[PEN-L:8939] Re: Cuba

[PHILLPS]

Bill Burgess writes:

This is exactly what Jesse Helms has been saying and the justification
for the Helms-Burton legislation that I, and the Canadian government,
has been opposing.  And I think Bill is wrong, very wrong and that
the propagation of this view hurts Cuba and Canada.

First, as I mentioned in my diary of the Cuba visit, I went down
on an aircraft and returned on an aircraft that included at least
two delegations of Canadians, funded by the Canadian government,
one in medicine, the other in technical education.  I took books
down to add to a collection that had been started by our University.
All of this was public aid and, in 2 of the 3 cases, funded by
the Canadian government.  As anybody who knows us knows, I am no great
fan of Lloyd Axworthy (though we have appeared on the same program/
platform on occassion) but his support for technical and other
aid to Cuba (his 14 points) is admirable and I don't think
entirely motivated by imperialist greed as Burgess suggests.

I think it is very destructive of Burgess to suggest that Canada's
support of Cuba's right to self-determination is based on corporate
self-interest.  As indicated, this is Helms' position.  But I think
it is also quite incorrect.  Canada may not support the revolution,
but our position has always been the right for the Cubans to make
their own decision.

Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba

[PEN-L:8938] harry johnson, dougla hibbs and class struggle.

[Michael Perelman]

Douglas Hibbs began his 1987 book, The American Political Economy, with
the quotation:

Johnson, Harry: "The avoidance of inflation and the maintenance
of full employment can be most usefully be regarded as conflicting
class interests of the bourgeoisie and proletariat, respectively,
the conflict being resolvable only by the test of relative
political lower in society and its resolution involving no
reference to an overriding concept of the social welfare."

I know his was a cut above Chicago, but this seemed to be relatively
honest.

Does anybody know the reference?  I tried to find Hibbs with Altavista,
but I only found an article that he was fired from Harvard for sexual
harassment.  He seems to be at a Swedish Institute for Economic Research
and is going to the Eastern Meetings, but no e-mail or surface mail
addresses.

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
 
Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:8937] Re: New SSA in place?

[Fikret Ceyhun]

>>At 12:42 PM -0800 3/14/97, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>Doug, I sure hope you didn't get the impression I was *endorsing* the WSJ
>>>newsitorial?! Because if you did, perhaps I will post a clarification.
>>
>>Heavens no Blair. I was reacting to the celebration of the American way of
>>life that's all the rage.
>>
>>Doug
>
>Oh, good. The JOURNAL is among my favorite print media, but entirely as a
>source of humor. (Black humor, to be sure.)
>
>:)
>
>Blair
>
>
>
>_
>
>Blair Sandler   "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Classical Marxism is a damned good one."
>_

Blair,

Can you give us the reference of the WSJ issue.

Thanks,
Fikret

[PEN-L:8936] Re: Cuba

[Bill Burgess]

If by "Canada" in the last paragraph below you mean the Canadian
government, it seems to me this suggestion is very wrong. Ottawa plays the
soft cop while Washington is hard cop. Look at Ottawa's position on the
'pilots to the rescue' incident.  However, they insist on the right to
continue to profit wherever they like, including in Cuba where they have
the advantage of no US competition. The latter is one of the benefits
of being the soft cop. I can't agree Ottawa's position on Cuba reflects
any sympathy or identification with the Cuban revolution. It shows their
determination to defend independent Canadian imperialist interests. 

Bill Burgess





On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I would like to thank Shawgi for posting Fidel's speech and
> the Granma article on the net.  I would also like to point out,
> in furtherence of his previous posting about Walmart's decision
> to take Cuban made PJ's out of their Canadian stores, that the
> company under Canadian pressure decided to sell Cuban PJs again
> but that now the American government is again trying to enforce
> US law in Canada by pressuring (prosecuting?) Walmart's American
> head office.  This is the most intolerable form of American
> imperialism that I can imagine.  It disgusts me that Americans
> put up with such clearly anti-humane behaviour on the part of
> their government.
> 
> I suspect that one of the major reasons why Canada has continued
> to support Cuba is that we would like to have the guts to stand up
> to the American bully, but that since we don't, we will cheer on
> the little guy who has the courage to do so.  If this is so,
> "Three cheers!".
> 
> Paul Phillips,
> Economics,
> University of Manitoba
> 

Bill Burgess
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
home (604) 255-5957
fax c/o (604) 822-6150

[PEN-L:8935] Cuba

[PHILLPS]

Blair,
Perhaps I was being a little extreme, but then trying to starve into
submission 10 million people, depriving the sick of medicines etc.,
seems to me to be pretty extreme imperialism.
Paul Phillips

[PEN-L:8934] Re: New SSA in place?

[Michael Eisenscher]

At 09:02 AM 3/14/97 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SNIP]
>, the WSJ today opined that a new global social structure
>of accumulation (they don't use that term, of course) is in place for a
>sustained period of high growth rates it several times refers to as a "new
>golden age."
>
>The elements of this new long term period of rapid growth include:
>"a vast expansion of economic freedom and property rights"
>"reductions in the scope of government"
>"an explosion in trade and private investment"
>"a quickening of innovation"
>"elimination of controls on international capital" [that are "irreversible"]
>

I tend to think that the next SSA is still in formation, but some of its
institutional characteristics are becoming clear.  My list is a bit larger
and more detailed than the WSJ, but does not differ in any fundamental
respects from their broad categories.  Among the principal driving forces
one would have to consider the global mobility and globalization of capital
based on the availability of digital technologies applied to production,
communication and transportation; the construction of regional geo-political
and economic trading blocs (EU, NAFTA, etc.); the collapse of the global
system of socialist states and the opposing role of the Soviet military; the
retreat of and weakened capacity of movements for national liberation
aligned to a non-capitalist alternative of economic development; restoration
of the union-free environment combined with sophisticated human relations
techniques for securing cooperation of unorganized workers and collaboration
from the leadership of the dwindling organized sectors; hollowing out of the
corporation around its core functions and creation of an ever larger
contingent labor force that can be easily eliminated to maintain profit
rates; use of flexible specialization to cater to higher value niche
markets, while retaining competitive influence within mass markets; the
ascendance of "free" market ideolology within widening spheres of social as
well as economic life; and deregulation, privatization, and contraction of
the state sector and its capacity to intervene against capital when
influenced by social pressure to do so.  I am confident that others could be
added to this list.

Regarding James Devine's reperiodization of SSAs -- 

>For the U.S., I posit that this new stage is following "small business
capitalism"
>(1840-90), "corporate capitalism" (1890-90), and "state-guided corporate
>capitalism" (1940-80).  (All dates are approximate. BTW, this is a revision
>of the SSAs that Bowles & Edwards posit and describe in their textbook.)

BTW, it is worth recalling that Gordon, Edwards, Reich, et al. arrived at
their periodization of SSAs based on a fair amount of econometric work and
empircal examination of the long swings of capitalist development.  This
analysis is based on a study of rates of profit and capital accumulation.
While Devine's modifications may hold some descriptive value for
understanding the political economy, is it supported by the same level of
empirical analysis?  This may be old hat to some of you pen-l'ers, but most
of the scholarship on SSAs to date has delineated three SSAs:
1840s-mid-1870s (formation of competitive national industrial econony) ;
1890s-1910s (monopolization of economy); and 1940s-late-1960s (postwar
militarized social welfare state/segmented labor force). The constellation
of core institutions comprising each SSA is unique to each (although some
overlap and carry-over occurs).   [See Kotz, pp. 68-69 in the collection
cited below.]  

The best recent discussion of Gordon's SSA thesis I've run across is by
Kotz, McDonough, and Reich (eds.), _Social Structures of Accumulation: the
Political Economy of Growth and Crisis_ (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994).  It
contains a fine selection of essays, including some that speak to weaknesses
in the original SSA work.  

In solidarity,
Michael
**
Michael Eisenscher
Workers Education Local 189, CWA
Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program
University of Massachusetts-Boston

391 Adams Street
Oakland, CA 94610-3131
-
Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax)
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
"Class consciousness is knowing which side of the fence you're on; 
class analysis is knowing who is there with you."
from a poster, source unknown

 "Peter Drucker, whose many books and articles over the years have helped 
   facilitate the new economic reality, says quite bluntly that 
   'the disappearance of labor as a key factor of production' is going to
   emerge as the critical 'unfinished business of capitalist society.' "
  
   Quoted in Jeremy Rifkin, THE END OF WORK (NY: Tarcher/Putnam, 1995) p.12 
   He cites the Drucker book which I haven't seen.  I apologize for the 
   confusion.   (thanks to Gary L. Olse

[PEN-L:8933] Re: Marilyn Waring

[Tom Walker]

Perhaps Bill Cochrane was just being sarcastic, but I don't recall seeing
anyone nominate Marilyn Waring for sainthood or minor deity status. In my
view, being a tory is no disqualification for having something sensible to
say. Nor is being "no friend of unions or . . . other traditional left
progressive organizations (OTLPOs)" an unforgivable sin.

Unions and OTLPOs have often been hostile to environmental issues, 'women's'
issues, and racial equality issues. Unions have often been hostile to the
'left'. For that matter, TLPOs are often hostile to OTLPOs.

Unions and OTLPOs have traditionally gone along with a capitalist GDP growth
model, disputing only the ultimate division of the spoils. Sometimes it
takes a tory to say something sensible that 'even' the left refuses to
acknowledge.

In the 1970s North American left there was a lot of anxiety about
'ideological purity'. Sectlet competed with sectlet for mastery of a
'correct analysis.' Of course, some of the big wigs of some of the most
rigourously pure sectlets went on to academic careers and had 'second
thoughts' about their youthful radicalism, joining the already considerable
ranks of ex-marxist neo-cons. This alone should serve as sufficient warning
against the tenuousness of using ancestoral *ad hominem* as a criteria for
dismissing or embracing ideas.

Regards, 

Tom Walker
^^
knoW Ware Communications  |
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA   |  "Only in mediocre art
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |does life unfold as fate."
(604) 669-3286|
^^
 The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm 

[PEN-L:8931] Re:Marilyn Waring

[Doug Henwood]

At 12:41 AM -0800 3/15/97, Rosenberg, Bill wrote:

>I suppose my view is partly
>coloured by the fact that New Zealand is currently a desert when
>looking for people who are willing to speak out with anything
>significantly different from the current market-is-god form of
>political correctness.

How high is Jane Kelsey's profile in NZ? Her book, The New Zealand
Experiment, is certainly at oods with the market-is-god form of PC.

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: 
web: 

[PEN-L:8932] Call for papers

[Ellen Dannin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

March 15, 1997

Final Call for Proposals

The International Law Journal of California Western School of Law
is dedicating its Fall 1997 issue to a symposium dedicated to
discussing New Zealand's Employment Contracts Act, 1991. Persons
interested in participating in the symposium are invited to
submit a proposal outlining an article addressing the ECA. It is
the editors' intention that the subject be addressed from many
disciplinary views. Articles are therefore not only sought from
lawyers or academics.

In order to create a symposium which provides a thorough and
engaging discussion of the Employment Contracts Act, the
International Law Journal welcomes a variety of articles on the
legislation. Your submission can address any viewpoint or concern
relating to the effects, implications or consequences of the
statute. The law journal is also interested in analyses which
compare New Zealand's Employment Contracts Act with labor
statutes of other countries.

If you would like to contribute an article for publication, we
request that you reply to the International Law Journal by April
1, 1997. We also ask that you submit, along with that reply, a
300-500 word abstract on the topic of your article. The finished
papers should be 5-25 pages in length, and they must be completed
by August 1, 1997. In appropriate circumstances the Internatinal
Law Journal will consider articles which have been published
outside the United States.

Please contact any of the following individuals if you have any
questions regarding this symposium:

þ Matthew Ritter, Executive Editor International Law Journal, or
  Kevin Travis, Lead Articles Editor International Law Journal

California Western School of Law
225 Cedar Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 525-1481
Fax: (619) 231-6774
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

þ Professor Ellen Dannin, Professor of Law, California Western
  School of Law

Tel: (619) 525-1449
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

We look forward to your response.

Very truly yours,



Matthew Ritter  Kevin Travis Ellen J. Dannin
Executive EditorLead Articles Editor Associate Professor
 of Law 

[PEN-L:8930] Re:Marilyn Waring

[Rosenberg, Bill]

In general I agree with Bill Cochrane's comments on Marilyn Waring.
She was after all elected as a National Party member of Parliament. 
At that stage in its life, National was Tory in the most
traditional way: socially and economically reactionary, though 
not yet globalist or anti-interventionist. However I wouldn't be quite
as dismissive as Bill C. She does have useful and thoughtful things
to say about issues such as feminism and of course the feminist
economics that started this discussion. I suppose my view is partly
coloured by the fact that New Zealand is currently a desert when
looking for people who are willing to speak out with anything
significantly different from the current market-is-god form of
political correctness.

I wouldn't go as far as Bill C. on Helen Clark, leader of
the Labour Party. She is undoubtedly intelligent and hard working. 
But she is also willing to put up with central aspects of her 
party's policy which would negate any remnants of social democratic 
conscience. She was, after all, a prominent figure in the 
Lange/Douglas cabinet. There are equally hard working but 
more principled women in the Alliance I'd nominate in her place. And 
of course Jane Kelsey.

Marilyn Waring certainly wasn't the only woman in Parliament. It's a
very long time, 60 years or so, since there was only one woman in
the New Zealand Parliament. She may well have been the only woman in
the National Party caucus though, and being a radical woman
amongst a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool tory chauvinists of the old
school would have been an alienating experience to put it mildly.

Bill Rosenberg


> Comrades
> I write this with some trepidation, given the view in many quarters that
> Marilyn Waring should be elevated to the status of at least saint, perhaps
> a medium league deity.
> Marliyn Waring is and always has been a tory, albeit of a liberal kind. She
> is no friend of unions or a number of other traditional "left" progressive
> organizations and IMHO it would be ill advised to expect much in the way of
> progressive, in the left wing sense, thought from this individual and even
> less in the way of deed, despite what some of her apologists might say.
> As an aside it is inaccurate to state that Ms Waring was the only women
> member of parliament at the time of her election and I would be interested
> in the source of this particular statement.
> If one wanted to single out a women in NZ politics who is both intelligent,
> capable, hard working and has at least a residual commitment to social
> democratic principles I would nominate the current leader of the Labour
> party Helen Clark. If you like academics then try Jane kelsey.
> I say this largely because when tory scum masquerade as progressives it
> makes me want to vomit.
> Cheers
> 
> Bill Cochrane
> Centre for Labour and Trade Union Studies
> University of Waikato
> Hamilton
> New Zealand
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
>