[PEN-L:11318] E.P. Thompson
For those who have read E.P. Thompson's _The Making of the English Working Class_, could you provide a brief description of its strengths and weaknesses? Anything in particular to pay attention to while reading it? Bill
[PEN-L:11316] CAW settlement at Starbucks
The Vancouver Sun Wednesday 16 July 1997 STARBUCKS, UNION SIGN HISTORIC DEAL The B.C. contract with the coffee chain, which has 1,100 outlets, is a North American first. Bruce Constantineau, Sun Business Reporter Vancouver Sun Unionized workers at nine Greater Vancouver Starbucks coffee outlets and a distribution centre have voted 95 per cent in favor of an historic first contract that gives the 110 workers a 75-cent-an-hour pay raise, increasing the starting wage to $7.75 an hour. The British Columbia Starbucks locations become the first of more than 1,100 outlets in North America to negotiate a union contract with the Seattle-based coffee giant. The Canadian Auto Workers spent nearly 10 months working for a first collective agreement. "We see this as a very good beginning for Starbucks workers," said CAW national representative Roger Crowther. "They're getting a 75- cent increase on a ridiculous wage of $7 an hour." Starbucks responded to the two-year contract agreement Tuesday by announcing the same wages and conditions will apply to workers at all 96 B.C. Starbucks locations. Starbucks representative Shelly Silbernagel said the company did not make that decision to try to discourage union organizing at other B.C. outlets. "We have always had a philosophy of treating all our [employee] partners equally and that's the situation here." Silbernagel expects the CAW will try to organize more Starbucks stores but could not predict the outcome of future organizing drives. "Each partner will make his or her own informed decision. Ultimately, it's up to them." There are more than 130 Starbucks locations across Canada, and Crowther said Toronto-area workers have recently expressed an interest in joining the union. The 75-cent-an hour wage increase is retroactive to July 1, and another 12 cents an hour will be paid, effective July 1, 1998. The CAW said the base rate of $7.87 next year and the top rate of $10.62 will match the current rates paid to workers at CAW's 50 unionized Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets throughout B.C. The union acknowledged it didn't get everything it wanted, including paid sick leave and a base starting rate of $10 an hour. But it said it was pleased to negotiate an agreement where seniority becomes a key factor in shift scheduling, providing employees have the relative ability to do the work. The contract also contains strong anti-harassment language. Starbucks employee Lori Banong told a news conference Tuesday that many workers are pleased to win a first contract with Starbucks. "It was time to take back some control and make Starbucks realize it's the employees behind the counter that made the company what it is today," she said. Silbernagel said working conditions at Starbucks will remain basically the same and noted the contract contains "groundbreaking content" regarding the rights of a company to manage its operations. She noted, for example, the contract allows managers and assistant managers to do the work alongside unionized employees. B.C. Federation of Labor secretary-treasurer Angela Schira said the CAW contract with Starbucks is significant because service sector jobs are no longer just short-term, entry-level, part-time positions that only require low wage scales. "People now realize they are going to be working at these jobs for a few years so they need a wage that lets them make a decent living," she said. "The service sector is the fastest growing part of the economy and that's where most union organizing will take place in the future."
[PEN-L:11315] Re: econometrics as poetry
Jim Devine asked, >What's your definition of prose, Tom? Ain't them the guys what get paid for playin' ball? Seriously, though, At the risk of offending Doug Henwood's PoMo PoLiCe, my definition of prose is that it's a collection of minor, occasionally utilitarian sub-genres of epic. Just in case you think I'm making this, see Bakhtin's "Discourse in the Novel" particularly the parts on "authoritative discourse" (_Dialogic Imagination_, pp. 343-345). In these passages, Bakhtin talks about the "many and varied types of authoritative discourse (for example, the authority of religious dogma, or of acknowledged scientific truth or of a currently fashionable book)..." Elsewhere Bakhtin argues for the novel's discourse as having descended from the epic form. Central also to the "literacy/orality" debates (Walter Ong, etc.) is the argument that poetry predates prose. Perhaps the joke on Moliere's bourgeois gentilhomme is that he was speaking prose all along when he should have been speaking *dialogue*. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ knoW Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:11314] Re: Industry Canada on payroll taxes
My apologies for sending out an address with an error in it. The correct address for the Payroll Taxation and Employment paper by Joni Baran is: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/ra01275e.html Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ knoW Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:11313] Re: Re: econometrics as poetry
Eric Nilsson writes: >I think we can all agree that there is a reality out there. The different lays in whether we think models n' metrics can reveal this reality. I don't think they can do this, but I also think models n' metrics are worth doing because they give us insights we otherwise would not have.< As I said in my first contribution to this thread, I think the main value of 'metrics is mostly about _rejecting_ hypotheses. That's part of partial revelation of reality (though it doesn't allow actual attainment of "true knowledge," just marginal movement toward that). To use an old analogy that's too often used in discussions of epistemology, if the blind guys who are groping the poor elephant (trying to figure out what it is) decide that it's _not_ a wolverine, that's a step forward. It's an "insight." >I would agree that, given a set of data and a set of untestable hypotheses, some models "perform" better than do other models. Yet, I don't think this implies that some models are "more truthful" than other models. Nor do I think that anyone agrees on what the best measure of the performance of a model is. < I would be the last one to assert that the _only_ criterion for judging the "truthfulness" of an econometric model would be something like R-squared or t-stats (old-fashioned measures of "performance" that are more familiar to readers than the new ones). For example, did the model's author make the "untestable hypotheses" that are part of the model explicit? if not that's a strike against the author's intellectual honesty, and against the model's truthfulness. Next, are the untestable hypotheses reasonable given what's already known? tautologies are o.k. here, as long as the whole theory isn't a seamless web of tautologies. Next, does changing the way in which the data are calculated change the author's results? Next, does the author assert results based on the econometrics that don't fit the actual results (e.g., that the econometrics "prove" the theory being tested)? Etc. Etc. Given this, what this means depends on what is meant by "more truthful." For example, one can be pragmatic about it and define "truthful" as "contributing most effectively to the attainment of one's goals" as in clarifying policy proposals or helping with political action. (There are other ways of defining "truth.") Even then, I wouldn't say that "more truthful" is a one-dimensional measure. A model might be less truthful than another along one dimension (e.g., internal logical consistency) at the same time it's more truthful than another along another dimension (e.g., econometric "performance"). We may not be able to make a model "more truthful" along all the possible dimensions, but it's a good idea to try. In sum, the truth is out there, but "truthfulness" is a vector not a scalar. >Actually, the "performance" of a model is a social construct: depending as it does on the person doing the metrics and on the host of untestable auxillary assumptions needed to "test" a model. Models are not "confronted with the data": people use data to estimate models and, so, the "testing" of a model is embedded in a social world.< Right. However, it's very important to reveal as clearly as possible what these untestable auxillary assumptions are. All the cards should be on the table. It's true that the economics profession militates against this attitude: I just spent megahours shortening a (noneconometric) paper for possible publication, preventing me from putting all my cards on the table. But that's a critique of the economics profession. >Whether fewer untestable hypotheses make for a better model: interesting claim, related to the claim that scientific models must be---in principle at least--falsifiable. Unfortunately, all models involve untestable hypotheses by the dozens (most of which are not recognized by the modeller) and using the weighting scheme "one untestable assumption = one demerit" might be too simple. My preference is to weight heavily "interesting aspects" of a model highly. < I totally agree that ANY scientific model has unfalsifiable assumptions. Lakatos and Kuhn are right -- i.e., closer to the truth -- that all scientific thinking involve a nonfalsifiable hard core. But that core should be made explicit at the same time we should avoid having the core swallow up the whole paradigm, as for some Chicago-school theories (e.g., human capital) which are basically true by definition but in the end say nothing except ideological assertions. More generally, we should try to attain some parsimony, getting as much as possible by way of falsifiable hypotheses out of the core. (NB: falsifiability is not and should not be the only criterion. Logical coherence and methodological soundness are two others.) Eric, how do you define "interesting aspects"? that seems pretty subjective, more subjective than necessary. (It is a bit confusing for anyone to think that I am some sort of crude falsificationist Popperia
[PEN-L:11312] Re: poetry as econometrics
Tom Walker wrote: >Poetry tries to understand two worlds, the world of language and the world >-- Jim's "objective world" -- to which that language refers. Uh-oh the pomos are gonna get you! You foundationalist! The only referent of language is other language; of a poem, another poem. I'm shocked to see the metaphysics of presence on PEN-L. Doug
[PEN-L:11311] "Critical Thinking" Joke
Two guys were sitting in a bar. The first guy turns to the second and asks: "What do you do?" The second guy answers "I'm a Professor and I teach critical thinking. The first guy asks: "What's that?" The second guy answers I teach how to analyze from different conceptual angles, turn problems inside- out, how to make "valid" inferences from given data, how to establish and test "facts", how to make valid deductions and not commit logical fallacies etc". The first guy says: "Well how does it work?" The seond guy asks the first guy "Do you have a dog?" The first guy says "yes" and the seond guy asks "What kind?" and the first guy answers "A thoroughbred champion golden retriever". The second guy says "since you have a golden retriever which is an outside dog and since it is an expensive thoroughbred, you must have a backyard and a fence so the dog doesn't run away." The first guy says "You're right". The second guy then says "since you have a backyard and a fence you must have a house" and the first guy says "right again". The second guy then says "since you have a house you are probably married" and the first guy says "right again" and then the second guy says "since you are married, you are probably a heterosexual." The first guys says "you are right on everything and you can figure all of that out just from the kind of dog I have?" The bartender was listening and says to both of them "what are you guys talking about" and the first guy says "this guy is a professor and he teaches critical thinking." The bartender says "what's that?" and the first guy, who wants to show off his newly-acquired "knowledge" says "he looks at problems inside-out, he figures things out from basic facts." So the bartender says "how does it work?" and the first guy, still trying to show off, says "Do you have a dog?" The bartender says "No". So the first guy stares at him and says "Homo!". Jim Craven *--* * James Craven * " For those who have fought for it, * * Dept of Economics* freedom has a taste the protected * * Clark College* will never know." * * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. *Otto von Bismark * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * * * (360) 992-2283 * * * [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11310] Re: China's Overcapacity
What's the big deal? The real questions are: how competitive are China's mass-produced goods (e.g. quality) and what sort of export-earnings are associated with those goods. "Made In Japan" used to be a signal of poor quality, now its the standard in certain types of so-called high value-added goods. On the other hand, the UK in the 19th C was a "leader" in manufactured goods and look what happended vis-a-vis the US. I'm not sure economists have a "full story" to tell about China. Jason
[PEN-L:11309] New from EPI
New and free from EPI at web address : (for information about purchases of reports and briefing papers, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Response to President's Report on NAFTA Press Releases on: NAFTA, minimum wage, EPI conference on "broadly-shared prosperity," The Failed Experiment: NAFTA at Three Years (executive summary) Jointly authored with Institute for Policy Studies, International Labor Rights Fund, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and U.S. Business and Industrial Council Educational Foundation Issue Brief: "The Good for Nothing Budget" Briefing Paper: NAFTA and the Peso Collapse: Not Just a Coincidence," by Robert A. Blecker One-pager bulletins on latest figures on profits, prices, trade Press release on new EPI study: "Family Friend or Foe? Working Time, Flexibility, and the Fair Labor Standards Act," by Lonnie Golden === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky ===
[PEN-L:11308] Re: poetry as econometrics
Jim Devine wrote, >But again, as I said above, >poetry in fine in and of itself. But social science, though it shares a lot >with poetry (using metaphors, etc.), is also about trying to understand the >objective world. Poetry tries to understand two worlds, the world of language and the world -- Jim's "objective world" -- to which that language refers. What I'm about to demonstrate may not look like poetry to someone who thinks poetry is "fine in and of itself." But take my word for it, the techniques I use are derived from the study of literary texts. Judge for yourself whether they have any relevance for the criticism of social scientific texts. The problem comes from a survey of the literature on "Payroll Taxation and Employment" written by an economist in the Canadian Ministry of Industry, Joni Baran. The evidence consists of several ungrammatical constructions -- bad poetry, one might say. In the paper's executive summary "the evidence concludes". In the conclusion, "most of the earlier work surveyed by Dahlby and by Hamermesh is unanimous in implying". A rose is a rose is a rose, but "evidence" can't conclude anything. Nor can "most" be said to be "unanimous", even "in implying". Something is not quite right with the words and further investigation is warranted. Guarding the non-economist's entry into the main text of the paper, however, is an eight page "Economic Primer" that "provides a brief primer of the theoretical underpinnings of the labour market and familiarizes the reader with some of the terminology used throughout the remainder of the paper." It probably -- albeit unintentionally -- insures that non-specialists will venture no further into the 45 page paper. It thus upholds the definitive status of the executive summary. Here are three clues from the paper (the paper can be downloaded from the Industry Canada website: http://strategis.ic.qc.ca/ssg/ra0127e.html): >From the executive summary: "The consensus of the surveyed literature is that increases in employer payroll taxes tend to have negative short-term effects on employment. Most of the evidence, however, concludes that adverse employment effects do not persist in the long run." (p. i) >From the conclusions: "Second, while most of the earlier work surveyed by Dahlby and by Hamermesh is unanimous in implying that any adverse effects on employment fully dissipate over the long run, some of the more recent empirical work suggests that increases in payroll taxes can have persistent long-term effects on employment. Moreover, there is evidence that real wage resistance is relatively strong in Canada (Tyrvainen, and Wilton and Prescott), thereby delaying and potentially hindering the long-run adjustment process." (p. 39) >From the literature review: Exhibit 1. "Dahlby concluded that the collective results of the theoretical predictions and the econometric studies implied that over 80 percent of the employer payroll tax burden in Ontario is borne by labour in the long run. Therefore, payroll taxes do not directly inhibit job creation at least in the long run. "Payroll taxes may, however, have an indirect effect on employment in the long run. Taxes can distort labour market decisions. Dahlby refers to the Keil and Symons model. While the direct effect of a payroll tax increase on wages has only a short-run effect on employment, the short-run increase in unemployment reduces the real wage rate and decreases the size of the labour force. This short-term reduction in the labour force can lead to the discouraged worker effect which can have long-term implications on employment. "Dahlby also referred to Coe's 1990 analysis which indicated that increases in employer payroll tax rates in Canada caused the natural rate of unemployment to increase by 1.5 percentage points from 1971 to the late 1970s and by another one percentage point by 1990. Research performed in other countries also tends to suggest that increasing payroll taxes may have a long-term impact on unemployment." (pp.18-19) Exhibit 2. "Hamermesh's survey of the empirical literature led him to deduce that the lack of consensus regarding the incidence of payroll taxes and its long-run impact on employment, makes it impossible to draw any firm conclusions. Therefore, Hamermesh maintained that economists must choose between the robust estimates of supply and demand elasticities provided by the theoretical model or the mixed conclusions of the empirical evidence." (p. 21) What the poetic analysis of the text allows the reader to do is stride past the technical mumbo-jumbo with "ten league boots" and quickly grasp the central contradiction of the author's predicament (in both senses of a "dangerous situation" and of "logical predication"). The author's predicament is dangerous indeed, she somehow must temper her criticism of government policy with the mitigating suggestion that even though payroll tax policy may be unfair to low income earners, it is -- or at least was -- co
[PEN-L:11307] re CEO's Incomes
In my attempt to be both brief and trenchant, I seem to have confused Gil with respect to my use of power as the determinant of executive incomes and the uselessness of the neoclassical framework to try to justify CEO's pay and perks. I will try to be more clear in the following elaboration. The concept of marginal productivity involves the addition of a single unit of the variable factor (which must be homogenous with previous units of the factor or it is impossible to sort out the productivity of what). Now, if we add a CEO to an existing firm, is his mp the total value of the firms output (on the assumption that the firm can not operate without a CEO)? Or is it the change in TP when a second CEO is added? (an obvious contradiction>, [D? Or is it the change inTP when one CEO is replaced by another? This then would indicate that all CEO renumeration (subtracting opportunity wages) is a form of rent. (i.e. the rent to a natural or developed talent e.g. the return to Wayne Gretsky's hockey skills.) However, as Ricardo pointed out, rent is a result of price, not a cause of price. Since CEO's are in a position to influence price through market power, they are also in a position to some extent to determine their rents. However, this is rather tortuous analysis and the concept of marginal productivity is so unreal (we have gone through all this before) that neoclassical theory in this regard "has no clothes". In any case, all rents in the long run are a return to power, either in the form of ownership rights that include the right to restrict output, monopoly market power, power of the office to allocate rent, etc. To quote Marc Lavoie's comment on the importance of power: "...power is the ultimate objective of the firm: power over its environment, whether it be economic, social or political. 'Power is the ability of an individual or a group to impose its purpose on others'. (Galbraith, 1975, p. 108) The firm wants power over its suppliers, over its customers, over the government, over the kind of technology to be put in use THE NOTION OF POWER, EXCEPT WHEN RELATED TO THE CASE OF THE PURE MONOPOLY, HAS BEEN SYSTEMETICALLY IGNORED IN ECONOMICS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF INSTITUTIONALISTS AND MARXISTS." (Lavoie, Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Analysis, pp 99-100) In short to deal with the issue of power in income distribution we have to leave the certai, equilibrium world of neoclassical economics and utilize the models of surplus (post-classical or heterodox) economics. It is here that the fundamental issue of power is joined. It Becomes the question of who has the power to distribute surplus. Why do American CEO's receive much greater incomes than do Japanese or European CEO's? Why do CEO's of private utilities receive greater remuneration than _the same_ CEO's received prior to privatization despite no change in productivity? Why do CEO's of profit losing firms get commensurate remuneration with those of profit making firms? (etc. etc.) none of which can be explained by mp theory or even with any reasonable application of neoclassical rent theory. However, they can all be explained within surplus models by modelling the sources and distribution of power (although not necessarily in an econometrically operational sense.) Many Marxists, for instance, talk about working class bargaining power over distributive shares in terms of the size or proportion of the reserve army of unemployed. This was the context in which I used the example of the mugger (which has been used on this list in the past in more or less this context.) The mugger does not produce any marginal product, but his power over the use of force allows him to redirect, to himself, part of the surplus in the form of the above subsistence wages of the muggee. I trust this makes sence of my earlier elliptical post. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:11306] Re: Ajit Sinha
Ajit Sinha wrote: > In my opinion, this is a common mistake commited by Marxist scholars. Since > profit in capitalism is seen as resulting from the exploitation of labor, it > does not mean that an economy with labor input being zero (i.e. 100% > mechanized production process) would necessarily mean that 'profit' will be > zero in such an economy. As long as the total input needed in the process of > production is less than the total output, you have surplus production; and > 100% mechanization does not ipso facto rule out this possibility. So one can > imagine a totally mechanized economy with division of 'capital' and prices > of goods such that the rate of 'profit' is equalized accross sectors. The > economy will simply be not a capitalist economy because it would be missing > an essential element--the wage labor. But a theoretical possibility of such > an economy cannot be denied. Cheers, ajit sinha A zero labour input is impossible, because automatisms have neither plasticity regarding to forthcoming events, nor conceptualization ability. But it's true that as productivity grows, the sharing part of real time work decreases in the global production. Why would the production be limited, so that the number of employed workers would tend to decrease, as the productivity grows ? Because, for more than fifty years, a depreciation of the money has unfailingly been accompanying the production growth, detroying, in this way, a great part of the global absolute surplus-value in terms of purchasing power of it. So that capitalists are no more interested in extracting profit by the growth, and leaded to chase after it by reducing the part of wages in the product (number of workers, and wages level). But this is a relative profit, and here is the point where the "Marxist Scholars", and not only them, are wrong-footed... Regards, Romain Kroes
[PEN-L:11305] Condemn The 19th Century Colonialist Policy Of The Canadian State Towards The Aboriginal Peoples
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info. --2E4049B15F0C In the recent period, two important cases have been before the Canadian courts. One involved the September 5, 1995 shooting of Stoney Point First Nation member Dudley George at Ipperwash Provincial Park by Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) officer Sargeant Kenneth Deane. The other case involves 15 individuals who participated in a struggle of Shuswap Nation members at Gustafsen Lake (Ts Peten) in the summer of 1995. Sargeant Kenneth Deane was convicted of criminal negligence causing death on April 28, 1997, only after a very active struggle was waged to demand that justice be done. There was also a great deal of evidence showing that contrary to the claims of the OPP, Dudley George was unarmed when he was shot dead. On July 3, Deane was given a two-year suspended sentence. While the crime for which he was convicted carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, Deane will be "punished" with 180 hours of community service, while he retains employment with the OPP. In his April 28 ruling, Judge Hugh Fraser acknowledged that Deane knew that Dudley George was unarmed when he shot him dead. Nevertheless, at his sentencing, Judge Fraser all but declared Deane innocent, saying Deane was "in every other way" an "exemplary officer." He was described as a "highly competent officer," who was "lawfully carrying out his duty as a police officer." "The decision to embark on this ill-fated mission was not Sgt. Deane s," Fraser said, referring to the OPP raid on the camp set up by Stoney Point First Nations members at Ipperwash Provincial Park. Judge Fraser also said that Deane was not responsible for the "faulty" intelligence reports the police receive that the protesters were armed. "It's not for this tribunal to decide where that intelligence originated, or why it was so inaccurate." No such leniency has been shown in the Ts Peten case. In pre-sentencing hearings, the state is calling for the harshest possible punishment especially for Jones Ignace (Wolverine), a Shushwap Nation elder and one of the leaders of the Ts Peten struggle. Prosecutor Lance Bernard said Wolverine should be sent to jail for 16 to 23 years. In his sentencing brief to the judge, Bernard said that the defendants were "terrorists" who had used illegal weapons to threaten police. He said all those convicted of mischief had to be sentenced within the context of a "serious over-criminal situation." He said that those who carried firewood, cooked and did other domestic chores were indispensable to those who "wielded weapons," and argued they had to be sentenced accordingly. He proposed the rest of the defendants should be sentenced to 3 to 5 years as a "deterrence." In the implementation of its policy of turning the just struggles of the Aboriginal peoples for the restoration of their hereditary rights into "law and order" problems, there is a clear message: any Aboriginal person who steps out of the place assigned to them by the Canadian state is "fair game" for arrests, shootings, jailings and every form of persecution, while those who implement the state's policy will be protected. This is the way of the 19th century British colonialists and these two cases show how very little has changed since the 19th Century in terms of the treatment of Canada's Aboriginal peoples by the Canadian state. This is the only interpretation that can be given to the double standards of justice being shown in both the Gustafsen Lake and the Ipperwash trials. The Canadian people must condemn the Canadian state's brutal treatment of Canada's Aboriginal peoples and step up the struggle for the restoration of their hereditary rights. CPC(M-L) Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED] --2E4049B15F0C--
[PEN-L:11304] Liberalism "Off The Record": More Evidence Of The Deep Crisis Of The Bourgeoisie In Finding A Credible Standard-Bearer (Canada)
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info. --75BA3FF15BB1 At the signing ceremony for Ukraine s admission into the aggressive U.S.-led NATO military alliance, Prime Minister Jean Chretien is reported to have made "unguarded comments" while chatting with Belgian President Jean-Luc Dehaene in front of a microphone he thought was turned off. The comments highlight the deep crisis of the Canadian bourgeoisie in producing statesmen and stateswomen with any credibility. In public, Chretien has said that the expansion of NATO is a matter of security and "peace in Europe." In private he said that the position of the U.S., which stands at the head of the NATO expansion, has nothing to do with security. "I know the reasons, it's not the reasons of state. It's for political reasons, short-term political reasons, to win the next elections." He did not comment as to who is going to benefit from the NATO expansion, but it is well-known that the military-industrial complex in all the NATO countries will hand over lots of money for election campaigns, not only in the United States, but in Canada as well. Over $30 billion worth of armaments is at stake. In terms of U.S-Canada relations, and particularly the use of Canadian troops to do the dirty work for the U.S., Chretien said: "(Clinton) goes to Haiti with soldiers. The next year, Congress doesn t allow him to go back. So he phones me. Okay, I send my soldiers, and then afterwards, I ask for something else in exchange." On the Helm-Burton legislation, Chretien boasted he was the first to oppose it and added, "I like to stand up to the Americans. It's popular. But you have to be very careful because they're our friends." According to reports, Chretien said that American politicians "sell their votes." He said Clinton won support for NATO by promising to build bridges. He said that if politicians did the same thing in Canada or in Belgium they "would be in prison." It would be laughable, were it not such a serious matter, that in the same breath that Chretien admits he sent Canadian troops to Haiti "in exchange for something else," he is castigating the U.S. politicians for their deal-making. The criticism of the parliamentary "opposition" has further revealed the deep crisis of the bourgeoisie, as the only concern they raised was how Chretien's comments may damage relations with the U.S. imperialists. What is revealed by Chretien's comments is the utterly unprincipled and double-faced nature of the bourgeois ruling circles. They reveal the "sell-your-mother-for-a-dime" pragmatism which can justify anything, and do anything to advance the interests of imperialism at the cost of the rights and freedoms and lives of the people of Canada and of other countries, all the while claiming to stand for all the best in the world. The opposition could not complain of such things because they too have the sole interest of advancing the aims of the most economically powerful, at home and abroad. While Chretien has shrugged off the issue, his comments are now going to haunt and stymie the Liberals, particularly in their foreign policy affairs, which they try to present as being based on the highest and most lofty "Canadian values." CPC(M-L) Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED] --75BA3FF15BB1--
[PEN-L:11303] Re: article on globalization
At 10:02 AM 7/15/97 -0700, you wrote: >>At the same time, the introduction of labor-replacing technology means the >beginning of the end of productive investment capital. All value (and >profit) comes from the exploitation of labor. Laborless production means >valueless production - and hence, >profitless production. With laborless production, capital can no longer be >utilized to create more value and more surplus value.< ___ In my opinion, this is a common mistake commited by Marxist scholars. Since profit in capitalism is seen as resulting from the exploitation of labor, it does not mean that an economy with labor input being zero (i.e. 100% mechanized production process) would necessarily mean that 'profit' will be zero in such an economy. As long as the total input needed in the process of production is less than the total output, you have surplus production; and 100% mechanization does not ipso facto rule out this possibility. So one can imagine a totally mechanized economy with division of 'capital' and prices of goods such that the rate of 'profit' is equalized accross sectors. The economy will simply be not a capitalist economy because it would be missing an essential element--the wage labor. But a theoretical possibility of such an economy cannot be denied. Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:11302] Re: PE: Anything new?
>What new ideas/insights has PE come up with recently? > >Now ducking for cover . . . > >Eric _ Well, you might wanna check out 'A Critique of *Capital* vol. one: The value Controversy Revisited' by Ajit Sinha in *Research in Political Economy vol. 15* 1996. ;) ;) Cheers, ajit sinha
