URPE Summer Conference
Does anyone on pen-l know if the place and time of the URPE summer conference for this year has been set. Trevor Evans Berlin
Re: Amerikkkan Democracy at work...II
Tom Kruse asks: ... [Back in early January of '91 e]veryone opposed a military "solution". Then the shooting war started, and it was yellow ribbons and support the troops. What's to suggest it might be any different this time? Despite worlds of difference between the two situations, probably nothing. "Politics stops at the water's edge, blah-blah": Once the bullets are flying and thoughts turn to the miscalculations that might have been made about the enemy's capabilities, the tendency - perhaps hardwired straight from the preface to "2001" - is to rally 'round the flag and the scummy pols who first started waving it. One more eon of evolution could do the job. valis
Re: Amerikkkan Democracy at work...
Here's your correction, Maggie: Clinton was opposed to being _drafted_ into the Vietnam War. Sid THE ONLY OPINION THAT REALLY COUNTS IS THE PRESIDENT'S. And he's not going to be affected by a bunch of goofy hecklers." Correct me if my memory is faulty, but wasn't Clinton opposed to the Vietnam war?
Ecology and value free Marxism
The Fall 1996 Science and Society, edited by PEN-L'er David Laibman, contains an article by Douglas Boucher called "Not With a Bang, but a Whimper." It includes a paragraph that I find highly disturbing: As ecosystems are transformed, species are eliminated -- but opportunities are created for new ones. The natural world is changed, but never totally destroyed. Levins and Lewontin put it well: "The warning not to destroy the environment is empty: environment, like matter, cannot be created or destroyed. What we can do is replace environments we value by those we do not like". Indeed, from a human point of view the most impressive feature of recorded history is that human societies have continued to grow and develop, despite all the terrible things they have done to the earth. Examples of the collapse of civilizations due to their over-exploitation of nature are few and far between. Most tend to be well in the past and poorly documented, and further investigation often shows that the reasons for collapse were fundamentally political. The reference is to an article that Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin's published in Jim O'Connor's 1994 Vol.5-4 Capitalism Nature Socialism titled "Holism and Reductionism in Ecology." Apparently this article has had a big influence not only on Boucher, but on David Harvey, who draws upon it extensively in his new book "Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference." Levins, Lewontin, Boucher and Harvey are all aggravated by the claim that some make that the planet is being destroyed by capitalism. On their hit-list are the usual suspects like Kirkpatrick Sale. They are also miffed at Marxists like John Bellamy Foster who has the temerity to think of the planet as "vulnerable." My reaction to Boucher and company is that their counter-arguments undermine whatever moral legitimacy Marxism has left. It leaves you with the impression that as long as humanity survives, it is not catastrophic if every last living species except homo sapiens becomes extinct. If our planet ends up containing nothing but us, the rats and the cockroaches, then our "survival" seems moot. The disappearance of bald eagles as a result of DDT was noted by Rachel Carson in the legendary New Yorker "Silent Spring" articles of the 1950s. Bill McKibben, who gets bashed by Boucher and company, followed in Carson's footsteps when he wrote a series of articles in the same magazine titled "End of Nature." The point of these articles is to remind us, as Engels said in Dialectics of Nature, that we "are part of nature." Boucher and company place us above it. Any young person who was becoming politicized around ecological issues would find Boucher's argument deeply repellent. As it turns out, tens of thousands of young people have developed inchoate anticapitalist ideas because of what corporations have been doing to dolphins and other endangered species. If you gave that young person a sample of Boucher's prose, they'd retreat in horror. There is empirical evidence for the sort of disjunction between Marxism and the young generation I am describing. Next month many of us will attend the annual Socialist Scholars Conference in New York, where we will see about a thousand middle-aged white people. Inevitably we will turn to an old friend and say something like, "God, everybody is so OLD." Meanwhile, at a conference on globalization held at the Riverside Church 2 years ago, there were twice as many participants and the average age was probably in the mid-20s. I have no doubt that if you asked the average attendee what the official Marxist position on ecology was, they'd say it was something like the position that Boucher puts forward. Suffice it to say that Russian Marxism did not hold this view at all. The government set aside huge portions of Soviet territory in nature conservancies in 1921. It was so important to Lenin that this be done correctly that he took time away from high-level military meetings during the civil war just so he could guide the efforts of ecologists. Key to the Bolshevik nature conservancy program was the notion that "natural monuments" like trees and rivers had to be preserved just like paintings or buildings. They were part of our civilization. Meanwhile, Marxism's irrelevancy deepens. It clings to schemas that were appropriate to the mid-19th century. When the subject of ecological catastrophe comes up, people like Boucher blather on about Malthus as if nothing has changed since the 1840s. The Worldwatch Institute tells us that there are twice the capacity of fishing trawlers as there are fish stocks in the world's oceans. Extinction of so-called class 1 species like swordfish and tuna is a distinct possibility. What does it matter to Boucher. We can eat sardines, after all. And when the sardines are gone, we can eat genetically engineered cockroaches. The bloodlessness of Boucher's response has an ancient history in Marxism. It is no doubt what led to the creation of the
Re: State of the World
The last two posts from Louis brought up some very important points. He began with a discussion of Lester Brown. I first became acquainted with Brown when he was with the Department of Agriculture promoting the so-called green revolution. Somehow he made a serious transformation in his outlook and came to realize about how serious the environmental threats that we face really are. I'm not sure what kind of transformation David Harvey has undergone. I have always found his work to be very interesting and very challenging. In the second post from Louis, he brings up the idea of value-free science. Not being an economist, Louis might not understand that one of the ideas constantly hammered into the heads of defenseless graduate students in economics is the importance of value free science. We learn that the role of an economist is to make recommendations based on objective standards, which typically means whenever the market says is correct. To support rent control, welfare or any progressive policy in tantamount to injecting an unwarranted value the analysis. Turning to Malthusianism, Paul Ehrilich, a person who used to represent to me some of the most vulgar aspects of Malthusianism, has recently written a magnificent work in which he shows how the supposedly value free scientists are all too often beholden to corporate interests. Bought and paid for, these corporate scientists belittle environment dangers and in the process win the accolades of the corporate media. Today Marxism only appeals to a tiny strata of our society. Although people are skeptical about corporation and even tend to accept populist announced of corporations, making the leap to Marxist analysis is very difficult. I believe that environment critique probably makes the most effective way of bridging the gap between the popular mood and our own analysis. I do not know what David Harvey's present approach is. Perhaps, I would even agree with it. Unfortunately, if it is this I understand it to be based on the two posts, he may be doing a disservice to the left. In any case, I hope that Louis's posts lead to a fruitful dialogue. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAI Booklet (fwd)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:34:46 -0800 (PST) From: MichaelP [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAI INFORMATIONAL BOOKLETS: Ruth Caplan of the Alliance for Democracy has coordinated the production of informational booklets about the MAI. With input from Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, AFL-CIO and several other NGOs, this 3-color cover/24-page/business envelope-sized booklet portrays worldwide concerns about the effects of the proposed Agreement. The back cover will list sponsoring organizations and have space for organizational contact information. For more information, please contact Ruth directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you are interested in previewing the booklet online or ordering a quantity of booklets.
Re: Amerikkkan Democracy at work...
At 20:53 20/02/98 -0800, you wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A second questions -- what IS it about ohio? Kent State, heckling the president's propaganda team. Proof positive, as if we needed it, that socialist dissidence is as American as apple pie and cornfields. I have fond memories of OSU activists from my old days as an undergrad at Antioch College in the tiny radical burgh of Yellow Springs, in southwest Ohio -- they were doing some really wonderful things, at a huge state school which you'd think would be a pillar of all the usual Rightwing malignancies. Also, Columbus is chockful of high-tech service-sector companies and whatnot, so there's a kind of latent postmodernism in the air, as it were. -- Dennis And Youngstown? Would de-industrialization have anything to do with anything being disucssed here? Or is Yellow Springs in a different country? Seems like campuses and pomo techies have a monopoly on "socialist dissidence" here, whatever that is. I heard the NPR (via the web) version of Albright Co.'s reception. Hats off to the protesters! But ... I remember early 1991 in Minneapolis. I was just back from Nicaragua, suffereing horrific culture shock working at a small software co. in the burbs at 6.35/hour, talking to software users all over the US who hated their jobs about as much as I hated mine. One January evening there was a gathering at Northrop Auditorium at the U of MN, packed with all sorts of "dissidents" including members of the MN crongressional delegation and Supreme Court, students, labor, etc. etc. Everyone opposed a military "solution". Then the shooting war started, and it was yellow ribbons and support the troops. What's to suggest it might be any different this time? Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kate Bronfenbrenner
We urge our colleagues to join with us in protesting Beverly Enterprises' attack on Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner's academic freedom and first amendment rights. Michal Belknap, Professor of Law, California Western School of Law Clete Daniel, Professor of American Labor History, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University Ellen Dannin, Professor of Law, California Western School of Law Julius Getman, The Earl E. Sheffield Regents Chair and Professor of Law,University of Texas Law School and former President, American Association of University Professors Lois S. Gray, Alice Grant Professor of Labor Relations, NYSSILR, Cornel University Harry C. Katz, The Jack Sheinkman Professor of Collective Bargaining, NYSSILR, Cornell University Risa Lieberwitz, Associate Professor, School of Industrial and Labor Relations,Cornell University Richard Lempert, Francis A. Allen Collegiate Professor of Law and Chair of the Department of Sociology, University of Michigan Sanford Levinson, W. St. John Garwood W. St. Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair, University of Texas Law School Deborah Malamud, Professor of Law University of Michigan School of Law Ray Marshall, former Secretary of Labor Scott Powe, Anne Green Regents Chair, University of Texas Law School James Rundle, Labor Education Coordinator, Industrial Labor Relations Conference Center The statement, including background information, is set forth below. If you are willing to add your name to the Statement of Protest, please e-mail Ellen J. Dannin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please add my name to the Statement of Protest: Name: Title for identification purposes: Address: Phone number: Email address: -- Statement of Protest On February 9, 1998, Beverly Enterprises, a company with a deplorable record in labor relations matters filed a defamation suit in federal court against Dr. Kate Bronfenbrenner. Dr. Bronfenbrenner is well-respected academic who has done important research on a variety of labor issues. Beverly seeks both compensatory and punitive damages. With the complaint, Beverly's attorneys, Pietragallo, Bosick Gordon of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Walter Haverfield, of Cleveland, Ohio, served a massive request for production of documents. Among the documents requested, Beverly seeks copies of all documents and confidential survey data relating to Dr. Bronfenbrenner.'s research on union and employer behavior in union organizing campaigns. It also seeks documents concerning Cornell's policies concerning the faculty research, speeches, presentations, lectures and seminars. The circumstances and background of this suit make clear that this is a thinly veiled attack on Dr Bronfenbrenner's academic freedom and her rights under the first amendment. The lawsuit is based on remarks made by Dr Bronfenbrenner at a May 19, 1997 Congressional Town meeting sponsored by several western Pennsylvania congressional representatives and Rep. Lane Evans (D-Ill). They were joined by Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA). The meeting was called for the express purpose of investigating Beverly's employment policies. Beverly is one of the country's largest nursing home chains. Four days before the Town Hall meeting, Rep. Lane Evans had introduced the Federal Procurement and Assistance Integrity Act (HR 1624), which would give the labor secretary the authority to debar or suspend companies from receiving federal contracts if they have a clear pattern or practice of violations of the National Labor Relations Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, or the Fair Labor Standards Act. Of the more than 750 nursing homes Beverly Enterprises operates, 42 are in Pennsylvania. Beverly is defending itself from hundreds of unfair labor practice complaints brought by the National Labor Relations Board. It also has been identified by the U.S. General Accounting Office as a serious labor law violator. In January 1993, the NLRB issued its decision in Beverly I, finding that the chain had committed some 135 unfair labor practices at 32 facilities in 12 states between mid-1986 and mid-1988. Two other Administrative Law Judge decisions found Beverly had committed additional unfair labor practices between mid-1988 and early 1992 at a number of nursing homes. In the most recent Beverly decision issued November 26, 1997, NLRB Administrative Law Judge Robert Wallace found that Beverly's "wide-ranging and persistent misconduct, demonstrat[ed] a general disregard for the employees' fundamental rights." Dr. Bronfenbrenner's testimony at the meeting presented the results of her past decade's research concerning union organizing. Based on her studies, she concluded: "Beverly stood out in my findings, both for the high level of union activity at
