[PEN-L:2491] Re: The V-word
Short response to Ken H. 's post: My position was not that the value of the environment is infinite, simply that the remaining environment is more valuable than any conceivable alternative use. Nevertheless, I think Mike M.'s position might be defended in an alternative way. In Mike's argument the utility of the environment only becomes infinite at the point where damage becomes progressive and irreversible (admittedly on some issues we might be quite close to this point). Here's an alternative way to get infinite utility. First, impute some positive utility to some piece of the environment, say burrowing owls, then observe that it is both immoral and inconsistent to discount future utility across generations. Sum the utility of the owls over the nearly infinite number of future generations. I'm not sure but this might solve Ken's jokey mathematical problem about deductions from infinity still being infinite by employing the mathematical concept of larger and smaller infinities. Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone who was starving to refrain from digging up and eating burrowing owls. It is just incumbent on the rest of us to provide alternative food sources. Perhaps we can revive the old anarchist slogan: Eat the Rich. Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:2492] Re: The high tech jobs of the future
It seems to me that past increases in productivity have been accompanied by decreases in working hours, hence the employment slack from innovation has never been taken up completely through the creation of new jobs. It may be that this applies to the switch from agriculture to industry as well. I'd be interested in hearing from anybody who might have the historical stats to back this up. Or am I wrong? Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:2493] Sid's posts
I would like to add my name to those who find Sid's postings highly informative and useful, and who hopes he continues to send them. In general I think objections to the content of repeated mailings on a single subject or from a single individual must be based on not knowing how to use the widely-available technology for 'killing' or redirecting unwanted material from intrays automatically. Could we perhaps have a 'technical Alan Freeman
[PEN-L:2494] The V-word
Re: Gil Skillman's post dated Thu, 18 Jan 1996 12:53:29 -0800 [PEN-L:2425] Re: The V-word I think this post gets the discussion onto a far more useful track. Apologies for a not-to-be-missed chance for a plug: an up-to- date overview of collective work around the emerging new perspective referred to by Gil appears in Freeman and Carchedi (eds) 'Marx and Non-Equilibrium Economics', London and New York: Elgar (ISBN 1-85898-268-5 which, chance would have it, is out at the end of this month Three separate issues seem to be emerging: Issue 1: The axioms of value Issue 2: Sequentialism or: why the inputs to production be valued at historic, and not reproduction, costs. Issue 3: Nondualism or: why the inputs to production should be valued at their price, not their value It may be helpful to decouple these topics in further discussion because to cover the whole ground at once may lead to long postings and because different audiences are interested in different questions. So excuse me but a further post follows on issues 2 and 3. This post deals with Issue 1. Issue 1: the axioms of value If we accept (as you do, I think from what you say) that there is such a thing as value, there is a basis of mutual agreement and I think what is then required is to establish what further agreement, and what further disagreement, exists. So it is reasonable to progress to my question (ii), namely (ii)what is it? what are its axioms?" which you start to discuss from your own perspective, and I find useful. I propose first to narrow this down with a sub- question: (iia)is it objective or subjective?" This is not a trick question. What I mean is, is the value of a bundle of goods independent of the individual that owns or purchases the bundle, that is dependent only on factors (which you can supply) that do not differ from individual to individual? Or can it vary from individual to individual, so that something worth 1 unit of value to me can be worth 2 units of value to you? The conventional macroeconomic measure, 'goods at current prices' or 'real output' (that is, deflated prices) is objective. The conventional microeconomic measure is subjective in the cardinal utility version, and hardly exists in the ordinal utility version: only marginal utilities (oddly enough) are objective, and then only in equilibrium. I think value is definitely objective. You say: === However, _which_ structure of differentiation is imposed, i.e., which value judgment is exercised, is to some degree individual- specific === So, a question, a statement and a comment. The question is: to what degree? If, on 1st January 1996 we both sit contemplating a bottle of fine Lagabhoulin Whisky which I just bought for $50, is the value of this bottle the same for me as for you? When does it differ? What circumstances lead an impartial observer to conclude that your structure of differentiation differs from mine to such a degree that it leads to a different quantitative measure of the value of the whisky? The statement is: very odd results flow if you try to claim that the value of the whisky is different for you and for me. Society denies you the freedom to pay $30 just because you prefer bootlegger's bourbon or because you object on moral grounds to the consumption of alcohol, unless I also pay $30 for it. (Capitalist) society constrains us to place the same quantitative measure on the value of the purchased object. That is the direct implication of a single system of prices throughout this society. Therefore, for example, you would have to conclude that money is *not* a measure of value: a further difference with Marx which, I think, is a lot more substantive than the differences you have so far raised. I think it is useful and worthwhile to trace through these consequences of opting for a subjective value theory. They may turn out to be more problematic than confusions around equality, equivalence, and third things. The comment is: suppose you disagree with Marx that money is (one of two) measures of value. Then, first, it is good to be clear about this. It is genuine progress. But second, it is not just Marx you disagree with. You also disagree with conventional macroeconomics. You also disagree with the tax authorities. You also disagree with the monetarists. Since, for all these schools of thought, in practice if not explicitly in theory, the price paid for the whisky in some sense represents its value, independently of its merits or demerits for any individual person. They would disagree whether this $50 is directly equal to its value, what conversion factor has to be applied to arrive at the value. But they would not disagree that this conversion process applies equally to all members of society. Value for all objective value schools is thus a 'social universal'. So is it
[PEN-L:2495] Sequential and NonDualist Value Theory
Re: Gil Skillman's post dated Thu, 18 Jan 1996 12:53:29 -0800 [PEN-L:2425] Re: The V-word (second of two posts) In an earlier post I tried to deal with Gil's points on value in general. This post is separate because people might want to discuss the issues involved separately. Sequentialism: Reproduction versus historic costs You write: == Alan and Andrew Kliman have expressed the value of a commodity at some time t as depending on the prices of input commodities at time t-1. This practice admits violations of Marx's explicit stipulations concerning the definition of value (I, p. 130, Penguin edition): Commodities which contain equal quantities of labour, or which can be produced in the same time, have therefore the same valueThe value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour-time required for its production also remained constant." These conditions are not satisfied by the Freeman-McGlone formulation, since variations in (t-1) prices can affect period- t values of *individual* commodities, holding socially necessary labor time constant. == The real subject of this debate is, I think, whether one should use "historic" or "replacement" values and prices for the valuation of inputs. This is normally dealt with in a trite or trivialised manner (not by Gil), and it is not a trite or trivial question. Anyone who constructs the most simple examples involving technical change will find that the traditional answers, which leap directly to the use of so-called 'replacement costs' with no intermediate stages, lead to insoluble contradiction. Just to take a single question I raised earlier which has had no answer as yet: in general the 'physical net product' beloved of the surplus approach school, does not exist. Once there is technical innovation, there must be a negative physical product of at least one good. In general there is a negative net physical product of many goods. This demolishes the Sraffian construction, the fundamental Marxian Theorem, and most of what has passed for marxism, at a single stroke. What does exploitation in 'physical' terms mean if there is no net physical product to divide up between classes? I am fairly sure that is why our critics always respond to us in a simultaneous framework; outside of this comfortable illusion the traditional answer ceases to exist. Therefore, like Galileo's priestly intelocutors, they choose not to point their telescopes at an invention of the devil for fear of where their own senses will lead them. How much easier to say 'the sequential calculation does not make sense to me and therefore there is no need to pursue the issue'. How much easier to 'refute' a theory by avoiding forbidden questions, than by confronting uncomfortable answers. The relation between this issue and your point above is as follows: in the sequential formulation, the value of a commodity does indeed remain constant if the labour-time required for its production remains constant. But the labour- time required to produce a commodity can vary even though the technology remains fixed. The 'labour-time required for its production' includes the dead labour-time passed to it by the raw materials consumed during its production, and this dead labour-time is not in general equal to the replacement cost (current value) of the input. Therefore one cannot calculate socially-necessary labour-time from how long it *would* take *now* with *existing* technology, but on the basis of how long it *did* take when the product was made. Insofar as one introduces a new technology, but consumes inputs produced with an older and less efficient technology, the labour time necessary to produce current outputs will be correspondingly greater because it includes the dead labour in inputs from prior periods. As Marx himself says in many places, dead labour is represented by the past value of the input, for the unexceptionable reason that it was produced in the past. This is why an economy with a fixed technology can manifest values which change over time, because changes in commodity values lag changes in physical labour productivity. This is clear from observation. The effect of any change in production costs is always modified by the presence of buffer stocks and impacts the market more or less slowly depending on whether these stocks are larger or smaller in comparison to the magnitude of current production. If this were not true, agricutural price-maintenance policies would be insane. It is also, incidentally, discussed extensively in the neglected Chapter VI of Volume III of Capital. It does not conflict with the citation you give. On the contrary, valuation at replacement cost does contradict the citation. The labour time really necessary to produce any commodity with new technology *includes* the cost of producing the new
[PEN-L:2496] Infinite Value [was The V-Word]
Thanks to Terry: Terrence Mc Donough wrote: Short response to Ken H. 's post: much omittede: Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone who was starving to refrain from digging up and eating burrowing owls. It is just incumbent on the rest of us to provide alternative food sources. Perhaps we can revive the old anarchist slogan: Eat the Rich. I had been mulling over how to respond to Ken's message. Terry did it for me. One of the pernicious impacts of capitalism was that the rapacious "consumption" of the natural environment has made it appear possible to increase the rate of exploitation of labor AND increase the standard of living of labor for a significant enough percentage of the population to creat a politically powerful coalition in favor of capitalism --- even decidedly unequal capitalism without a human face! (such as in the US for the past 25 years!). I can't remember the passages in Vol I. of Capital but I _do_ remember clearly that Marx distinguished between exploitation that USED living human labor but granted it subsistence so it could be USED AGAIN (through the generations, let's remember) and exploitation that USED UP living human labor -- this was the basis of him arguing that limiting the working hours of labor was actually protecting the long term viability of capitalism (despite the fact that the capitalists themselves didn't realize it). In a sense, from the point of view of the capitalist class the "labor power" of the working class over a lifetime and into the generations had a sort of "infinite value" for the sustainability of capitalism. Capitalism in the 20th century has figured out how to avoid "using up" the working class by "using up" the natural environment. The latter, too, is a dead end. With less and less environment left to "use up" perhaps we can look forward (not too soon as some of us are getting pretty old!) to the day when the workers will decide that the only source of a rising standard of living is to take back from capitalists what they've stolen from us --- instead of trying to steal a bit more from mother nature. The solution for starving folks mentioned by Ken is more in the hoarded granaries of the local merchants than in the tiny bit of natural environment so far untouched. As Amartra Sen has shown, most famines have coexisted with sufficient food stocks to feed the starving --- it's almost always been a distributional issue. I think it's time to foment a little class warfare --- environmental constraints may actually force that to the top of the agenda. Here's hoping, Mike -- Mike Meeropol Economics Department Cultures Past and Present Program Western New England College Springfield, Massachusetts "Don't blame us, we voted for George McGovern!" Unrepentent Leftist!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] [if at bitnet node: in%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but that's fading fast!]
[PEN-L:2497] Re: Economies of sc
On the "purchasing of economists", as Peter Dorman so rightly puts it: there was Alfred Kahn of Cornell who provided the main intellectual justification for airline deregulation. On the other hand, Keynes was a capitalist on his own account (and that of his college at Cambridge) and did pretty well at it... Was Engels, whose capitalist practices were mentioned a day or so ago, actually a successful capitalist? Hugo Radice [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2499] Re: The high tech j
In answer to Terry's question about productivity and employment, here's a very short summary of the evidence: Broadly speaking, everything depends on what kind of technological change occurs. Process change, which increases the efficiency of making the same goods, generally lowers employment, since the price elasticity of demand for most goods is less than 1. Product change, which results in new products or new qualities of existing products, usually increases employment, although it doesn't in cases in which labor-intensive substitute products get wiped out. All of this is net of the expansion of effective demand through "ordinary" economic growth. There are a number of books on technology and employment that all make this basic argument and back it up with historical statistics. From this standpoint, the current global employment crisis appears to be due to a lack of effective demand (global wage repression), combined with a tendency for new technology to be used to achieve process rather than product change. I wrote a long piece on this for the Office of Technology Assessment just before its demise. I'd be glad to make it available over the net, but I have to check with the ex-OTAers, since they are planning some sort of continuing project with the material produced in the overall study (technology and employment in the service sector). Peter Dorman
[PEN-L:2500] value / ecology
Terrence Mc Donough : My position was not that the value of the environment is infinite, simply that the remaining environment is more valuable than any conceivable alternative use. [snip] Here's an alternative way to get infinite utility. First, impute some positive utility to some piece of the environment, say burrowing owls, then observe that it is both immoral and inconsistent to discount future utility across generations. Lisa asks: What positive utility? and utility to _whom_? the local pro-'growth' forces would like to know, and I'm curious what your answer would be. Also, discounting across generations is immoral and inconsistent based on what? TM: Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone who was starving to refrain from digging up and eating burrowing owls. It is just incumbent on the rest of us to provide alternative food sources. Perhaps we can revive the old anarchist slogan: Eat the Rich. Lisa: I'm with you there, it certainly beats Jonathan Swift's _Modest Proposal_.
[PEN-L:2501] Re: The V-word
Obviously it will take me awhile to work through respond to Alan's post. But I would like to correct a possible misperception, suggested by the following passages from Alan's post: I think this post [i.e., my latest on the "V-word"--GS]gets the discussion onto a far more useful track. .. I probably won't agree with the proposal. But I think it is much more useful to discuss in terms of contradiction, than in terms of error. If someone says you are just plain wrong, there isn't much you can do except fight. If someone says there is a contradiction in your thinking you can go and see why a contradiction is perceived, whether you think it is really there, and how (if it exists) it can be resolved at a higher level of synthesis. But I've never been on any other track, and I've never said that Marx's value theory is "just plain wrong." To the contrary my criticisms have been targeted on specific claims with respect to this theory of value: 1) The claim that the basis of a commodity's value can be deduced from the fact of systematic commodity exchange, on the grounds that such exchange "expresses something equal." Corresponding to this have been specific criticisms of certain claims for the "law of value", such as Marx's repeated assertion that commodity prices are in some sense "regulated" by their corresponding labor values. 2) Marx's claim at the end of Chapter 5 that the logic of capitalist exploitation *must* be understood on the basis of price-value equivalence. I've identified the logical fallacies I understand Marx to have committed in that chapter. 3) Alan's claim, issued in our early PEN-L exchange, that certain capitalist phenomena can *only* be understood with respect to a Marxian theory of value (indeed, in this light, it is Alan and not me who has insisted that an entire approach is "just plain wrong.") Alan, am I incorrect in inferring from a long series of posts back to our first exchange that you consider Marx's approach, as you understand it, to be uniquely valid? 4) Other, more specific (and therefore not immediately relevant to the current discussion) claims about the properties of the Kliman-McGlone-Freeman et al. approach to value theory. Thus my arguments have been against certain specific ways in which Marx's theory of value has been *interpreted*, both by him and his intellectual heirs, not ncessarily against that theory itself. Indeed, I've also argued right along that Marx offers fundamental insights about the historically contingent logic of capitalist exploitation which can be seen to anticipate modern theoretical developments by over a hundred years. I have not argued against the possibility that Marx's value theory can be interpreted consistently with this historically contingent strategic understanding. In solidarity, Gil Skillman
[PEN-L:2502] re: The high tech jobs of the future
Treacy: Around 1960, my mentor at Tulane, James Sweeny was invited to address some group of middle managers next door at Loyala about the implications of computers on their profession. He started his talk off with the short answer to the question: Computers are going to wipe out middle managers! They were ready to lynch him for such foolishness. It seems that he was right with his premise but wrong about the timing. More and more of our problems stem from the fact that ordinary workers are not equiped to handle the flows of cheap information that are now coming at them. I suspect that the next large dislocation to occur via the computer revolution are to the ranks of the learned professions. Teaching people to think about what is coming at them and how to develop some discrimination skills is going to be more in demand from educators that listings of easily assembled facts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] COPYRIGHTED On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Doug Henwood wrote: The article, by Tony Horwitz, appeared on Dec 1 1994 on the front page of the WSJ. It was excellent, a better picture of work life than anything I've read in the "left" press. A sidebar to the story reported that the firm that opened check-beraing mail for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Doris Day Animal League, Greenpeace, and the National Organization for Women was a classic modern sweatshop, combining low wages with high-tech supervision. The Nov 95 issue of the Monthly Labor Review carries the latest BLS projections for job growth. The ten most rapidly growing occupations, in numerical terms, between 1994 and 2005 are projected to be: * cashiers * janitors cleaners * retail salespersons * waiters and watresses * registered nurses * general managers and top executives * systems analysts * home health aides * guards * nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants The only "high tech" job in the top 10 is systems analysts, projected to grow from 483,000 in 1994 to 928,000 in 2005. The only other high-end job is "general managers and top execs," slated to grow from 3,046,000 to 3,512,000. RNs are, of course, skilled workers, but the rest of the list features some of the cliches of postindustrial shitwork. Bob Reich seems not to read the projections of an agency he supervises. 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.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:2503] Re: Economies of sc
Treacy: The Federal Barge Line threw the most $ party I have ever seen at a convention at the 1960 AEA meeting for transportation economics. I have attended a "Conference" at a lavious resort on Lake LBJ held by Southwest Bell. Private cottages with balcony so you could drink your champage while watching deer drink from the lake. Golf and speed boats. I asked one of the hosts about girls and was told they wanted to be generous but not that generous. Free long distance on your phone. I enjoyed it and told myself it was an investigation into how people were corrupted. A number of attendees still opposed local rate setting in Texas rather than setting rates at the state level. [EMAIL PROTECTED] COPYRIGHTED On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Eugene Coyle wrote: ATT has a long history of buying economists. I have heard what I believe is reliable gossip about this but I haven't seen the cancelled checks. Alfred Kahn is said to have been on the ATT payroll while at Cornell in the Econ Department. His colleagues did not know he was getting a retainer or other compensation. ATT paid what were enormous sums to bright young economic stars in the sixties and seventies. These were payments for "editing" or other so-called work. It was actually, in one story I heard, real work but the payment was like $100,000 for what might have been a $5,000 job. I myself was invited by ATT to a conference at Stanford, the purpose of which, it became apparent, was to appraise young economists and to check out their political stance. I missed the NY Times story that Peter refers to. I'd appraciate a cite if anyone can provide. As far as the Insull rumor goes: A friend, Scott Ridley, co-authored a book "Power Struggles" that refers to Insull creating the modern public utility commission system. I don't recall that the book mentions buying economists for the purpose. But Ridley may have known rumors that aren't in the book. In the present national debate on electric utility restructuring, a number of prominent economists are getting paid by investor owned utilities and at the same time producing academic justification for what the IOUs want. E. g. Paul Joscow of MIT. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jan 19 09:24:14 1996 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 09:19:20 -0800 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Peter.Dorman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:2441] Re: Economies of sc X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Progressive Economics Re Baumol, contestable markets, and ATT: I read an article in the NEW YORK TIMES several years ago that listed prominent economists who were on retainer at ATT and received large amounts of money. The quid pro quo included both testimony in the antitrust case and friendly research. Baumol was on the list, but so was Ken Arrow. Both, I recall, received hundreds of thousands of dollars. What we need is a well-documented history of the purchasing of economists by business in the U.S. and its effect on the direction of economic theory. Peter Dorman
[PEN-L:2504] Re: The high tech j
Re Terry's question: For the benefit of those who are non-economists on PEN-L, let's try and break this question down into understandable terms: (1) What is the question (and what is it not)? Terry's question, as I understand it, is whether productivity-increasing technologies (process technologies) will lead to a net displacement of workers employed on the _micro_ level. I will, therefore, not consider the macro affects in which a number of other variables have to be considered. (2) What is productivity? Simple definition: output/worker/period of time. (3) What is the affect of increasing productivity on micro employment? Increasing labor productivity, ceteris paribus, can *either* mean: a) the same amount of workers working the same amount of worker hours can produce a greater amount of output; or, b) the same amount of output can be produced with less workers and worker hours. (4) If 3 (b) is happening, one possible response by workers and unions is to demand a shortening of the working day and/or workweek as a way of protecting jobs for the time being. Struggles over the 10 hour day, the 8 hour day, etc. should be viewed *partially* as a response to this question (although, I view it as somewhat misleading to view those struggles, as some labor historians have suggested, entirely in these terms. (5) In any event, the big variable that Terry did not consider is the *level of output*. In branches of production that are rapidly expanding output, it can be the case (and has frequently been the case historically) that a firm's output, employment, and productivity can all grow *simultaneously*. In other cases where there is a stagnant rate of output, the result can be expected to be different. Jerry
[PEN-L:2505] Re: value / ecology
Lisa asks: What positive utility? and utility to _whom_? the local pro-'growth' forces would like to know, and I'm curious what your answer would be. Also, discounting across generations is immoral and inconsistent based on what? I really not comfortable with utility arguments, but here goes: in an age of genetic engineering any genetic diversity would have an option value, even if not currently 'useful'. Beyond that, of course, the mere existence of burrowing owls gives me pleasure and I would be willing to pay $1 to preserve them. It is reasonable to assume that there will be at least one person in each subsequent generation who values these owls at least this much. $1x 1 billion (rough estimate of remaining duration of the physical universe divided by 20) = $1Billion. This charge would be enough to stop most development projects. Of course, if you were willing to pay $1 we could plausibly double this figure... Time discounting is based on an individual valuing present utility more than future utility. But when dealing with benefits across generations the future utility is our descendants present utility. There is no basis in utility theory for discounting one person's utility due to a second person's time preferences. In addition it violates most moral systems to say that the well-being of our children should count for less than our own well-being. Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:2506] re: The high tech jobs of the future
J.Treacy writes: Teaching people to think about what is coming at them and how to develop some discrimination skills is going to be more in demand from educators that listings of easily assembled facts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] COPYRIGHTED The Nov 95 issue of the Monthly Labor Review carries the latest BLS projections for job growth. The ten most rapidly growing occupations, in numerical terms, between 1994 and 2005 are projected to be: * cashiers * janitors cleaners * retail salespersons * waiters and watresses * registered nurses * general managers and top executives * systems analysts * home health aides * guards * nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants The only "high tech" job in the top 10 is systems analysts, projected to grow from 483,000 in 1994 to 928,000 in 2005. The only other high-end job is "general managers and top execs," slated to grow from 3,046,000 to 3,512,000. RNs are, of course, skilled workers, but the rest of the list features some of the cliches of postindustrial shitwork. Bob Reich seems not to read the projections of an agency he supervises. Doug It strikes me the ten categories can be rearranged under the following headings. Guard labour guards cashiers retail sales Managing machinery systems analysts Caring professions nurses nursing aids, etc home health aids janitors and cleaners Combination guard and carer waiters and waitresses Combination guard and machine manager general managers and top execs The proliferation of guards suggests an increasingly unequal division of income and the proliferation of carers suggests the solution might lie partially (aside from abolishing wage labour) in raising the income and prestige of the carers. It turns out that this kind of labour is the kind which is truly too complex to be done by machine. Terry McDonough
[PEN-L:2509] FNPR on Daghestan (fwd)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 21 13:12 PST 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 23:52:00 +0300 From: Vassily Balog [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FNPR on Daghestan Sender: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR) 42, Leninsky Prospekt, 117119 Moscow, Russian Federation International Department Telefax: +7(095)938 22 93 Telephone:+7(095)930 89 84 +7(095)137 06 94 +7(095)938 80 31 Telex: 111265 FNPR +7(095)938 74 33 113083 FNPR +7(095)930 81 42 FNPR's stand on the events in the Republic of Daghestan The FNPR keeps receiving from its member organisations expressions of deep concern over the development of tragic events in the village of Pervomajskoje. On the 16th of January, 1996, the FNPR has made a public Statement on this issue. The FNPR resolutely condemned the capture of hostages and the bandit actions which are threatening the lives of innocent people. The situation around these events may further degenerate into a fratricidal war and result in escalation of unbridled violence on the part of all the sides involved in the conflict. Any attempt to solve a problem, however complicated it might be, ought to be guided by a super-task of preserving human lives which are of the highest value. The guarantee of citizens' life and security ought to be the ultimate duty of the State, stressed the FNPR. Time and again, the Federation has been strongly advocating this point in its Statements, including the ones on the Chechen problem. The FNPR expressed its deeply felt condolences to the families of the lost and to the population of Daghestan as a whole. It fully shared the Statement made by the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Daghestan on this issue, which inter alia called for a peaceful solution of the conflict in Chechnja and regreted that the way of force had been chosen for freeing the hostages putting their lives in jeopardy. The FNPR called upon all its member organisations to render solidarity support and material assistance to the families of victims. The Federation has already sent material aid to Daghestani population. Invariably standing for a strict observance of the Constitutional legality and the rule of law in Russia and resolutely condemning any manifestation of terrorism and infringements of Russia's territorial integrity, the FNPR addressed to the President of the Russian Federation and to the newly elected members of the Federal Assembly its urgent demand to ensure that resolution of any conflict in the country should be approached with full respect of lawful rights of its citizens. The FNPR, in its message to the Federal Assembly, urged that a reliable control should be established over aid-supplies for those in distress, reconstruction of destroyed buildings required for normal life and activities of the innocent. The LAW of FORCE ought to give way to the FORCE of LAW.
[PEN-L:2510] Re: practical Marxism
Doug writes: In jousting with callers on talk radio, I'm frequently attacked by mid- and downscale people for being so hostile to wealth; invariably they argue that rich people have "earned" their money. Obviously there needs to be great prosyletizing, aimed at demonstrating the origins of profit and interest in exploitation. Better yet, next time you get one of these people, ask them if they think that the typical wealthy person would "earn" that level of real income if transported to a desert island, *even if their skills and and and access to purely material resources were the same* (which would be granting a lot, given the social nature of education and resource production). The answer, of course, unless the individual being questioned is an idiot or an ideologue, is necessarily "no": in any reasonably developed society, most of the difference from autarky is due to the gains from irreducibly *social* production. Thus it intrinsically begs the question to assert that the wealthy have "earned" their income. Gil Skillman
[PEN-L:2511] re: The high tech jobs of the future
J.Treacy writes: * cashiers The UPC (bar code) system has increased the productivity of labor for cashiers and has led to some supermarkets, for example, hiring less cashiers. * janitors cleaners Still relatively labor-intensive. * registered nurses This *was* the case. In recent years, the amount of students graduating from nursing schools has increased dramatically. It's now not as easy to get a job in this field as it was a few years ago. Also, a trip to any hospital will demonstrate that productivity-increasing technologies have affected the labor process for nurses as well. * guards The demand for guard labor appears to be increasing, but technological change has affected this type of labor as well, e.g. TV surveillance cameras. * nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants Related to salaries for RNs, i.e. some hospitals are increasingly substituting these classifications for more highly-skilled classifications in an effort to save $. The only "high tech" job in the top 10 is systems analysts, snip The point is that the expression "high tech" job is very misleading. Does it refer to the skill involved or the product produced? Most workers seem to think that if they sit in front of a computer screen all day doing repetitive tasks, that makes it a "high tech" job. I don't think so. Jerry
[PEN-L:2512] Valuing nature
For those interested in a short and sweet discussion of the inability of markets to give nature prices (the "commensurability problem"), I highly reccomend Juan Martinez Alier's "Ecological Economics and Eco-Socialism" in Capitalism, Nature, Socialism #2, Summer 1989. His book _Ecological Economics_ is also quite good. PEN-Ler's interested in Marxist (and more broadly leftist) takes on ecological/environmental/nature politics and political economy should seriously consider subscribing to _Capitalism, Nature, Socialism_. Its the best journal on the subject in English as far as I've seen. (Disclosure: I'm in the Santa Cruz editorial group.) For subscription info email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Will Hull
[PEN-L:2514] Re: valuing nature
"The Monist" devoted its April, 1992, issue (Vol.75, No.2) to "The Intrinsic Value of Nature". C.N.Gomersall Luther College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2515] Re: The high tech j
Ellen Dannin wrote: (2) What is productivity? Simple definition: output/worker/period of time. Isn't it actually cost of labor etc? So that if you cut the amount of wages paid to workers that in and of itself raises productivity, all other things remaining equal? If the "cost of labor" (should read, IMHO, price of labor-power) is cut, that will increase profitability, ceteris paribus. However, it will leave the productivity of labor unchanged, other things remaining the same. Of course there are other ways to increase the productivity of labor other than through technological change, e.g. increasing the intensity of work, but decreasing wages per se has no *direct* affect on productivity. Jerry
[PEN-L:2516] Strike at Yale (fwd)
Roger, FYI: Here's what the Washington Post thinks: HEADLINE: Strike at Yale SECTION: comment PUBLICATION DATE: 1/22/96 THE GRADUATE student strike just ended at Yale University made no real changes in the unsuccessful strikers' situation or in the way the university organizes its undergraduate teaching. But it's one of those small events that point to strains in the larger university economy that will not go along untended forever -- or, perhaps, for very much longer. In the strike, many graduate student teaching assistants in large undergraduate courses at Yale withheld first-semester grades as a way to draw attention to salaries and working conditions they say are unacceptable. It wasn't the first such strike, nor even the first serious graduate-student labor unrest at Yale; the novel tactic of withholding grades, in fact, grows out of previous failed efforts by graduate students to assert a right to strike or unionize in more traditional ways. Such efforts by graduate students to unionize have invariably run up against the problem that such students, though they perform teaching tasks, are not employees of the university but enrolled students in it seeking a privilege -- the degree -- that it can grant or withhold. Teaching duties, the university argues, and invariably has prevailed by arguing, are not a form of employment subject to labor law. Rather, they are a part of the profession's apprenticeship, which, as in other professions, the professoriate may design as it likes. This argument makes enough sense in legal terms that it seems unlikely to be overturned anytime soon. But uneasiness among this many apprentices, even in spots as near the professional pinnacle as Yale, suggests the economic pressure from the longstanding peculiarities in the way the academic profession is set up. The imbalance between PhD recipients and tenured jobs is getting seriously out of whack again, as it did in the 1970s, but the universities are, if anything, on leaner terms now even than they were then. The expense of hiring lifetime employees and giving them, say, health coverage has driven more and more schools to hire young "gypsy" professors who, years after they get their degrees, are still shuttling between two or more ill-paid, no-track positions. Estimates of the proportion of courses taught by these "gypsies" overall keep rising; some are as high as 40 percent. So far, colleges at the top of the prestige scale have been able to grit their teeth, raise their prices, cut at the margins and go on with their traditional way of doing things. The failed Yale strike is one more hint that such tactics may not work indefinitely.
[PEN-L:2518] Re: Economies of sc
On Mon, 22 Jan 1996, Hugo Radice wrote: On the other hand, Keynes was a capitalist on his own account (and that of his college at Cambridge) and did pretty well at it... Was Engels, whose capitalist practices were mentioned a day or so ago, actually a successful capitalist? As a member of King's myself, let me correct this. Keynes was a currency speculator, not a capitalist, and mainly on behalf of the College, which he left far better endowed than when he started. Engels became a partner in Engels and Erman and did well enough to support himself and the Marx family in bourgeois comfort, especially after the mid-1850s. He died fairly wealthy, not really rich. As I understand it, EE was a trading rather than a manufacturing concern. In William Gibson and Bruce Sterlin's brilliant fantasy about what the world would have looked like had Babbage's research created a steam-driven compturer revolution in the 19th c, Lord Engels is referred to as the richest man in England. Marx ends up as a leader of the Manhattan Commune after the break up of the US when the South wins the civil war. Texas is an independent country. Oh, the book is called The Difference Engine. --Justin Schwartz
[PEN-L:2519] Re: Strike at Yale (fwd)
On Mon, 22 Jan 1996, Richard Ira Lavine wrote: Here's what the Washington Post thinks: Such efforts by graduate students to unionize have invariably run up against the problem that such students, though they perform teaching tasks, are not employees of the university but enrolled students in it seeking a privilege -- the degree -- that it can grant or withhold. Teaching duties, the university argues, and invariably has prevailed by arguing, are not a form of employment subject to labor law. Rather, they are a part of the profession's apprenticeship, which, as in other professions, the professoriate may design as it likes. This argument makes enough sense in legal terms that it seems unlikly to bee overturned anytime soon. This is not true, at least for public universities. At Michigan, Wisconsin, and Berkeley, among other places, grad student TA's have won recognition as employees. ==Justin Schwartz, former Michigan GEO member and unemployed Ph.D
[PEN-L:2520] Re: practical Marxism
Gil, This desert island argument is not good. A libertarian who believes that the basis of property is desert would say that what I deserve is not just what I can create on my own on a desert island, but also what I can bargain for, using resources I have or have developed, and also that I should be rewarded for the contribution that my special skills make to social production. --Justin Schwartz On Mon, 22 Jan 1996, Gilbert Skillman wrote: Doug writes: In jousting with callers on talk radio, I'm frequently attacked by mid- and downscale people for being so hostile to wealth; invariably they argue that rich people have "earned" their money. Obviously there needs to be great prosyletizing, aimed at demonstrating the origins of profit and interest in exploitation. Better yet, next time you get one of these people, ask them if they think that the typical wealthy person would "earn" that level of real income if transported to a desert island, *even if their skills and and and access to purely material resources were the same* (which would be granting a lot, given the social nature of education and resource production). The answer, of course, unless the individual being questioned is an idiot or an ideologue, is necessarily "no": in any reasonably developed society, most of the difference from autarky is due to the gains from irreducibly *social* production. Thus it intrinsically begs the question to assert that the wealthy have "earned" their income. Gil Skillman
[PEN-L:2521] Re: The high tech j
Ellen Dannin wrote: (2) What is productivity? Simple definition: output/worker/period of time. Isn't it actually cost of labor etc? So that if you cut the amount of wages paid to workers that in and of itself raises productivity, all other things remaining equal? If the "cost of labor" (should read, IMHO, price of labor-power) is cut, that will increase profitability, ceteris paribus. However, it will leave the productivity of labor unchanged, other things remaining the same. Of course there are other ways to increase the productivity of labor other than through technological change, e.g. increasing the intensity of work, but decreasing wages per se has no *direct* affect on productivity. Jerry I define productivity as output/unit of effort. With this definition, an increase in work intensity (effort/hr) does not increase productivity. We therefore have: output = output/hr x hrs = output/effort x effort/hr x hrs Both increasing the length of the working day (hrs) and increasing effort/hr lead to increased output, but they do not in and of themselves affect productivity. They are just different approaches to getting more inputs. To define productivity as output/hr leads to the political implication that labor intensification is "good", in that it raises "productivity". Best, Rich Parkin Rich Parkin, Economics Dept., 400 Wickenden Building, 10,900 Euclid Ave., Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7206 (216) 368-4294 (w)
[PEN-L:2522] appeal: Deter violence in Hebron
While not strictly in the realm of economic theory, this does involve money. In March and April I will be in the Palestinian city of Hebron, as part of a peacemaker team working to deter violence. This is a critical period because Hebron is scheduled to be handed over to the Palestinian Authority in the middle of March. Hebron is the only West Bank city (not counting East Jerusalem) which has Israeli settlers right in the middle of the city. The Israeli settlers in Hebron have long harassed the Palestinian population, and this is expected to get worse as the transfer of authority approaches. Most of the work of the CPT team in Hebron involves deterring attacks by Israeli settlers and soldiers against the Palestinian population. You can help make my participation possible by making out a check to "CPT", putting "naiman" in the memo and sending it to me at 702 Western Ave #2 Urbana, IL 61801 suggested contribution levels are: UNIVERSITY PROFS, COMPUTER JOCKS, AND OTHER PEOPLE WITH "REAL JOBS": $60 (US) WORKING STIFFS: $30 STUDENTS, UNWAGED, AND STARVING ARTISTS: $15 contributions to CPT are tax-deductible. (I don't know if that's relevant to furriners. ; ) -bob This gives some of the flavor of the CPT project in Hebron: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 07:53:41 -0600 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Christian Peacemaker Teams" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Hebron: Two Arrested for Removing Barricades CPTNET 8 January 1996 Hebron: Two Arrested for Removing Barricades by Jeff Heie and Cole Hull One American and one Palestinian were arrested this morning for purportedly removing barricades and turnstiles from the market in the center city section of Hebron. Art Gish, an American citizen and Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) worker and Hisham Al Botch, a Palestinian living in Hebron, were taken into custody at 11:00 am by Israeli Defense Forces. They were later turned over to local Israeli Police. The gates and turnstiles which were dismantled by Palestinians were built during the Intifada ( Palestinian Uprising) by the Israeli occupation forces to maintain control of the market by allowing certain areas to be quickly closed. Though they have deteriorated and have not been used at all in the last year, they have been allowed to continue to impede commerce in the marketplace. The gates require pedestrian traffic to move through certain passageways in a single file line and make the movement of sizable loads of market goods very difficult. They also serve as an reminder of the restrictions placed on the Palestinians who live and work in Hebron. Following the removal of the first gate to the market by a group of Palestinians and CPTers, hundreds of Palestinians took part in the dismantling of barricades throughout the market area. The crowd completed at least two hours of work without any interuption by Israeli soldiers. During the removal of the final gate, soldiers appeared to select Palestinians at random for detention and questioning. About ten Palestinian shopkeepers and youth were taken to the police headquarters, though most were soon released. Two Palestinians were held for several hours as witnesses, as were CPTers Cliff Kindy (North Manchester, IN) and Canadian Cole Hull, who had been recording the scene with a video camera. Two others, CPTer Art Gish and Palestinian Hisham Al Botch, were ultimately charged for the actions of many others. Hisham is being held under "administrative detention" for 96 hours, and faces further sentencing should his case come to trial. Gish, an organic farmer from Athens, Ohio is being held under the charge of destruction of military property, and may face deportation. Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) is an initiative among Mennonite and Brethren congregations, and Friends meetings who participate in public responses to organized violence. Contact CPT at P. O. Box 6508 Chicago, IL 60680 tel. FAX 312-455-1199 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] gopher://gopher.uci.com/11/archives/cpt
[PEN-L:2523] Re: Valuing nature
At 11:57 AM 1/22/96, John William Hull wrote: PEN-Ler's interested in Marxist (and more broadly leftist) takes on ecological/environmental/nature politics and political economy should seriously consider subscribing to _Capitalism, Nature, Socialism_. Its the best journal on the subject in English as far as I've seen. (Disclosure: I'm in the Santa Cruz editorial group.) For subscription info email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have nothing to do with CNS, but I agree. Some of the most original thinking on on politics etc. around. 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.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:2524] Re: The high tech j
Rich Parkin wrote: To define productivity as output/hr leads to the political implication that labor intensification is "good", in that it raises "productivity". What nonsense! One can view increasing productivity brought about by technical change and/or increased intensity of labor from the standpoint of capital *or* the standpoint of wage-labour. My perspective is the latter. There is *absolutely nothing* (am I being emphatic enough?) that leads to this definition leading to the "political implication that labor intensification is 'good'". In any event, should workers support, under all conditions, increases in productivity (using *your* formula) under conditions of capitalist production? Raising productivity under capitalism is *not* necessarily good from a political perspective of the working class. Jerry
[PEN-L:2525] Re: The high tech j
Trying to clear up econ jargon for non-economists: Ellen Dannin wrote: (2) What is productivity? Simple definition: output/worker/period of time. Isn't it actually cost of labor etc? So that if you cut the amount of wages paid to workers that in and of itself raises productivity, all other things remaining equal? GLevy responded: If the "cost of labor" (should read, IMHO, price of labor-power) is cut, that will increase profitability, ceteris paribus. However, it will leave the productivity of labor unchanged, other things remaining the same. Of course there are other ways to increase the productivity of labor other than through technological change, e.g. increasing the intensity of work, but decreasing wages per se has no *direct* affect on productivity. --- The simple definition of productivity is correct. Lower the wage paid for the "period of time," say an hour, reduces "unit labor costs." Profits for firms rise when unit labor costs are reduced. ULC can be reduced by cutting wages or by increasing the amount of output produced each hour, ie, increasing productivity. Both affect profits, but the jargon makes a clear distinction between the two causes. I disagree with Rich Parkin's post, and agree with GLevy. Increasing work intensity can increase productivity and reduce ULC. That is why corps. spend so much time trying to intensify the work process. If a worker tends two machines instead of just one, productivity increases and ULC fall. It is important to recognize this because students have bought the idea that all productivity increases are good. But we have to get them to realize that allowing firms to drive the workforce to physical and/or mental collapse is not in their self-interest. Doug Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2526] Reich questions (fwd)
I thought maybe this list would have some ideas.. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 13:16:20 -0900 From: C. Oleson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Reich questions I may have the opp to do a radio interview with US Labor Secretary Reich. Suggestions for questions welcome. (PLEASE: no polemics, no long-winded opinions) Assume I have read his books and many of his major publications. Thanks. Clara Oleson * [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Iowa Labor Center * FAX: (319) 335-4077 M217 Oakdale Hall* Iowa City, Iowa 52242-5000 *
[PEN-L:2528] Re: The high tech j
Increasing work intensity can increase productivity and reduce ULC. That is why corps.spend so much time trying to intensify the work process. If a worker tends two machines instead of just one, productivity increases and ULC fall. As a non-economist, this seems wrong to me. Intensification means that the worker is being forced to do more work, not that she is more productive. It is as if hours had been added to the working day. Economists don't call increased output purchased through a prolongation of the working day to be a productivity gain, right? There is a deceivingly difficult attempt to differentiate intensification from productivity increases, their differing impacts on total value produced and the movement of unit values, and the rate of exploitation in Geoffrey Kay, 1979. The Economic Theory of The Working Class. London: Macmillan: 72ff. Rakesh Bhandari Ph.D. Candidate Ethnic Studies
[PEN-L:2529] Re: practical Marxism
Better yet, next time you get one of these people, ask them if they think that the typical wealthy person would "earn" that level of real income if transported to a desert island, *even if their skills and and and access to purely material resources were the same* (which would be granting a lot, given the social nature of education and resource production). The answer, of course, unless the individual being questioned is an idiot or an ideologue, is necessarily "no": in any reasonably developed society, most of the difference from autarky is due to the gains from irreducibly *social* production. Thus it intrinsically begs the question to assert that the wealthy have "earned" their income. Gil Skillman Another way of stating this excellent point is to say what current labor "earns" or current capital risk-taking creates is quite small compared to the long build-up of accumulated knowledge, infrastructure, etc bequeathed from the past that we all get free, from no effort of our own, on the basis simply of our peculiar place in history. In other words the categories usually employed for who should get what utterly fail to take account of the fact that most what we actually have is a social, community, historical creation. In my opinion this calls into question not only capitalist principles of distribution and inheritance practices but labor theories of value as well. Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives/ Institute for Policy Studies Washington, DC
[PEN-L:2531] Re: Reich questions (fwd)
Easy. How does he feel knowing that the solutions he proposes are so pathetically inadequate to the problems he diagnoses. Reich had a telling quote back in 93 in the first 6 months of Clinton--"economically more public investment makes sense right now but this is not a political climate in which John Maynard Keynes would thrive." I think he's an honest guy but he represent the utter inadequacy of liberal politics in the 1990s. Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives/ Institute for Policy Studies Washington, DC I thought maybe this list would have some ideas.. -- Forwarded message -- From: C. Oleson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Reich questions I may have the opp to do a radio interview with US Labor Secretary Reich. Suggestions for questions welcome. (PLEASE: no polemics, no long-winded opinions) Assume I have read his books and many of his major publications. Thanks. Clara Oleson * [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Iowa Labor Center * FAX: (319) 335-4077 M217 Oakdale Hall* Iowa City, Iowa 52242-5000 *
[PEN-L:2532] Re: The high tech j
At 12:49 PM 1/22/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the "cost of labor" (should read, IMHO, price of labor-power) is cut,
that will increase profitability, ceteris paribus. However, it will leave
the productivity of labor unchanged, other things remaining the same. Of
course there are other ways to increase the productivity of labor other
than through technological change, e.g. increasing the intensity of work,
but decreasing wages per se has no *direct* affect on productivity.
I believe that Marx, for one, explicitly distinguished between
productiveness of labor and intensiveness of labor. I think this
distinction is useful: if technological change induces speed up ("working
harder" rather than "working smarter") then productivity hasn't really
increased: the extra output is the result of more input (labor) in the same
amount of time. Recall that labor is the expenditure of human muscle,
nerve, bone, sinew, etc.
Increasing output by increasing input is not increasing productivity.
Blair
[PEN-L:2533] Re: The high tech j
Increasing work intensity can increase productivity and reduce ULC. That is why corps.spend so much time trying to intensify the work process. If a worker tends two machines instead of just one, productivity increases and ULC fall. As a non-economist, this seems wrong to me. Intensification means that theworker is being forced to do more work, not that she is more productive. It is as if hours had been added to the working day. Economists don't call increased output purchased through a prolongation of the working day to be a productivity gain, right? Rakesh - productivity is a technical relation - output per unit of input. how you measure both numerator and denominator is varied and not uncontroversial but intensification can lead to increases in labour productivity. if output/person is the measure and if the longer day yields more output then clearly labour prody has risen. if output/person-hour is the measure then it all depends on whether the per hour output is constant, rising or falling. this is not to say anything about the class motives or meanings of increased intensification. kind regards bill -- ##William F. Mitchell ### Head of Economics Department # University of Newcastle New South Wales, Australia ###*E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ### Phone: +61 49 215065 # ## ### +61 49 215027 Fax: +61 49 216919 ## WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
[PEN-L:2534] The Environmental Politics of 12 Monkeys
WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING
WARNING: The following comments on the "message" about environmental
politics in the currently popular movie "12 Monkeys" will reveal the basic
plot ("whodunnit") and eliminate about 75 or more percent of the suspense.
If you have yet to see the movie and think you may do so (I recommend it!),
you might therefore wish to save this post and read it afterwards. Caveat
lector.
**
What is the "message" about environmentalism that viewers will receive from
the movie "12 Monkeys"?
I do not mean to speculate about the intentions, conscious or otherwise, of
the filmmakers, producers, etc. "12 Monkeys" is extremely popular, and many
people are going to see it. The majority of these people are probably among
the 75-90 percent of the population who consider themselves
"environmentalists," or "greens," and express environmentalist concerns of
varying degrees. Yet many of these people have little to no understanding
of the politics of environmentalism, certainly not of the internal workings
and debates of environmentalism, among and between environmental activists
and organizations. I am concerned about the effect of the movie on the
consciousness of those who see it.
I suspect that most viewers will not even be aware that they are receiving
some message, a "picture," of environmentalism, from the movie. They will
probably leave the movie trying to figure out the plot (which is complex
and somewhat difficult to follow), commenting on the quality of the acting,
the psychological motivations of actors, etc. In fact, any conscious
discussion of the environmental "message" of the movie would be positive
and welcome, as it would provide an opportunity to educate people about
political debates going on among environmentalists. This discussion is not
likely to occur on any large scale, and thus my concern.
What I would like to do then is piece together the explicit and implicit
presentation of environmentalists in the movie and see what it looks like
taken as a whole. This is the picture that viewers will receive, whether or
not they are aware of it, and it will shape their responses to
environmental struggles.
As the plot develops, we are being led to believe that it is the Army of
the 12 Monkeys who release the virus that kills 90 percent of the human
population (5 billion of just over 5.5 billion). These militant animal
rights activists are presented as certifiable loons (their "leader"),
violent, stupid, or incompetent, simpering wimps. Finally, of course, we
learn that it is not they who release the virus. They only release the
animals from the zoo, to roam the city freely.
It is the scientist (sorry I don't remember his name) at the senior Goines'
laboratory who is responsible for that action. Now this person is not
visibly connected with any environmental organization or activity, so
perhaps that is good. The message would at first seem to be that scientists
(science) are (is) not to be trusted. Yet this responsible party is
associated with the only explicit environmental consciousness expressed by
any actor other than the 12 Monkeys. At the book signing and talk given by
the psychiatrist on "The Doomsday Syndrome" he expresses concern about a
litany of standard environmental threats. I don't remember them exactly,
but I believe they include: AIDS, global warming, ozone depletion,
pollution, and several others. Anyone who would kill 5 billion humans is
obviously insane, like Goines Junior, leader of the 12 Monkeys. Thus,
Miss[ter]AnnThrope[y] becomes associated with the 12 Monkeys as the sum
total of environmentalism.
And note the other connection, visual rather than textual, between the 12
Monkeys and this misanthropic scientist: the animal rights activists
release the animals from the zoo, and the effect of the virus is that
humans are greatly reduced in number and forced to flee under the surface,
so that animals once again roam unrestricted upon the surface, unhindered
by humans. To ensure that this connection gets made, the very beginning of
the movie shows Cole upon the surface, collecting specimens, when suddenly
he is confronted by a huge brown bear. Later in the movie (earlier in
time...) after the 12 Monkeys free the animals, there is a brief scene of a
bear (the same bear?) lumbering through the city. Again, at the beginning
of the movie he sees a lion up on the balcony of a large building. At
another point in the past (our present) after the zoo release, he imagines
hearing and then seeing the lion roar upon the same balcony.
So the message about environmentalism is: environmentalists care more about
"animals" than they do about people, and in their hatred of people and
concern for animals they are willing to kill off 5 billion of us. Now this
message is precisely the message about environmentalists we get all the
time from corporations and the
[PEN-L:2535] Re: practical Marxism
At 6:42 PM 1/22/96, Thad Williamson wrote: Another way of stating this excellent point is to say what current labor "earns" or current capital risk-taking creates is quite small compared to the long build-up of accumulated knowledge, infrastructure, etc bequeathed from the past that we all get free, from no effort of our own, on the basis simply of our peculiar place in history. In other words the categories usually employed for who should get what utterly fail to take account of the fact that most what we actually have is a social, community, historical creation. In my opinion this calls into question not only capitalist principles of distribution and inheritance practices but labor theories of value as well. See Marx's own excellent statement and analysis of this phenomenon in the Grundrisse, especially pp. 704-706 (Vintage Press Edition) Blair
[PEN-L:2537] Re: The high tech j
At 8:17 PM 1/22/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Capitalists attempt to increase surplus value either by: a) increasing absolute surplus value (by lengthening the working day or workweek). While capitalists will attempt to increase absolute surplus value, Marx points out that there are natural and social limitations to the increase in absolute s. b) increasing relative surplus value. Here, additional surplus value is produced though increasing the "productiveness of labour." Productiveness of labour is understood as the degree to which a quantity of labor produces use-values. The higher or lower productiveness of labour corresponds to the more or less use-values produced by a a given amount of labour. Here I agree with you: output/unit of labor = productivity. Now, how can relative surplus value and the productiveness of labour be increased? Either by: a) increasing the intensity of work (resulting in more use-values being produced in a given time period by the same quantity of labor); or, b) through technical change in means of production. Here is where you go wrong, in my opinion, though I think this is perhaps merely a matter of terminology, by equating productivity and RSV. Technical change can mean both productivity and intensity of labor increase. Intensity can also increase from changes in organization (e.g. more/better supervision, etc.). Therefore I think it's wrong to counterpose technical change and intensity. I would say that RSV can increase due to productivity increases (from changes in means of production or organization, usually related) or from intensity increases (likewise from changes in means of production or organization, usually related). Marx distinguished between productivity and intensity because the latter, by increasing labor, and therefore the wear and tear on workers, in principle increases necessary labor. Whether the value of labor power therefore also increases depends on the specific form and outcome of class struggles over these matters. It should be noted, though, that in practice attempts to increase relative surplus value through increasing technical change often go hand-in-hand with attempts to increase relative surplus value by increasing the intensity of labor. I won't get into this now, but it has a lot to do with the forms of struggle that take place within the capitalist labor process. Absolutely. We are agreed on this! Blair
[PEN-L:2538] Re: The high tech j
Blair Sandler wrote: Here I agree with you: output/unit of labor = productivity. OK, then we are in agreement on the basic question discussed since it is clear that increasing intensity of labor increases output/unit of labor = productivity. Technical change can mean both productivity and intensity of labor increase. What is your problem? Why can't you say that increasing labor intensity increases productivity, ceteris paribus. Please look at the definition of productivity that you agreed to. I would say that RSV can increase due to productivity increases (from changes in means of production or organization, usually related) or from intensity increases (likewise from changes in means of production or organization, usually related). So you agree that RSV can increase due to labor intensity increases. Good. I think, again, that if you look at the definition of productivity that you have agreed to you will have to conclude that increasing the intensity of labor also increases the productivity of labor, ceteris paribus. Jerry
[PEN-L:2540] Re: Reich questions (fwd)
I have a question re: Bob Reich's suggestion recently made on "Charlie Rose" (who took the following to be an example of 'social engineering') to grant tax exemptions to companies which provide some training and assistance to downsized workers: After this contribution to even more severe regressive taxation, what next for the downsized, the never employed, the partially employed, etc.? Can we rest assured that they will not become the object of the sort of social engineering so profoundly analyzed by both Zygmunt Bauman in *Modernity and the Holocaust* (Cornel, 1989) and William Darity, Jr in "The Undesirables, America's Underclass in the Managerial Age: Beyond the Myrdal Theory of Racial Inequality", *Daedulus* (Winter 1995) and *The Black Underclass: Critical Essays on Race and Unwantedness* (New York: Garland Publishers, Inc. 1994)? Rakesh Bhandari Ph.D.Candidate Ethnic Studies Univ of California, Berkeley
