[PEN-L:11849] Is UPS Edging Toward Replacing Strikers?
The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition -- August 18, 1997 UPS, Teamsters Cite Progress In Talks, but Stakes May Rise By DOUGLAS A. BLACKMON and GLENN BURKINS Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON -- Negotiators for both sides say they are making progress in their marathon talks to resolve the Teamsters strike against United Parcel Service of America Inc. At the same time, as the strike enters its third week Monday, both sides are sending clear signals that if a settlement isn't reached soon, they are preparing to turn up the heat. At UPS, prodded by increasingly frustrated board members and top executives, a team is drafting plans to begin hiring replacement workers for the approximately 180,000 striking Teamsters who have paralyzed the company for two weeks. Such a move would almost certainly escalate the already bitter situation. Unless there is substantial progress Monday and Tuesday in the continuing informal talks between the company and Teamsters officials in Washington, company officials said the UPS board of directors will take up the replacement-worker plans when it meets in Atlanta this week. Blue Ribbon Strategy Meanwhile, in a bid to capitalize on the public support that polls are showing for striking workers, Teamsters leaders are calling on Americans to wear blue ribbons Thursday in a show of solidarity with the strikers. Teamsters President Ron Carey also called on Teamsters locals to bolster their picket lines. Mr. Carey's news conference Friday, union officials said, was intended as a clear message to the company. "The union wants to make it clear that we're prepared to escalate this fight if we need to," said Rand Wilson, a Teamsters spokesman. "We're not going to disarm." Negotiators for UPS and the Teamsters have been talking extensively since Thursday, but according to UPS Chairman James Kelly, the two sides still must resolve "dozens and dozens" of issues. The two most notable are a union demand for more full-time jobs and a UPS proposal to withdraw from the union's multiemployer pension and benefit plan and set up one exclusively for UPS workers. "Obviously we are at the table, we are talking about the issues; that to me is progress," the Teamsters' Mr. Carey said on NBC's "Meet the Press," where he was joined by Mr. Kelly. No Deal Breakers Meanwhile, Mr. Kelly said that UPS doesn't consider any single issue a deal-breaker. "There is no one issue that can't be resolved," he said. He didn't indicate the nature of the other unresolved issues. Publicly, Mr. Kelly reiterated the company's longstanding reluctance to bring in outside workers. "The last thing I want is to replace UPS workers," the UPS chairman said on the network news programs. Still, UPS executives and board members said that replacement-worker plans will be on the table when UPS's 13-member board of directors meets this week in what is expected to be a pivotal moment in the current labor impasse and for the company's eight-decade-long relationship with the Teamsters. The board, made up of seven current or retired UPS executives and five outside directors, has been asked to convene Tuesday night at a private dinner with Mr. Kelly, members said. A Hot Potato at Dinner At that dinner, and in the formal meeting to follow on Wednesday, board members said they expect to hash out whether -- and if so, how soon -- UPS should begin hiring replacement workers. Inside UPS, a team has been developing plans to present to board members. "I imagine there will be some very serious discussions at that meeting about how much more of this we're willing to sit back and take," said Kent C. "Oz" Nelson, Mr. Kelly's predecessor as UPS chairman and a member of the board. One of the most hawkish members of the UPS board on labor relations is longtime director Gary E. MacDougal, the retired chairman and chief executive of Mark Controls Corp. Mr. MacDougal said that when 500 machinists walked out at one of his company's subsidiaries in the mid-1980s, he broke the strike by hiring permanent replacement workers. Most of his employees quickly returned, and the union was eventually decertified, he said. Mr. MacDougal said that part of his role as an outside UPS director is to "share his experiences" with the board. "We need to consider all of our options and share all of our experiences," Mr. MacDougal said. "And replacing workers is one of mine." "That's the kind of provocative act that would not be constructive or bring this strike to an end," said Mr. Wilson, the Teamsters spokesman. A Replacement Scenario Should UPS begin hiring replacement workers, the most likely series of events, according to people familiar with the plans, would be the following: UPS would announce that it is implementing the provisions of its "last and best" contract offer made in formal talks just before the Teamsters contract expired July 31. All UPS e
[PEN-L:11848] NYT Op-Ed by Levinson of UNITE
August 17, 1997 Turning Point For Labor? By MARK LEVINSON Occasionally strikes take on a significance beyond the specific company and union involved in the conflict. The outcome of such strikes can define the balance of power between worker and management in the entire society. The teamsters' action against United Parcel Service may turn out to be one of those moments. To understand why, let's go back to the summer of 1981. When 13,000 air traffic controllers walked out, the Reagan Administration quickly smashed the strike. Not content with defeating the union, the President imposed a lifetime ban on Federal re-employment of its members, a move that sent a clear signal to employers everywhere. After that it was not unusual for businesses involved in a labor dispute to hire permanent replacement workers. Employers declared war against unions. The period that followed saw the greatest decline in membership and political power in the history of the American labor movement. For labor, it was a period of uncertainty and inertia. For American society, it was a period characterized by an enormous redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. Fast forward to 1997. Change has come to the labor movement. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. president, John Sweeney, has taken an assertive political stance, shifting resources into organizing on a huge scale and bringing younger, more aggressive unionists to top staff positions. Special attention is being paid to low-wage workers -- strawberry pickers in California, hotel workers in Las Vegas. For the first time in many years labor is starting to attract the young. They see labor as the agent that can bind together different interests and constituencies. The economy is in its seventh year of recovery. Corporate profits have increased, executive salaries have skyrocketed, and the unemployment rate is below 5 percent. Yet the real hourly wage for the bottom 80 percent of workers is less than it was in 1989, the last peak of the business cycle. The teamster strike at U.P.S. is a reflection of an economy that works for everyone except workers. The company is enjoying unprecedented prosperity. Last year it made $1.1 billion in profits. For those fortunate enough to own a large stake in this closely held company, the future looks good. For those who work at U.P.S., however, the future looks less rosy. Yes, full-time workers can earn a respectable wage. Yet the trend has been away from full-time jobs, and that is the main point of contention in the strike of its 185,000 workers. U.P.S. has shifted from a mostly full-time work force to one that is more than 60 percent part time. A typical full-time worker at United Parcel Service makes $19.95 an hour, while a part-time worker makes about $9.65 an hour. Four of every five new jobs created at U.P.S. since 1993 have been part-time jobs. There is nothing wrong with part-time jobs if they pay well and workers want them. But at U.P.S. the overwhelming majority of part-time workers want full-time jobs. According to a 1996 teamster survey, 90 percent of U.P.S. part-time workers ranked the creation of full-time jobs as first or second as bargaining priorities. Much to the apparent surprise of the company, the strike has generated a high level of public support. That is because the principles involved resonate with so many people. Like the walkout of the air traffic controllers in 1981, this strike takes on a larger meaning. At stake is how our society shares prosperity. For that reason Mr. Sweeney has thrown the financial and political weight of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. behind the teamsters, led by Ron Carey. "Because their fight is our fight, we are making this strike our strike," Mr. Sweeney said at a news conference last week. In the future, if what historians see when they look back on the early 21st century is a broadly shared prosperity and a more equitable society, they may be able to point to the teamsters' strike at U.P.S. as an event that defined the period. Mark Levinson is chief economist at the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, or Unite.
[PEN-L:11847] CAN you help? Yes you CAN.
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 10:47:36 -0700 >From: Margie Akin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], >[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: CAN you help? Yes you CAN. > >You CAN help end the UPS strike. Yes, you, whoever you are. There are >two basic possibilities in this strike: Either UPS will outlast the >strikers, who will be driven to make concessions by hunger and >demoralization weeks or months from now; or the popular support for the >strikers, who have taken on the ugly problem of forced part-time work, >will be translated into material support, and UPS will recognize its >defeat, concede some of its billion-dollar profits, and agree to a >decent settlement. >This last is the only settlement that can come quickly. If you want to >bring the strike to an end soon, your only effective option is to show >support for the strikers and give them material support. Money is >helpful -- every Teamsters local has a strike fund. But not everyone >can or will give money. One thing everyone can do is give a little >food. Cans of food, and boxes of cereal and other dry food, are eagerly >accepted at every UPS picket line. The union is organizing food banks >to ensure distribution to those in greatest need. Many part-time UPS >workers live on the edge all the time. Now that they have missed a pay >check, their families need immediate help. >Everyone has a can of food available to give. Go look at the cans you >have shoved to the back of the shelf. Some of them are things you don't >much like, and some are things you don't like at all. But some >striker's children will love them. Put a few cans in your car, and when >you are near a UPS facility, just stop by the picket line and give them >the food. It will give you a good feeling, it will give the strikers a >good feeling, it will help feed the hungry, and it will help end the >strike. >Now, just one more good deed -- please forward this e-mail to everyone >you know. Thanks! -Kevin Akin, Riverside, California. > >
[PEN-L:11846] S. F. Bay Area UPS support rally -- 8/21/97
Show UPS and All Big Corporations: WORKING FAMILIES ARE UNITED FOR GOOD JOBS! ACTION DAY FOR GOOD JOBS THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1997 SAN FRANCISCO: 11:30 am: ASSEMBLE corner of 16th St. and 3rd St. NOON: MARCH down 16th St. to the UPS Center 2:30 pm: RALLY at UPS Center (16th & San Bruno) 2 Blocks EAST of Potrero SPONSORED BY THE TEAMSTERS UNION, AFL-CIO and CENTRAL LABOR COUNCILS Information: 415-467-7768 Directions: 280 North to SF: Exit at Mariposa St., Right to 3rd St., Left on 3rd St., 2 blocks to 16th. Bay Bridge into SF: Exit 5th St., left at 5th, left at Bryant, right on 4th, continue to where 3rd and 4th merge, go right on 3rd to 16th St BART: Stop at Montgomery St. Station, take #15 Muni bus at 2nd & Market south to corner of 16th and 3rd St. THIS IS THE BIG ONE FOLKS! WE NEED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN THE STREETS TO SUPPORT THE UPS STRIKERS AND SHOW THE COMPANY AND THE GOVERNMENT THAT WORKERS NEED GOOD, FULL-TIME JOBS THAT CAN SUPPORT A FAMILY, LIMITS ON SUBCONTRACTING, SOLID PENSIONS SO WORKERS CAN RETIRE WITH DIGNITY, JOB SAFETY & HEALTH Call your friends. Leaflet your workplace. Phone in sick and come to the march.
[PEN-L:11845]
Other readily accessible books which provide evidence of the "irrationality" of financial ,markets include Stuart Sutherland: "Irrationality, the Enemy Within" Robert Kuttner: "Everything for Sale" Like Peter Bernstein's "Against the Gods", they are both good reads. That a certain group of economists ignore such evidence, suggests to me that whatever their claims to rationality, they are illiterate (for it would be irrational to ignore this evidence if one came accross it). Brian Easton. Professorial Research Fellow, Central Insitute of Technology, Wellington, New Zealand.
[PEN-L:11844] David Bacon: Worker Rebellion in Tijuana
TIJUANA WORKERS FIRED FOR ORGANIZING AN INDEPENDENT UNION By David Bacon TIJUANA, BAJA CALIFORNIA (8/16/97) - Each morning, as the sun rises over Tijuana, thousands of workers stream out of the city's dusty barrios, up the hillsides, and into the industrial parks on the mesas above. In a human flood, they surge into the maquiladoras. But on June 2, that wave stopped at the gate of Han Young de Mexico. When the plant's 120 workers arrived at the factory, instead of trooping into work they huddled in knots in the street outside, animated voices rising in the morning air. Production ground to a halt. Han Young's workers went on strike. For two days, they demanded negotiations, first with their bosses, and then with the authorities of the National Conciliation and Arbitration Board (the JNCA - Mexico's equivalent of the National Labor Relations Board in the U.S.) By the end of the second day, the company had agreed to bargain over all of their demands, an historic achievement in the maquiladora industry, where managers have almost absolute power. But in the weeks since the June strike, Han Young managers have moved to reverse their loss of control. Emeterio Armenta, the strike's leader, was fired in early August. "I was told I made the company spend too much money on things like safety equipment," Armenta says. "They accused me of being behind all the problems." Han Young managment refused to comment. Armenta's firing was a decision made, not just by Han Young managers, but by the network of government authorities and maquiladora owners who determine the rules for labor relations in Tijuana. After the strike, the JNCA insisted that the company hire a new personnel director, Luis Manuel Escobedo Jimenez. Escobedo fired Armenta and two other strike leaders. Tijuana's labor activists refer to Escobedo as a "psychological warfare expert." In the U.S. he would be called a labor consultant, or unionbuster. Mexican employers haven't used people like Escobedo in the past. But maquiladora managers seem to be adopting the hardball U.S. model of labor relations. Han Young de Mexico is a feeder factory for the huge Hyundai manufacturing complex, one of largest in Tijuana's vast industrial network. Its workers build chassis for truck trailers and huge metal shipping containers, which are then finished in the main Hyundai plant. Their June walkout was fueled by low wages of $36-48 (US) a week, earned under some of the most dangerous conditions in a city well-known for workplace accidents. Han Young workers complain they often lack welding masks, gloves and safety shoes. The plant has no ventilation system, and lead fumes from soldering cause permanent eye damage. But at the heart of the Han Young workers' demands was company recognition of their independent union. Han Young has had a union since the factory was built years ago. Workers call it a company union. Han Young managers, like most in Tijuana, make a regular payment to officials of the CROM labor federation. This union holds no meetings, and its representatives rarely, if ever, visit the plant. Workers with complaints get no assistance. The company is paying for labor peace, not for grievances and problems. The company union is a labor protection system for foreign corporations with factories on the border. It enables them to pay extremely low wages, even by Mexican standards, and maintain dangerous and even illegal working conditions, without fear of worker resistance. There have been numerous attempts by workers to get out from under these unions over the years, almost all unsuccessful. In meetings with managers and JNCA representatives, however, it seemed that Han Young workers might be the first to win recognition of an independent union. The company agreed it would deal with elected worker leaders, rather than CROM officials, and wouldn't retaliate against them. "If workers succeed here, the formation of independent unions could sweep like a wave through the factories of Tijuana, where conditions are the same," says Enrique Hernandez, president of the Civic Alliance, a community organization which gives workers legal advice. Then Armenta and two coworkers were fired, however. Tijuana's maquiladoras recognized the possibility that the movement would spread, and moved to stop it. A series of battles have engulfed Hyundai's Tijuana operations. At their center is its effort to expand its factory by taking land at the city's outskirts for more industrial parks. That's put the company on a collision course with the people who already live on that land, in the community of Maclovio Rojas. The conflict with this barrio's 1300 residents led directly to the strike at Han Young. Armenta lives in Maclovio Rojas, and has been active in the resistance to Hyundai's attempted takeover. When the community set
[PEN-L:11843] steve early's article
It sounds as if there is quite some difference around the country as to the strategy on picket lines although Steve early did say that, "Trucks are briefly blocked". Here in Oakland I can't say that trucks are even briefly blocked. BAs have made it clear that trucks are not to be stopped. Some of the youngsters on the line at the Oakland airport questioned this tactic. Even when we inched along in front of a truck slowing it considerably but not stopping it the cops were called and we got in to it with them.Then the BA came and supported the cops position. We were not to impede the trucks in any way. He then proceeded to call the drivers the most filthy names, usually of a sexual nature. A friend of mine who is a gay woman was on the picket line and was somewhat put of by some of remarks mafde to the scabs by an older teamster. This sort of personal abuse is often encouraged by the leadership as an alternative to stoping the movement of vehicles and a real confrontation with the police and the courts. Name calling will not keep a picketers morale up for long, they have to feel they're acompishing something. A friend of mine has since informed me that they've been told not to cuss but to call the scabs rats now. It's clear that the tactic of the leadership of the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO in general is not to confront the legal system or to directly impede production. A Pilot's association rep was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that the Teamsters don't want to broaden the strike for fear that Clinton may use the Taft hartley. This is like telling one's opponent if they hit you you won't hit them back. Of course Clinton will impose the taft hartley in order to defend UPS. And broadening the struggle is the only way to win a real victory so it's doomed from the start with this method. Not that a partial success is not possible due to the importance of UPS, the solidity of the pickets as well as public suport but it's early yet. The point is, like Staley, catrepillar, Detroit and others--the key to victory is generalizing the issues and struggle. Jobs and the end to temporary work win tremendous support among in working class commuities. The young workforce at UPS has many connections to other youth and low waged workers in the communities--this must be tapped by the AFL-CIO leadership. Richard Mellor 2nd VP, AFSCME Local 444 Oakland CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11842] Dispatch from an internal picket line
===> It's soul-baring time for true and truer apostles of revolution. Here's my reply to a guilt-ridden correspondent with several left labor connections, currently sidetracked by family problems. valis Occupied America -- Armed forces recruits are disguised defectors from capitalism -- I think most of us, even if lacking your credentials, are asking ourselves the same question. It will be interesting if the majority of the public continue supporting the strike even as the secondary effects bite more deeply into their own lives. Since most of those 12 million daily UPS packages represent store and mail-order purchases, to me the strike poses, however fortuitously, the very large question of what a socialist America would live for. It's not enough that labor be organized and sophisticated to the point where it can take power in a fairly organic fashion: there also should be no fantasy entertained within or propagated without to the effect that the national consumerist orgy would not be interrupted or even mildly degraded. Indeed it would be interrupted big time, therefore a major shift in attitude toward the ever-changing, ever-improving baubles that fill the malls must _precede_ revolution, not be one of its diktats. (Germany might be closer to that philosophic space; most of the Germans among the world's billionaires are listed as retailers, suggesting that the Germans may be further along in both satiety and alienation.) Of course that question connects in one jump with people's jobs, though in the academy this remains largely a deferred issue, understandably. Remember the New Yorker-type understated cartoon showing a bedraggled form standing up at a spare, CP-like meeting (A large wall placard says "Workers Arise!) to ask, "What happens to my unemployment check when we overthrow the government?"? That's no joke, and if such conundrums are simply swept under the rug the time is not ripe at all. My line has always been, "Look, you have the choice between suffering for something and suffering for nothing (the succession of system crises): it doesn't sound like much of a pick but there's a world of difference!" Until that clearly resonates with a flat majority, including 15 or 20% of the bourgeoisie, we might as well spend our time reading escapist fiction, the way I am this summer. Hey, chum, I'm just saying that the American revolution has yet to be imagined, and few sane people will dive into an opaque body of water.
[PEN-L:11841] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap
I showed this post to my statistician colleague, Jim Young, whose PhD (on flood prediction!) went into subjective risk assessment in some depth. His comments (which don't answer Nathan's question!) follow. Bill --- Forwarded Message Follows --- From: "Young, Jim" Organization: Lincoln University To:"Rosenberg, Bill" Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:23:22 +1200 Subject: Re: [PEN-L:11819] Risk and Unequal Opportunity under capitalism Bill This issue is one for what I think are called 'decision-theorists'. For example, subjective utility theory is one of many possible theoretical frameworks for decision-making. Utility is a number measuring the attractiveness of the consequences of a decision. People should, if convinced by the axioms of the framework, act so as to maximise their expected utility. Lindley (1971 p70-76) considers that most people would wish to behave in a decreasing risk-averse manner as the level of some desirable attribute increases - but this is not a requirement of subjective utility theory. That is, as their financial worth increases they will become 'more willing to gamble ' so to speak. Or looking at it the other way round, as they become poorer, they will become increasingly risk-averse. Regards Jim PS This stuff links in with a Baysian statistical perspective - you have been warned! Lindley D.V. (1971) Making decisions. London: Wiley-Interscience, 195p. > > Date sent: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 17:27:05 -0700 (PDT) > From: Nathan Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject:[PEN-L:11819] Risk and Unequal Opportunity under capitalism > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I just finished off Peter Bernstein's AGAINST THE GODS: THE REMARKABLE > STORY OF RISK and found the book's history of risk analysis fascinating > and, most compellingly, found some of the most recent studies he documents > around the psychology of risk extremely pointed in showing how risk itself > has a class divided nature. > > Much of present policy prescriptions, from stock market investments a s a > replacement for social security to the level of indebtedness required of > students as a risk of attending college, point to the average return on > such risks, from the higher investment returns of the market to the higher > wages gained from attending college. > > However, Bernstein documents a number of psychological studies that (not > surprisingly) show that those with little become extremely risk adverse > even when facing the same odds as those with more income (better than the > real life situation where racism and networking privileges give upper > income folks an advantage in most risk situations.) The result will be, > as Bernstein writes, that in any risk situation, "people who start out > with money in their pockets will choose the gamble, while people who start > out with empty pockets will reject the gamble." > > What this implies is that any social policy geared to rewarding risk will > generally direct the incentives involved in social resources toward those > with income. > > I am curious what progressive policy folks or economists have explored > this risk bias against the poor in their analysis of concrete social > policy. It seems especially relevant in education policy as students are > looking at tens of thousands of dollars of debt as a normal price of > college education. > > Any cites? > /-\ | 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:11840] Re: "M-L" Bashing
Friends, > > Every time I feel like bashing someone on the list, he or she goes and says > something which hits home. I remember Jim C's story about his father's > experience with the APLA union. And, I have read many by Louis P. which are so > thoughtful, I get a little jealous. There are a couple of people who get on my > nerves occasionally, but then I think that they probably do a lot of good work. > So who am I to bash them. Of course, on the other hand, I like a little dig > every now and then. And no doubt some people really are assholes. That's life. > > michael yates > Response (Jim C): Thanks for remembering the story about my father and the 1979 ALPA strike--instrumental in the death of my mother. That was a long time ago that I shared that story. Thanks for remembering. Jim Craven *---* * "Those who take the most from the table,* * James Craventeach contentment. * * Dept of Economics Those for whom the taxes are destined, * * Clark College demand sacrifice.* * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd. Those who eat their fill, * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663speak to the hungry, * * (360) 992-2283 of wonderful times to come. * * Fax: (360) 992-2863Those who lead the country into the abyss,* * [EMAIL PROTECTED] call ruling difficult, * * for ordinary folk." (Bertolt Brecht) * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11839] Re: "M-L" Bashing
Friends, Every time I feel like bashing someone on the list, he or she goes and says something which hits home. I remember Jim C's story about his father's experience with the APLA union. And, I have read many by Louis P. which are so thoughtful, I get a little jealous. There are a couple of people who get on my nerves occasionally, but then I think that they probably do a lot of good work. So who am I to bash them. Of course, on the other hand, I like a little dig every now and then. And no doubt some people really are assholes. That's life. michael yates
[PEN-L:11838] "M-L" Bashing
Since this discussion has been raised about "professor bashing", then turn-about is fair play; perhaps we could discuss "M-L" bashing. First of all, let me note that I was once attacked by the group that Shawgi Tell is a member of--CPC-ML; as I look back, the attack was probably justified. I remember years ago when I lived in Canada, a group affiliated with CPC-ML (E.I.D.C.) or East Indian Defense Committee literally putting their bodies on the line to defend East Indian--and other--immigrants from racist attacks--attacks that resulted in loss of lives. I remember years ago when that group--as now--was under continual attack from the security services of the RCMP for exercising their basic rights to free speech. I remember when members of that group gave up cushy jobs to work in the harshest conditions to do serious working class organizing. I remember when members of that group were subjected to extremely brutal verbal and other attacks and yet never yielded but yet kept their cool as bigger issues--bigger than egos or need for revenge--were at stake. Like some, I find the language of some of their pronouncements somewhat didactic, stilted, sterile, jargonistic and likely not to reach wide audiences; but I certainly can say the same about a lot of these articles in "prof speak" and at least their articles reaching wider audiences than many of the "prof speak" articles. As for "prof bashing", no, only if the shoe fits. But I am troubled by some of the "M-L" bashing and for those who do it, then it is fair game to ask: "What is it that really troubles you?"; what are you doing that is different and more effective than the 'M-Ls' are doing?"; "What do you think the 'M-Ls' could be doing differently?" "When you attack the 'M-Ls' whose work are you really doing?" And finally, "why is it that despite repeated and very hostile vitriol, 'M-Ls' like Shawgi Tell do not answer back with counter-vitriol but rather with their own counter-arguments and counter-evidence?" Just some thoughts to provoke thought--and probably some vitriol. Jim Craven *---* * "Those who take the most from the table,* * James Craventeach contentment. * * Dept of Economics Those for whom the taxes are destined, * * Clark College demand sacrifice.* * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd. Those who eat their fill, * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663speak to the hungry, * * (360) 992-2283 of wonderful times to come. * * Fax: (360) 992-2863Those who lead the country into the abyss,* * [EMAIL PROTECTED] call ruling difficult, * * for ordinary folk." (Bertolt Brecht) * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11837] Re: Is Capitalism Sustainable?
Greetings, > > On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, James Michael Craven wrote: > > > > > Greetings, > > On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Harry M. Cleaver wrote: > > > > > Is Capitalism Sustainable? Let's hope not, or rather let's do our best to > > > > make sure that it continues to be able to sustain itself for as short a > > > > time as possible. "Sustainable Capitalism" is a nightmare.(That includes > > > > "sustainable development" because "development" has always meant > > > > capitalist development.) Economists, as a rule, don't worry about whether > > > > or not it is sustainable in theory; they are hard at work doing their best > > > > to make it so for as long as possible. What do you expect? It's what > > > > economics has always been about. For one take on "sustainablity" see url: > > > > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/port.html > > > > > > > > Harry > > > > > > > > ... > > > > Harry Cleaver > > > > Department of Economics > > > > University of Texas at Austin > > > > Austin, Texas 78712-1173 USA > > > > Phone Numbers: (hm) (512) 478-8427 > > > >(off) (512) 475-8535 Fax:(512) 471-3510 > > > > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Cleaver homepage: > > > > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index.html > > > > Chiapas95 homepage: > > > > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html > > > > Accion Zapatista homepage: > > > > http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/ > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > All socio-economic formations, including capitalism, are governed > > > by objective laws. karl Marx's theory of surplus value shows that > > > capitalism gives rise to its own demise. Speaking dialectically, no > > > socio-economic formation lasts forever. > > > > > > > > > Shawgi Tell > > > Graduate School of Education > > > University at Buffalo > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Response (Jim C): Yes, but... > > > > It takes more than the "automatic unfolding of the dialectic". It > > takes focused, disciplined, concerted, resolute, determined > > collective action. It takes theory that illuminates rather than > > disorts or obscures essential realities in need of transformation. It > > takes unity, but on a principled basis. It takes linking theory and > > practice--theory that serves and is tested by concrete practice. It > > takes continual self-examination and self-correction on the part of > > those seeking transformation. It takes those working for change being > > able to relate to, work with, learn from and teach people from > > diverse backgrounds with diverse agenda. It takes willingness to > > sacrifice all, even loss of one's life, in the service of needed > > transformations. It takes uncompromising spirit in the sense of not > > being willing to do the bidding of or Faustian deals with those > > seeking to prevent needed transformations. It takes intellectuals > > doing their work to illuminate and solve concrete problems and/or > > take concrete struggles to higher levels rather than using their work > > for self-promotion, CV-building or carving out specialized "market > > niches". It takes victims uniting with other victims rather than only > > worrying about their own narrow agenda or personal victimization. > > And it takes much more than what has been listed... > > > > Jim Craven > > > > *---* > > * "Those who take the most from the table,* > > * James Craventeach contentment. * > > * Dept of Economics Those for whom the taxes are destined, * > > * Clark College demand sacrifice.* > > * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd. Those who eat their fill, * > > * Vancouver, Wa. 98663speak to the hungry, * > > * (360) 992-2283 of wonderful times to come. * > > * Fax: (360) 992-2863Those who lead the country into the abyss,* > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] call ruling difficult, * > > * for ordinary folk." (Bertolt Brecht) * > > * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION * > > > > > > Absolutely. As Stalin clarifies: > > If it is granted that the proletarian movement > has two sides, objective and subjective, then the > field of operation of strategy and tactics is > undoubtedly limited to the subjective side of the > movement. The objective side comprises the processes > of development which take place outside of an around > the proletariat independently of its will and of > the will of its party, processes which, in the final > analysis, determine the development of the whole of >
[PEN-L:11836] Re: Professors and the class-struggle
Louis Proyect wrote: > Jim Craven should really give the professor-bashing a break. Especially > with respect to somebody like Harry Cleaver, who has been more responsible > than anybody in getting the word out on the peasant struggle of Chiapas. > > I myself used to indulge in this sort of thing a couple of years ago when > I first joined PEN-L. I have a much better perspective on things now. The > purpose of PEN-L is not to shame tenured professors in becoming activists. > What will turn professors into activists is an upsurge in the class > struggle. If the UPS strike and public support for it is a token of what > is happening, then we can certainly expect to see many more professors on > the picket-line or at rallies. > > Nobody has better activist credentials than me, including Jim Craven. But > what would be the point of reminding people about this constantly? This > sooner or later becomes a form of hectoring and capitalist society is much > better at making people feeling flawed than Jim Craven is. > > The beauty of PEN-L is that allows a wide variety of left opinion to be > exchanged in a calm setting. This is to the credit of Michael Perelman, > our excellent moderator. In recent months we have had exchanges between > Doug Henwood and Ed Herman on globalization, myself and Mike Albert on > utopian socialism, etc. I would add, by the way, that PEN-L gives somebody > like myself who is *not* part of academia a chance to meet people on their > own terms. This is a very democratic aspect of the Internet. > > I don't know why Craven is always so aggravated. I notice the same thing > on the Spoons Marxism-International l*st. We have somebody, a moderator in > fact, who is always railing about the "fake left" who it turns out is just > about everybody else on the l*st. These Internet mailing lists bring > together people in the most curious way. It must be the same thing as what > goes on in some repressive countries where they throw all the leftists > into the same cell: Maoists, Trotskyists, anarchists, etc. It would be > very easy for people to shriek at each other day and night, but sooner or > later common sense would dictate that people discover what unites them > rather than what divides them. > > Louis Proyect > Response (Jim C): First of all, a simple reading of what I wrote should indicate that no one was being bashed or singled out--unless privately they knew what was said hit home. That was not directed against Harry Cleaver as I have no idea what he does or doesn't do and would not presume to know. What I wrote, a partial list to be added to, are simple facts demonstrated by a lot of bloody history related to what it takes to transform or abolish capitalism or any other entrenched system. Those who know me or who have followed what I write know that I have no hesitation in naming names if that is my intention. Further, just as do not presume to know what Mr. Proyect does or doesn't do, so he has no idea of what I do or don't do and therefore the assertions about relative "credentials" in left action is presumptuous to say the least. Further, there is the phenomenon of "House Marxism"; there is the phenomenon of "Marx Scholars" who are basically CV-builders and are devorced from any concrete actions; these are facts and if the shoe fits then so be it. I can disagree on a particular point without asserting that "my truth" is "the truth" and if I want to make charges I will do so, naming names and with what I consider to be evidence for my opinion and always the willingness to change my opinion in the face of clearly compelling counter-evidence and counter-reasoning. Touchy, touchy, Tsk, tsk Jim Craven *---* * "Those who take the most from the table,* * James Craventeach contentment. * * Dept of Economics Those for whom the taxes are destined, * * Clark College demand sacrifice.* * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd. Those who eat their fill, * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663speak to the hungry, * * (360) 992-2283 of wonderful times to come. * * Fax: (360) 992-2863Those who lead the country into the abyss,* * [EMAIL PROTECTED] call ruling difficult, * * for ordinary folk." (Bertolt Brecht) * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11835] Professors and the class-struggle
Jim Craven should really give the professor-bashing a break. Especially with respect to somebody like Harry Cleaver, who has been more responsible than anybody in getting the word out on the peasant struggle of Chiapas. I myself used to indulge in this sort of thing a couple of years ago when I first joined PEN-L. I have a much better perspective on things now. The purpose of PEN-L is not to shame tenured professors in becoming activists. What will turn professors into activists is an upsurge in the class struggle. If the UPS strike and public support for it is a token of what is happening, then we can certainly expect to see many more professors on the picket-line or at rallies. Nobody has better activist credentials than me, including Jim Craven. But what would be the point of reminding people about this constantly? This sooner or later becomes a form of hectoring and capitalist society is much better at making people feeling flawed than Jim Craven is. The beauty of PEN-L is that allows a wide variety of left opinion to be exchanged in a calm setting. This is to the credit of Michael Perelman, our excellent moderator. In recent months we have had exchanges between Doug Henwood and Ed Herman on globalization, myself and Mike Albert on utopian socialism, etc. I would add, by the way, that PEN-L gives somebody like myself who is *not* part of academia a chance to meet people on their own terms. This is a very democratic aspect of the Internet. I don't know why Craven is always so aggravated. I notice the same thing on the Spoons Marxism-International l*st. We have somebody, a moderator in fact, who is always railing about the "fake left" who it turns out is just about everybody else on the l*st. These Internet mailing lists bring together people in the most curious way. It must be the same thing as what goes on in some repressive countries where they throw all the leftists into the same cell: Maoists, Trotskyists, anarchists, etc. It would be very easy for people to shriek at each other day and night, but sooner or later common sense would dictate that people discover what unites them rather than what divides them. Louis Proyect
[PEN-L:11834] Re: Is Capitalism Sustainable?
Greetings, On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, James Michael Craven wrote: > > Greetings, > > On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Harry M. Cleaver wrote: > > > > Is Capitalism Sustainable? Let's hope not, or rather let's do our best to > > > make sure that it continues to be able to sustain itself for as short a > > > time as possible. "Sustainable Capitalism" is a nightmare.(That includes > > > "sustainable development" because "development" has always meant > > > capitalist development.) Economists, as a rule, don't worry about whether > > > or not it is sustainable in theory; they are hard at work doing their best > > > to make it so for as long as possible. What do you expect? It's what > > > economics has always been about. For one take on "sustainablity" see url: > > > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/port.html > > > > > > Harry > > > > > > ... > > > Harry Cleaver > > > Department of Economics > > > University of Texas at Austin > > > Austin, Texas 78712-1173 USA > > > Phone Numbers: (hm) (512) 478-8427 > > >(off) (512) 475-8535 Fax:(512) 471-3510 > > > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Cleaver homepage: > > > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index.html > > > Chiapas95 homepage: > > > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html > > > Accion Zapatista homepage: > > > http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/ > > > ... > > > > > > > All socio-economic formations, including capitalism, are governed > > by objective laws. karl Marx's theory of surplus value shows that > > capitalism gives rise to its own demise. Speaking dialectically, no > > socio-economic formation lasts forever. > > > > > > Shawgi Tell > > Graduate School of Education > > University at Buffalo > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Response (Jim C): Yes, but... > > It takes more than the "automatic unfolding of the dialectic". It > takes focused, disciplined, concerted, resolute, determined > collective action. It takes theory that illuminates rather than > disorts or obscures essential realities in need of transformation. It > takes unity, but on a principled basis. It takes linking theory and > practice--theory that serves and is tested by concrete practice. It > takes continual self-examination and self-correction on the part of > those seeking transformation. It takes those working for change being > able to relate to, work with, learn from and teach people from > diverse backgrounds with diverse agenda. It takes willingness to > sacrifice all, even loss of one's life, in the service of needed > transformations. It takes uncompromising spirit in the sense of not > being willing to do the bidding of or Faustian deals with those > seeking to prevent needed transformations. It takes intellectuals > doing their work to illuminate and solve concrete problems and/or > take concrete struggles to higher levels rather than using their work > for self-promotion, CV-building or carving out specialized "market > niches". It takes victims uniting with other victims rather than only > worrying about their own narrow agenda or personal victimization. > And it takes much more than what has been listed... > > Jim Craven > > *---* > * "Those who take the most from the table,* > * James Craventeach contentment. * > * Dept of Economics Those for whom the taxes are destined, * > * Clark College demand sacrifice.* > * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd. Those who eat their fill, * > * Vancouver, Wa. 98663speak to the hungry, * > * (360) 992-2283 of wonderful times to come. * > * Fax: (360) 992-2863Those who lead the country into the abyss,* > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] call ruling difficult, * > * for ordinary folk." (Bertolt Brecht) * > * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION * > > Absolutely. As Stalin clarifies: If it is granted that the proletarian movement has two sides, objective and subjective, then the field of operation of strategy and tactics is undoubtedly limited to the subjective side of the movement. The objective side comprises the processes of development which take place outside of an around the proletariat independently of its will and of the will of its party, processes which, in the final analysis, determine the development of the whole of society. The subjective side comprises the processes which take place within the proletaria
[PEN-L:11833] Is Capitalism Sustainable? Why not?
>Is Capitalism Sustainable? Let's hope not, or rather let's do our best to >make sure that it continues to be able to sustain itself for as short a >time as possible. "Sustainable Capitalism" is a nightmare.(That includes >"sustainable development" because "development" has always meant >capitalist development.) Economists, as a rule, don't worry about whether >or not it is sustainable in theory; they are hard at work doing their best >to make it so for as long as possible. What do you expect? It's what >economics has always been about. For one take on "sustainablity" see url: >http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/port.html > >... >Harry Cleaver ... I think it is important to spell out logically why it is not sustainable. What does it undermine its demise? In our answers we cannot think infinite time framework as Shawgi Tell expressed. Our answer should not just appeal to any authority, including Karl Marx. Appealing to authority is cop-out. 300 years history has shown that capitalism is flexible, self-adjusting, self-renewing, and quite revolutionary system. Why would it not last another 100 or 200 years? We wish that it does not last that long, but our wish should be separate from our analysis. Fikret. +Fikret Ceyhun voice: (701)777-3348 work + +Dept. of Economics (701)772-5135 home + +Univ. of North Dakota fax:(701)777-5099 + +University Station, Box 8369e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + +Grand Forks, ND 58202/USA +
[PEN-L:11832] Swing
I also enjoyed Louis' thoughtful and though provoking message on Swing and woud like to comment on a couple of its themes. In the phrase from David W. Stowe that Louis was taken with: "...quality of enabling the individual voice to contribute to the collective whole" both elements are important - the individual voice as well as the collective whole. The key is "enabling ... to contribute". Television and suburbia divorced the individual voice from the collective whole, on one hand creating a culture that was experienced en masse, but on the other atomizing the sphere in which the individual had any influence or scope for activity. I think it was Harry Cleaver who said something recently to the effect that it is the individual who acts, who must be motivated to make a commitment to a collective process. It's important to enable the individual to contribute, because this validates, and therefore encourages, his or her participation; but also because, when individual voices are really engaged, the collective whole becomes better, stronger, wiser and more informed. With all due respect to the events of the 1930s, the mass organization was easily transformed into the mass culture of the 1950s because it did lend itself to hierarchy and bureaucratic organization. Most people were far removed from centers of dec isionmaking. My parents also listened to big band music, in dance halls near Boston, but the memory of the Depression and the War drove them to crave the safety of conformity. Ozzie Nelson, Ricky Ricardo and Lawrence Welk, icons of 50s era tv, were also big band leaders. The 50s were what a lot of people in the 30s wanted, but in a passive way, accepting material abundance as a mark of personal and social progress out of the terrifying insecurity and danger of the 30s and 40s. GE's slogan: "Where progress is our most important product" set the tone for an era. The genius of the industrial union movement was the realization that mass production was not going to go away. The genius of the New Deal was the recognition that mass production required mass consumption to keep it going. Every culture contains its own contradictions. The 1950s which were the Golden Age in which unions were strong, jobs were secure and the many were prosperous were the same 1950s in which huge corporations and government policies imposed a culture of material and ideological conformity, largely dependent on the exploitation of the underdeveloped world and the underemployment of minorities and women, and wantonly destructive of resources and the natural environment. I guess I learned the hard way that nostalgia is not a productive trip. We can't go backwards. Why would we want to? Louis, as you said - nothing is permanent. According to your review, the power of O'Farrell's performance came, not from the reproduction of old arrangements, but from innovative combinations and the synthesis of varied cultural elements. If, in the 1990s, you are able not only to share the experience of the music with fellow members of the audience, but also to share your understanding of the experience with fellow travelers around the world, then why not do both (as you did), and why knock it? -Laurie [Excerpts from Louis Proyect's message] Last night I heard Chico O'Farrell lead an 18 piece band at Birdland on West 44th Street. O'Farrell is the legendary arranger and songwriter who Dizzy Gillespie hired in the late 40s to help him develop an Afro-Cuban jazz style. ... The sound was absolutely gorgeous. O'Farrell's compositions were on a par with Ellington's. They featured highly novel chord progressions that combined instruments in an unusual manner. Flutes would be doubled with tuba, soprano sax with trombone. When soloists took their turn, they were accompanied by bongo and conga players who kept up a steady, propulsive Latin accent. It was the best music I had heard in the past five years or so. He knocked the audience out. Part of the thrill of hearing a big band in person is being part of the sheer energy that it generates. I noticed that people at the bar started to make eye-contact with each other and whisper to complete strangers how great they thought the band was. Even I, the ultimate misanthrope, started to feel part of the scene. It got me thinking about how much has been lost since the advent of television and suburbia. My mother used to go to hear swing bands in Kansas City, my birthplace, when she was a teenager. The swing bands themselves were an integral part of the populist culture of the 1930s and 40s. I have "Swing Changes: Big-Band Jazz in New Deal America" by David W. Stowe on my to-read list. This is a Marxist analysis of big-band culture. In his introduction, Stowe states: "The turn away from the loose, open-ended, and nonhierarchical playing of 1920s jazz toward the more regimented modes of swing registered the move toward larger, mo
[PEN-L:11831] Re: Ellen Dannin in the New Zealand news
> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:39:22 -0700 (PDT) > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Dollars and Sense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11820] Re: Ellen Dannin in the New Zealand news > Bill, do you know how to reach Ellen Dannin? Marc Breslow, Dollars & > Sense magazine. Sure: Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax:619-696- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Not Bill == Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 202-775-8810 (voice) 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 ===
[PEN-L:11830] Blackfeet National Bank--Another Struggle
The following is a press release from the Piegan Blackfeet of Browning, Montana: Blackfeet National Bank "About the time the Retirement CD(TM) was to be introduced, the representatives of the tiny Blackfeet National Bank of Browning, Montana, let it be known that they were looking for a way to attract new deposits. Browning is a small town on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and Blackfeet provides the 'only banking services' in the over one million square mile reservation (an area that is larger than the state of Rhode Island). Located east of Glacier National Park, the reservation has little income from mineral royalities [formulae for undervaluing oil and gas reserves/extractions led to over $5 billion in oil and gas royalties owed not paid to various Tribes and Nations during Reagan/Bush/Clinton] or gaming establishments, and little prospect for more. The bank serves as an important source of resources for the small businesses of the reservation. Bank executives saw the Retirement CD as a potential way to atract deposits and therefore available capital from outside the environs of the reservation. In an interesting departure from traditional roles, this Indian bank became the entrepreneur in the Retirement CD business, challenging the 'territory' of those who had long ago inhabited this market. Blackfeet had to first win several court battles. Several of the state insurance commossioners tried to assert authority over Blackfeet, claiming that by selling annuities, they were operating in the business of insurance. Annuities are not insurance. The law and the courts have distinguished annuities from insurance since the turn of the century. As recently as January 18, 1995, the Supreme Court held once again that annuities are not insurance and the court battles began to go Blackett's way. When it began to look like Blackfeet would be victorious at last, the IRS took action on April 6, 1995. They released a proposed regulation that first admitted that Blackfeet's tax treatment of the Retirement CD was correct, then changed the law without authority, and made the change effective the next day. On April 14, 1995 Blackfeet issued a press release detailing these events and their opinions thereof. Press Release April 14, 1995 Treasury Department Undermines Only Indian National Bank Blackfeet Indian Reservation. On Friday, April 28th, President Clinton will meet with Indian Leaders from around the country to talk about his initiatives to promote economic growth on Indian reservations. Yet on Friday April 7th, his Treasury Department cut the rug out from under the Blackfeet National Bank's ability to attract long-term core deposits in order to appease the insurance industry. The only tribally-owned national bank in the country serves the one and a half million acre Blackfeet Reservation in Montana. It is a tiny bank by most standards, with less than $15 million in deposits. But it is also the axle on which the reservation economy turns. Last year, the bank became the first institution in the country to begin offering a new bank product--the Retirement CD(TM). It gives consumers the benefits of an annuity plus the safety of federally- insured deposits. This enables the bank to attract long-term deposits it needs to provide the housing and business loans needed to promote an economy faced with 80% unemployment. The bank was immediately attacked by the insurance industry, which saw a threat to its monopoly on over $100 billion a year in annuity contracts. The bank was quickly sued by state insurance commissioners in two states, Illinois and Florida, even though the bank had never done any business in those states. In both cases, the American Council on Life Insurance advised the state and sought to intervene on its own behalf. In January, the U.S. Justice Department announced it was beginning an investigation to determine if the insurance industry had violated the anti-trust laws through its concerted efforts to kill the Retirement CD and wear down the Blackfeet National Bank. Unable to score any victories in court, the insurance industry turned to its muscle in Washington. On April 7th, the Internal Revenue Service issued an unusual proposed regulation. It proposes to deny tax deferred status to any Retirement CDs purchased after that date, even though the notice was one of proposed rule making. Generally, regulations are not effective until the date they are finalized. Also, the IRS did not find that the Retirement CD violated any statute. Instead, it announced it was issuing the regulation because the Retirement CD 'may violate the spirit of the law'. Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, and Secretary to the bank, noted the irony of this: 'For 150 years, the government could care less when it violated every letter of every provis
[PEN-L:11829] Re: Is Capitalism Sustainable?
Greetings, > > On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Harry M. Cleaver wrote: > > > Is Capitalism Sustainable? Let's hope not, or rather let's do our best to > > make sure that it continues to be able to sustain itself for as short a > > time as possible. "Sustainable Capitalism" is a nightmare.(That includes > > "sustainable development" because "development" has always meant > > capitalist development.) Economists, as a rule, don't worry about whether > > or not it is sustainable in theory; they are hard at work doing their best > > to make it so for as long as possible. What do you expect? It's what > > economics has always been about. For one take on "sustainablity" see url: > > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/port.html > > > > Harry > > > > ... > > Harry Cleaver > > Department of Economics > > University of Texas at Austin > > Austin, Texas 78712-1173 USA > > Phone Numbers: (hm) (512) 478-8427 > >(off) (512) 475-8535 Fax:(512) 471-3510 > > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cleaver homepage: > > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index.html > > Chiapas95 homepage: > > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html > > Accion Zapatista homepage: > > http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/ > > ... > > > > All socio-economic formations, including capitalism, are governed > by objective laws. karl Marx's theory of surplus value shows that > capitalism gives rise to its own demise. Speaking dialectically, no > socio-economic formation lasts forever. > > > Shawgi Tell > Graduate School of Education > University at Buffalo > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Response (Jim C): Yes, but... It takes more than the "automatic unfolding of the dialectic". It takes focused, disciplined, concerted, resolute, determined collective action. It takes theory that illuminates rather than disorts or obscures essential realities in need of transformation. It takes unity, but on a principled basis. It takes linking theory and practice--theory that serves and is tested by concrete practice. It takes continual self-examination and self-correction on the part of those seeking transformation. It takes those working for change being able to relate to, work with, learn from and teach people from diverse backgrounds with diverse agenda. It takes willingness to sacrifice all, even loss of one's life, in the service of needed transformations. It takes uncompromising spirit in the sense of not being willing to do the bidding of or Faustian deals with those seeking to prevent needed transformations. It takes intellectuals doing their work to illuminate and solve concrete problems and/or take concrete struggles to higher levels rather than using their work for self-promotion, CV-building or carving out specialized "market niches". It takes victims uniting with other victims rather than only worrying about their own narrow agenda or personal victimization. And it takes much more than what has been listed... Jim Craven *---* * "Those who take the most from the table,* * James Craventeach contentment. * * Dept of Economics Those for whom the taxes are destined, * * Clark College demand sacrifice.* * 1800 E. Mc Loughlin Blvd. Those who eat their fill, * * Vancouver, Wa. 98663speak to the hungry, * * (360) 992-2283 of wonderful times to come. * * Fax: (360) 992-2863Those who lead the country into the abyss,* * [EMAIL PROTECTED] call ruling difficult, * * for ordinary folk." (Bertolt Brecht) * * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
[PEN-L:11828] Re: UPS Strike Violence
We had a guy hit by a UPS subcontactor Saturday here in Bowling Green. There were two trucks that came into the lot. When they left they ran a stop sign and about five picket line walkers had to run to get out of there way. One of the guys injuried his wrist as he was pushing off the truck to try to get out of the way. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11827] [Fwd: UPS Strike: All For One And One For All]
From: Institute for Global Communications <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: UPS Strike: All For One And One For All LA Times August 13, 1997 COLUMN LEFT/STEVE EARLY UPS Strike: All for One and One for All It's refreshing to see organized labor oppose corporate America's effort to divide and conquer. By STEVE EARLY The current work stoppage at United Parcel Service has the look and feel of an old-time labor battle. Burly Teamsters tussle with cops on picket lines. Trucks are briefly blocked, scabs are cursed, strikers are arrested and some fall injured on the ground. A lot of customers don't get their deliveries on time or at all. Business leaders call for a Taft-Hartley injunction against the strike. Behind such scenes from another era, the issues at stake couldn't be more au courant. By taking a stand in favor of pension security and against part-timing, 190,000 UPS drivers and package handlers are bucking nationwide trends. The outcome of their fight could determine whether many other people--college teachers, computer technicians, retail sales workers or health care professionals--ever get decent full-time jobs or traditional pensions. Or whether they'll have to keep scrambling for part-time, temporary and contract work that doesn't provide normal fringe benefits. Like lots of employers, UPS wants to change its pension coverage to reduce its benefit costs. In the name of "flexibility," it seeks to hire even more part-timers--turning the 40% of its employees who still have good-paying, full-time jobs into an endangered species. If the company achieves its goals, guaranteed pensions and regular employment in trucking and many other industries will be further eroded. A Teamster victory, on the other hand, may inspire greater resistance to trends that deprive millions of Americans of adequate incomes before and after they retire. The rhetoric of the two sides reveals much about the clash of values and fundamental choices involved. In true '90s fashion, UPS is appealing to individualism, shortsightedness, even greed. To undermine the union, management is telling its full-timers not be concerned about the part-timers' plight. Why, asks UPS, should a $50,000-a-year driver with many years' seniority lose money in a strike over the job opportunities or pay of "kids" earning $8 an hour on the midnight-to-4 a.m. package-sorting shift? Furthermore, why should anyone at UPS want to be in the same retirement plan with other Teamsters, particularly those employed by "the competition"? Forget about them and their pensions, says the company. Just think about your own benefits, which could be so much better if workers abandoned the Teamster-sponsored funds that pool employer contributions industrywide in favor of a UPS-only plan. The Teamsters respond in what has become almost a foreign tongue in America: the language of solidarity, social responsibility and collective security. Under new reform-minded leaders, the union is finally objecting to three-tier wage scales that divide even old and new part-timers at UPS. Unlike his predecessors, President Ron Carey refused to treat the second-largest contract talks in the country--only General Motors bargaining is bigger--like a special-interest game played out of sight from members and the public. From the very beginning, Carey has insisted that whole communities are hurt by management's strategy of converting full-time positions into "half jobs" with few benefits. Likewise, the Teamsters say that it's not just their multiemployer pension trusts that face challenges today; it's any kind of "defined benefit" plan that commits employers to a guaranteed payout for all eligible retirees. A major objective of firms that already have single-company funds is replacing them with "defined contribution" plans such as 401(k) accounts. These shift more of the cost burden to employees and saddle them with the individual risk and responsibility of making investment decisions. If Teamsters accepted UPS' pension proposal, it wouldn't be long before they'd be hearing the same siren song that's playing now: Don't mix your money up with the next guy's; look out for your own personal retirement savings; forget about the group. Forgetting about the group, whether it's all the wage earners within the same company, industry or class, is exactly how labor in this country helped dig its own grave. The Teamster strike is more than an encouraging sign of revival. It's a reassertion of collectivist values that corporate America has tried its best to discredit and bury in recent debates about health care and social security, as well as on the future of private pensions. The standard-bearer in this fight may not, in the past, have been a paragon of social unionism. But the Teamster banner today is one worth rallying around for everyone's sake. - - - Steve Early Is a Journalist and Lawyer Who Works as a Labor Organizer in Boston LA Times Article
[PEN-L:11826] Re: Is Capitalism Sustainable?
Greetings, On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Harry M. Cleaver wrote: > Is Capitalism Sustainable? Let's hope not, or rather let's do our best to > make sure that it continues to be able to sustain itself for as short a > time as possible. "Sustainable Capitalism" is a nightmare.(That includes > "sustainable development" because "development" has always meant > capitalist development.) Economists, as a rule, don't worry about whether > or not it is sustainable in theory; they are hard at work doing their best > to make it so for as long as possible. What do you expect? It's what > economics has always been about. For one take on "sustainablity" see url: > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/port.html > > Harry > > ... > Harry Cleaver > Department of Economics > University of Texas at Austin > Austin, Texas 78712-1173 USA > Phone Numbers: (hm) (512) 478-8427 >(off) (512) 475-8535 Fax:(512) 471-3510 > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cleaver homepage: > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index.html > Chiapas95 homepage: > http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html > Accion Zapatista homepage: > http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/ > ... > All socio-economic formations, including capitalism, are governed by objective laws. karl Marx's theory of surplus value shows that capitalism gives rise to its own demise. Speaking dialectically, no socio-economic formation lasts forever. Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11825] Re: Is Capitalism Sustainable?
Is Capitalism Sustainable? Let's hope not, or rather let's do our best to make sure that it continues to be able to sustain itself for as short a time as possible. "Sustainable Capitalism" is a nightmare.(That includes "sustainable development" because "development" has always meant capitalist development.) Economists, as a rule, don't worry about whether or not it is sustainable in theory; they are hard at work doing their best to make it so for as long as possible. What do you expect? It's what economics has always been about. For one take on "sustainablity" see url: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/port.html Harry Harry Cleaver Department of Economics University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712-1173 USA Phone Numbers: (hm) (512) 478-8427 (off) (512) 475-8535 Fax:(512) 471-3510 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cleaver homepage: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index.html Chiapas95 homepage: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html Accion Zapatista homepage: http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/
[PEN-L:11824] Is Capitalism Sustainable?
A week ago, I sent the enquiry about the sustainability of capitalism which is repeated below to two lists - Deep Sustainability and Femecon - to see what emerged. The replies, some of which are summarised below, presented economists in a very bad light. Several people, for example, suggested that economists hadn't dared admit that capitalism is unsustainable because it would be bad for their careers. If true, this would be a searing indictment of the academic world in general and economists in particular. After all, how can thousands of intelligent people go on ignoring something that they suspect might be wrong? And wouldn't there be room for someone to make his or her name by attacking the conventional wisdom? Any discipline in which this becomes impossible is dead. I was disappointed that no-one said whether later workers had confirmed or demolished the Jorgenson and Grilliches findings on the poor progress technology had made so far in increasing factor productivity. Perhaps no-one presented economists or technology in a positive light because I asked my question on the wrong lists. So here I am trying again. --ORIGINAL QUERY-- Can anyone tell me why very few reputable economists have been prepared to discuss the sustainability of the capitalist system? A feature of capitalist economies is that they collapse if they fail to generate economic growth, but, with the exception of Herman Daly and one or two others, the handful of economists who have written on the matter deny that this means that such economies are unsustainable. Growth, they insist, can continue for ever because techology will enable the larger and larger values of goods and services the process requires to be produced with less natural resources and fewer polluting emissions. This improvement in factor productivity will be helped, they say, by a growing emphasis in the market on quality rather than quality. The value of the output, not its volume, is what counts. But what basis is there for these views? In an 1977 essay, A Catechism of Growth Fallacies, which is included as a chapter in the 1992 edition of his book Steady State Economics, Daly looked at the extent to which technology had already increased factor productivity and found the results disappointing. He cites a study by D.W. Jorgenson and Z. Grilliches (The Explanation of Productivity Change, Review of Economic Studies, July 1967, pp 249-283) which indicates that 96.7% of the increase in output between 1945 and 1965 had been due to simply increasing the use of labour, capital and/or energy. Only the residual, 3.3% was possibly the result of technological advance or a switch to quality. What have more recent studies on technology and factor productivity shown? They would obviously have a bearing on whether the Factor Four revolution - the doubling of wealth while simultaneously halving resource use outlined by Ernst von Weizsacher and Hunter and Amory Lovins in their recent Earthscan book - is anything more than pie in the sky. In the book itself, the feasibility of the scenario rests on little more than statistics showing how wasteful of natural resources the US economy is, plus fifty case histories of projects involving major factor productivity improvements. Unfortunately, like almost everyone else, the Factor Four authors dodge the sustainability-of-economic-growth issue, although they do point out that efficiency improvements will not be enough and if economic growth runs at around 5%, all of the gains that a quadrupuling of factor productivity brought about would be wiped out in less than thirty years. So why do economists have this blind spot? Does anyone have a convincing explanation for their reluctance to accept that economic growth cannot continue? I would have thought that the challenge presented by the need to design a truly sustainable economic system would be one that would appeal to many members of the profession. Richard Douthwaite Cloona, Westport, Ireland. Author of 'The Growth Illusion: How Economic Growth has Enriched the Few, Impoverished the Many and Endangered the Planet' (1992) and 'Short Circuit: Strengthening Local Economies for Security in an Unstable World' (1996). -END OF ORIGINAL QUERY-- EDITED VERSIONS OF SOME RESPONSES No responses have been included from the Femecon list because of that list's requirement to get specific permission from each correspondent before quoting them. --- William Rees wrote: Having posed this question myself to many economists, my impression is that the answer is not all that complicated. It seems to hinge on unstinted faith in the capacity of human ingenuity (technology) to substitute for the processes and products of nature. Indeed, as many have pointed out, this is a near doctrinaire faith among the followers of extreme proponents such as Julian Simon. Here in Canada, the former Chie
[PEN-L:11823] [Fwd: Teamsters Strike Song]
From: Institute for Global Communications <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /* Written 7:07 AM Aug 12, 1997 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] in igc:list.publabor */ /* -- "TEAMSTERS STRIKE SONG" -- */ We Can't Live on a Part-time Salary (Tune: We all live in a yellow submarine) Chorus: We can't live on a part-time salary A part-time salary, a part-time salary (repeat) When you work for UPS There's lots of rules and lots of stress Night and day we work like dogs But they won't give us full-time jobs (chorus) Full-time mortgage, full-time rent Before it's earned, my paycheck's spent Part-time car note?--no such thing Bill are all the postman brings (chorus) The bosses all make lots of bread There's no way I can get ahead But we'll see justice in the end Cause Teamsters always fight to win (chorus) Lyrics: Julie McCall
[PEN-L:11821] Solidarity Actions: R.I., Berkeley, San Francisco
Please Post, Announce, and Distribute Solidarity Rally for UPS Teamsters in Providence, Rhode Island, Saturday, August 16 Speakers include: * Stu Mundy, Secretary Treasurer, Teamsters Local 251 * Carolyn Bailey, pre-loader, Teamsters Local 251 * Brian "Jake" Roberts, driver, Teamsters Local 251 * Jesse Sharkey, International Socialist Organization * Leo Cacicio, President, APWU Local 387 * Scott Molloy, URI Labor Research Center * UNION AND LABOR SOLIDARITY SONGS BY JOYCE KATZBERG * Solidarity greetings and donations from supporters of the strike Firefighter's Hall 90 Printery St., Providence Saturday, August 16 7pm Endorsers: International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 251, Rhode Island AFL-CIO, APWU Local 387, RI Hospital FNHP, HERE Local 217, 1199 Healthcare Employees Union, RI Federation of Teacher's and Health Professionals, Providence Teacher's Union, USWA Local 911, Rhode Island Labor History Society, International Socialist Organization, IBEW 2323, IBEW 99, United Latino Workers Committee, Progreso Latino, George Wiley Center, Scholars, Writers and Activists for Social Justice (Rhode Island), South End Press Call 401-331-4043 for childcare, information, or to endorse. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Teamster Solidarity Rally On Sunday, August 17, at 4:00 PM in Wheeler Auditorium there will be a Solidarity Rally in support of the striking UPS Teamsters. Speakers include: Teamsters Local 315 (Richmond UPS) California Nurses Association United Farm Workers AFSCME Local 444 (East Bay Muni. Utility District) The event is being hosted by the International Socialist Organization (ISO). From: Jane Zavisca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: supporting local teamsters In case anyone is interested in showing support for the UPS strikers, there is going to be a march and rally in San Francisco this coming Thursday, August 21. This event is part of a national day of action being organized by the Teamsters. People will assemble at 11:30 at 16th and 3rd (You can take BART to 16th and Mission and then get a bus going east to Potrero, where they will have shuttles. Plus there will be lots of free parking). The march begins at 12. If anyone is interested in going with me let me know. Or does anyone know if AGSE will be organizing a group? Also, I know none of us has a lot of money to spare, but the Teamsters union is only providing $55 per week to strikers, so the locals are organizing their own strike funds. If you want to make a donation, you can send a check to: Teamsters Local 70 -- UPS Strikers PO Box 2270 Oakland, CA 94621 Jane
