[PEN-L:5930] Re: Who is Peter L. berger?
This is an essentially accurate description, although at least the books mentioned below by Mr. Tell are worth reading if one is interested in sociology of religion, etc. His more recent work the same cannnot be said of; not simply that he is a prominent member of the theological wing of the neoconservative movement (along iwth R.J.Neuhaus, Michael Novak, etc.), but there is simply nothing there in the way of intersting thought/ideas even within that frame. ASAs the Chomsky quote shows, it's just crude nationalism. The Sacred Canopy at least has some engaging thought whether you agree or not (it's basically an appropriation of Feuerbach's ideas on religion as projection by a decidedly non-Marxist believer, which makes for an intersting combination.) An excellent discussion of Berger and related characters is in Gary Dorrien's , pp.189-220. (Fortress Press: 1995) Thad Williamson Nat'l Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/ Union Theological Seminary (New York) > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 31 05:25:32 1996 > Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 05:14:10 -0700 (PDT) > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: SHAWGI TELL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:5912] Re: Who is Peter L. berger? > X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas > X-Comment: Progressive Economics > > > Peter L. Berger is a petty bourgeois intellectual. He is one of > thousands of revisionists and co-author of the well-known 1966 book "The > Social Construction of Reality." Many of those trapped in the > swamp of "intepretivism" and "phenomenology" practically worship him. > Another work, "Invitation to Sociology," also embodies the eclecticism > found in his "The Social Construction of Reality." > > > Shawgi Tell > University at Buffalo > Graduate School of Education > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5929] re: Korea
To all whom it may concern: I have really enjoyed the stimulating discussion on Korean reunification, the continued U.S. military presence there and its relationship to inter- state competition, and the "cultural" dimensions of both the North and South Korean development models and political economies. I especially appreciate the long and thoughtful contributions by Marty Hart-Landsberg and Anthony D'Costa. I have a few odd and sundry remarks to make, and some questions to ask as well. One person remarked that the ROK is less and less an imperialist pawn of the U.S., citing its export/import patterns w/the U.S., and claiming that the South Korean government (army/LDP) plays up the N. Korean threat not only to discipline its own population, but also to warrant the inflow of U.S. military spending/aid which allow it to make Japan nervous. Contrary to what have _might_ been implied in this remark (i.e. South Korea as a rising power vis-a-vis Japan), my understanding is that South Korean economic growth is becoming _more_, not _less_, structurally dependent on importing Japanese industrial equipment, machine tools, and computerized components. Every time South Korea expands its exports in raw value terms, its trade deficit/debt in general and with Japan in particular also grows. This dynamic has persisted throughout the dollar/yen/won currency fluctuations of the last 10 years, and has more to do with rapidly rising wages of the last 10 years (minyung movement and tentative democratization translate into end of low-wage exports) than anything else. Marty has alluded to it, but nobody has talked at length about the relationship between the structural crisis in the South Korean economy, the tenuous legitimacy of the state and Kim government, the recent attacks on demonstrating students, and the "trials of the century." The jaebul have bolstered their power vis-a-vis the state industrial planning bureaucracies in the last 15 years, using their state-protected profits to set up global sourcing operations (especially in Southeast Asia) and to penetrate "emerging" consumer markets (selling Hyundai sub-compacts in Iran, e.g.), while neglecting research/development spending and capital deepening investment at home. Nonetheless, the largest jaebul dominate shares of South Korean export totals like never before. So, while the Kim government can attempt to shore up its public support through fairly cosmetic anti-corruption reforms (like mandating public disclosure of jaebul owner banking transactions) the fact of the matter is that the state has less prerogative to make the jaebul behave in a way that it thinks is in the "best interest" (not to be confused with distributive equity or popular participation) of society as a whole. >From what Anthony D'Costa contributed I would conclude that there is a lot of political discontent in South Korea right now because the institutionalization of formal political democracy (with some serious defects obviously, like prohibitions on independent unionism and union political activity) has not translated into the popular capacity to curb the accumulation of grotesque amounts of (non-productive) wealth on the part of the jaebul owners, which goes against both nationalist and Confucian principles. I seriously wonder about the medium-range compatibility of the way state-society relations are set up in South Korea (i.e. industrial planning bureaucracies/jaebul/labor as well as political parties/social movements) with the imperative to develop a non-import dependent high-tech manufacturing and business service economy (a la Japan). And just for a minute wildly supposing that peaceful reunification took place that drew on the "best" of South Korea/North Korea, what about the question of this entity's insertion into the world market ? How is it possible to resist the impulse to treat N. Korea as an internal colony (raw materials/cheap labor) a la German reunification as a means of bolstering world-market export competitiveness sans radically containing relations w/that world market ? But I guess that these are the same questions that Cuba and Vietnam are addressing in their own ways ... John Gulick Sociology Graduate Program U.Cal-Santa Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5928] Re: Koreas
On Sat, 31 Aug 1996 16:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I remember David Barkin telling me about the excellent reforestation > program in N. Korea. > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 916-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I know of these claims of deforestation is from recent western media, and hence of uncertain certainty, as it were. One aspect of this may be that once there was a good reforestation program (when was David last there?) but is not anymore. I have seen some reports that what has triggered the recent deforestation has been the cutoff of sweetheart oil deals with the FSU since its collapse and the resulting use of wood for energy use in the face of foreign currency shortage and the inability to borrow from abroad, combined with the lack of domestic oil sources. If so, one could argue that this reflects the DPRK's abandonment by its former allies. Of course one can snidely point out that this is the ultimate outcome of Kimilsungist ideology, the self-sufficiency doctrine of _juche_ (also transliterated as chu'che), which some see as having its origins in the ultra-isolationist doctrines of the ultra-Confucianist "hermit kingdom" of Choson in the nineteenth century, reflecting Korea's desire to stay away from both China and Japan, its former frequent conquerors. Unfortunately for the DPRK, both China and Russia are quite fascinated with the high economic activity of its rival to the south with whom both are madly cutting deals. One sees ads for ROK companies in Moscow where ROK DFI is occurring. The Russians are particularly taken with the South Koreans. China continues to be the north's semi-protector, but not to the point of selling it oil at less than world prices. And the PRC and ROK are also cutting lots of deals. It may be worth reminding everybody that the ROK itself, although largely capitalist, is hardly typical of market capitalist economies, and compared to other East Asian NICs has a relatively high degree of both state ownership (crucially especially of banks) and of state direction in its economy. Indeed, it has arguably had the most extensive and directive system of _indicative planning_ of any basically capitalist economy, considerably outdoing both France and Japan in that regard. This reached a high water mark under the dictatorial Park Chung Hee in the 1970s with the Ministry of Finance's activities constrained by the central plan and the directives of the planners carried out through state control of credit through the state-owned banks and the high degree of concentration in the ROK economy in the zaibatsu-like chaebol, differing from them largely in not actually being owned by the banks. For an account of ROK planning see Paul W. Kuznets, "Indicative Planning in Korea," _Journal of Comparative Economics_, 1990, 14, 657-676. For a very favorable and influential account of the ROK economy which applauds its use of government intervention see Alice H. Amsden, _Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization_, 1989, Oxford University Press. For a more critical look at the ROK, see Mark L. Clifford, _Troubled Tiger: Businessmen, Bureaucrats, and Generals in South Korea_, 1994, M.E. Sharpe. For a fairly carefully done comparison of the two Koreas, see Eui-Gak Hwang, _The Korean Economies: A Comparison of North and South_, 1993, Clarendon Press. This book has the virtue of showing the diversity of views available about the north, with *14* different estimates of its GDP! Since I am rambling again, let me note that the current upheaval in the south fits in a regular cycle there of violent adn violently suppressed protests by students which have often preceded major governmental upheavals. One of the earliest versions of this was in 1960 when the demonstrations led to the overthrow of the very corrupt and incompetent regime of Syngman Rhee, the original US-installed leader from 1945. The pattern has included a drift back to authoritarianism by newly installed reform leaders after awhile. The current behavior of the democratically elected Kim Young Sam seems to fit into this pattern of a drift back to authoritarianism after a declaration of reforms. -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5927] re: who is Peter L. Berger
Trond, you might want to check out Peter L. Berger's recent book, _The Capitalist Revolution: Fifty Propositions About Prosperity, Equality, and Liberty_ New York: Basic Books. In particular I direct your attention to page 80, where Berger writes: ".. capitalism creates 'escape hatches' from political power; socialism makes such escape very precarious if not impossible. This understanding of the political effects of capitalism and socialism has been propounded in the work of F. A. Hayek; and at least to date has been amply confirmed by the empirical evidence." In his book Berger appropriately identifies Hayek as "probably the most prominent advocate of capitalism in the present period", but in his book Berger provides a quite independent defense of 'capitalism', including a defense which takes a critical stance toward Hayek and other liberal economists. Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.gnn.com/logosapien/ransom.htm http://members.gnn.com/logosapien/hayekquote.htm
[PEN-L:5926] Oppose Policy Diversions
The Republican convention brought to the fore debate on tax policy. The Dole campaign has proposed a 15% across the board cut in income taxes, while Clinton is countering with other proposals. The focus of attention is on which policy is better. No one should be drawn into this diversion. Promotion of this issue is used to stop discussion of society's pressing problems and turn people's attention to choosing who has the least evil tax policy. Tax policy can only be examined in the context of the economy as a whole--its direction, its problems, etc. To proclaim that tax cuts are the issue, while ignoring that the economy is run to secure maximum profits for the capitalists, is pure deception. In addition, it is necessary to examine who controls the taxes. Tax dollars are in the hands of the government which is organized to meet the needs of the capitalists--not the needs of working people or society as a whole. Tax policy reflects this. The lion's share of tax revenues consistently goes to the finance capitalists (in payment on the debt) and the military industrial complex. Another $150 billion goes to hand-outs to the monopolies. With the current anti-social offensive of the capitalists, payment of the debt is enshrined as a sacred government duty while investments in health, education and social services are "expenses" to be cut. It is necessary for the people to set their own agenda, and not be drawn into this diversion on tax cutting policy. For the people, sorting out the issue of taxes has to start from the perspective of what serves society. It is necessary to look at tax policy in relation to the direction of the economy as a whole. For example, the issue of whether taxes are used to take money out of the economy--as occurs now with payment on the debt and military spending--or to put money back into the economy (as occurs with social investments) needs to be examined. It is also important to consider sources other than taxes for government revenue. These issues are the heart of the matter on taxes, and precisely the ones hidden by the diversion duet of Dole and Clinton. Addressing these issues would raise the level of discussion and focus attention on the problems that exist and how to solve them. It would also provide the analysis needed to decide what actions to take today--not only to defend the interests of the people but to advance those interests. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5925] U.S. Out Of Korea!
For over a week, tens of thousands of mostly women students in south Korea have courageously fought against the fascist terror and repression of the US-backed government of the Republic of Korea. The students are demanding reunification of their country and the removal of US troops and weapons from the Korean peninsula. The violence against the students erupted when authorities banned and attacked the start of the "pan-national youth rally," an annual event to highlight the struggle for reunification and against US imperialist occupation. The students planned to march from their campuses in the south to the border with the north. A grand "unification festival" with students from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was planned. The south Korean authorities, with full US political and military backing, outlawed the festival and unleashed thousands of police and troops against the students. Yonsei University, in Seoul, a main site of the struggle, was put under siege and then stormed by troops, using helicopters and armored vehicles, tear gas and other chemicals, to forcibly remove the students. Over 5,500 students have been arrested and over 1500 injured, while thousands more continue to resist the police onslaught. Police have arrested 15 of the 33 "most wanted" student leaders, 189 students on charges of violating the fascist National Security Law, and over 3,000 on charges of staging violent demonstrations. In addition to arresting student leaders, authorities have claimed they will disband the umbrella group of student councils, Hanchongryon, representing 169 of south Korea's 200 univers ities. Thinking people fully support the just struggle of the students and salute their courageous efforts in the face of the US-backed fascist repression. Their demand for reunification is a patriotic demand, reflecting the heartfelt desire of Koreans north and south. We vigorously condemn US imperialism for its crime of forcibly dividing Korea and maintaining this division through occupation of the south. The criminal hand of US imperialism can be seen behind the repression by south Korean authorities. For example, the authorities have justified their fascist terror by claiming that Hanchongryon, representing the majority of south Korean universities, is a "pro-North Korean insurrectionist force" which "has subscribed to the North's revolutionary strategy to communize the South." Anti-communism is the justification used by US imperialism for its aggression and suppression of the peoples worldwide. It was used to justify the war against Korea and Vietnam, installing fascist regimes in Chile, Brazil, and elsewhere, intervention in Nicaragua, the embargo of Cuba and many other crimes. Wherever the US wants to impose its dictate and domination, anti-communism is used. Americans are also familiar with use of the "red" scare during the McCarthy era, and its use since that time to justify government infiltration and wrecking of communist and progressive organizations. Anti-communism is the flag of fascist repression by the US, at home and abroad. The US-backed puppet government of south Korea is using this same excuse to justify the violence against the students--for demanding reunification and exercising their democratic rights of freedom of conscious and association. US interference can also be seen in the numerous military exercises conducted in the south in July and right during the attacks on the students. These included a 5-day combat-ready exercise in and around Seoul; large-scale joint landing exercises, using air and naval forces; and sending a huge armed force into densely populated areas of Seoul, where troops fired guns and tossed hand grenades day and night. At the height of police attacks on the students, the US and south Korean armed forces began a 13 -day simulated war exercise. Despite this massive show of force, the Korean people will not be intimidated, as the heroic resistance of the students firmly shows. US imperialism has a long history of criminal activity in Korea, dating back to its occupation of the country after World War II and its war of genocide from 1950-53. The US forcibly divided the country at that time, and continues to occupy the south with 36,000 troops. The US erected and maintains a massive wall at the 38th parallel, a hateful reminder of US interference. All Americans have a duty to oppose US occupation and interference in Korea and support the just demands of the students for removal of US troops and weapons and peaceful reunification and independence of Korea. The Koreans are a single nation. They have lived on the same land and shared the same culture and language for thousands of years. Peaceful reunification of the nation is desired by the peoples north and south. The US has no right to interfere and the Koreans have every right to resolve this question on their own. US Imperialism Out of Korea! Supp
[PEN-L:5924] Re: Who is Peter L. berger?
Dear Trond
He wrote a book called society in man/man in society which was a standard
first year sociology text and very influential in the development of sociology
in the 1960s when it was still a young discipline.
the essential thesis was the simultaneous influence that we have on the society
we live in and which it has on us. it represented the basic paradigm of
sociology of the day.
it does not examine this from any marxist class categories.
kind regards
--
## 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
## http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
"only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned
and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money."
(Cree Indian saying...circa 1909)
