pope, and the > rest of the hierarchy? Be a Whiskeypalian, or some other kind of renegade, > but why be Catholic? Shared guilt? But seriously, why do so many Jews call themself Jewish and atheist? Come on, there are five centuries of identity and cultural differences built into "religious" identities. The opposition of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland is hardly only about papal authority. Why do leftists hold onto the word "socialist" when various socialist leaders around the world disgraced it over the years. Why not switch to completely different words? Because whether you are talking about religious, political or ethnic differences, words and identity and culture are intertwined. > >As the Holy Roman > >Catholic Church was to feudalism, the World Bank/IMF is to > >capitalism. It's a better use of time to attack the latter, no? > > No no no! Don't take anticlericalism away from us! Religion is - often? > always? I'm open to argument - a system of domination and mystification, a > myth that people take literally. Call me old fashioned but it all seems > like superstition to me, and Enlightenment dinosaur that I am, I want it to > go away. As a defender of the Enlightenment, defending religion is not always in opposition to it. The abolitionists, many of the populists, and much of the leadership of the civil rights movement were both Enlightenment figures in their analysis of rights yet although religion defenders as well. The formal separation of the institutions of Church and State may be Enlightenment views, but eliminating the authority of religion in the private sphere actually is in opposition to much of enlightenment thought. To subsume all moral authority under the public sphere is not separation of church and state but the elimination of the private sphere all together and ends up being merely secular duplication of the old feudal Catholic order (or pure Stalinism). The Catholic Church (to paraphrase an old adage) has no army divisions and no large economic power. Pope John Paul II has only moral authority and the voluntary submission of many (not all) Catholics to that authority. We can argue with the Pope and compete for the allegiance of religious Catholics on points were we may disagree with the Pope's views, but I see anticlericalism as fundamentally anti-democratic and rather dangerous in light of the experience of the 20th century. The IMF, on the other hand, has real power that is exercised without moral authority but with the economic power of money and the political will of established states. That is a proper target for left organizing. --Nathan Newman
[PEN-L:3892] Re: RACHEL
I pull Rachel off the list, Activ-l. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3891] Moscow: Almost last call!
For anybody who missed it before...or is newly on the list: This note concerns the Moscow travel course(s) for 1995 to study Russia's political and economic conditions or the language. (The principal one is 27 May-27 June.) 1) The invitation remains open to all interested adults and I can send details upon request. 3)For participants who are students and who wish academic credit, Eastern Michigan University will offer four semester units. The additional cost for tuition will be $200. This is low in 1995 because of budget savings unlikely in 1996. (For students at many private American universities, this would often mean that the travel course and the transferrable credits would cost about the same as the credits alone at their home institution.) 4) A few people would like a beginning or intermediate Russian language course. If there are enough others, I could try to organize one for 27 May-04 July, but I need decisions. 5) The question of a shorter course, 29 April-23 May including events and contacts surrounding the 50th anniversary of the end of WW2, remains open, but, again, decisions are required. Thank you, Eric
[PEN-L:3890] Re: wealth data inquiry
At 8:49 PM 1/20/95, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Dear pen-lers, > >Can anyone provide me with good data sources for the >distribution of wealth in the U.S.? Thanks in advance. > >in solidarity, There are two official sources: the Census Bureau's SIPP series, and the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. The latter is better - there's no top coding and rich people are oversampled. Detailed wealth results from the 1983 survey were published in the Fed Res Bull in 1986; details from the 1989 survey (wealth distribution, etc.) were not published, but were circulated in the form of a working paper. The 1992 data will soon be released in the same way - no formal publication, only a working paper. They don't know when it'll be ready, but they recommend monthly calls. The Survey of Consumer Finances' phone number is 202-452-2578. Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA 212-874-4020 voice 212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:3889] Re: papal economics
At 3:36 PM 1/20/95, Jim Devine wrote: >Should we apply the policy that most US catholics follow (i.e., >ignore him)? or waste time attacking him? Sorry to clutter the list with theological dispute, but what the hell does it mean to be Catholic if you don't accept the church, the pope, and the rest of the hierarchy? Be a Whiskeypalian, or some other kind of renegade, but why be Catholic? >As the Holy Roman >Catholic Church was to feudalism, the World Bank/IMF is to >capitalism. It's a better use of time to attack the latter, no? No no no! Don't take anticlericalism away from us! Religion is - often? always? I'm open to argument - a system of domination and mystification, a myth that people take literally. Call me old fashioned but it all seems like superstition to me, and Enlightenment dinosaur that I am, I want it to go away. Religious metaphors are not inappropriate for analyzing what's wrong with the WB/IMF complex. A system that promises salvation if certain painful measures are taken; it's based on faith rather than reason and experience; and it sends its emissaries on "missions." The Vatican & 19th St - hit 'em both! Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA 212-874-4020 voice 212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:3888] RACHEL
I was browsing a GOPHER site and came across your message referring to RACHEL. I am currently doing work with the FHWA concerning hazardous materials and their transportation. From your message, it seems that I may be able to draw some useful information from this newsletter. Would you mind telling me how I might access it? -- - This message brought to you courtesy of Daryl Riggins ==Empires Toppled== ==Maidens Rescued== ==Bombs Dismantled====Terrorists Negotiated== <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
[PEN-L:3887] Re: Cohen and Historical Materialism
Pen-l-ers's: JD= Jim Divine: JS= Justin Schwartz > >JD: The problem for Cohen's theory that arises from Marx's theory > >is that as Marx argues (but authors such as Braverman make clear), > >the nature and speed of technological change are endogenous, > >to a large extent _determined by_ the mode of exploitation. > > JS: That's certainly one problem--it's the point of my objection > based on the relative timing of the rise of capitalism and the > industrial revolution. But all this can show is that Marx was > inconsistent unless there is evidence that her changed his mind and > renounced the (1859) Preface account. > > JD: Considering this alleged "inconsistency," it's important to > remember that Marx was a dialectical thinker (unlike Cohen, who I'll > bet treats "dialectic" as a dirty word). First: Cohen may, but I don't. When I was professor I used to teach Hegel--the Logic, The Phenomenology, and the Phil Right, with a good deal of sympathy. However also with a grain of salt and rather critically. Moreover, a lot of Hegelians and Marxists tend to use "dialectics" as an excuse for conceptual fuzziness and tolerance of outright inconsistency. I don't think that Marx did, at least not often. I do think that he was not being "dialectical" in sometimes asserting TD and sometimes either denying it or asserting things which are inconsistent with it. I think he actually maintained, at some level of abstraction, a theory of history roughly like Cohen's which he couldn't square with his own more careful treatments of actual phenomena. I think he never noticed this; like Engels, he thought that qualifications like "determination in the last instance" would make things come out OK. He said a lot of things > that sounded technological determinist (tech -->social form). But > he also said a lot of things that sound sociological determinist > (social form -->tech. change). Cohen and others can cite a lot of > the former and accuse Marx of inconsistency when he says the latter. > One could just as easily cite the societal deterministic statements > (such as the ones I cite in my previous missive on this subject) and > treat the t-d as the "inconsistency." No: the inconsistency is the incompatibility of each with the other. If you want Hegelspeak here, neither moment of this contradiction is primary primary. > > The fact is, contrary to the determinists of both camps, causation > goes _both ways_. Cohen _INSISTS_ on this point, although you disparage his treatment below. For Cohen, the productive forces, or their development, create productive relations which are in turn functional for them, i.e. causally affect them. It's a dialectic, a process of self-generating and > contradictory change. (For two non-Hegelian explanations of > dialectical heuristics, see Levins & Lewontin, THE DIALECTICAL > BIOLOGIST, concluding chapter, or Rader, MARX'S INTERPRETATION OF > HISTORY. Rader does not see himself as a Marxist, BTW.) I haven't read Rader for years. I wasn't too impressed with the treatment of dialectics in Lewontin, et. al.--at least I didn't find it helpful, a s opposed to the concrete discussions of biological issues. In general, the way I understand dialectic, a d-contradiction occurs where a system (form of consciousness for Hegel, mode of production for Marx) reaches a point where, due to internally generated forces, it cannot solve the problems it generates in its own operation. Obviously this will not help Marx reconcile TD and SD. > > My "in a nutshell" understanding of Marx's dialectical theory of > history is as follows (dealing only with modes of production here): > a societal mode of production (mode of exploitation) generates > certain types of development of the forces of production > (technology, etc.) which then come into conflict with the social > structure that generated them. This in turn leads to qualitative and > quantitative change, the nature of which depends on class and other > struggles. In short, the operations of a mode of exploitation fouls > its own nest (eventually). OK, but this is just to throw out the TD claim that the forces determine the relations of production. > > The capitalist mode of exploitation generates over-accumulation > tendencies, which leads to crises which intensify the possibility of > social change. The feudal mode of exploitation tends to generate too > little technical change to feed the people, leading to starvation > crises and the possibility of change. This can't be historically right: capitalism didn't arise out of famines in England, and anyway, the feudal mode of exploitation (serfdom) had been long gone in England before the rise of capitalism. Etc. (BTW, this theory of > feudalism is based on that of Robert Brenner, a buddy of Cohen but a > practicing historian (i.e., an actual student of history!) who > developed a very anti-t-d theory, which seems as logically rigorous > as anything Cohen has spawned.) Bob's a friend and comrade
[PEN-L:3886] Re: Cohen and Historical Materialism
Concerning G.A. Cohen's technologically-determinist (t-d) model of historical materialism: On Wed, 18 Jan 1995 09:20:09 -0800 Justin Schwartz (JS) said: (quoting me, JD:) >If it's not a good representation of Marx's view, in what way is it >Marxian? JS: Oh, come along Jim. Marxism is a broad church. JD: Justin's right here. I'm usually willing to allow the word "Marxism" to be used in a way that covers a multitude of sins, including even stalinism, and I usually see the "that's not Marxism" argument as beside the point. I'm just very much against technological determinism (not only does it not make sense and contradict empirical evidence, but it has bad political implications) and my reading of Marx fits this. I'll skip most of the Marxological part of this discussion, however, since I'm not very interested in (or good at) quoting Marx. I thus agree with Justin's statement that: JS: In any event the real question . . . is whether some view that meets these general criteria as being recognizably Marxist is in fact defensible. >JD: The problem for Cohen's theory that arises from Marx's theory >is that as Marx argues (but authors such as Braverman make clear), >the nature and speed of technological change are endogenous, >to a large extent _determined by_ the mode of exploitation. JS: That's certainly one problem--it's the point of my objection based on the relative timing of the rise of capitalism and the industrial revolution. But all this can show is that Marx was inconsistent unless there is evidence that her changed his mind and renounced the (1859) Preface account. JD: Considering this alleged "inconsistency," it's important to remember that Marx was a dialectical thinker (unlike Cohen, who I'll bet treats "dialectic" as a dirty word). He said a lot of things that sounded technological determinist (tech -->social form). But he also said a lot of things that sound sociological determinist (social form -->tech. change). Cohen and others can cite a lot of the former and accuse Marx of inconsistency when he says the latter. One could just as easily cite the societal deterministic statements (such as the ones I cite in my previous missive on this subject) and treat the t-d as the "inconsistency." The fact is, contrary to the determinists of both camps, causation goes _both ways_. It's a dialectic, a process of self-generating and contradictory change. (For two non-Hegelian explanations of dialectical heuristics, see Levins & Lewontin, THE DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST, concluding chapter, or Rader, MARX'S INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY. Rader does not see himself as a Marxist, BTW.) My "in a nutshell" understanding of Marx's dialectical theory of history is as follows (dealing only with modes of production here): a societal mode of production (mode of exploitation) generates certain types of development of the forces of production (technology, etc.) which then come into conflict with the social structure that generated them. This in turn leads to qualitative and quantitative change, the nature of which depends on class and other struggles. In short, the operations of a mode of exploitation fouls its own nest (eventually). The capitalist mode of exploitation generates over-accumulation tendencies, which leads to crises which intensify the possibility of social change. The feudal mode of exploitation tends to generate too little technical change to feed the people, leading to starvation crises and the possibility of change. Etc. (BTW, this theory of feudalism is based on that of Robert Brenner, a buddy of Cohen but a practicing historian (i.e., an actual student of history!) who developed a very anti-t-d theory, which seems as logically rigorous as anything Cohen has spawned.) >JD: Tech. determinism is even weaker than genetic determinism, >because most of the time, an individual's genes don't change >due to environmental influence. And these changes aren't >transmitted to the young, unless Lamarck and Lysenko were >right. Technology is affected severly by the societal >environment and is transmitted to future generations. JS: Now you shift to whether it's a good theory. . . I agree that it isn't, but this isn't a good objection. JD: I don't get this. That a theory isn't good isn't an objection to that theory? If you were to say that a theory _is_ good, does that mean that it could not be concluded that you are praising the theory? JS: Cohen and his Marx can admit that technology is affected by the relations of production--he argues at some length that the latter must be functional for the development of the former, and so influence them; when the functionality breaks down, we get fettering and a revolutionary situation... (that theory) avoids your problem. JD: Cohen's functionalism is weak (and hardly original: see Stinchcombe, CONSTRUCTING SOCIAL THEORIES, U of Chicago Press, 1968, ch. 3). It's based mostly on a relatively crude evolutionary argument (that which is most adaptive survives) which ignores t
[PEN-L:3885] plumper profits, skimpier paychecks
With the headline above, BUSINESS WEEK recognized the rightward shift in the income distribution (the 1/30/95 issue, which I got today). Some old-fashioned economist might say that the rate of surplus-value is rising (and I wonder how this fits with an aggregte Cobb-Douglas production function). Radical economist Fred Moseley gets quoted in the article, though I doubt that he'll like _the way_ he was quoted. First, he says "Profitability is the most important determinant of the health of the economy." I guess that's from the point of view of the capitalists. And only in the short run: after all, profit rates surged in the 1920s, but seem to have gone too far, encouraging collapse. Then he's quoted in the following sentence: "Workers will evenutally gain if higher profits lead to more investment and more jobs, adds Moseley, 'but it hurts a lot.'" (the last line of the article.) But does anyone expect the current boom to last in the face of increasingly tight fiscal and monetary policy and international financial panics? in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante.
