[PEN-L:12366] Re: language thought
At 16:51 12/09/97 -0700, Jim D. wrote: Ricardo Duchesne writes that: Language is neither the determinant or a major determinant of thinking; these two are simply inseparable. It depends on your definitions, doesn't it? If we define "thinking" as mental processes that occur within an individual's brain and "language" as a societal institution, then they aren't either the same or inseparable. One can think without words, as with much of chess-playing (what's important is the pattern). One the other hand, often words are used without thinking. _ I don't think thinking and language can be separated. What can you think without language? I don't understand the chess example. I do play a bit of chess myself, and I don't think I could play it if I had no language. How would the rules of chess be explained or comunicated to the other player, or for that matter developed to begin with. Don't forget that mathematics and abstract thinking is not outside of language. ___ Clearly, thinking and language (as defined) affect each other profoundly. But they aren't totally inseparable. _ How would you separate them, jim? That's the big question. Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:12368] re: slurs
Tom Walker writes: This is precisely the point at which identity politics swallows its own tail. Mapping differences (race, culture, gender) onto static positions of victim and victimizer makes *less* sense than fitting all of humanity into two great economic classes, owners and non-owners of the means of production. As in the Stalinist substitution of the party for the class, the central committee for the party and the leader for the central committee, this kind of dichotomizing is the foundation of a bureaucracy that serves only its own interests *in the name of* defending the victims. This is a caricature of Ajit's position. Reality check! We know that there have existed and continue to exist broad patterns (or if you like structures) of oppression along lines of ethnicity, religion, gender, class, sexuality, and so forth. The violence, bias, and results of these oppressions, and their ongoing effects, should not require further elaboration on Pen-L. To state this as historical fact with continued effects is of course not to stipulate a timeless, static, stable, inherent, status of victimizer/victimized. We are simply talking about human society and trying to understand it; recent posting by a number of people has simply noted that language and more generally culture may play a role in cementing oppressions. This may include stories, jokes, names, insults, and other manifestations of dehumanizing stereotype. Nothing in Ajit's thoughtful postings merits conflation with identity politics much less Stalinism. Best, Colin (PS I don't want to suggest that these questions are settled either. If anyone is interested in exploring the issues I'd suggest we take a short piece of writing that has grappled with these questions -- maybe one of Spivak's essays -- and discuss that.)
[PEN-L:12369] On Bill Lear's Website offer
On Thu, September 11, 1997 at 12:29:14 (-0700) michael perelman writes: Bill Lear said that he would help to set up a pen-l web site. Earlier Bill L had said: Perhaps now would be a good time to get everyone's opinion on what they'd like to have for the web site. I thought it would be cool to have a sub-site containing summaries of some of the better debates that have raged here; what's the point unless you set up a spot where the average thug can learn something?! Most of the membership consists of Eco profs, yes? I suppose a few people would have to become yet one more committee (Whatever cyberspace is, it's no refuge from the committee lifestyle), charged with determining which debates actually concluded in a plain and communicable consensus; otherwise we'll just have a new place to revivify old hung juries. My 2 bahts. valis Occupied America
[PEN-L:12372] 1997-09-12 Abraham Nom inated Bureau/Labor Statistics Comm
Does anyone know if this is good, bad, or indifferent? Has she commented on the push to change the CPI? -- Joseph Noonan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forwarded message -- SEND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS INFORMATION TO The White House at [EMAIL PROTECTED] (This information is posted for public education/information purposes. It does not necessarily represent the views of The College.) THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ___ For Immediate ReleaseSeptember 12, 1997 PRESIDENT CLINTON NAMES KATHARINE G. ABRAHAM AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR President Clinton today announced his intent to nominate Katharine G. Abraham to serve a second term as Commissioner of Labor Statistics at the Department of Labor. Ms. Abraham, of Iowa, has served since 1993 as the Commissioner of Labor Statistics at the Department of Labor, where she oversees the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Concurrently, Ms. Abraham is a professor of economics at the University of Maryland. In addition, she has served as a Research Associate at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and as an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management. Ms. Abraham received a B.S. from Iowa State University and a Ph.D. from Harvard University. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is the Federal agency responsible for gathering data relating to the broad field of labor economics. Information regarding the labor force, wage levels, prices, and productivity is collected, processed, analyzed, and then released to the public by the Bureau, which strives to keep its data accurate, timely, and relevant. -30-30-30-
[PEN-L:12373] Re: NAFTA
Bill B said: I agree with this, but I disagree you can "point to larger solutions" by blaming job losses on NAFTA in a way that is virtually indistinguishable from Perot et all. I'm not suggesting maximum program everywhere, all the The focal point of left opposition to trade liberalization is a defense of the principle of labor rights and environmental standards in all nations. I think that is distinct from Perotista appeals. Actually, our side is trying to move away from the job loss issue to the implications of liberalization for job quality and pay. Obviously job loss is a problematic theme with 5 percent unemployment. It is really shorthand for losing relatively good jobs and getting relative bad ones. time, but the left should raise proposals in a way that unites our side and brings out our common interests, not reproduces those that e.g. are imposed by imaginary lines on the earth's surface. It's doing that. In fact, starting with the NAFTA debate this work has entailed collaboration with trade unions and progressives in Canada and Mexico. . . . solution" in both the US/Canada and Mexico. And yes, I am in favour of 'trade liberalization' if by that is meant freer access for oppressed countries to world markets. Aren't you? . . . When you say it that way, who can disagree? Isn't the issue always the way principles such as this translate in practical application? In other words, it is really-existing trade liberalization in question. To clarify: it was * against* the "dispossession of Mexican peasants from their [communal] land". Right. Pardon my shorthand. Michael Perelman asked if we should not have the right to pass protective regulations in a city or state or country. Of course, and I'm all for improving the regulations. But he goes on to say "The problem is that capitalists use trade organizations to break down the protection of local control". First, on the *strictly formal* level, and please correct me if I am wrong, I don't think NAFTA stops countries from adopting national regulations etc. It mainly imposes a certain kind of 'template' on these, which I understand as a kind of a pro capitalist trade 'template'; an extention of the direction GATT moved in for decades, e.g. no 'discrimination' against capitalists on the basis of (certain specific) nationalities. Well, this is what a major part of the debate is about. Will trade regimes undermine national or (in the U.S.), state sovereignty? It seems pretty obvious they do, though the scope and importance of this is open to debate. What else do you call the right of Mexican truck drivers to drive in California without a U.S. driver's license in an uninspected truck carrying uninspected produce working below U.S. minimum wage? What is left of U.S. national regulations in light of that? If Michael is saying our stance on trade should be based on something like "protection via local control" under capitalism, well, I just can't agree, because it seems to me like tilting at windmills, or weaving ropes out of sand, or some such metaphor. I would disagree as well. Standards are intrinsically broad in scope, otherwise they are not standards at all. Local jurisdictions may be best suited to run their schools, but localization goes fundamentally against the grain of labor and environmental standards, for pretty obvious political and technological reasons, respectively. BTW, I was serious about soliciting better fuel for this debate from you and this list. Thus far it seems you have been dwelling on the maximum program. Solidarity with workers in other nations, for instance, around what exactly (or approximately)? Cheers, MBS === 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://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12377] Re: 1997-09-12 Abraham Nom inated Bureau/Labor
jf noonan wrote: Does anyone know if this is good, bad, or indifferent? Has she commented on the push to change the CPI? I think Abraham has been pretty firm on the CPI issue, showing a spirit for which bureaucrats aren't known. My impression is that she's exactly what you want in an official statistician of a bourgeois government. Doug
[PEN-L:12376] Prisoner to Prisoner (From The New York Times, 8/19/97)
From The New York Times, 8/19/97 "Prisoner to Prisoner" [Imad Sabi, a 35-year-old Palestinian, has been detained in Israeli prisons for 20 months, one of more than 350 Palestinians being held in "administrative detention" by Israel without being charged. He is suspected of political activity in the militant Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The open letter excerpted here refers to the case of Yuval Lotem, an Israeli army reserve officer who was recently jailed for a month when he refused to guard a prison holding Palestinians jailed without trial. The letter, written in Arabic, was published in Hebrew earlier this month in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.] by Imad Sabi A small item in the Al-Quds newspaper of July 8, 1997: "An Israeli soldier who refused to serve at Megiddo Prison was sentenced to jail." And in the item, only a few lines long, it says he was an officer, with the rank of lieutenant, who said, "I prefer to be in jail as a prisoner and not as the jailer of political detainees imprisoned without trial." Who are you, officer? I want to write to you, but first I have to know who you are. I have to know the reasons that moved you to act as you did. I have to know how you arrived at this principled decision of conscience; how you chose such a unique rebellion, so unexpected. What's your name? Where do you live? What do you do? How old are you? Do you have children? Do you like the sea? What books do you read? And what are you doing now in the cell where you are held? Do you have enough cigarettes? Is there someone who identifies with you over there? Do you ask yourself, "Was it worth paying the price?" Can you see the moon and stars from the cell window? Have your ears grown accustomed to the jangle of heavy keys, to the creak of the locks, to the clang of the metal doors? What did they say to you in the trial, and what did you answer them? Do you see in your sleep fields of wheat and kernels moving in the wind? Do you see expanses of sunflowers, and are your eyes filled with the yellow, green and black hues, and the sun tans you, and you smile in your sleep, and the walls of the cell tumble and fall, and an unknown person waves his hand to you from afar? Would the job of jailer have broken you down? Only a week, two, three weeks at the most, and you would have completed your reserve duty and returned to civilian life. You could have kept silent, curbed your anger, kept your feelings to yourself. You could have been a polite jailer, treating the detainees graciously, tactfully, in a humane way. What could have happened had you done that? So who are you? How do the wardens treat you? Does your wife visit you, or maybe your girlfriend, mother or children? Do you write letters? To whom? How do you begin a letter to a woman you love? Do you think about me? About the meaning of my freedom for you? What is the meaning of freedom in your eyes? Isn't "state security" important to you? And what if I'm a real terrorist? What would you say then? Don't you have regrets? Didn't you have doubts when they told you: "They're dangerous; they belong to Hamas, to Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front? Don't you trust our security services? Do you really believe that we are ready to throw innocent people in jail?" Why do I feel as if I know you? Have we written to each other in the past? I have a friend who writes against the administrative detentions. Is he also your friend? Anonymous lieutenant, whatever your name is, sleep well; sleep the peaceful slumber of someone whose conscience is clear. I'll yet know your name, and then I'll write you a long letter, a letter of a prisoner to a prisoner. I'll begin my letter with, "Hello dear . . .," and end with, "Your sincerely, Imad." [Mr Sabi's letter was translated from Hebrew by Joel Greenberg of the Jerusalem bureau of The New York Times].
[PEN-L:12382] Re: language-t
Devine wonders what's "liberal" about defining thinking as a process that occurs within the brain of individuals. Simply, this definition is in line with the rational-choice model which conceives of thinking as a monologue of a subject about an object. I don't question that we all have our own private conciousness (we experience our own pain, our own love). My point is that our thinking presupposes a symbolic - linguistic - prestructuring which belongs to all of us as members of a community. To say this is not to say that language and thinking are identical; it is to say that they are inseparable. What about pre-linguistic mental capacities, say in the first two years of a child? This is possible, but should we call that "thinking"?
[PEN-L:12385] Further report on ILWU action for Liverpool (fwd)
There was absolutely no coverage of this story in the Vancouver press! To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ILWU closes down West Coast ports for Liverpool by Steve Stallone, Editor, The Dispatcher, the ILWU newspaper ILWU longshore workers shut down all ports along the North American West Coast from Alaska to the Mexican border for eight hours September 8 in solidarity with the Liverpool dockers. Members met at their local union halls to discuss the situation in Liverpool and how the threats of privatization and casualization are looming over dock workers around the world and on our own waterfront in Los Angeles, Calif. There the city has leased the operation of a coal export facility known as the Los Angeles Export Terminal (LAXT) to a private company that is attempting to run it with non-union labor. At the Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor 32 vessels were in port when longshoremen walked out. The Port of Oakland had two ships at berth at that time. Three ships were held up in Portland, delaying two trains. In Seattle six ships in port were delayed during the work stoppage and earlier that day longshore workers aboard ships bound for Thamesport used the opportunity to discuss the Liverpool situation, which may have impacted productivity. At least a dozen ships in Vancouver, British Columbia were delayed during the work stoppage. ILWU locals have been making regular donations to our brothers and sisters in Liverpool and have pledged to continue to do so. "Our members should take great pride in having the consciousness to see past our own narrow jurisdiction and realize that only through solidarity with our brothers and sisters around the globe will we be able to secure our future and theirs," said ILWU International President Brian McWilliams.
[PEN-L:12384] Re: 1997-09-12 Abraham Nom inated Bureau/Labor Statistics Comm
On Tue, September 16, 1997 at 07:35:13 (-0700) jf noonan writes: Does anyone know if this is good, bad, or indifferent? Has she commented on the push to change the CPI? You can find a copy of her testimony before the Senate Budget Committee on January 30, 1997 at http://www.zopyra.com/~rael/texts/AbrahamTest.html. Bill
[PEN-L:12388] Re: Prisoner to Prisoner
One would have to be a stone to remain unmoved by this news account. Alas, the sentiments expressed can't have much effect in the context of the massive retrograde forces at work there, nor could their author, one Imad Sabi, be sufficiently representative to make much difference. The fact of his letter's being published at all, however, suggests that many people of good will are grabbing at straws to hobble the juggernaut of polarization and the horrors looming at the end of its path. Until the adversaries resolve to turn the tables on their manipulators near and far, such stories will continue to be merely good footnotes to bad history. valis Occupied America "Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to." -- Mark Twain
[PEN-L:12386] language-thought
Ricardo Duchesne writes: Devine wonders what's "liberal" about defining thinking as a process that occurs within the brain of individuals. Simply, this definition is in line with the rational-choice model which conceives of thinking as a monologue of a subject about an object. My definition of thinking as happening within the brain of individuals doesn't contradict the "rational-choice model" (except to the extent that the latter clings to the behaviorist avoidance of reference to mental states). But it also doesn't contradict _other_ visions of thinking, such as those of Aristotle or Freud, which don't fit with the "rational-choice model" at all. I, for one, lean much more heavily toward Ari or Freud than toward rational-choice-ism. The big difference between the rat-choice model and, say, Ari or Freud, is that the latter realize the extent to which individual "tastes" or "preference functions" are products of society and are tense and conflictual (neurotic). I don't question that we all have our own private conciousness (we experience our own pain, our own love). My point is that our thinking presupposes a symbolic - linguistic - prestructuring which belongs to all of us as members of a community. yes, but thinking's not IDENTICAL to the symbolic/linguistic prestructuring. Based on what you say later in your missive (that I omitted), we agree. It's important to think dialectically: yes, society's symbolic/linguistic prestructuring creates the basis for -- and limits and shapes -- our individual thinking. But, not only does the whole make the parts but the parts make the whole, to paraphrase Levins and Lewontin's lucid language: as individuals we shape, limit, and change society's symbolic and linguistic institutions. As a result, both the society and individuals change over time. Missing the "relative autonomy" of individual thinking prevents us from seeing the ways in which people create society in addition to being creations of society. ... What about pre-linguistic mental capacities, say in the first two years of a child? This is possible, but should we call that "thinking"? It depends on one's definition. But the fact that it can be thought of as "thinking" suggests that we can (to a limited degree) separate language from thinking. Noam Chomsky, as I understand him from secondary sources, argues that we have language of a very general sort (more the form, the template, than the content) "built into" our psyches from the get-go; society determines which variants of this general grammar are chosen and fills in the vocabulary. That makes sense to me, having helped raise a child who seemed to know the subjunctive and the passive voice at age 2. It also fits with what I said above, the suggestion that people make language as much as language creates people and that to some extent individual thinking is autonomous. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Dear, you increase the dopamine in my accumbens." -- words of love for the 1990s.
[PEN-L:12392] Re: Affluenza
Friends, I want to support Louis's comments on the AFFLUENZA program. It was, to my wife and I, pretty superficial. Plus, a lot of attention was given to rightwing religius nuts from Colorado Springs who are preaching less consumerism and more god and family. Also, thow yung women in the wshow, high school students, were praised for rallying around anti-consumerism, after a visit to Mexico. The poor Mexicans were poor but they were so gracious and seemed happy. Well, how they would know that the poor Mexicans were happy is a mystery the show did not bother to explore. Homeless people are often very nice to me, but I would not say that they were happy. This excerpt from the show reminded me of an argument we had with one of my wife's sisters. She said that the poor folks on the Bayou in Louisiana were happy because they got together every sunday and played music. She wished she could be like them. We suggested that she was welcome to live poor if she wanted, but we doubted she would. michael yates
[PEN-L:12393] Re: 1997-09-12 Abraham Nom inated Bureau/Labor Sta
Friends, let me second Max's note on commissioner Abraham. michael yates
[PEN-L:12398] Re: Further report on ILWU action for Liverpool (fwd)
In a message dated 97-09-16 16:31:39 EDT, you write: "Our members should take great pride in having the consciousness to see past our own narrow jurisdiction and realize that only through solidarity with our brothers and sisters around the globe will we be able to secure our future and theirs," said ILWU International President Brian McWilliams. so much for narrow economism--bravo! maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12400] Re: Affluenza
AAlso, thow yung women in the wshow, high school students, were praised for rallying around anti-consumerism, after a visit to Mexico. The poor Mexicans were poor but they were so gracious and seemed happy. Well, how they would know that the poor Mexicans were happy is a mystery the show did not bother to explore. Homeless people are often very nice to me, but I would not say that they were happy. This excerpt from the show reminded me of an argument we had with one of my wife's sisters. She said that the poor folks on the Bayou in Louisiana were happy because they got together every sunday and played music. She wished she could be like them. We suggested that she was welcome to live poor if she wanted, but we doubted she would. michael yates I think this is a little unfair. It doesn't seem to me implausible to state that some poor communities have stronger bonds and a greater sense of solidarity and mutual help than found in the american suburb, which is all I took the young women to be saying. I've been to Mexico and worked in poor communities and had the same conclusion myself. True, I wouldn't stretch that to say they were "happy" or endorse the living conditions there, but there was a different cultural ethos. The comparison with homeless people in the US is not at all apt. Thad Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/ Union Theological Seminary (New York) 212-531-1935 http://www.northcarolina.com/thad
[PEN-L:12399] Re: the beautiful poor
On Tue, September 16, 1997 at 18:41:16 (-0700) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 97-09-16 06:08:05 EDT, [Bill Lear] write[s]: What about in Central America? How did the Jesuits relate to the Catholic hierarchy, and to the women and the poor there? In case you forgot, the original topic was statements made by the nun replacing Sister Teresa in India. If your suggestion is to list catholic offenses against women world wide, then I would be doing nothing but writing email for the next few months or years. If you would like to take up the project of specifying every country where catholic offenses against women have taken place, be my guest. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] In case you forgot, it was you who brought the topic far beyond its original focus with the following claim: However, I certainly agree that catholicism always puts the most backward/patriarchal spin on any local culture. My suggestion was not to list catholic offenses against women worldwide, my question was, I thought, quite transparent: How did the Jesuits behave relative to this Pope-centered monstrosity while under attack from the U.S.? Did they break with the women-bashing tradition of the catholic hierarchy in order to defend themselves and the oppressed? Did they break with this tradition at all? Was the injunction to exercise a preferential option for the poor a selective one which maintained the obnoxious, traditional misogyny? Was it, in short, true that they put put the sort of spin you mentioned on the local culture, or did they fight against this tendency? Bill
[PEN-L:12397] Re: the beautiful poor
In a message dated 97-09-16 06:08:05 EDT, you write: What about in Central America? How did the Jesuits relate to the Catholic hierarchy, and to the women and the poor there? Bill In case you forgot, the original topic was statements made by the nun replacing Sister Teresa in India. If your suggestion is to list catholic offenses against women world wide, then I would be doing nothing but writing email for the next few months or years. If you would like to take up the project of specifying every country where catholic offenses against women have taken place, be my guest. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12396] Re: On the other hand ...
In a message dated 97-09-16 05:17:35 EDT, you write: "This is clearly one of the biggest news events of the century, yet it's almost as if the death of Diana is an event of no demonstrable significance." Dear Sid; I respectfully disagree. The over reporting and cannonization of Di has led to a unique phenomenon in many American homes. For hours at a time, people turned off the boob tube and talked to each other because they got soo bored with lady Di visions. Perhaps we could have Di die again?? maggie
[PEN-L:12395] Re: slurs
In a message dated 97-09-16 03:51:58 EDT, Tom Walker writes: 3. All resolutions of the 1969 Conventions of the Students for a Democratic Society are to be published in Durruti. It is our conviction that these resolutions will be at least, if not more, meaningful to the workers in Durruti as in English. I would like to propose one more resolution. Durruti can be shortened to a one syllable word which is easier to express, and, at the same time, and in all circumstances, will have the same usevalue, though perhaps not the same exchange value: Duh. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12394] Re: Thai Bubbles
In a message dated 97-09-16 03:23:25 EDT, Barney Hope writes: The real question in Thailand is whether they can can establish a stable economy and deal with all of the problems of underdevelopment. If we have a collapse in the US maybe some will ask the same question. I found your travel log very interesting--are you able to speak Thai? However, I have a bit of problem with the way you phrased your ending paragraph--which is all I reprinted. First, it was my understanding that prior to more capitalistic development, Thailand HAD a very stable economy, and a rich culture. The economy with introduction of large scale farming, and mass production, has become more unstable and the wealth gap in the country has spread. You seem to allude to this with the woes of the rice farmers. Second, why characterize a country without a large industrial base as underdeveloped? Underdeveloped in what sense--the Thais have an incredibly rich culture of religious beliefs, feeding their whole people, strong family life, etc. I fail to see the destruction of original farming systems as 'development' or the pushing of young people off the farm and into mass production as an 'advance'. I don't understand the last sentence about the US--please explain. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:12391] Re: Prisoner to Prisoner
I missed this item. Can the original sender send it to me directly? Thanks. Sid Shniad
[PEN-L:12390] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 RELEASED TODAY: CPI -- On a seasonally adjusted basis, the CPI-U rose 0.2 percent in August, the same as in July. The food index increased 0.4 percent in August. Grocery store food prices, which rose 0.3 percent in July, increased 0.6 percent in August, reflecting a larger increase in prices for fresh fruits and vegetables. The energy index, which had exerted a moderating effect on the CPI-U throughout most of 1997, increased 1.7 percent in August Excluding food and energy, the CPI-U rose 0.1 percent, following an increase of 0.2 percent in July. The smaller advance in August reflects declines in the indexes for apparel and upkeep and for airline fares REAL EARNINGS -- Real average weekly earnings increased by 0.8 percent from July to August after seasonal adjustment. This gain was due to a 0.4 percent increase in average hourly earnings and a 0.6 percent gain in average weekly hours. These gains were partially offset by an increase of 0.2 percent in the CPI-W Between August of 1996 and 1997, real average weekly earnings grew by 2.1 percent Since 1993, the difference between full-time men's and women's wages and salaries may have widened somewhat after years of narrowing, but senior officials at BLS said that the available numbers aren't precise enough to be sure Philip Rones, a BLS expert in labor force statistics, cautioned that part of the apparent drop may be due to a revision made at the beginning of 1994 in the employment questionnaire "You have to forget the drop between 1993 and 1994," Rones said, because there is no way to determine how the new questionnaire and the use of hand-held computers by surveyors affected the responses Rones and other BLS officials also are skeptical about the decline since 1994 because it is concentrated among the youngest group of workers, those aged 16 to 24 There is a further complication due to the method BLS uses to "smooth" the median figures to cope with a problem in the way in which those questioned give answers about their "usual" weekly pay: They tend to think in round numbers "These are tough numbers to work with," Rones said. Because of the revision in the survey, "we really only have two years on a comparable basis, and given the technical issues with the data, it would be premature to say for certain that there is a change in the trend" (John M. Berry, Washington Post, page C3). President Clinton plans to nominate BLS Commissioner Katharine Abraham for a second four-year term, according to the White House. Abraham told BNA that she looks forward to serving another term as BLS's top administrator "I hope that they [members of the Senate] will act before Oct. 7," Abraham said, citing several major data revision efforts that are in progress. Her term expires Oct. 7 Just a few months after assuming the top position at BLS, Abraham led the agency's effort to educate the media and the public about the redesign of the household employment survey During her tenure, the bureau has been at the center of an often contentious debate over its CPI data, which early in 1995 became the focus of efforts to cut federal spending Abraham noted that the multi-year project to update and revise the CPI is one of the bureau's major efforts that is approaching its final stages Also, Abraham said, the agency has just begun testing a new sampling procedure for the monthly establishment or payroll survey (Daily Labor Report, page A-11). A study of 2,500 workers in America concludes that employees believe they have contributed to their companies' economic boom but are not being fully recognized or rewarded. The survey, sponsored by the management consulting firm Towers Perrin, found worker satisfaction had increased since a 1995 study, but that workers have grown more skeptical of whether they are sharing equitably in the success they helped create for their employers (Daily Labor Report, page A-6). Arguing that the benefits of immigration, while still contributing to California's economic growth, are steadily eroding as poorly educated immigrants run into "an increasingly upskill labor market," a new RAND Corp. study calls for a sharp drop in the volume of legal immigration and expanded criteria for admission eligibility, including proof of English proficiency In what they termed the first attempt to quantify the effect of new, low-skilled workers on the job prospects of similarly skilled natives, the study found that 1 percent to 1.5 percent of low-skilled natives have been driven out of the California labor force since 1970, due to the increased competition from immigrants The study makes clear that California is a unique case among states, with immigrants younger, less educated, with higher fertility rates and more likely to be illegal than immigrants elsewhere (Daily Labor Report, page A-12). DUE OUT TOMORROW: U.S. Import and
[PEN-L:12389] Re: Affluenza
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote: At 07:34 AM 9/16/97 -0700, Louis Proyect wrote, inter alia: The show tip-toed around the all important question of the capitalist system. It made the need to reverse environmental degradation, consumerism, etc. a personal choice rather than a *political* question. The show evoked themes found in UTNE reader and in Deep Ecology organizations. They are poor responses to the challenge we face. The problem with Affluenza is that it depicts an escape from the consumer treadmill *within* capitalism. Wojtek writes: How exactly are the *political* solutions going to work without changing individual behaviour? And, for goddess' sake, how can you empirically distinguish between *political* solutions from personal choices, if both have the same outcome -- a change in individual behaviour? Where does Louis say that individual choices have *nothing* to do with the matter? He is saying that way more emphasis is put on personal choice at the expense of issues related to political power. He is also saying that this is not a positive thing. I am inclined to agree with Louis. If a business has to choose a location for an incinerator that is known to increase toxin contact, cancer rates, childhood diseases, asthma,decreased immunity funcioning...it is going to choose the Bronx over the upper west side of Manhattan? The Bronx. Why? Because people in the Bronx are not as environmentally conscious as folks on the upper west side? Or because they don't possess as much political power to do anything about it? My suspicion is it's more a problem of the latter. Saying this does not rule out other factors, but it does keep our focus on the more critical one(s). I don't see Louis saying anthing more contoversial than this. If the *political* solution involves a mere administrative fiat declaring that undesirable phenomenon does not exist anymore -- we are essentially reverting to the ancient Soviet practices of voodoo government that both resolved the problems inherited from the bourgeois society (like crime, patriarchy, or inequality) and institutued a new social order by mere pronouncements and manipulation of public images. This is carricature of Louis's argument to put it kindly, but if environmental laws were enforced more seriously, or vigorously, as other types of laws...well yes perhaps 'administrative fiat' wouldn't be such a bad thing...Well actually it wouldn't be a fiat of any sort, it'd merely be the enforcement of the law. Speaking of attitudes, imagine if tomorrow, for some crazy inexplicable reason, Clinton ordered the NLRB to enforce labor law swiftly and according to the letter of the lawPerhaps many workers' attitudes toward trying to organize a union would changeand perhaps with stronger unions more progressive politicians might get elected...and perhaps they might legislate more comprehehsive environmental legislation...Of course this doesn't happen...and we might wonder why. Focusing on personal choice won't help us figure out the problem at hand... If, on the other hand, environmental pollution. But that is not the reason to discount individual choice altogether. Again, a caricature of Louis's argument as far as I can tell. regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
[PEN-L:12387] Re: Affluenza
On Tue, September 16, 1997 at 12:38:36 (-0700) Wojtek Sokolowski writes:
At 07:34 AM 9/16/97 -0700, Louis Proyect wrote, inter alia:
The problem with Affluenza is that it depicts an escape from the consumer
treadmill *within* capitalism.
Playing a devil's advocate:
How exactly are the *political* solutions going to work without changing
individual behaviour? And, for goddess' sake, how can you empirically
distinguish between *political* solutions from personal choices, if both
have the same outcome -- a change in individual behaviour?
Joan Robinson long ago noted that social actors of every stripe (her
emphasis was on economic actors) "have to observe certain rules of the
game" that constrain behavior and that "have been evolved in a
complicated legal system full of anomalies and fossils from the past".
If we leave out the possibility of democratically changing the legal
system, of burying our own bones of freedom within the fossil record
to support future liberties, what hope do we have of allowing
different human capacities, other than greed and selfishness, to come
to the fore? In short, it is most certainly a political question,
because the question is how to change the system itself (the extent of
the change itself---from tinkering to complete overhaul---is of course
an open question) to allow humans to be free to pursue other
purposes. You may disagree that people, once they are so freed, will
freely choose to pursue other interests, but that is an entirely
different question, and one moreover that does not suffer from the
false dichotomy you lay out wherein our choice is between pretending
that there is no problem ("voodoo government") and reliance on
"individual choices".
I see no "Orwellian dilemma" in this problem, only the familiar ones
of attempting to broaden political participation (grassroots buildup
of political actors at every level; voting on Sundays; independent
media), teaching and thinking critically, trying and failing, etc.,
and gradually trying to move the system itself (legal, cultural,
economic) to one which bounds human behavior in different ways, ways
which are not chosen by the few who have productive property with
which to threaten the vast majority of potential participants in the
democratic process.
Bill
[PEN-L:12383] Re: Affluenza
At 07:34 AM 9/16/97 -0700, Louis Proyect wrote, inter alia: The show tip-toed around the all important question of the capitalist system. It made the need to reverse environmental degradation, consumerism, etc. a personal choice rather than a *political* question. The show evoked themes found in UTNE reader and in Deep Ecology organizations. They are poor responses to the challenge we face. The problem with Affluenza is that it depicts an escape from the consumer treadmill *within* capitalism. Playing a devil's advocate: How exactly are the *political* solutions going to work without changing individual behaviour? And, for goddess' sake, how can you empirically distinguish between *political* solutions from personal choices, if both have the same outcome -- a change in individual behaviour? If the *political* solution involves a mere administrative fiat declaring that undesirable phenomenon does not exist anymore -- we are essentially reverting to the ancient Soviet practices of voodoo government that both resolved the problems inherited from the bourgeois society (like crime, patriarchy, or inequality) and institutued a new social order by mere pronouncements and manipulation of public images. If, on the other hand, different individual choices result in different observable behaviour -- that change is more real that the voodoo political solution just described. I recognize that encouraging people to recycle old newspapers while a single corporate junk mail campaign obliterates the recyclining efforts of thousands if not millions of individuals -- is not a solution to environmental pollution. But that is not the reason to discount individual choice altogether. Suppose that more and more people choose to dump all the junk mail they receive back to the blue US Mail boxes rather than to their garbage cans -- thus "jamming" the junk mail delivery system. That individual choice can have a greater impact than most *political* solutions to environmental problems in this country that involve either "voluntary cooperation" (what a joke!) on the part of the industry or imposing standards that are later not enforced. It seems that we are still looking for a solution to the old Orwellian dilemma "How to change people's bahviour prior to changing the system, and how to change the system prior to changing people's behaviour." PS. This post should not be construed as an endorsement of the so-called rat-choice approach to human behaviour which, IMHO, obscures rather than explains that behaviour. regards, wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE. - John Dewey
[PEN-L:12381] slurs
In response to my sermonette, Ajit Sinha writes: I'm sorry I
don't understand what this is all about. Sounds more like Jorge Bush
and Denesh DeSuza led attack on "pc" even though "pc" was their own
creation and not Duke University's.
Ajit, I know you reject politeness as "middle class," but I don't think
such insults (or your previous ones) help anyone, including you.
As you should well know, I have nothing in common with Bush or DeSousa
(sp?), though every once and awhile (like stopped clocks that are right
twice a day) they make some valid points. Usually their valid points shrink
when compared to the vastness of their hypocrisy.
My distance from Bush or DeSousa can be seen in the following statement
from me, which you quote but then ignore: Sure, but is fighting on the
language front the _best_ way to empower those without power? If a
moralistic perspective that "you guys have to speak 'correct' language all
the time" alienates potential allies, is the language battle the best way?
Wouldn't fighting for affirmative action be better than insisting that
everyone use the "correct" terms?
The term "politically correct" seems to have arisen among the Maoists, but
really flourished among the non-Maoist lefts (especially in the San
Francisco Bay Area) as an ironic term to refer to the rigidity of the
Maoist way of thinking. It was later taken over (rather than invented) by
the Right as a way of slamming the entire left.
To my mind, political correctness is a phenomenon of the _entire_ political
spectrum (though there are also non-PC folks all along the spectrum). You
would have noticed that if you had read my references to the Pentagon and
corporations and their versions of PC. Another example was some US
veteran's massive complaints about the Enola Gay exhibit at they
Smithsonian, where they objected to the fact that some doubt was shed on
the virtue of nuking Japan.
I don't think language politics has much to do with "pc" or
imposing anything on anyone. It is simply a critique of everyday
language that exposes the hidden, and at times not so hidden, social
power structure--vary much a similar game as Marx's CAPITAL was
about the capitalist economy. Now, if CAPITAL helps workers to
launch a revolt and attack on capitalist's exploitation, then would
you call it workers imposition on the freedom of the capitalists to
exploit?
If you had read the prologue to my previous missive on this subject you
might have noticed that I was in favor of "correct" language in order to
fit the facts ("chair" rather than "chairman," etc.) More generally,
"scientific accuracy" is always a good reason to use non-popular terms.
I think Marx's project was part of that: he wanted to break with the
fetishized appearances of capitalism, to reveal the underlying reality. Of
course, this science was merged with (and inseparable from) his critique of
capitalism and his effort to mobilize workers for their own self-liberation.
Sure, the abolition of capitalism would violate the freedom of the
capitalists to exploit. But that violation has a lot of good
justifications, including the fact that all societies violate freedom in
one way or another. I didn't say otherwise. (That even raising the issue of
freedom evokes this kind of response from Ajit suggests that people on the
lefts need to discuss and clarify the issue more.)
In any event, this point is _way_off_the_track_ of what I was talking
about. As I said before (if you read what I said), I was talking about
OVER-sensitivity to language and its connotations. Such as the use of the
seemingly synonymous term "developmentally disabled" rather than "retarded"
unless there is some real scientific justification for the change in
terminology.[*] I was objecting to the way in which some people OVER-do the
bit about using language without negative connotations.
A lot (though hardly all) of the use of "correct" terms seems a matter of
the users trying to comfort themselves. "We're virtuous -- since we use the
correct terms."
BTW, what defines "OVER-sensitivity"? It seems very subjective, doesn't it?
I would define "excessive" in terms of going against one's long-term goals.
For me, these include the establishment of grass-roots democratic
socialism. Though the goal may be subjective, its application can be less so.
The problem with wholesale language critique is that it creates
discomfort for all of us at one time or the other. That's why we all
need sense of humour. But it is the victimizers who need sense of
humour and not the victims, in any given particular situation. Both
you and Michael Perlman seem to be asking the victims to have sense
of humour, which is a bit troublesome.
If having a sense of humor helps one survive life in a Nazi death camp, I
see nothing wrong with it. Jokes help with more than survival, since they
can help form solidarity amongst the oppressed (who are not simply victims
(mere objects), by the way) that can help them fight the oppressors. In
fact,
[PEN-L:12380] Re: the beautiful poor
I think Maggie Coleman is quite right that one can offer a critique of non-Western cultural practices (i.e dowry, widow burning) without being a cultural chauvinist. The real dilemma here is to what values does one appeal in conducting such a critique? It seems to me that one must appeal to certain universal principles, like those advocated by the Enlightenment...feminism and Marxism are a continuation of the project of the Enlightenment
[PEN-L:12379] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 Seven consecutive monthly decreases in wholesale prices, the longest such string since the government began tracking these costs in 1947, finally come to an end. Rising energy costs in August boosted the PPI for Finished Goods by a seasonally adjusted 0.3 percent, BLS reports. Even with the August upturn, PPI finished goods prices have fallen 0.2 percent since August 1996. And this low inflation rate has coexisted with real GDP growing at an annual rate of 4.9 percent in the first quarter of 1997 and a 3.6 percent rate in the second. Analysts had anticipated that energy prices would spike in August, so economists and financial markets greeted the news calmly (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). The pace of increase in retail sales eased in August, reflecting slower growth in auto purchases and a decline in food store sales, according to the Census Bureau (Daily Labor Report, page D-11). The U.S. economy continued to hum along last month as consumers stepped up their spending at the nation's retail outlets, particularly at auto dealers, while inflation remained under tight control (Washington Post, Sept. 13, page H1)_Retail sales rose in August, and producer prices increased for the first time this year. But the reports were generally in line with expectations and did little to alter perceptions that the economy continued to advance with prices in check (New York Times, Sept. 13, page 27)_Wholesale prices crept up 0.3 percent in August, after falling seven months in a row. Meanwhile, retail sales rose just 0.4 percent after shooting up 0.9 percent in July. The data helped ease fears that the economy is gaining too much steam (Wall Street Journal, page A2). Business analysts expect the U.S. economy to grow 3.4 percent in 1998, with low inflation and unemployment around 5 percent, according to a quarterly forecast by the National Association of Business Economists (Daily Labor Report, page A-7). After nearly two decades in which the wage gap between men and women was steadily narrowing, it is now widening again, piquing confusion and concern among economists and women's groups alike, says a New York Times article. According to BLS, the median weekly earnings of full-time working women are just under 75 percent of the men's median, down from 77 percent four years ago While some labor economists suggest tentatively that the gender gap may have something to do with welfare reform unleashing a flood of unskilled women on the job market, most warn that it is far too soon to say with any certainty just what, if anything, the earnings data portend Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said continued economic growth of the United States depends on its ability to develop and apply new technology and to improve the skills and education of its workforce, speaking at the University of North Caroline-Chapel Hill (Daily Labor Report, page A-8). The White House announced President Clinton's intent to nominate Katharine G. Abraham to serve a second term as Commissioner of Labor Statistics DUE OUT TOMORROW: Consumer Price Index -- August 1997 Real Earnings: August 1997
[PEN-L:12378] Re: Affluenza
Louis N Proyect wrote: The show tip-toed around the all important question of the capitalist system. It made the need to reverse environmental degradation, consumerism, etc. a personal choice rather than a *political* question. The show evoked themes found in UTNE reader and in Deep Ecology organizations. They are poor responses to the challenge we face. This is no surprise coming from a Pew-funded show. Pew is one of the main funders of mainstream environmentalism (and, under the terms of another family member's will, it also funds crazy right-wing stuff). Obviously they want to focus on personal choice and not systemic critique. Also, many Pew-type mainstream greens can barely contain their Malthusian contempt for the masses and their vile habits. Pew also funds "civic journalism" - the notion that journalists should focus on healing social problems rather than reporting on them. Unfortunately, the healing mechanisms chosen are things like panel discussions. Doug
[PEN-L:12375] Re: 1997-09-12 Abraham Nom inated Bureau/Labor Sta
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: jf noonan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:12372] 1997-09-12 Abraham Nom inated Bureau/Labor Statistics Comm Does anyone know if this is good, bad, or indifferent? Has she commented on the push to change the CPI? She's been a tower of strength in her resistance to bullying by Newt et al. Her basic position has been the BLS is responsible for doing the CPI on the basis of the best available scientific evidence and acccording to well-established processes of internal review, and no ad hoc committee of professors however eminent is in a position to do better on the merits or by any legal right. It is worth noting that the centrist Brookings crew -- Bosworth, Gramlich, etc. -- has been supportive of this position and critical of the analytics behind the Boskin Commission report. MBS === 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://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===
[PEN-L:12374] Re: NAFTA
>Where's the "good reason" to oppose NAFTA, etc.? Ok- seems like we should refocus on this question, especially since fast track legislation is going to be introduced today. Lori Wallach of Public Citizen released a memo on Sept. 9th that discusses some of the reasons to oppose *this* fast track legislation. [I highlight *this* because some groups oppose fast track on the grounds that it is undemocratic while others oppose it because it fails to promote sustainable development (thus the reasons for environmental and labor standards).] Wallach wrote, "The GOP language is clever: It puts the "Environment" and "Labor" words into a fast track bill, but actually limits beyond even the status quo what fast track could cover on environment and labor. This is accomplished by restricting fast track coverage only to environment and labor provisions "directly related to trade." Under the current fast track language, matters are considered germane and covered by fast track rules if such a matter is "necessary" or "appropriate" to obtaining a negotiating objective. The concept of "directly related to" language is to get rid of the potential grey area of "appropriate" which now provides discretion for a President to include human rights, labor, environmental or health issues under fast track if a President so chooses. Under the Archer proposal, only those environmental or labor matters "directly related to" trade would be considered germane for fast track coverage. Thus, we have ***good reason*** to oppose this fast track legislation because it fails to provide labor and environmental standards. Another good reason, which seemed to be buried by the press earlier this year is that the NAFTA agreement has failed. The govt. put forth a mandated 3 year report earlier this summer on NAFTA which was very weak. Public Citizen, EPI, IPS, and a host of other groups refuted this document point by point--illustrating NAFTA's inability to provide jobs, the lack of environmental progress on the border, among a host of other problems. While NAFTA did not create many of the problems related to increased trade and investment along three unequal nations it has clearly accelerated them. (see Foreign Policy In Focus article http://www.zianet.com/infocus/nafta.html> for more discussion on the NAFTA agreement. See also http://www.zianet.com/infocus/tradenv> for info on trade and the environment and http://www.zianet.com/infocus/tradelbr> for info on trade and labor). Erik Leaver Communications Director Interhemispheric Resource Center 505-842-8288
[PEN-L:12370] Affluenza
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Thad Williamson wrote: PBS carried a one-hour, Pew Trust sponsored program called "Affluenza" tonight about American consumerism. The first 45 minutes were quite good though the last part on responses focussed solely on individualist strategies for dropping off the treadmill, not even a hint of actually challenge corporate control of production. I watched the show last night with Mike Yates, a PEN-L'er, and members of a seminar at Columbia U. on Full Employment that he had just presented an excellent paper to. The seminar actually ended a half-hour earlier just so that it would be able to view the show, which it considered highly important. My reactions: The show tip-toed around the all important question of the capitalist system. It made the need to reverse environmental degradation, consumerism, etc. a personal choice rather than a *political* question. The show evoked themes found in UTNE reader and in Deep Ecology organizations. They are poor responses to the challenge we face. The problem with Affluenza is that it depicts an escape from the consumer treadmill *within* capitalism. The people on the show who are supposed to be pioneers of this new life-style are stockbrokers, etc. They can make an easy "downshifting" transition. What use is this to somebody who has been a spot-welder on the Chrysler assembly-line? None. I didn't speak to Mike about the show, but I suspect that we had a similar reaction. I tried to imagine him having a discussion about it with the trade unionists he gives classes to out in western Pennsylvania. A big problem auto-workers are dealing with out there, and elsewhere, is that they are working 7 days a week because the bosses prefer paying overtime to hiring new workers. Some of these folks are making 100 thousand dollars a year. But what happens is that lots of them die as soon as they retire. The wear and tear of hard labor takes it toll and they can't even enjoy their golden years. Socialists have to create a vision of a better society that differs from the middle-class moralism of Affluenza. I suspect that there is a huge need to update William Morris for the 21st century. One thing is for damned sure. Market socialism has no answer for the problem of Affluenza. When I heard David Belkin debate Harry Magdoff at the last SSC, he described the desire to get off the consumer treadmill as "elitist". Socialists should certainly raise questions about the sanity of the consumerist culture. What Marx says about the fetishism of commodities has spiritual as well as economic relevance. And the US today is the most impoverished nation in spirit in the world. Louis Proyect
[PEN-L:12371] Re: Slurs
-- From: Ajit Sinha[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 1997 6:24 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject:[PEN-L:12367] Re: Slurs 2. Confusion is the defining characteristic of the human condition. Therefore we can never be insulted since any supposed insult arises out of confusion. The second point boggles my mind. Do you think the kind of insults Nazi's inflicted on jews resulted out of "confusion"? Cheers, ajit sinha _ The word confusion in Buddhism refers to our inability to see, or to see clearly, our own good. The extreme example is that which you cite, in which the perpetrators are not only unable to see the good of the victims, but their own good as well. Thus they do great harm to themselves as well as to others. Dave
[PEN-L:12367] Re: Slurs
At 11:33 12/09/97 -0700, you wrote: I am a Buddhist, perhaps the only one on this list. While I thought that the punch line was a little strange, it was not clear how to respond to it. I choose now to resolve this with a few facts. 1. Compassion is the essential element of human relations. Without compassion enlightenment is impossible. Therefore Buddha can always spare a dime, even if (s)he doesn't have it. 2. Confusion is the defining characteristic of the human condition. Therefore we can never be insulted since any supposed insult arises out of confusion. The second point boggles my mind. Do you think the kind of insults Nazi's inflicted on jews resulted out of "confusion"? Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:12365] Re: Desperately Seeking Disciples
Tom Walker writes Hint: my stature, bearing and and facial characteristics are those of a commedia dell'arte Scaramouche Words and music still by Tom Walker/ Scaramouche? Scaramouche? Can you do the fandango? Freddie McDonough
[PEN-L:12364] Re: slurs
Ajit wrote, But it is the victimizers who need sense of humour and not the victims, in any given particular situation. Both you and Michael Perlman seem to be asking the victims to have sense of humour, which is a bit troublesome. This is precisely the point at which identity politics swallows its own tail. Mapping differences (race, culture, gender) onto static positions of victim and victimizer makes *less* sense than fitting all of humanity into two great economic classes, owners and non-owners of the means of production. As in the Stalinist substitution of the party for the class, the central committee for the party and the leader for the central committee, this kind of dichotomizing is the foundation of a bureaucracy that serves only its own interests *in the name of* defending the victims. I think it's about time again to rerun the "PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON THE COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY NATURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE" Warning: The following is satire. And it is OLD satire, dating from June, 1969. But, vanity of vanities, as the preacher says, there's nothing new under the sun. __ PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON THE COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY NATURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE It is clear that our movement has come a long way in the last two years. Beginning from a preoccupation with essentially liberal issues like student power and peace, we have arrived at a perspective through which we have aligned ourselves with the revolutionary working class against American capitalist imperialism. The achievement of a correct position does not, however, mean that our intellectual struggle is over. We must explore the implications of working class politics for every area of our activity, in order to reinforce those politics and free them from contamination by bourgeois individualist thought. This proposal is a modest contribution to this effort. Concern with correct thinking and proper expression of that thought is a hallmark of the true revolutionary. Our vehicle for thought and communication is language; to be concrete, it is the English language. Now it has never occurred to us that this language is by its very nature counterrevolutionary and that truly correct revolutionary thought in English is therefore impossible. Yet we intend, through careful analysis, to establish that the English language is little more than a tool of imperialism designed to stifle genuinely radical ideas among the English-speaking masses. We can talk about language from the standpoints of meaning and structure. Although bourgeois linguists introduce complex terminology into their discussions of meaning, chiefly in order to prevent us from understanding what they mean, we shall consider it only in terms of words. Now English has a great many words, and this in itself is suspect: what it suggests is that no matter how hard the worker tries to educate himself, the bosses and their lackey politicians can always produce new words from their lexical grabbag to confuse him. Even in our own movement this elitist duplicity manifests itself in the use of esoteric words like "chauvinism," "reification," "dialectical materialism." and so on. It is almost axiomatic that the revolutionary status of a language is inversely proportional to the weight of its dictionary. Lest this sound farfetched, we may cite the pioneer linguist Otto Jesperson in _The Growth and Structure of the English Language_. He notes that the Norman invasion and subsequent domination of England for centuries by descendants of the French-speaking conquerors produced a class division of the English vocabulary, with the French imports reserved chiefly for the upper classes. The other great influx of foreign words came during the Renaissance when scholars, not content with the language of the people, imported quantities of Latin and Greek, thus widening the semantic gulf between the educated elite and the masses. Significant though consideration of meaning be, it is in the area of language structure that our analysis is most fruitful. Structure or syntax is the sum of all those rules which govern the ways the words in any language can be put together to make sense. We use the rules of syntax more of less unconsciously because they are inculcated in early childhood along with religion, patriotism, etc. It is the unconscious nature of syntax which makes its influence so insidious. The foundation of structure is the categories, which are theoretical divisions of human experience imposed on all languages. In English the main categories are tense and number; centuries ago we had gender as other European languages still do. There are many other categories: some languages divide all mater by shape, so that one cannot speak of an object without adding some word
