[PEN-L:776] Re: tobacco
>The most curious feature of smoking is its identification with >intellectuals. Poets, like politicians, are often thought of as sitting >in smoke filled rooms. Professors, smoking pipes. Deeply inhaling, >while deeply thinking. When did that image begin? For one thing, I'm given to believe there's a bit of physiology at the base of it. Smoking demonstrably enhances memory (at least, in smokers) and, of course, raises blood pressure - forcing more blood through the brain, I guess. I need to smoke when I think - how much of that is addiction at play, or unconscious media-induced roleplay or physiologically enhanced acuity, I dunno - but of the enhanced acuity bit at least I'm quite convinced. Whatever lack of acuity is evident in this post, I shall put down to the draconian anti-smoking laws here (I haven't thought of an excuse for the others yet). If I were on smack, I'd get methodine for free, a clinic for the cold turkey, and a whole heap of sympathy (albeit not from everybody, of course), but I'm on nicotine - demonised whilst smoking, and always expected to give it up, smile at people and remain moderately intelligent. Which is a pity as I've tried, and am always reduced to a sociopathic inarticulate fool. In sum, as heroin is illegal, government and industry (Castell's reservations notwithstanding) make nothing out of it - so the industry is at fault and the user is the victim. As smokes are legal, enriching government and industry alike, addicts are at fault and non-addicts the victims. I've made myself so cross I have to nip out for a gasper now. Cheers, Rob.
[PEN-L:779] Re: adieu boddhi?
> ">" == Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Just a couple of words on Boddhi's proposed 'resignation'. I >> don't think he is disrupting the list, >> The bloke is clever, articulate, quite brave, and often funny. i dont know if the input of a lurker counts on this list, but i mostly agree with these 2 points of Rob here (not so much on the content of what Boddhi says) and yeah, the heat has ratcheted up a couple notches recently, but then the d(elete) button works wonders if i grow weary, and the responses to him, even though also heated, have good content to them. in any case, if you survey the overall trend of pen-l posts during this latest boddhi-war, you find enough variety that clearly the list behavior has not been entrained by the individual ratcheting up... anyway, and this is apropos of nothing, really, but to those that recoil at the smugness of bevans nickname: 'boddhisattva' DOES NOT MEAN 'enlightened one'. in the buddhist world-view a boddhisattva delays his/her (final) enlightenment and works in such a way that all other 'beings' are enlightened first. and don't ask me what THAT means les schaffer
[PEN-L:781] SS Japanic
G'day all, Here's the latest on Japan (and, indirectly, the rest of us) from today's *Australian*. On the one hand the EPA Report cites 'a tightening of purse strings' and blames it on joblessness, lower pay and insecurity. On the other, Sakaiya is flogging publicly controllable and reliably lucrative utilities, biting into the current account, offering speculators reserve bank money for nothing, and leaving the red ink inside the banking system far from public view - indeed, it seems they dare not look themselves. In this last instance, figures of $1 trillion are now getting regular airings - and we all know speculative figures like this rise rather than drop, ever dissipating confidence. Not since 1930 have we seen such a quantum logical gap between diagnosis and prescription, eh? I see a bad moon rising. Cheers (?) Rob. Yen tumble sparks new currency fear By ALAN STOKES 12aug98 THE spectre of a second wave in the Asian currency crisis loomed large yesterday after the yen fell to an eight-year low and Japan's top economic agency downgraded the nation's financial condition from stagnant to slumping. As the currency passed the level that prompted a billion-dollar bailout in June, the Government was looking to sell parts of its telephone carrier and other assets to pay for 7 trillion yen ($80 billion) in much-needed tax cuts. Economic Planning Agency Minister Taichi Sakaiya said things would get much worse before they got better. "The economy is in a severe state," Mr Sakaiya said after the EPA released its August report, the first under the new Obuchi Government. Rather than stick with the description of the economy as stagnant, as in previous reports, the EPA said the economy was in a slump. The word was last used in 1993, but Mr Sakaiya admitted the economy was in much worse shape now. He also changed the verdict on personal spending from "signs of recovery" to "consumers still tightening their purse strings". The report blamed a record jobless rate and shrinking pay packets. Exports to Asia were also down. While Mr Sakaiya said he expected the Government's planned 10 trillion yen supplementary budget and permanent tax cuts to help, investors were less sure. The US dollar rose to 147.13 against the weakening yen yesterday afternoon, fuelling fears of another intervention by Tokyo and Washington to avoid China having to devalue its currency. Hong Kong led declines on Asian stock markets, plunging to a five-year low as speculators renewed their attack on the local currency and amid growing fears of a yuan devaluation. Japanese Finance Minister Kiichi Miyazawa said currency movements were thought to affect South-East Asian financial conditions, "and so if there are disruptive factors in the (currency) market we cannot rule out intervention". In an attempt to ease investor fears about a blowout in government debt, Mr Miyazawa said the Cabinet was considering selling part of its 65.4 per cent stake in national phone company Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp. "There have been talks in the Government about selling NTT shares early next year," Mr Miyazawa said. "We will need to monitor the market conditions and ask experts about when and how many we should sell." While most economists have applauded the Government's stimulus plans, investors have sold the yen and pushed the share market down for six straight days. They are punishing new Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi for failing to upgrade the previous Cabinet's scheme to clean up $1300 billion in bad loans held by the nation's banks.
[PEN-L:782] Boddhi? Pas d'adieu!
Boddhi is the cranky old guy in the tumbledown gingerbread house with the junk-strewn lawn on the weedy edge of town. He chases the kids away, and keeps a shotgun (empty) and a surly mastiff (toothless) to push the point. His opinions nearly always fly in the face of prevailing orthodoxy and are couched in weird language; the trouble is that he's turned out to be right so often that citizens endowed with long memory think twice before putting him down on an issue. As for pen-l's own Boddhi, aside from the too-personal edge on his comments to and about Louis, which he ought to apply his own wisdom to, I'm glad that he's here. valis
[PEN-L:785] Re: Adeiu Bhoddi reconsidered?
At 08:14 AM 8/12/98 -0700, Michael wrote: >My decision was not based on his behavior, but rather his incessant insistence that markets work well. I was hoping that we would be able to make serious progress in the new world order project. Instead, the whole list was revolving around answering Bhoddi's posts. I thought that the result was destructive.< If so, my favorite solution should be applied: if anyone thinks that B's posts are obnoxious, then just don't answer them. If enough people respond it this way, he will eventually go away, in search of others to irritate. This method allows the free discussion that pen-l prides itself for and has usually worked in the past. I know that I won't reply to any of his posts in the future (unless they specifically refer to me in some way). As for the New World Information Order project, we need much more guidance and structure (clear goals, a plan, a division of labor) if we want to get it off the ground. This project would transform pen-l into something more like Phil O'Hara's largely successful ENCYCLOPEDIA OF POLITICAL ECONOMY effort, which used e-mail more as a coordination mechanism than as an arena for debate, grousing, dissemination of information, humor, etc. (which is what pen-l is now). And frankly, having other fish to fry, I can't see myself contributing much to the NWIO project. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:786] Re: Sociologists and others who lie
At 11:47 AM 8/11/98 +, Jim Craven wrote: >Thanks to Louis for publishing that piece. It reminds me of >journalists who scream "But what about the people's right to know?" >when someone being questioned refuses to answer. Translation: "But >what about MY need for a 'scoop' so that I can get more exposure, so >that I can get name recognition and become a Dan Rather so that I can get preferred access -- snip --- I reply (WS): It is quite obvious that producers of knowledge have personal interests in the commodity their produce, as do the producres of, say, ic--cream. Noone would hold it against Ben & Jerry if they failed to disclose their political views to farmers from whom they buy milk, and who migh find such views objectionable. So why there is so much fuss about the producers of intellectual commodity? Knowledge is a commodity as everything else. It is a manufactured product that uses data only as raw material. The producer has no specific obligation to the source of the raw material, other than those specified by law or a contract. Specifically, public behavior is, by definition, public rather than proprietary. If I observe a cop or a fisherman doing what they would be ordinarily doing in their everyday life - they have no proprietary rights whatsover to how that behavior appears to the outside observers. Since any observation is by its very nature selective (i.e. I perceive ceratin features as more salient than others and ignore still other features altogether) - there is no deception on my part whatsover, if I use my observations of others to write a story I like. Those others may or may not like the story I wrote, just like the dairy farmers may or may not like Ben & Jerry's ice cream. In both cases, the people who supplied raw material to the manufactured product might complain about the 'misuse' of that raw material. They have the right to voice their disappointment. But that does not mean that such disappointment ought to receive an institutional sanction in the form of professional or legal restrictions. Of course, that would be different if I used deception or false pretenses to ask people to behave in a certain way or to obtain information that otherwise would not be given to anyone. Or if I used my authority position to that end. Much of the debate about ethics in sociological/anthroplogical research originates, in my view, in two misperceptions. First is the misguided opinion (aka 'political correctness') that every aspect of human interaction can be regulated by some form of formal authority and formal rules of behavior in order to prevent potential inequalities or abuses. Second is the belief that people own the cultural impressions they give off. Both beliefs are, in my view, dove-tailing with the capitalist drive toward formalization and marketisation of every form of human interaction. Oftentimes, the 'ethics' is used as a disguised ad hominem attack in lieu of ad rem arguments. Best regards, Wojtek Sokolowski
[PEN-L:787] Re: Adeiu Bhoddi reconsidered?
This discussion about boddhisatva has to be put into context. For at least the last two and possibly three years, his interventions on mailing-lists at the deceased Spoons Marxism lists has been identical to what we have seen here. Much of it consists of attempts to draw me into flame wars about a whole host of issues including peasant rebellions, ecology, indigenous rights, etc. In the entire time I have seen him in action, there has never been a single reference to an article or book that would be of interest in the context of the discussion. For example, the other day when we were discussing bison, valis cited the Popper's and Callenbach's work on the benefits of turning the northern Plains back into grazing land for the animal. I just ordered Callenbach's book from amazon.com. Mat Foraester sent me a paper on the Maori, which relates to the question of their use of advanced technology when they see fit (I think that's what its about, since I haven't read it yet.) It seems to me that this the kind of discussion PEN-L should be fostering. Boddhisatva does not turn the discussion into a discussion of himself, as people like Malecki do. But my experience with him has convinced me that he is interested in polarizing a discussion more than anything else. He, along with Malecki, was repeatedly expelled from Spoons mailing-lists. It is Michael's decision to deal with him as he sees fit. I don't have any plans to respond to him any more because I am sick and tired of him and everybody else who exploits mailing-lists in that fashion. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:790] Re: adieu boddhi?
> Date sent: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:18:02 -0700 > From: "Gar W. Lipow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject:[PEN-L:780] Re: Re: adieu boddhi? Me four, though I wouldn't be surprised if I was just a few steps away from being thrown off as well. Boddhi may have been supercilious at times, but so have others, including Mr. Proyect, who is otherwise venerated (well, by some). Reasons why he shouldn't be expelled (hope they don't cause my own dismissal): 1) he has written some really funny stuff; 2) he goes against the grain in pen- l. It is not as if Boddhi is a fascist, or even a standard liberal. I mean do we only want the moralizing sobriety that comes out of Craven? Or the self-satisfied ideas of Devine? Or Henwood's snippets? - ok, they are all great but 3) he got Michael going; 4) he has raised some really serious issues on the possibility of forming non-market societies in a global capitalist economy; whether people who have tasted (or contemplated the possibility) of modernity are willing to go back to a pre-industrial society. I mean it is easy for professors who enjoy all the fruits of modernity to talk about how Indians should live; 5) Sorry, but once a list is created, that list is greater than the moderator; therefore it is anti-democratic for that moderator to take someone off the list. The delete button is a lot more democratic. Just tell Boddhi to cool off a bit, and send less messages. ricardo > Me three. I usually disagree with Boddhi, but I've seen worse -- much > of it on this list. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me > like Boddhi is being thrown off for intellectual disagreement rather > than behavior. At least I don't remember him having to apologize for > personal attacts on anyone, or being warned to change x, y, or z > behavior or risk being expelled. > > Les Schaffer wrote: > > > > > ">" == Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > >> Just a couple of words on Boddhi's proposed 'resignation'. I > > >> don't think he is disrupting the list, > > > > >> The bloke is clever, articulate, quite brave, and often funny. > > > > i dont know if the input of a lurker counts on this list, but i mostly > > agree with these 2 points of Rob here (not so much on the content of > > what Boddhi says) and yeah, the heat has ratcheted up a couple notches > > recently, but then the d(elete) button works wonders if i grow weary, > > and the responses to him, even though also heated, have good content > > to them. > > > > in any case, if you survey the overall trend of pen-l posts during > > this latest boddhi-war, you find enough variety that clearly the list > > behavior has not been entrained by the individual ratcheting up... > > > > anyway, and this is apropos of nothing, really, but to those that > > recoil at the smugness of bevans nickname: > > > > 'boddhisattva' DOES NOT MEAN 'enlightened one'. > > > > in the buddhist world-view a boddhisattva delays his/her (final) > > enlightenment and works in such a way that all other 'beings' are > > enlightened first. > > > > and don't ask me what THAT means > > > > les schaffer > >
[PEN-L:791] Re: adieu bhoddi?
> I have just written to Bhoddi to ask him to sign of the list. I could > save myself some grief by doing this unannounced. I will accept the > protests about censorship and the like for a day, but after that I would > appreciate leaving the matter drop. > > Bhoddi is the first person to be asked to leave since Maleki. I try to do > this as rarely as possible. ___ This is a pure shocker! What did he do to deserve this? There has been a subtle change in the culture of pen-l since Louis P. has come on it. Even though I appreciate Louis's many postings, he is one person who has tried to develop a 'cult' of Michael Perelman on pen-l, and the result is becoming apparent. Pen-l is turning into a autocratic place. Prior to this incidence, I remember, there used to be at least some discussion among pen-l subscribers about what to do about a person who was becoming "disruptive". Now, no democratic pretensions are needed. In shock. ajit sinha > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
[PEN-L:794] Re: Re: Adeiu Bhoddi reconsidered?
James Devine wrote: >If so, my favorite solution should be applied: if anyone thinks that B's >posts are obnoxious, then just don't answer them. If enough people respond >it this way, he will eventually go away, in search of others to irritate. That's impossible, Jim. When people say stupid, offensive stuff it's pretty hard to let it pass unremarked. Maybe some people can maintain the discipline for some period of time, but it's never going to work 100%. And the presence of one noxious stimulus shapes a conversation, too. I'm not opposed to having serious conservatives around; it's good for one's mind and eloquence to have to debate. But there's nothing to be gained from allowing empty provocateurs to hang around. Doug
[PEN-L:795] Re: Re: Re: Re: re Bhoddi vs Proyect
On 11 Aug 98 at 17:03, James Michael Craven wrote:
> On 11 Aug 98 at 19:51, boddhisatva wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > C. Craven,
> >
> >
> >
> > So the native Canadians get the land and do what? Are they going
> > to open casinos? Are they going to log, farm or mine? All those are
> > pretty depressed industries right now. Where are they going to get the
> > money to develop the land? Do you think the people they get the money
> > from are going to respect indigenous culture?
> >
> >
> > I think the last time I was playing the slots up in Connecticut, I
> > might have heard one of the waitresses wearing a bucksking minidress
> > saying something like "Welcome to the Mohegan Sun, victory for the working
> > class", but I'm not sure.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > peace
>
This is not debate or some exhancge of differing opinion. This is
virulent racism and I have seen it over and over. For Indians, the
above is quite analagous to talk about "money-grubbing Hebes" or
"Coloreds who need to get over slavery and get with the program" or
"bitches who are only good for the bedroom and the kitchen",; it is
ugly, has no place on pen-l.
Furthermore, I personally have a problem with pseudo-nyms; I sign my
name to what I write and am willing to take the consequences in terms
of any alleged libel or slander or with how the content of what I
write reflects on me personally. Furthermore, I find that the choicie
of a pseudonym can, like a TAT test, be quite revealing--especially
when coupled with the content of the writer. I do recognize that some
may have to use pseudonyms out of fear of reprisal at work but then
again, any e-mail address can be traced to yield a real name
operating a given account.
I am not interested in debating libertarians or right-wingers; how do
you debate tautologies or unsupported assertions, aummarily and
forcefully asserted as if the degree and force of assertion somehow
legitimates and gives evidence for that which is being asserted. I do
not lurk on or even visit libertarian/right-wiunger sites much less
debate or engage in provocations on them. When confronted with
right-wingers, especially those promoting racism, sexism,
imperialism, fascism etc with a smile or "polite" rhetoric and signed
off with "peace", I do respond and yes, sometimes not to my credit,
with some ugly invective (I am a work in progress)
But let's face it, there are some who just get some kind of charge
out of sidetracking substantive debates and exchanges, muddying the
waters, promoting factionalism and splits and frankly using "freedom
of speech" in the particular to promote the kinds of societies in
which there will be no freedom of speech in general.
James M.S. Craven
> James Craven
> Dept. of Economics,Clark College
> 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tel: (360) 992-2283 Fax: 992-2863
>
>--
> "The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and
> property shall never be taken from them without their consent."
> (Northwest Ordinance, 1787, Ratified by Congress 1789)
>
> "...but this letter being unofficial and private, I may with safety give you a more
> extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you may better comprehend
> the parts dealt to to you in detail through the official channel, and observing the
> system of which they make a part, conduct yourself in unison with it in cases where
> you are obliged to act without instruction...When they withdraw themselves to the
> culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their
> extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in
>exchange
> for necessaries for their farms and families. To promote this disposition to exchange
> lands, which they have to spare and we want, for necessaries which we have to spare
> and they want,we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and
> influencial individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these
> debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off
> by cession of lands...In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and
> approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens
> of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi.The former is certainly the
> termination of their history most happy for themselves; but, in the whole course
> of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that
> our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to
> shut our hand to crush them..."
> (Classified Letter of President Thomas Jefferson ("libertarian"--for propertied white
> people) to William Henry Harrison, Feb. 27, 1803
[PEN-L:796] Re: Re: Re: Adeiu Bhoddi reconsidered?
At 02:22 PM 8/12/98 -0400, you wrote: >James Devine wrote: > >>If so, my favorite solution should be applied: if anyone thinks that B's >>posts are obnoxious, then just don't answer them. If enough people respond >>it this way, he will eventually go away, in search of others to irritate. > >That's impossible, Jim. When people say stupid, offensive stuff it's pretty >hard to let it pass unremarked. Maybe some people can maintain the >discipline for some period of time, but it's never going to work 100%. And >the presence of one noxious stimulus shapes a conversation, too. I'm not >opposed to having serious conservatives around; it's good for one's mind >and eloquence to have to debate. But there's nothing to be gained from >allowing empty provocateurs to hang around. > It's worked in the past on pen-l, though perhaps pen-listas have lost the sense of common purpose which was the basis for its working. In any event, simply throwing him off the list should be discussed more seriously before its done. in self-satisfied solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:797] Re: Reply to Ajit and Ricardo
Louis P. wrote: > Ajit, I am not making a "cult" of Michael Perelman. You have to have some > charisma to become a cult figure and Michael is one of the most > self-effacing and laid-back--to the point of blandness --individuals I have > ever met. > > My admiration for Perelman is based on what he writes. For my money, he is > one of the outstanding Marxist scholars in the world today. His new book on > primitive accumulation is not only fantastic research, it is also a > compelling read. I found myself turning the pages as if it were a thriller > novel. ___ You see, Michael is the only person on this cite who has the 'adimnistrative' power to throw any person out of this space-- it is equivalent to deporting somebody. My problem with what you say about Michael as a scholar is not that it is factually incorrect. Not at all! But he should be praised in other forums, where he is not in power. Praising him so repeatedly, and so often, on a forum where he is admittedly the most powerful person creates a 'Hail Hitler' culture. It has nothing to do with Michael as a person or a scholar. ___ L.P. > The truth is that PEN-L is probably still searching for some kind of > identity. When Doug started his list, a lot of the discussion that was > typically going on in PEN-L migrated to LBO-Talk. My list has tended to > draw participation from Spoons refugees. When Michael was taking stock of > PEN-L, he raised the possibility that it would function more like a > mailing-list for professionals. You and Levy (what happened to him? run off > with the squatters?) bemoaned the "Proyectization" of the list. At that > point most of the things I had to say were being said on my own list and > PEN-L went through a remarkable period of silence. > So where are the interesting things that professionals like yourself have > to say? The other day Michael raised the question of why there was no > discussion of the world economic crisis on PEN-L. There are literally > hundreds of professional economists on PEN-L who research these matters for > a living. Not a word was heard. Don't blame this silence on me. It is > instead a symptom of some other malaise in the academic world. > > Louis Proyect > > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) > ___ I have been on pen-l for about eight years, and have been a participant on a few marathon debates as well (only last Saturday I had a dinner with an old pen-ler Mike Meropole with Geoff Harcourt and some others, and we shared some old pen-l memories, it was very pleasant). Now, whether I had anything "interesting" to say or not depends upon what one considers "interesting". It is highly subjective. I think it is generally not going to work by prescribing people what to discuss. Most of the people discuss what interests them, and what they are knowledgeable about. i don't think many of us are in a position to pick up research topics because it is a prescribed topic of discussion on pen-l. Moreover, I think sharp disagreements and sometimes heated debates are necessary elements for carrying out a lively intellectual atmosphere on cyberspace. If you check the archives, you will find that most of the marathon debates (theoretical as well as one on NAFTA and LA rebellion/riots etc.) are characterized by such sharpness. This brings many more participants in. Otherwise, things get dull and boring--Doug Henwood's facts and figures are informative, but how much of debate can take place on it? Moreover, we should also be aware of the fact that participants come from various cultural backgrounds--they are not all white americans, and so will not behave in exactly the manner the majority of pen-l expects them to. Thus more liberal attitude and tolerance is required for successful functioning of the space. Lately, there has been noticeable movement against tolerance. Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:800] Naming names
Although I have a fairly laissez-faire attitude about list membership (except in those cases where there is personalised malevolence), I think it is reasonable to require all list members to front up with their real identities. Knowing that what I write to Pen-L is archived and retrievable through search engines and that my views are their to be seen tends to make me at least try to be reasonable and temperate. I have to wonder about those are unwilling to be associated with they write. Thinking back over the anger directed towards Boddhi a/k/a/ Mr / Ms. Evans, I notice that a lot of it was a result of being unwilling to front up and take responsibility for what s/he wrote. Ellen Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92116 (619) 525-1449 FAX: (619) 696-
[PEN-L:801] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re Bhoddi vs Proyect
On 12 Aug 98 at 19:59, AK Sinha wrote:
> Jim Craven wrote:
>
>
> (I am a work in progress)
> ___
>
> So are others. Why deny them this simple humanity? I think Bodhi
> did raise some issues which requires us to think about the
> relationship of 'pre-modern' world coexisting (barely though) with
> 'modern/postmodern' world. Usually I find that most of the new
> participants come out blazing but slowly adjust to the culture once
> the established culture shows some tolerance and gives due credit
> to the participants. Cheers, ajit sinha
Response:
Often quoted, is Mohandis Gandhi's comment, when asked "What do you
think about Western Civilization", he responded: "It sounds like a
good idea."
I am seeing all sorts of caricatures and assertions about the origins
and nature of Indian societies from people who have never spent any
time at all in Indian country except perhaps as a tourist at some
Casino. Further, there are different levels and forms of Indian
struggles just like any other groups in struggle--Indians are no more
homogeneous than anyother group; and certainly no more pure and
virtuous.
I only have a problem with patently racist caricatures that are
patent and clear provocations hiding behind masks of civility and
politeness--I'll take naked and open racists any day because it is
very clear what they are.
We know clearly that we do not simply have "premodern"underdevlopment on the
one hand and "post-modern""development" on the other hand and the key
to eliminating premodern underdevelopment is simply to mimic the
forces, interests and paradigms of "post modern development"--along
with "tolerance" for and "credit to" the people caught in premodern underdevelopment
as they are "integrated" into the structures of "post-modern"
development. We know clearly that imperialism and neo-colonialism, as
predatory and plundering systems cause the development of
underdevelopment; in other words so-called "development" CAUSES
underdevelopment and vice versa. Indian societies posses and endure
present-day conditions of misery and exploitation BECAUSE of the
structures, interests, patterns, logic and trajectories of past and
present-day capitalist development.
Further, this so-called post-modern "development" is producing
exactly what for the masses living within even the so-called
"developed" societies? Most goods and things, yes BUT...what else?
Out of 22 industrialized nations, the U.S. is No 1 ("We-re Number 1")
in: RATES (not simply absolute numbers) of infants born at low birth
weight, executions, substance abuse, all forms of crime, suicides,
wealth/income inequality, prisoners, AIDS and I could go on and on
with a whole host of ugly social indicators of failed capitalism.
Many Indians are not anti-technology per se but are not interested in
mimicking the practices and consequences of capitalist applications
of certain technologies; the only "assimilation" for Indians possible
is on the most degraded margins of bourgeois society and the
documents and policies of that society clearly reveal that
"assimilation" is intended as an instrument of extermination of
Indians as Indians as well as as an instrument for circumventing the
restrictive bourgeois property "sacreds"--restrictive when the
bourgeoisie are forced to apply their own "sacreds" to properties
other than their own and on which they have designs--in order to
wholesale grab Indian lands and resources without exposing the inner
contradicitons and hypocrisy of bourgeois property institutions and
practices.
Now we can disagree about this but that is OK because you did not
address me with some ugly racist provocateur caricatures and gross
forms of ignorance about Indian ways and societies. You intention was
clear: to discuss, debate and mutually share and learn. No problem.
But had you started off with taunting racist caricatures, dressed up in
"polite language" and signed off with "peace" you would have heard a
different level of discourse from me--if at all.
In my opinion, this Boddi guy is not some work in progress, seeking
differening points of view for the purpose of information and growth.
In my opinion, he is just another provocateur racist punk intent on
wrecking, dissention and provoking splits and side-tracking serious
discussion. In my opinion, he is as self-centered, narcissistic and
pretentious as his pretentious pseudonym. That is my opinion; take or
leave it as you wish.
Thanks for you thoughts and opinions honestly--and
humanly--expressed.
Jim
James Craven
Dept. of Economics,Clark College
1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tel: (360) 992-2283 Fax: 992-2863
--
"The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and
property shall never be taken from them without their consent."
(Northwe
[PEN-L:802] re Bhoddi vs Proyect
From: "James Michael Craven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:31:13 PST8PDT Subject: [PEN-L:795] Re: Re: Re: Re: re Bhoddi vs Proyect Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > So the native Canadians get the land and do what? Are they going > > to open casinos? Are they going to log, farm or mine? All those are > > pretty depressed industries right now. Where are they going to get the > > money to develop the land? Do you think the people they get the money > > from are going to respect indigenous culture? > > > > > > I think the last time I was playing the slots up in Connecticut, I > > might have heard one of the waitresses wearing a bucksking minidress > > saying something like "Welcome to the Mohegan Sun, victory for the working > > class", but I'm not sure. > > Craven: This is not debate or some exhancge of differing opinion. This is virulent racism and I have seen it over and over. For Indians, the above is quite analagous to talk about "money-grubbing Hebes" or "Coloreds who need to get over slavery and get with the program" or "bitches who are only good for the bedroom and the kitchen",; it is ugly, has no place on pen-l. R: I may be missing something, but this is not racism at all. On the contrary, Bhoddi is suggesting that Indians are humans afterall - in a world dominated by capital they may very well act just like the white humans you seem to dislike so much. C: I am not interested in debating libertarians or right-wingers; how do you debate tautologies or unsupported assertions, aummarily and forcefully asserted as if the degree and force of assertion somehow legitimates and gives evidence for that which is being asserted. I do not lurk on or even visit libertarian/right-wiunger sites much less debate or engage in provocations on them. When confronted with right-wingers, especially those promoting racism, sexism, imperialism, fascism etc with a smile or "polite" rhetoric and signed off with "peace", I do respond and yes, sometimes not to my credit, with some ugly invective (I am a work in progress) R: Bhoddi has stated quite clearly that he is for markets and not capitalism, which he defines, just as Braudel, as monopoly control over markets. Do you propose monopoly controls over what constitutes the "left"? C: But let's face it, there are some who just get some kind of charge out of sidetracking substantive debates and exchanges, muddying the waters, promoting factionalism and splits and frankly using "freedom of speech" in the particular to promote the kinds of societies in which there will be no freedom of speech in general. R: Factionalism is inherent to the very politics that you and Proyect advocate, for it is based on the notion that there are some principles beyond dispute, which you know, so that any deviation from those principles muct be seen as factional. I mean do you think there are no factions within the Indians themselves? James M.S. Craven > James Craven > Dept. of Economics,Clark College > 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tel: (360) 992-2283 Fax: 992-2863 > >-- > "The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and > property shall never be taken from them without their consent." > (Northwest Ordinance, 1787, Ratified by Congress 1789) > > "...but this letter being unofficial and private, I may with safety give you a more > extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you may better comprehend > the parts dealt to to you in detail through the official channel, and observing the > system of which they make a part, conduct yourself in unison with it in cases where > you are obliged to act without instruction...When they withdraw themselves to the > culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their > extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in >exchange > for necessaries for their farms and families. To promote this disposition to exchange > lands, which they have to spare and we want, for necessaries which we have to spare > and they want,we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and > influencial individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these > debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off > by cession of lands...In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and > approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens > of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi.The former is certainly the > termination of their history most happy for themselves; but, in the whole course > of this, it
[PEN-L:806] Re: chaoplexity and institutions
On Wed, August 12, 1998 at 16:53:40 (-0400) Rosser Jr, John Barkley writes: > This is being sent to three lists, although it is an >immediate followup to a thread on pkt (longish). > Dave Colander asked if institutions can limit the >instabilities associated with chaos and complexity >(chaoplexity), a la the famous "corridor of stability" idea >of Axel Leijonhufvud. I said maybe, but then said that >they may also lead to greater instability. ... You don't distinguish "stability" for powerful investors from "stability" for the population at large, third world victims of "stabilization" policies, etc. How do you capture this notion? This is a big problem I have with Paul Davidson and the otherwise very interesting Randy Wray, who neither seem to have any conception that money massed can affect (future) economic streams much as the sun's mass affects light rays. Bill
[PEN-L:807] Re: chaoplexity and institutions
Bill, Of course it matters "whose stability?" and I fully concur that stability for one group (capitalists) might entail instability for another group (Third World workers). Then again they may both go down in a collapse. My statements were general and irrespective of who is stable and who isn't and did not imply any necessary relation that stability of exploiter equals instability of exploitee, or vice versa. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:03:38 -0500 (CDT) "William S. Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, August 12, 1998 at 16:53:40 (-0400) Rosser Jr, John Barkley writes: > > This is being sent to three lists, although it is an > >immediate followup to a thread on pkt (longish). > > Dave Colander asked if institutions can limit the > >instabilities associated with chaos and complexity > >(chaoplexity), a la the famous "corridor of stability" idea > >of Axel Leijonhufvud. I said maybe, but then said that > >they may also lead to greater instability. ... > > You don't distinguish "stability" for powerful investors from > "stability" for the population at large, third world victims of > "stabilization" policies, etc. How do you capture this > notion? > > This is a big problem I have with Paul Davidson and the otherwise very > interesting Randy Wray, who neither seem to have any conception that > money massed can affect (future) economic streams much as the sun's > mass affects light rays. > > > Bill > -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:810] Re: Re: chaoplexity and institutions
One is more able to get this with the complexity models with lots of agents and lots of disaggregation. Then one can see such interactions more easily. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:23:00 -0500 (CDT) "William S. Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, August 12, 1998 at 17:19:38 (-0400) Rosser Jr, John Barkley writes: > >... > > My statements were general and irrespective of who is > >stable and who isn't and did not imply any necessary > >relation that stability of exploiter equals instability of > >exploitee, or vice versa. > > Yes, I realize that, but don't you think that models should be able to > express this form? It seems that this form of sloughing off > "instability" onto the mass of society is a very important and much > more frequent phenomenon than any sort of aggregate instability. I > just wondered if your (or anyone's) chaoplex models captured such a > notion... > > > Bill > -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:811] Re: Re: chaoplexity and institutions
On 12 Aug 98 at 17:19, Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: > Bill, > Of course it matters "whose stability?" and I fully > concur that stability for one group (capitalists) might > entail instability for another group (Third World workers). > Then again they may both go down in a collapse. > My statements were general and irrespective of who is > stable and who isn't and did not imply any necessary > relation that stability of exploiter equals instability of > exploitee, or vice versa. > Barkley Rosser > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:03:38 -0500 (CDT) "William S. Lear" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, August 12, 1998 at 16:53:40 (-0400) Rosser Jr, John Barkley writes: > > > This is being sent to three lists, although it is an > > >immediate followup to a thread on pkt (longish). > > > Dave Colander asked if institutions can limit the > > >instabilities associated with chaos and complexity > > >(chaoplexity), a la the famous "corridor of stability" idea > > >of Axel Leijonhufvud. I said maybe, but then said that > > >they may also lead to greater instability. ... > > > > You don't distinguish "stability" for powerful investors from > > "stability" for the population at large, third world victims of > > "stabilization" policies, etc. How do you capture this > > notion? > > > > This is a big problem I have with Paul Davidson and the otherwise very > > interesting Randy Wray, who neither seem to have any conception that > > money massed can affect (future) economic streams much as the sun's > > mass affects light rays. > > > > > > Bill > > > > -- > Rosser Jr, John Barkley > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Response: As someone who knows Dave Colander very well and who was the final technical reviewer/editor for his Economics 3rd Edition, Dave and I had many exchanges on institutions, what they do and how to teach about institutions and their roles. Dave gave as a short definition of institutions: "a physical or mental structure that significantly influences economic decisions." (3rd Ed. p.8) and we had a discussion of what exactly is revealed in that definition. One of the approaches I use in class is to give examples of commonly known institutions such as "private property", "marriage", "the family" etc and then to deconstruct and compare them in terms of their core elements and functions. Inductively or adductively students come up with something like the following: institutions are dynamic complexes of interrelated laws, rights, responsibilities, codes, values, constraints, power structures, myths, traditions, taboos, symbols that serve to shape/proscribe/structure/make more predictable human interactions, protect interests, indoctrinate dominant values and paradigms, reduce transactions and information and other costs, legitimate the existing order, promote expanded reproduction/power of the existing system and interests/imperatives of the dominant classes etc. As in the case of a decision tree, certain courses of action or certain interests protected/expanded open up new paths and trajectories and close off others. Chaoplexity may be exacerbated or mitigated on the margins as well as down the line strategically depending upon how effectively those institutions do what institutions do and for whom they do what they do individually and as they interface with other institutions. For example institutions designed to foster labor discipline and higher productivity with lower unit wage costs and benefits may and do contradict and come into conflict with other institutions like the "traditional family" (increasing labor force participation of women etc) such that mitigation of corridors of instability of one institution or set of institutions may widen the corridors of others and indeed of the system overall. I guess I can only retreat to a cliche: one must look at the problem dialectically and ask which institutions, at which stage of history, under what contexts and constraints etc. Jim Craven James Craven Dept. of Economics,Clark College 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663 [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tel: (360) 992-2283 Fax: 992-2863 -- "The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and property shall never be taken from them without their consent." (Northwest Ordinance, 1787, Ratified by Congress 1789) "...but this letter being unofficial and private, I may with safety give you a more extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you may better comprehend the parts dealt to to you in detail through the official channel, and observing the system of which they make a part, conduct yourself in unison with it in cases where you are obliged to act without instruction...When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are
[PEN-L:812] An Assiniboine Chief anticipates the Internet?
Dan Kennedy Ochankuhage in "Recollections of an Assiniboine Chief": "The youngsters were playing tag nearby when someone called me. I stood still and he hesitated to approach my elders until my grandfather, Panapin, called me by name. "As I stood before them, one of the elders pointed to the tattoo I had on my cheek beneath the eye and said to my grandfather: "'Panapin, mark that tattoo on your grandson's cheek. You are fortunate indeed to have that mark of identification on your grandson's face. One of the Redcoats at Fort Walsh told me that when the westward migration of the white-man begins in earnest, they will come in swarms like the grasshoppers in flight, will occupy all of our buffalo country and will build centers like the anthills. When these things have come to pass [Okne Sha] the Redcoats told me that they would not be able to identify our own people! "'And, furthermore,' he continued, 'our children and grandchildren will be taught the magic art of writing. Just think for a moment what that means. Without the aid of a spoken word our children will transmit their thoughts on a piece of paper, and that talking paper may be carried to distant parts of the country and convey your thoughts to your friends. Why even the medicine men of our tribe cannot perform such miracles.'" Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:813] Springtime, Ajit and Germany
> You see, Michael is the only person on this cite who has the > 'adimnistrative' power to throw any person out of this space-- it is > equivalent to deporting somebody. My problem with what you say > about Michael as a scholar is not that it is factually incorrect. Not > at all! But he should be praised in other forums, where he is not in > power. Praising him so repeatedly, and so often, on a forum where > he is admittedly the most powerful person creates a 'Hail Hitler' > culture. It has nothing to do with Michael as a person or a scholar. ^^^ Oh Ajit, stick to the realities you know, and somebody pass the barf bag! valis
[PEN-L:816] Cleaning up after Ryan
A lot of people have had a lot to say about Spielberg's latest, but one thematic possibility has so far been left out, likely never even thought of. In TIME, July 27th, Richard Schickel, hopefully with complete accuracy, quotes Spielberg re the character Corporal Upham thus: "He was me in the movie. That's how I would have been in war." If so, this is immensely important; it's likely that Spielberg wrote himself in, period, in which case Upham was meant for much deeper and broader scrutiny than list comment suggests he was given. I want to focus on one Upham-event. During the battle to hold the bridge, in an upstairs room a desperate seesaw drama of hand-to-hand combat ends with a German soldier slowly plunging a bayonet into one of the Ryan detachment. Upham, who has been militarily dysfunctional for about ten minutes, is squatting halfway up the stairs in some state of immobility. Descending the stairs, the German casts Upham a quick appraising glance and passes him as he might pass a palsied beggar on a city street, although Upham is holding a carbine and is swathed in ammo belts. Why did he do this? Had he gotten his fill of killing just before, in that struggle? And he had been saying something to his opponent, in frenetic German, over and over: was it standard Nazi invective or "Stop, just go limp; I don't really want to kill you"? In "statement" movies, a whole suite of ideas must sometimes be conveyed symbolically, in the actions of individuals. Was this such a case? In WW2 Germany took on the resources of four world empires, and succeeded only against the least of them (and then just because the French army was crippled by a deep ideological schism). In early 1943 the Red Army closed the Stalingrad Pocket and began its westward push; in the Pacific US forces had been on the offensive since the Battle of Midway in June of 1942. By D-Day the Wehrmacht had been fighting and living for over a year with a crushing sense of futility: its momentum was gone and the war was lost. It now fought not to conquer, not to hold its captured territories, not even to prevent the home front's overrunning, but just to defeat somehow the spectre of unconditional surrender. There were officers who would have preferred to meet the Normandy invaders with cold beer rather than hot lead, turn about and jointly prevent the Russians from taking Germany. All sorts of diplomatic dealings-in-progress were being fantasized about during that last full year of the war; meanwhile Germany had to show just enough fight on the ground to be taken seriously as a new ally. In fact, the mad dream of breaking the US-Soviet alliance dominated the Fuehrer Bunker right down to the very last days of the war. Whether Spielberg, who found the contradiction of Oskar Schindler and immortalized it, was introducing ambiguity that another film will explore in full we don't know, but personally I can't believe that he is capable of a cinematic gratuity. Be prepared for a still broader revision of history when Corporal Upham's promised book reaches the screen. valis
[PEN-L:817] Upham ( was: Re: Cleaning up after Ryan)
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, valis wrote: > > I want to focus on one Upham-event. During the battle to hold the bridge, > in an upstairs room a desperate seesaw drama of hand-to-hand combat ends > with a German soldier slowly plunging a bayonet into one of the Ryan > detachment. Upham, who has been militarily dysfunctional for about ten > minutes, is squatting halfway up the stairs in some state of immobility. > Descending the stairs, the German casts Upham a quick appraising glance > and passes him as he might pass a palsied beggar on a city street, > although Upham is holding a carbine and is swathed in ammo belts. > Why did he do this? Had he gotten his fill of killing just before, > in that struggle? And he had been saying something to his opponent, > in frenetic German, over and over: was it standard Nazi invective > or "Stop, just go limp; I don't really want to kill you"? > In "statement" movies, a whole suite of ideas must sometimes be conveyed > symbolically, in the actions of individuals. Was this such a case? Valis, The german who looked disgustedly at Upham was the same soldier who was digging the grave earlier in the film. Upham talked with him and insisted that it "wouldn't be right" to kill him when he was a prisoner of war. I think that was the reason for the scene you recounted. Frances
[PEN-L:818] Re: Upham ( was: Re: Cleaning up after Ryan)
Quoth Frances Bolton: > The German who looked disgustedly at Upham was the same soldier who was > digging the grave earlier in the film. Upham talked with him and insisted > that it "wouldn't be right" to kill him when he was a prisoner of war. I > think that was the reason for the scene you recounted. Wow, I'd hate to think that I based such a flight of fancy on a bent reed. Louis made the same identification is his review, but I thought it was mistaken; I just didn't see that in the movie. The grave-digging prisoner, knowing that he was one sullen trigger-squeeze away from death, said certain weaselly things that pushed certain buttons, and got sent rearward. In my memory he doesn't show up again until a whole unit is captured during the final assault on the bridge. Hands, class? valis
[PEN-L:821] A Real Hero
>From the Vancouver Sun Monday, December 18, 1995 by Karen Graham, Staff Writer "Claim of Murder Goes Back to 40s" A report that a girl was killed by a residential-school official has sparked an investigation. RCMP are launching an investigation today into an allegation that a young girl was murdered at a United Church residential school for Indians on Vancouver Island 50 years ago. Art Anderson, an official with the United Church, said Sunday that police were notified of the allegation as soon as the church learned of it. Rev. Kevin McNamee-Annett, a former United Church minister for the Alberni area, reported the allegation to the current minister Thursday. On Friday, both McNamee-Annett and the church lawyer reported it to the police. "We are uncertain what this means, but we have to treat it seriously," Anderson said. "As of tomorrow, the police will be beginning an investigation." The investigation was triggered by a statement from a North Vancouver woman who told McNamee-Annett she was nearby when a six-year-old girl was kicked down some stairs and died. Harriet Nahanee, 60, is the first witness to come forward to support recent allegations about killings at residential schools on the island. In another case, a boy is said to have bled to death after he was beaten as punishment for breaking a jar at the school in Ahousaht in the 1940s. Reports of sexual and physical assaults at the Port Alberni area schools sparked a province-wide investigation of residential schools by an RCMP task force. It has been gathering evidence for about one year. In an interview with the Vancouver Sun, Nahanee said she can't remember the girl's name but she knows that she came from Nitinat Lake and her father's name was Blackie. "I remember her from Nitinat Lake", she said. "Every so often her name comes to me and I can see her face." Nahanee said the girl died in 1946, when Nahanee was 11 years old. But the memory is still painful enough that she cried throughout the telling. "I was at the bottom of the stairs in the basement", she said. " I always went to the bottom of the stairs to sit and cry." "I heard her crying, she was looking for her mother. I heard [the school administrator] yelling at the supervisor for letting the child run around on the stairwell. "I heard him kick her and she fell down the stairs. I went to look--her eyes were open, she wasn't moving. They didn't even come down the stairs. They were arguing at the top of the stairs." "I never saw her again." Nahanee said the other students later told her the girl had died and her body had been sent back to Nitinat Lake. Nahanee told the other children what she had heard. She told her mother and many of the elders in her tribe. But nobody believed her, the woman said. She didn't trust the RCMP so she didn't report it to them. Rev. A.E. Caldwell, a United Church minister, was head of the school for the first four years Nahanee lived there. She alleges he regularly sexually assaulted her in the infirmary. In a written statement which has been forwarded to the RCMP task force, Nahanee says she was taken every week to the infirmary where either Caldwell or the boys supervisor, a Mr. Peake, woyuld force her to perform oral sex. Nahanee said she believes other deaths, which at the time the church said were the result of exposure when students tried to run away, were really caused by beatings in the school barn. The woman still has nightmares about the killing and lives with rage and shame resulting from her treatment. "I would love to be free of the shame--to leave all that behind me and have some pride in myself." Comment: Why did I put this out? First, it might appear to some to be ancient history, but I can assure you it is not. I was just on the phone with Harriet Nahane and have her permission to share the following.; I visit her on the Squamish Reserve where she lives and keep in regular contact with her. She is a Pacheedaht Elder, a Hereditary Chief, one of the principal organizers of the Tribunal on the Residential Schools in Vancouver on which I sat as a Judge, She is presently active on various issues including on Treaty issues and Defense of Leonard Peltier, she is one of those who argues that the proposed Nis' ga Treaty is a sell-out and she is active in ensuring that the blanket settlement of $350,000,000 for victims of the Residential Schools by the Canadian Government will not be used to gloss over the necessary details to prevent future abuses, tell the true history and find victimizers to bring them to justice. But I have another reason for putting this out. Following the Tribunal, Harriet, who works with Elders of the Squamish has lost her work. Consistent with her duties as a Pacheedaht Elder and descendant of Hereditary Chiefs, she has been going around schools to teach Pacheedaht Culture. Recently portions of her talks have been showing up on the internet;
[PEN-L:822] surprise: a decent New York Times Article
The new NY times has an reasonably good article noting that the market solutions have not been helping the poor. Usually, Peter Passell trumpets market solutions. Are doubts beginning to bubble up? http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/income-gap-econscene.html -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:804] boddhi
I am one who defends the right of listowners to expel people if necessary and generally have felt that michael p. has been judicious and cautious in doing so here. I do not know what has gone on in the background prior to boddhisatva's expulsion, in particular if michael has warned him or asked him to change his tune or number of postings or degree of invective or whatever. Especially if that has not been done, I guess I would like to see a reinstatement with some severe warnings given to him. I don't agree with michael that the problem is his ideology. There was that guy from a Texas utility some time back who was just a plain out right wing libertarian and who was obnoxiously aggressive about it. He was an ideological nuisance. Boddhi's ideology, which he managed to semi-articulate before he got dumped, seems to be a much murkier brand of pseudo-syndicalism and is not some simple right wing libertarianism, although it has elements of that. I realize that he has said some pretty offensive things in the last week or two, but I also don't think that he has some consistently awful ideology, although it is definitely pretty peculiar. Personally I think the problem has been his manner of posting and his volume of posting. He has been posting too much and with too much flaming, although he seemed to have cooled off on attacking good ol' Lou P. recently, whom I used to go to the mat with regularly until he cleaned up his act some time ago (still haven't met the guy because his sex life is busier than Bill Clinton's, :-)). If boddhi could be induced to post less and adopt a less personally aggressive stance toward list members, I would support his reentry. Let me note that over on pkt we just succeeded in getting rid of someone who was a definite list-destroying troll pest, the inimitable Hyman Blumenstock, aka "Dr. Food." He was (and still is as he is spamming various of us privately, including michael p.) a hyman one-note (FOOD!!!) who simply went off the deep end. I can see why his example might have led michael to dump boddhi, who was beginning to exhibit some of the same symptoms. But, I would suggest that boddhi was a long way from hyman in various ways, and if he could be induced to post less and less personalistically, he might be salvageable. Of course the other danger is what has happened to marxism-international, once the best of the Spoons marxism lists. Adolfo Olaechea has been made a comoderator with Louis Godena and almost everybody other than them (and maybe Carrol Cox) with any intelligence has either quit or been purged. It is now prima facie evidence that one is an "imperialist agent" if one criticizes Stalin on that list. BTW, I think that although there has been more lately on both lbo-talk and pkt, there has been discussion of the Asian and other global economic crises on this list. Certainly I would welcome more and would participate. BTW, I shall shortly send a longish message on what is a followup to threads on both pkt and lbo-talk, on chaoplexity and institutions, with a few global econ twists, :-). Barkley Rosser -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:824] WB endorses IMF on Thailand
For those dreaming of good cop (Stiglitz) pissing on bad cop (Camdessus), here's some evidence of a change in the wind: World Bank report, 3/11/98: Thailand: Recent Economic Developments CONTENT: The stabilization measures introduced in Thailand since the floating of the Baht and subsequent adoption of an adjustment program under an IMF Standy-By Agreement are beginning to show results. (8 pages)
[PEN-L:820] Re: re: adeau Bhoddi?
On 12 Aug 98 at 21:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Louis P. just responded in the general debate "The > Canadian Government just signed a compromised treaty with a tiny > Indian tribe and the ramifications are turning British Columbia into > a maelstrom." Now as someone (from BC) who has followed the > history of this negotiation for some time, I would like to > know what "compromised' treaty means (is this some anti-native > appelation?), why Louis thinks that making a treaty with > a "tiny" (they occupy most of the area) is somehow demeaning > to the indians, and that the opposition from the "liberal" > party which represents the forestry and mining interests > constitutes turning BC into a political "maelstrom". None > of my relatives who (mostly) all live there have failed > to tell me about this political maelstrom. Come on Louis, > lighten up! > John Craven, on the other hand, tells us, "iff you are for > markets, you are not anticapitalis." Give us a break. Barkely > and I who have studied China, Slovenia, etc. can ( I think) make > the argument that the market is not cotermwith anything but > capitalism. I would argue that there is such a thing as a > "socialist market". If that is not acceptable on this list > then mayby Me, Barkley, and Bhoddi should be banished to to the > hot fires of beaurocratic/administrative trading exchanges. > > Paul Phillips, > Economics, > University of Manitoba > Response: I guess I would have to ask first of all what Slovenia has to do with socialism. Secondly, what has been happening in China with the progressive widening and deepening of markets and market-based relations? Has there been a widening and deepening of socialist relations and consciousness? Is China looking more or less like the US and capitalist nations? Has the working class increased or decreased representation in State power? Has there been more or less commodification of various aspects of life? I think it must be looked at dialectically and over time. The point was that markets are not mere machines or mechanisms for price determination, resource allocation, rationing or information (and a technical and better alternative to shadow or administered pricing and plan-determined resource allocation ) but are central institutions that also embody class relations, imperatives for commodification, values, ideas, traditions etc that are antithetical to socialism--if you define socialism as dictatorship of the proletariat (not over or for the proletariat) and a transitional formation dedicated to uprooting the weeds of capitalism (ideas, values, institutions, power structures and relations etc); if you have a different definition of socialism, then of course markets and socialism can co-exist. On the issue of the Nis'ga Treaty, I can only say that I am in Vancouver B.C. almost every weekend and am in daily contact with Indians there from various bands and that within the Nis'ga and among other Nations with Treaties pending, there are indeed some serious and powerful voices that regard the Treaty as far less than is just, desirable or necessary to ensure the survival of the Nation. That's all I can say. If you are not subscribing, try [EMAIL PROTECTED] and check out the discussion on the Treaty and the Treaty Commission. take care, Jim Craven James Craven Dept. of Economics,Clark College 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663 [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tel: (360) 992-2283 Fax: 992-2863 -- "The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and property shall never be taken from them without their consent." (Northwest Ordinance, 1787, Ratified by Congress 1789) "...but this letter being unofficial and private, I may with safety give you a more extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you may better comprehend the parts dealt to to you in detail through the official channel, and observing the system of which they make a part, conduct yourself in unison with it in cases where you are obliged to act without instruction...When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange for necessaries for their farms and families. To promote this disposition to exchange lands, which they have to spare and we want, for necessaries which we have to spare and they want,we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and influencial individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by cession of lands...In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the
[PEN-L:819] re: adeau Bhoddi?
Louis P. just responded in the general debate "The Canadian Government just signed a compromised treaty with a tiny Indian tribe and the ramifications are turning British Columbia into a maelstrom." Now as someone (from BC) who has followed the history of this negotiation for some time, I would like to know what "compromised' treaty means (is this some anti-native appelation?), why Louis thinks that making a treaty with a "tiny" (they occupy most of the area) is somehow demeaning to the indians, and that the opposition from the "liberal" party which represents the forestry and mining interests constitutes turning BC into a political "maelstrom". None of my relatives who (mostly) all live there have failed to tell me about this political maelstrom. Come on Louis, lighten up! John Craven, on the other hand, tells us, "iff you are for markets, you are not anticapitalis." Give us a break. Barkely and I who have studied China, Slovenia, etc. can ( I think) make the argument that the market is not cotermwith anything but capitalism. I would argue that there is such a thing as a "socialist market". If that is not acceptable on this list then mayby Me, Barkley, and Bhoddi should be banished to to the hot fires of beaurocratic/administrative trading exchanges. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:815] New Information World Order Project
I would like to follow through with the project -- although I do not envision turning the list into a Phil O'hara project, as Jim Devine suggested. Suppose we begin with a few broad categories: Privatization of communal information (Neem tree, potatoe); copyrights and corporate control; the role of access to information resources in shaping classes; alternative such as Linux, Apache, Perl; globalization and intellectual property rights. What am I leaving off? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:814] wrapping it up
I was impressed by the level of discussion regarding l'affaire Bhodi. I might have also mentioned I was offended e personally a few weeks ago while pen-l was having technical problems. Mostly, when you have problems with pen-l, I try to do what I can to fix it within the limits of my ability. Most people are very appreciative, but our friend berated me for giving him bad service. If I had the Hitler power (that Ajit suggests that I have) or the Hitler personality, I would have probably acted immediately. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:809] Re: Copyrights and 'taters
On Thu, 06 Aug 1998 23:52:30 -0400 Thomas Kruse said: > >There's a similar instance here of some gringa patenting a strain of potato >from the high platueas. I'll see if I can drum up the info. > There was a similar incident with a gringo trying to patent some medicinal plant that was sacred to some tribes in the Amazon. As a result of this, I believe it was COICA declared this gringo as "persona non grata" and said that they could not guarantee his physical safety when he travelled through their territory (Ecuadoran Amazon). This led to a series of incidents including withdrawal of funding for some projects in this area by the once progressive Inter-American Foundation and the silencing of the Foundation's field staff by its highly reactionary management. I believe there is quite a bit on this matter, including some nasty intimidatory letters written by one of the Foundation's reactionary lawyers on the COICA and possibly on the LASA (Latin American Studied Association) web pages. If interested, I could probably get someone who was involved more closely in this whole affair to write something, though they might have to use a pseudonym for fear of losing their job. Alan
[PEN-L:808] Re: Re: chaoplexity and institutions
On Wed, August 12, 1998 at 17:19:38 (-0400) Rosser Jr, John Barkley writes: >... > My statements were general and irrespective of who is >stable and who isn't and did not imply any necessary >relation that stability of exploiter equals instability of >exploitee, or vice versa. Yes, I realize that, but don't you think that models should be able to express this form? It seems that this form of sloughing off "instability" onto the mass of society is a very important and much more frequent phenomenon than any sort of aggregate instability. I just wondered if your (or anyone's) chaoplex models captured such a notion... Bill
[PEN-L:805] chaoplexity and institutions
This is being sent to three lists, although it is an immediate followup to a thread on pkt (longish). Dave Colander asked if institutions can limit the instabilities associated with chaos and complexity (chaoplexity), a la the famous "corridor of stability" idea of Axel Leijonhufvud. I said maybe, but then said that they may also lead to greater instability. I wish to follow up: 1) The corridor of stability has inherent in it the possibility that by widening the corridor a bit, thus allowing more local volatility, one may gain more boundedness or global stability of the system. This has a counterpart in ecological theory in the alleged tradeoff between "stability" and "resilience" enunciated by C.S. Holling. A simple example is the oak tree (stable but not resilient in a hurricane) versus the palm tree (unstable but resilient in a hurricane) or elephant populations (stable but unresilient) versus sheep blowfly populations (potentially chaotic but resilient). There are many chaotic systems that are actually very resilient, if locally unstable, including our brains (when we aren't bonkers). 2) An example of an institution trying to increase stability but reducing resilience might be the the government bank insurers, or in Japan and "non-opaque" banking systems the central authorities more generally. In the US this was posed as the "moral hazard" problem of FSLIC in that when banks or lenders or borrowers or all of them felt safe because of the government agency covering for them they engaged in reckless behavior that eventually brought the system to a much greater degree of crisis, especially as we are now seeing in East Asia where lots of lenders and borrowers counted on their governments to maintain pegs to the US dollar. Similar such complacency is what we see at the late stages of speculative asset bubbles a la the Ponzi analysis of Minsky. 2) Nevertheless the fear of actual financial market chaos is currently playing a role in some major institution changing going on right now, in particular European monetary unification. One of the most prominent advocates for the EMU all along has been Paul de Grauwe of the University of Leuven in Belgium. I gave a talk there in 1990 on chaos theory right after he and Kris Vansanten at CEPR in London had published a paper showing how chaotic dynamics could easily arise in forex markets. This was followed up by a book by de Grauwe, Embrechts, and Wachter in 1993 on Chaotic Dynamics in Foreign Exchange Markets that developed the argument much further and has been much cited. I personally am convinced that de Grauwe sees the EMU as the way to KILL THE CHAOS in the European forex markets. 4) Finally I note that in the kinds of models of financial markets where there is a struggle between "fundamentalists" and "chartists" or something like that (which is what is going on the de Grauwe et al models) much more complex dynamics are possible than mere chaos, e.g. fractal basin boundaries (ek!) and some other pretty hairy stuff. A paper giving the full array of this stuff is William A. Brock and Cars H. Hommes, "A Rational Route to Randomness," _Econometrica_, 1997, vol. 65, pp. 1059-1095. Barkley Rosser Professor of Economics James Madison University Harrisonburg, VA 22807 USA -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:803] Re: re Bhoddi vs Proyect
On 12 Aug 98 at 16:42, Ricardo Duchesne wrote: > From: "James Michael Craven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:31:13 PST8PDT > Subject: [PEN-L:795] Re: Re: Re: Re: re Bhoddi vs Proyect > Priority: normal > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > So the native Canadians get the land and do what? Are they going > > > to open casinos? Are they going to log, farm or mine? All those are > > > pretty depressed industries right now. Where are they going to get the > > > money to develop the land? Do you think the people they get the money > > > from are going to respect indigenous culture? > > > > > > > > > I think the last time I was playing the slots up in Connecticut, I > > > might have heard one of the waitresses wearing a bucksking minidress > > > saying something like "Welcome to the Mohegan Sun, victory for the working > > > class", but I'm not sure. > > > > > Craven: > > This is not debate or some exhancge of differing opinion. This is > virulent racism and I have seen it over and over. For Indians, the > above is quite analagous to talk about "money-grubbing Hebes" or > "Coloreds who need to get over slavery and get with the program" or > "bitches who are only good for the bedroom and the kitchen",; it is > ugly, has no place on pen-l. > > > R: I may be missing something, but this is not racism at all. On the > contrary, Bhoddi is suggesting that Indians are humans afterall - in > a world dominated by capital they may very well act just like the white > humans you seem to dislike so much. > Response to this: Please cite one statement by me that indicates a "dislike for white humans" you have no idea about my background, mens rea or whatever. This is the sort of invective that takes us no where. My anti-racism, for your information, expressed often in Indian Country, includes attacks against Indians which label the problem as "The White Man". My attacks also include attacks against sell-out Indians. And the suggestion that Indians are human after all need not be made a point of except by someone harboring crypto feelings that perhaps they are not. Like the patronizing liberal: "some of my best firiends are..." > I am not interested in debating libertarians or right-wingers; how do > you debate tautologies or unsupported assertions, aummarily and > forcefully asserted as if the degree and force of assertion somehow > legitimates and gives evidence for that which is being asserted. I do > not lurk on or even visit libertarian/right-wiunger sites much less > debate or engage in provocations on them. When confronted with > right-wingers, especially those promoting racism, sexism, > imperialism, fascism etc with a smile or "polite" rhetoric and signed > off with "peace", I do respond and yes, sometimes not to my credit, > with some ugly invective (I am a work in progress) > > > R: Bhoddi has stated quite clearly that he is for markets and not > capitalism, which he defines, just as Braudel, as > monopoly control over markets. Do you propose monopoly > controls over what constitutes the "left"? Response: This is incomprehensible. How are you for markets and not capitalism? What exactly are based on and do they lead to--commodification, widening wealth/income inequalities, expanded reproduction of capitalist property/power/class relations, increasing socialization of costs of production/distribution coupled with increasing concentration of privatized returns of production/distribution etc. Markets much much are more than "potentially value-free" mechanisms for price determination, resource allocation, rationing and information. But I don't mind it if that is what people want to argue; just don't insert racist caricatures and stereotypes about the "primitives" etc you obviously know nothing about. > But let's face it, there are some who just get some kind of charge > out of sidetracking substantive debates and exchanges, muddying the > waters, promoting factionalism and splits and frankly using "freedom > of speech" in the particular to promote the kinds of societies in > which there will be no freedom of speech in general. > > R: Factionalism is inherent to the very politics that you and Proyect > advocate, for it is based on the notion that there are some > principles beyond dispute, which you know, so that any deviation > from those principles muct be seen > as factional. I mean do you think there are no factions within the > Indians themselves? Response: If you have read what I write (using my real name) I state this is "believe" to be true; indeed so many positions I take today were not my positions twenty years ago or even more recently. What do I "know"; that is a deep question involving some epistemology and some other notions--also in progress for me. As for factionalism,
[PEN-L:799] Re: Re: Reply to Ajit and Ricardo
Ajit Sinha: >I have been on pen-l for about eight years, and have been a >participant on a few marathon debates as well (only last Saturday I >had a dinner with an old pen-ler Mike Meropole with Geoff Harcourt >and some others, and we shared some old pen-l memories, it was >very pleasant). Now, whether I had anything "interesting" to say or >not depends upon what one considers "interesting". It is highly >subjective. Okay, let me try this one more time. According to the NY Times, many people in the Thai countryside are reduced to eating bark. The Russian stock market lost 10% of its value yesterday and unpaid workers are threatening a general strike. The Canadian government just signed a compromised treaty with a tiny Indian tribe and the ramifications are turning British Columbia into a maelstrom. In your own country a similar treaty with the aborigines has produced a crisis that is literally bringing fascists out of the woodwork. Meanwhile, the only discussion I have heard from you on PEN-L has been about epistemology. I am frankly getting sick and tired of people like you complaining about how I am dragging down PEN-L. The plain truth is that the blatant disregard for social and economic reality that prevails among some PEN-L'ers is shameful. This list has some of the most brilliant minds in left economics in the world, but for some reason they very rarely post. The next five years or so are going to be very _interesting_ and PEN-L can provide a powerful forum for analyzing world affairs. It will take some time adjusting to the outside world, but it will be valuable all in all. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:798] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re Bhoddi vs Proyect
Jim Craven wrote: (I am a work in progress) ___ So are others. Why deny them this simple humanity? I think Bodhi did raise some issues which requires us to think about the relationship of 'pre-modern' world coexisting (barely though) with 'modern/postmodern' world. Usually I find that most of the new participants come out blazing but slowly adjust to the culture once the established culture shows some tolerance and gives due credit to the participants. Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:793] Reply to Ajit and Ricardo
Ricardo, people do not "venerate" me. They appreciate what I write. Any fool can see that perasonally I am a nasty piece of work. Ajit, I am not making a "cult" of Michael Perelman. You have to have some charisma to become a cult figure and Michael is one of the most self-effacing and laid-back--to the point of blandness --individuals I have ever met. My admiration for Perelman is based on what he writes. For my money, he is one of the outstanding Marxist scholars in the world today. His new book on primitive accumulation is not only fantastic research, it is also a compelling read. I found myself turning the pages as if it were a thriller novel. The truth is that PEN-L is probably still searching for some kind of identity. When Doug started his list, a lot of the discussion that was typically going on in PEN-L migrated to LBO-Talk. My list has tended to draw participation from Spoons refugees. When Michael was taking stock of PEN-L, he raised the possibility that it would function more like a mailing-list for professionals. You and Levy (what happened to him? run off with the squatters?) bemoaned the "Proyectization" of the list. At that point most of the things I had to say were being said on my own list and PEN-L went through a remarkable period of silence. So where are the interesting things that professionals like yourself have to say? The other day Michael raised the question of why there was no discussion of the world economic crisis on PEN-L. There are literally hundreds of professional economists on PEN-L who research these matters for a living. Not a word was heard. Don't blame this silence on me. It is instead a symptom of some other malaise in the academic world. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:792] Re: Re: Sociologists and others who lie
On 12 Aug 98 at 12:36, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote: > At 11:47 AM 8/11/98 +, Jim Craven wrote: > >Thanks to Louis for publishing that piece. It reminds me of > >journalists who scream "But what about the people's right to know?" > >when someone being questioned refuses to answer. Translation: "But > >what about MY need for a 'scoop' so that I can get more exposure, so > >that I can get name recognition and become a Dan Rather so that I can get > preferred access > > -- snip --- > > I reply (WS): It is quite obvious that producers of knowledge have personal > interests in the commodity their produce, as do the producres of, say, > ic--cream. Noone would hold it against Ben & Jerry if they failed to > disclose their political views to farmers from whom they buy milk, and who > migh find such views objectionable. So why there is so much fuss about the > producers of intellectual commodity? > > Knowledge is a commodity as everything else. It is a manufactured product > that uses data only as raw material. The producer has no specific > obligation to the source of the raw material, other than those specified by > law or a contract. > > Specifically, public behavior is, by definition, public rather than > proprietary. If I observe a cop or a fisherman doing what they would be > ordinarily doing in their everyday life - they have no proprietary rights > whatsover to how that behavior appears to the outside observers. Since any > observation is by its very nature selective (i.e. I perceive ceratin > features as more salient than others and ignore still other features > altogether) - there is no deception on my part whatsover, if I use my > observations of others to write a story I like. > > Those others may or may not like the story I wrote, just like the dairy > farmers may or may not like Ben & Jerry's ice cream. In both cases, the > people who supplied raw material to the manufactured product might complain > about the 'misuse' of that raw material. They have the right to voice > their disappointment. But that does not mean that such disappointment > ought to receive an institutional sanction in the form of professional or > legal restrictions. > > Of course, that would be different if I used deception or false pretenses > to ask people to behave in a certain way or to obtain information that > otherwise would not be given to anyone. Or if I used my authority position > to that end. > > Much of the debate about ethics in sociological/anthroplogical research > originates, in my view, in two misperceptions. First is the misguided > opinion (aka 'political correctness') that every aspect of human > interaction can be regulated by some form of formal authority and formal > rules of behavior in order to prevent potential inequalities or abuses. > Second is the belief that people own the cultural impressions they give > off. Both beliefs are, in my view, dove-tailing with the capitalist drive > toward formalization and marketisation of every form of human interaction. > > Oftentimes, the 'ethics' is used as a disguised ad hominem attack in lieu > of ad rem arguments. > > Best regards, > > Wojtek Sokolowski Response: If I may mix metaphors and analogies, suppose Ben and Jerry were covertly giving funds to a lobby intent on destroying family farms, promoting agribusiness or even intent on vertically integrating and acquiring their input suppliers for 10 cents on the dollar. Would their "political views" be relevant for the farmers to know then? I understand your point, but knowledge is and is not "just like any other commodity". I agree, nothing wrong in wanting to provide a living for your yourself and/or family--we are all trying to do that and in the course of doing so, we all make compromises. But the "mainstream" newsbusiness involves more than simple compromises; it involves fundamental "Faustian Bargauns". What would happen if some reporter dared to ask at a Presidential News Conference dealing with honoring veterans of WWII about Operation Paperclip in which the OSS and later CIA recruited wanted nazi war criminals, aided their escape from the hangman, brought them to the U.S., placed them in high-level fronts like the Assembly of Captured European Nations (ACEN) and assisted their rise into U.S. politics, intelligence circles and society in general? Do you think that reporter would work again? I doubt it. Even if the editor agreed, that reporter would never be called upon again which means no access, which means no "scoops", which means no exposure and name recognition or further access for the reporter or no "ratings", advertising revenues, profits or market share for the news/profit maximizing entity--if we aggregated and replicated the effects flowing from the principle. Just as in the Residential Schools, no written "code of conduct" for surivival, "success", promotion is required in the media and academia. The "perrmissible" paradigms, topics, parame
[PEN-L:789] Re: Re: Re: Your boat, gently down the stream...
Jim Devine writes, apropros his recent exchange with Ajit, >1) I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Hegelian. Rather, I am an eclectic >Marxist in search of a synthesis. I see nothing wrong with learning from >Hegelian Marxists along with other Marxists... >4) If "pomotista" is the most pejorative word I've used, I'm a total angel. >But I must admit to calling Gil Skillman a name or two that go much beyond >that in terms of obnoxiousness. Sorry, Gil. Yeah, Jim once called me an "acolyte of John Roemer." Geez, how low can you go. I appreciate Jim's bringing this up, and thank him for the apology which is certainly accepted, but I'm more interested in the parallels raised by his preceding comments. In our earlier exchange that prompted his "acolyte" comment (among other, more colorful labels)--the "Chapter 5" debate of distant PEN-L memory--I would have described my efforts at the time in terms equivalent to Jim's above: as those of someone who is "not now, nor... ever been, a [Roemerian]", but an "eclectic" "in search of a synthesis" in Marxian political economy. Continuing the parallel, I might have protested at the time that "I see nothing wrong with learning from [rational choice] Marxists along with other Marxists" In light of these parallels I endorse Jim's subsequent practice for general use on PEN-L, to avoid pointless flaming: > Since then, I try to give >whomever I'm arguing a chance to deny that they believe in what I perceive >them to think. After, all I know that miscommunication is possible so I >might be misinterpreting them. The scope for miscommunication in this forum is particularly high, given the absence of visual cues and the intensity with which many of the views discussed here are held. No complaints, by the way, about the substance of that early debate, aside from the lower than necessary signal to noise ratio. I learned a tremendous amount in particular from the exchanges with Mike Lebowitz and Jim (in addition to an excellent chance to discuss many points at length with Mike up in Vancouver), and was prompted by their posts to do considerable, and rewarding, detective work on the issues raised in Marx's unpublished writing on political economy. (I've laid out the position that emerged from that debate in two subsequent articles, to be joined by a third when I reply to Paresh Chattopadhyay's response in the latest issue of Science&Society.) Also by the way, I agree with Jim's assessment of Herb Gintis's departure from the list, with the caveat that I don't know if it had to do with the "point in Herb's life" so much as the then-current stage of his thinking in political economy. Contrary to Ajit's claim, Jim certainly didn't drive him off. >3) I wish I could take credit for driving Herb Gintis from pen-l, but I >cannot. He drove himself from our fold -- as far as I can tell. He seemed >to be at a point in his life where he was responded very poorly to even the >least disagreement and was obviously quite vociferous in putting forth his >point of view, which (by the way) differed significantly from that of the >vast majority of pen-l members in terms of political and economic >assumptions. Gil Skillman
[PEN-L:788] The Irresponsibility of Pure Ideological Thinking (fwd)
>Yesterday a citizen of the parallel world called psn-l posted the following, which has, I feel, more than a tad of applicability here and now. A number of words (and 1 phrase) were framed thus: o-circumflexo-umlaut, the residue of some extraterrestrial non-ascii system, and I substituted quotes in each case. If in doubt, as I am to some extent, you can ask Prof White what sort of accentuation he really intended. valis Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:35:33 -0500 From: William White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: The Irresponsibility of Pure Ideological Thinking Let me take the dialogue in a different but related direction. First, we are intellectual, academic sociologists. I believe we have a better than average understanding of the forces that make up societies and the individuals that live under them. Yet, it continues to amaze me that many of us can be purely ideological in our thinking without considering the practical difficulties of setting up what I consider a progressive, humanistic, non-capitalist based society. Though I see a progressive society as my own personal vision of a better society, I cannot disregard the difficulty in attaining it. With that said, let me ask this first question. How do we build the "better society" without capitalism? This is a real concern for me since I truly believe that the economic forces are in place that will challenge capitalism as we know it today. The ripple effects of the Asian collapse will, in my opinion, lead to a much deeper gouge in the western capitalist world than mere "recessions." Are we truly expecting, in an ideological sense, the "masses" to rise up against the capitalists, given that working people will experience the economic slump more severely than the upper .5% of society? If the organizations are not in place to take advantage of this situation, let alone not developed enough to express publicly an ideology of working class solidarity that is "marketable," then I fear we will experience an incredible chaos of social proportions perhaps similar to fascist Germany. Second question: in the transition from socialism (if we even make it that far) to communism, must we not include capitalist incentive programs to "reward" productivity among workers, if not merely for the mental "transitional" health of the workers who only know the world from a capitalistic perspective? How will workers "work" for the common or community good if they have no knowledge (or trust) of how this system "theoretically" can work to their benefit? Also, unless there is a wholesale global elimination of capitalism as an economic structure, how will a socialist/communist society economically interact with capitalist societies? In what I consider the "best" of the socialist states to emerge (and remain somewhat intact), even Cuba experienced this transitional problem with its working class. The Cuban problem has become even more complex and compromised after the fall of the Soviet Union. Third question: consider what social psychological and conflict sociological theories (among others) add to this hypothetical dilemma. How do you rid a "new" society, across all social strata, of the inherent self-interests that individuals and groups possess in any given society? First, how do you rid powerful groups (with access to capital, or access to bureaucratic power, or access to military power) of their power, and second, how do you safeguard against new groups who will gain power from monopolizing it, given inherent self-interests in society? I know that I am making the strong assumption here that self-interest is a powerful force, but given the centuries of capitalist ideology and practice in the world, it is difficult for me to envision an easy transition from individual self-interest to a shared community perspective. These are troubling questions for me, for I do want to see a more progressive society emerge at some point in time. I think we can ideologically "wish" for a better society to come forth, but it will not magically appear because the workers, overnight, see they have a common interest in rising up against the ruling class. Even if they see they have common interests, their own self-interests may only create a new ruling class based on capitalist assumptions. If we are truly serious about changing society, and not just engaging in philosophical debates on the inherent injustices within capitalist social systems, then we must acknowledge the political, sociological, psychological, and economic mechanisms that exist to maintain the current social system. I believe that capitalist incentive programs for workers will still need to be a part of the transitional strategy towards a socialist world. Worker a
[PEN-L:784] Electronic eavesdropping
[These are the opening paragraphs of a long article that appears on the Village Voice website at www.villagevoice.com] Listening In The U.S.-led echelon spy network is eavesdropping on the whole world by Jason Vest Suppose, this past weekend, you sent an e-mail to a friend overseas. There's a reasonable possibility your communication was intercepted by a global surveillance system--especially if you happened to discuss last week's bombings in East Africa. Or suppose you're stuck in traffic and in your road rage you whip out a cell phone and angrily call your congressman's office in Washington. There's a chance the government is listening in on that conversation, too (but only for the purposes of "training" new eavesdroppers). Or suppose you're on a foreign trip--vacation, business, relief work--and you send off a fax to some folks that Washington doesn't view too keenly. Your message could be taken down and analyzed by the very same system. That system is called ECHELON and it is controlled by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). In America, it is the Intelligence Network That Dare Not Be Acknowledged. Questions about it at Defense Department briefings are deftly deflected. Requests for information about it under the Freedom of Information Act linger in bureaucratic limbo. Researchers who mention possible uses of it in the presence of intelligence officials are castigated. Members of Congress--theoretically, the people's representatives who provide oversight of the intelligence community--betray no interest in helping anyone find out anything about it. Media outlets (save the award-winning but low-circulation Covert Action Quarterly) ignore it. In the official view of the U.S. Government, it doesn't exist... Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:783] Adeiu Bhoddi reconsidered?
The off line communication concerning Bhoddi was altogether negative. The comments today were not. My decision was not based on his behavior, but rather his incessant insistence that markets work well. I was hoping that we would be able to make serious progress in the new world order project. Instead, the whole list was revolving around answering Bhoddi's posts. I thought that the result was destructive. If the others who have spoken up feel the way they do, I will put the decsion aside. Thanks for the input. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:778] Re: adieu bhoddi?
G'day Michael, Seeing as how you said we could ... Just a couple of words on Boddhi's proposed 'resignation'. I don't think he is disrupting the list, I often agree with him, and, when I feel I might not, one of this very clever bunch tells me why I shouldn't. Which has gotta be good, I reckon. The bloke is clever, articulate, quite brave, and often funny. He is no more arrogant or short-tempered than some others here, and while I disagree with his implicit position on eg. preference formation, he also does the likes of me the power of good by occasionally inviting a little wander off the main roads each list tends to fashion for itself. That's all you'll get from me. And thanks for telling us about it. Cheers, Rob.
[PEN-L:732] Re: Saving Private Ryan
You can be an ornery cuss, Louis, but you write killer essays. This beauty wants bloody framing! Cheers, Rob.
