Query: Parents-children income relationship
Anyone have good references on the relationship between the incomes of children and their parents. Said differently, are their any good empirical pieces on intergenerational class mobility? Jeff Fellows Prevention Effectiveness Fellow Division of Violence Prevention NCIPC, CDC Atlanta, GA
Re: Anyone Know Ed Herman's E-Mail Address
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Book announcement
In said book, Caffentzis ("Why machines cannot create value, or, Marx's
theory of machines") notes that the significance of the Turing machine is
that, with a few notable exceptions, any mental activity can in theory be
automated.
Whether the technology is yet available to automate a given task, (or deal
with a "sufficient degree of uncertainties"), or whether the technology is
cheap enough to warrant replacing human labor in command and control
positions are separate questions. On the other hand, as Moore's law
continues to hold, and the general consensus is that it probably will hold
for at least another 8 years or so, computing power is doubling every 18
months or so. So new areas of human activity, once beyond the pale of
technology, will be able to be replicated in the technology.
It's not love of workers by capitalists that prompts them to hire workers,
but capitalist love of their easily programmable brains that can react to
"uncertainties", and their marvellously dexterous hands, and less and less
their muscle power -- i.e. their labor power; their ability to work in all
its varied meanings.
An important question, which the original quote is referring to, is -- what
are the broad implications of introducing quantities of computer and
robotic-based production into the overall production mix?
jd
>>> ++
>>> A robot can build a car. But a robot cannot buy a car... The
>>> explosion in the development of computer- and robotic-based
>>> manufacturing is seeing the rapid expansion of laborless
>>> production systems.
>>
>>Robots can NOT (presently) build cars. While it is true that many
>>operations in an auto assembly plant can and have been robotized
>>(especially within the paint and body shop departments), an auto assembly
>>plant still requires significant amounts of human laborers. "Laborless
>>production systems" (e.g. flexible manufacturing systems) are mostly used
>>in small batch manufacturing plants rather than assembly plants.
>>
>>Jerry
>>
>
>Correct about the auto assembly line. But the idea of the FMS is NOT
>"laborless production system" in today's business-school textbook. Instead,
>it is even more "labor intensive," in terms of the importance of human
>intervention in the production process, than the comic-book version of
>Fordist assembly line. Small batch manufacturing is the key. Exactly because
>model change and task adjustments are constant affairs, direct workers'
>intelligent initiatives are crucial for those kinds of production. That's
>one reason why "human relations" talks are in fashion in today's business
>schools.
>
>Robots cannot presently build cars, and I don't think it can build cars in
>the forseeable future either. Maybe I am myopic, which is physically true
>anyway, but if we look closely, any material production involves a degree of
>uncertainty which cannot be exhausted by previous rational designs. Thus
>dead labor (machine) can never replace live labor of thinking human beings.
>Just try to design a robot to pick up trash on the floor and feel the pain,
>then you know you'd better have some human being do it. I did not learn this
>from Marx, but from classmates in my master study who work as engineers and
>managers in the Ford plants in the Detroit area.
>
>When I took my quality-assurance and lean-production classes in business
>school a few years back in the US, I am always amazed at the degree of
>agreement of my straight-arrow meat-and-potato professors's ideas and my
>supposedly Marxist ones, such as the irruducible centrality of human labor
>to any kind of production. It seems that only a weird segment of the
>academics (and Sci Fi authors) hold that machine CAN replace human beings.
>The robots-gonna-do-it-all theories always sound like fetishism to me, but
>also always taken as a matter of fact by Daniel Bell & co., and even some
>progressives.
>
anti-Microsoft campaign
What's this I see/read ? Nader teams up with millionare high-tech executives to condemn Bill Gates and the Microsoft monopoly ? The CEO of Sun Microsystems issues a ringing defense of the "night watchman" state, one of its functions being trust-busting (the others being national defense, civil policing, and judicial protection of private property rights), and not a peep out of Ralph ? Please inform, as I am not following this as closely as I probably should, but I find that what I do know is terribly galling. John Gulick Ph. D. Candidate Sociology Graduate Program University of California-Santa Cruz (415) 643-8568 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Working-class kitsch
>On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, John Gulick wrote, in part: > >> Here in S.F. where I live, young white men who _look_ like Michael Moore's >> stereotyped depictions of the working class (bowling shirts, tattoos, into >> car repair, etc.) are rarely themselves from a working-class background, hold >> working-class jobs, or have any sense of working-class identity. More likely, >> they derive from a middle-class background and already are members of or >> are heading toward the technical-professional salariat, and are merely >> "slumming" and riding the latest sardonic and demeaning capitalist culture >> industry trend, "working-class kitsch," which itself derives from a >> stereotyped depiction of "Joe Six-Pack." > >This sort of trip is, of course, not unique to San Francisco, but one can bet >that it's more of a blatant hothouse plant there than in, say, Pittsburgh. > > valis Let's get real here. Most of San Francisco is working class. The worker may put on a tie or a blouse and work at a keyboard (though most of San Francisco's employed don't, and most of those who do dress like that to work in SF don't actually live in SF), but the power relations, the security, the pay, the benefits (lack of), the possibilities, the aspirations, are all working class. The one difference may be a lack of a working class identity, though the above affectations may be an attempt to put an old style working class appearance on a new style working class job. But maybe if an effort was made to show how these jobs really are a new urban working class, instead of pointing out how ridiculous the people who have these jobs are for attempting to look like they are rust-belt working class, there may begin to develop a true working class identity. Anyway, believe me, growing up working class in Michigan in the sixties and early seventies never guaranteed a working class identity, either. Unless you think someone in a t-shirt sitting in a car with a beer after work and ridiculing an equally powerless individual in a suit in a car after work, while never looking beyond to those who really have the power and to how the power is used, has a working class identity. This from one who grew up working class in Michigan in the 60's and early 70's and who now has a working class job (without a tie) and lives a working class life in San Francisco. And wears bowling shirts and owns a 15 year old car that needs constant repairs. And is a graduate student with aspirations toward a life with fewer financial concerns, and is white, so probably would be reflexively lumped in with the above berated (though I may be too old). tom wood
Re: anti-Microsoft campaign
I am on a mailing-list devoted to the conference which just ended. The spleen directed at Bill Gates from Linux, OS2, Mac enthusiasts would put any sectarian leftist to shame. Fascinating stuff. I'll crosspost something of interest if it comes my way. Louis P. At 01:07 PM 11/14/97 +, you wrote: >What's this I see/read ? Nader teams up with millionare high-tech >executives to condemn Bill Gates and the Microsoft monopoly ? The >CEO of Sun Microsystems issues a ringing defense of the "night >watchman" state, one of its functions being trust-busting (the >others being national defense, civil policing, and judicial protection of >private property rights), and not a peep out of Ralph ? Please inform, >as I am not following this as closely as I probably should, but I >find that what I do know is terribly galling. > >John Gulick >Ph. D. Candidate >Sociology Graduate Program >University of California-Santa Cruz >(415) 643-8568 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Iraq Opposes U.N. Resolution
Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf pointed out on Wednesday that U.S. military planes had violated Iraq's air space 984 times since October 29. The U.N. has not explained how these incursions into Iraqi airspace are part of "U.N. inspection" of Iraqi arms production facilities. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said after the Security Council adopted it's resolution that "This resolution is added to a series of unjust resolutions adopted by the council in the past." he said, "I have tried to explain our just cause in front of the Security Council directly...but American pressure and blackmail has prevented me." He added however that "Although they have prevented me from speaking in front of the council, the council members and the public opinion have been informed about our cause, legitimate demands and suffering." Aziz said that Iraq has implemented all U.N. Security Council resolutions but the council had not met its obligations to Iraq. On October 29, Iraq prohibited inspectors of American citizenship from taking part in U.N. inspection activities in Iraq, claiming that they are engaged in spying and blocking U.N. compliance with its obligations to Iraq. Iraq also demanded a halt to flights by U.S. U-2 spy planes which the U.S. claims are loaned to the UN to support inspection operations. It is claimed that the latest resolution passed by the Security Council is in response to these measures by Iraq. Iraq has reserved the right to shoot down any plane illegally flying over its territory and it persists in prohibiting Americans to take part in inspection operations. However, it has never said the inspections cannot take place. It is demanding that its concerns as regards the activities of American inspectors and American warplanes be listened to. TML DAILY, 11/97 Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
help - on livable wage campaigns -Re
Berkeley will shortly propose that the City study the feasibility of a living wage ordinance. I would appreciate receiving your testimony before the Chicago City Council, Mr. Baiman. Thanks. Tim Stroshane City of Berkeley Housing Department 2201 Dwight Way, 2nd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ph: 510/665-3472
Vetting the Mighty Sixth
On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Dennis R Redmond wrote re Iraq, in part: > -- what's a Government for, if not to create markets for the > capitalists it serves? Anyone got any figures on proposed U.S. military > spending for the 1997-2002 period, and how much [of] that goes directly > to the contractors? No idea about the latter, but... Last night the BBC, in its regular "Assignment" program, took a half-hour look at the Sixth Fleet. Wow! I'm not sure that the average subtle-as- a-jackhammer American reporter could have teased such damning admissions out of the commanding officer, the aptly named Admiral Abbot. According to him, his vast killing machine is just a global cop on the beat, if not actually a toiling social worker out to pacify testy juvenile scamps. He and the fleet are dedicated to making the world an even playing field for free market economics; he actually said that. With some regularity his flagship, the Lasalle, hosts eager Calibans of the periphery; he mentioned, for instance, some Greek businessmen who were recently coptered fleetside to watch a mock assault on one of their country's beaches. No doubt Abbot is equally passionate about liberating Turkish beaches, though this was left to the listener's speculation. Abbot's irony was all the more hideous for its being, apparently, quite unconscious; the terrorists and other malcontents who might violently object to an imposed Maquiladoric architecture in their lands are to be expected as a statistical fluke, but they will not prevail. In and out of this Mad Hatter's tea party meandered Glen Miller's music and numbers from South Pacific, played by the ship's band. The Mighty Sixth, a floating time warp drunk on its fancied invincibility, sports a calendar from which 50 years have been deftly subtracted, the better to cruise a world lately war-broken and grateful for any small attention. However, should the crew return from its next shore leave liberally sprinkled with some souped-up bacillus, a poor country's nuke concocted with the sheer desperation of the ever unheard, The Mighty Sixth could become in a trice a hot zone sealed off by presidential order. Have the Iraqis managed to cook up some ghastly viral goulash? What else could they do? What else could anyone do, including numbers of our fellow citizens. The future, as long as it lasts, may have some literary merit. valis
Russia in the Fall of 1997 (fwd)
Forwarded message: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:42:31 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "LYNN TURGEON, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF ECONOMICS, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, [EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Russia in the Fall of 1997 X-Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-UID: 1803 Moscow authorities are doing their best to remove Lenin from the contemporary Russian scene. His monument on Oktyabriaskaya Square remains in the shadows in a city that at night reminds one of Disneyland with floodlights everywhere even on the seven Stalinist skyscrapers which were formerly lit only on special occasions. There has been no changing of the guard at Lenin's tomb since 1993, and there is a serious threat to bury his body in St. Petersburg. Yet in one respect Lenin's ideas seem appropriate in describing the contemporary Russian condiion, as observed on a three-week visit to Moscow, Nizhnyi Novgorod, and the Upper Volga in September and October 1997. Lenin is associated with the development of the so-called "law of uneven development," and the capitalist tendency for the rich (individuals or regions) to become richer, sometimes at the expense of the poorer individuals or regions. After Lenin's death, the socialist Soviet Union set about to reverse the above tendency of capitalism noted in Lenin's early 20th century writings. The less developed Central Asian Republics could henceforth receive more favorable treatment -- what we would label "affirmative action" today -- such as considerably higher prices for their cotton exports. At the sametime, Russian collective farmers gave up the cultivation of flax and were the source of capital accumulation or industrialization that would make possible the defet of the fascist invaders in World War II. After World War II, with the extension of the Soviet system to Eastern Europe, the same Leninist principles would be used to hold back the relative development of Bohermia and Moravia in order to permit the relatively faster development of Slovakia, which before World War II was referred to as the "poor man" of Europe. Within the postwar Soviet Union, higher priorities were assigned to developing the newly added Baltic Republics and the new Moldavian Republic in a futile ffort to build popular support for the Soviet system among peoples who were more nationalist than socialist internationalist. In June 1991 I was asked to give a lecture at the relatively new Klaepida University in Western Lithuania. When I advised them that their moves towards independence would result in a cut in their standard of living as a result of the elimination of affirmative action, they agreed that this would result but declared that it was a price worth taking. Since the ouster of Gorbachev and the break-up of the Soviet Union in late 1991, capitalism has flourished in Moscow. Earlier that year when I introduced "team teaching" at the Academy of Foreign Trade, there was no mention of capitalism but only the market system which was on the "left" politically More recently countries such as Hungary and Poland have dropped this subterfuge and regard social democrats (former Communists) as the left and the extreme free marketers as on the right. Both left and right basically subscribe to the dictates of monetarism and the dictates of the International Monetary Fund. On my latest 3-week trip to Moscow, Nizhnyi Novgorod and areas of the Upper Volga in late September and early October, I was especially interested in comparing present conditions with thoseexisting over the past years. I had never been to Gorky or Nizhnyi Novgorod before since it was still aclosedcity when I led an Upper Volga cruise in 1990. However, the relative success of Nizhnyi Novgorod is attributed to the leadership of Boris Nemtsev, and was the basis for Yeltsin's calling him to Moscow, where he has successfully come across as a relatively honest politician. In general,Gorky (which is still used on rail tickets) was a huge disappointment. a 24-hour MacDonalds and several"I love America" pizza houses do not impress anyone watching changes in Moscow. More depressing were the deterioratingconditions of Kostroma and Furmanov, which I had last seen in 1994. I had expected Ivanovo to be even sorse since it was the cener of the Russian textile industry, which has been hard hit by the independence of cotton-producing Uzbekhistan. Strangely, unlike Kostroma, Ivanovo had not deteriorated over the past 3 years. I can only explain this in terms of its high dependence ona military payroll connected with the maintenance of a large military airport which still appears to be active. The positive or stabilizing effect of military spending has apparently developed incapitalist Russia. The state farms in this area are dying on the vine since the members have received no monetary payments for two years
Re: Commerce Clause Question
>When and in what case did the Supreme Court expand the commerce clause of >the Constitution to overrule state regulation of corporations? Can somebody >point me to a good discussion of that issue, particularly as it relates to >the effort to give the World Trade Organization authority to overrule >national regulation of corporations? > >Thanks, > >-- Jim Cullen You should get in touch with Richard Grossman who has written quite a bit on this issue. He is at 211 and 1/2 Bradford St., Provincetown, Mass. The last time I spoke with him he did not have e-mail. His organization is called POCLAD . Gene Coyle
Re: U.S. Continues To Reserve "Right" To Attack Iraq
On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Shawgi A. Tell wrote: > After the vote in the Security Council to impose travel > restrictions on Iraqis responsible for non-compliance with UN > Resolutions (see item on p. 3) U.S. Ambassador to the United > Nations Bill Richardson told reporters, "The message has been > clear. Iraq must comply or face consequences. We are not > excluding any options, including military options." Is it just me, or has the Clinton Administration finally plumbed the depths of searing, cosmic awfulness you normally find only in a Netanyahu cabinet minister or the executive board of the Cato Institute? Clinton, that vile New Southern paddy-roller of the global rentiers, is starting to make Disraeli look civilized. Maybe it's just that the Powers That Be fear a recession like the plague, and are whipping up "Starship Desert-storm-troopers" in order to distract us from the Asian catastrophe and the crash and burn of neoliberalism. Or maybe military supergiant Boeing needed some live-action tests done on some new weapons systems -- what's a Government for, if not to create markets for the capitalists it serves? Anyone got any figures on proposed U.S. military spending for the 1997-2002 period, and how much to that goes directly to the contractors? -- Dennis
Re: Book announcement
On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Hsin-Hsing Chen wrote: > ...But the idea of the FMS is NOT > "laborless production system" in today's business-school textbook. Instead, > it is even more "labor intensive," in terms of the importance of human > intervention in the production process, than the comic-book version of > Fordist assembly line. Small batch manufacturing is the key. Exactly because > model change and task adjustments are constant affairs, direct workers' > intelligent initiatives are crucial for those kinds of production. That's > one reason why "human relations" talks are in fashion in today's business > schools. Yes, this is especially the case in East Asia and Central Europe, where Fordism on the American model never really took off, and which industrialized on the model of small-lot, high-volume global market niches. Taiwan's computer industry is basically a tightly organized network of "flexible producers", who do the actual production for computer equipment sold by Dell and Gateway; finance and marketing are centralized by the Nationalist developmental state, but workplace skills and supply lines are decentralized and disseminated on a wide scale, thus creating an incredibly efficient and durable industrial base. The Swiss and Baden-Wurttemberg machine-tools industries seem to be based on similar principles, i.e. consistent and efficient state intervention on the level of training, networking, long-term developmental finance and whatnot (especially from state-owned regional banks). In turn, Central Europe has been a hotbed of ideas for humanization of the workplace, team production, breaking down assembly lines into point-and-source production and whatnot, often under the aegis of powerful unions (e.g. IG Metall). Though unions are pretty weak in Taiwan, they do exist, and it'll be interesting to see how the politics of the informatic factory-floor play out in Taipei. -- Dennis
U.S. Continues To Reserve "Right" To Attack Iraq
After the vote in the Security Council to impose travel restrictions on Iraqis responsible for non-compliance with UN Resolutions (see item on p. 3) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson told reporters, "The message has been clear. Iraq must comply or face consequences. We are not excluding any options, including military options." Why would the U.S. make such a statement in the light of the known fact that Russia, France, China and Egypt clearly said that any further measures would have to be discussed by the Council again and that the vote did not authorize the use of force or they would not have supported it? "Military action is not going to be supported by the Security Council," Russian ambassador Sergei Lavrov said. The arrogant statements of the U.S. imperialists are to declare that they have the "right" to launch a military attack against Iraq. They are aimed at convincing all powers to accept the U.S. as the greatest superpower which can lay down the law for the whole world. It is a warning by the U.S. to all who do not want to buckle under. The very conception that there is a superpower is to accept that the world is divided between big powers and small powers and that the world is governed by the manoeuvres between such powers. Those who go along with the U.S. are to be accorded certain advantages and those who do not are to be penalized. Such a rendering of the world means that the agenda of the twentieth century to establish equality between all countries, big and small, is put in a subordinate position. It goes against the most important requirement of international democracy to have all countries have a say in the affairs which concern the international community and, along with it, the basic law that the prosperity and well-being of one must be the condition for the prosperity and well-being of all, and vice-versa. The entire approach of the big powers to the Iraqi issue is reprehensible. To place such onerous conditions on a country under the pretext of high ideals is criminal. The aims of the foreign powers, especially the Americans, are highly suspect and everyone knows it. Canadian workers and progressive forces cannot accept such a conception of relations between countries. It not only goes against their own interests but also against the interests of the peoples of the world for progress and prosperity. TML DAILY, 11/97 Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: michael moore
Hi, Ellen. Good response. Gil > > I sent the following letter to the Nation, regarding Michael Moore's > piece. --Ellen Frank > > > > OK, Michael. If we're going to start down this road of name-calling >and downright cantankerousness, maybe you and the little lady from Sears >should think on this. > > The arrogant, clueless left you affect to so despise were a step >or two ahead of regular folks on the issues. When our government >was making Central America safe for US multinationals, who was >out protesting? When right wingers were spreading lurid tales of >black criminals, while quietly shifting money from education to >prisons, who stood up against the police state? I love the people, too. > Unfortunately, the ordinary folks from Flint didn't notice what >was going on in this country until their jobs were gone and >their schools were rotting. Maybe they were too busy bowling. > > I'll grant you that lefties can be a mite out of touch >and more than a mite obnoxious, but someone has to keep a close >eye on the big picture. God knows, the right wingers don't diss >their intellectuals -- they set them up in style at the Cato Institute. >You want the left to bench Chomsky, so that Charles Murray >can run with the ball? > > We're all beleaguered and doing what we can, > Michael. Let's lighten up a bit. > > > > >
michael moore
I sent the following letter to the Nation, regarding Michael Moore's piece. --Ellen Frank OK, Michael. If we're going to start down this road of name-calling and downright cantankerousness, maybe you and the little lady from Sears should think on this. The arrogant, clueless left you affect to so despise were a step or two ahead of regular folks on the issues. When our government was making Central America safe for US multinationals, who was out protesting? When right wingers were spreading lurid tales of black criminals, while quietly shifting money from education to prisons, who stood up against the police state? I love the people, too. Unfortunately, the ordinary folks from Flint didn't notice what was going on in this country until their jobs were gone and their schools were rotting. Maybe they were too busy bowling. I'll grant you that lefties can be a mite out of touch and more than a mite obnoxious, but someone has to keep a close eye on the big picture. God knows, the right wingers don't diss their intellectuals -- they set them up in style at the Cato Institute. You want the left to bench Chomsky, so that Charles Murray can run with the ball? We're all beleaguered and doing what we can, Michael. Let's lighten up a bit.
Anyone Know Ed Herman's E-Mail Address
Folks, Does Ed Herman have an e-mail address? Jason
Re: Commerce Clause Question
On Fri, November 14, 1997 at 08:00:01 (-0600) J Cullen writes: >When and in what case did the Supreme Court expand the commerce clause of >the Constitution to overrule state regulation of corporations? Can somebody >point me to a good discussion of that issue, particularly as it relates to >the effort to give the World Trade Organization authority to overrule >national regulation of corporations? That wouldn't be McCullough v. Maryland, would it? Bill
Commerce Clause Question
When and in what case did the Supreme Court expand the commerce clause of the Constitution to overrule state regulation of corporations? Can somebody point me to a good discussion of that issue, particularly as it relates to the effort to give the World Trade Organization authority to overrule national regulation of corporations? Thanks, -- Jim Cullen THE PROGRESSIVE POPULIST James M. Cullen, Editor P.O. Box 150517, Austin, Texas 78715-0517 Phone: 512-447-0455 Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://www.eden.com/~reporter
Re: Book announcement
>> ++ >> A robot can build a car. But a robot cannot buy a car... The >> explosion in the development of computer- and robotic-based >> manufacturing is seeing the rapid expansion of laborless >> production systems. > >Robots can NOT (presently) build cars. While it is true that many >operations in an auto assembly plant can and have been robotized >(especially within the paint and body shop departments), an auto assembly >plant still requires significant amounts of human laborers. "Laborless >production systems" (e.g. flexible manufacturing systems) are mostly used >in small batch manufacturing plants rather than assembly plants. > >Jerry > Correct about the auto assembly line. But the idea of the FMS is NOT "laborless production system" in today's business-school textbook. Instead, it is even more "labor intensive," in terms of the importance of human intervention in the production process, than the comic-book version of Fordist assembly line. Small batch manufacturing is the key. Exactly because model change and task adjustments are constant affairs, direct workers' intelligent initiatives are crucial for those kinds of production. That's one reason why "human relations" talks are in fashion in today's business schools. Robots cannot presently build cars, and I don't think it can build cars in the forseeable future either. Maybe I am myopic, which is physically true anyway, but if we look closely, any material production involves a degree of uncertainty which cannot be exhausted by previous rational designs. Thus dead labor (machine) can never replace live labor of thinking human beings. Just try to design a robot to pick up trash on the floor and feel the pain, then you know you'd better have some human being do it. I did not learn this from Marx, but from classmates in my master study who work as engineers and managers in the Ford plants in the Detroit area. When I took my quality-assurance and lean-production classes in business school a few years back in the US, I am always amazed at the degree of agreement of my straight-arrow meat-and-potato professors's ideas and my supposedly Marxist ones, such as the irruducible centrality of human labor to any kind of production. It seems that only a weird segment of the academics (and Sci Fi authors) hold that machine CAN replace human beings. The robots-gonna-do-it-all theories always sound like fetishism to me, but also always taken as a matter of fact by Daniel Bell & co., and even some progressives. Hsin-Hsing "Dikoh" Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph. D. Candidate Dept. of Science and Technology Studies Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY 12180 USA Lecturer, Dept. of Sociology Tung-Hai University Taichung 407 Taiwan
