[PEN-L:1620] Re: Re: RE: Dean Acheson
> From: Brad De Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Note, however--as the quotation above shows--that the fact that the U.S. is > a *democracy* placed very substantial limits on the foreign policy elite's > ability to support Ian Smith... > Brad DeLong Sigh. The leading edge of US multinational capital -- invested for decades in extremely profitable Rhodesian racism, and working hand-in-glove with big SA capital -- did in fact support Smith through aggressive sanctions-busting activity (tobacco, plus lots of US exports to Rhodesia), and VA's senator Harry Byrd passed special laws to exempt Rhodesian chrome from sanctions. Was democracy on holiday for those regular votes on Rhodesian chrome? But true, Brad, some geopolitical strategists -- like Macmillan who on behalf of British neo-colonial ambition, smelled the winds of change in the early 1960s, and put in place the likes of Amin and Mobuto -- had the longer view, and were rewarded by virtue of the general shift of power relations in favour of int'l capital by the time Zimbabwe won independence in 1980. Emblematic was this speech in 1982 by Finance Minister Bernard Chidzero (runner-up for UN Sec-Gen in 1991, just after serving as president of Unctad and head of the IMF-WB Development Committee during the late 1980s), to an investment conference in New York, whose attendees included virtually all the blue chips: Does the government of Zimbabwe have something up its sleeves? We are socialists, are we encouraging you to come so that tomorrow we can grab you? If that's what you think, I can assure you that we have nothing up our sleeves, we are simple pragmatists... Let us not fight the battle on ideological grounds. Life is more serious than to be controlled by ideologies. Life is very down-to-earth, let us just look at the realities of life. And I believe that good businessmen enter into riskier areas than areas where we talk about ideologies without doing much about it. The cowering presentation by the normally urbane Chidzero was immediately followed by the more calculated view of Chester Crocker: The US believes that Zimbabwe can become a showcase of economic growth and political moderation in southern Africa, a region of substantial strategic importance to us. That belief rests on facts, not illusions... As part of the Reagan administration's worldwide policy of support for economic development, we have embarked upon several new approaches in our assistance programs. We believe these will strengthen the role of indigenous private sectors and facilitate US private investment to stimulate developing economies. Providing the icing on the cake, the head of the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries quite prophetically concurred with the view expressed by Dr. Chidzero that it is time to put away "isms" and that over time, more emphasis is likely to be placed on private enterprise development than on the public sector... What is needed in Zimbabwe is export-led growth, and over time, the spectrum of opinion between far right and far left will converge, causing "isms" to disappear. (Cites from American Bar Association conference proceedings.) This was the prelude to the massive, absolutely massive destruction caused by the Washington Consensus in Zimbabwe this decade. So, thanks much for your US democracy, Brad. As in the case of Vietnam, the Acheson perspective may have surrendered to short-term niceties but multinational capital has fucked us over royally in the longer-run.
[PEN-L:1633] Bombing of Iraq
On the CBC website: http//newsworld.cbc.ca under the first story detailing the strikes on Iraq by Britain and the US, there is a tally that asks whether you think the attacks were justified. You can vote, and are told how many agree or disagree. I said they were not justified and 58% agree with that. I was rather surprised. Go vote if you want. It doesn't ask your citizenship! Cheers, Ken Hanly P.S. There is a short "in depth" history of the conflict between the US and Iraq. It is not perfect but is reasonably objective and informative.
[PEN-L:1632] RE: Re: Iraq: some deja ecoute'
> > Don't ordinarily listen to Saturday Night Live, but I switch to > it when the Howard Stern show is running a commercial. . . . SNL was pretty good this past weekend. Quite often these days it is awful. But they had some great impressions of Tom Brokaw, Barney Frank, and other impeachment characters. But what I'm really curious about, partly in sympathy, is how you justify watching Howard Stern (or listening to Imus), but it drives you nuts when you think one of the many insufficiently among us misuses Marx. I finally resolved to give up Imus the other day when he started a new pro-impeachment diatribe. I haven't watched Stern yet but it's always possible. mbs
[PEN-L:1606] SAVE OUR PLANET. STATUS
> The rapid development toward the political / environmental > catastrophies has reached the stage where only those aiming directly > at terminating the transnational corporations are entitled to call > themselves progressive. 1. Karnataka State Farmers Association, KRRS The Cremation Monsanto action of KRRS in South India is a historical big leap forward. It constitutes the decisive transistory step from the epoch of resolutions and defensive protest demonstrations to the offensive strategy for SOLVING the problems, to the only one complying strategy, TERMINATION of the corporations. Numerous protests and actions against Monsanto are taking place all over the world. By expressly applying the appropriate superior strategy and methods, http://home4.inet.tele.dk/peoples/, only KRRS however have lifted this case to the necessary higher level aimed directly at the complete solution of the problem. Monsanto is a special case. Dealing with the corporations in general requires a globally co-ordinating body. According to the Internet, at least the following other broadly and globally aiming potential TERMINATORS exist. As the list undoubtedly is incomplete, others are invited to supplement it on the same premises. 2. Peoples Global Action, PGA KRRS's Cremation Monsanto action is carried out in the name of PGA . Hereby PGA has left the defensive protest action level and in this case adopted the necessary offensive strategy. Whether or not the action will succeed, all pertinent factorswill make PGA realize that only a democratically elected, mass - based and globally co-ordinating body thereafter will be able to deal with the other corporations, cf. http://home4.inet.tele.dk/peoples/ 3. The anti - MAI groups around the world should be more than motivated for not being content with temporarily killing or modifying the absurd MAI - monster, but for uprooting the very cause of its existence. 4. Alliance for Democracy `s Take Back America campaign is a remarkable project for mobilizing the broad masses of people in the US. The initiated debate will undoubtedly conclude that only termination of the corporations can solve the problems. 5. The ATTAC association to campaign against the dictatorship of the financial markets seems to build on the right premises, but to aim rather low. A conference to be held next summer is supposed to clarify the objectives. Ole Fjord Larsen, Secr., the formative world parliament P.S. There is a rumour that even CIA is establishing a world parliament ( presumably with a different aim ! ). Can anybody provide information of this exiting project ?
[PEN-L:1630] Monsanto and BST in Canada
The following material is excerpted from the Manitoba Co-operator Oct. 29, 1998 page 9. Author is Alex Binkley "Reports from two expert panels assessing the issues surrounding the registration of recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in Canada won't be completed until the end of November, Health Canada says. The reports from panels of experts in human health and veterinary medicine were originally due at the end of October. THe panels are looking at two reports prepared by departmental scientists on gaps in the data submitted by Monsanto in its application for registration of BST as well as other evidence about the product Menawhile, Dr. Margaret Haydon, a Health Department scientist, has told the Senate agriculture committee that officials from Monsanto Inc. made an offer of between $1 million and $2 million to the department, which she said could only be interpreted as a bribe. She also said that all her files on BST were removed from her locked filing cabinet and are now under the control of one bureaucrat. She needs that person's permission to view the files. When asked about the allegations later, Health Minister Alan Rock said he had heard them all before. Ray Mowling, vice-president of Monsanto Canada Inc. said after the hearing that the company does give money to the department to cover the cost of studies, but denied that it ever tried to bribe the scientists. As well, Dr. Shiv Chopra stated that scientists in the department had been pressured to pass other drugs they condisered to be of questionable safety... The committee asked to see the gap in analysis reports, written earlier this year, after five Health Department scientists revealed its existence. The scientists have launched a formal complaint against the department because it told them they were to remain silent about their concerns over the safety of BST. The scientists declined to testify before the panel until they had letters from Health Canada confirming their careers would not be threatened. The Canadian scientists said that 20 to 30 per cent of test rats fed BST in high doses showed signs of the chemical entering the bloodstream. Some of the rats developed cysts and prostate problems. The findings, the scientists stated, show the need for more studies on the long-term impact of BST use. They also raised questions about the impact of the drug on cows. Cheers, Ken Hanly P.S. The Canadian scientists can use US citizens, and cows, as guinea pigs for a long term study of the effects of BST since it is licenced for use in the US.
[PEN-L:1628] Monsanto and BST
The following material is excerpted from THE WESTERN PRODUCER, Nov. 26, 1998 p. 21. It is listed as from Tampa, Fla. (Special). The headline is: Reporters Sue over axed documentary "Two television reporters sued their former station here, claiming their bosses backed off a story on the dangers of using BST to boost milk production in dairy cattle, after pressure from Monsanto. Steve Wilson and Jane Akre said they were fired by Fox WTVT when they refused to make changes the station wanted to their story and threated to report the station to the Federal Communications Commission. The reporters' original report, which station executives refused to air, accused Florida supermarkets of reneging on promises not to sell milk from BST treated cows. In addition, the reporters said they found data linking BST to cancer and pointed out that BST is banned in Europe over health concerns. The growth hormone is also banned for use in dairy cattle in Canada. Although WTVT planned to air the investigative reports in a four-part series, the station pulled the reports the night before they were to air, after a Monsanto attorney wrote to Fox's corporate news officials, according to the suit... A sample from the original report: "The are highly suggestive, if not persuasive, lines of evidence showing that human consumption of milk from cows poses unnecessary risks of breast and colon cancer". said Dr. Samuel Epstein with the University of Illinois" In a related article a British expert said: That any authority could contemplate licensing BST is beyond my understanding, with such incomplete science. (John Verrall, British Food Ethics Council.) Cheers, Ken Hanly P.S. I will post stuff about the Canadian situation later. What happened here is almost beyond belief, but at least BST is still banned here.
[PEN-L:1631] More intellectual property goings on
I just saw where Microsoft is talking about working with Elsivier, who owns Nexis/Lexis as well as charges outlandish prices for academic journals. Funny that we have to pay so much for the academic economics journals that tell us that price equals marginal costs. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1623] re Pray for impeachment
December 16, 1998 U.S. and British Forces in Persian Gulf Attack Iraqi Targets By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS .US. and British Forces in the Persian Gulf launched strikes against targets in Iraq on Wednesday after that nation's latest defiance of international arms inspectors. The amount of damage and the number of casualties caused by the attacks, which came after a tense day in which U.S. forces were kept "in execute mode" for several hours, were not immediately known. But in speaking to reporters shortly before 5:15 PM, EST, White House Spokesman Joe Lockhart called the attack a "substantial military strike." He said the move against Iraq came because of that nation's continued failure to allow U.N. inspectors to investigate possible weapons sites. REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC HOUSE LEADERS HAD ON WEDNESDAY DISCUSSED A PLAN TO POSTPONE THIS WEEK'S VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT IF PRESIDENT CLINTON ORDERED AIRSTRIKES AGAINST IRAQ. IT WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY KNOWN KNOWN IF THAT VOTE WOULD BE POSTPONED. Incoming speaker Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., met with House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt to weigh a contingency plan in case of a military strike, congressional officials said. One official said a delay was likely. The two leaders seemed in general agreement on the need for a postponement in the event of military action, but each wanted to discuss it with members of their own parties later in the day, the officials said. Some rank-and-file Republicans made clear they oppose such a delay. ``They agreed that we had to develop a contingency plan to delay the vote in the event of a military strike,'' said Erik Smith, Gephardt's spokesman. Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Livingston, said no final decision had been made. ``We'll continue on our course,'' he said. ``And we'll deal with whatever comes up.'' There was no word on how prolonged a postponement was under consideration. Impeachment had been scheduled for floor debate in the House on Thursday, with votes on four articles of impeachment likely on Friday. The four articles allege perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power in connection with the president's effort to conceal his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. President Clinton, just back from the Middle East, began the day with his national security team at 7:30 a.m. EST in the White House Situation Room. They met there for about 45 minutes and were expected to confer throughout the day, one adviser said. At the Pentagon, top military officials put the finishing touches on attack plans put on hold a month ago. "All the forces are in place. Every indication is that we'll likely come today or tomorrow," a senior military official said. But the official cautioned that despite all the last-minute preparations, it was up to Clinton to give the final go-ahead for a launch. At the State Department, spokesman James Rubin told reporters: "Stay tuned." He read a long list of U.S. grievances with Iraq, that included barring inspection of the office of the ruling Baath party, stripping suspect sites of files and furniture and buzzing a U.N. helicopter. "This is a grave matter," Rubin said. U.S. force strength in the Gulf was unusually high as Navy aircraft carriers and B-52 bombers overlapped with forces rotating out of the region. "We're in an execute mode," said senior defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "If somebody dials 911, we're ready to go." The White House huddle followed on Clinton's telephone call to British Prime Minister Tony Blair Tuesday night to review the standoff with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as it approaches yet another boiling point. Clinton called Blair again Wednesday, after the White House meeting, an administration official said. Britain has stood alongside the United States in threatening to attack Araq and its forces were to have joined with American units in the strike that was called off in mid-November. France and Russia had opposed action in November. Clinton and his national security team consulted with Congress about the Iraqi situation, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright telephoned the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Russia and other cou
[PEN-L:1622] Re: Iraq: some deja ecoute'
Valis: >And why do I even bring this up? Because I still listen to NPR, Don't ordinarily listen to Saturday Night Live, but I switch to it when the Howard Stern show is running a commercial. Did folks catch the hilarious sendup of NPR? They had 2 women discussing their Christmas activities in that smarmy, self-satisified tone of voice that is the same whether they are discussing maple syrup season in Vermont or the wonders of smart bombs in the Gulf War. The joke was that the 2 women, named something like Linda Househeimer and Lucie Cornbiscuit, were talking about the things that bugged them as well. One said she had a rat infestation while the other said she had a nervous stomach, but in that infuriating phoney tone of voice. God, I wish NPR, PBS would rot in hell already. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:1589] Re: RE Pray for impeachment
At 15:58 15/12/98 -0500, Frank D.wrote: >This is a much belated response to Ajit sinha's posting Pen-L 1474. I guess >I got carried away with my response > >In Pen-L 1454 I wrote: > >>"With the US led inspection team's surprise visit yesterday to Baath Party >>headquarters in downtown Baghdad to search for weapons of "mass >>destruction", it is clear that the US and Britain are seeking a pretext >for >unleashing the bombers. >>And once the bombers are unleashed, as Valis and Michael have pointed out, >>the hawkish congress will not impeach our morally upright Commander in >>Chief struggling so heroically to defend the nation from enormously evil >>forces. > >Following are some rather startling numbers taken from CIA World Fact >Book >of 1997, and the Statistical Abstract of the United States 1997 >> >>US GDP(1996)$7,576.1 billion >>US Defense Spending (1996) $267.0 billion >> >>US Consumer spending on Alcoholic Beverages (1994) $85.5 Billion >> >>US Consumer spending on Tobacco Products (1994)$47.7 billion >> >> >>***IRAQ GDP (1996) $42 billion.*** >> >> >>The Philadelphia Inquirer of Nov 18, 1998 reported that the Gulf War cost >>$61 billion and " by private budget analysts' estimates, roughly $50 >>billion of the annual $270 billion in U.S. military spending goes toward >>maintaining the Persian Gulf deployment and keeping the Iraqi president in >>line." >In Pen L-1474Ajit wrote: > > >But don't you think that Sadam has remained in power because of the US >>policy. When in history a dictator or even a "leader" has lost a war in >such a >complete fashion and has remained in power? I think Sadam has >remained in >power because the sanctions for the Iraqi means that the war >is not over. >Sadam is still fighting a war, and that's why he will not be >removed by either >the people or the elites. Remove the sanction, and i >tell you Sadam will fall >soon. People will say, now we have to build our >country, we need new politics, >new leadership. Cheers, ajit sinha Ajit >sinha: >* >Ajit, You may be correct, I just don't know. I would however, like to >elaborate on a few additional points. First, I think we all err in calling >it a war. It was not a "war" and to call it such ennobles it with an aura >of high morality and valor. It was gargantuan turkey shoot in which the >Pentagon tested out its newest toys: that the media glorified; over which >members congress struggled to outdo each other in displaying patriotism; >and that the American public heartily applauded as it watched the "smart >bombs" rain down on thousands of Iraqi civilians and virtually defenseless >young draftees. >. >I am at a loss to understand the attention given to Sadam. He poses >absolutly no threat to world security. The Israelis bombed his only nuclear >facility back in 1981. In the turkey shoot of Jan and Feb 1991, according >to the Pentagon, 80% of Iraq's military capability was demolished together >with virtually the entire industrial infrastructure. And since the turkey >shoot, UN inspection teams have fine combed every square inch of Iraqi land >and real-estate even (according to the Iraqi ambassador to the UN} entering >office buildings and stores and searching women's pocket books, The >inspection team claims to have destroyed 90% of the remaining Iraqi missile >capacity (antique Scuds no doubt) and many times more chemical and >biological weapons than were destroyed in the turkey shoot. _ I agree with what you say, but I am thinking more from the point of view of an Iraqi citizen than an US citizen. Let's suppose I'm an average Iraqi who has bought into the "sadam, our great leader" slogan. This great leader of mine takes my country to war with the US and the Western world to show the world the mother of all wars. And then does not even fight it. Gets about quater of a million soldiers directly killed, the country bombed to stone age for nothing. What an idiot this leader turns out to be! Now, I don't know whether the US policy is purposely designed to keep Sadam in power or not. Him being in power is definitely serving a purpose. It gives them an excuse to have their military presence in the region, and keep a check on the Russians. My general sense is that the policy is not purposive. Even though the US thinks of itself as "rational" and conducts its business in the interest of its "national interest", it has a strong "irrational" trait of machoism and ego. They have to show to the world that it is them who have finally forced Sadam out of power. The bully boys have to reinforce their ego. I do agree with what you say about Russia below. It is a time-bomb, and probably worse than Hitler's Germany in making. Cheers, ajit sinha > >The only threat Sadam poses is the fact he diverts our attention from many >real threats hanging over us l
[PEN-L:1629] Re: Re: George Kennan
>I still want to know who these "people" are. If they were standing for >human rights, democracy, and economic development despite the poopstorm >coming down on their heads during the Truman-McCarthy era, when the >slightest dissent from the anti-Soviet line was punished as "com-simp" >treason, they deserve to be celebrated and rewarded. Brad, please name >these people! I'm willing to set up a shrine and burn candles. Keynes and White, Hoffman and Harriman, Vandenberg and Acheson and Marshall, Truman...
[PEN-L:1588] Re: [Fwd: In Defence of Humanism pt1]
G'day Ange, >i think there's a lot of will in foucault, the will to power being the most >obvious example. Come to think about it, isn't 'the will to power' afforded ontological status by Foucault and his mob? Very humanistic, no? >is this too pessimistic in 'discipline and punish'? probably. >but foucault is certainly on the side of those who argue for will as a key >explanatory principle, which he perhaps why he is closer to weber than marx. Nice insight. Ta. > i hear tell foucault's last work was on ethics, but i go by rumour here, >not >having read it. Aren't ethics problematic without subjects? And you may be right, but I was of the impression he was still on his history-of-sexuality project. >i don't get upset when people want to study penthouse or mills and boon. >i think there is a difference between validation, as in celebration, and >validation as in they are both appropriate things to study and learn from. >as >you say, there is a difference in how one goes about this >pedagogically, but i >reckon, what's the big deal? not every analysis of >popular american culture is >a baudrillard, gushing away at it. so, the >problem is not what one takes up as >illustrative or as an object of study, but how. i'm more offended by >>conservative cultural studies, whether that be of shakespeare or of mills >and >boon. All fair enough. And one senses conservatism has crept into some important niches amongst the cultural crowd, too. >not everyone labours or does so (or is allowed to do so) creatively. does >this >mean they aren't truly human. I reckon it might mean they're alienated from their essence. Very old-fashioned, but there you are. >doesn't habermas' ideal speech situation look suspiciously to you like the >>mythic classical model of citizenship? does to me. remember, the >citizens >were citizens because they had slaves, not because they were >naturally endowed >with communicative rationality. I agree Habermas is a big problem when it comes to history. But I do reckon the ISS (which he seems to have sacked, incidentally) is a critical ideal he got out of the humanistic claims he makes for language (inbuilt communicative rationality an' all that). >but i try real hard to remind myself that even this rationalist >fantasy of mine is most likely a desire to submit all communication to >>transparent and decided premises, which is just not how we are. in any >case, >i'm better now. Well, of all the sprachspiels in which we could be engaged, perhaps we are in fact applying those norms here! After all, here we're trying to nut out an issue in political theory. I'll get a chance to pour that Irish whiskey down you one day, and when that day comes, I plan to wallow in irrational self-indulgence myself and submit all communications to nowt whatsoever. Context is the thing, methinks. >on a different tack: who decides what these rules of logic and rationality >are? Doesn't H. reckon they're built into language? >doesn't logic impose a law of non-contradiction? contradicting oneself >may >well be a pain for those talking to you, but ( a la freud), it is >probably a >signpost to the truth of what one is saying which they am >unable to say without >contradiction for reasons which are not transparent >to the person speaking. >and, a la marx, any attempt to wipe out the law >of non-contradiction would >wipe out the possibility of understanding the >relation between (e.g.) labour and capital. That phenomena are ever in the process of change, related both to external and internal dynamics, is not an illogical assertion, is it? If we then factor that change into our take on said phenomenon, we'd have to admit it might have been something it doesn't seem to be now and will one day seem something else again. As it has a role to play in things later on (everything being connected to everything else - that's what I reckon 'the totality' is), when it might not manifest as it does now, logic would seem to allow that we see it as a (clumsy-wording alert) relational-complex-in-process-of-transformation. Is that a useful tangential thought or a load of crap. I wouldn't have a clue. I'm way out of my shallowness here ... >every time i see someone argue that human nature is the rock that society >can't >fully overcome, sounds to me like a pretty powerful rhetorical strategy in the >service of this or that teleology. but this doesn't finally convince me. You're absolutely right in heeding the warning sirens. >> But as soon as you abandon the notion of human nature you have to admit >> humans might as well exist under any one order as under any other. > >well, why not? they already have and will continue to. they 'might as >well', >but this is not saying they would not exist as well or they would >exist better >in other kinds of arrangements... If they could 'exist better', what is it about them that decides this is the case? That's the point where I reckon we make humanist claims, yo
[PEN-L:1587] Re: Re: Enlightenment insight
At 13:08 15/12/98 +1100, Angela wrote: >i didn't really expect any treatment of marx to be exhaustive. can't be done me >thinks, if only because of sheer volume. and, actually, you've hit the nail on >the head: i was thinking of the a is also not-a stuff. as in, workers both >labour-power and not-labour-powere (where the latter would be in terms of >workers's needs (as excess to capital's image of 'itself' in money and exchange) - >but, i don't mean here needs as immutable, but as marx regarded them as socially >constituted. this is exactly why marx talks about ghosts and haunting so often - >it is a central motif. derrida is right to point to this as an important motif, >but he misses the fact that marx's concept of surplus value is inherent to this >motif and the most effective way marx can see to present the complicated >relationship between the identity of capital (as it is advanced in the science of >political economy) and the non-identity of labour (or, better, the sheer >objectification of labour as presented in political economy and political >economy's tortuous attempts to misrecognise that capital is only surplus labour) - >marx plays around with this endlessly, back and forth, twisting and turning. you >know: subject (labour) becomes object (labour-power - surplus value - capital); >object (capital) becomes subject (the fetishism of capital). > >so, labour is both dead (objectified as labour-power) and alive (what animates >capital and the production process).i just can't see how derrida would turn >away from this. and, i think he is smart enought to see it, but decides - for >reasons i guess at - not to take it on. > >what do you reckon? is it possible to talk about the spectre of communism without >talking about suplus labour? > >be well, > >angela Hi Angela! I find your spin on labor and labor-power etc. quite interesting. But I'm not sure if I understand it all--i.e. I'm not sure where is this dialectics going. It would be nice if you could elaborate on it--given that what you say above is so interesting. My general, and of course very limited, sense is that labor-power being a commodity is only an ideological (in a more conventional sense than Althusserian sense) aspect of capitalism, but it would be incorrect to maintain it so as a 'scientic' category in Marx's writings. A long section (section IV) of my paper entitled 'A Critique of Part one of *Capital* vol. one: The Value Controversy Revisited' in *Research in Political Economy* vol. 15, 1996 deals with this particular issue. I'll be happy to send you a copy if you are interested. On Derrida: I doubt that there is some political reason for him to shy away from the idea that capitalism is based on exploitation of labor. Cheers, ajit sinha > > >
[PEN-L:1627] Re: George Kennan
As the bombs dropped, I wrote: >>There is _always_ a third side. But as a part-time reader of Chomsky, I've >>noticed that he doesn't spend much (or any) effort discussing the forces >>that lost in their battle to be represented in the power elite. Rather, his >>emphasis is on the actual policy pronouncements (and more importantly, the >>actual policy actions) of the winners, i.e., those who actually were able >>to join the power elite. Brad writes: >You can think that the people who pushed through the Marshall Plan and the >post-WWII economic order were as much cynical realists as George Kennan. >But in my opinion at least you would be mistaken. And you can't say that >these economic idealists were powerless--human rights, democracy, and >economic development have continued to be at the center of the rhetoric >(and sometimes--alas, too rarely--of the practice) of U.S. foreign policy. I still want to know who these "people" are. If they were standing for human rights, democracy, and economic development despite the poopstorm coming down on their heads during the Truman-McCarthy era, when the slightest dissent from the anti-Soviet line was punished as "com-simp" treason, they deserve to be celebrated and rewarded. Brad, please name these people! I'm willing to set up a shrine and burn candles. Though you are quite inarticulate on this issue, with your intimations above and those about the role of democracy in US foreign policy vis-a-vis Zimbabwe, you seem to be saying that these people are the vast majority of US voters, who favor human rights, democracy, and economic development (not to mention Motherhood and Apple Pie).[*] IMHO, US foreign policy (like US domestic policy) reflects the combination of a large number of different political forces often going in different directions in a whole bunch of different dimensions. (It's NOT a conspiracy.) All sorts of stuff plays a role, including the President's inability to control his sexual impulses, possible upcoming elections, the insanity of the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and whether or not the policy can be "sold" to "the American People." But the main determinants depend on the relative amounts of power of the various interested parties and the intensity of their interests. For example, the powerful oil industry has always had an influence on US foreign policy when oil is involved (as in Iraq). But they probably had little influence on Reagan's war against Nicaragua, since as far as I know there are no oil reserves nearby. Even if there are oil reserves nearby (closer than Venezuela or Mexico), a single-dimensional oilist theory of US foreign policy is deceptive. (This discussion suggests that Peter Bohmer's analysis of the current war against Iraq makes more sense than my flippant remark on the subject, even though he didn't mention the political forces lined up behind the attack: blaming the President's impeachment problems is much much too unilinear.) These various forces have to compromise, though sometimes deadlocks prevail on important policy issues. This is very rare, though you will see "philosophical" debates on foreign policy in the pages of the New York TIMES. Sometimes, I imagine that the differences amongst the powers are settled with appeals to the people, just as old Chairman Mao mobilized the Red Guards against that part of the Chinese elite that had expelled him from power. But this is rare, since the US power elite is much more stable and coherent than the Chinese one was back then. The foreign policy elite consists of Wall Street lawyers and Kissinger (or Zbig) acolytes who disdain the people (in the tradition of Walter Lippman). And most of the differences concern the details of the policy, not the basic line of march. The main exception occurs when the US starts losing a war, as with the war against Vietnam. The main issue is to sell the policy, once decided, to the "American People." The propaganda starts to rise, showing us that now Saddam Hussein is no longer an ally of the US. He's the Enemy -- and indeed has always been the Enemy. (Substitute "Eastasia" for Saddam Hussein and you have a scene from Orwell's _1984_.) The "experts" pump out op-ed pieces that appear in all of the major news outlets, while outrages are manufactured (as with the Kuwaiti incubators during Bush's war on Iraq). Newsreaders read the news breathlessly about how horrible our former ally -- oops, I mean the Great Satan -- is. Some doubts arise in the NY TIMES op-ed, but not in the editorials. Usually the doubts are about tactic or (sometimes) strategy or "can we win?," while the general goals of US foreign policy go unquestioned. Any doubts about the war are balanced (as in "journalistic balance") by calls for even more intense war against the Enemy: we should plow his country under with nuclear salt! Carthago delenda est! So the policy moves on. (It should be mentioned that I consider the NT TIMES publishers to be part of th
[PEN-L:1621] Iraq: some deja ecoute'
When did you first feel disappointment regarding NPR, not to speak of naked suspicion? Was it during some non-plug for a Fortune 10 non-advertiser? Or much more recently, when you started to hear a cozening tone of partisanship in the voice, in the very words, of the peerless Ray Suarez? Quite something or somebody else? With me it was Deborah Amos - Remember that name now? - as she filed innumerable stories during the run-up to the Gulf War. At some point in her months-long proximity to the gathering war machine she began looking less like an old pro and more like an engaging European street urchin in the care of some fatherly GI Joes. She even began sounding like a very member of the army, employing such words as "we," "us" and "our" when referring to daily preparations, the intrepid "air war" and the coming land attack. A foreign correspondent's national identity should appear to all combatants as nothing more than a wholly pardonable genetic accident, but Private Amos, perching on ammo boxes in cut-off army apparel during air time, could not be too bothered with such prudence, although prior to Desert Shield she had been based in Jordan, hence in full awareness of combustible Arab sensibilities. Private Amos survived Stormin' Norman's offensive, and was able like few other victorious returning soldiers to cash in her chips: a Nieman Fellowship (during which time she wrote the inevitable book) and a fatter berth over at ABC. And why do I even bring this up? Because I still listen to NPR, and I just heard another old pro, Loren Jenkins, NPR's senior foreign editor (whatever that's supposed to imply) erring in just precisely the same manner. From a dangerous Somewhere in the Gulf, Jenkins, in a 3-minute transmission, managed to compromise himself and his network thus: Well, Lynn [Neary], as you recall, last month we _almost_ attacked Iraq. I think [Saddam] expects we'll attack. I think we've gone to the brink so often... (And yet _more_ of the same) Do you know how many American reporters have been arrested on suspicion of espionage? At least you can guess why, though. Well, class, all I can say is, when you're sharing an overseas billet with the total corruption of The World's Only Superpower (and we'll soon see what the euro has to say about that), hence subject to the casual seduction of its imperial perks, you'd better have your distortion helmet turned up to the max. And if you're being paid to say something, there's always Monica, or bubble gum. valis
[PEN-L:1585] Re: Incorrect Model of Language in TRACTATUS ( Was RE ADNAUSEAM_
At 18:37 14/12/98 -0800, Ken Hanly wrote: >P.P.S. (post post script) Wittgenstein himself noted his pupils tended to >defer to his genius. He was such an intense, sincere person that students >were simply overwhelmed and as a result were neither critical of him nor >capable of independent thought while under his sway. Wittgenstein always >admired G.E.Moore who didn't have a clue what Wittgenstein was talking >about very often, but would tell Wittgenstein so. He sat in his classes >with a puzzled look on his face, not the look of adoration he saw on the >faces of his admirers. Wittgenstein was always upset at the effect he >tended to have on students. >From the few accounts of his students I have read, there was only one arm chair in Wittgenstein's room, where he held his class, which was reserved for G. E. Moore. And Moore was the only person allowed to smoke. His students suggest that though Moore would sit there saying nothing, and Wittgenstein would not address to him, still everybody had a feeling that there was a silent debate going on between the two. As a matter of fact G. C. Moore wrote an article on his recollections on Wittgenstein's lectures in *Mind*, Jan. 1954, where, among other things, he says that Wittgenstein held it to be a "mistak" "the view that the meaning of a word was some image which it calls up by association--a view to which he seemed to refer as the "causal" theory of meaning." This I think is the most important point. *Philosophical Investigations* is a critique of *causal theory of meaning*, and I think Sraffa's PCMC is a critique of *causal theory of value*. The two seem to also come together in relation to Heinrich Hertz. Sraffa had already read Hertz in 1927-28, before Wittgenstein had returned to Cambridge, and was quite impressed with it. In Wittgenstein's biographical sketch von Wright writes in a footnote: "It would be interesting to know whether Wittgenstein's conception of the proposition as a picture is connected in any way with the introduction to Heinrich Hertz's *Die Prinzipien der Mechanik*. Wittgenstein knew this work and held it in high esteem." The idea of Proposition as a "picture" also brings an important meeting point between the two. Sraffa too held the idea that propositions of his economic system was like snap shots. In a conversation with me Hienz Kurtz suggested that Sraffa had moved away from the snap shot idea, but I'm at the moment holding on to it. By the way, do you know if Wittgenstein had ever read Saussure's *Lectures on Linguistics*? or what do you think his general attitude toward this book would be? Cheers, ajit sinha
[PEN-L:1618] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Monsanto Seed -Forwarded
> >> >Anybody interested should talk to Dean Baker, currently > >> >at EPI but unfortunately due to leave at the end of this > >> >year. > >> > > >> >MBS > >> > > >> > >> It sounds like a substantial loss to EPI. Where's he going? > > > >It is. In my view he is our best economist, > >the model of what an EPI person should be. > >He's going to work with the Preamble Center > >and free-lance. > > > >His book on Social Security (co-authored with > >Mark Weisbrot of Preamble) will be coming out > >next summer. > > > >We will be interviewing for a macroeconomics > >position in NYC. The job is about 80% macro > >and 20% Social Security, though other areas > >of emphasis are welcome. I'm on the hiring > >committee, if anyone is interested. We've > >accumulated about three crates of applications. > > > >mbs > > I presume ABDs are welcome?... Sure, though they will be facing some heavy-duty competition. Max
[PEN-L:1626] Bombing Of Iraq
I do not have a lot of details but it seems like a massive bombing of Iraq by the U.S. and Britain has begun. It would be useful to put on these email lists, what exactly is happening; useful analysis and criticisms against what the U.S. is doing; and announcements and analysis of resistance and protest that is going on locally and nationally. It seems to be that U.S. aggression is not directly tied to the impeachment circus. Rather, it seems to me, the U.S. is totally unwilling to lift the sanctions against Iraq, and the Iraqi government, which is a very weak one, is not willing to surrender all of its sovereignty, when even allowing total interference in their society is not sufficient to end the sanctions. Peter Bohmer
[PEN-L:1625] Re: Re: Re: Re: George Kennan
>There is _always_ a third side. But as a part-time reader of Chomsky, I've >noticed that he doesn't spend much (or any) effort discussing the forces >that lost in their battle to be represented in the power elite. Rather, his >emphasis is on the actual policy pronouncements (and more importantly, the >actual policy actions) of the winners, i.e., those who actually were able >to join the power elite. > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & You can think that the people who pushed through the Marshall Plan and the post-WWII economic order were as much cynical realists as George Kennan. But in my opinion at least you would be mistaken. And you can't say that these economic idealists were powerless--human rights, democracy, and economic development have continued to be at the center of the rhetoric (and sometimes--alas, too rarely--of the practice) of U.S. foreign policy. Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:1624] Re: re Pray for impeachment
That'll teach Saddam to follow US orders when there's a sex scandal going on... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:1613] RE: Dean Acheson
In discussion of African policy particularly, the element of racism cannot be discounted. Dean Acheson warned the former Prime Minister of the racist government of Rhodesia in 1971 to beware of the "American public," who "decide that the only correct decision of any issue must be one which favors the colored point of view." He urged that Rhodesia not "get led down the garden path by any of our constitutional cliches -- equal protection of the laws, etc. -- which have caused us so much trouble" This venerated figure of American liberalism was particularly disturbed by the Supreme Court's use of "vague constitutional provisions" which "hastened racial equality and has invaded the political field by the one-man-one-vote doctrine," which made "Negroes...impatient for still more rapid progress and led to the newly popular techniques of demonstration and violence" (September 1968). The "pall of racism...hovering over" African affairs under the Nixon administration, "and over the most basic public issues foreign and domestic," has been discussed by State Department official Roger Morris, including Nixon's request to Kissinger to assure that his first presidential message to Congress on foreign policy have "something in it for the jigs" (eliciting "the usual respectful `Yes'" from this abject flunkey); Kissinger's disbelief that the Ibos, "more gifted and accomplished" than other Nigerians, could also be "more Negroid"; and Alexander Haig's "quietly pretend[ing] to beat drums on the table as African affairs were brought up at NSC staff meetings. Noam Chomsky, Z Magazine Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:1614] RE: Re: RE: Re: Monsanto Seed -Forwarded
> > > >Anybody interested should talk to Dean Baker, currently > >at EPI but unfortunately due to leave at the end of this > >year. > > > >MBS > > > > It sounds like a substantial loss to EPI. Where's he going? It is. In my view he is our best economist, the model of what an EPI person should be. He's going to work with the Preamble Center and free-lance. His book on Social Security (co-authored with Mark Weisbrot of Preamble) will be coming out next summer. We will be interviewing for a macroeconomics position in NYC. The job is about 80% macro and 20% Social Security, though other areas of emphasis are welcome. I'm on the hiring committee, if anyone is interested. We've accumulated about three crates of applications. mbs
[PEN-L:1610] treatment of James Craven
Dear President Hasart, Dec. 16, 1998 Having written to you before regarding the situation of Professor James Craven, I am disappointed to learn that the result has been further harassment of him and an attack by Interim Vice-President Ramsey upon his ability to use Clark College email. Clearly his use has been related to his scholarly and educational activities at Clark College. This action by Interim Vice President Ramsey constitutes an unconscionalbe violation of both his academic freedom and civil rights.. It is a blot and stain upon the reputation of Clark College. The sooner this deplorable action is undone, the better for all concerned. Yours Sincerely, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. Professor of Economics James Madison University Harrisonburg, VA 22807 -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1619] Re: De Long the Nazi
On Wed, December 16, 1998 at 11:43:26 (-0800) Brad De Long writes:
>...
>On the style, the last time I entered into a discussion with Mr. Lear it
>ended with a veiled accusation that I was a Nazi:
It is really a sad commentary on your miserable reading skills that
you are simply incapable either of dealing with Chomsky fairly, or my
rebuttals of your distortions. You miserably distort what Chomsky
writes, attack him for not being able to count, among other things,
when someone as respectable as De Cecco sides with him, and now, of
all things, you accuse me of stooping to the disgusting and level of
accusing you of being a Nazi! Among the slime you have slung, this is
bar far the lowest, De Long.
You claim I made a "veiled accusation" of you being a Nazi with
reference to our debate on LBO:
>>[DeLong] Chomsky... makes it next to impossible for
>>people unversed in the issues to understand what the live and much-debated
>>points of contention might be. He clear-cuts the historical landscape.
>
>>[Lear]You mean the same historical landscape that so often directs the
>>powerful to turn to a Neue Ordnung to solve their problems?
If you are so utterly paranoid, or utterly without scruple, to twist
this into an accusation ("veiled" or otherwise) of your being a Nazi,
I truly pity you. Are you part of "the powerful" that helped to turn
Vietnam into a wasteland?
It's one thing to disagree with me about Chomsky; it's one thing to
disagree with me about the Marshall Plan. These are entirely
reasonable subjects which can be discussed. It's another thing
entirely --- a despicable and cowardly thing --- to blatantly lie and
accuse me of calling you, directly or by insinuation, a Nazi.
I did no such thing, nor would I ever. You should be ashamed of
yourself, Brad, for such a smear.
Bill
[PEN-L:1607] RE: Re: Monsanto Seed -Forwarded
Anybody interested should talk to Dean Baker, currently at EPI but unfortunately due to leave at the end of this year. MBS > > > Maybe it is time to revive the project on the economics of intellectual > property. > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
[PEN-L:1598] Wal-Mart call-in day Friday, Dec. 18
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:03:11 -0500 Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale W Wimberley) To:WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Wal-Mart call-in day Friday, Dec. 18 Please pass on this December call-in information to people you think will be interested. Pardon any cross-postings! - Dale -- HELP END SWEATSHOPS AND CHILD LABOR - PROMOTE A LIVING WAGE Contact Wal-Mart December 18, and ask them to release a list of all their supplying factories (including addresses) worldwide so that we can know what products we can buy in conscience. These are national call-in days for the People's Right to Know Campaign - the 1998 Holiday Season of Conscience to End Child Labor and Sweatshop Abuse. If you already called or e-mailed Wal-Mart about this issue, you can do it again. Repeat contacts are helpful, and Wal-Mart still hasn't agreed to release the information. One more call-in day is scheduled for Friday, January 29. The tone of your call should be polite. If the person to whom you speak says that Wal-Mart will not release this information to protect its competitive position (a standard Wal-Mart response), you might reply that you don't feel you can rely on Wal-Mart to respect workers' human rights unless independent monitors can have this information to verify factory conditions. Contact: 1-800-WAL-MART (1-800-925-6278) or (501) 273-4000 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: (501) 273-4894 (fax may be disconnected on call-in days!) If you prefer to write a letter: Mr. David D. Glass, CEO, Wal-Mart Stores, 702 S.W. Eighth Street, Bentonville, Arkansas 72716 Background information on this campaign - What this campaign is NOT: * It is NOT a boycott * It is NOT an effort to have Wal-Mart "buy American" What this campaign IS: * An effort to make Wal-Mart ACCOUNTABLE to us - the consumers of their products - and to make Wal-Mart's own code of conduct independently verifiable * An effort to promote a LIVING WAGE for workers in the Third World AND in the US - an effort to stop US and overseas workers from being pitted against each other by raising the wages and conditions of the most oppressed workers around the world * An effort to create a space in which WORKERS CAN EMPOWER THEMSELVES - "Employment yes, but ... with dignity!" WHY THIS CAMPAIGN? The goal of the People's Right to Know Campaign is to press Wal-Mart to release the list of all its suppliers worldwide, so that human rights and religious groups can begin to check working conditions at these factories. This would give consumers a way to discern which products were made in factories where workers' human rights were respected. Wal-Mart has a record of contracting with factories that use child labor (for example, 13-year-olds in Honduras and 10- to 12-year olds in Bangladesh), and with factories where workers are abused verbally, physically, and sexually at jobs paying subliving wages for very long work hours, where labor unions are repressed. The existence of such working conditions globally also threatens a living wage for people in the US who "compete for jobs" with these oppressed workers. Wal-Mart contracts with suppliers in at least 49 countries. Many other US companies besides Wal-Mart have relied on sweatshops or child labor, but the People's Right to Know Campaign focuses on Wal-Mart because it is the world's largest retailer. If Wal-Mart releases information on its suppliers, it will be easier to get these other companies to follow. Such information is essential to establish a system of independent monitoring of factory conditions - a key to stopping abuses and promoting better working conditions abroad and in the US. The People's Right to Know Campaign is spearheaded by the National Labor Committee (NLC), the same organization that successfully pressed Kathie Lee Gifford to act against the child labor used to make her clothing line. The NLC, originally founded in 1981 to support workers threatened by violence in El Salvador, is backed by many labor unions, religious groups, and human rights organizations. For information and campaign materials, contact the National Labor Committee, 275 7th Avenue, 15th floor, New York, NY 10001. Phone (212) 242-3002, fax (212) 242-3821, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.nlcnet.org. Many little people in many little places making many little steps will change the world. - Brigitte Hauschild, Nicaragua (If you can translate this sentence into languages other than Spanish, German, French, or Russian, please contact Brigitte at [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Dale W. Wimberley Department of Sociology Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
[PEN-L:1602] Re: George Kennan
>But there *was* a dovish wing of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment in >the immediate aftermath of World War II, committed to decolonization, >democracy, and economic recovery. That "hard-nosed realists" in the State >Department didn't like them didn't keep them from exercising a remarkable >amount of sway over U.S. foreign policy in the aftermath of World War II: >the creation of the World Bank and the IMF. GATT to open up U.S. markets to >exporters in other countries. The Marshall Plan. > >Brad DeLong Who in blazes can you be talking about? Alger Hiss? By 1948, the cold war was in full sway and State Dept. pinkos were already being marginalized and would be axed or arrested in a year or two. As far as Chomsky's irony is concerned, it may be the case that there was none intended here. All the Vietnam era doves were the political progeny of Kennan, after all, whose "pragmatic" approach to foreign affairs would be distinguished from the "ideological" approach of John Foster Dulles. Of course, what the Vietnam war revealed is that the dove-hawk split is more about style than substance. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:1600] Fw: Re: RE Pray for impeachment
-- > From: Ajit Sinha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:1589] Re: RE Pray for impeachment > Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 1:06 AM \ > I agree with what you say, but I am thinking more from the point of view of > an Iraqi citizen than an US citizen. Let's suppose I'm an average Iraqi who > has bought into the "sadam, our great leader" slogan. This great leader of > mine takes my country to war with the US and the Western world to show the > world the mother of all wars. And then does not even fight it. Gets about > quater of a million soldiers directly killed, the country bombed to stone > age for nothing. What an idiot this leader turns out to be! > > Now, I don't know whether the US policy is purposely designed to keep Sadam > in power or not. Him being in power is definitely serving a purpose. It > gives them an excuse to have their military presence in the region, and > keep a check on the Russians. My general sense is that the policy is not > purposive. Even though the US thinks of itself as "rational" and conducts > its business in the interest of its "national interest", it has a strong > "irrational" trait of machoism and ego. They have to show to the world that > it is them who have finally forced Sadam out of power. The bully boys have > to reinforce their ego. > > I do agree with what you say about Russia below. It is a time-bomb, and > probably worse than Hitler's Germany in making. Cheers, ajit sinha > Ajit: Thanks for the insights on how it all looks to an Iraqi citizen.I profited from them. I agree with your previous posting to the effect that our actions are keeping him in power. But I would not want to have to argue that that is our objective. Regards Frank
[PEN-L:1599] Fw: Saddam Extremely Dangerous
-- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:1582] Saddam Extremely Dangerous > Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:06 PM > > Saddam Husseing's regime is extremely dangerous. I remember when at the > beginning of the so-called "Gulf War", Bush proudly announced "The Vietnam > Syndrome is Over." As Bill is on his way out, and Saddam is still in power, > probably getting laid with more women than Bill could even imagine, Saddam's > regime is a reminder of the potential impotence of U.S. imperial power. > Jim: I guess we are both frozen in our views on this. So I'll let my case rest. I do, however, fail to see how the fact that Bush is gone, Clinton is on his way out, and Sadam is getting laid with more women that Bill could even imagine,serves as a reminder of the potential impotence of US imperial power Best wishes Frank
[PEN-L:1605] Re: Re: George Kennan
On Wed, December 16, 1998 at 09:36:03 (-0800) Brad De Long writes: >... >But there *was* a dovish wing of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment in >the immediate aftermath of World War II, committed to decolonization, >democracy, and economic recovery. ... Who were these people? >exporters in other countries. The Marshall Plan. Oh, you mean the Marshall Plan that allowed European capital to flee therefrom in approximately equal amounts? You seem to have conveniently forgotten that you have been shown to be mistaken in your naive beliefs about the nature of the plan, and that Cecco agreed with me that you are wrong on this, and that Chomsky and Helleiner are correct. But then, perhaps you are just trying to "hide the ball"... >Chomsky isn't trying to use irony to say that the "dovish" wing of the U.S. >foreign policy establishment is not particularly dovish. He is trying to >keep people from noticing that there was a powerful--and very effective >group that took very seriously inded the ideals that Kennan thought naive. >Chomsky's trying to hide the ball... A "very effective" group which wanted us to pursue "ideals" such as "democracy", eh? Let's see, would that be Guatemala, Iran, Uganda, South Africa, Indonesia, El Salvador, Argentina, Nicaragua, or perhaps you are thinking of this mystery group's "effective" support of democracy in Vietnam? Where, Brad, did this "effective group" hold sway? Bill
[PEN-L:1601] Re: Re: RE Pray f...
> --- be careful of what you request.you might get it . . . in case you miss my point, today iraq, tomorrow russia (cis) Big == Big: The Nunn-Lugar Nuclear Threat Reduction Program already includes the CIS Regards Frank
[PEN-L:1604] Re: Monsanto Seed -Forwarded
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --4FDF63AF497 Tim Stroshane wrote: COMMENTS: * To give the devil its due, farmers sign a legal agreement not to save roundup-ready seed as a condition of purchase. There are still plenty of other seeds available at present that do not require any such agreement. Unfortunately, Roundup Ready types give better returns. The real culprit is the US government that allows the patenting of genetically altered lifeforms and regulatory laws of the sort that MONSANTO uses to prosecute farmers. This case is a knock-down refutation that globalization has anything to do with creating a free-market, neo-liberal Utopia as the long-winded stuff--posted by Michael-- from some French intellectual who can't speak the King's French recently claimed. It has to do with optimizing conditions for capitalist accumulation. Patenting genetically altered seed as Monsanto does is meant to ensure that market forces cannot operate. The state is used to regulate the economy to ensure that the market can't interfere with Monsanto's monopoly profits. Some Neo-Liberal Market Utopia that is! * Even with the huge fines mentioned, using legal sanctions to prevent farmers from saving seed is exceedingly expensive. Furthermore, Monsanto sells these seeds worldwide and may have difficulty with enforcement in many countries. The solution is the Terminator. This is seed that produces inviable seed. Seed from the socalled suicide seeds would be useless to the farmer. The Terminator was developed by the USDA (US dept of Agriculture) together with a Monsanto subsidiary. Recently they tried to get an international group of seed producers to register the Terminator but the group flatly turned the US down as is evident from the enclosed piece from Krebs newsletter--posted earlier on Pen. MOnsanto is now stuck with the legal enforcement option for the present. * One of the Roundup Ready varieties is called LIBERTY. A full page ad on the back of the Manitoba Co-operator sings the praises of LIBERTY's ability to free farmer's from weeds. The term "LIBERTY" for a brand of canola seed recalls a line in an e e cummings poem "as freedom is a breakfast food.." * On the hypothesis that God sees every weed that falls , SHE is probably busy using her patented method of natural selection to slowly produce Roundup Ready Weeds, and then where will the farmers be? * Rather than producing roundup ready seeds it would make more sense to genetically alter canola so that it is able to compete effectively with weeds. HOwever, this would reduce the sales of Roundup. There is no motivation to pursue a progressive mode of genetic engineering that would lessen dependence upon herbicides. (This assumes of course that such genetic alteration is not harmful in the long run, an assumption that may be false.) * The term "canola" results from an early victory for the politically correct terminology movement. The traditional term for canola is rape. In fact years ago, the town of Tisdale Saskatchewan wanted the post office to grant it the right to use the slogan cancellation on mail "Rape Capital of the World". The post office allowed local areas to use these cancellations to promote their areas. Postal authorities denied the request for obvious reasons, much to the annoyance of locals, who saw it as the eastern establishment having dirty minds no doubt. The term "rape" and "rapeseed" began to disappear from official publications, such as acreages sown to different crops. Even farm newspapers began to speak of "canola". I have no idea where the term "canola" originated. Maybe someday they will find it is tainted as well! Cheers, Ken Hanly > December 14, 1998 > > Monsanto Prosecutes U.S. Seed Violators > > Monsanto is tracking down U.S. farmers who are replanting seed > from Monsanto's genetically engineered crops. In the company's own > words, "Monsanto is vigorously pursuing growers who pirate any > brand or variety of its genetically enhanced seed, such as Roundup > Ready soybeans and cotton and Bollgard cotton."* The company has > hired five full-time investigators to follow up on seed saving > leads that it receives. To date, Monsanto has at least 475 cases > in the U.S., generated from over 1,800 leads. More than 250 of > these cases are under investigation in at least 20 states. > Monsanto maintains that seed saving is illegal even if a farmer > did not sign an order or invoice statement for the seed at time of > purchase. > > In one case, an Illinois farmer admitted saving and replanting > Roundup Ready soybeans and also acknowledged that he traded the > seed with neighbors and a local seed cleaner in return for other > goods. The farmer's settlement with Monsanto included a US$35,000 > fine plus full documentation confirming disposal of his soybean > crop. In addition, the farmer and all other parties involved must
Re: [PEN-L:1573] Re: BLS Daily report
There is plenty of arguments and evidence as why FDI in LDCs do not displace jobs in the home countries in the same magnitude as popular perceptions might warrant. The reason is different segments of the production process or different types of production are normally farmed out. In other words skill intensities vary. However, this does not mean that home countries do not suffer from job losses in those sectors. The losses result from technological change. Un- semi-skilled work tends to get technologically substituted in the home country because of high wage costs. Low wage imports add to that burden. On the average, skill intensity of imports from LDcs tend to be much lower than competing industries in the home country. Most importantly, on the average, FDI is not determined by low wages. If that were the case, we would not have about 70% of global FDI taking place within the triad (US, WEur, Japan). Anthony P. D'Costa Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of Washington 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5612 On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Tom Kruse wrote: > We read: > > >BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1998 > > [snip] > > >Outflows of foreign direct investment from rich to poor countries are having > >only a limited negative impact on employment in source economies, according > >to the Bank for International Settlements. ... "Fears that jobs are being > >destroyed in the industrialized countries when multinational enterprises > >invest in low-wage countries are only in part supported by the evidence," > >according to a working paper prepared by the bank. ... The authors point > >out that because of the low degree of substitution between employees in > >parent companies and their affiliates abroad, even where there may be some > >displacement of home-country workers due to Foreign Direct Investment, "such > >effects are likely to have been only moderate" ... (Daily Labor Report, > >page A-9). > > Comments anyone? This would seem to really challenge the "exporting > manufacturing and other good jobs" thesis of globalization. I suppose we'd > first need to know what "only in part" means. And what exaclty does > substitution mean? That the overseas worker directly substitutes the US > worker? What if in the transfer of the production process innovation > occurs, eliminating a one-to-one correpsondence between jobs before in the > US and jobs after overseas? Any insights? > > Tom > > Tom Kruse > Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia > Tel/Fax: (591-4) 248242 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
[PEN-L:1617] Re: Re: Re: George Kennan
I believe it was Louis who wrote: >>As far as Chomsky's irony is concerned, it may be the case that there was >>none intended here. All the Vietnam era doves were the political progeny of >>Kennan, after all, whose "pragmatic" approach to foreign affairs would be >>distinguished from the "ideological" approach of John Foster Dulles. At 11:28 AM 12/16/98 -0800, Brad wrote: >Actually there were three sides: those who believed that Communism was from >the Devil and needed to be rolled back, those who believed that U.S. >foreign policy should be made with a realistic view of U.S. national >interests, and those who believed that democracy, human rights, and >economic development should be at the core of U.S. foreign policy. I desperately need to know to whom you are referring. Secretary Morgenthau? Henry Wallace? Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? Mark Twain? >What people like Dulles--and Kennan--and Kissinger--and Chomsky--share is a >common desire to deny that people on the third side existed, or had any >influence on policy... There is _always_ a third side. But as a part-time reader of Chomsky, I've noticed that he doesn't spend much (or any) effort discussing the forces that lost in their battle to be represented in the power elite. Rather, his emphasis is on the actual policy pronouncements (and more importantly, the actual policy actions) of the winners, i.e., those who actually were able to join the power elite. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:1616] Re: RE: Dean Acheson
>In discussion of African policy particularly, the element of racism cannot >be discounted. Dean Acheson warned the former Prime Minister of the racist >government of Rhodesia in 1971 to beware of the "American public," who >"decide that the only correct decision of any issue must be one which >favors the colored point of view." Yep. How the son of an episcopal bishop got to be such a racist pig remains a mystery to me. Note, however--as the quotation above shows--that the fact that the U.S. is a *democracy* placed very substantial limits on the foreign policy elite's ability to support Ian Smith... Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:1615] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Monsanto Seed -Forwarded
>> >> >> >Anybody interested should talk to Dean Baker, currently >> >at EPI but unfortunately due to leave at the end of this >> >year. >> > >> >MBS >> > >> >> It sounds like a substantial loss to EPI. Where's he going? > >It is. In my view he is our best economist, >the model of what an EPI person should be. >He's going to work with the Preamble Center >and free-lance. > >His book on Social Security (co-authored with >Mark Weisbrot of Preamble) will be coming out >next summer. > >We will be interviewing for a macroeconomics >position in NYC. The job is about 80% macro >and 20% Social Security, though other areas >of emphasis are welcome. I'm on the hiring >committee, if anyone is interested. We've >accumulated about three crates of applications. > >mbs I presume ABDs are welcome?... Brad
[PEN-L:1611] Re: Re: Lear
Bill Lear wrote: > >Oh, you mean the Marshall Plan that allowed European capital to flee >therefrom in approximately equal amounts? You seem to have >conveniently forgotten that you have been shown to be mistaken in your >naive beliefs about the nature of the plan, and that Cecco agreed with >me that you are wrong on this, and that Chomsky and Helleiner are >correct. But then, perhaps you are just trying to "hide the ball"... > On the substance, I think you're referring to Marcello de Cecco's claim that "US foreign aid was thus, from the very beginning, mainly used to balance European capital exports to the United States," from Origins of the Post-War Payments System, _Cambridge Journal of Economics_ 1979, 3, p. 59. As I said before, I don't understand where this belief comes from: somewhere between one in ten and one in four of U.S. aid dollars flowing back seems a much more likely estimate. On the style, the last time I entered into a discussion with Mr. Lear it ended with a veiled accusation that I was a Nazi: >[DeLong] Chomsky... makes it next to impossible for >people unversed in the issues to understand what the live and much-debated >points of contention might be. He clear-cuts the historical landscape. >[Lear]You mean the same historical landscape that so often directs the >powerful to turn to a Neue Ordnung to solve their problems? So by Godwin's Law this isn't worth pursuing any further. Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:1612] Re: Re: George Kennan
>As far as Chomsky's irony is concerned, it may be the case that there was >none intended here. All the Vietnam era doves were the political progeny of >Kennan, after all, whose "pragmatic" approach to foreign affairs would be >distinguished from the "ideological" approach of John Foster Dulles. Actually there were three sides: those who believed that Communism was from the Devil and needed to be rolled back, those who believed that U.S. foreign policy should be made with a realistic view of U.S. national interests, and those who believed that democracy, human rights, and economic development should be at the core of U.S. foreign policy. What people like Dulles--and Kennan--and Kissinger--and Chomsky--share is a common desire to deny that people on the third side existed, or had any influence on policy... Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:1594] Re: George Kennan
I don't know if this posting was triggered by it, but on the editorial page of today's Washington Post, Kennan has a column in which he recalls opposing the development of the hydrogen bomb along with Robert Oppenheimer and praising the questions raised by the new German government regarding the "first use" doctrine of NATO with respect to nuclear weapons. I note that Germany's new Foreign Minister is Joschka Fischer, a Green Party member. Barkley Roser On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 11:01:56 -0500 Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (From the Chomsky archives at http://www.worldmedia.com/archive/) > > Kennan was one of the most intelligent and lucid of US planners, and a > major figure in shaping the postwar world. His writings are an extremely > interesting illustration of the dovish position. One document to look at if > you want to understand your country is Policy Planning Study 23, written by > Kennan for the State Department planning staff in 1948. Here's some of what > it says: > > "...we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its > populationIn this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy > and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern > of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of > disparityTo do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and > day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on > our immediate national objectivesWe should cease to talk about vague > and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living > standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to > have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by > idealistic slogans, the better." > > > Louis Proyect > > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) > -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1608] Re: RE: Re: Monsanto Seed -Forwarded
>Anybody interested should talk to Dean Baker, currently >at EPI but unfortunately due to leave at the end of this >year. > >MBS > It sounds like a substantial loss to EPI. Where's he going? Brad
[PEN-L:1593] George Kennan
(From the Chomsky archives at http://www.worldmedia.com/archive/) Kennan was one of the most intelligent and lucid of US planners, and a major figure in shaping the postwar world. His writings are an extremely interesting illustration of the dovish position. One document to look at if you want to understand your country is Policy Planning Study 23, written by Kennan for the State Department planning staff in 1948. Here's some of what it says: "...we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its populationIn this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparityTo do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectivesWe should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
Re: [PEN-L:1573] Re: BLS Daily report
There's a huge literature on this topic, which I don't have time to get into right now. (I summarized and critiqued the first wave of it in a report I wrote to the Labor Dept. back in 1995.) All I will say right now is that the question has generally been ill-posed. (1) It looks for absolute job loss, when the correct measure, in labor market terms, is the impact of marginal decreases in demand on wages. See also Dani Rodrik on this. (2) It misses entirely the political-economic mechanism, through which pressures on firms' investment decisions and countries' current accounts are translated into business-friendly economic policies. Rodrik sort of gets this. (3) On a technical level, every study I've seen makes neoclassical assumptions concerning the effects of international trade, market clearing, marginal productivity pricing, etc. that effectively beg the question. I've already gone on too long. Student papers to read. Peter Dorman
[PEN-L:1592] Professor Craven
Dear President Hasart: I am writing on behalf of Professor James Craven to urge you to rescind the disciplinary action initiated against him by Clark college administrators. According to the letter signed by Chuck Ramsey, Interim Vice President of Instruction, a copy of which has been posted on the internet, Clark college administration finds it objectionable that Professor Craven participates in internet discussion groups, and threatens him with a disciplinary action if he continues to do so. Quite frankly, it is rather appalling to see a petty bureaucrat declaring, without any prior knowledge about the nature of the discussion forum in question: "I cannot see how these e-mails/materials you have sent using College resources have any relationship whatsoever to your responsibilities as a professor at Clark College. The matters discussed in these e-mails are not College business or part of your instructional duties." Peer debate _is_ an integral part of any academic work. Moreover, as a long-time participant in pen-l, I can assure you that this listserv provides a valuable discussion forum for economists and other social scientists interested in economic issues. While the debates are often lively, they generally adhere to the highest intellctual and academic standards. Mr. Ramsey's ignorance of the subject matter aside, an attempt of a college administrator to decide which ideas are and which are not related to the instructional duties of a faculty member, sets a dangerous precedent of censorship. As someone who first-hand experienced academic censorship under the Soviet regime, I can assure you that arbitrary proclamations about "irrelevance to the subject matter" are the usual excuses evoked by the censors. Employing the same tactic by Clark college administrators tarnishes the public image of your institution. I urge you to review Professor Craven's case with a broader perspective of academic freedom in mind. Indepence of administrative fiat and official dogmata are the necessary prerequisite of finding the truth, and that is why such independence has been embedded in the institutional structure of the academe. Violating that freedom in the name of administrative expediency jeopardizes the mission of any academic institution. Sincerely, Dr. S. Wojciech Sokolowski Institute for Policy Studies Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218 cc: pen-l Jim Craven ..
[PEN-L:1603] Re: Re: Re: George Kennan
I wrote: >>You or I can use the word "dovish" any way we want, but it's important to >>quote Chomsky _in context_. If he is following his normal style (articles >>in Z magazine, etc.), he is talking about the "dovish" wing of the U.S. >>foreign policy establishment. His point, of course, is that dovish wing >>isn't especially dovish. Brad writes: >But there *was* a dovish wing of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment in >the immediate aftermath of World War II, committed to decolonization, >democracy, and economic recovery. That "hard-nosed realists" in the State >Department didn't like them didn't keep them from exercising a remarkable >amount of sway over U.S. foreign policy in the aftermath of World War II: >the creation of the World Bank and the IMF. GATT to open up U.S. markets to >exporters in other countries. The Marshall Plan. I don't have time to argue this (since I don't have a TA to do grading and besides someone who's more of a Chomsky-fan than I am should be doing it), but I believe Chomsky would argue that the GATT, Marshall Plan, the World Bank, and the IMF are all part of the effort by the non-dovish Kennan-type "doves" (and their allies) to impose US -- and capitalist -- rule on the world, which is one part of the Cold War against the USSR, while preventing a return to a 1930s-type depression. The Marshall Plan, for example, was from the start an effort to undermine the USSR's influence in Europe, specifically the influence of the Communist Parties (which they had gained because of their roles in the underground battle against the Nazis). (More charitably, the US showered Europe with Marshall-Plan charity because the policy elite -- including people like Kennan -- were _scared_ that Europe would collapse in to a Hobbesian nightmare, setting the stage for the rise of communism or the revival of fascism.) I don't have the source here, but I believe that Marshall aid was offered to the USSR but with so many conditions that it was sure to be rejected. And of course, Marshall aid worked hand-in-glove with CIA efforts to fix elections in Italy, bring back "ex" Nazis as allies against the Red Menace, etc. BTW, are we to blame Brad's "doves" for the IMF/World Bank imposition of structural adjustment (i.e., austerity) programs on the world? for the free-trade-uber-alles of the GATT (now the WTO), which tells us that issues of social justice and environment should be subordinated to capitalist rule and laissez-faire (i.e., socialism for the rich)? >Chomsky isn't trying to use irony to say that the "dovish" wing of the U.S. >foreign policy establishment is not particularly dovish. He is trying to >keep people from noticing that there was a powerful--and very effective >group that took very seriously inded the ideals that Kennan thought naive. >Chomsky's trying to hide the ball... One thing you can rely on in Chomsky's work is that he is NOT trying to hide the ball. He is an extremely -- fiercely -- person. He is very conscious of the existence of the Marshallian "doves" you refer to. You just have to read what he says about the subject. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:1597] Re: Re: George Kennan
>Brad writes: >Kennan's position was not the "dovish" position. The "dovish" >position was >>held by those who took human rights, the raising of living standards, and >>democratization seriously. >> >>The passage quoted from Kennan is *attacking* the "dovish" position within >>the Truman Administration. It is not an illustration of the dovish position. > >You or I can use the word "dovish" any way we want, but it's important to >quote Chomsky _in context_. If he is following his normal style (articles >in Z magazine, etc.), he is talking about the "dovish" wing of the U.S. >foreign policy establishment. His point, of course, is that dovish wing >isn't especially dovish. But there *was* a dovish wing of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment in the immediate aftermath of World War II, committed to decolonization, democracy, and economic recovery. That "hard-nosed realists" in the State Department didn't like them didn't keep them from exercising a remarkable amount of sway over U.S. foreign policy in the aftermath of World War II: the creation of the World Bank and the IMF. GATT to open up U.S. markets to exporters in other countries. The Marshall Plan. Chomsky isn't trying to use irony to say that the "dovish" wing of the U.S. foreign policy establishment is not particularly dovish. He is trying to keep people from noticing that there was a powerful--and very effective group that took very seriously inded the ideals that Kennan thought naive. Chomsky's trying to hide the ball... Brad DeLong Professor J. Bradford De Long Department of Economics, #3880 University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-3880 (510) 643-4027; (925) 283-2709 voice (510) 642-6615; (925) 283-3897 fax http://econ161.berkeley.edu/
[PEN-L:1596] Re: Re: George Kennan
Brad writes: >Kennan's position was not the "dovish" position. The "dovish" position was >held by those who took human rights, the raising of living standards, and >democratization seriously. > >The passage quoted from Kennan is *attacking* the "dovish" position within >the Truman Administration. It is not an illustration of the dovish position. You or I can use the word "dovish" any way we want, but it's important to quote Chomsky _in context_. If he is following his normal style (articles in Z magazine, etc.), he is talking about the "dovish" wing of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. His point, of course, is that dovish wing isn't especially dovish. One problem I have with Chomsky (despite his commitment to peace, democracy, and human rights (including the right to a decent living), his incessant honesty, his vast ability to dig up documents, etc.) is that his style of using irony and sarcasm (e.g., "the Free Press" to refer to the government- and commercial-controlled press of the U.S.) all the time gets tiring. (There are other types of humor, Noam!) It also encourages misinterpretations like Brad's. (In a book review that should be published some day in SCIENCE & SOCIETY, I suggest that it would be great if we could combine Chomsky's scholarship with Doug Dowd's friendly and humorous style.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
[PEN-L:1595] Re: George Kennan
>(From the Chomsky archives at http://www.worldmedia.com/archive/) > >Kennan was one of the most intelligent and lucid of US planners, and a >major figure in shaping the postwar world. His writings are an extremely >interesting illustration of the dovish position. One document to look at if >you want to understand your country is Policy Planning Study 23, written by >Kennan for the State Department planning staff in 1948. Here's some of what >it says: > >"...we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its >populationIn this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy >and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern >of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of >disparityTo do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and >day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on >our immediate national objectivesWe should cease to talk about vague >and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living >standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to >have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by >idealistic slogans, the better." > > >Louis Proyect Kennan's position was not the "dovish" position. The "dovish" position was held by those who took human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization seriously. The passage quoted from Kennan is *attacking* the "dovish" position within the Truman Administration. It is not an illustration of the dovish position. Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:1590] air strikes within hours against Saddam
This is from the Electronic Telegraph. Dec 16, 1998 http://www.telegraph.co.uk: Renewed air strike threat to Saddam By Christopher Lockwood, Diplomatic Editor THE possibility of air strikes within hours against Saddam Hussein was suddenly raised yesterday as the United Nations Security Council prepared to consider a report on Iraq's non-compliance with arms inspections. British diplomats last night renewed past warnings that Britain and America "reserve the right to take immediate military action" should the report from the UN's chief weapons inspector, Richard Butler, highlight Iraqi violations. Britain and America have maintained sufficient forces in the Middle East to launch devastating cruise missile and bomber attacks. With President Clinton facing an impeachment vote tomorrow, he is unlikely to want to be soft on Saddam if the report is as damning as observers expect. The holy month of Ramadan begins at the end of this week, followed by Christmas, so any air strikes would have to take place now or not until well into next year. Mr Butler's report is expected to list at least seven areas in which Saddam has failed to honour his pledges. If Mr Butler concludes that Saddam is systematically violating his agreements, Britain and America will have little option but to act. All but a handful of UN weapons inspectors departed from Baghdad yesterday. 16 November 1998: Honour this deal or else, Saddam told
[PEN-L:1568] Re: In Defence of Humanism pt1
hi there rob,
a long discussion, so here's part one.
i think there's a lot of will in foucault, the will to power being the most
obvious example. is this too pessimistic in 'discipline and punish'? probably.
but foucault is certainly on the side of those who argue for will as a key
explanatory principle, which he perhaps why he is closer to weber than marx. i
hear tell foucault's last work was on ethics, but i go by rumour here, not having
read it.i don't get upset when people want to study penthouse or mills and boon.
i think there is a difference between validation, as in celebration, and
validation as in they are both appropriate things to study and learn from. as you
say, there is a difference in how one goes about this pedagogically, but i reckon,
what's the big deal? not every analysis of popular american culture is a
baudrillard, gushing away at it. so, the problem is not what one takes up as
illustrative or as an object of study, but how. i'm more offended by conservative
cultural studies, whether that be of shakespeare or of mills and boon.
to insist on attention to the practices of social reproduction (and the centrality
of labour in the reproduction of capitalist societies) seems to me like
materialism, not humanism. isn't it an insistence on the material processes
rather than agency that you have in mind here? i do have a problem that some
so-called pomos privilege ideas as decisive, but that isn't the same thing as a
critique of anti-humanism. in any case, labour is not an abstract category in
marx such that it has attributes and ways of being that span the epochs. there's
stuff in marx about the abstractions of labour, about the relation between various
versions of this as an abstract concept to material practices and transitions, but
this is not an insistence on labour as an abstraction.labour is an abiding
category of experience, but saying that doesn't say anything unless you are -
through such an assertion - saying that the specific form of labour under
such-and-such a social formation is the only or most appropriate expression of
that. in which case, this would be taking the given forms of labour as the
abstraction, reifying them.
not everyone labours or does so (or is allowed to do so) creatively. does this
mean they aren't truly human. i have a dog who keeps herself pretty busy, working
and playing, and mostly it's indistinguishable. is my dog more human than me
because it works more than i do? {only kind of seriously...
doesn't habermas' ideal speech situation look suspiciously to you like the mythic
classical model of citizenship? does to me. remember, the citizens were citizens
because they had slaves, not because they were naturally endowed with
communicative rationality.
a friend of mine says that i'm a rationalist at heart because i always expect to
have rational discussions with people and, when confronted with something else i'm
bewildered. but i try real hard to remind myself that even this rationalist
fantasy of mine is most likely a desire to submit all communication to transparent
and decided premises, which is just not how we are. in any case, i'm better now.
on a different tack: who decides what these rules of logic and rationality are?
this is problem one. problem two: doesn't logic impose a law of
non-contradiction? contradicting oneself may well be a pain for those talking to
you, but ( a la freud), it is probably a signpost to the truth of what one is
saying which they am unable to say without contradiction for reasons which are not
transparent to the person speaking. and, a la marx, any attempt to wipe out the
law of non-contradiction would wipe out the possibility of understanding the
relation between (e.g.) labour and capital.
every time i see someone argue that human nature is the rock that society can't
fully overcome, sounds to me like a pretty powerful rhetorical strategy in the
service of this or that teleology. but this doesn't finally convince me.
> But as soon as you abandon the notion of human nature you have to admit
> humans might as well exist under any one order as under any other.
well, why not? they already have and will continue to. they 'might as well', but
this is not saying they would not exist as well or they would exist better in
other kinds of arrangements...
> Discourse is, inter alia, a
> set of prescriptions, isn't it?
sure, but it has contradictions, the space in which you find both the possibility
of freedom and of things being other than they are. there's a difference between
regulating communication with the brickbat of moralism that is humanism and
accepting that rules can and should be open to contest. we - as in anyone i've
ever come across and most of the world's population - is not in power are we? so,
why would we protect the unspoken rules of discourse and action from contest by
asserting a divine or natural basis for those rules?
and rob, you really can't claim that anti-human
