[PEN-L:2562] Re: The V-word
A response to Gil's legitimate questions in PEN-L 2501: "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?" I'm trying to get the mode of discussion away from the language of 'just plain wrong' and if we can join in this, I'm very happy. If my language has been an obstacle, I will change it. My main point is that collective development starts better from the positive points of any theory than its negative points. So though I cannot deny my personal views, my aim in this debate is not to stigmatise the simultaneist interpretation of Marx as 'just plain wrong', What I would maintain is that this interpretation is just plain not Marx's. It should be defended in its own right, not as a variant of marxism; and it should be criticised in its own right, not as a variant of marxism. The aim is very simple: to stop making Marx the scapegoat for ideas he never proposed. The history of discussion on Marx did not open with our response. It opened with the critics. We came into the debate at the end of a century in which a withering, ceaseless, and generally uninformed crossfire has made it impossible to obtain a serious, honest or scholarly appraisal of his contribution from those who are paid taxpayers' money to do such things. I cannot see how it helps that those most keen to demonstrate Marx's errors seem to be those who identify themselves as his supporters. We didn't start this practice. We did not start off saying Marx's critics are wrong. Marx's critics started it by saying Marx was wrong. We simply want to redirect the relevant parts of this one-way traffic by disentangling which criticisms genuinely apply to Marx, and which apply to other theories that represent themselves as Marx's, but are not. Let's illustrate this with reference to your paper. Far from claiming Marx as the only source of validity, I want to avoid the prejudiced reaction of rejecting, because of your criticism of Marx, what I am convinced is a positive contribution. But I suspect - though I don't yet know for sure - that the core of your criticism is premised on the view that his category of value is deduced from the assumption that goods exchange at values, so that the relation of exchange expresses a direct equality of magnitudes derived from production. I am sure this is a valid criticism of somebody. I want us to find out who this somebody is, because I don't recognise it as Marx. I am simply trying to redirect this kind of mail to the correct postal address, in the first instance by returning it to sender, and in the second instance by proposing a joint search for the tenants of the vacant lot on whose doorstep it has arrived. Nor is it my main concern to establish that only Marx can have correct insights. Quite the contrary: I believe his conclusions have that character of universal validity which means that any disinterested enquiry into the underlying problems of political economy will reach them. It would be as unhelpful to say Marx's procedure is the only way to discover value, as to proclaim Newton the only source of authority on gravity. But by this very token, isn't it equally wrong to found new theories of gravity by scrutinising the errors of Newton, or new theories of value by scrutinising the errors of Marx? I view Marx's original insights in the light of Newton's remarks about standing on the shoulders of giants. I prefer standing on this giant's shoulders because I think I can see farthest that way. And I would like everyone to stand there who finds it a useful vantage point, including yourself. I just want to distinguish between standing on his shoulders and treading in his face. Do I claim his theory is 'uniquely valid'? I listed a series of issues, some of the most burning issues of the day, which I find *can* be studied using what I (and a growing number of others) consider to be his own approach to his own theory of value. Personally I have found it impossible to study these using the simultaneous method. I have become convinced this is not an accident and have furnished mathematical proofs to support this conviction. Personally, I also find Marx a greatly superior access route to these insights. I would like others to share in these exciting findings, but I would be cautious about claiming they have to share my personal convictions in order to do so. What I do think is that the possibility of this sharing is terminally obstructed by century-old habits of thought which weigh heavier on the brains of the living than the prospect of new advances. This, I fully accept, is a strong claim and a
[PEN-L:2563] Re: The high tech j
At 21:12 23-01-1996 -0800, rakesh bhandari wrote: if output/person-hour is the measure then it all depends on whether the per hour output is constant, rising or falling. Dear Professor Mitchell: Here is an attempted reply; if it is incompetent, please be honest. I am suggesting that the productivity measure should be output/person-hour at a given level of intensity. If that person-hour becomes twice as intense, then the denominator should be doubled. Perhaps intensification shows up in the statistics indirectly-- a rise in industrial accidents, for example. I gave a very cursory look at this debate on the list (my fault). I suspect that here there is a communication problem. I find out, comparing the English, Italian and French editions of Capital vol. I (in German I have only the first chapter) that the English translates Produktivkraft (force productive du travail, forza produttiva del lavoro) as 'productivity of labour'. Now, for Marx, in capitalism labour was productive in as much as it permits the valorization of capital, i.e. in as much as it produces surplus value. From this point of view, Bill Mitchell is right, and an higher intensity of work increases productivity of labour (in this sense). But an higher intensity of labour does not increase the 'productive power' (Produktivkraft) of labour as defined by Marx, namely as "the degree of effectiveness of productive activity towards a given purpose within a given period of time" (Penguin ed., p. 137; wrongly the translation here speaks of 'productivity' - I don't have the Progress edition, so I cannot check the translation there). From this other point of view, Rakesh Bhandari is right, the intensity of labour does not increase the productivity of labour (as productive power). But Bill and Rakesh are talking of different things: the first, productivity of labour, refers to abstract (=capitalist) labor, the second, the productive power of labour refers to concrete useful labour. riccardo == Riccardo Bellofiore e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Economics Tel:(39) -35- 277505 (direct) University of Bergamo (39) -35- 277501 (dept.) Piazza Rosate, 2(39) -11- 5819619 (home) I-24129 Bergamo Fax:(39) -35- 249975 Italy ==
[PEN-L:2565] (Fwd) Hunger and economic freedom in UK
Not quite sure why this was bounced back to me--GS --- Forwarded Message Follows --- P.S. To previous post on above topic: I forgot to mention the according to the Cato Institute's index of "economic freedom", reported in Business Week 1/22, the world rankings are: 1) Hong Kong 2)Singapore (!) 3) New Zealand 4) United States 5) Switzerland 6) Britain 7) Malaysia 8) Thailand 9) Japan 10) Canada (bet you PEN-Lrs north of the border are relieved to see you made the top 10!) P.P.S. Keep those posts coming, Sid. "Marty LAMA" will just have to get his own life. Gil Skillman
[PEN-L:2567] 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! I disagree. As later posts on this issue have suggested, "productivity" is widely perceived as "good". How _we_ perceive productivity by Jerry's definition is a small part of the political effect of our definition of productivity. If _productivity_ (by any definition, since the media in particular are not careful about this) is widely perceived as _good_ then, since by Jerry's definition labor intensification increases productivity, then, by this definition, labor intensification will be similarly perceived. To repeat my earlier post, by writing output/hr = output/effort x effort/hr and defining productivity as output/effort, we avoid this difficulty. While a definition is just that, this also seems logically consistent with the separation of labor from labor power, and the notion that it is _labor_ that is productive of value (and surplus value). 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:2568] Re: Help on defense budget
At 8:51 PM 1/23/96, Robert Peter Burns wrote: Could someone here give me a quick figure *plus source* for the percentage of the Federal Budget taken up by defense (and perhaps closely related, eg "National Security") spending. I think I've seen various figures given in left publications, ranging from 18-25%. Thanks. According to the historical tables in the president's FY1996 budget, "national defense" takes up 16.2% of outlays in this fiscal year (1996). Somehow the War Resisters League comes up with a 50%, by including a bunch of interest payments as the "cost of past wars." 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:2572] G-7 meeting facing big economic problems
Saturday January 20, 1996 G7 TALKS AIM AT GENERATING GROWTH, JOBS PARIS (Reuter) -- Economic policy-makers from the world's richest nations were arriving in Paris Saturday for talks aimed at reviving flagging economic growth and tackling stubbornly-high unemployment rates. The slowdown in economies, particularly in Europe, was to be the main focus as finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of Seven tried to stop the 1990s being written-off as a decade of debt, deflation and derisory economic expansion. "Growth will dominate the agenda. Currencies will be discussed as they always are but economic growth rates will be the main focus,'' a British monetary official said. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said late Friday that the slowdown in Europe was "not helpful.'' Though the United States also faces a cooling in its economy, and Japan has been slow to recover, Europe, particularly France and Germany, faces stagnation. Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said on Friday the meeting would touch on high jobless rates in Europe. "Unemployment is far too high in Europe by anybody's measure.'' But the G7 -- the United States, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Canada and Britain -- was not expected to find any miracle cure to revive world growth and get people back to work at the half-day talks Saturday afternoon. While G7 nations have been quick to trim interest rates, they appear to have little choice but to keep cutting them until more lively economic activity returns. Britain has cut interest rates twice in five weeks and France and Germany eased monetary conditions last week. And Germany, powerhouse of the European economy, was expected to be encouraged to lower interest rates further. G7 leaders are worried Europe could slide back into recession, pushing more people out or work, feeding social unrest and damaging plans for closer economic union. Rubin said Friday Europe faced a conflict beween meeting the tight budget criteria required ahead of European monetary union and the slowdown in economic growth coupled with rising unemployment. The spotlight was also likely to fall on the dollar, which rallied sharply ahead of the meeting on expectations the G7 would warmly applaud its rally over the past nine months. The dollar surged to 1.4840 marks late Friday from 1.4690 marks late in the European day Thursday.
[PEN-L:2573] Contents of Labour/Le Travail, 35 (Fall 1995) (fwd)
X-ListName: International Employee Relations Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:59:41 -0330 (NST) From: Joan Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Contents of Labour/Le Travail, 35 (Fall 1995) Labour/Le Travail 36 (Fall 1995) TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLES David J. Hall The Construction Workers' Strike in the Canadian Pacific Railway, 1879 David Bright Loafers Are Not Going to Subsist Upon Public Credulence: Vagrancy and the Law in Calgary, 1900-1914 Dan Azoulay Winning Women for Socialism: The Ontario CCF and Womenm 1947-1961 Alvin Finkel Even the Little Children Cooperated: Familiy Strategies, Childcare Discourse, and Social Welfare Debates, 1945-1975 Joan Sangster Women Workers, Employment Policy and the State: The Establishment of the Ontario Women's Bureau, 1963-1970 Don Wells The Impact of the Postwar Compromise on Canadian Unionism: The Formation of an Auto Worker Local in the 1950s RESEARCH REPORT Michael Quinlan and Margaret Gardner Strikes, Worker Protest, and Union Growth in Canada and Australia, 1815-1900: A Comparative Analysis CRITIQUES Martin Glaberman Slaves and Proletarians: The Debate Continues Noel Ignatiev Reply to Martin Glaberman Franca Iacovetta Manly Militants, Cohesive Communities, and Defiant Domestics: Writing about Immigrants in Canadian Historical Scholarship DOCUMENT Alfred Edwards The Mill: A Worker's Memoir if the 1930s and 1940s Introduction by John Manley REVIEW ESSAYS A.W. Rasporich The Centre Does Not Hold: A Review Essay of Canadian History: A Reader's Guide John H.M. Laslett The Demise of Exceptionalism?: Comparative Labour History in Light of Anglo-American Comparison James Naylor Bringing Which State Back In? Mariana Valverde Deconstructive Marxism REVIEWS BOOKNOTES NOTBOOK BIBLIOGRAPHY MINUTES ABSTRACTS Labour/Le Travail is a semi-annual publication of the Canadian Committee on Labour History. Subscription rates are: Canadian Individual $25.00 Canadian Student $15.00 Canadian Institution $35.00 Foreign Individual$30.00 (US) Foreign Student $25.00 (US) Foreign Institution $50.00 (US) GST EXEMPT. All back issues are avaiable. Complete sets at special prices. Mastercard and visa accepted. For this and additional information please contact Canadian Committee on Labour History Department of History Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John's, NF A1C 5S7 CANADA Tel: (709) 737-2144 Fax: (709) 737-4342 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mun.ca/cclh/
[PEN-L:2571] Re: Help on defense budget
Other military costs include the care of veterans from past wars. The clean up from weapons. And, yes, the interest costs, which should be counted. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2576] Re: The high tech j
the production of RSV through technical change is not "necessarily good" only for two reasons: first, if the material benefits brought about by such technical advances do not come from the unalienated labor of workers (ie., if workers play no real part in the process of production that brings such advances about] and second, if such technical advances involve some threat to the environment that might subvert the enjoyment of the increased wealth by the community in the long run. Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2574] The UN at 50; lecture NYC 1-31
The Brecht Forum The New York Marxist School 122 West 27 Street, 10 floor New York, New York 10001 (212) 242-4201 (212) 741-4563 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail) The United Nations at 50+ Crisis and Opportunity in the Era of Globalization a book party and discussion with Phyllis Bennis and Jim Paul Wednesday, January 31 at 8 pm The United Nations at age fifty embodies much of the chaos of the "new world order." Wracked by the financial crisis and contentious debates on its future role, the UN remains an important element of U.S. foreign policy as well as an arena of struggle for international movements for peace and justice. Hear Pacifica radio reporter Phyllis Bennis and Jim Paul, Executive Director of Global Policy Forum, and celebrate the publication of Bennis' new book, _Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN_. Admission is $6. * All Brecht Forum lectures are available on audiotape for $8. To order, please make checks or money orders payable to *The Brecht Forum* and send to The Brecht Forum, 122 West 27 Street, 10 floor, New York, New York 10001. For orders outside the U.S., send an international money order or bank check payable in U.S. funds and enclose an additional US$5 to cover the cost of air postage. //30
[PEN-L:2570] Re: Help on defense budget
At 9:19 PM 1/23/96, Michael Perelman wrote: You will never get that number since quite a bit of it is hidden in other agencies' budgets. Could someone here give me a quick figure *plus source* for the percentage of the Federal Budget taken up by defense (and perhaps closely related, eg "National Security") spending. I think I've seen various figures given in left publications, ranging from 18-25%. Thanks. Well, not exactly. The budget concept "national defense" includes Energy Dept. nuclear weapons spending. Much of the CIA allocation is buried in various departments, but a good deal of it is hidden in the Pentagon budget. The intelligence budget was about $30 billion, last I heard, so it's about 10% of the total military budget, and if most of it is already included in the military, you're not missing all that much (there may be CIA activities hidden in the embassy budget, e.g.). 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:2577] Political Poetry; class NYC 2-1
The Brecht Forum The New York Marxist School 122 West 27 Street, 10 floor New York, New York 10001 (212) 242-4201 (212) 741-4563 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail) Political Poetry: Shakespeare, Shelley, Auden, Brecht, Neruda, Hughes a class taught by Annette Rubinstein Thursdays 7-9 pm 5 sessions beginning February 1 Everyone has enjoyed picket-line verse, but many know little of the significant work by great poets "whose strict and adult pens make action urgent and its nature clear." We will reclaim some of this heritage, reading and discussing many of its treasures together. Annette Rubinstein has been a literary critic and political activist since the 1930s and is a founding editor of the journal _Science and Society_. She continues in that capacity today. Her two major books are _American Literature: Root and Flower_ and _The Great Tradition in English Literature: From Shakespeare to Shaw_. Suggested tuition is $35. Note: This class will be held off-site; pre-registration is recommended. You can register in the following ways: 1) send check or money order, payable to *The Brecht Forum*, or credit card information (MasterCard or Visa with full account number and expiration date) to The Brecht Forum, 122 West 27 Street, 10 floor, New York, New York 10001; 2) send credit card information to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or fax to (212) 741- 4563; register by phone--call (212) 242-4201; 4) register at the first class session (call 212 242-4201 for location; no credit card payments). //30
[PEN-L:2575] Re: Help on defense budget
On Wed, 24 Jan 1996, Doug Henwood wrote: At 8:51 PM 1/23/96, Robert Peter Burns wrote: Could someone here give me a quick figure *plus source* for the percentage of the Federal Budget taken up by defense (and perhaps closely related, eg "National Security") spending. I think I've seen various figures given in left publications, ranging from 18-25%. Thanks. According to the historical tables in the president's FY1996 budget, "national defense" takes up 16.2% of outlays in this fiscal year (1996). Somehow the War Resisters League comes up with a 50%, by including a bunch of interest payments as the "cost of past wars." That 50% figure comes from "national defense" plus non-defense related military expenditures -- health and pension benefits mainly -- as well as interest payments on the debt attributable to past military spending (though they do say "cost of past wars") If you're interested in this figures let me know and I can try to find who originally did the study. Gina Neff Economists Allied for Arms Reduction [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2578] Adorno, Aesthetics; class NYC 2-1
The Brecht Forum The New York Marxist School 122 West 27 Street, 10 floor New York, New York 10001 (212) 242-4201 (212) 741-4563 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-mail) Adorno, Aesthetics a class taught by Michael Brinitzer Thursdays 6-8 pm 5 sessions beginning February 1 In the age of an all-pervasive culture industry, the only philosophical role left for critical theory is to clarify the truth of radical esoteric art with an emancipatory agenda. Based on a broad interdisciplinary search into societal modernity, Adorno endorses the Utopian negativity of the modernist avant-garde (Beckett, Proust, Kafka, Berg, and Mahler) as an aesthetics of redemption in the face of totalizing delusion. Michael Brinitzer, a practicing architect, teaches "Ideologies of Space" at Pratt Institute. Suggested tuition is $35. You can register in the following ways: 1) send check or money order payable to *The Brecht Forum* or credit card information (MasterCard or Visa; include full account number and expiration date) to The Brecht Forum, 122 West 27 Street, 10 floor, New York, New York 10001; 2) send credit card information to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or fax to (212) 741-4563; 3) register by phone--call (212) 242- 4201; 4) register at the first class session. //30
[PEN-L:2580] Re: The high tech j
Steve Cohen wrote: the production of RSV through technical change is not "necessarily good" only for two reasons: first, if the material benefits brought about by such technical advances do not come from the unalienated labor of workers (ie., if workers play no real part in the process of production that brings such advances about] and second, if such technical advances involve some threat to the environment that might subvert the enjoyment of the increased wealth by the community in the long run. Jeez ... I can't believe that we're actually talking about how increasing RSV is "good" for workers under capitalism. The first part of the sentence above is convuluted, so I won't answer it. The last part is, of course, correct. But, we are not fundamentally talking here about what is "good" for the community or the "wealth of nations." That is the standpoint of bourgeois political economy. It is true, as Rakesh suggested, that the increase in RSV through technical change makes *possible* an increase in wages. However, this is by no means a foregone conclusion and actual wages will depend on many other variables (not the least of which is the class struggle). Now is increasing RSV through technical change "good" for workers? [I still can't believe we are discussing this question!]: 1) If output levels are constant, increasing productivity via technical change results in increased micro-employment, ceteris paribus. This is *not* good for either the workers who loose their jobs or the ones who remain (who frequently suffer increased intensity of work and diminished bargaining power as a consequence). 2) If output is increasing, it is still not necessarily good from a workers' standpoint. What affect will these new technologies have on the labor process and the bargaining power of workers? 3) If increased RSV through technical change has the consequence of increasing RSV through increased labor intensity, that is not "good" as well. Jerry
[PEN-L:2581] Re: The high tech j
Jerry writes: 1) If output levels are constant, increasing productivity via technical change results in increased micro-employment, ceteris paribus. This is *not* good for either the workers who loose their jobs or the ones who remain (who frequently suffer increased intensity of work and diminished bargaining power as a consequence). 2) If output is increasing, it is still not necessarily good from a workers' standpoint. What affect will these new technologies have on the labor process and the bargaining power of workers? 3) If increased RSV through technical change has the consequence of increasing RSV through increased labor intensity, that is not "good" as well. Jerry All of (1), (2) and (3) emphasize the distinction between output/effort and effort/hr; i.e., the distinction which is made clear by the definition of productivity I offered, and obscured by the use of the output/hr definition. QED? 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:2582] Re: labor -Reply
on "productivity of labor" Of course it is important to distinguish between the effects of technical change, and the effects of increased labor intensity. Of course both of these things may occur together. Both of them generally increase profits for capitalists. But they have rather different effects upon the lives of workers. It's a matter of analysis to distinguish between them. One must [conceptually] hold intensity of labor constant, at an average, abstract, social level [as Marx might say] in order to compare productivity between different technologies, different sectors of production, etc. When thinking in this way, the appropriate definition of productivity seems to me to be output/workerhour. If one also holds the length of the working day constant, productivity is output/worker. That is, an abstract average worker, not any particular real concrete worker, [unless one wishes to compare individual workers with each other.] If one wishes to examine the effects of increasing intensity alone, then changes in technology and organization of work must be held constant. I think this is the concept that a 'non-economist' or indeed anyone would like to clearly understand. I suspect that those who seem to be arguing about definitions are actually in agreement on the concept I have outlined above. If I seem to be in _conceptual_ error, I hope to receive an explanation that will improve my understanding of this point. Lisa Rogers biologist, anthropology grad-stu, semi-economist
[PEN-L:2583] E;C.Whalen, Mexico's Meltdown, Wash.Post, Jan 21 (fwd)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 07:58:28 -0500 From: r.c. whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple Recipients of List Mexico2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: (news) Mexico's Meltdown - Wait Till Next Year, Amigo: Is Clinton Sending a Quiet Election Year Message to Bankrupt Mexico?. The Washington Post, January 21, 1996, FINAL Edition By: Christopher Whalen Section: OUTLOOK, p. C03 Story Type: Features Line Count: 171Word Count: 1880 THE DECADE-long political process that led to approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement late in 1993 may have ended in the final weeks of 1995. As the year drew to a close, presidential candidate Bill Clinton delayed the implementation of NAFTA with respect to opening the border to Mexican trucks and moved toward imposing barriers against imports of Mexican tomatoes, just the two latest exceptions to the free trade rule. Perhaps more significantly, after providing billions of dollars in loans last year to keep the Mexican government solvent, in late November the Clinton White House turned down a new Mexican request for funds to bail out its sinking banking system. Those decisions suggest that in the coming political season the White House wants Mexico to stay in the closet and, until the Mexican economy gets restarted, is willing to pretend that NAFTA never happened. Of course, the unruly Mexican economy just might not cooperate and, in any event, delaying a real solution just allows the continued build-up of a full-blown economic crisis on our southern border. In fact, on both sides of the Mexico-U.S. border, the commitment to free trade and open borders is in jeopardy. This should come as no surprise because, from its origins, NAFTA was based on a false premise: that the United States and Mexico were comparable trading partners. It's time to end the pretense that a poor, heavily indebted Mexico can be an equal partner in a free trade zone. Thomas Jefferson said commerce between master and slave is barbarism. And when Adam Smith posited "free trade," he meant a voluntary, proportional exchange between equal, civil societies, not between the democratic, market-driven United States (and Canada) and an emerging single-party dictatorship like Mexico. Indeed, just as England's mercantilist policies in the late 18th century destroyed many of Ireland's native industries, driving millions of Irish workers into English cities seeking work, today Mexico's internal economy is being decimated by the involuntary market-opening process that passes for "free trade" in Washington. As domestic Mexican companies fail in droves and millions of jobs are permanently lost, each month dozens of new foreign-owned assembly plants are rising around Mexico, a phenomenon with close historical parallels to the foreign domination of the oil industry before the Mexican revolution. Despite predictions by Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, his deputy, Lawrence Summers, and others in the Clinton Cabinet of the success of NAFTA and Mexico's "imminent" economic rebound, Americans need to realize that Mexico is actually in a depression, a long-term crunch that appears far worse than the debacles of 1982 and 1987. Among the key reasons for the collapse was a government led by Carlos Salinas de Gortari that was part corrupted and part deluded by offers of cheap money from the world's bankers. As in the 1970s, the Mexicans again are addicted to the debt that we've been spoon-feeding them, and they still can't pay it back. The $50 billion peso bailout last February was an exercise in global welfare socialism engineered by the U.S. Treasury in concert with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The bailout's main beneficiaries were Wall Street speculators and dubious Mexican business leaders. It's that cycle we've got to stop if we ever hope to get the principles of free trade back in force. The painful truth that Clinton seeks to conceal is that Mexico is on a downward spiral of default that must eventually include the country's foreign debt. Mexico cannot import necessary goods and at the same time service its debt without at least a partial subsidy from Washington and about $2 billion a month in new loans from Wall Street. Neither the World Bank nor the IMF, which have already given billions of dollars above their normal limits in aid to Mexico, can shoulder the full burden. Remember when former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills and her successor, Mickey Kantor, bragged about the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico? Well, no longer. Mexico has been a market for
[PEN-L:2584] Re: The high tech j
Jerry, I didn't mean to say that increasing RSV is "good" in the sense that it is revolutionary in any way. If the question here is whether RSV can be "good" in that sense the answer, as you suggest, is no, since improvements that lead to greater RSV must occur within capitalist relations of production, by definition. In this sense, I agree that it is a bit strange that we are discussing this subject. [Given today's political climate, however, it is worth observing that there used to be a capitalist elite that believed its legitimacy rested on stimulating inventions that would reduce the need for human labor at a fast enough rate that would created a high demand for labor and thus high wages (Henry Carey--Daniel Webster to name but two]] But a discussion about productivity more generally is an important one. At this more abstract level of discussion, one may begin with an uncontroversial observation--that in any socialist society only improvements that augment the power of human beings to alter their material conditions will enable humanity to revolutionize its relation to nature. In bourgeois terms this is what people mean when they talk about technical improvements that make it easier for a human being to make something--the basis for RSV. In a socialist society, on the other hand, technical improvements would be "good" and "necessary" it seems to me precisely because they would have been developed by and for those who produce them, [unalienated labor] and, I would hope, with full recognition that in making decisions to augment their power over nature, they did so with some thought about possible consequences of their inventions for the viability of their environment. Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2585] Re: desert?
Desert means that ypu are entitled to something good or bad on the basis of something you did. The guilty did something blamewortht, so they deserve punishment. The praiseworthy dis something meritorious, so they deserve reward. In the context of the labor theory of property, I was arguing that one way to understand the basis of its appeal is that the creators of something deserve it because they did something praiseworthy, namely, producing something. --Justin On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Lisa Rogers wrote: Would somebody please give us semi-econs a brief remedial on this usage of "desert"? I'm getting a clue from context, but ... Lisa Justin Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [snip] Or, if we are in a situation of differential ownership, this need not be unjust if it arose by fair takings (based on desert) from the common or unowned resources which also respected the Lockean proviso that a taker must leave enough and as good for others, to which you allude below. [snip] I suspect, though, that the intuition underlying the appeal of the labor theory of property may be desery based, that the reason I am supposed to own what I make is that I deserve it in virtue of having made it. Libs don't like this, however. --Justin
[PEN-L:2586] Re: labor -Reply
Lisa Rogers wrote: It's a matter of analysis to distinguish between them. One must [conceptually] hold intensity of labor constant, at an average, abstract, social level [as Marx might say] in order to compare productivity between different technologies, different sectors of production, etc. === *Conceptually*, one can hold labor intensity constant to analyze the effect of technical change on productivity (and other matters). Some problems, however, arise in *practice*: (1) Productivity is empirically measured as output/worker/period of time and therefore includes changes in labor intensity. I know of no way to get around this empirical problem. (2) How does one isolate and empirically measure changes in labor intensity when comparing different firms and branches of production? (3) While there is an incentive for capitalists to increase labor intensity, there are frequently *large* variations both within branches of production and among branches. This is especially important for international comparisons (e.g. examine studies on work organization in US vs. Japanese auto plants). Moreover, there are *even* significant variations in labor intensity for the same type of labor activity within a firm where that firm has multiple plants. I can testify to this fact from personal experience working in different auto assembly plants. It is a fact which is very well known to the workers at these locations and can only fully be understood by examining the history of the individual plants and the struggles that have occurred between labor and capital at different locations. Jerry
[PEN-L:2587] Re: Political Poetry; class NYC 2-1
=FBThere =FBis a gr=F1e=FBat new anth=FBology out called Poetry Like Bread:= Poets=20 of the Political Imagination, by Curbstone Press. Also, a new political=20 literary magazine called COMPOST.
[PEN-L:2588] High Tech J
In the previous postings from Doug et al about the MLR progection of job opportunities, what they stressed was the 'shit' jobs that were projected to be created. To me, however, what is even more frightening is the list of jobs they (it) expects to be destroyed. This list must be doubly frightening for women -- the list of jobs to be destroyed are almost all the "better jobs" that women have. I note "Occupations with the largest job decline" Farmers -21% Typists and word processors -33% Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks- 8 Bank tellers - 27% Sewing machine operators - 26% Cleaners and servants, private household-22% Computer operators-38% Billing, posting, and calculating machine operators--67% Duplicating, mail, and other office machine operators -25% Textile draw-out and winding machine operators and tenders -25% If I am not totally confused, that means that 8 of the 10 job destruction categories are predominately "women's" jobs, many of them "better" jobs. This is totally frightening for what it means, if true, to the social structure of our emerging society. Do others read the same message from these projections? Paul Phillips, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:2590] Canada-Chile joint TU Statement
As many of you might know, Canada is going ahead without the US to try to negotiate a "free trade" agreement with Chile. Today, the Canadian LabourCongres and the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores of Chile issued a joint satement calling for inclusing in any agreement of clauses "which would improve labour and environmental standars in any bilateral trade agreement betweentheir two countries." Thestatement came from CLC Prsident Bob White and CUT Presidnet Manuel Bustos. The purpose is to prevent erosion of social and environmental standards unlike the provisions of NAFTA. "In order to prevent the further erosion of social standards, the CLC and the CUT Chile want a bilateral trade agreement to include labour standars such as feedom of association and collective bargaining, enforceable standars which prevent child labour and require a minimum age of employment, and clauses on equal pay and discrimination. These social clauses are included in conventions Of the International Labour Organization." Who will give me what odds that either government will pay the slightest regards to human rights or international conventions? Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba.
[PEN-L:2591] Freedom and Rights
I basically concur with Justin Schwartz's post on these topics, but I would add 3 other comments to make it simple and effective against right-wing libertarians: 1) Whether my freedom is reduced/constrained/restricted by another's intentional interference seems to me to be fairly a question about *how* my freedom is reduced/constrained /restricted, rather than a question about whether the amount of freedom I enjoy is in fact so reduced, etc--except on the question-begging and implausible view that freedom is always and only freedom from intentional interference by other human agents. Even accepting the intentional interference criterion, what difference does it make to my *freedom* if you prevent me from eating in your restaurant because I don't have enough money or if you prevent me because I am not a celebrity? (There's also the question of what constitutes freedom from intentional interference --do I intentionally interfere with your freedom if I intentionally pay you very low wages? Must I intend the *consequences* of my acts to interfere with your freedom for them to do so 1) at all, and/or 2 in a morally objectionable way?) 2) However you define and measure freedom, there is also the important question of its distribution. Even on the right-wing libertarian view of freedom, it is in theory possible that Stalinist Russia had more freedom in the aggregate than, say, contemporary Luxembourg, only Stalin and his cronies had all of it! A very high degree of freedom from intentional constraints by others' agency may be enjoyed by relatively or absolutely few people. In practice a lot of libertarians seem to adopt a crude utilitarian-style maximizing calculus with respect to freedom, while ignoring (more or less deliberately) the distribution issue. 3) Rights + no access to material and other resources which make the exercize of those rights effective and worthwhile = death = no rights. Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
