[PEN-L:7163] Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
I also went to grad school in U. Mass. in economics and have a very different opinion of the faculty there than that expressed by Steve Cullenberg and Blair Sandler. I don't think I know Rhon Baiman but my experiences with Rick Wolff there do not seem all that different from what Rhon claims he experienced with Steve Resnick. I don't see much purpose of debating this history on Pen-L although I am willing to respond to people individually who want to know my perspective on U. Mass and the faculty there, based on my experiences as a student there, 1976-1984. Also-- Not that Sam Bowles needs defending but I found my experience with Sam very positive and totally different from what Blair Sandler claimed happened to him. I chose a topic that was probably not of the highest interest to Sam Bowles. He and I had and have quite different perspectives on the world yet Sam gave me a lot of guidance and a lot of leeway. Finally, I expect the people on this list who consider Rick Wolff to be an infallible god and guru to be incensed by my criticisms of him and respond with a lot of verbiage. Given the priorities in my life, I am unlikely to respond. Pete Bohmer
[PEN-L:7164] Re: Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
I strongly doubt there is *anyone* on this list who considers Rick Wolff to be "an infallible god and guru." Perhaps your difficulties with him have to do with the fact that your expectations along these lines were disappointed? The rest of your post expressing your experience at UMass was unobjectionable, but this kind of patronizing remark is completely unproductive. Blair Finally, I expect the people on this list who consider Rick Wolff to be an infallible god and guru to be incensed by my criticisms of him and respond with a lot of verbiage. Given the priorities in my life, I am unlikely to respond. Pete Bohmer Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7165] Hmmm
Dear Pen-L
I went to a university once.
Once of the lecturers there hated me.
He/she kicked me out of the class.
I won't tell you why.
So fuckin what!
kind regards
bill
--
## William F. Mitchell
### Head of Economics Department
#University of Newcastle
New South Wales, Australia
###* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
###Phone: +61 49 215065
# ## ###+61 49 215027
Fax: +61 49 216919
## 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:7166] Re: Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
There are frequently major differences in ideology, perspective, and
personalities among faculty and students in different economics
departments. This is also - and sometimes even more - the case at radical
econ. departments. It is by no means limited to UMass/Amherst.
I was also burned by a couple of faculty members for no legitimate reason
while at the New School. I don't want to mention names or explain the
circumstances because that was oh so many years ago.
To answer Bill M's question ("So fucking what?" in the "Hmmm" thread):
I think it is important for students who are considering going to graduate
school:
a) to not have idealized and romanticized visions of radical faculty;
b) to recognize, at least, that there can be a gap between a person's
political-economic theory and his/her conduct -- which *can* be
unprofessional, dogmatic, petty, etc..
c) to talk, if possible, to a _variety_ of former and _current_ students
about individual faculty and the overall situation in a department;
d) to make a determination based especially on c) whether there are enough
faculty who are open-minded, professional, and respectful to students to
justify attending a particular school.
Jerry
[PEN-L:7167] Re: post modern courtesy
So does that basically mean you decided to actually _listen_ to the people you were working to organize? Radical perhaps, but hardly new. Pomo challenged, just trying to understand, Cute!? Are you aware of things like "paradigms"--nothing fancy, really--structures of thought that prevent communication? Have you ever heard of couples having to go to therapy (hard work) to learn to listen and talk with each other, instead of one seeing the other as only a projection of oneself? And do you really think that the left has learned to talk to not-already left groups? And besides, if listening, as a prelude to organizing, is not hardly new for the left, how come we (i hope there is still a "we") have done such a miserable job? On the other hand, I agree that this aspect is "hardly new"; the only trouble is that the traditional left has used its theory not to learn to listen and communicate, but as a set of ideological blinders, by which only some agents (workers, and, then, often ideologically already formed workers) had a voice and were to be listened to, effacing or subordinating other agents, potential allies. I also agree that it is common sense to listen (really listen, not make believe) to the people you are working with (even "organizing them" posits them as simply 'objects'); but, as I have said before, sometimes it takes an act of theoretical selfconsciousness to produce acts of common sense (Gramsci was wonderful abou this); that's what pomo is, this act of theoretical selfconsciousness. What a pity indeed that it has taken so long to come to this common sense. Antonio Callari Antonio, it would help me to understand your position if you could explain exactly how pomo helped you to work with the battered women. The second way in which pomo helped me in the work with battered women (this is the point I thought I was making in the original message) was that it let me accept a different discourse and consciousness as a player in the project (the discourse and consciousness of the battered women themselves, different from the traditional marxist discourse with which I entered the stage) and, then, work to find ways of creating a strategic alliance between this discourse (about the social construction of gender roles) and my discourse (about the social construction of class). That's quite important, but it is also a consequence of the strategy in point 1 above of enlarging the struggle to constituencies other than the traditional labor constituencies. So does that basically mean you decided to actually _listen_ to the people you were working to organize? Radical perhaps, but hardly new. Pomo challenged, just trying to understand, Gil Antonio Callari and/or Elisabeth King-Callari 939 Martha Ave Lancaster, PA 17601 Phone 717 397-3228 FAX 717 397-1790 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7168] Re: Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
Cheap shot; an act of cowardice, really! (It is the mark of cowards to enter a fray when they "imagine"--incorrectly in this case, I am sure--that the object of their venomous vitriolics has been weakened. I thought Blair's comment (about your own expectations) was very perceptive. I don't know if I know you, and I don't care if you respond or not; as far as I am concerned you can live on happily with this charge of cowardice. Antonio Callari I also went to grad school in U. Mass. in economics and have a very different opinion of the faculty there than that expressed by Steve Cullenberg and Blair Sandler. I don't think I know Rhon Baiman but my experiences with Rick Wolff there do not seem all that different from what Rhon claims he experienced with Steve Resnick. I don't see much purpose of debating this history on Pen-L although I am willing to respond to people individually who want to know my perspective on U. Mass and the faculty there, based on my experiences as a student there, 1976-1984. Also-- Not that Sam Bowles needs defending but I found my experience with Sam very positive and totally different from what Blair Sandler claimed happened to him. I chose a topic that was probably not of the highest interest to Sam Bowles. He and I had and have quite different perspectives on the world yet Sam gave me a lot of guidance and a lot of leeway. Finally, I expect the people on this list who consider Rick Wolff to be an infallible god and guru to be incensed by my criticisms of him and respond with a lot of verbiage. Given the priorities in my life, I am unlikely to respond. Pete Bohmer Antonio Callari and/or Elisabeth King-Callari 939 Martha Ave Lancaster, PA 17601 Phone 717 397-3228 FAX 717 397-1790 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7169] Re: Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
Personal attacks such as the one below are totally out of place. Wolff and Resnick were brought into this discussion because of their work; it is a mark of really sick minds to take a theoretical discussion as an oportunity to vent their personal venom. I would ask all of the people with whom we have been having a discussion to disassociate themselves from these attacks and to condemn them. I also went to grad school in U. Mass. in economics and have a very different opinion of the faculty there than that expressed by Steve Cullenberg and Blair Sandler. I don't think I know Rhon Baiman but my experiences with Rick Wolff there do not seem all that different from what Rhon claims he experienced with Steve Resnick. I don't see much purpose of debating this history on Pen-L although I am willing to respond to people individually who want to know my perspective on U. Mass and the faculty there, based on my experiences as a student there, 1976-1984. Also-- Not that Sam Bowles needs defending but I found my experience with Sam very positive and totally different from what Blair Sandler claimed happened to him. I chose a topic that was probably not of the highest interest to Sam Bowles. He and I had and have quite different perspectives on the world yet Sam gave me a lot of guidance and a lot of leeway. Finally, I expect the people on this list who consider Rick Wolff to be an infallible god and guru to be incensed by my criticisms of him and respond with a lot of verbiage. Given the priorities in my life, I am unlikely to respond. Pete Bohmer Antonio Callari and/or Elisabeth King-Callari 939 Martha Ave Lancaster, PA 17601 Phone 717 397-3228 FAX 717 397-1790 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7170] Re: Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
Dear Gerald Levy,
Perhaps what you say has validity as an issue in general. You, however,
were careful not to levy personal charges out of context, as Baimoan and
bohmer have with respect to Resnick and Wolff. If we want to discuss this
general issue at some point, it might be a good thing. BUT NOT NOW. IT
WOULD ONLY DIGNIFY the scurrilous and personal attacks these two
less-than-gentlemen have launched. THEY NEED TO APOLOGIZE.
Antonio Callari
There are frequently major differences in ideology, perspective, and
personalities among faculty and students in different economics
departments. This is also - and sometimes even more - the case at radical
econ. departments. It is by no means limited to UMass/Amherst.
I was also burned by a couple of faculty members for no legitimate reason
while at the New School. I don't want to mention names or explain the
circumstances because that was oh so many years ago.
To answer Bill M's question ("So fucking what?" in the "Hmmm" thread):
I think it is important for students who are considering going to graduate
school:
a) to not have idealized and romanticized visions of radical faculty;
b) to recognize, at least, that there can be a gap between a person's
political-economic theory and his/her conduct -- which *can* be
unprofessional, dogmatic, petty, etc..
c) to talk, if possible, to a _variety_ of former and _current_ students
about individual faculty and the overall situation in a department;
d) to make a determination based especially on c) whether there are enough
faculty who are open-minded, professional, and respectful to students to
justify attending a particular school.
Jerry
Antonio Callari and/or Elisabeth King-Callari
939 Martha Ave
Lancaster, PA 17601
Phone 717 397-3228
FAX 717 397-1790
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7171] Re: Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
Antonio C wrote: Perhaps what you say has validity as an issue in general. You, however, were careful not to levy personal charges out of context, as Baimoan and bohmer have with respect to Resnick and Wolff. If we want to discuss this general issue at some point, it might be a good thing. BUT NOT NOW. IT WOULD ONLY DIGNIFY the scurrilous and personal attacks these two less-than-gentlemen have launched. THEY NEED TO APOLOGIZE. Antonio -- my post was written in response to the person who asked about which graduate schools to consider. I don't know Resnick and Wolff personally. I don't have first-hand knowledge about the relations among [current and former] faculty and students at UMass/Amherst -- nor do I, frankly, wish to have that knowledge. I can certainly appreciate that some former students can have [legitimate or illegitimate] grievances against individual faculty members. But ... I would strongly prefer that those grievances not be aired on PEN-L. Moreover, demands that individuals apologize would only mean that this rather fruitless [and flame-intense] thread will continue. I strongly suggest that we move on to other topics for discussion. Jerry
[PEN-L:7172] Re: Hmmm
bill mitchell wrote, I went to a university once. Once of the lecturers there hated me. He/she kicked me out of the class. I won't tell you why. So fuckin what! Yeah! And I've been screwed by professors, fucked over by bosses, ripped-off by landlords, jilted by girlfriends, dragged by security guards, pushed by cops, slandered by psychopaths, poisoned by dope addicts, shit on by seagulls, cursed at by rednecks, misquoted by journalists, co-opted by bureaucrats, passed over by funders, harrangued by sectarians, and harrassed by federal agents. Me own mother banished me from dear dad's funeral, God rest his soul! As bill says, "So fuckin what!" But then, I'm no angel, either. I have a suggestion for a new list: UMA-DL (dirty laundry). Regards, Tom Walker, [EMAIL PROTECTED], (604) 669-3286 The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:7173] Re: post modern courtesy
At 6:18 AM 11/3/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the other hand, I agree that this aspect is "hardly new"; the only trouble is that the traditional left has used its theory not to learn to listen and communicate, but as a set of ideological blinders, by which only some agents (workers, and, then, often ideologically already formed workers) had a voice and were to be listened to, effacing or subordinating other agents, potential allies. Talk about caricature without evidence. What about generations of "traditional" leftists who organized unions and fought for civil rights, with tremendous dedication and at great risk and sacrifice? This "traditional" left has existed almost nowhere except in the minds of posties in 30 years. Correlation is not causation, fer sure, but I notice that the assertion of all these new ways of knowing and doing have coincided with the rise of the right. If these new modes were of such great practical utility, why aren't we seeing some results? And why is it that in the U.S. at least the right has been the great beneficary of class resentments? 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:7174] Re: Let's keep it clean
Michael, I am sorry I did not see your message before responding to Ron and to Peter. Had I seen it, it might have tempered my anger; but, boy was I angry. And neither Rick wolff nor Steve Resnick are on Pen-L, and it was only fair that somebody stand up for them. Thank you for your intervention. Perhaps if others too, especially those who disagree with pomo, express their distaste for this type of behavior, that would reinforce your wise massage about the consequences of this type of behavior. Antonio Pen-l is a place for people who are working for the left. We have no grounds for attacking each other personally. We can differ on ideas, but personal attacks are a NO NO. Everybody knows that a milieu like this is fragile. It would take little ingenuity to create all sorts of splits. Without courtesy, we will accomplish nothing except to generate acrimony. Some feelings have already been hurt. PLEASE STOP IMMEDIATELY the personal stuff. On the other hand, we have to be careful not to be too quick to take offense. It is a fine line. Thanks. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Antonio Callari and/or Elisabeth King-Callari 939 Martha Ave Lancaster, PA 17601 Phone 717 397-3228 FAX 717 397-1790 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7175] Re: Henwood - Swimming or drawning?
hey jerry, please skip the sanctimonious preaching re: please learn to read more carefully. in solidarity, michael yates
[PEN-L:7176] Re: pol econ PhD programs
friends, i do sign my remarks, "in solidarity" but i don't believe that i've ever made a scurrilous attack on anyone. in solidarity, michael yates
[PEN-L:7177] Life is hard. And then you die.
Rather than continuing to pour old whine into new bottles, would anyone mind if I present for PEN-Lers' viewing pleasure, a treatment for a pop-up book that I'm constructing? For those who might wonder what this has to do with progressive economics, I would like to point out that this construction is in the vein of a materialist/postmodernist fusion. To anticipate a quote from Walter Benjamin, presented in the method section below, "Fashion has a flair for the topical, no matter where it stirs in the thickets of long ago; it is a tiger's leap into the past. This jump, however, takes place in an arena where the ruling class gives the commands. The same leap in the open air of history is the dialectical one, which is how Marx understood the revolution." Or, to paraphrase a vacuous slogan, "What if they held a recession and nobody came?" (and for you doubters: this ain't no virtual pop-up book; it's been cut, pasted and assembled. FLIGHT OF THE POSTMODERN (1957-58): AN INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC CIRCUS I. FORMAT OF PRESENTATION Lothar Meggendorfer's 1887 pop-up panorama, INTERNATIONAL CIRCUS. "This book unfolds to reveal six scenes featuring exciting circus acts from around the world. The daredevil riders and their horses, the acrobats and clowns, the circus orchestra are all included in this three-dimensional spectacular." Panorama: Panorama of a residential street in a Peoria suburb (1958). Caption: "Effect of Trouble in Jefferson Street. The way trouble has hit a single block in the Peoria area is shown below in the picture of Jefferson Street in Pekin. 'Trouble is already here for some people,' says one Caterpillar worker. 'But it's under the surface for everybody.'" II. DOCUMENTS A. Propulsion Image #1: Monsanto House of the Future, Disneyland (1957). Caption: "Against a backdrop of the faraway past, Monsanto's 'House of the Future' stands at Disneyland as a symbol of scientific progress to date and in the years to come." Text fragment #1: A glittering metallic pinpoint of light streaking across the predawn sky last week gave the U.S. its first look at Soviet Russia's great feat, the artificial moon, Sputnik.(1957) Image #2: Working class mother and four children posed candidly on a living room sofa (1958). Caption: "Jose Gonzales' family waits for him to finish his twelve-and-a-half hour day. Laid off from an $80-a-week machine shop job at Caterpillar, he quickly found two other jobs that bring a total of $300 a month." Text fragment #2: Thanks to a tiny electronic instrument called a transistor, which replaces bulky glass vacuum tubes, the day is not far off when portable, personalized TV-phones will let people see and hear one another anywhere. A wireless phone the size of a toothbrush case will be unveiled by the Bell labs in a year or two. Working models of a picture-phone are in existence there today. Meanwhile, technology is speeding up communication's stepchild, the mails. Guided missles loaded with letters instead of war heads are being planned for the distant future. After their successful launching and arrival, new sorting systems now in use will still be indispensible. (1957) Image #3: Young Werner von Braun carrying rocket (1930). Caption: "18-year-old pioneer in 1930. Werner von Braun, a university student and the son of a Prussian baron, and rocket scientist Rudolf Nebel carry early rockets across their testing ground, an unused firing range outside Berlin" B. Guidance Text fragment #3: The word "automation", so new to the English vocabulary that it can't be found in last year's dictionary, is causing a stir in the business world... A shorter workweek is union labor's answer to new machines. The big trend to automation in factories has leaders talking in terms of 30 to 32 hours -- 4 days of work instead of 5. (1955) Image #4: Man peering straight ahead (into the camera) with background of computer memory tapes (1961). Caption: "Mr Diebold is generally credited with coining the term "automation" Text fragment #4: Do you really want a four-day week? The whole question may be decided not by workers but by their wives. "Do you think," one psychiatrist asked Parade, "that American women can stand to have their husbands underfoot three days in a row?" (1957) Image #5: Seated crowd of men (1958). Caption: "At a special meeting sullen unionists listen to a UAW official who wanted them to risk more layoffs rather than accept a four-day week. Feeling the crowd against him, he gave up" C. Re-entry Image #6: Panorama of women at closed circuit TV workstations (1957). Caption: "Penn Station in New York has the world's largest closed-circuit TV system. By dialing code number, ticket clerks at counter or on phones have available ticket space flashed on set" Text fragment #5: Then an adult in the balcony -- no one was sure who -- realized that the flash was not the separation of a booster rocket, and yelled, "Shut up, everyone!" A silence descended in time for the
[PEN-L:7178] Re: pol econ PhD programs
Michael Yates wrote: i do sign my remarks, "in solidarity" but i don't believe that i've ever made a scurrilous attack on anyone. See [PEN-L:7175]. Sanctimonious preaching, Jerry
[PEN-L:7179] Re: Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
I can certainly appreciate that some former students can have [legitimate or illegitimate] grievances against individual faculty members. But ... I would strongly prefer that those grievances not be aired on PEN-L. Moreover, demands that individuals apologize would only mean that this rather fruitless [and flame-intense] thread will continue. I strongly suggest that we move on to other topics for discussion. Jerry I completely agree with Jerry. I couldn't care less whether Ron and Peter apologize (it would be a mark of maturity if they did, but that's their business). The thing that gets me about both their criticisms of Wolff and Resnick is that they concern events that took place fifteen or so years ago. It's appropriate to criticize (even personal) behavior that impinges on political work (and education obviously has important political ramifications) if it's still going on, but Ron in particular emphasized that he knows neither the people he criticized nor their work. What's to be gained by this? For all he knows Steve occasionally recalls the events in question with a certain embarrassed or rueful self-criticism. (Maybe he doesn't recall at all; maybe if it's brought to his attention he thinks it was the right thing to do. But Ron obviously has no idea.) I would ask Peter and Ron if they have lived "infallible" lives, if they have never committed actions that they later regretted, or wished they could do over differently or simply recognized that other people might view differently. I certainly can't say this about myself. Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7180] Re: post modern wars
Correlation is not causation, fer sure, but I notice that the assertion of all these new ways of knowing and doing have coincided with the rise of the right. If these new modes were of such great practical utility, why aren't we seeing some results? And why is it that in the U.S. at least the right has been the great beneficary of class resentments? Doug Doug, of course you are absolutely right about the importance of class processes and class struggles. But attacking people associated with RETHINKING MARXISM on this point has got to be a losing proposition. Recall that just yesterday Ron was accusing Wolff and Resnick of being dogmatic traditional Marxists. People around RM are the ones *most consistently* raising issues of class, insisting on the necessity of integrating class concepts into social analyses, asserting that class has its own, independent (overdetermined) effects, and that left, radical, and democratic analyses and strategies that don't take class into account are likely to be weaker and less successful, that even if successful on their own terms they are likely to produce continuing difficulties associated with continued exploitation, etc. Diskin and I, for example, in our critique of Laclau and Mouffe, showed that their rejection of the "basic economic categories" or Marxism is the result of *insufficient committment*, one might say, to their post-modern insights. We demonstrated clearly the hollowness of their economic analysis due precisely to the rejection and consequent absence of class concepts, and showed how their own post-modern ideas implied, contrary to their stated positions, precisely the *need* to retain a Marxian concept of class. Similarly, my own work on environmental economics argues that the Eco-Marxism of Jim O'Connor (who, no doubt about it has done great work around ecology and whose journal, _Capitalism, Nature, Socialism_, is an oasis in a desert of environmental garbage) is fundamentally based on neo-classical externality theory. I elaborate, on the other hand, an understanding of the relationship between capital and environment based not primarily on relationship to the market but on surplus labor. Perhaps part of the problem in this discussion on PEN-L is that while many post-modernists (like most modernists) are indeed anti-Marxist (the correct term for which post-Marxism is just an excuse), the people on *this* list most closely associated with post-modernism are confirmed and committed Marxists who have nonetheless been able to garner from post-modernism certain insights we feel helpful to our understanding and application of Marxism in our political and theoretical work. To answer your immediate question, I would think that someone of your persuasion (hell, and mine: I read the WSJ every day, too. Far and away the best writing of any mainstream rag :) would want to focus on the differential access to wealth and power held by the right and the left. Brief historical perspective: in the post-war (WWII) era, the right crushed the left (McCarthyism). Resistance springs eternal, and in the space created perhaps by a certain complaisance on the part of the right, a new left arose during the 60s. Taken by surprise, the right was slow to respond, but respond they eventually did, and their superior resources (among other things, like our own mistakes) enabled them to reassert their power during the course of the latter 70s and 80s and into the present. If I'm not mistaken, you recently agreed with something very much like just this characterization in a recent (private) post, Doug. In other words, I think blaming the current counterrevolution (of the past 20 some odd years) on post-modernism is according to post-modernism much more power than it actually has in academia, on the left, or among the massess. Much regards, Blair P.S. Still planning to write some of my own perspectives on pomo (those three books), but keep wanting to respond to specific things that come up and I'm already stealing time from other deadline things I need to do. Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7181] It is gone to far: Time Out.
Let us put the pomo discussion to rest. More harm has been done than information shared in the last posts. For newcomers, we have put discussion of Israel on hold, for similar reasons. The personal is not political, at least as far as this discussion has gone. I guess we can conclude, that some people feel that pomo has furthered their political work; others, that it is irrelevant or even a distraction. Let the pomos pomo and the others go their own way; let 1000 floowers bloom. But enough of the insult and innuendo. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7182] Re: Henwood - Swimming or drawning?
Antonio Callari (or E. King-Callari- is this the decentred self?) writes: pomo validates a variety of strategies and sites of struggle that the unidimensionality of traditional, modernist Marxism, does not permit. If your own experiences have not been structured/limited by the traditional privileging of class, all the more power to you: perhaps you have had postmodernist instincts, or a resistance to the norrowing effects of modernist discourse. In fact, I would expect many people, even those who resist the theory, to have such instincts and resistances. The discourse only liberates these instincts and validates them. COMMENT: Earlier I understood that "Marxism" was a plural noun and I understood this as being a hifalutin way of saying--among other things-- that there are many Marxisms. However I now find that there is at least one brand "traditional, modernist Marxism" that has an essence "unidimensionality". Yet surely there are umpteen quite various traditional, modernist Marxisms. Rosa Luxemberg's Marxism is not Stalin's and Stalin's is not Lenin's. Kautsky's is different again. Then there is Gus Hall's Marxism, and Chairman Mao's and the Shining Path. They all certainly have a certain family resemblance but their differences have led to family breakdown in many instances! Among other things some unidimensional Marxists organised the needle trades and other places where women worked in sweatshop conditions often at great cost to their own health and welfare. They were not unaware of basic issues facing women, and women among the worst off in society. I notice the phrase "privileging class". Is to privilege class to give it a special significance in theory with the implication that there is something wrong or at least one-sided about this? This is equally true surely of feminists who privilege "gender" or anti-imperialists who privilege "imperialism" or those fighting racism who privilege "race"? While privileging "class" may result in Marxists failure to understand the role of gender and class in social change, surely this does not mean that Marxists should NOT "privilege" class. Unidimensional Marxists have often criticized one-sidedness and have even made attempts to correct one-sidedeness in action by listening to the people--as in Fanshen. As Ellen Wood points out the retreat from class is a retreat from any significant Marxism. It should be pointed out too that "class" itself is as the pomos would say definitely a plural noun and obviously Marxists need to come up with a concept of class sited situated at this historical juncture when the blue collar working class is shrinking and even those who sell their labor are now supposedly turned into independent entrepreneurs contracting their services to the highest bidder with no bosses! If we do not privilege key concepts such as forces of production, relations of production, capital, class, class conflict what would be Marxist about Marxism? Marxism still implies the view that the forces of production developed by advanced capitalism cannot be used to maximise the satisfaction of social needs because those forces will be put into operation (for the most part) only if they are seen as maximizing private return on capital. Socialized production comes into contradiction with private appropriation.Is this no longer basically correct at this historic juncture, site, situated, mediated by pop culture? Everywhere one finds that social needs are not met though there are the resources and skills available that could meet them. For example, the resources and skills exist to give everyone good medical care in Canada. The system cannot "afford" this however. To be globally competitive it seems that companies must offload labor, taking it out of production and imposing costs on the individual laborer and increasing the costs on a welfare net with shrinking resources. Is this not the sort of thing that Marxism can illumine and are not the "justifications" for it the sort of thing that Marxists can 'demystify'? Do pomos want to say that Marxism should not take some concepts as "key" or "privileged" or are they just saying that doing this should not blind Marxists to the importance of other factors in social change such as gender, tradition, race, etc? The latter position makes perfect sense and no doubt one could point out as feminists, for example, have done that Marxists have often not adequately considered the role of gender relations as well as class relations in giving one group power over another. Do not sciences such as geology, physics, chemistry, etc. privilege certain concepts? Nevertheless they seem to be able to give us some truths that hold across all cultures. I suppose this makes chemists heros does it ;-)? When I took chemistry I sure didn't find anything heroic in my prof or texts. So what are the many truths about the chemical composition of common salt or
[PEN-L:7183] Re: Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
In a message dated 96-11-03 04:23:31 EST, you write: Finally, I expect the people on this list who consider Rick Wolff to be an infallible god and guru to be incensed by my criticisms of him and respond with a lot of verbiage. Given the priorities in my life, I am unlikely to respond. Pete Bohmer
[PEN-L:7184] Re: Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
In a message dated 96-11-03 04:23:31 EST, you write: Finally, I expect the people on this list who consider Rick Wolff to be an infallible god and guru to be incensed by my criticisms of him and respond with a lot of verbiage. Given the priorities in my life, I am unlikely to respond. Pete Bohmer brother peter, i really did not expect this kind of trash insult from you. why? bill olson
[PEN-L:7185] Re: post modern courtesy
Good points, Doug! Talk about caricature without evidence. What about generations of "traditional" leftists who organized unions and fought for civil rights, with tremendous dedication and at great risk and sacrifice? This "traditional" left has existed almost nowhere except in the minds of posties in 30 years. It's easy to forget this; it's easy never to have learned it. I confess I don't know this history as much as I would like it; but I think I have a good sense of it. I would not be surprised at all if in fact there has been much of the type of dialogue that, in my view, pomo promotes; how could there not have been any? But, to the extent that there was, it was perhaps due more to the good sense of leftists, as engaged and caring people, than to effects of the modernist epistemology that informed their theoretical discourse. How much more there could have been remains a matter of speculation, by necessity; but I am led to speculate that there would indeed have been more. I have not meant to condemn, or perhaps even to criticize (perhaps I should have been more careful--but this is an ongoing discussion, so things can be adjusted as we go along) actual leftists; I admire their dedication and courage; as I do that of many caring and dedicated leftists today--including you, Doug. Rather, the point is the effects of a certain way of understanding "knowledge" and the relationship between the narrower boudaries of one theory and the larger, more flexible boundaries for a left political practice. Correlation is not causation, fer sure, but I notice that the assertion of all these new ways of knowing and doing have coincided with the rise of the right. If these new modes were of such great practical utility, why aren't we seeing some results? And why is it that in the U.S. at least the right has been the great beneficary of class resentments? There is much in traditional Marxist theory that can itself explain the shift to the right; I don't know if my other pomo friends do (many don't, and I argue with them), but I believe in the usefulness of theorizing the effects of fundamental shifts in patterns of accumulation. I believe that historically the left has always been left behind, as we are now, during such periods of restructuring. But, I do believe that 1) we Marxists would not have been left behind as much as we are (I am talking about here, in the U.S.) if we had worked out a different relationship with probable allies (not too difficult to imagine that this could have happened in the last 30 years, except for the baggage of official orthodoxy); and 2) unless we are condemn ourselves to a continuation of this cycle of capitalism running out ahead of the forces of resistance and the left having to play catch up every time there is a new cycle of accumulation, we better broaden our basis for political organization--and think about the theoretical conditions that would allow for such broadening. Antonio 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 Antonio Callari and/or Elisabeth King-Callari 939 Martha Ave Lancaster, PA 17601 Phone 717 397-3228 FAX 717 397-1790 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7188] Marilyn Waring
Has anyone seen the 94 minute video put out by CBC called "Who's Counting"? The video features Marilyn Waring and highlights her criticism of modern economics particularly the UN system of national accounts --e.g. housework, child care, etc. would not be counted but a disastrous oil spill would generate lots of entries as would production of stealth bombers.Countries must follow the accounting rules to be members of the UN. Waring was an MP for three terms in New Zealand. From the video it seemed as if she were more or less retired to a small farm where she appreciates the lifestyle. She had travelled throughout the world doing time studies of women's versus men's work. As she points out in many societies the work done by most women would not be counted since it does not produce income. In spite of her feminist and anti-nuclear views she seemed to have the support of and good rapport with her constituents, many of whom were basically conservative farmers. She represented the National Party, a basically conservative party I gather. While many of the points she makes seem to be quite sound, I was also struck by the fact that she still obviously was a good constituency person supporting farmers who after all are exporting lambs and producing milk as cash crops. She saved a mountain area above her constituency from development by gold mining interests, but I just wonder if the Maoris would be all that excited that she was protecting those who had removed the land from the use it originally had for them, and I wonder what she would think if some of Peter Singer's disciples had suggested that the cute lambs we saw on TV should not be raised only to be slaughtered and appear on plates around the globe! Did she play any role in criticising neo-liberal policies in New Zealand during the eighties and nineties or has she more or less retired from the fray? Is she well regarded as a feminist economist? I found her at times a bit simplistic but then this was a video after all. I now have her book IF WOMEN COUNTED. Have others opinions on this book? There is an interesting section near the end of the video that shows Maoris gathering enough shellfish to last a couple of days. They did not gather more because they wanted to leave sufficient for anyone else who might come along and want to gather them for food. Some had suggested that they could pick lots and go sell them in the market. Elders pointed out that this would be wrong since it would not leave shellfish for others to gather free as was now the case. (Obviously Locke got the Lockean proviso from the Maoris) Cheers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:7190] Re: Henwood - Swimming or drawning?
I would like to thank A. Callari, S. Charuseela, B. Sandler among others for their postings. I found that they clarified some of my concerns at least. I still have real difficulties with the nature of pomo discourse having been brought up in the tradition of analytical philosophy and as a logical positivist but I have the same problems with much Marxist writing even though I would "privilege" some form of Marxism as the most adequate theory of capitalist development and recipe for revolutionary change. Cheers, Ken Hanly P.S. The slogan "Let 100 hundred flowers bloom and 100 schools of thought contend" is a strange slogan to use to cut off discussion. It surely implies the opposite should occur. The hidden Maoist agenda of course may have been to encourage the weeds to grow so that they could be detected and cut down! How is Michael going to weed the garden if we don't let the weeds grow? We haven't even heard Shawgi's take on pomo. Can't we hear from a one dimensional Marxist?
[PEN-L:7191] Re: Henwood - Swimming or drawning?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S. The slogan "Let 100 hundred flowers bloom and 100 schools of thought contend" is a strange slogan to use to cut off discussion. It surely implies the opposite should occur. The hidden Maoist agenda of course may have been to encourage the weeds to grow so that they could be detected and cut down! How is Michael going to weed the garden if we don't let the weeds grow? We haven't even heard Shawgi's take on pomo. Can't we hear from a one dimensional Marxist? Two points here. 1. I was calling for others to show tolerance [let 100 flowers ]. The suggested time out reflected my perception that others were not inclined to do so. 2. Tweaking Shawgi does not seem to be productive. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7193] Re: post modern courtesy
Sorry. Last message sent before reading Michael's call for a time-out. - Gil
[PEN-L:7194] Re: post modern courtesy
Aware of things like paradigms? Yes. That "real" listening may not come easily, may have to be learned? Yes. Cute? Well... I don't know how to do a 'smiley' with tongue in cheek... which also makes it harder to talk clearly, I guess. My point, you see, was not that 'listening' is new, or easy, but that the [inordinately complex, IMHO] pomo way of talking about it sure isn't easy to listen to. Over and out, Gil So does that basically mean you decided to actually _listen_ to the people you were working to organize? Radical perhaps, but hardly new. Pomo challenged, just trying to understand, Cute!? Are you aware of things like "paradigms"--nothing fancy, really--structures of thought that prevent communication? Have you ever heard of couples having to go to therapy (hard work) to learn to listen and talk with each other, instead of one seeing the other as only a projection of oneself? And do you really think that the left has learned to talk to not-already left groups? And besides, if listening, as a prelude to organizing, is not hardly new for the left, how come we (i hope there is still a "we") have done such a miserable job? On the other hand, I agree that this aspect is "hardly new"; the only trouble is that the traditional left has used its theory not to learn to listen and communicate, but as a set of ideological blinders, by which only some agents (workers, and, then, often ideologically already formed workers) had a voice and were to be listened to, effacing or subordinating other agents, potential allies. I also agree that it is common sense to listen (really listen, not make believe) to the people you are working with (even "organizing them" posits them as simply 'objects'); but, as I have said before, sometimes it takes an act of theoretical selfconsciousness to produce acts of common sense (Gramsci was wonderful abou this); that's what pomo is, this act of theoretical selfconsciousness. What a pity indeed that it has taken so long to come to this common sense. Antonio Callari Antonio, it would help me to understand your position if you could explain exactly how pomo helped you to work with the battered women. The second way in which pomo helped me in the work with battered women (this is the point I thought I was making in the original message) was that it let me accept a different discourse and consciousness as a player in the project (the discourse and consciousness of the battered women themselves, different from the traditional marxist discourse with which I entered the stage) and, then, work to find ways of creating a strategic alliance between this discourse (about the social construction of gender roles) and my discourse (about the social construction of class). That's quite important, but it is also a consequence of the strategy in point 1 above of enlarging the struggle to constituencies other than the traditional labor constituencies. So does that basically mean you decided to actually _listen_ to the people you were working to organize? Radical perhaps, but hardly new. Pomo challenged, just trying to understand, Gil Antonio Callari and/or Elisabeth King-Callari 939 Martha Ave Lancaster, PA 17601 Phone 717 397-3228 FAX 717 397-1790 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7195] Re: Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
Gerald,
Thank you for your response about grad schools. I was hoping for more
than two informative reponses out of the some eighty or so messages I
have received in my inbox from PEN-L in the last several days. Oh well!
Thanks again.
jon
On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Gerald Levy wrote:
There are frequently major differences in ideology, perspective, and
personalities among faculty and students in different economics
departments. This is also - and sometimes even more - the case at radical
econ. departments. It is by no means limited to UMass/Amherst.
I was also burned by a couple of faculty members for no legitimate reason
while at the New School. I don't want to mention names or explain the
circumstances because that was oh so many years ago.
To answer Bill M's question ("So fucking what?" in the "Hmmm" thread):
I think it is important for students who are considering going to graduate
school:
a) to not have idealized and romanticized visions of radical faculty;
b) to recognize, at least, that there can be a gap between a person's
political-economic theory and his/her conduct -- which *can* be
unprofessional, dogmatic, petty, etc..
c) to talk, if possible, to a _variety_ of former and _current_ students
about individual faculty and the overall situation in a department;
d) to make a determination based especially on c) whether there are enough
faculty who are open-minded, professional, and respectful to students to
justify attending a particular school.
Jerry
[PEN-L:7196] Re: Henwood - Swimming or drawning?
Bill,
I am sure you are right; but i find the instructions more impenetrable than
some of the most complex pomo works. I'll have to ask for help from the
computer people in my capitalist school.
Antonio
Antonio Callari (or E. King-Callari- is this the decentred self?)
Ah? It's the damned eudora system that will not differentiate between me
and my wife; so ours is a joint signature (E. stands for Elisabeth, and she
is not responsible for anything I say)
a poor workperson blames their tools (capitalist plot saying #1043).
but you malign eudora wrongly. you can easily set up eudora to work on the same
executable for two separate pop accounts entirely. you just have to have two
*.ini files (each with different information) in separate directories. so for
EC you would set up the pif to access the executable (wherever it is) and then
in her directory you add the line to her ini file.
eg.
c:\eudora\eudora.exe
c:\eudora\eudora.ini
this is your information
then set up a directory
c:\eudora\eliz
and use the c:\eudora\eudora.exe file as the executable
and make it read c:\eudora\eliz\eudora.ini (Which access her pop account).
there is of-course another way to do it if you share pop accounts. eudora has
the main signature and also an alternative which is user selectable before you
hit the send key.
i don't even use it myself but don't blame the software for your own lack of
knowledge. it is pretty neat software.
kind regards
bill
--
## William F. Mitchell
### Head of Economics Department
#University of Newcastle
New South Wales, Australia
###* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
###Phone: +61 49 215065
# ## ###+61 49 215027
Fax: +61 49 216919
##
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)
Antonio Callari and/or Elisabeth King-Callari
939 Martha Ave
Lancaster, PA 17601
Phone 717 397-3228
FAX 717 397-1790
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7197] Marilyn Waring (Correction)
The video "Who's Counting?" about Marilyn Waring is put out by the National Film Board of Canada not the CBC. If anyone is interested in it there are two phone numbers: 1-800-267-7710 in Canada 1-800-542-2164 in the US. I suppose Aussies, Kiwis, etc. can take their pick. Cheers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:7198] Re: Marilyn Waring
Ken Hanly wrote ... Waring was an MP for three terms in New Zealand. From the video it seemed as if she were more or less retired to a small farm where she appreciates the lifestyle. She had travelled throughout the world doing time studies of women's versus men's work. As she points out in many societies the work done by most women would not be counted since it does not produce income. She's currently a lecturer (in Political Science I think) at Massey University's Auckland (Albany) campus as far as I know. She was previously at Waikato University and left there with a very public blast at the quality of her colleagues. Did she play any role in criticising neo-liberal policies in New Zealand during the eighties and nineties or has she more or less retired from the fray? Is she well regarded as a feminist economist? I found her at times a bit simplistic but then this was a video after all. I now have her book IF WOMEN COUNTED. Have others opinions on this book? I don't know if it's the same book as "Counting for nothing: what men value and what women are worth", Allen and Unwin, Wellington New Zealand, 1988. This is a critique of how the GNP is put together, much on the lines of the video. As a non-economist I found it excellent for what it was, though its main weakness as I recall it was that it barely recognises the existence of classes: the analysis is largely feminist and "developed vs undeveloped" world. I think it has been reasonably influential on the left here in New Zealand, with the Alliance Party calling for alternative definitions of the nation's wealth as part of its political platform. She hasn't been particularly vocal about neo-liberalism per se as far as I am aware, but she has spoken widely on the issues in the book and would I think be counted as an opponent of neo-liberalism. She has considerable public respect because she was one of the few Members of Parliament of the National (conservative) government who stood up to its leader, Robert Muldoon, a noted bully. He called a snap election in 1984 blaming it on her because she was threatening to vote against her party on an opposition measure banning nuclear warships in New Zealand. There are a number of deep ironies in this. The Muldoon government was a conservative government in the 1970's interventionist, socially reactionary sense. It was replaced by the Lange/Douglas led neo-liberal Labour Party which, without a mandate, effectively took the country even further to the Right. The nuclear-free legislation Waring supported was promoted by Richard Prebble who was then in the Labour Party and is now the leader of ACT (Association of Consumers and Taxpayers!) Party which won eight seats in our recent election with a purist policy that the Douglas neo-liberal policy had yet to be completed. Bill Rosenberg /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:7199] Institutions and the Dissemination of Economic Ideas
Just about everyone I know has horror stories from graduate school about perceived scholar despots, inner cliques, "old boy networks etc". But that level gets us no where beyond anecdotes. A few years ago Dave Colander and Bob Coats edited a book "The Dissemination of Economic Ideas" based on a conference on the same subject. Dave's idea was to move toward the development of a separate specialized area within The History of Economic Thought dealing with specialized study of the institutions, constraints, processes, mechanisms, interests etc through which economic ideas and theories are introduced, chocked off, modified, replaced, superceded and spread within the profession. It involves sort of the economics profession looking at itself and applying some of its own "axioms", theories, constructs (e.g. homo economicus) to itself. What comes through loud and clear is that institutions and institutionalized paradigms whether left, middle or right do what they do. In other words institutions, or dynamic complexes of interrelated values, power structures, codes, constraints, traditions, myths, symbols, rights, privileges, regulations etc serve to structure human interactions, reduce risk and uncertainty, define and reinforce the "sacred" paradigms and ideas while deterring and sanctioning perceived subversive paradigms and ideas, legitmate and reinforce dominant power structures and relations while neutralizing threats to those structures and relations, propagandize, create clones of those in power etc. That is what institutions do--among other things--whether on the right or left. There are "left radicals" and then there are left radicals. In other words there are those for whom being a "left radical" is a total way of life and way of seeing the world and there are "left radicals" for whom being a "left radical" is a kind of specialized market niche allowing CV building through "alternative journals" (and making those alternative journals more and more like the "mainstream" journals in which these folks cannot get published for various reasons), careers with caricatures of the left (e.g. well paid bureaucrats in private and governmental agencies "serving" the poor), comfortable tenured positions that allow course developments based on the narrow and often narcissistic research interests of the course developers (as opposed to on the basis of mass interests or strategic issues in need of detailed examination) and various forms of scholar despotism and insider clique building much like those forms for which the right- wingers in academia are famous--e.g. The Chicago School as a clone factory. What can we say. Ultimately it is not so much what one says what one is as what one does and what one is prepared to risk when the chips are really down. On the right or the left, that tells who is who and what is what. Jim Craven *--* * James Craven * "The envelope is only defined--and * * Dept of Economics* expanded--by the test pilot who dares* * Clark College* to push it." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * (H.H. Craven Jr.(a gifted pilot) * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * * * (360) 992-2283 * "For those who have fought for it, * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * freedom has a taste the protected* * * will never know." (Otto Von Bismark) * * * * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:7200] Re: It is gone to far: Time Out.
Let us put the pomo discussion to rest. More harm has been done than information shared in the last posts. For newcomers, we have put discussion of Israel on hold, for similar reasons. The personal is not political, at least as far as this discussion has gone. I guess we can conclude, that some people feel that pomo has furthered their political work; others, that it is irrelevant or even a distraction. Let the pomos pomo and the others go their own way; let 1000 floowers bloom. But enough of the insult and innuendo. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael, I agree with the halt to insult and innuendo, but I see no reason why we shouldn't continue discussing the pros and cons of pomo. The majority, or anyway quite a good number, of posts have been entirely civil, unobjectionable and thought-provoking. A bit of edge (like most of Jim Devine's humor, in my opinion), is not a reason in my book to cut off discussion or even debate. So, are you requesting tolerance and ordering a time out or may I, as I get time, try to relate my sense of the three books I mentioned as examples of accessible, political theory based on pomoish insights? Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7201] Re: Marilyn Waring
I read the book a while ago and found it as you found the video a bit
simplistic but basically good. Note however that her economics is basically
NC externality theory. In all my intro and intermediate level mainstream
(NC) classes I use the diagrams on pp. 300-301 to situate the NC theory of
markets in a broader context (overdetermination, in my mind), even if I
don't use anything else from the book.
Note also that there is now a lot of this "green accounting" going on. The
material from Redefining Progress on the "Genuine Progress Indicator," and
their article in the Oct. (?) 1995 ATLANTIC MONTHLY ("If the GDP is Up Why
is America Down) is very useful. The basic point, of course, is that GDP is
not, as all the textbooks call it, a measure of the value of all goods and
services produced in the economy; it is only a measure of the value of all
goods and services *exchanged* in the market economy. This little sleight
of hand conflates market with economy and, as Waring and others have often
pointed out, slights the role of women, as well as the fundamental
importance of the natural environment.
The whole notion of the "efficiency" of the equilibrium market solution in
NC theory depends on the absence of "externalities," as everyone here is
aware and NCs themselves recognize. The question immanently is whether
externalities are few and far between, occasional glitches in the NC market
mechanism, or pervasive and overwhelming. I believe the latter.
For instance, I have a flyer (I don't know the source, sorry) advertising
the "Apocalypse" automobile for $250,000, a price based on the indvidual
car share of social costs over ten years ("At this price it will surely
take your breath away.") This cost includes pollution-related cancer,
respiratory and heart disease: $100 billion; injuries and related expenses:
$400 billion; gas and auto subsidies, congestion, road construction and
maintenance: $900 billion; military expenses to protect the oil supply, $30
billion (except during the Gulf War); but does not counting environmental
costs of oil spills at sea and on land, acid rain, global warming, damage
from road salts, noise pollution, neurological damage from lead, 500
million mammals killed by cars, 3 million acres of farmland displaced
yearly by roads and suburbanization,...). Now the average cost of a new car
in the U.S. is very approximately $20,000, and I think the annual market
cost of driving and maintaining the car is another $5,000 or so? which
would make the ten year market price of a car around $75,000. What does it
mean when the "externalities" associated with a commodity are three to four
times the market value?
[I would really like to know the source of these estimates and am pissed
that they aren't cited. What I tell my students is that even if the
estimates are too big by three to four times, then they're still the
equivalent of the market cost and the same question is appropriate.]
Blair
Blair Sandler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7202] Re: Pomo and Opera
I must say, I preferred Carmen (or Turandot or ...) when I did not understand the words, there was no translation, and I could make up the story to go with the characters and the music and the scenery. Now that they have that big translation over the stage at Lincoln Center I have dropped my opera subscription. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7203] Fwd: Re: Pmom:swimming or drowning
This was sent and re-sent, hope it gets through. maggie
Subject: Fwd: [PEN-L:7158] Re: Pomo: Swimming or drawning
Bill, I'm not sure if we agree or disagree -- but maybe that's pomo at its
best!
I think that pomo has been very useful in some senses -- it has certainly
forced diversity into a lot of hitherto rigid areas of economics and
political economy, marxism included. I also think alot of pure trash has
been published under a pomo heading. But then, a lot of pure trash has been
published under just about any tag whether it be marxist, keynesian,
leninist, conservatism, Vienna school, .. . Just because there has been
trash published under a pomo heading does not mean all the changes called for
in pomo thought are garbage. If that was the case, then much of the feminist
theory which has developed in the last ten years would be trash too -- and I
may not care if people was to go ballistic calling each other pomo names, but
call feminist theory trash and I go into my werewolf immitation. (I'd say my
witch immitation, but the tranny crashed on my broom and it's in the shop.)
Finally, so what if alot of pomo is a continuation of critiques raised of
economics and poltical economy earlier under different names? Every new
school of thought has its antecedents in earlier writers of different names.
Nothing develops in a vacuum.
maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill mitchell)
Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 96-11-02 23:12:41 EST
I think pomo is seen as difficult to engage because it's core concept is
that
there is more than one truth. If one can't preach the ultimate truth, then
one can't be a hero. If one can't be a hero, one will take her/his toys
and
go home.
Maggie said the above.
the trouble with truth and relativism it that it is too easy to descend into
absurd depths to avoid argument. using structure to avoid engagement.
relativism is perfectly consistent with marxism - historically specific
modes
of prod after all.
i also agree with some ideas of post modernism which emphasise the relation
of
self to what might be truth. is there an absolute truth? we will never know.
how would you recognise it if you got there. as a reaction against
christianity
and god-based fetters on individuals i think this is useful.
but on the phenomena level that we operate day to day and which is the
starting
point of political struggle there is surely truth - and although i see what
i
see b/c i am me - objectivity. the obvious example is comparing me to the
young
child being macheted to death by barbaric savages in say rwanda. that is
truth.
i am not and the child is being slaughtered.
just to remind my self that the phenomena might have
impacts on "me" (as a relative entity in space which i define myself), i
occasionally cut my self shaving.it hurts. the machete is a fact.
so for me i am not looking for heroes. but i am also not looking to hide
things
which we can agree are beyond our own subjective entities. what we think of
these things, of-course, depends on our ideology and so ultimately our
interpretations are subjective.
i also don't think it is an argument to list a heap of authors that somebody
says are post modernists and then demand that any one who wishes to
criticises
post modernism as a "paradigm" must individually address the writings
and provide detailed line by line critiques. i have read some (majority) of
the
writers so far mentiones but certainly not all nor even 70 percent. it is to
me
tortured prose for the cogniscenti. it doesn't embrace me at all. fine.
there is an aesthetic which those within it appreciate. but even the bloody
opera (in OZ) now has by the stage big screens explaining everything as it
goes
with simple english translations for the "common folk" to entice them to
come
along and to demystify it a bit (of-course, dare i say it has probably
helped
all the snobs who pretended they knew what was going on anyway!!). (BTW, i
haven't witnessed this first hand - no way! - i've been reliably informed as
they say).
but the point must be that a paradigm forms and many strands operate within
it.
in that sense there is a definable theory and praxis. it is legitimate to
criticise a paradigm at that level without disaggregating it. one might say
there is not such level of generality. okay lets argue that.
kind regards
bill
--
## William F. Mitchell
### Head of Economics Department
#University of Newcastle
New South Wales, Australia
###* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
###Phone: +61 49 215065
# ## ###+61 49 215027
Fax: +61 49 216919
## http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
"only when the last tree has died and the last river has been
[PEN-L:7204] Re: It is gone to far: Time Out.
Blair wrote So, are you requesting tolerance and ordering a time out or may I, as I get time, try to relate my sense of the three books I mentioned as examples of accessible, political theory based on pomoish insights? I would prefer the tolerance. Earlier it looked as if it was fast disappearing. Fearful, I called for an end, but hopefull, I was premature. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7205] pomo and opera
Maggie, Are you really saying that when you really found out what the pomos were saying that you gave up reading them entirely? Don't blame you, but the music is still beautiful! Paul
[PEN-L:7206] spider webs, bugs, Mike Albert, comic books
1.Blair posts the following from a friend: Currently my image is the following: Marxists see society as a spider net with economics embedded. All parts, strings, are interrelated and processes define the entity; a soft wind blow and the whole net starts wobbling. Neoclassical theorists select the economic part out of the spider net and therefore have only some strings left. The problem now with the Neoclassical approach is, that the content gets lost to a high degree. In other words, the spider net floats in the air with an unknown off-set. Also, for the sake of simplicities, the strings lack of elasticity when talking about basic Neoclassical economics, the remaining strings are assumed to be stiff. My interpretation is, that here with the spider net is the initial connection and simultaneously starts the divergence. That's a _great_ analogy (and I must admit to a perhaps unhealthy love for analogies)! But it seems a great analogy for not only the "pomo" perspective but also _any_ perspective which centers on the idea of the need to look at the world as a _totality_. To diffferentiate "pomo" form other views of the social world as a totality, one might note that "pomo" vision of the web (as I understand it) lacks a _spider_ who made the web and uses it to catch food. There's no Subject in History, so Hegel's vision of History being a matter of the Absolute Spirit coming to Know Itself Absolutely is rejected (and rightly so). But there's also no aspect to the "pomo" story (as I understand it) like that of Marx. Marx, in desperate brevity and thus simplicity, argued that capitalism acted _as if_ it were some sort of unified Subject (even though it is not) -- perhaps as a robot spider -- spinning its web all over the world and it all aspects of human life and the natural environment. To Marx, this robot spider was a contradictory machine, partly because it was a robot rather than a conscious and unified subject: the contradictions cause crises and conflict, setting up the possibility that a real Subject (the proletariat) would take form from the competing bugs and transform the web from a tool for catching bugs to a system that serves the bugs' own needs. Of course, in really-existing capitalism, the bugs remain divided and alienated, munched on by the robot spider, not a real Subject at all. 2. Sorry to Blair for bugging him (as it were) to fill in the details in his bibliography. I should be working on something else, also. So this is my last message for awhile. 3. Antonio says that Mike Albert has rejected Marxism. You could have fooled me (if he walks like a bug, talks like a bug, etc., he must be a bug). I guess that's good: in a world where so many who call themselves "Marxists" act in extremely unMarxist ways (the old Soviet bureaucratic elite), it's good to find an obstensible non-Marxist who thinks and acts in a very Marxist way. (Noam Chomsky is similar in some ways.) Mike started out more as an anarchist than a Marxist, so I would guess he _never accepted_ Marxism the way many Maoists, Troskyists, etc. embraced it (a kind of acceptance that can be unhealthy). He and Robin Hahnel developed a very clearly written and pretty damn coherent synthesis of what's valid of the New Left vision of the 1960s 1970s and a lot of what is valid in old-fashioned Marxism. I have some disagreements with Mike (like his implication that Lenin et al consciously wanted to set up a new ruling class in Russia in LOOKING FORWARD), but I would count him as a Marxist in my book. His criticisms of the "Marxian orthodoxy" have to be treated seriously, of course. Since his criticisms are based on serious thought, they can and do strengthen Marxism. In the end, I don't care if Mike (or anyone else) is a Marxist. It's not labels (or language in general) that matter as much as what people _do_. I also like his magazine a lot; it represents a pretty successful example of praxis (given the rightward lurch of the polity). 4. By the way, there already _is_ a comic book about Derrida. I'd like to know how to find it though (and if it is a fair summary of JD's work). in bug-eyed solidarity, J.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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. "God is a spider" -- Ingmar Bergman.
[PEN-L:7207] oops
oops. I just sent an "off-list communication" meant for Steve Cullenberg to pen-l as a whole. Sorry to waste bandwidth. I guess it won't be too disastrous. Sorry about that, Ron. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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.
[PEN-L:7208] another off-list communication
you write: Indeed, I've about had it with people on pen-l putting out insulting attacks and signing their emails "in solidarity". Who do you think you're kidding? Since your use the plural word "people" above and because I sign my pen-l missives "in solidarity," I must make one thing clear: My criticism (explicit or implicit) of the Post-Modernist authors and their tradition are NOT personal attacks. There's a big difference between a person's ideas and his or her personality. (As I said in another context, it's my impression from personal experience that Krugman is a nice guy, despite his obnoxious journalism.) I've also never thought highly of the silly argument that bad theory (or rather theory that doesn't makes sense to me) automatically leads to bad, passive or reactionary politics. There are lots of people with excellent politics (like myself, who of course _defines_ good politics ;-)) who aren't involved in politics at all these days. I sign "in pen-l solidarity" because I see the vast majority of pen-l people -- at this point seemingly 100% -- as being on the right side of the issues. We're having a discussion inside a group that basically agrees on most things. Discussions of this sort can be productive -- even if they are sometimes acrimonious. I can't speak for Ron B. (or anyone else for that matter), except that it's my impression that he's finally beginning to makes sense now and then. I don't know what's wrong with him. sincerely (which may be more preferable), Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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 "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney.
[PEN-L:7209] pen-l courtesy
Antonio writes: . I would ask all of the people with whom we have been having a discussion to disassociate themselves from these attacks and to condemn them. Sure, I'll absolutely condemn the personal attacks on leftist professors that have shown up on pen-l. Such attacks don't belong on pen-l. I also apologize again to Rhon Baiman for my own slur that inadvertently (or rather due to my own absent-mindedness) showed up on pen-l. I also think it's unproductive of good conversation to call someone a "less-than-gentleman." That said, I have a comment. I notice something in the above quote and in other things that Antonio (and Steve) have said. Perhaps it's my own inability to do literary analysis (;-)), but I sure get the feeling that rather than being a discussion of the pros and cons of postmodern Marxism (which is what I had been thinking it was), it's only a small piece of a larger totality. There's some sort of war that's been going on for a long time. It's not just about postmodern Marxism vs. the other types of Marxism and leftist thought that are in circulation. It's not just about stereotyped pomo vs. stereotyped "traditional Marxism" (which should be plural, shouldn't it?) Rather, there's a large amount of personal animosity that's accumulated over the years, linked to old battles at U.Mass-Amherst (the nature of which I have just the barest inkling). I don't really understand that animosity, but that's one of my blindspots. This hypothesis explains why Rhon B.'s cavalier and seemingly off-the-wall comments provoked more heat than required. Or why my efforts to get a handle on what "postmodern Marxism" is exactly are ignored. Or why my profession of ignorance (not knowing "Derrida from dogfood") gets interpreted as an _attack_, seemingly justifying skipping over the rest of my missive. Or why Doug's silly reposting of an article about identity politics was not interpreted as an effort to be humorous. Or why the quote from Antonio above (and some of his recent messages) suggests that the anti-pomotistas (or those who have doubts about postmodern Marxism) are some sort of unified force. But again, I may be over-interpreting. Or maybe the problem is simply that e-mail makes communications more difficult, so that we have to use emoticons (smileys) as much as possible. Or maybe we should avoid all humor, sarcasm, irony, etc. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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.
[PEN-L:7210] Re: Pomo and U. Mass. Economics department
On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 96-11-03 04:23:31 EST, you write: Finally, I expect the people on this list who consider Rick Wolff to be an infallible god and guru to be incensed by my criticisms of him and respond with a lot of verbiage. Given the priorities in my life, I am unlikely to respond. Pete Bohmer brother peter, i really did not expect this kind of trash insult from you. why? bill olson Billy, I hope you are doing well. Notice my comment is only a criticism of those who consider Wolff to be an infallible god and guru. Unless you consider him to be such which I did not assume; it is not meant in any way as a criticism of you or of others who feel they have learned something of value from him. Peter
[PEN-L:7212] A note form Michael Albert
Michael Albert, the co-editor of Z magazine, asked me to forward this to Pen-l and I have decided to do so. Michael is a close friend of mine although I do not agree with his criticism that Marxism reflects the interests of the co-ordinator class. We have argued this point for many, many years and neither one has convinced the other. Peter Bohmer -- Antonio: Peter Bohmer was kind enough to forward your pen-l message to me and I thought perhaps I ought to offer a brief reply. In the first part you relate how for you pomo made it possible to see the importance of organizing not only among workers around traditional class issues, but also, for example, with women suffering battering. You close with the following paragraph... Jim Devine, I think, thinks that all of this opening to other constituencies is already a fait accomplm, and he points to Michael Albert's Z as a vehicle for it. But he points out that Michael Albert is a modernist (he's right. Michael is quite proud of being a modernist: he had a degree in physics before turning to economics). The thing I would point out is that, being a modernist, in order to open up to a variety of sites of struggle, Michael found it necessary to reject Marxism. I don't. A pretty BIG difference, or it should be to someone like Jim. Well, yes, I certainly do agree with Jim. And I think it is a non-contentious point since folks were arguing the need to pay attention to not only economic and class issues and concepts, but kinship and gender, politics and authority, culture and race, etc., well before and quite independent of anything that could remotely be called pomo. Antonio, will perhaps remember that when he and I were students at U.Mass economics, oh so many years ago, it was quite commonplace that a sector of folks there felt class was not only important but first and foremost, while another sector thought, no, it is important, but so are other phenomena. Now the part about me. Yes, I went a bit further. But my coming to the conclusion that class was not ALONE central or first order or whatever you want to call it, had literally nothing to do with my deciding marxism was flawed. This is easily demonstrable, since I made the identical critique of feminism, anarchism, and nationalism -- that they too were monist in precisely the sense marxism was, that is apriori and with no sustainable historical or logical justification privileging one source of oppression and seeing things as too dependent on that source alone, while minimizing or ignoring the defining impact of others. And while I critiqued all four orientations on grounds of monism, I also added that the solution wasn't to abandon each or any of these four focuses, but to creatively combine their insights by broadening the concepts of each to take into account how the forces emanating from each type of oppression/structure affect the definition of the others -- something which class-oriented folks in the guise of marxist feminists, socialist feminists, anarcho communists, had already begun doing with some success. The grounds on which I came to the conclusion that while marxism had much of relevance and value, it was nonetheless fatally flawed, were quite different. And it was because of failings which the other orientations did not share. These were, mainly, that marxism instead of being an attempt to understand society from the perspective of eliminating any form of economic oppression/hierarchy (that is class division and rule), was actually a framework reflecting the class interests and agenda of what I call coordinators (and what others have called professional/managers, technocrats, etc.). To get back on track as a marxist you couldn't just recognize the need to pay attention to how forces emanating from cultural institutions, kinship institutions, and political institutions affect the very definition of workplace and allocation relations, though that was a very important step to take, and has only in part been taken even now. (That was a step--correcting the monist weakness, that also needed to be taken by feminists, nationalists, anarchists, of course.) With marxism, you also had to go into the very economic logic of your concepts and find the places where it was out of touch with reality on the one hand (in the analytic part), and desirable values on the other (in the prescriptive part) due to its coordinator agenda...and this led me to changes my bag of economic concepts so dramatically and took me so far from certain basic marxist economic tenets that it made no sense to me to continue calling the result marxist. I have to admit, all that said, the sentence that screams out at me in your comments, Antonio, is the one about my being quite proud of being a modernist, with the explanation that I was in physics before being in math. (a) I could not define modernist if my life depended on it and I honestly believe that other than in the phrase post modernist, used
[PEN-L:7211] Re: another off-list communication
Sorry for the empty message i just sent. the mailer is giving a little trouble
today.
anyway, the new idea i comment on is "People and Their Ideas".
jim said:
My criticism (explicit or implicit) of the Post-Modernist
authors and their tradition are NOT personal attacks. There's
a big difference between a person's ideas and his or her
personality.
i have thought about this issue often, usually in the context of movements and
officials of movements etc. and my place in them.
i have sometimes concluded that i would find it difficult to invite a rabid
liberal (this is in the OZ context - a conservative, pro-business, pro-rich
prick for short) into my house no matter how "nice" they were. to what extent
does behaviour become characterisations of thought.
i understand that the SS commanders like himmler and co were lovely people.
they loved their kids, family etc. were kind to their friends. but they lost
the right to live in my mind b/c of their ideas.
so i guess i am not as tolerant as jim. if someone is right-wing,
pro-capitalist, pro-the-rich - they become my class enemy. yes, they might
still be "working class" but they are in the so-called "contradictory
location".
i then wouldn't give them the time of day no matter how many "superficial"
things they might have in common with me. like sports, music, etc etc.
the thought that is always in my mind is that if they were left unfettered what
would they do?
everything i would hate. destroy the planet some more, make other peoples'
lives miserable and line their own fucking pockets.
it makes it hard.
kind regards
bill
--
## William F. Mitchell
### Head of Economics Department
#University of Newcastle
New South Wales, Australia
###* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
###Phone: +61 49 215065
# ## ###+61 49 215027
Fax: +61 49 216919
## 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:7214] Re: nattering nabob
When Habermas said that "technology and science become a leading productive force, rendering inoperative the condition for Marx's labor theory of value" and "scientific-technical progress has become an independent source of surplus value" he contributes to an erasure of the working class from political life, and allies himself with George Gilder and Wired magazine. Ditto Manuel Castels, with his vision of "information" as a directly productive force. When Donna Haraway celebrates "otherness, difference, and specificity," she is making more difficult any intellectual contribution to the development of solidarity and collectivity. There, that specific enough for you? Doug ___ But what about Habermas' position on the underclass doug? From reading this, even a blind man could tell that you are a white man from a first world country. Is that specific enough for you? Cheers, ajit sinha ps. Habermas by the way is no post-modernist. He is considered to be the leading defender of Enlightenment and modernity. So i don't understand what Habermas is doing in your rage against post-modernism? ajit sinha
[PEN-L:7213] Re: post-modern wars
There's the famous bit in Capital, beloved of all red-greens, about how progress in capitalist production jointly robs the worker and the soil. Was Marx thereby a proto-postie? Doug ___ One could seriously make the claim that Marx does stand on the boderline of Modernity and Post-modernity. If you look at the structure of his critique, it is quite post-modernist in its spirit. For example, look at his critique of Smith, Malthus, and Ricardo. Now all these stalwards of political economy and modernity rooted their theory in nature or human nature: man's desire to better his condition, man's high propensity to procreate, nature's increasing stinginess regarding its fertility, etc. Their theories always had to fall back on these naturalistic propositions. Marx systematically rejected them all. Exploitation and accumulation is not a result of man's inherent greed or desire to better his condition, but because of the forces of competition that reduces the capitalists to a cog in the system; Poverty is not a result of fraility of man's nature, but the requirement of the system to create and maintain a "reserve army of labor"; rate of profit does not fall because of the declining fertility of land, but because of a particular kind of technical change that the system endogenously engenders. This cutting the theory lose from nature and human nature is highly post-modern in spirit. However, I wouldn't call Marx a post-modern thinker because it seems to me that he does hold on to the separation of science from ideology, and I think this separation would not be acceptable within the post-modernist framework. In this discussion, I read Jim Devine talking about post-modernity as ideology or something without giving it a thought for a moment that "ideology" itself might be the most problematical idea to begin with. Things are not as simple as they seem! Cheers, ajit sinha
