[PEN-L:954] GLOBAL FAMINE

[M Chossudovsky]

>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M Chossudovsky)
>Subject: GLOBAL FAMINE
>
>>
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M Chossudovsky)
>>Subject: GLOBAL FAMINE
>>
>>50TH  ANNIVERSARY OF THE FAO 
>>
>>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, 
>>
>>16 OCTOBER 1995
>>
>>KINDLY POST AND FORWARD THE FOLLOWING TEXT
>>
>>
>>THE CAUSES OF GLOBAL FAMINE
>>
>>by Michel Chossudovsky
>>
>>
>>16 OCTOBER 1995: THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION (FAO) CELEBRATES
IN QUEBEC CITY ITS FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY. YET THE INNER CAUSES OF FAMINE
REMAIN CAREFULLY CONCEALED. 
>>
>>THE IMF-WORLD BANK SPONSORED MACRO-ECONOMIC REFORMS IMPOSED ON DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF LOCAL LEVEL FOOD
SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND THE OUTBREAK OF FAMINE. WORLD AGRICULTURE HAS FOR THE
FIRST TIME IN HISTORY THE CAPACITY TO SATISFY THE FOOD REQUIREMENTS OF THE
ENTIRE PLANET, YET THE VERY NATURE OF THE GLOBAL MARKET SYSTEM PREVENTS THIS
FROM OCCURRING. THE CAPACITY TO PRODUCE FOOD IS IMMENSE YET THE LEVELS OF
FOOD CONSUMPTION REMAIN EXCEEDINGLY LOW BECAUSE A LARGE SHARE OF THE WORLD'S
POPULATION LIVES IN CONDITIONS OF ABJECT POVERTY AND DEPRIVATION.
>>
>>THE FINAL ACT OF THE URUGUAY ROUND, THE ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT OF THE NEW
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO)) WILL GIVE UNRESTRICTED FREEDOM TO THE FOOD
GIANTS TO ENTER THE SEEDS MARKETS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND ESTABLISH
"PLANT BREEDERS RIGHTS" TO THE DETRIMENT OF MILLIONS OF SMALL FARMERS.
>>
>>THE NEOLIBERAL POLICY AGENDA IS NOT QUESTIONED. THE INCIDENCE OF FAMINE IS
NARROWLY ASCRIBED TO POPULATION PRESSURES, CLIMATIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTORS... 
>>
>>SINCE THE EARLY 1980S, GRAIN MARKETS ARE DEREGULATED UNDER THE SUPERVISION
OF THE WORLD BANK, US AND EUROPEAN GRAIN SURPLUSES ARE USED TO DESTROY THE
PEASANTRY AND DESTABILISE NATIONAL FOOD AGRICULTURE. 
>>
>>In the late  20th century, famine is not a consequence of "a shortage of
food". On the contrary, famines are spurted as a result of a global
oversupply of grain staples. Famine has become a Worldwide phenomenon:
dearth and starvation are striking simultaneously in all major regions of
the World; Sub-Saharan Africa, Northeast Brazil, South Asia, the Andean
altiplano of South America, the former Soviet Union... From the dry savannah
of the Sahelian belt, famine has extended its grip into the wet tropical
heartland. A large part of the population of the African continent is
affected. There are several million people in "famine zones" in India and
Bangladesh.  Moreover, in the labour surplus economies of South Asia and the
Far East (eg. India, China, Indonesia), an important segment of the rural
and urban population driven well below the poverty line due to the absence
of employment opportunities, is seriously at risk. 
>>
>>Hunger and deprivation, however, are no longer limited to the Third World:
the economic crisis is conducive to "a process of global impoverishment":
unemployment, homelessness and low wages in the urban ghettoes and
shantytowns, destruction of the independent farmer in Europe and North
America... Low levels of food consumption and malnutrition are increasingly
hitting the urban poor in the rich countries. According to a recent study,
30 million people in the United States are classified as "hungry"...  
>>
>>What are the underlying causes? The global TV image spotlights the victims
of civil war, drought and flood. Famine in Somalia or Mozambique is
mechanically ascribed to the "external" political and climatic factors: "the
absence of rain carrying clouds and air pressure anomalies"... History is
distorted, only the surface and colour of World events are disclosed.
Somalia was self-sufficient in food until the 1970s; what precipitated the
collapse of civil society? Why were food agriculture and nomadic pastoralism
destroyed?... 
>>
>>Complex and far-reaching changes in the global economy have taken place
since the early 1980s which redefine the structure of both industry and
agriculture. The family farm is driven into bankruptcy, the agricultural
producer looses control over the land which he farms. And in the developing
countries, the peasantry is increasingly transformed into an army of
landless seasonal plantations workers. 
>>
>>The earnings of farmers in rich and poor countries alike are squeezed by a
handful of global agro-industrial enterprises which simultaneously control
the markets for grain, farm inputs, seeds and processed foods. One giant
firm Cargill Inc. with more than 140 affiliates and subsidiaries around the
World controls a large share of the international trade in grain. Since the
1950s, Cargill became the main contractor of US "food aid" funded under
Public Law 480 (1954). 
>>
>>With the signing of the final act of the Uruguay Round, the articles of
agreement of the new World Trade Organization (WTO)) will give unrestricted
freedom to the food giants to enter the seeds markets of developing
countries and establish "plant breeders rights" to the detriment of millions
of small farmers. The acquisition of exclusive "int

[PEN-L:953] Re: Information in Sig Files

[Louis N Proyect]

On Sun, 15 Oct 1995, bill mitchell wrote:

> 
> as to the fetish for hierarchy, well i can assure you that if you knew me
> you would not make statements like those that were made. we can have fun on
> the list and debate at the same time, but it is always better not to get too
> mean hearted. 
> 
Louis:
Were we having fun when you called me a prick? I don't recall getting an 
apology from you. I guess this doesn't qualify as an ad hominem attack in 
some circles.

Let me tell you something about hierarchy, all of you. Bill's point is 
well-taken. The fact that he is the head of a department might be of some 
interest to a job applicant. What possible interest would it have to 
somebody outside of academia? Did it ever occur to you that this list is 
the most in-grown expression of academia imaginable?

I tried to make some points about market socialism and what did I get in 
reply?

--Gil Skillman wanted me to describe how my computer-based model would work.
I am not a professional economist or computer scientist, Cockshott is. 
The discussion was about the problems of market socialism, not what Louis 
Proyect's vision of socialism for the 21st century was. Imagine a 
continuing discussion between Cockshott and Skillman around the merits of 
"aggregation" algorithms through computers. If Skillman thought I was 
going to get down to this level of detail, he really needs to get out and 
speak to ordinary folks more often.

--Mike Leibowitz asked *me* if I had come up with the names of any 
historians since Deutscher, Carr or Lewin who had documented an 
alternative version of Stalin's war on the Kulaks--that the war wasn't 
necessary. People who are for market socialism would tend to look deeply into 
exactly these sorts of historical questions. Why ask someone like myself? 
I'm not out in the intellectual marketplace promoting market socialism.

--Bill Mitchell and Barkely Rosser start to cross-examine me on my 
understanding of Palchinsky, computer planning, ecology, what have you. 
Their role, I thought, was to defend the superiority of market planning. 
They were doing a very poor job of it and I decided that debating them 
was a waste of my time.

Thank you all for your time. It motivated me to read "Why Market 
Socialism" and for this much I am grateful.

[PEN-L:952] Re: Change in the law of appropriation

[Jim Jaszewski]

On Sun, 15 Oct 1995, bill mitchell wrote:

> well we are not necessarily discussing market socialism. i was responding to
> Louis (who has now taken to writing scripts for a play - should be a
> blockbuster i reckon, central character is well formed and pretty darn
> interesting!). he was against markets. i wanted to know what was wrong with the
> term market if we put it into a perpective that was non-capitalist. that is, if
> we eliminate the vertical relations that exist in capitalist LMs, what
> remaining objections have we to this idea - a place to shop.

My first impulse is to be against `markets' too, but I'd like to
see this all laid out, all logical-like.  All the cards on the table... 

Just what _are_ the pros and cons of `market socialism' -- in the
simple sense above, FI -- when Surplus Value is not a consideration?? 


+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|   OCTOBER  16 - 22 :  TV  TURNOFF  WEEK|
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Jim Jaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Public Key available. |
| http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html  |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

[PEN-L:955] radio Lucas

[Doug Henwood]

I'll try again, this time with some more notice. Anyone want to come on my
radio show this Thurs eve & talk about Lucas? And the "Nobel" in the Dismal
Science in general?

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: 

[PEN-L:951] Re: Extinction, Market Socialism and priorities

[Jim Jaszewski]

On Sun, 15 Oct 1995, Mason Clark wrote:

> It's not important who said this, but would someone please define
> SOCIALISM ?  And explain how it automatically creates Utopia?
> Who will be in charge?  Votes by all the people?  An intellectual
> elite?  HAL, the computer?  Will it get information from the market? 
> Will it cut off my supply of soft toilet paper?

CIVILIZED people use bidets...


+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|   OCTOBER  16 - 22 :  TV  TURNOFF  WEEK|
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Jim Jaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Public Key available. |
| http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html  |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

[PEN-L:956] Re: Information in Sig Files

[Doug Henwood]

At 9:19 PM 10/15/95, bill mitchell wrote:

>i also have
>brought out one visitor this year, and plan a few more early next year. all
>left thinking people. all getting the chance to visit civilisation and also
>giving my dept. the chance to see some other people.

Visit civilization? You wouldn't be implying that we USians inhabit the
barbaric periphery?

Doug

[PEN-L:957] relationship activism

[Doug Henwood]

Comrades - I'm going to be interviewing Nell Minow of Lens Inc., one of the
leading "relationship investors" and "shareholder activists" around. I've
included the text from their web home page below.

Anything you'd like me to ask her about?

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: 



>http://www.lens-inc.com/
>
>ROBERT A.G. MONKS
>  [Image]  NELL MINOW
>JOHN P.M. HIGGINS
>ROBERT B. HOLMES
>  [Image] CHARLES K. WOODWORTH
>
>
> Suite 620 North
> 601 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
> Washington, D.C. 20005
> (202) 783-3348 - Voice
> (202) 783-3316 - Fax
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>Welcome to the LENS Web Site.
>LENS invests in underperforming companies and uses shareholder ownership
>rights to increase value. Whenever possible, we work cooperatively with the
>management and board of the companies; when that is impossible, we use more
>aggressive initiatives, ranging from the filing of shareholder proposals to
>a full-scale proxy contest for a seat on the board. Shareholder activism is
>our investment strategy, and one that we have found to provide reliable
>returns in excess of the market. LENS principals Robert A.G. Monks and Nell
>Minow often write and speak on the topics of corporate governance,
>shareholder activism, executive compensation, and institutional investor
>fiduciary obligation. This Web Site provides information about the LENS
>investments and publications, and provides preliminary access to our
>bibliographic data base. We welcome your comments, questions, and
>suggestions.
>
>Please visit either the LENS Fund Page, which describes LENS, its
>objectives, and its various projects, or the LENS Academic Page, which
>serves as a forum for the discussion of matters involving corporate
>governance.
>
> [Image] Corporate Governance Paper Competition
>
> [Image] The LENS Principals
> [Image] The LENS Fund Page
> [Image] The LENS Academic Page
> [Image] Upcoming LENS Speaking Engagements
>
>Copyright © 1995, LENS Inc.
>
>[Image]
>

[PEN-L:958] Re: relationship activism

[Ellen Dannin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Comrades - I'm going to be interviewing Nell Minow of Lens Inc., one of the
> leading "relationship investors" and "shareholder activists" around. I've
> included the text from their web home page below.
> 
> Anything you'd like me to ask her about?
> 
> Doug
> 
I recently reread Monks & Minow's, Power and Accountability.  Looking at 
it from the viewpoint of a labor lawyer, I'd be curious how they would 
view rewriting corporation law to bring in other corporate stakeholders  
expressly as ones to whom the officers and directors owe a fiduciary 
obligation, somewhat on the same basis as the current beneficial owners. 
In addition to the workers (with their sweat equity) this could include 
communities (esp. ones which have invested heavily in providing support 
and services to the corporations).

Prof. Lynne Dallas (U of San Diego law school) has explored this issue in 
her current articles, btw.  

As more of a longshot, you could ask them what they think of bolstering 
laws which provide counterbalances to corporate power, e.g., labor 
unions, which many of us in labor law would see as institutions whose 
creation and legal support is necessitated by the legal support offered 
to the corporate form.

As even more of a longshot question, ask them what they think of 
suggestions to pull the plug on community give-aways offered to induce 
corporations to move to or not to move from communities.

ellen

Ellen J. Dannin
California Western School of Law
225 Cedar Street
San Diego, CA  92101
Phone:  619-525-1449
Fax:619-696-

[PEN-L:959] Re: teaching econ

[Macario Schettino]

Here in Mexico you can have two main kinds of economics in undergrad. If 
you are majoring in Economics, then you have one type of econ courses 
that begin with a term using Samuelson or Fischer/Dornbusch or something 
similar. Then you get on twwo streams: micro wwith Varian (intermediate 
then Analysis) and macro with whoever (lately starting with (I dont 
remember the name, he is very famous now, best selling in textbooks) and 
maybe going to Sargent's Macroeconomics or even Blanchard/Fischer, etc.).

If you are not going into economics for a living, then you stay at the 
Samuelson or similar level. I just wrote a book (a year from now) for 
this kind of courses trying to cover three issues: a) Including most 
perspectives: neoclassical, keynesian, empirical issues, obviously at a 
introductory level. b) That the book could be read with joy (it has some 
jokes on it), c) That mexicans learn about the mexican economy as well as 
some theoretical issues, all the examples in the book (most I should say) 
come from Mexico or Latin American countries. The book is doing well, 
about 8000 sold, which for Mexico is a very big number.

There is still another line of thought here. Most public universities 
became invaded by Marxism in the 70s. Some of them have not change by 
now, so they still read "Das Kapital", some sovietic manuals and similar 
things. Nevertheless, this is fading out.

If the question goes about different schools of though like 
post-keynesian, neo-ricardian, institutional, neoclassical, etc. Forget 
it. Neoclassical covers almost everything. In undergraduate, all.

Mac

[PEN-L:960] Re: Extinction, Market Socialism and priorities

[ROSSERJB]

 The former Yugoslavia is moderately endowed with coal
and obviously uses it, although not the high sulfur type used
in Hungary, the former GDR, the Czechoslovakia, and Poland.
 NOX emissions are a direct function of rates vehicular
usage as modified by pollution control devices.  I do not
have the figures on auto ownership in the former Yugo, although
the former Yugo was produced there.
 Since Louis P. is retreating into his lurking let me just
say that the Yugoslav economic system's role in the breakup was
vetted extensively on this net during previous debates.  My view,
which is not simple or quickly stated, (yes, the system did play
a role) can be found in Chapter 14 of _Comparative Economics in a
Transforming World Economy_ by me and Marina V. Rosser.
Barkley Rosser 

[PEN-L:963] Re: The general (f)law of capitalist accumulati

[Gilbert Skillman]

 
 Paul writes:
> 
> I would have said that it is because interest bearing capital
> is not a commodity, but a social relation, and that thus
> analysis based on supply and demand misses the point.

Paul might have said this, but Marx certainly didn't, as any reading 
of Capital, Volume III, Ch. 21 will make clear.  For example:  "The 
form of lending results from capital's characteristic here of 
emerging as a commodity, or in other words, it results from the fact 
that money as capital becomes a commodity."  In speaking of supply 
and demand for interest capital I only paraphrased Marx's analysis in 
the last part of that chapter.

When Marx speaks of capital as a social relation, it seems to me that 
he refers specifically to the circuit of industrial capital M-C-M', 
involving the purchase and subsumption of labor power.  

To say that interest-bearing capital is a social relation is not to 
deny that it is influenced by supply and demand considerations.  
Indeed, the true social relation could be obscured by the same sort 
of "fetishism" Marx speaks of at the end of Ch. 1 in Volume I.  In 
other words, all exchanges are social relations, but that is not to 
say that demand and supply considerations do not arise. 

Gil Skillman

[PEN-L:964] Re: Information in Sig Files

[Gilbert Skillman]

Louis writes:

> I tried to make some points about market socialism and what did I get in 
> reply?
> 
> --Gil Skillman wanted me to describe how my computer-based model would work.
> I am not a professional economist or computer scientist, Cockshott is. 
> The discussion was about the problems of market socialism, not what Louis 
> Proyect's vision of socialism for the 21st century was. Imagine a 
> continuing discussion between Cockshott and Skillman around the merits of 
> "aggregation" algorithms through computers. If Skillman thought I was 
> going to get down to this level of detail, he really needs to get out and 
> speak to ordinary folks more often.

What a copout.  I wasn't asking Louis for computer algorithms, I was 
asking about basic features of his alternative to market socialism.  
The absurd implication of Louis's remarks is that it is sufficient to 
argue in favor of some proposal A by attacking alternative proposal 
B.  In that case, let me prove that Louis should vote for Newt 
Gingrich for President, by proving that he shouldn't vote for Bob 
Dole.  

Sorry for the imposition on Louis, but his method of argumentation 
doesn't work unless one is arguing to the already convinced.  Maybe 
he needs to expand his own circle of discussion partners.

Gil Skillman

[PEN-L:962] Re: the civil war (debate) among marxists - all welcome

[ROSSERJB]

To Paul Cockshott:
 The only place where either Marx or Engels clearly
supports central planning in any detailed way is in Engels'
_Anti-Duhring_.  On cooperatives and markets Marx is all
over the place, supporting coops in Volume III of _Capital_
and in his writings on the Paris Commune and criticizing
them whenever he is writing about Proudhon who always made
him go apoplectic.
 A basic problem for anybody advocating "communist"
central planning is, if communism really involves the "withering
away of the state", then who is to do the central planning?  I
realize that you and Allin and Louis all advocate a depersonalized
centralized computer system, but then who is to enforce the orders
of the computer if the humans in the system refuse to obey?  Sounds
like a state to me.
 For good references on Marx and Engels on coops and market
socialism see:
Milovan Djilas, _The Unperfect Society: Beyond the New Class_, 1969,
New York: Harcourt, Brace & World
and
Deborah D. Milenkovitch, _Plan and Market in Yugoslav Economic Thought_,
1971, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Barkley Rosser

[PEN-L:961] Goodbye

[Ted Kuster]

OK, I have had enough. It isn't the breathtaking ego of Louis Proyect 
(can we make it a national monument and charge admission?), or his 
unaccountable ability to draw the rest of you economists into these 
periodic fits of angel-counting. It's the time it takes to wade through 
all this crap looking for the occasional useful or interesting post. My 
time, evidently unlike that of computer technicians or academics, is 
not unlimited. I hope Louis won't bother with his customary rapier-like 
riposte, because I am signing off this list and will not receive it. 
In disgust,
Ted Kuster

[PEN-L:965] Re: Mike Albert's response to Louis Proyect

[Rhon Baiman]

On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Louis N Proyect wrote:

> Save your energy, Mikey, we're going to have a great debate later on. By the 
> way, I have people like Paul Sweezy, Harry Magdoff, Ellen Meiksins Wood, 
> David Harvey, Leo Panitch, etc. in my corner (figuratively). 
> I believe an ideological fight has been brewing for some time now. You 
> should have heard Harry Magdoff duking it out with Frank Roosevelt and 
> David Belkins at the Brecht Forum the other night. Harry called "market 
> socialism" an industry in the same way post-modernism is. I don't think 
> ideas like postmodernism, Mondragonism, market socialism, etc. can be 
> harmonized with the ideas of the Communist Manifesto, State and Revolution, 
> etc. It's about time that we sorted these matters out.
> 

Louis,

As someone who has been debating David Belkins for some time, you 
should know that Albert and Hanhel are among the most vigrous anti market 
socialists around and certainly opposed to Belkin and Roosevelt.  I also 
think they've done brilliant work in this area particularly their book 
on "The New Revolution in Welfare Economics" though I have some doubts 
about the feasability of their precise socialist model - I myself lean 
toward some modifications a la pat Devine and David Laibman. This is just 
to give you an idea that their is a lot of overlap between "Marxists" and 
A&H who do not at all discount Marxism as I unmderstand them.

In any case good luck! Hopefully this will be constructive.

In Pen-L Solidarity,

Ron Baiman
Roosevelt Univ.

Chicago

[PEN-L:966] Dollars & Sense/Nobel

[Dollars and Sense]

Two people replied to my query concerning writing an article on
rational expectations for Dollars & Sense. I deleted your messages
by mistake. Could you send me a message again? Thanks. Marc Breslow.

[PEN-L:967] Re: relationship activism

[Blair Sandler]

hit by car, typing 1-handed. pls excuse cryptic

Instead of "bringing in other corporate stakeholders" why not just
set up corporations whose directors are community orgs -- labor
unions, battered women's shelters, youth orgs, local enviro
orgs,... Let them fight out on board policies re jobs, gender
effects, eco consequences, etc., etc. as well as raising cain I
mean capital from usual and perhaps less usual sources. "Communal
class processes."

Blair


 > From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Mon Oct 16 08:50:31 1995
 > Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 08:50:27 -0700
 > Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > From: "Ellen Dannin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 > To: Multiple recipients of list
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 > Subject: [PEN-L:958] Re: relationship activism
 > X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios
 Kotsikonas
 > X-Comment: Progressive Economics
 >
 > On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Doug Henwood wrote:
 > > Comrades - I'm going to be interviewing Nell Minow of Lens
 Inc., one of the
 > > leading "relationship investors" and "shareholder activists"
 around. I've
 > > included the text from their web home page below.
 > >
 > > Anything you'd like me to ask her about?
 > >
 > > Doug
 > >
 > I recently reread Monks & Minow's, Power and Accountability.
 Looking at
 > it from the viewpoint of a labor lawyer, I'd be curious how
 they would
 > view rewriting corporation law to bring in other corporate
 stakeholders
 > expressly as ones to whom the officers and directors owe a
 fiduciary
 > obligation, somewhat on the same basis as the current
 beneficial owners.
 > In addition to the workers (with their sweat equity) this could
 include
 > communities (esp. ones which have invested heavily in providing
 support
 > and services to the corporations).
 >
 > Prof. Lynne Dallas (U of San Diego law school) has explored
 this issue in
 > her current articles, btw.
 >
 > As more of a longshot, you could ask them what they think of
 bolstering
 > laws which provide counterbalances to corporate power, e.g.,
 labor
 > unions, which many of us in labor law would see as institutions
 whose
 > creation and legal support is necessitated by the legal support
 offered
 > to the corporate form.
 >
 > As even more of a longshot question, ask them what they think
 of
 > suggestions to pull the plug on community give-aways offered to
 induce
 > corporations to move to or not to move from communities.
 >
 > ellen
 >
 > Ellen J. Dannin
 > California Western School of Law
 > 225 Cedar Street
 > San Diego, CA  92101
 > Phone:  619-525-1449
 > Fax:619-696-

[PEN-L:968] market socialism and the environment

[ROSSERJB]

 This is in response to Louis Proyect's "farewell"
messages, although having gotten through my mail finally
I see that he has reappeared several times.  Hopefully my
remarks will not drive anyone else off the net.  So very
briefly:
 1)  I think a "global network of Mondragons" would be
a lot better than what we have now.  But I do not think that
it would be sufficient to solve all environmental problems.
Some are global and must be dealt with at that level.  This
may even involve some sort of planning, although probably not
of the detailed sort laid out by Paul Cockshott.
 2)  I apologize if I falsely accused you of "trashing"
Bukharin, who certainly did maintain his integrity to a very
difficult and unpleasant end.  But you certainly appeared to
criticize quite strongly and extensively his views on the NEP
and policies towards peasants in the USSR of the 1920s.  But
perhaps I misread you.
 3)  Have fun lurking.
Barkley Rosser, insufferable elitist academic :-)

[PEN-L:970] Re: Mike Albert's response to Louis Proyect

[Louis N Proyect]

Louis:

ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY LISTEN UP. THE ONLY THING I ACCUSED NOAM CHOMSKY AND 
MIKE ALBERT OF IS ATTACKING MARXISM. TO THIS CHARGE THEY HAVE ALREADY PLEAD 
GUILTY. CASE CLOSED.

I AM SATISFIED AT THIS POINT, UNTIL I HEAR EVIDENCE TO THE 
CONTRARY, THAT MARKET-SOCIALISM, WHICH ALBERT DOES OPPOSE, IS LIKE 
POSTMODERNISM: SNAKE-OIL POPULAR AMONG ACADEMICS WHO WANT TO FEEL 
'RADICAL' WHILE ENJOYING THE STATION AND PRIVILEGES ASSOCIATED WITH TENURE.

A FEW MONTHS FROM NOW I WILL TAKE A LOOK AT CHOMSKY'S ANARCHISM AND ALBERT'S 
POSTMARXISM. UNTIL THEN, DON'T BRING THEIR NAMES UP TO ME AGAIN.


On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Rhon Baiman wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Louis N Proyect wrote:
> 
> > Save your energy, Mikey, we're going to have a great debate later on. By the 
> > way, I have people like Paul Sweezy, Harry Magdoff, Ellen Meiksins Wood, 
> > David Harvey, Leo Panitch, etc. in my corner (figuratively). 
> > I believe an ideological fight has been brewing for some time now. You 
> > should have heard Harry Magdoff duking it out with Frank Roosevelt and 
> > David Belkins at the Brecht Forum the other night. Harry called "market 
> > socialism" an industry in the same way post-modernism is. I don't think 
> > ideas like postmodernism, Mondragonism, market socialism, etc. can be 
> > harmonized with the ideas of the Communist Manifesto, State and Revolution, 
> > etc. It's about time that we sorted these matters out.
> > 
> 
> Louis,
> 
>   As someone who has been debating David Belkins for some time, you 
> should know that Albert and Hanhel are among the most vigrous anti market 
> socialists around and certainly opposed to Belkin and Roosevelt.  I also 
> think they've done brilliant work in this area particularly their book 
> on "The New Revolution in Welfare Economics" though I have some doubts 
> about the feasability of their precise socialist model - I myself lean 
> toward some modifications a la pat Devine and David Laibman. This is just 
> to give you an idea that their is a lot of overlap between "Marxists" and 
> A&H who do not at all discount Marxism as I unmderstand them.
> 
>   In any case good luck! Hopefully this will be constructive.
> 
>   In Pen-L Solidarity,
> 
>   Ron Baiman
>   Roosevelt Univ.
> 
>   Chicago
> 
> 
> 

[PEN-L:969] Re: Information in Sig Files

[Louis N Proyect]

On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Gilbert Skillman wrote:

> What a copout.  I wasn't asking Louis for computer algorithms, I was 
> asking about basic features of his alternative to market socialism.  
> The absurd implication of Louis's remarks is that it is sufficient to 
> argue in favor of some proposal A by attacking alternative proposal 
> B.  In that case, let me prove that Louis should vote for Newt 
> Gingrich for President, by proving that he shouldn't vote for Bob 
> Dole.  
> 
Gil: Maybe you didn't hear what I said or didn't want to hear it. I said 
that any ideas I have on socialism are closely related to Cockshott and 
Cottrell's. But I want to try to synthesize it with my own ideas on 
ecology. I expect that it will take 3 or 4 years to work this out. Even 
if I come up with clear ideas, I wouldn't try to build a movement around 
it. This was the approach to Daniel De Leon's Socialist Labor Party. It's 
blueprint for a perfect socialist society accounts for its existence as a 
sect for most of its life. I consider myself a student of people like the 
Sandinistas, the FMLN and Castro and Guervara. They would have laughed at 
the idea of planning out what a socialist Cuba, Nicaragua and El Salvador 
would look like while they were up in the hills. Blueprinting is the 
province of academics. If you take a look at "Why Market Socialism", 
you'll find a lengthy section entitled "Some blueprints for the future".

The only things I am sure about are the following:

1) Stalin did not use planning; he destroyed it, even the insane version 
of it provided by his acolytes in Gosplan.

2) Nove misunderstands the origins of bureaucracy when he explains it in 
terms of the complexity of tasks, either vertically or horizontally 
(complexity of structure, time management).

3) The idea of a global network of Mondragons to resolve the ecological 
crisis is snake-oil.

I heard nothing on the list to convince me of the contrary, therefore I 
withdrew from the debate since it wasn't going anywhere. Why don't you 
and Cockshott bat things around? I'll be listening over your shoulders, 
but I'm done posting.

[PEN-L:971] Re: Marx on socialism

[Michael A. Lebowitz]

One problem that I can see in Paul Cockshott's references to Marx's
comments on communism is that Marx was not always clear as to whether he was
referring to communism as a fully developed organic system (one in which all
its presuppositions in their communist economic form were produced as
results) or whether he was talking about communism as it first appears, when
it is in the process of "becoming"--- a process which consists "precisely in
subordinating all elements of society to itself, or in creating out of it
the organs which it still lacks" (Grundrisse,Vintage/Penguin,278).
Certainly, he makes the distinction in the Gotha Critique but one could
hardly argue that he exhaustively explored the subject there.
  We know that the difference he saw between capitalism as an organic system
and capitalism in the process of becoming (which should be seen as including
not only original accumulation but also up to the point of developing a
specifically capitalist mode of production) was profound. So, why should we
not acknowledge a similar divide when it comes to a Marxian view of
communism? Ie., there is no question that in Marx's view of communism-- once
it has developed upon its own foundations-- there is no place for any kind of
exchange relation as such. But before that? Please note that this is not at
all intended as an argument in favour of conceptions of market socialism but
only a cautionary comment about using Marx's statements. Some of my own
thinking along the above lines can be found in "The Socialist Fetter: A
Cautionary Tale," in the SOCIALIST REGISTER, 1991 (edited by Miliband and
Panitch).
   in solidarity,
  mike
---
Michael A. Lebowitz
Economics Department, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: (604) 255-0382
Lasqueti Island: (604) 333-8810
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:972] Re: relationship activism

[Rhon Baiman]

On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Doug Henwood wrote:

> Comrades - I'm going to be interviewing Nell Minow of Lens Inc., one of the
> leading "relationship investors" and "shareholder activists" around. I've
> included the text from their web home page below.
> 
> Anything you'd like me to ask her about?
> 
Doug,

I'm sure you know the obvious: How to keep "relational investors" 
from medium-term squeezing as much  profit from companies as possible at 
the expense of their communities, workers, and ultimately (in the 
long-run) the companies themselves at least in their present sites in the 
U.S.  But of more use to you: Aside from Teressa Ghiradelci whom I know 
you are acquanited with you might want to call Don Reid at (212) 827-6186 
(o) or in Brooklyn (home).  He was the lead person in setting up New York 
State's "relational investment" Corp. "Excelcior Capital" now about to go 
under at the state Dept. of Econ Dev.  He's a very bright and 
knowledgable long-time lefty.  You can tell him I refered you if you want 
to call him.

Bye the way, I find you Pen-L stuff generally priceless-

In Solidarity,

Ron Baiman
Roosevelt Univ.
Chicago

[PEN-L:973] Re: relationship activism

[Rhon Baiman]

On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Blair Sandler wrote:

> hit by car, typing 1-handed. pls excuse cryptic
> 
> Instead of "bringing in other corporate stakeholders" why not just
> set up corporations whose directors are community orgs -- labor
> unions, battered women's shelters, youth orgs, local enviro
> orgs,... Let them fight out on board policies re jobs, gender
> effects, eco consequences, etc., etc. as well as raising cain I
> mean capital from usual and perhaps less usual sources. "Communal
> class processes."
> 
On this note: What do they think of,or how do they use the Pensylvania 
law which gives legal rights to other "stake holders" vis a vis 
acquisition attempts form out of state - a recent issue of GEO has a 
piece on this. 

In Solidarity,
Ron Baiman
Roosevelt Univ.
Chicago

[PEN-L:974] Lindbeck, Lucas's Nobel, and the Swedish economy

[ROSSERJB]

 1)  Clearly if the Nobel is to be given for impact,
Lucas deserves it.  If it is to be given for originality
that is highly questionable.  If it is to be given on the 
outcome of his policy recommendations, then it is even more
questionable, although he is certainly correct that any
planner or government must account for the reactions of its
citizens or agents to its policies, if it can do so.  But the
recent evidence suggests that this may be difficult as
a) rational expectations models generate multiple equilibria
and b) rational expectations is wrong.
 2)  What I would really like to address is the more
subtle issue of why would the Swedish-dominated Nobel Committee
wish to give this prize to someone whose most notable policy 
recommendations support macro policy inaction except to stabilize 
the money supply and (presumably) reduce inflation and who argues 
that nothing can be done in the long run about unemployment.  I 
suggest that this really reflects the committee's own embarrassment 
at Swedish policies and their support of Sweden's becoming "like 
other countries" with a high unemployment being used to suppress 
inflation and cuts in social safety nets which in the past have 
supported the highest quality of life in the world for women to bring 
Sweden in line with other EU nations and more in line generally with 
the anti-labor pro-low wage agenda of multinational capitalist 
institutions.
 3)  With the success of the project of "cracking the commies"
in Eastern and Central Europe, it is now, except for some East Asian
economies (Cuba and N. Korea are viewed as non-serious outlier jokes
in this context), the case that only the Scandinavian social 
democracies stand as serious outliers to the privatizing/marketizing/
government-downsizing trend going on globally.  Cracking the previously 
these magnificently successful economies thus became a project of immense
importance.
 4)  Wishing to be in with the global mainstream, the Swedish
members of the Nobel Committee, led by Assar Lindbeck, have aided
and abetted this project wholeheartedly.  Starting under the previous
Moderate (conservative) government, an international project bringing
in researchers from the US was created to analyze "what is wrong with
the Swedish economy."  One output of this was the book _Turning Sweden
Around_ by Lindbeck and a bunch of co-authors, published in 1994 by
MIT Press in the same series which has given us Jeffrey Sachs on how
he "saved" the Polish economy and Pedro Aspe on how he "transformed" the
Mexican economy (no kidding).  
 5)  Another was a main session at the most recent American Economic 
Association meetings whose output is the first session listed in the May 
_Papers and Proceedings_, with the ponderous and indicative title, "The
End of the Middle Way?  The Large Welfare States of Europe" (ahem!).
Lindbeck was the Chair and main participant who said "This is the end,"
as did Mancur Olson.  Although sort of following the party line, Richard
Freeman did rather sardonically note that when his fellow researchers
were in Stockholm, several from Chicago (land of Nobel prize winners)
were shocked! shocked! that people were not starving in the streets
from all those oppressively high taxes!  Gosh, and does not Sweden also
have the world's lowest poverty rate?  It is a sign of both how official
this session was and how off-the-wall it was that one of the few voices
of even semi-reason was one of the discussants, Lawrence Summers.
 6)  And finally and anecdote which I think really says where
Lindbeck is at.  I attended that session as I imagine some of you did
(the rather large room was SRO and spilling over).  Lindbeck threw out
that all the wickednesses of Swedish policy had led to a 13% unemployment
rate (for those who don't know, until very recently Sweden had less than
a 2% rate coupled with hight LPF and inflation about equal to the EU's
with its successful corporatist policies).  No internationally published
source, including Lindbeck's own book, shows a rate ever getting above
9% which it approached last year and since has begun to fall (since the
Social Democrats returned to power).  I stood up and challenged Lindbeck
on this figure.  He was very arrogant and sneering and informed us that
of course he knew what Swedish unemployment rates are.  The audience
laughed with him, but in fact he was wrong.  BTW, Lindbeck did not put
this figure in his published version.
  7)  My only hypothesis for why Lindbeck is pulling this stuff is
that he is hoping to accumulate support for himself receiving the Nobel
after he steps down off the committee.
Barkley Rosser
James Madison University

[PEN-L:975] Re: relationship activism

[Rhon Baiman]

Sorry,

That was a recent issue of dollars & sense.
Ron

On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Rhon Baiman wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Blair Sandler wrote:
> 
> > hit by car, typing 1-handed. pls excuse cryptic
> > 
> > Instead of "bringing in other corporate stakeholders" why not just
> > set up corporations whose directors are community orgs -- labor
> > unions, battered women's shelters, youth orgs, local enviro
> > orgs,... Let them fight out on board policies re jobs, gender
> > effects, eco consequences, etc., etc. as well as raising cain I
> > mean capital from usual and perhaps less usual sources. "Communal
> > class processes."
> > 
> On this note: What do they think of,or how do they use the Pensylvania 
> law which gives legal rights to other "stake holders" vis a vis 
> acquisition attempts form out of state - a recent issue of GEO has a 
> piece on this. 
> 
> In Solidarity,
> Ron Baiman
> Roosevelt Univ.
> Chicago
> 

[PEN-L:977] Re: the civil war (debate) among marxists - all welco

[Paul Cockshott]

Barkley raises the question of whether the idea of planning
necessarily requires the existence of a state to enforce
planning decisions.

Well it depends upon what you mean by a state. If you mean
special bodies of armed men standing apart from society as
a whole, then it does not. If you mean an institution for
the supression of opposing classes then, it need not.

If, on the other hand, you identify any form of authority
as the state, then you would be right, but no more so than
is implied in the notion of market socialism, since this
presupposes civil law and thus jurisprudence. What would
be required for the operation of planning is the structural
analogue in communist society to civil law in bourgeois
society.

[PEN-L:976] Introductory texts & teaching econ

[Todd Easton]

I'm contemplating my textbook options for introductory macroeconomics 
next semester.  I've been using Schiller, which my students have seemed 
to read more diligently than texts I used several years previous (Baumol 
& Blinder, McConnell).  I'm looking for something better.

I depart from Peter Dorman's (probably accurate) description of a typical 
introductory course by emphasizing the Keynesian cross story and then 
talking about inflation in terms of a price-wage spiral (presented 
verbally and as a diagram): 
-the rate of change of prices depends on 
-the rate of change of unit labor costs, depends on
-the rate of productivity growth,
-the rate of wage change, and
-the rate of change of other costs.
-the rate of change of wages depends on changes in the 
cost-of-living, the unemployment rate, and other determinants of 
bargaining power.
-the change in the cost of living depends on prices again.

I'm pretty happy with this approach.  I think it allows students to 
understand some of the influences on the exchange rate accurately, 
without getting involved in AS/AD models that are presented carelessly 
and address the price level, rather than the inflation rate.

Anyway, I'd appreciate hearing ideas about introductory texts that might 
allow one to skip AS/AD without frustrating students too much.

Alternatively, I'd be interested in hearing about a text that has a 
careful presentation of AS/AD.

Finally, if someone can suggest sources to enrich my price-wage spiral 
approach...or alternative ways to present honestly the determinants of 
inflation to introductory level students, I'd appreciate that.

Todd

 /// Todd Easton School of Business   phone: (503)283-7209 \\\ 

 \\\ Portland, OR97203  e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ///
 

[PEN-L:978] Re: The general (f)law of capitalist accumulati

[Paul Cockshott]

Gil
---
Paul might have said this, but Marx certainly didn't, as any reading
of Capital, Volume III, Ch. 21 will make clear.  For example:  "The
form of lending results from capital's characteristic here of
emerging as a commodity, or in other words, it results from the fact
that money as capital becomes a commodity."  In speaking of supply
and demand for interest capital I only paraphrased Marx's analysis in
the last part of that chapter.

Paul

Marx's analysis here is inadequate, and his normal very strict
logical use of terms becomes sloppy. I made a long posting 
on the OPE list a month or so back (24th September) using
arguments from type theory to show this. You must have seen
that posting so why not comment on that.

[PEN-L:979] Re: Marx on socialism

[Paul Cockshott]

I agree with Mike that Marx's remarks on communism are
few and far between. I also agree that the transition to
communism necessarily goes through phases in which
commodity production is not yet abolished. I would reckon
that a phase combining state capitalism with elements
of co-operative production is likely. However it is
interesting to note that even when talking of the lower
phase of communism in the Critique of the Gotha program,
Marx presupposes the abolition of money.

[PEN-L:980] Re: Introductory texts & teaching econ

[Michael Perelman]

I just got a voice mail call from Blackwell, touting their newest text,
which has the unique advantage of neglecting the Keynesian cross altogether.
It gets right into the hear of the matter: AS/AD.  We are really making
progress 
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:981] Re: The general (f)law of capitalist accumulati

[Gilbert Skillman]

> Gil
> ---
> Paul might have said this, but Marx certainly didn't, as any reading
> of Capital, Volume III, Ch. 21 will make clear.  For example:  "The
> form of lending results from capital's characteristic here of
> emerging as a commodity, or in other words, it results from the fact
> that money as capital becomes a commodity."  In speaking of supply
> and demand for interest capital I only paraphrased Marx's analysis in
> the last part of that chapter.
> 
> Paul
> 
> Marx's analysis here is inadequate, and his normal very strict
> logical use of terms becomes sloppy. I made a long posting 
> on the OPE list a month or so back (24th September) using
> arguments from type theory to show this. You must have seen
> that posting so why not comment on that.

I'll tell you why I haven't yet: because Mike Lebowitz asked us in the interest of 
group discipline (on OPE-L) not to continue with a specialized line of dialogue. 
 In the interest of group discipline, I complied, though I was far 
from satisfied with the state of discussion.

That is why I'm a bit perturbed with Allen taking the liberty of 
cross-posting my PEN-L comments on this topic to OPE-L.  I'm on both 
lists; if I wanted the comments sent to both lists I would have done 
so.  

In any case, I'll dig out your comments and respond to them when I 
can. 

Gil Skillman

[PEN-L:983] Conferences in April/May 1996

[Martin Watts]

Penlers, I am looking for a Conference in Britain or Europe in April or May
1996, either with a general economics focus or preferably one devoted to
labour market issues.
Any suggestions?
Thanks in anticipation.
Martin Watts
([EMAIL PROTECTED])

[PEN-L:982] The loan arranger or: who was that Marx man?

[Alan Freeman]

Gil [PEN-L 853]has started a very interesting train of discus-
sion and  I hope it continues.

Having chipped in an initial ten cents worth, I hope I'll  be
excused for leveraging it with another five cents.

I'll  stick with the view that the reason this discussion  is
interesting  is  that a concept of value  is  more  evidently
necessary  when talking about interest and loan-capital  than
when  talking  about  wages. In other words,  marxism  is  on
stronger  grounds when debating money. That's why I think  it
is  a pity so many standard versions of Marx don't leave room
for  money. If they did, they could have a proper debate with
the  political  currents  that are  doing  the  most  obvious
damage. They might even make some allies.

Following  Edwin  Dickens  [PEN-L 922]  post  I  reread  CIII
chapters  29-32 which deal with fictitious capital.  I  found
that Marx noted a difference in the political economy of  the
banking  school  and the political economy of the  industrial
interest. This difference is with us today because - when you
think  about  it  -  currents of economic  thought  represent
material interests now just as much as then.

The  point  of  view which Ricardo, Marx and Smith  call  the
'moneyed interest' needs a theory in which financial  capital
contributes  value  to  the gross product.  In  the  UK  this
current is politically expressed by Thatcherism. I don't know
enough  about  the nuances of US rightwing theories  but  I'm
sure  it  has an equivalent over there. Chapter and verse  on
this would be interesting for us over here.

The view is that *everything* which increases an individual's
wealth  increases society's wealth. Getting rich is good  for
you  and good for everyone. The archetypal Smith; enlightened
self-interest  rules. Instead of property is theft,  we  have
theft is property.

However,  not  all sections of the bourgeoisie  accept  this.
There  is not the same united brotherhood of thieves  as  one
finds  in support of the view that (for some reason that  you
need  an  economics  degree to understand)  society  will  be
better  off  if  everyone with a salary below a  CEO's  works
longer and gets paid less. There is a chink in the armour; it
has  dawned on the 'enlightened' industrial bourgeoisie  that
if  all  profits are frittered away on banking, nothing  will
actually  get produced and, more to the point, a nation  that
chooses  this  specialisation will gradually  but  inexorably
lose its competitive status, just as Britain started doing at
the  turn of the century and the US has been doing since  the
early sixties.

The  argument  is  muddied because  you  can  get  away  with
specialising in finance if either you are a small  tax  haven
or  if  you run the world. In the first case you launder  for
the mob, in the second you are the mob.

It's  the guys in between Luxemburg and the USA who have  the
problems.

The  moneyed  interest  has  to maintain  that  loan  capital
constitutes real value, and that the interest payments create
yet more value. This was the argument that, IMHO, Gil put  it
into  Marx's mouth: but if you just take his first post as  a
statement  of a possible viewpoint (not, I suspect,  his  own
but  I'm  open  to correction) then it says in essence  'loan
capital  is  an  input  to production just  like  any  other;
therefore,  since  accumulation  generally  results   in   an
increased demand for all inputs, and since loan capital is an
input  to production, regulated like all other inputs by  the
laws  of  supply  and  demand, therefore accumulation  brings
forth a demand for more and more loans.' Then he produced the
(possible)  argument  that,  drawing  an  analogy  not   with
constant  capital but variable capital, capitalists might  be
expected  to react to a shortage of loan capital in the  same
way  as  a shortage of labour, by creating a reserve army  of
loans capital.

I  hope  this  is  a reasonably accurate restatement  of  the
original train of thought.

Several  posts  have responded to my suggested refutation  of
this  argument. However, I was left feeling they didn't quite
get to the heart of the matter.

Fortunately  no-one  has taken the plunge  and  claimed  that
financiers  make value. So there seems to be  agreement  that
the  financial  sector (and I would argue,  its  workers)  is
unproductive of value and in fact acts as a drain  on  value.
Paul [PEN-L 939] put this succinctly.

How is it then possible, others argue, that:

(a)  the  credit system as Marx attests definitely speeds  up
accumulation  at certain points in the cycle and  in  history
[Dickens PEN-L 922, Henwood PEN-L 934]?

(b) accumulation at certain points of the cycle generates  an
increased demand for loan capital [Devine, PEN-L 865]?

I  don't think this is much of a mystery. The police speed up
accumulation at certain points in the cycle and  in  history,
and  there  is  an  increased demand for  their  services  at
certain  points  in  the cyc

[PEN-L:985] Re: market socialism and the environment

[Jim Jaszewski]

On Mon, 16 Oct 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>  1)  I think a "global network of Mondragons" would be
> a lot better than what we have now.  But I do not think that
> it would be sufficient to solve all environmental problems.
> Some are global and must be dealt with at that level.  This
> may even involve some sort of planning, although probably not
> of the detailed sort laid out by Paul Cockshott.

I'm not sure this is exactly Proyect's objection here, but to any
marxist, the above would appear completely naive (if I have your
intentions right).  Of COURSE a global network of Mondragons would be
superior!  Who could be against that? -- but if it were simply a case of
planning and implementing it, we'd've  _HAD_ it by now... 

The actual problem (which I believe Proyect _may_ have pointed
out) is that the Capitalists simply would not ALLOW such a challenge to
their power; and would dismantle such a system -- if it even allowed it to
grow in the first place.  Your point is moot -- which is why we even have
to discuss the inferior alternatives -- or were you just playing the
Devil's advocate here? 


+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|   OCTOBER  16 - 22 :  TV  TURNOFF  WEEK|
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Jim Jaszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Public Key available. |
| http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html  |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

[PEN-L:984] Re: Goodbye

[Louis N Proyect]

Really, Ted, you should stick around. I post maybe 3 or 4 times a year 
and it is usually something uncontroversial that I've written over on the 
Marxism list and cross-post to this list, like a discussion of the 
Unabomber or some such thing.

I'm just a lurker on this list and I wouldn't have gotten into a pissing 
contest with everybody if Peter Bohmer hadn't forwarded my mail to Mike 
Albert.

All the best,

Louis