[PEN-L:11155] Re: shun him!

[Ajit Sinha]

At 02:17 PM 7/6/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I have removed Karl from pen-l.  Although I have had private
>communications asking me to do so, I waited until the sentiment seemed
>stronger.  I think that we have reached that point.
>
>This is the least entertaining part of pen-l, but at least it is an
>issue that comes only infrequently.
>-- 
>Michael Perelman
___

I seiously protest against this move. If a progressive intelectual community
will show such intolerance then future of democracy is indeed bleak. In my
opinion Karl could easily be ingaged into a debate on feminist politics, and
Maggie's response was slowly moving things in that direction. Too bad it
wasn't given a chance. ajit sinha

[PEN-L:11154] Re: Capital and the State

[William S. Lear]

On Sun, July 6, 1997 at 17:49:37 (-0700) James Devine writes:
>...
>Where [nation-states] fail is in the provision of what people like Charles
>Kindleberger call "international public goods," e.g., the avoidance of
>trade wars, hot wars, world-wide underconsumption tendencies, international
>currency instability, interconnected stock-market crashes, world-wide
>environmental destruction as with global warming, etc.

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir, but it seems that these "public"
goods must also, critically, include neutralization of the democratic
threat.  So far, the beginnings of the state apparatus that Jim
outlines are succeeding splendidly at that necessary task, as these
newer global elements of governance are layered behind current state
hierarchies which are increasingly impervious to meaningful democratic
control.

This success is due largely to what I think Paul Baran (by way of
James O'Connor's _The Corporations and the State_) referred to as
"capitalism's growing army of open and hidden persuaders":
professional manipulators and liars arrayed from the
Krugman/Donaldson/Clinton left to the Friedman/Limbaugh/Gingrich
right, handsomely paid by different blocs of elites to pose as
scholars, journalists, and public servants, of every stripe and
refinement, whose noxious pontifications and system-reinforcing fake
disagreements echo from sea to lavishly-funded media sea.

>Eventually, as "international public goods" become more important, a global
>state will be needed -- but if it isn't provided, there will be a
>persistent world disaster (take your pick from the list above).

Just a small addition: given the current strength of democracy
worldwide, this is only true if a fight among elites occurs over these
public goods.  Concessions among elites can very easily consist simply
of a few more dead bodies on one side of the border or the other (via
war or economic "austerity"---the latest fashionable euphemism for
murder and abuse).  Also, today's weapons for pre-empting and fighting
local and national popular resistances are sharpened to a razor's edge
along a wide range of scales of public action.

But the masters of the universe have other reasons to actively avoid
constructing anything too closely resembling a state.  A state can be
dangerous because it can be too obvious; once seen, it could stimulate
an appetite for democratic participation, which would necessitate
construction of yet another layer of elaborate lies (the farces called
elections, etc.) to mollify this hunger, an undertaking which is far
from cost-free to elites.

Perhaps part of the logic behind the strategy of low-growth economies
is that it is better to slowly and deliberately gnaw on the corpses and
the merely wounded of the world, rather than to make any rash moves,
which might so frighten and enrage the other feeders that they might
turn on you, giving room to the victims to escape and/or fight back
themselves.  "Low-growth, high-profits" the hyenas chant to
themselves...

>The future global state's roots can also be found in organizations such as
>the IMF, World Bank, BIS,  the UN, etc. (Of this list, only the BIS
>precedes WW II and US hegemony -- and it isn't very important.) But so far
>such agencies  have simply been encouraging competition among
>nation-states. Instead of 1930s-style trade wars or the hot wars of the
>1914-45 period, we see competitive austerity as countries try to sell
>themselves to world capital. So far, this competition has served capital
>very well. But if it causes a global crisis, we should expect moves to end
>the competition. Maybe a global New Deal? Could the NGOs that harrass the
>World Bank be the source of the FDRs of the future? 

One should add that much of the function of states is being taken over
by private financial markets.  The capitalization of everything not
nailed down, material or spiritual is all too apparent (and
masterfully uncovered and described in Doug Henwood's _Wall Street_).
This is another reason why elites might be loathe to create a global
state---the market is succeeding rather well at dominating just about
everything (though, I should say that this behavior is contrary to
what Adam Smith claimed would happen: "The necessity of civil
government grows up with the acquisition of valuable property"; but I
am probably being too literal in applying the word "valuable").

This all might be too pessimistic and gloomy, but perhaps one should
nevertheless ask: will these structures of governance, should the
party for the wealthy turn sour, again be the source of not only the
rather more benign FDRs, but also the Hitlers of our future?


Bill

[PEN-L:11153] The Conde Report On U.S.-Mexico Relations

[Michael Eisenscher]

 
 THE CONDE REPORT ON U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS

 Volume 1, Issue 24, Monday, July 7, 1997 

  "AND THE WALLS FELL"

 NEWS ITEMS OF SIGNIFICANCE IN U.S.-MEXICO RELATIONS
 
 EDITOR: Francisco J. Conde, CONDE CONSULTING GROUP, INC., An
International Business,   Marketing & Communications
Consultancy, 14500 Dallas Pkwy, Ste. 402, Dallas, Texas 75240-8315, 
 TELEPHONE: (972) 392-1361, FAX: (972) 392-2683, INTERNET E-MAIL
ADDRESS:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 +++ 
 
 INDEX:
 
 1.) EDITORIAL ON THE BEAUTIFUL 'FIESTA OF DEMOCRACY' AND THE
FUTURE OF MEXICO
CLOSER
 3.) PRIVATE OWNERS OF N. LAREDO-MEXICO CITY RAIL LINE CUT STAFF BY
50 PERCENT
 
  
 

 By The Conde Report

 ON THE BEAUTIFUL 'FIESTA OF DEMOCRACY' AND THE FUTURE OF MEXICO

 EDITORIAL --(TCR)--Today we shall have a relatively clear picture
of the direction in which the 53 million eligible Mexican voters choose
to take the country in an accounting of the results of the July 6, 1997
elections for the Congress, Senate, Mayor of Mexico City and several
key governships.

 But it might behoove us to reflect "On The Beautiful Fiesta of
Democracy" in the felicitous phrase used by President Ernesto Zedillo
to encourage Mexico's voters to use their power of the ballot to make
known their wishes to their national, state and local leaders. The
Beautiful Fiesta is something to behold, the peaceful alternation of
power in the national legislative chambers and in the presidency. In
the United States and in Europe we have watched as the people have
brought about startling changes. 

 In the U.S., we have witnessed the Republican Revolution of
November 1994, which eliminated Democratic majorities in both the U.S.
House and Senate for the first time in 40 years. Failing to heed sober
counsel and misunderstanding the obligations imposed by the requirement
of governing due to too many years in the wilderness, House Speaker
Newt Gingrich, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and House
Majority Leader Dick Armey squandered a golden moment. Their serious
underestimation of the spine, intelligence and tactical and strategical
strengths of minority party President Bill Clinton gave him the chance
to recover. Since then Clinton has grown enormously, while Dole fell as
a poor presidential candidate in November 1996 and Gingrich's vehemence
led to overwhelming unpopularity and the smallest majority in Congress
in November 1996 elections in decades, weakening the unity and strength
of the Republican Party. What appeared a Revolution with a capital R
turned out to be more of a strong wind storm that has faded. 

 The example above is to underscore that, In effect, we are
watching in Mexico a non-presidential year election in Mexico, a
so-called mid-year election, in which Mexicans are offered an
opportunity to redress and to correct the direction of the nation. All
of the polls indicate that the people are intent on eliminating the
68-year majority of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in the
Mexican lower house of Congress, or Chamber of Deputies, akin to the
U.S. House of Representatives, while the upper house, a more
deliberative, thoughtful body, is expected to remain under the control
of the long-ruling PRI. 

 If the many polls are sustained as accurate by the election
results, the Mexican lower house with the constitutionally endowed
"power of the purse" can be expected to reduce the austerity of
government spending in recent years and begin to take efforts to
assuage the tremendous negative loss of wages and buying power of the
overwhelming majority of the Mexican population. That, rather than, a
negative, is likely to spur greater consumer spending over time, thus
providing a stronger underpinning to an economic recovery that
seemingly is doing quite well without it.  
 
 That lower house victory is likely be the most important
development arising from this election. The loud noises over a victory
by Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) leader and ex-PRI Governor
Cuauhtémoc Cardenas over all comers for Mexico City Mayor, while
significant and notable, is likely to have more symbolic than real
impact. His victory in the first-time capital mayoral election since
1928 will prove to be a difficult assisgnment, given that the D.F.
government is weak and $2 billion U.S. in debt. His will be the
challenge to provide effective, effecient government for the citys' 18
million residents, rather than to challenge the nation's President from
his seat. If he fails to understand that, his popularity in the capital
will sooner drop than rise.  

 But above all, to be observed on this day of election results is
the overall condition of the nation. I

[PEN-L:11152] Re: shun him!

[blairs]

>Shunning is better than cutting someone out of the list, but it takes a
>high degree of agreement and self-discipline among listers.
>
>I sometimes despair at the little room that is often allowed for (what I
>think are) ideas worth hearing, or if not worth hearing, at least better
>heard than held secretly. However, Karl's comments were sexist in a way
>that I don't think most of us would tolerate in a face-to-face
>conversation, or at any public event we had any responsibility for.
>
>I say thank you Michael P. for kicking him out. This is not censorship. It
>is our right to a democratic atmosphere for discussions, and that requires
>prompt action against the kind of blatant and aggressive sexism I read in
>Karl's first couple of messages (I am assuming the rest were more of the
>same, because I didn't read through them).
>
>
>Bill Burgess  ([EMAIL PROTECTED])


Most folks who've expressed opinions have supported Michael's decision to
kick Karl off the list. I think Bill above has articulated something like
my thoughts: PEN-L is a commons regime and it may sometimes require defense
against those who would despoil it.

Michael: I think you do a great job of keeping PEN-L healthy. In my opinion
it has just about the highest signal to noise ratio of any email list I'm
aware of, even though I have disagreements about all sorts of things with
many people on the list and can't always read everything I want for lack of
time. Thanks!




_

Blair Sandler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"They say that it's never too late,
but you know you don't get any younger.
Well I better learn how to
starve the emptiness and feed the hunger.

-- Indigo Girls

_

[PEN-L:11151] Re: shun him!

[Bill Burgess]

Shunning is better than cutting someone out of the list, but it takes a
high degree of agreement and self-discipline among listers.

I sometimes despair at the little room that is often allowed for (what I
think are) ideas worth hearing, or if not worth hearing, at least better
heard than held secretly. However, Karl's comments were sexist in a way
that I don't think most of us would tolerate in a face-to-face
conversation, or at any public event we had any responsibility for. 

I say thank you Michael P. for kicking him out. This is not censorship. It
is our right to a democratic atmosphere for discussions, and that requires
prompt action against the kind of blatant and aggressive sexism I read in
Karl's first couple of messages (I am assuming the rest were more of the
same, because I didn't read through them).


Bill Burgess  ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Department of Geography, Tel: (604) 822-2663
University of British Columbia, B.C. Fax: (604) 822-6150

[PEN-L:11150] Zapatista Election Statement

[Michael Eisenscher]

 (fwd)
*ZAPATISMO NEWS UPDATE*--July 5, 1997

A service of the Zapatista Front of National Liberation.

More information regarding the FZLN and the Zapatista struggle in Mexico
can be found at:
http://www.peak.org/~joshua/fzln  (English)
http://spin.com.mx/~floresu/FZLN  (Spanish)

This and previous news updates can also be found at:
http://www.peak.org/~joshua/fzln/news.html

Please send comments to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

   

SPECIAL PRE-ELECTORAL NEWS UPDATE (JUNE 22 - JULY 5, 1997):
   
   1. Many indigenous communities will refrain from voting in the
elections: EZLN and CNI
   2. The effect of the elections on the peace process,
"uncertain": CONAI
   3. Mexican Army to stay in its barracks on July 6th
   4. Paramilitary violence continues in the north of Chiapas
   
 _
  
 EZLN: Many Indigenous Communities will Refrain from Voting
  
   In a lengthy communique dated July 1st, Subcomandante Marcos announced
   that, due to the "climate of civil war promoted by the government", as
   well as the failure of the government to implement the San Andres
   Accords on Indigenous Rights and Culture (which include a recognition
   of the right of indigenous communities to practice their own forms of
   electing leaders and representatives) and the militarization of
   indigenous communities across the country, the Zapatista Army of
   National Liberation supports those indigenous communities who have
   decided not participate in the July 6th elections.
   
   In response to criticisms received by the EZLN for its relative
   silence in recent months regarding the electoral process, the 7-page
   document also clearly spells out the EZLN's position and political
   proposal with respect to electoral democracy in general:

   "In electoral moments or outside of them, our political position is
   and has been clear. We are not in favor of any political party, but
   neither are we against them; we are not electoral, but neither are we
   anti-electoral. Our position is against the State-party system, it is
   against presidentialism, it is for democracy, liberty and justice,
   it is of the left, it is inclusive, and it is anti-neoliberal.
   
   "There have been many criticisms which we have received for this
   position of seeking to construct "another" politics, and there
   have been many attempts to dilute or politically "normalize" those
   non-partisan civilian manifestations. The case of Alianza Civica,
   which would have had to renounce its right of electoral
   observation in exchange for its "registration" as a political
   association, is a sample of the monopoly which exists in politics.
   The political parties (and some intellectuals, found today in the
   presidency of the Federal Electoral Institute), view every
   non-partisan proposal as if it were really partisan.

   "But the "other" politics does not seek to occupy the space of
   party politics; it is born from the crisis of the parties and
   tends to occupy the space which is not covered by partisan tasks.
   The "other" politics seeks to organize itself in order to
   "overturn" the logic of party politics, and seeks to construct a
   new relationship between the Nation and its parts: citizens who
   have the right to be full-time citizens, differentiated and
   specific, united by a history and by that which arises from that
   history. This new relationship involves the government as well as
   the political parties, the communications media, the churches, the
   army, private business, the police, the Judicial Power, as well as
   the Congress of the Union."

   (...)

   "Democracy is not only electoral, but it is also electoral. The
   electoral arena does not just refer to the confrontation of
   candidates and/or political proposals at the ballot box. It also
   has to do with the viability of that route, the equitable
   conditions it demands, and the relationship of the elected
   officials with the electors...

   "Democracy is not the alternating of Power. If the political
   system continues to exclude its citizens, if it continues to
   "kidnap" political tasks, if the only thing achieved is a
   "widening" or "alternating" of the leadership of authoritarianism
   (yesterday one-party, tomorrow bi- or tri-party), then democracy
   will continue to be out of reach of the citizens and other forms
   of struggle which are non-partisan, including the armed struggle,
   will continue to be not only a possibility but a reality in any
   Mexican mountain or street."
   
   With respect to the current ele

[PEN-L:11149] Re: shun him!

[MScoleman]

In a message dated 97-07-06 19:42:14 EDT, you write:

>Michael has done an admirable job of keeping this list
>going.

I agree 100%.  maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:11148] Re: Feminism is sexist?

[MScoleman]

In a message dated 97-07-06 16:34:18 EDT, you write:

>
>KARL: More misconstructions of my position.I certainly did not say
>all. I said MUCH:"much of the genralities made about men as a gender
>have a sexist character".  How can one take what you say seriously
>when you misrepresent postings at this most elementary of levels.
>
>

Karl, I reprinted your ENTIRE message and replied to it line by line.  I am
not going to do this again--clearly you don't like owning up to your own
quotes.  maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:11147] Re: Feminism is sexist?

[MScoleman]

In a message dated 97-07-06 15:09:20 EDT, you write:

>Subj:  [PEN-L:11138] Re: Feminism is sexist?
>Date:  97-07-06 15:09:20 EDT
>From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen E Philion)
>Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Maggie,
>I guess I was being too subtle. FTR, of course I don't agree with Karl's
>post, it was written to provoke a flame war. You call his post "a
>conglomeration of contradictory statements..."  And I would add, one that
>merits little in the way of serious dicussion...at least on the PEN-L list
>at least.
>Steve

Steve;
I didn't really think you agreed with him, but I had to ask.  Truthfully,
I've never paid much attention to most of Carlile's posts--they are too long
and rambling for me.  This is one of the first ones I actually read from
beginning to end.  I wasn't aware of his purpose in life--to start flame
wars, and agree that he should simply be ignored.
maggie

[PEN-L:11146] Re: Capital and the State

[James Devine]

While I was hassling other things in my life (and thus not intervening at
every step to share my wisdom with  pen-l ;-) ),  Terry McDonough, Eric
Nilsson, Ken Hanly, and Bill Rosenberg started a useful discussion that
spun off from that of Bill Burgess and myself. Ignoring most of what was
said, which seemed generally valid, I just want to make a couple of points.


The nation-state serves capital (both local and global) very well for some
things and poorly for others. The nation-states are usually pretty good at
preserving order and protecting capital on a national scale  without
international help.

Where they fail is in the provision of what people like Charles
Kindleberger call "international public goods," e.g., the avoidance of
trade wars, hot wars, world-wide underconsumption tendencies, international
currency instability, interconnected stock-market crashes, world-wide
environmental destruction as with global warming, etc. As capital
internationalizes, more and more of these types of problems come up.

Eventually, as "international public goods" become more important, a global
state will be needed -- but if it isn't provided, there will be a
persistent world disaster (take your pick from the list above). There is
nothing automatic about the rise of the global state: a greater degree of
international control over the economy was needed during the 1930s but
wasn't attained. Only WW II got the world out of the depression. That war
also produced US hegemony (or hedgemoney?), which  provided a _de facto_
world quasi-government until recently. The relative decline of the US and
end of enforced unity to fight the USSR have made that quasi-government
more quasi. 

The future global state's roots can also be found in organizations such as
the IMF, World Bank, BIS,  the UN, etc. (Of this list, only the BIS
precedes WW II and US hegemony -- and it isn't very important.) But so far
such agencies  have simply been encouraging competition among
nation-states. Instead of 1930s-style trade wars or the hot wars of the
1914-45 period, we see competitive austerity as countries try to sell
themselves to world capital. So far, this competition has served capital
very well. But if it causes a global crisis, we should expect moves to end
the competition. Maybe a global New Deal? Could the NGOs that harrass the
World Bank be the source of the FDRs of the future? 

in pen-l solidarity,

Jimmy
Jim Devine

[PEN-L:11145] Re: shun him!

[Michael Perelman]

bill mitchell wrote:
 
> A sad day micheal that you have to be the censor. self-regulation (along
> jim's lines) would have been better. then you give the person a chance
> to re-engage the dialogue in some effective way.
> 
> it is too easy to just silence.

Self-regulation would be better, but I have never seen shunning work on
pen-l.  I held off on taking action, but by the time that the person
starts to become the center of our conversation, the dynamics will spin
out of control.

You might recall that we had already tried to ask Karl to communicate in
a less provocative way some weeks ago.  I saw no reason to believe that
self-discipline would work on his side.
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
 
Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:11144] Re: shun him!

[Doug Henwood]

bill mitchell wrote:

>it is too easy to just silence.

I can't agree. Michael has done an admirable job of keeping this list
going. There's no better example of the dangers of not having a door policy
than what happened to the first Spoons' Marxism list, which crashed and
burned in breathtaking ferocity and idiocy when people like Karl weren't
given the boot.

Doug

[PEN-L:11143] Re: shun him!

[bill mitchell]

At 02:17 PM 7/6/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I have removed Karl from pen-l.  Although I have had private
>communications asking me to do so, I waited until the sentiment seemed
>stronger.  I think that we have reached that point.
>
>This is the least entertaining part of pen-l, but at least it is an
>issue that comes only infrequently.
>-- 

A sad day micheal that you have to be the censor. self-regulation (along
jim's lines) would have been better. then you give the person a chance
to re-engage the dialogue in some effective way.

it is too easy to just silence.

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
#  ## ###  Fax:   +61 49 216919  
   Mobile: 0419 422 410 
  ##
  
WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html

[PEN-L:11142] Re: shun him!

[Michael Perelman]

I have removed Karl from pen-l.  Although I have had private
communications asking me to do so, I waited until the sentiment seemed
stronger.  I think that we have reached that point.

This is the least entertaining part of pen-l, but at least it is an
issue that comes only infrequently.
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
 
Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:11141] Re: shun him!

[Doug Henwood]

Karl Carlile wrote:

>Clearly big boy Jimmy is unable to seriously challenge what I say so
>he spits out bile instead. Big boy ha,  ha,   ha,..

Karl, you're a strange, disturbed, and disturbing person. Please reserve
this stuff for Marxism-General.


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:11140] Re: Feminism is sexist?

[Karl Carlile]

KARL: Hi Maggie!

MAGGIE: In fact, men do criticize women as a gender constantly.  This is
pervasive throughout society.  Example #1. Who exactly do you think
is being criticized by the press as being welfare cheats?  All those
white guys with union jobs?  All those white, male, tenured
professors teaching economics? Example #2. Women's appearance. I wish
I had a dollar for every time I heard one of my co-workers criticize a
woman's weight while overlooking his own beer belly.  Or, the way
women dress: women who have blue collar jobs look too masculine,
women who wear mini skirts are asking to get raped, and forget about
women's suits in business--there is no way to dress to avoid
criticism. Example # 3.  How women perform the reproductive
activities assigned to them (by men).  Women who pursue careers are
'bad' mothers.  Women who stay home to take care of their children
while on public assistance are lazy.  Basically, you sitting and
having coffee (served by the waitress in her properly subservient
position) and thinking to yourself about how sexist feminists are
provides me with the picture of every self-satisfied man I've ever
watched who ordered women around while thinking of how liberal he
was!

KARL: Of course there is a constant  barrage of sexism at both the 
linguistic and extra linguistic levels directed against women. I 
never denied that. You are grossly misconstructing my comments 
whetehr intentionally or not.

MAGGIE: This is an interesting conglomeration of contradictory
statements. Are you saying that all generalities about men are
sexist?

KARL: More misconstructions of my position.I certainly did not say
all. I said MUCH:"much of the genralities made about men as a gender
have a sexist character".  How can one take what you say seriously
when you misrepresent postings at this most elementary of levels.

  Hmm, so we are to see men as individuals.  O.k., but you
refuse to accord the same individuality to feminists who we must see
as a group of sexists.

KARL: This is a pain in the ass! More macro economy with the truth. I 
never suggested that feminists constitute "a group of sexists." I 
stated that many feminists are sexist. Clearly all feminists are not 
sexists. Clearly there are men (such as I) and women who are 
feminists and non-sexist in our politics.

Maggie please address the issue raised by me instead of constructing 
fabrications. The kind of writing you are curently engaged in might be 
cosntrued as a form of flame baiting. As you see I have been 
earnestly trying to avoid any flaming despite what some would regard 
as your best efforts with the bellows.





On  6 Jul 97 at 5:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 97-07-04 06:47:02 EDT, you write:
>excellent job of flame provoking...  steve
Does this mean you agree with Karl Carlile?

>On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Karl Carlile wrote:
>> Comrades,
So, Karl, are you writing to your male "comrades" your female
"comrades" or your nonfeminist "comrades" of both genders?? >> >>
While having a mug of coffee I thought to myself Clearly talking to
yourself is not always the most productive activity.

>>that much of what is regarded as progressive feminism is essentially
>>sexist
and >>separatist.  It is quite common for many feminists to make
general criticisms of >> men as a gender. Yet if a man was to make
critical comments about >> women as a gender he would be castigated by
much of feminism as >> sexist. In fact, men do criticize women as a
gender constantly.  This is pervasive throughout society.  Example #1.
 Who exactly do you think is being criticized by the press as being
welfare cheats?  All those white guys with union jobs?  All those
white, male, tenured professors teaching economics?
 Example #2. Women's appearance. I wish I had a dollar for every time
 I heard
one of my co-workers criticize a woman's weight while overlooking his
own beer belly.  Or, the way women dress: women who have blue collar
jobs look too masculine, women who wear mini skirts are asking to get
raped, and forget about women's suits in business--there is no way to
dress to avoid criticism.
 Example # 3.  How women perform the reproductive activities assigned
 to them
(by men).  Women who pursue careers are 'bad' mothers.  Women who stay
home to take care of their children while on public assistance are
lazy.  
  Basically, you sitting and having coffee (served by the
  waitress in
her properly subservient position) and thinking to yourself about how
sexist feminists are provides me with the picture of every
self-satisfied man I've ever watched who ordered women around while
thinking of how liberal he was!

>> It seems to me that much of the the generalities of a critical
>> nature made about men as a gender have a sexist character to them.
>> It would therefore seem that much of the so called feminist
>> movement is sexist and seeks to create a reactionary polarization
>> within the working c

[PEN-L:11139] Re: shun him!

[Karl Carlile]

KARL: Jimmy's letter below is a supreme example of flame baiting. It 
is filled with bile that may reflect the character of his 
personality. And not unexpectedly it lacks content.

Instead of debating issues he prefers to proceed on a level that may
most suit him. It is at this low level  that his satisfaction rating
is at best average which is a huge improvement on any attempts 
he makes to proceed on an even quasi-intellectual level.

Clearly big boy Jimmy is unable to seriously challenge what I say so 
he spits out bile instead. Big boy ha,  ha,   ha,.. 


On  6 Jul 97 at 11:45, James Devine wrote:

Much as I appreciate Maggie Coleman's efforts, I think the appropriate
response to Karl Carlisle's disgusting presence on the pen-l list is
for everyone to ignore his postings -- and never ever to reply to
them. Eventually, if he has a drop of sanity in his body, he will
understand that his utterances and efforts to spawn flame-wars are
being ignored and are therefore pointless -- so he will leave. It's
worked in the past. 

I bet that a lot of folks were already doing this.  

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine

  




  Yours etc.,
 Karl   

[PEN-L:11138] Re: Feminism is sexist?

[Stephen E Philion]

Maggie,
I guess I was being too subtle. FTR, of course I don't agree with Karl's
post, it was written to provoke a flame war. You call his post "a
conglomeration of contradictory statements..."  And I would add, one that
merits little in the way of serious dicussion...at least on the PEN-L list
at least.
Steve


 On Sun, 6 Jul 1997
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> In a message dated 97-07-04 06:47:02 EDT, you write:
> >excellent job of flame provoking...  steve
> Does this mean you agree with Karl Carlile?
> 
> >On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Karl Carlile wrote:
> >> Comrades,
> So, Karl, are you writing to your male "comrades" your female "comrades" or
> your nonfeminist "comrades" of both genders??
> >> 
> >> While having a mug of coffee I thought to myself 
> Clearly talking to yourself is not always the most productive activity.
> 
> >>that much of what is regarded as progressive feminism is essentially sexist
> and >>separatist.  It is quite common for many feminists to make general
> criticisms of
> >> men as a gender. Yet if a man was to make critical comments about
> >> women as a gender he would be castigated by much of feminism as
> >> sexist. 
> In fact, men do criticize women as a gender constantly.  This is pervasive
> throughout society.  Example #1.  Who exactly do you think is being
> criticized by the press as being welfare cheats?  All those white guys with
> union jobs?  All those white, male, tenured professors teaching economics?
>  Example #2. Women's appearance. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard
> one of my co-workers criticize a woman's weight while overlooking his own
> beer belly.  Or, the way women dress: women who have blue collar jobs look
> too masculine, women who wear mini skirts are asking to get raped, and forget
> about women's suits in business--there is no way to dress to avoid criticism.
>  Example # 3.  How women perform the reproductive activities assigned to them
> (by men).  Women who pursue careers are 'bad' mothers.  Women who stay home
> to take care of their children while on public assistance are lazy.  
>   Basically, you sitting and having coffee (served by the waitress in
> her properly subservient position) and thinking to yourself about how sexist
> feminists are provides me with the picture of every self-satisfied man I've
> ever watched who ordered women around while thinking of how liberal he
> was!
> 
> >> It seems to me that much of the the generalities of a critical nature
> >> made about men as a gender have a sexist character to them. It would
> >> therefore seem that much of the so called feminist movement is sexist
> >> and seeks to create a reactionary polarization within the working
> >> class along gender lines thereby reinforcing division within the
> >> working class. 
> This is an interesting conglomeration of contradictory statements.  Are you
> saying that all generalities about men are sexist?  Hmm, so we are to see men
> as individuals.  O.k., but you refuse to accord the same individuality to
> feminists who we must see as a group of sexists.  Then, you define feminists
> as a "so-called ... movement."  Well, if it's not a movement, how can it make
> overarching sexist statements?  Finally, you say feminism divides the working
> class.  Does that mean feminism is ok for other classes?  How about
> professionals, should they be allowed to be feminist?  Or, does this mean
> that working class men should continue to be allowed to exploit the labor of
> women and children within the home?  If this is the case, I suppose you would
> agree that whites in the working class should be allowed to continue to hold
> on to their racist attitudes too?  
> 
> >>This in turn sustains the politically weak nature of
> >> the working class.
> Well, I am so glad to see you agree with someone.  The Republicans who penned
> the "Contract with America" also blamed unwed mothers, and women who seek
> roles outside the home, as the primary enemy of a healthy economy in the
> United States.  You must be so proud to be espousing the same logic as Newt
> Gingrich.
> 
> >> 
> >> In short sexism is prevalent both among men and women.
> >> 
> >> Karl
> So, you've run into a few sexist women, and you use this to justify your own
> bigotry.  That's really intelligent!
> 
> Feminism is not associated with femaleness in the same fashion  as
> menstruation.  In fact, there are many feminist men out there.  Broadly
> defined, feminism seeks to include gender into the academic discussion within
> social sciences.  Clearly, you are of the school which feels men don't have
> gender and women should shut up and clean.
> 
> maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 

[PEN-L:11137] (Fwd) Re: ism's, class consciousness, and SOLIDARITY

[Karl Carlile]

--- Forwarded Message Follows ---
Date:  Sun, 6 Jul 1997 11:59:20 +0100
Reply-to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard K. Moore)
To:WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:   Re: ism's, class consciousness, and SOLIDARITY


7/05/97, Karl Carlile wrote:
>The point I am
>making is that much of feminism is sexist both in its language and
>corresponding politics. ... By reinforcing divisions along gender
>lines their anti-male sexism reinforces division among the working
>masses along these same lines and consequently weakens the working
>class on the political plane.

No disagreement with the above.

In terms of elite/media-encouraged divide-and-conquer, feminism
apparently succumbs on several fronts:
 Abortion * divides feminists from other women and from
 "Christians".
  Men-blaming * divides feminists from men.
   Bitterness * separates feminists from full collective
   empowerment.

(This is perhaps stereotyping - my apologies to enlightened feminists
who may see this discussion as a bunch of typical men blabbing about
what they don't understand.)

---

What I've been trying to express in several previous messages is that
remedying divisiveness is not best approached by focusing on the
points of division.  Such an approach is "giving the initiative to the
enemy (the elite)" and "fighting on the enemy's chosen ground" and
"reactive problem solving".  The fundamental flaw in reactive
problem-solving is that it loses impetus in the face of success, and
gains impetus in the face of failure - the energy feedback loop rules
out ultimate success but burns up lots of energy in the attempt.

We cannot expect a dramatic conceptual breakthrough with abortion or
with man-woman relations that will heal the feminist rifts - the more
these issues are discussed, the more elaborated become the differences
(kind of like my debates with Andrew, which never seem to converge -
and we're more open to dialog than are radical feminists or
fundamentalist Christians). It's the _debate_ about abortion that
keeps the differences alive.

And contrary to the apparent hopes of Andrew et al, we cannot expect
academic findings about race and ethnicity to sway the National Front,
the skinhead, nor the redneck - they aren't listening.

---

If our goal is to encourage class solidarity we must focus on building
coalition IN SPITE of differences - we must educate the proletariat
(so to speak) about who the major enemy really is, what the real
stakes are, and focus our message on the shared concerns and interests
of the proletariat as a class.  We must focus on our positive vision.

Transformations come about because of the positive dynamics of a new
regime, not because the contradictions of the old regime have been
neutralized - they never will be in their own context: their tension
is what maintains the old regime.  Building solidarity is about
building solidarity, not about eliminating differences.

Fear is the simplest way to bring people together, and during
_threatening_ wars (not Vietnam) enthusiastic national solidarity
arises spontaneously (with social conflicts _still unaddressed_). 
Racist populists use fear to unify one "race" against another
(_despite_ ongoing internal conflicts). To some extent fear of
corporate globalism is an appropriate proletarian unifier, but it is
not enough.

The first task may be for people to understand that they _are_
proletarian. One of Malcom X's points was that middle-class Americans
are brainwashed into thinking of _themselves_ as capitalists, tricking
them into identifying with capitalist interests instead of their own. 
No wonder they shot him, that's a potent message.

But ultimately, success in building solidarity lies in our ability to
project a vision of citizen empowerment, of socialist prosperity, of
practical sustainable economics, and of democratic social harmony.

Forget the 'isms and find our collective strength...

in solidarity,
rkm



  




  Yours etc.,
 Karl   

[PEN-L:11136] shun him!

[James Devine]

Much as I appreciate Maggie Coleman's efforts, I think the appropriate
response to Karl Carlisle's disgusting presence on the pen-l list is for
everyone to ignore his postings -- and never ever to reply to them.
Eventually, if he has a drop of sanity in his body, he will understand that
his utterances and efforts to spawn flame-wars are being ignored and are
therefore pointless -- so he will leave. It's worked in the past. 

I bet that a lot of folks were already doing this.  

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine

[PEN-L:11135] Re: 1/3 in poll say there's too much free speech protection

[Len Wilson]

On 06-Jul-97 Michael Eisenscher wrote:

> Bias can enter the polling process at many points:
> in selecting the sample, constructing the questions, ordering the questions,
> in the race/gender/ethnicity of the pollsters, whether polling is done in
> person, by mail, by phone, etc.  It is not witchcraft but one should be
> quite cautious in treating survey research as "science."

Polling is a valuable tool in the social and behavioral sciences and 
polls should be considered as "experiments". As with all other kinds of
experiments, the validity of their results can only be adequately judged
when one examines their structure and conduct for adherence to scientific 
methods. 

> I've seen survey
> results some years back that showed a fairly large proportion of respondents
> who, when presented with the Bill of Rights, thought it was some sort of
> subversive tract.

There are many who know exactly what it is and still believe it's "subversive".

> Let me also share comments I received from a friend who is not on this list.
> He observes:
> 
> "The meaning of this poll is tricky.  A lot of people who want to restrict the
> First Amendment want to do so because of their concerns about pornography,
> advertising alcohol and cigarettes, etc.

Designing a poll to measure our opinions about first amendment issues 
would be a very "tricky" task. It would be difficult to construct questions
that wouldn't themselves establish a particular context for the subject's
response.

A psychology instructor I had likened this kind of general problem to
some of the difficulties encountered by physical scientists in, for 
example, measuring the speed of sub-atomic particles where the very act
of measuring it might change it.

> "Question:  does the First Amendment protect those kinds of speech?  Alexander
> (Meiklejohn), in an unfortunately relatively obscure book, argues that it
> doesn't.  The absolute protection of the First Amendment, according to him,
> is for political speech having to do with self-government, not commercial
> speech."
> 
> Comments?

It's not difficult to imagine situations where my material well-being, i.e.,
survival, might depend on my right to speak "commercially".


Len Wilson
IAM LL 1886

[PEN-L:11134] Re: Feminism is sexist?

[MScoleman]

In a message dated 97-07-04 06:47:02 EDT, you write:
>excellent job of flame provoking...  steve
Does this mean you agree with Karl Carlile?

>On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Karl Carlile wrote:
>> Comrades,
So, Karl, are you writing to your male "comrades" your female "comrades" or
your nonfeminist "comrades" of both genders??
>> 
>> While having a mug of coffee I thought to myself 
Clearly talking to yourself is not always the most productive activity.

>>that much of what is regarded as progressive feminism is essentially sexist
and >>separatist.  It is quite common for many feminists to make general
criticisms of
>> men as a gender. Yet if a man was to make critical comments about
>> women as a gender he would be castigated by much of feminism as
>> sexist. 
In fact, men do criticize women as a gender constantly.  This is pervasive
throughout society.  Example #1.  Who exactly do you think is being
criticized by the press as being welfare cheats?  All those white guys with
union jobs?  All those white, male, tenured professors teaching economics?
 Example #2. Women's appearance. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard
one of my co-workers criticize a woman's weight while overlooking his own
beer belly.  Or, the way women dress: women who have blue collar jobs look
too masculine, women who wear mini skirts are asking to get raped, and forget
about women's suits in business--there is no way to dress to avoid criticism.
 Example # 3.  How women perform the reproductive activities assigned to them
(by men).  Women who pursue careers are 'bad' mothers.  Women who stay home
to take care of their children while on public assistance are lazy.  
  Basically, you sitting and having coffee (served by the waitress in
her properly subservient position) and thinking to yourself about how sexist
feminists are provides me with the picture of every self-satisfied man I've
ever watched who ordered women around while thinking of how liberal he
was!

>> It seems to me that much of the the generalities of a critical nature
>> made about men as a gender have a sexist character to them. It would
>> therefore seem that much of the so called feminist movement is sexist
>> and seeks to create a reactionary polarization within the working
>> class along gender lines thereby reinforcing division within the
>> working class. 
This is an interesting conglomeration of contradictory statements.  Are you
saying that all generalities about men are sexist?  Hmm, so we are to see men
as individuals.  O.k., but you refuse to accord the same individuality to
feminists who we must see as a group of sexists.  Then, you define feminists
as a "so-called ... movement."  Well, if it's not a movement, how can it make
overarching sexist statements?  Finally, you say feminism divides the working
class.  Does that mean feminism is ok for other classes?  How about
professionals, should they be allowed to be feminist?  Or, does this mean
that working class men should continue to be allowed to exploit the labor of
women and children within the home?  If this is the case, I suppose you would
agree that whites in the working class should be allowed to continue to hold
on to their racist attitudes too?  

>>This in turn sustains the politically weak nature of
>> the working class.
Well, I am so glad to see you agree with someone.  The Republicans who penned
the "Contract with America" also blamed unwed mothers, and women who seek
roles outside the home, as the primary enemy of a healthy economy in the
United States.  You must be so proud to be espousing the same logic as Newt
Gingrich.

>> 
>> In short sexism is prevalent both among men and women.
>> 
>> Karl
So, you've run into a few sexist women, and you use this to justify your own
bigotry.  That's really intelligent!

Feminism is not associated with femaleness in the same fashion  as
menstruation.  In fact, there are many feminist men out there.  Broadly
defined, feminism seeks to include gender into the academic discussion within
social sciences.  Clearly, you are of the school which feels men don't have
gender and women should shut up and clean.

maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[PEN-L:11133] Re: Thailand

[Marianne Brun]

According to all reports, Thailand certainly did devalue its 
currency, and Soros was pictured in the press here as once
again being th big winner.

On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, Rosenberg, Bill wrote:

> Does anyone have any further information, or comment, on what has 
> happened in Thailand?
> 
> The Bangkok English-language newspaper, the "Nation", which is on the 
> WWW (http://www.nationmultimedia.com) has some interesting reports. 
> They detail Soros, with $6 billion at the ready, betting on a 
> devaluation. Initially the Bank of Thailand tried to outgun him, 
> getting help from Singapore, but the latest (3 July) is that Thailand 
> has been forced into a managed float, effectively a devaluation, but 
> seemingly with a dual currency market. With foreign debt at 45% of 
> GDP, consequences are likely to be severe for some Thai companies.
> 
> Bill Rosenberg
> 
> /-\
> |  Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, 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:11132] Thailand

[Rosenberg, Bill]

Does anyone have any further information, or comment, on what has 
happened in Thailand?

The Bangkok English-language newspaper, the "Nation", which is on the 
WWW (http://www.nationmultimedia.com) has some interesting reports. 
They detail Soros, with $6 billion at the ready, betting on a 
devaluation. Initially the Bank of Thailand tried to outgun him, 
getting help from Singapore, but the latest (3 July) is that Thailand 
has been forced into a managed float, effectively a devaluation, but 
seemingly with a dual currency market. With foreign debt at 45% of 
GDP, consequences are likely to be severe for some Thai companies.

Bill Rosenberg

/-\
|  Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, 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:11131] Re: Capital and the State

[Rosenberg, Bill]

Eric Nilsson wrote: 

>  If this is true, then IF international capital is to control 
>  national states they must succeed in taking over control of  the
>  hegemonic processes with a nation away from purely national 
>  capital. This is likely hard to do. The more international 
>  capital attempts to do this, the more national  capital will tend
>  to organize hegemonic processes around  the notion of "our nation
>  versus others". Or, perhaps  nationalist thinking is so well
>  ingrained within national  cultures due to past hegemonic
>  processes (via a  path dependency sort of process) that
>  international  capital will likely be unable to overcome this 
>  key fact.

This assumes the continued existence of independent national 
capital. That may be possible in (for example) the US and the EU, but 
in smaller nations like New Zealand, it is increasingly either taken 
over or becomes dependent on international capital. Dependence is 
either specific through contracting to one or more transnational, 
or general through dependence on international trade. To the extent 
locally based capital perceives some remnant of distinctly national 
interest, they may be attracted to the technocratic "rule-based" 
jurisdiction of the WTO and the like because that gives a slight hope 
of neutralising the arbitrary power of international capital wielded 
through the likes of the US and EU.

What this emphasises again is the disappearance of the former
possibility of a degree of common interest (a la Keynes) between 
working class and national capital.

Bill Rosenberg

/-\
|  Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, 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 |
\-/