[PEN-L:6036] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
Its argument was that the folk audience was actually quite elite (I think the word Harvard even came up), and folkies were scandalized when the *real* popular music, rock roll, got started. Doug This attitude, in part, strikes me as generational since rockers were also in general "scandalized" by disco, and later, hip-hop. There is certainly a racial component to the rejection of certain popular art forms as well. The rejection of classical music including operas by many also, I think, has an anti-intellectual component to it. Jerry
[PEN-L:6037] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
Jerry wrote: The rejection of classical music including operas by many also, I think, has an anti-intellectual component to it. well i think this depends on what cultural-economic enviroment you have grown up in. classical music in the capitalist western world (say, australia) tends very firmly to be what i would term "ruling class" entertainment. there is no popular classical culture in OZ. the working class typically would not listen to it and would associate it with the well to do groups who are either capitalist or their working class managerial lackeys. in that sense, an opposition to the tool of the ruling class is in fact a highly intellectual position to take. it reflects in that context a heightened sense of subjective class consciousness which should be encouraged. in OZ, opera and symphony is for the snobs. it may not intrinsically be anything, but its history suggests that it has been a vehicle where the rich ruling class (and hangers on) enjoyed the fruits of their exploitation. in that sense, the medium is polluted and like the system that has used it, it should be buried as a cultural artifact. and besides - it doesn't swing. 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 215065 Fax: +61 49 215065 ## WWW Home Page: 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)
[PEN-L:6038] in defense of the classics
bill mitchell wrote: well i think this depends on what cultural-economic enviroment you have grown up in. classical music in the capitalist western world (say, australia) tends very firmly to be what i would term "ruling class" entertainment. there is no popular classical culture in OZ. the working class typically would not listen to it and would associate it with the well to do groups who are either capitalist or their working class managerial lackeys. I thought Italy was as much a part of the "capitalist western world" as "say, australia." Opera was and is very much a part of popular culture there (and was among Italian immigrants to the US earlier this century and late last). Although some of the plots deal with the ruling class, a lot of others are highly social critical (e.g. Rossini) and others have the working class or the poor as subjects (e.g. Puccini, Verdi, Leoncalvallo). [BTW, It's a good thing that my Italian friend Paolo Giussani isn't on PEN-L now since he would probably go to great and eloquent lengths in defense of opera and classical music in general]. in that sense, an opposition to the tool of the ruling class is in fact a highly intellectual position to take. it reflects in that context a heightened sense of subjective class consciousness which should be encouraged. Pieta! You *can't* be serious! in OZ, opera and symphony is for the snobs. it may not intrinsically be anything, but its history suggests that it has been a vehicle where the rich ruling class (and hangers on) enjoyed the fruits of their exploitation. in that sense, the medium is polluted and like the system that has used it, it should be buried as a cultural artifact. Che mai parli? On the contrary, its *history* suggests that in many cultures it was a popular medium. and besides - it doesn't swing. Aiuta! Aiuta! Long before there was "swing", millions were swinging to much of what we now call "classical" music. If it doesn't move you to "swing", then that's your loss. It's time for me to play the tape of "La Forza Del Destino". [Finalmente!] Jerry
[PEN-L:6040] Re: A Labor Party in Buffalo?
On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Michael Perelman wrote: Paul, Why? Michael, The Buffalo Chapter of the LP endorsed a UAW Regional Director to run for Congress against Bill Paxon (chair of the Republican House Campaign Committee and very right-wing; also husband to Susan Moliarni). That UAW officer is well-respected and/but running on the Democratic line in a Republican district. The mistake the chapter made is that any endorsement contravened Founding Convention policy. The Chapter later uanimously rescinded its vote. In any case, revoking a Chapter Charter can only be done by the Council, not by an individual--but so what. Anyway, I reproduce below what I put on the Labor Party list August 23, 1996, for those more interested. Thanks for asking. Paul - Date: 23 Aug 1996 09:04:36 To: Recipients of conference [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Interim National Council's decision on the Buffalo Chapter Dear Reader: As you read the letter below from Tony Mazzocchi of the Labor Party you may want to keep in mind: 1) The Interim National Council did not censure Tony Mazzocchi for directly and openly violating Article V, Section 2, of the Labor Party Constitution when he revoked the Buffalo chapter charter on July 8, 1996. For such a high responsible official to flout the Constitution of the Party and get away with it is unacceptable. (Is one reminded of George Orwell's Animal Farm?) The relevant portions of the Labor Party Constitution are as follows: Article II Membership 1. Individual membership shall be open to anyone who agrees to abide by the Constitution of the Labor Party. . Article V Structure 2. The National Council shall have the power to issue or revoke party charters, subject to appeal to the Grievance and Appeals Committee of the Convention as established in Article VIII, Section 3. . 5. The state party organization shall issue or revoke charters to subordinate bodies/chapters as defined in Section 1 of this Article. Charters issued or revoked by state party organizations are subject to review by the National Council. The National Council retains the right to abrogate the issuance of such charters if such issuance violates any section or intent of this Constitution, subject to appeal to the Grievance and Appeals Committee of the Convention as established in Article VIII, Section 3. 2) Mazzocchi acted within hours (not even one day) after receiving unapproved minutes, without consulting anyone in the chapter, except our secretary-treasurer who had crafted the minutes and forwarded them, also without consulting anyone in the chapter. (On two other unrelated but important votes at the chapter meeting, that secretary-treasurer had been in an minority of one.) 3) While the Buffalo Chapter made an error when it contravened Founding Convention policy by endorsing Tom Fricano for Congress, the error was easily corrected and is not a deep one like endorsing Buchanan or beating up Democratic voters. In fact, to ordinary workers in Buffalo, having a union-based Labor Party failing to endorse a respected UAW Regional Director, representing 75,000 workers, against right-wing Bill Paxon, chair of the Republican House Campaign Committee, is much more difficult to explain. The Council treats us like 'bad children', even though many of us are very experienced unionists, union officers, and long-term organizers (one of whom has organized 12 unions in Buffalo!) and certainly are familiar with Buffalo reality. 4) Names of Interim National Council members were requested twice of the National Office before the Council meeting and no response was received. No mention is made whether the Interim National Council was even given a copy of the FAX addressed to it on August 14, c/o the National Office, let alone considered it as part of its deliberations (copy posted separately). 5) Chairing the chapter meeting of June 27, I did not know the motion was coming up until it came from the floor, did not vote on the endorsement resolution in question and told several persons immediately after the meeting that I would have voted against it had it been a tie vote. In Buffalo, I have already been asked, "why are you and only you a direct target?" The letter gives no answer. 6) The offending chapter endorsement was unanimously revoked at the August 5 chapter meeting and had earlier been revoked by the National Office. Taft-Hartley fines, or whatever, cannot apply. In any case, what section of Taft-Hartley is being talked about by Mazzocchi? I've had enough experience in the labor movement to know that labor bureaucrats allege "the law" when they don't like something, but rarely tell you specifically what
[PEN-L:6041] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
bill mitchell wrote about Classical music. The same applies to other aspects of culture. Wilenz's Chants Democratic describes how in New York, elite entertainment was produced on Broadway. The working class reviled in mh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6042] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
bill mitchell wrote about classical music. In Italy, the opera seems to have been popular among more common people. Am I wrong? Were there inexpensive opera tickets. With classical music, I do not think that it is only the music, but the mileiu. No talking, just sitting quietly. In Wilenz's Chants Democratic, he describes how the working class plays produced in the Bowery in New York during the mid 19th C. mocked the more elite productions from Broadway. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6044] RE: Higher Ed. $$$ Class
At 10:19 PM 9/7/96 -0700, you wrote: Are the following "facts" true? 1. Faculty salaries are not keeping up with inflation. This is not true for every year since 1976. I should have added the CPI (1983=100) data to my chart from last Friday. All data from Research Associates of Washington's *Inflation Measures for Schools, Colleges, and Libraries* (1996). The 1995 indexes (1983=100) for a few wage classes (including some private/public distinctions I have added since last Friday marked by ): Research Faculty180.3 Faculty 176.1 Priv. U. Full Prof. 192.9 Pub. U. Full Prof. 177.0 Priv. Coll Full Prof. 180.2 Pub. Coll. Full Prof. 170.5 RA's 171 TA's171 Library Pro Staff 167.2 Admin Pro Staff 179.7 Clerical 159.6 CPI 153.3 Student Workers145.2 Service 149.2 Operator/Laborers 146.7 You have a mirror of the U.S. economy as whole in the above the rich get richest, their sycophants get nice crumbs, and the lowest lose. 2. Charges for a college education abstracting from financial aid and state subsidies are increasing faster than inflation. Very true. Jim Westrich University of Illinois at Chicago Institute on Disability and Human Development "... are you living in some kind of Disney where thinking is king?" --- Bomb the Bass
[PEN-L:6043]
UN-SUBSCRIBE PEN-L PETER KARL KRESL Peter Karl Kresl Department of Economics Bucknell University Lewisburg, PA 17837 USA Tel: 717-524-1478 Fax: 717-524-3451
Re: [PEN-L:6034] Attack on tenure
I see nothing wrong in attacking the tenure as we know it. The academia has long been used in this country to dillute social movements and ease popular pressure on the elites. The tenure system is basically coopting the potential community organizers by giving them meaningless sinecures. Thus far, the academia produced only right-wing zealots like Gingrich or Sununu, or closet right-wingers like Clinton in the positions of power and influence. Shalala, who may remotely pass for a somewhat progressive academic who entered the government -- has virtually no power, especially vis a vis Professor Gingrich. IMHO all progressive social scientists would have a much greater impact if they became community leaders rather than spending most of their time farting in their academic armchairs. Abolishing tenure may help them to make that move. PS. Given the overproduction of PhDs due, in part, to the aging of baby boom generation, I do not think how any recent college graduate can support the tenure system. It is against their interests, as tenure will surely produce a "closed shop" precluding them from gaining anything that even remotely resembles a permanent position in the academia. wojtek sokolowski johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6045] Liberal Party of Canada and Korean students
Please, Shawgi, tell us: Are South Korean students applying in droves for refugee status in Canada? We are all dying to know how they have been fascistically rejected. -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PEN-L:6042] Re: the politics of classical music
I can't believe this discussion (in this form) is taking place over pen-l. The political significance of an artform is not reducible to who produces it, enjoys it, pays for it, etc., although all of these may be relevant. There is, of course, a long tradition on the left of analyzing these things. Broadly speaking, one can propose a spectrum ranging from the refuge-from-capitalist-mode school (Adorno) to the popular-front school (eg much current rock criticism). Both endpoints have a contribution to make, but both are deeply flawed. To say anything interesting about the politics of classical music in particular, it is necessary to get down to details. What about the role of nationalism? How would we distinguish the politics of US nationalism (such as Copland) from that of, say, the Hungarians (such as Bartok)? (A number of books analyzing Bartok's rich but contradictory politics have appeared recently.) What about the increasingly obvious politics of sexual preference in classical music? (Is it by chance that all the major advocates of melodicism in US classical music have been gay, while a disproportionate percentage of the hardcore modernists are not?) What about classical music that is overtly political? (Has anyone on this list listened, for instance, to the music of Frederic Rzewski?) What is the meaning of classical-jazz fusion/crossover for the politics of jazz? (Anthony Braxton etc.) How do different types of classical musics function as signifiers? Mozart in car ads, Copland (again), etc. As ambient signifiers in voice mail, airports, . Sweeping statements about "the politics of classical music" are unhelpful and at worst suggest a reductionist approach to cultural life. I hope I'm not being too harsh... Peter Dorman
[PEN-L:6046] re: rethinking overdetermination
It seems to me that _any_ kind of music can be turned into "ruling class music": there's rock, but there's also homogenized corporate rock; there's rap, but there's also manipulative corporate rap; etc. By "ruling class music" do we a type of music that (a) doesn't encourage any critical thinking or doesn't allow people erotic freedom (where I'm using the word "erotic" in the broadest sense, a la Marcuse) but instead snobbish oneupmanship and the like or (b) manipulates people to be passive consumers? There are probably other ways. In any case, we need to clarify what we mean by "ruling class music." This is especially so since people can often use "ruling class music" for purposes for which it was not designed. The question is: is the music part of a popular culture that everyday people create (or with strong roots in everyday experience) or is it "Tin Pan Alley"-engineered popular culture? Even then, the latter can be transformed in its use by people. This whole discussion has driven me away from my project of using my long discussion with Gil Skillman over pen-l as the libretto for my first opera. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 74267,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed. It would also take a busload of crap to make Lou Reed's music into ruling class music.
[PEN-L:6047] re: rethinking overdetermination
At 9:27 AM 9/9/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is especially so since people can often use "ruling class music" for purposes for which it was not designed. Classical music has become upscale muzak for sensitive yuppies, an aural marker of "sophisticiation" popular in cafes, boutiques, and Jeep Explorers. Most of the classical canon is a relic of when the bourgeoisie was vital - Adorno said that the Beethoven concerto, with the soloist interplaying with the orchestra, but not dominant as in later Romantic concerti, was the high point of bourgeois individualism. Now products of that high bourgeois moment entertains the higher salariat, but I doubt their minds are much on the subtleties of the sonata form, or soloist-orchestra relations. 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:6048] re: rethinking overdetermination
On Mon, 9 Sep 1996 09:27:24 -0700 (PDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that _any_ kind of music can be turned into "ruling class music": there's rock, but there's also homogenized corporate rock; there's rap, but there's also manipulative corporate rap; etc. By "ruling class music" do we a type of music that (a) doesn't encourage any critical thinking or doesn't allow people erotic freedom (where I'm using the word "erotic" in the broadest sense, a la Marcuse) but instead snobbish oneupmanship and the like or (b) manipulates people to be passive consumers? There are probably other ways. In any case, we need to clarify what we mean by "ruling class music." This is especially so since people can often use "ruling class music" for purposes for which it was not designed. The question is: is the music part of a popular culture that everyday people create (or with strong roots in everyday experience) or is it "Tin Pan Alley"-engineered popular culture? Even then, the latter can be transformed in its use by people. This whole discussion has driven me away from my project of using my long discussion with Gil Skillman over pen-l as the libretto for my first opera. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 74267,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed. It would also take a busload of crap to make Lou Reed's music into ruling class music. At the risk of upsetting bill mitchell, I shall defend classical music, thereby proving to many that I am an elitist dog, or whatever (g'day mate!). People should know that bill himself favors a type of advanced jazz that I am not sure would be favored by the masses or workers either. Of course in a simplistic way, except possibly for Italian opera, much of classical music could be dismissed as "objectively ruling class" on the grounds of its funding source, usually from the aristocracy or the church prior to the nineteenth century, and even then heavily from wealthy individuals or heads of state. Even so, many classical composers wrote with a politically progressive intent, sometimes rather slyly so, given their patronage. Famous examples certainly include Mozart's "Marriage of Figaro" which was nearly banned and his radically freemasonic "Magic Flute." Beethoven's musically revolutionary Third Symphony (if merely bourgeios against aristocrat so) was heavily politically inspired by Napoleon's initially internationally progressive movement. Beethoven was to dedicate it to him, but then did not do so after he declared himself emperor. The politics of this are obvious. Later in the nineteenth century, we have many nationalist composers who used folk music themes in their music, indeed the musically innovative Haydn did so also. Of course the politics of some of these ended up very reactionary, e.g. Wagner, despite his fighting on the barricades in 1848. In this century we have Shostakovich. Of course one can diss him for working for the Soviet state, arguably an oppressive ruling class, although that is a matter of opinion. But then, Shostakovich was also repressed by that government at certain points as well. More generally the point has been already been made and I shall repeat it, that music, whatever its source or funding, is viewed as revolutionary or daring or subsersive or innovative at one point in time (the well-tempered scale in the Baroque era, rock and roll in the mid-1950s) tends to become accepted, coopted and just plain boringly conservative and elitist at a later time. Who realizes now that Baroque dance suites were once considered shockingly sensual? -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6049] Korean reunification complications
On the editorial page of the _Wall Street Journal_ this morning there was a column arguing that the recent convictions of the former South Korean presidents would make peaceful reunification of the Koreas harder because the North Korean leadership would now view itself as in danger of being subject to the same kinds of trials as those faced by the former ROK presidents under reunification. So, they will resist very hard. Hmmm, ironic, eh? BTW, I apologize to the list for picking on poor old Shawgi Tell so much. Michael P. has told me offlist to cut it out, but I really find it hard to resist. I guess that Michael figures that either 1) Shawgi can't defend himself because he is so woodenly dogmatic, 2) Shawgi is going to vociferously defend himself in what will turn into a marxism-list-style flame war, or 3) Shawgi, as the official list Stalinist, must be protected as an endangered species to show how broad-minded the list is. Ops! I've done it again. Oh well. I'll try to be better behaved in the future, :-). BTW2, I'll be overdetermined to rethink what all those remarks about classical music have to do with rethinking overdetermination, :-) (gotta get some laughs after all the flooding and deaths around here with Hurricane Fran). Barkley Rosser -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6050] overdetermination (not music)
Continuing the discussion of overdetermination and the Amherst school (but not that of music): Steve Cullenberg writes that: I am not sure why you want to continue to insist that overdetermination is warmed-over empiricism (you wrote the essence of overdetermination is empiricism), but I do hope that we can agree that my statement "what you see is what you [get]" was not an appeal to empiricsm, but rather, as I reiterated, a critique of "depth models" of explanation, including reductionism and essentialism. Okay, I'll accept the assertion that overdeterminism (the RM school) isn't empiricist, at least as a working hypothesis. But I wonder if a rejection of "depth models" is simply a rejection of any effort to look below surface appearances? Perhaps I misunderstand the phrase "depth model." As an aside, of sorts, I don't think you can find many empiricist arguments arouind these days. I also think that the strict distinction between rationalism and empricism is an unfortunate philosophical distinction. Though I disagree on the absence of empiricist arguments around these days, I agree that the philosophical distinction is artificial, indeed impossible. But some unsophisticated people _want_ to be empiricist or rationalist. And what I was thinking (wrongly, I guess) was that some people fall into empiricism without knowing what they're doing. I wrote that The cliche that "What you see is what you get" and an empiricist commitment to not going beyond description (plus an antagonism toward any quantification) sure seems to summarize what Steve wrote (or what he writes in his current missive -- see below). BTW, I have never been antagonistic to quantification. I can dig out old posts on this if you want. No need. Again, I'll accept your willingness to quantify (and accept that I had the wrong impression). Here I was wrong: I misunderstood your emphasis. Are you saying that the what kind of quantification one uses is arbitrary, subjective? I have argued that to make the statement "that X is more important to Y", meaningful, rather than simply a loud appeal to what one thinks is already obvious, does require a metric along which such comparisons could be made. The metric doesn't have to even be a scalar, but please tell me what it is. So calculate HDI's, GDP's, surplus labor, or whatever and that is fine with me. For me, the idea I am trying to get across is that things are [Not] of equal importance, but that they are differntially important (or not important) and therefore what we need to do is figure out the logic of their interaction (produce an analysis, tell a story, however you want to put it). As I said in my August post, in many or most cases, it's not _up to us_ to determine the metric. Capitalist itself reduces everything to a single metric, that of money, exchange-value. However, it seems a useful task to develop an _alternative_ metric as part of the fight against capitalism. Maybe something like the "Genuine Progress Indicator" or the "Measure of Economic Welfare" (though those currently have some major limitations, since use-value can't be quantified). Also, we need some sort of _implicit_ quantification (or rank ordering) if, for example, our concern is with which factors are most important in causing some political event such as the Great Depression. In many cases, we need vector quantification, as with Howard Margolis' replacement of scalar measurements of "intelligence" with a set of 8 different types of intelligence and (in theory, at least) 8 different measures of intelligence. (At least according to the article in the current BUSINESS WEEK, he's never tried to actually measure the 7 "new" types of intelligence.) An effort to measure how well these intelligences work together might produce a single measure, but I'll leave that to the psychologists. I would say that exactly what kind of quantification is needed depends on the purpose of one's investigation or analysis. Maybe that can be seen as merely subjective. But I also think that there are obvious metrics that are inherent in empirical reality, as with exchange-value under capitalism. So it's not _total_ subjectivism. Instead, my points were simply ignored, just as Eric's last missive on the subject was totally ignored (until today!). Well, I apologize if you think I ignored you, but one thing distracting me is that I am in the midst of organinizng a conference program ... for the December Rethinking Marxism conference, and this takes almost all my time now, literally. BTW, the deadline is September 30 for paper proposals, so there is still time to get on the program. Apology accepted. Unfortunately, I can't afford to leave town at that time to attend the conference. Anyway, I don't know if any of my current research (e.g., on Hobbes, Locke Rousseau) fits within the rubric of that conference. Not being an idealist, I don't see criticism of theories as being as productive as actual political action, but at
[PEN-L:6051] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
Doug repeats the standard pro-rock'n-roll line! Yes, Pete Seeger is a Harvard drop-out, and no, he and many otheres weren't happy when Dylan plugged in at Newport in 1965. But 30 years later, Seeger is still at it, going around playing the same songs on left fundraisers and events all year long. Dylan is still at it too, but neither he nor the other rockers of that generation have any overt connection with any politicla movement, outside the still-powerful content of some of his songs. And even Dylan himself proclaims disgust and the modern music scene and recording industry and urges a return to old folk music songs (as on his last 2 albums) as the most authentic stuff going. The upshot is, I think both folk music itself and its practitioners from Seeger through Si Kahn and beyond deserve considerable credit for their political contributions...for those who plugged in the story is a lot more ambiguous Thad Williamson From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 8 22:47:57 1996 Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 22:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood) To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:6035] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Progressive Economics At 7:41 AM 9/8/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing which I think many economists ignore is the emotive rationale which music can attach to the hard cold facts of political/economic reasoning. I recently read a review of a book (in Rock Rap Confidential, I think) on folk music - you know, all that old CP-tinged stuff and its relatives, sometimes done around campfires in the name of "authenticity." Its argument was that the folk audience was actually quite elite (I think the word Harvard even came up), and folkies were scandalized when the *real* popular music, rock roll, got started. 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
Re: rethinking overdetermination
With all due respect, this debate on the political nature of music, while focusing on the aesthetic interpretations, misses a much simpler point: how music is being produced or, more precisely, what kind of resources are needed to produce it. To produce, say, a piece for an orchestra you need a lot of resources and labour -- you need a dedicated building where the music can be played (you cannot play it outdoors or in someone's flat, you need a symphony hall), hence you need an army of labour and those who can command that army. Next you need service and technical personnel, instrument makers and, of course, classicaly trained musicians which, in turn, implies an institution that trains them. Finally, how the music is actually reproduced also matters: it is an assembly of music workers *directed* by a single individual. In a word, to produce a certain kind of music you need a quite elaborate division of labour and institutions with substantial material resources at their disposal. Of course, a rock-and-roll concert does away with the director, but the size of the technical and service personnel, and those who command them, as well as resources (esp. electricity, ligts, sound equipment) increase dramatically. Or take the New Age music -- its production heavily depends on synthesizers and kindred products of the electronic industry. The same point can be made about visual art, of course. Take impressionism, for example. This particular style of painting was made possible thanks to the introduction of new pigments and hence became the symbol of industrial modernity. The point I'm trying to make is quite simple. Certain kinds of music (and art in general) can only be produced in a certain institutional background, with the army of support labour at one's disposal, and with ceratin technology. The easthetic qualities of that art tangential, but become associated with the class that controls the means of production that made the production of that art form possible. Max Weber called that elective affinity as he explains how a certain religious heresy, aka Protestantism, became affiliated with the growing bourgeoisie. Therefore, it is the mode of the artistic production that decides the political nature of the art form. Music that can be played by a solo performer can hardly become imperial -- the emperors need to show that they command the armies of labour, and that is reflected in the production of "imperial" music. wojtek sokolowski johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6052] What Should Be Tha Aim Of The Toronto Shutdown?
Since the first shutdown in London last December, opposition to the anti-social offensive has been clearly established as the aim of the OFL Fightback Campaign. The leadership of the OFL has not shown any indication that it will take the aim further. In fact, since Peterborough, some of the OFL leaders have shown that they really want to use the struggle against the anti-social offensive to build a bank of votes to re-elect the NDP in Ontario. When the Coordinating Committee for the October 25 Toronto Shutdown announced its organizing plans, a debate broke out amongst local trade unionists on its "principles and goals." The critics presented a resolution at the Metro Toronto York Region Labor Council reaffirming the OFL's commitment to mass actions "up to and including a general strike." The goal, they said, must be to escalate the protests with the aim of forcing the Harris government to resign and call for an election. So far, despite the "debates," it seems that all the officials who are organizing the shutdown are putting forward one opinion, with some minor variation on the themes: 1) The workers should have the perspective of defeating the Harris government in the next election. Those who are calling for a general strike are saying that the next election when Harris will be defeated should be forced sooner than the end of the legal term of office. Others are saying later is fine, but the key thing is to prepare the workers to vote for the NDP. 2) The workers do not need to have their own program, but can organize themselves around a series of negative declarations against the "unjust policies and practices" of the Harris government, and some general abstractions about "values" such as "equality" and "justice" which should govern the society. Is it enough for the October 25 Shutdown to have the aim of opposing the anti-social offensive? Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6053] Internationalism vs. Globalization
INTERNATIONALISM VERSUS GLOBALIZATION While internationalism would celebrate the achievements, struggles and creativity of the poor, and the equal rights of all peoples of the world to develop in dignity, sufficiency and security, globalisation and global capitalism requires the humiliation of hundreds of millions of people and keeping them in constant insecurity, pitting them against one another in a competitive struggle for survival. By Jeremy Seabrook Third World Network Features We are all globalisers now. The insistence on globalisation has eclipsed and usurped internationalism; indeed sometimes masquerades as if it were the same thing. It is time to rescue what internationalists have always worked for from the clutches of a rapaciously expansive and ultimately, colonising, globalisation. We hear the arguments daily from the holders of power; the very fatalism with which they speak about the inevitability, the irreversibility of globalisation, suggests they are aware that control over events is slipping through their fingers. The rhetoric becomes more and more desperate: We must compete in an increasingly integrated world. We must educate and train our people for the challenge of the 21st century. We have to take on the Asian tigers and beat them at their own game. (Of course, it was our game originally, which is why we find it so disconcerting when they beat us. What's more, it isn't a game; it's deadly serious, particularly for the losers, the people of those countries prematurely used up by work and want, and whose children are dying daily from avoidable sickness and malnutrition.) Globalisation then, means the absorption of all the countries of the world into a single economic entity: a bleak vision of a choiceless future, in which 'choice' nevertheless figures so prominently. Internationalists spoke of other forms of integration, more harmonious, less violent, more just, long before the apostles of globalisation began promoting their lurid vision of a whole world refashioned in the image of the universal market-place, from every platform, at every conference, at every international gathering, in every transnational meeting- place on earth. That other version of integration required only that the powerless unite, that the disadvantaged combine in order to resist and make common cause against what William Morris 100 years ago referred to as 'the iron rule of the World-Market'. The fading of that internationalism is the distant, and perhaps most disastrous, consequence of the death of the Soviet Union. It is not the loss of the ideology of Communism that has cancelled hope for the poor: it is rather the absence of any check upon the florid and aggressive necessities of unchecked capitalism. Whenever poverty and inequality are 're-discovered' by the media, this is no longer accompanied by a sense of moral outrage. These are now simply facts of life. Much of the internationalism which animated the early labour movement has now declined into a desultory and ritualistic exchange of fraternal greetings on special occasions; organised labour having been, for the main part, enlisted in the grisly crusade of 'integrating' unequal partners into an interdependent world. For interdependence between unequals means the institutionalising of subordination. In this sense, the exalted project of 'globalisation' is yet another refuge for racism, because the majority of the world's poor are non-white, and the rich white or Japanese. The freezing of relationships of existing inequality annuls hope for the poor. The 1996 UN Human Development Index report states that in the last 40 years the richest 20% of people have seen the differential between themselves and the poorest 20% double: where in the 1950s the richest one-fifth of humanity received 30 times as much as the poorest fifth, this has now increased to 60 times as much. And this outcome occurred even while a potential alternative - however malign - still to some degree inhibited a capitalism as yet unsure of its 'ultimate' triumph. The governance of the poor countries has ceased to rest with their nominal leaders, and has increasingly been passed over to Western financial institutions, and those transnational entities for whom the preservation of Western dominance is axiomatic. Their talk of poverty abatement, structural adjustment, their touting of economic success stories - once Brazil, now New Zealand, once even Nigeria, now Thailand - are calculated to conceal the real purpose of the 'integrated world economy', which is the supranational management of worsening inequality. Those who control the vehicles of this noble endeavour often speak of themselves as if they were helpless functionaries, compelled to comply with higher laws, as if they were merely 'carrying out orders', were sacerdotal intermediaries of a providential distribution of human destinies. They don't put it quite like this. They invoke economic realities,
[PEN-L:6054] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
At 11:19 AM 9/9/96, Thad Williamson wrote: But 30 years later, Seeger is still at it, going around playing the same songs on left fundraisers and events all year long. Dylan is still at it too, but neither he nor the other rockers of that generation have any overt connection with any politicla movement, outside the still-powerful content of some of his songs. And even Dylan himself proclaims disgust and the modern music scene and recording industry and urges a return to old folk music songs (as on his last 2 albums) as the most authentic stuff going. Hey, I'd be the last to criticize Pete Seeger for his political commitment; he's been admirable. It's the music, man, it's so boring! You are not going to rally the masses with that stuff. I've got to track down an Earth Crisis album. 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:6055] Re: Korean reunification complications
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: BTW, I apologize to the list for picking on poor old Shawgi Tell so much. Michael P. has told me offlist to cut it out, but I really find it hard to resist. I guess that Michael figures that either 1) Shawgi can't defend himself because he is so woodenly dogmatic, 2) Shawgi is going to vociferously defend himself in what will turn into a marxism-list-style flame war, or 3) Shawgi, as the official list Stalinist, must be protected as an endangered species to show how broad-minded the list is. Ops! I've done it again. None of the above. I just think that it is detrimental to the list to attack people personally. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6056] globalization
The contrast between Jeremy Seabrook's article on globalization (that Sid Schniad posted) and Doug Henwood's article in MONTHLY REVIEW (that Mike Yates lauded) is striking. While Seabrook stresses globalization (seemingly) as a new phenomenon, for Henwood, much of it is very similar to the era before World War I. The way to reconcile the two is simple (I hope), in terms of two counterposed tendencies: (1) As Marx and Engels posited, and saw empirically in the second half of the 19th century, there's a long-term tendency toward globalism inherent in the capitalist mode of production (based, e.g., in improved transportation and communication tendencies and the capitalist drive to mine loopholes in search of profit, often backed by capitalist governments, especially those on the top of the world heap). (2) However, the social formation is more than just capitalism. In almost every country, capitalists tied down to local production and many workers fight to limit globalization, often in alliance with state bureaucrats in an explicit or implicit nationalist coalition. (Under capitalism in advanced countries such nationalism is almost always pro-capitalist, though it need not be.) In the period immediately before WW I and then after that "Great War" until WW II, the globalization trend was counteracted by domestic nationalism, making it look like Marx's Engels' posited trend no longer applied. This anti-globalization took the form of war, trade war, and separated currency blocs. After WW II, the US arose as the imperial hegemon and could (for awhile) combine rule by nationalist coalitions with the encouragement of globalization. After WW II, the inherent tendency was reinforced by the US imperial elite, who pushed for global market integration, a global "open door." (This has been a theme of US foreign policy since the late 1800s: see W.A. Williams' work on diplomatic history. Before that, the UK was the big free trader; before that, it was the Netherlands.) Nowadays, with the hegemon's relative status in decline, i.e., a more competitive relationship amongst the major capitalist countries, and the continuation of the globalization trend, globalization re-emerges as the dominant trend, as stressed by Seabrook. But in many ways it is a replay of the era before WW I, as Doug points out. As in Marx's day, trade wars are not a major phenomenon. But that does not mean that we can ignore some of the other tendencies he stressed -- e.g., the immiseration of working people (stagnant wages, downsizing, etc.) in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 74267,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:6057] Disinformation In Canada
Disinformation is a weapon of the ruling circles to maintain the status quo. The triumvirate of big government, big business and big labor uses it to keep the people, particularly the working class, in a state of ideological and political disorientation about the problems facing society and what is required to open the path for progress. It deliberately conveys a false idea about what is engendered in a particular situation. Disinformation is incorrectly considered synonymous to misinformation. It is similar to, but not the same as misinformation. To equate the two is to seriously underestimate the deliberate and calculated character of disinformation, which has an unbreakable attachment to keeping the working class from acquiring the consciousness it requires to open the path to social progress. The response of various trade union officials to the recent release of unemployment figures by Statistics Canada illustrates the difference between disinformation and misinformation. After the release of the figures, the trade unionists issued press statements to complain that the figures do not include workers who have stopped actively seeking employment. Unemployment is really higher than what the government claims, they said. Their main point, however, was to criticize the Liberal government for not doing enough to create jobs and failing to implement promised "job creation policies." By correcting "the facts" about the unemployment figures, the trade unionists are exposing a case of misinformation. But far from informing the people about the facts, and even further from informing their working class constituency about what needs to be done for the creation of a new society, which guarantees the right to a livelihood, they are promoting disinformation. Declaring that the problem of unemployment rests in a lack of "political will" on the part of the Liberals constitutes one of the key aspects of disinformation in Canada at this time. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6059] re: rethinking overdetermination
Jim writes: It seems to me that _any_ kind of music can be turned into "ruling class music": there's rock, but there's also homogenized corporate rock; there's rap, but there's also manipulative corporate rap; etc. well i wasn't talking about the way the cappos steal every good idea that "free" people have. I think braverman's final chapters (labour and monopoly capital is a good insight on this process, btw). i was rather talking about the genre (or as michael put it - the milieu) that classical music is placed in. the pomp. the class structure so clearly evident at the concert halls...so if the workers happen to like the stuff they usually have to take bleachers seats well below the snobs up in the better areas. the demand for obedience on the part of the audiencesitting like stuffed shirts.the requirements to stand and cheer bravo as a social artifact rather than any spontaneous outburst of glee (imagine getting up in the middle of a symphony just as it went wild and shouting bravoand stomping in your seat, etc.no way. obedience. the obedience that the ruling class who are sitting above you...who's show it really is.(we are only there b/c of upward mobility and increased incomes).requires from you. the conduct, the dress, the cost all signals a conformity that translates well into the work place when you have to confront the bosses. i haven't seen such processses at jazz and rock concerts. Classical music has become upscale muzak for sensitive yuppies, an aural marker of "sophisticiation" popular in cafes, boutiques, and Jeep Explorers. Most of the classical canon is a relic of when the bourgeoisie was vital - Adorno said that the Beethoven concerto, with the soloist interplaying with the orchestra, but not dominant as in later Romantic concerti, was the high point of bourgeois individualism. Now products of that high bourgeois moment entertains the higher salariat, but I doubt their minds are much on the subtleties of the sonata form, or soloist-orchestra relations. yep. and baahkla At the risk of upsetting bill mitchell, I shall defend classical music, thereby proving to many that I am an elitist dog, or whatever (g'day mate!). People should know that bill himself favors a type of advanced jazz that I am not sure would be favored by the masses or workers either... advanced jazzhmmm...what exactly is that? the music that began with the suffering of african slaves transported to the usa to work for the rich. yep, i like it. More generally the point has been already been made and I shall repeat it, that music, whatever its source or funding, is viewed as revolutionary or daring or subsersive or innovative at one point in time (the well-tempered scale in the Baroque era, rock and roll in the mid-1950s) tends to become accepted, coopted and just plain boringly conservative and elitist at a later time. Who realizes now that Baroque dance suites were once considered shockingly .sensual? exactly. i said yesterday that nothing about the form concerns me. it is the historically-specific context that bothers me. the same argument goes for the artifacts of capitalist production. can an assembly line be a tool that socialism might use? some would say the form is independent of the context. well yes, but all we know of the assembly line is capitalism. the same goes for classical music in OZ. it is the tool and plaything of the rich and the would-be rich (doug's salariat). and i repeat, it doesn't swing. kind regards bill ps. at least we are not talking about clinton, america, or something similar for at least 2 or 3 mails! ##William F. Mitchell ### Head of Economics Department # University of Newcastle New South Wales, Australia ###*E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ### Phone: +61 49 215065 # ## ### +61 49 215065 Fax: +61 49 215065 ## WWW Home Page: 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)
[PEN-L:6060] What Is Profit? (I)
The question of "making a living" is a most important one for human beings. "Livings" have been made in various ways at different times and stages of the development of human society. The main form of making a living in a society is determined by the manner in which the ruling class or classes make their living. In classical Greek society, the ruling class made their living from the use of slave labor. The main form of making a living in Greece at that time was as a slave. The contemporary ruling classes make their living through the seizure of maximum capitalist profit. The main form of making a living today is as worker for a monopoly capitalist company or the state. Profit is *unpaid* labor. It is more precisely defined as *unpaid* labor resulting from commodity production. Capitalist profit occurs when money is used to purchase labor power and means of production in order to produce something. During the process of production the labor power is consumed as well as a portion of the means of production. This process gives rise to material value that is destined for the market to be exchanged for money or, less likely, for other commodities. The amount of money received upon the sale of the produced material value is greater than the amount of money expended during its production. The increase is called profit. This profit is then divided up amongst a large variety of people who are not directly connected with the production process. They are the creditors who receive a share of the profit in the form of interest. They are the landlords who receive a portion in the form of rent. They are the merchants who receive their portion upon the sale of the commodity to the customer. They are the speculators who play the stock market or the commodity exchange. All these varied forms of profit have only one source: the *unpaid* labor of the worker in the process of production of material value. There is no other source of profit. The mass media often speaks of the banks making profit, or speculators making a killing in the stock market or through a land deal, or by buying and selling commodities. The wealth that is appropriated does not originate with these deals. There is no mystical well that springs forth profit into the pockets of the rich. It all originates in the *unpaid* labor of those workers engaged in the process of production of the actual material blessings that this earth can provide when labor is applied to it. When thinking about profit in a country, it is useful to abstract the country as a whole. There is an aggregate amount of profit. A portion of this *unpaid* labor, this profit, is obtained firstly at the point of production by the capitalists who directly own the means of production. Additional amounts of *unpaid* labor are seized by the state through taxes and other deductions from the wages of the working class either directly from pay checks or later through such devices as property taxes and sales taxes and such things as lotteries and casinos, etc. This *unpaid* labor (profit) is divided up amongst the capitalists according to the relative strength of the particular capitalist. The most popular form of seizing *unpaid* labor via the state is through the method of the national, state and municipal debts. More traditional methods of seizing *unpaid* labor are through using state services at cost. Another traditional source is through the control of the prices of commodities by the monopolies who by virtue of the fact they dominate a section of the economy or through collusion with other monopolies can demand whatever price they desire or reduce the price for raw materials from oppressed countries. The contemporary world is characterized by the existence of *gigantic* monopolies that own companies and other interests all around the world. A recent bank was inaugurated in Japan that has assets of $550 billion. These monopolies may have a home base in one particular country like the United States but their allegiance is to making maximum capitalist profit all over the world. The profit that they desire is not fixed in any degree but is the maximum possible given the conditions. They combine their enormous economic power with the political and military power of the state machines wherever they operate. The most powerful of them utilize the additional strength of the international organizations that they manipulate to promote their interests, such as the United Nations, European Union, NATO, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The enormous power that emanates from their economic strength combined with political power allows them to organize their quest for maximum profit in a manner that allows for very little risk to their fortunes. The overwhelming military strength of the largest imperialist powers both individually and in blocs allows them to capture whole areas of the world's natural resources and exploit the abundant cheap labor of the
[PEN-L:6062] Clinton and Blair on same wavelength
The London Times September 9 1996 BLAIR HEADS FOR CLASH WITH TUC ON NO-STRIKE PACKAGE By Philip Bassett and Philip Webster RADICAL plans to prevent a Labour government being derailed by a wave of public sector pay strikes are to be put forward by the Labour leadership tomorrow in a move that threatens a confrontation between Tony Blair and the unions. Union leaders gathering in Blackpool yesterday on the eve of the TUC conference dismissed the idea of compulsory binding arbitration in pay disputes, one idea likely to be floated in a speech by David Blunkett, the Shadow Employment Secretary. Labour leaders are planning to consult employers and unions over the coming months on ways of resolving public sector pay disputes, the issue on which the last Labour Government lost office in 1979. Although union leaders last night cautiously welcomed the principle of action to avoid strikes, they dismissed compulsory arbitration which many see as a backdoor way of banning strikes. Labour sources confirmed that the party will advance a number of proposals for consideration, including the use of compulsory binding arbitration, as well as increasing the role of the official conciliation service Acas and the possible creation of more review bodies to fix pay in line with those operating for teachers, nursesand others. Speaking on Sky TV, Mr Blunkett said it was important to try to remove trade union and industrial relations issues from the political battleground, and to modernise Labour's approach to them. "Let's look to the future at the kind of relationship and the kind of labour markets we are dealing with, rather than the factory-gate megaphones." Mr Blair will address a private dinner of the TUC's governing General Council tomorrow, and Mr Blunkett's speech will come as postal workers' leaders meet to decide on more strikes and a day ahead of the next round of strikes by conductors in some regional rail companies on Wednesday. Labour's proposals prompted a mixed range of reactions. Ken Jackson, general secretary of the right-wing AEEU engineering workers' union, called on the TUC to offer to an incoming Labour government binding arbitration as a way of avoiding strikes, suggesting the establishment of fast-track arbitration appeal units to which employers and unions involved in disputes would present their cases. John Edmonds, of the GMB general union, criticised the proposal for compulsory arbitration as unworkable in practice because it would give control of a key element of government spending to third parties. John Monks, TUC General Secretary, welcomed talks to avoid disruption through strikes. He also urged Labour to promote more positively its proposals on new employment rights and res ponsibilities. Rodney Bickerstaffe, general secretary of the biggest union, Unison, whose members are key public sector workers, insisted on the validity of strikes, saying: "The strike weapon is not outmoded." Bill Morris, the TGWU transport union leader, called for a "new settlement" but was sceptical about the value of compulsory arbitration.
[PEN-L:6064] Re: A Labor Party in Buffalo?
Paul, Hey, that's not fair :), you can NOT tell us you've been ex-communicated by pope tony without telling us the whys and wherefores! maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6061] web and network (fwd)
Please list the following in your search engine and web pointer or wherever you let these things out ... Web site: http://www.lightlink.com/wrehberg This is Web site for SPAN/--Shoestrings Grace, twin upstate New York ecumenical social-justice and human-rights volunteer projects which offer networks for information and resources for alternative possibilities to build just communities and a just world in which all humans can flourish together. We work particularly through themes of liberation theology and the pedagogy of the oppressed, so far with people in Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico, Guatemala, and Cuba. - - SPAN/Shoestrings Grace Rev. Wes Rehberg, Ph.D. 3768 Main St., #5 Burdett, NY 14818 USA +607-546-2250 Internet: http:www.lightlink.com/wrehberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -
[PEN-L:6065] Fwd: re: rethinking overdetermination
Oh shit, I better turn in my union card, I listen to classical music (rgh) maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Multiple recipients of list) Date: 96-09-09 13:15:21 EDT At 9:27 AM 9/9/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is especially so since people can often use "ruling class music" for purposes for which it was not designed. Classical music has become upscale muzak for sensitive yuppies, an aural marker of "sophisticiation" popular in cafes, boutiques, and Jeep Explorers. Most of the classical canon is a relic of when the bourgeoisie was vital - Adorno said that the Beethoven concerto, with the soloist interplaying with the orchestra, but not dominant as in later Romantic concerti, was the high point of bourgeois individualism. Now products of that high bourgeois moment entertains the higher salariat, but I doubt their minds are much on the subtleties of the sonata form, or soloist-orchestra relations. 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:6067] Re: Assistance, please
Dear femeconers and pen-lers; Would people please reply to me off list with addresses of 'progressive' lists and web sites? I am making a non-objective, non-scientific survey. maggie coleman Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6066] Notes on the construction of kultur
Here are some notes concerning the making of high brow and low brow theater: Wilentz, Sean. 1984. Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class (New York: Oxford University Press). 255: The unions promoted a code of "radical rectitude," yet many workers retained their traditional habits, bars 257: The Bowery was workers' counterpart to Broadway. The Bowery Theater was an important institution. 258: "Theater rioting was one important extension of the audience's prerogatives to act out." They mocked blacks, but more so "the arriviste, would-be aristo ... parodies of unmerited self-satisfied condensation. == Smoler, Frederic Paul. 1988. "The Bard of Red Dog: review of Lawrence W. Levine. Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America." Nation 248: 4 (30 January): pp. 130-2. Shakespeare was popular among the masses in the US. He was the most popular playwright in Louisville, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Detroit and Lexington, Ky. The miners in the gold rush attended Shakespeare plays. In the mid-19th C., on the Eastern Seaboard, 1/5 of all plays shown were by Shakespeare. After the Civil War, returning diplomats noticed that the Bard was more popular here than in UK. In 1882, a German traveller, Karl Nortz, said every log cabin in the West had a bible and most had cheap edition of Shakespeare. Levine suggests that the people had to be excluded from high culture; that Shakespeare was eventually deemed unsuitable for mass audience. de Tocqueville, A. 1990. Democracy in America. (NY: Doubleday Anchor). Volume 2, Chapter 13, p. 471: "there is hardly a pioneer's hut that does not contain a few odd volumes of Shakespeare." -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6068] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
Michael, in Italy, opera was very much an arena of political action during the Risorgimento (a decades long struggle for italian independence from a number of 'foreign' powers.) Verdi and others were political figures as well as artists. It's true, of course, that italy was eventually unified as a bourgeois state: but the effect was not immanent in the cause/process (I hope I am not irking any Hegelians out there), and the process of unification was coalesced with a popular movement (Garibaldi, Mazzini) which was historically significant for its socialist (at least in its pre-marxian garb) tendencies. I too used to think that opera has a uniquely bourgeois connotation. A little history thought me otherwise. That some forms of music have served as the medium of elitism does not imply anything about their alternative potential; we certainly know that socialism itself has served as such a medium. In this country, it still does. Antonio Callari tobill mitchell wrote about classical music. In Italy, the opera seems to have been popular among more common people. Am I wrong? Were there inexpensive opera tickets. With classical music, I do not think that it is only the music, but the mileiu. No talking, just sitting quietly. In Wilenz's Chants Democratic, he describes how the working class plays produced in the Bowery in New York during the mid 19th C. mocked the more elite productions from Broadway. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Antonio Callari E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:6069] re: rethinking overdetermination
My! My! (If that is the correct idiomatic expression) Does all this talk about music and dance mean that there is something to overdetermination (the complex and open operations of displacement and condensation across processes--class and non-class) after all? Antonio Callari Antonio Callari E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] POST MAIL: Department of Economics Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster PA 17604-3003 PHONE: 717/291-3947 FAX:717/291-4369
[PEN-L:6070] re: rethinking overdetermination
I am a little suprised at a kind of a-historicism and cultural insensitivity of Bill and Doug with respect to both classical music (in particular opera) and fold music a la Seeger et al. With respect to opera, Verdi's music was considered so politically dangerous by the elite that he was heavily censored on a number of occasions by the political authorities. Case in point was the original version of Un Ballo in Maschera (Masked Ball) which involved the murder of royalty in Sweden -- he was forced to change it to a murder of a politician in Boston if I remember correctly -- with the bad guys named Sam and Tom. He was, himself, politically active being elected a senator after the unification of Italy as a liberal though he resigned because he did not like political life. However, his songs for the freedom of enslaved (read political) peoples were extremely powerful and extremely popular with the common people and a rallying cry against political despotism. Two pieces, in particular, became quite famous for their appeal to the masses, the chorus of the oppressed from McBeth, but most particularly, the chorus of the Hebrew slaves from Nabucco. It was the anthem of the revolutionary movement in Italy and when Verdi died, his funeral procession was lined with hundreds of thousands of working Italians who all new and sang it as the procession passed by (Va pensiero!). If you have ever heard it or sung it, it really 'swings' and gives one goosebumps. It is still so popular that Nana Mouskouri wrote an upbeat 'freedom' version of it and released it on one of her most recent "Classique" album. I heard her sing it at a sold-out concert a few years ago in Winnipeg -- and the people at the concert were not 'the elite' but mainly working-class people. So a great deal of that music can, and still does, move common people. Another case in point, at the local folk-music, jazz and local rock performance centre, each year near easter, they sponsor a "sing-along" Handel's Messiah. The place is packed and, believe me, not with the hoi poloi -- though the conductor is usually the conductor of the Ballet co. By the way, one of the most recent popular CDs released in Winnipeg is a jazz trio, featuring the piano jazz of the conductor of the Winnipeg Symphony orchestra. Now as to folk music. Bill is a little young to remember, but for many of us the Weavers were what woke us up to political action. And I can remember marching in the aldermaston anti-bomb marches in London in the early 1960s with 44-50,000 people singing "ban the bomb forever more" which was originally based on a Welsh children's hymn "Calon Lan" and taken by Welsh miners to the US where it became both a white gospel song and, in turn, the miners union song, "union miner". Over the last few years I have sung with both the local opera company and with the Winnipeg labour choir, a choir put together orignally to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919. When we sang at one union function and ended with the labour anthem "solidarity forever", the labour audience jumped to their feet their fists in the air and sang along, some with tears running down their cheeks. So don't tell me that kind of music doesn't have the power to inspire and to bring emotion to people, including a lot of young people. At the winnipeg folk festival this year there were 30,000 people -- a hell of a lot of them teen agers. An when a Celtic bank started a fast number, there would be a thousand of them dancing in the grass. So don't tell me it doesn't swing either. By the way, if it makes any difference, one of my favourite performers is Bruce Springsteen. Have any of you listened to his latest, "The Ghost of Tom Joad". Time to go listen to some music. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:6071] Re: Clinton and Blair NOT! on same wavelength
Just so there is absolutely no mistake: I am NOT! on the same wavelength as Clinton. I'm only sorry we're even on the same planet. I am one of those folks who does *not* believe in lesserevilism, so I will not be voting for Clinton and I will be telling stories everywhere I get the opportunity about what a sleezy slimy slug he is. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6073] Re: Rethinking Overdetemination
Antonio wrote, I hope I am not irking any Hegelians out there Oh come now, Antonio: you *like* irking Hegelians! :) Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6072] Re: A Labor Party in Buffalo?
Maggie, Didn't you get my PEN-L:6040 or are you asking for more? Of course, I think there is more to it--like the fact that I have been openly critical of the undemocratic nature of the founding convention and one of our Buffalo members was the woman at the convention who said she cannot work for the LP because of its ambiguous language on choice (to the right of the Democratic Party language). But if you want even more, let me know you saw 6040 and where I can help. Paul On Mon, 9 Sep 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul, Hey, that's not fair :), you can NOT tell us you've been ex-communicated by pope tony without telling us the whys and wherefores! maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6074] Re: Fwd: re: rethinking overdetermination
I'm listening to a very cool CD of Thelonious Monk (advanced jazz?) as I write this. But he's African American, so it's okay, right? Blair (who is NOT on the same wavelength as Clinton) Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh shit, I better turn in my union card, I listen to classical music (rgh) maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood) Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Multiple recipients of list) Date: 96-09-09 13:15:21 EDT At 9:27 AM 9/9/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is especially so since people can often use "ruling class music" for purposes for which it was not designed. Classical music has become upscale muzak for sensitive yuppies, an aural marker of "sophisticiation" popular in cafes, boutiques, and Jeep Explorers. Most of the classical canon is a relic of when the bourgeoisie was vital - Adorno said that the Beethoven concerto, with the soloist interplaying with the orchestra, but not dominant as in later Romantic concerti, was the high point of bourgeois individualism. Now products of that high bourgeois moment entertains the higher salariat, but I doubt their minds are much on the subtleties of the sonata form, or soloist-orchestra relations. 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:6075] Re: FYI
Doug Henwood wrote: If you've been reading your LBO, you know that I think lots of claims about "globalization" are grossly overdone. Obviously production is more internationalized now than it was 40 years ago, but the unprecedentedness of this, the intensity of the trend, and the level of integration are all exaggerated. This is a very useful perception for the ruling class, since it disarms opposition and leaves no room for human agency, making "globalization" seem as natural and inevitable as the sunrise. I got to thinking about this lately my own self during the 145th discussion of the future travails of the public sector and social insurance under globalization and the aging population, yadda yadda yadda. The brakes to U.S. public sector growth began to get a lot of traction, as did other aspects of "Reaganomics," during the Carter Administration. An obvious factor was the productivity slow-down, for which causes have not been well-explained, among which 'globalization' was not even an important candidate. Another was the tax revolt, spurred in part by rising income tax liability due to bracket creep under the unindexed income taxes (Federal and state). One left explanation for the productivity slow-down was the fall-off in public investment. In turn, we might attribute the shift away from public investment and towards transfer payments as the fruits of left insurgency between 1965 and 1975. I think this is wrong, however. The blossoming of transfer payments was predominantly in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments for middle class people in nursing homes. The black and the poor didn't see much of that money. The real value of the AFDC/Food Stamp "package" peaked before 1975. So in a round-about way the politics of entitlements may be in the roots of our present dilemma. Globalization's importance is somewhere between Krugman's "not hardly" and the labor movement's big enchilada. I lean more to the latter because the migration of manufacturing jobs is too obvious to discount. Even so, job migration is not at all new. Moving from Massachusetts to South Carolina would kill a union just as well as moving from MA to Honduras. And if wages are so important, why do we have any manufacturing jobs at all? The company line regarding "quicksilver capital" is obviously self- serving rhetoric for employers and Clinto-crats. But just as paranoids can have real enemies, job export is also real. Rather than wax theoretical and historical, we might consider more actively the analytical job facing labor organizers: how should one properly appraise the validity of employers' threats to relocate in the face of labor militancy. Who is really able to move? How should one analyze a company to determine its ease of mobility? Unemployed PEN-L'ers who can speak to this will find 'good jobs with good pay' available in the labor movement. M.S. = Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Economic Policy Institute 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax) 1660 L Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Opinions reflected above do not necessarily represent those of anyone associated with EPI.
[PEN-L:6076] Re: A Labor Party in Buffalo?
Paul: I am appalled by the treatment you and the Buffalo Chapter received from the Labor Party national leadership. To put it mildly, such undemocratic and bureaucratic fiats do not help the LP realize the potential that it has to challenge the bourgeois political parties. I am also dismayed that *you* had to be the one to tell us about this action -- I would have hoped that chapters across the country would have protested this action and publicized your case. Is there anything that you would suggest for those of us who wish to protest the Labor Party leadership's decision? In PEN-L Solidarity, Jerry
[PEN-L:6077] Re: Clinton and Blair NOT! on same wavelength
Okay, perhaps I was unnecessarily insulting. Maybe Clinton is *not* a sleazy slimey slug. Let's say he's a sleazy slimy scumbag. After all, while I don't like slugs in my garden, sea slugs are very cool beings. :) Blair P.S. sorry about the sleezy spelling error. I wrote, Just so there is absolutely no mistake: I am NOT! on the same wavelength as Clinton. I'm only sorry we're even on the same planet. I am one of those folks who does *not* believe in lesserevilism, so I will not be voting for Clinton and I will be telling stories everywhere I get the opportunity about what a sleezy slimy slug he is. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:6078] Re: Fwd: re: rethinking overdetermination
Judging art by who likes it is ridiculous.
After all, there are idiots who like Marx.
(We know who you are.) And I read Henwood.
The best progressive music many of you never heard
of is the musical theatrical production "Pins and
Needles." It was orginally staged by the ILGWU in
the forties. There was one song in particular for
which different words were written corresponding to
before, during, and after the Hitler-Stalin pact
("Four Little Angels of Peace Are We").
If you look (if helps if you're in New York City)
you can find a 50's LP version featuring
a young lady named Barbara Streisand.
I'm also fond of reading proletarian messages into
the music of The Band. (e.g., "Japan," in the
recent "Jericho" album)
M.S.
[PEN-L:6079] re: rethinking overdetermination
to bill mitchell: Duke Ellington once claimed that the swingingest piece of music that he had ever heard was Bach's Third Brandenburg Concerto. Yep, it does. Of course, the Duke was an awfully tame jazzman I don't know about classical music in OZ, but I wouldn't be surprised if the socio-cultural context you describe is accurate. But then, what about mosh pits?...:-) They had them at the Republican convention here in the unspeakable (muffled gagging sound) A point about jazz that I think is important to realize. It represents the true melting pot of American culture, one of the few places where the races and cultures really fused and did not merely play mixed salad. The black inventors of jazz in New Orleans, that dark underbelly of America where everybody intermarried, played German marching band music by day with European instruments in circuses and whatever they wanted at night in the whorehouses. Yeah, a real steamy gumbo and certainly proletarian in its origins, if not always in its current incarnations that you like, bill. BTW, the "whitest" instrument of all, the banjo, hardest core of country music instruments (still proletarian also, I guess, if not swinging) was from Africa. Baahkley Rosser (rest below is repeat, nada from me) On Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:08:01 -0700 (PDT) bill mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim writes: It seems to me that _any_ kind of music can be turned into "ruling class music": there's rock, but there's also homogenized corporate rock; there's rap, but there's also manipulative corporate rap; etc. well i wasn't talking about the way the cappos steal every good idea that "free" people have. I think braverman's final chapters (labour and monopoly capital is a good insight on this process, btw). i was rather talking about the genre (or as michael put it - the milieu) that classical music is placed in. the pomp. the class structure so clearly evident at the concert halls...so if the workers happen to like the stuff they usually have to take bleachers seats well below the snobs up in the better areas. the demand for obedience on the part of the audiencesitting like stuffed shirts.the requirements to stand and cheer bravo as a social artifact rather than any spontaneous outburst of glee (imagine getting up in the middle of a symphony just as it went wild and shouting bravoand stomping in your seat, etc.no way. obedience. the obedience that the ruling class who are sitting above you...who's show it really is.(we are only there b/c of upward mobility and increased incomes).requires from you. the conduct, the dress, the cost all signals a conformity that translates well into the work place when you have to confront the bosses. i haven't seen such processses at jazz and rock concerts. Classical music has become upscale muzak for sensitive yuppies, an aural marker of "sophisticiation" popular in cafes, boutiques, and Jeep Explorers. Most of the classical canon is a relic of when the bourgeoisie was vital - Adorno said that the Beethoven concerto, with the soloist interplaying with the orchestra, but not dominant as in later Romantic concerti, was the high point of bourgeois individualism. Now products of that high bourgeois moment entertains the higher salariat, but I doubt their minds are much on the subtleties of the sonata form, or soloist-orchestra relations. yep.. and baahkla At the risk of upsetting bill mitchell, I shall defend classical music, thereby proving to many that I am an elitist dog, or whatever (g'day mate!). People should know that bill himself favors a type of advanced jazz that I am not sure would be favored by the masses or workers either... advanced jazzhmmm...what exactly is that? the music that began with the suffering of african slaves transported to the usa to work for the rich. yep, i like it. More generally the point has been already been made and I shall repeat it, that music, whatever its source or funding, is viewed as revolutionary or daring or subsersive or innovative at one point in time (the well-tempered scale in the Baroque era, rock and roll in the mid-1950s) tends to become accepted, coopted and just plain boringly conservative and elitist at a later time. Who realizes now that Baroque dance suites were once considered shockingly .sensual? exactly. i said yesterday that nothing about the form concerns me. it is the historically-specific context that bothers me. the same argument goes for the artifacts of capitalist production. can an assembly line be a tool that socialism might use? some would say the form is independent of the context. well yes, but all we know of the assembly line is capitalism. the same goes for classical music in OZ. it is the tool and plaything of the rich and the would-be rich (doug's salariat). and i repeat, it doesn't swing. kind
[PEN-L:6080] Re: Fwd: re: rethinking overdetermination
At 8:56 PM 9/9/96, Max B. Sawicky wrote: Judging art by who likes it is ridiculous. After all, there are idiots who like Marx. (We know who you are.) And I read Henwood. Am I the Marx in this analogy? 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
