[PEN-L:10937] teaching and East Timor
First I would like to thank those in OZ for providing sharper perspectives and analyses for all of us. I have long supported an end to military aid by the US to Indonesia and have supported independence for East Timor. But I must say that I am watching these recent developments very warily. Do we really know what is going on? In any case, in light of that and the thread on geezers in academia, I thought I would throw something out about teaching and all this, at least my teaching. I teach in a pretty conservative school and regularly teach Principles of Economics. Needless to say it is a constant effort to try to shake these people up and make them think etc etc etc. A lot of them are business majors who don't even want to be in there and resent the hell out of me. Aware of this on the first day of the semester I always give a "pep talk" on why studying economics is important even if someone finds it boring or hard. I usually give a speech about how many world events are driven from behind the scenes by economic motives, even if these do not determine everything, and usually give some provocative examples. During most of this decade I have been stuck on providing a particular contrast, namely that between US policy in Kuwait and the Persian Gulf and that in East Timor. It usually is not hard to get students to recognize that the reason the US fought the PG war was because of oil and not particularly because of all the highblown rhetoric about defending poor little Kuwait against an allegedly evil invader. But then I would point out that the legal situation has been almost the same with East Timor, invaded in 1975 by a much larger and more powerful neighbor illegally, an invasion condemned by the UN. But nobody was doing anything about it. Why not? Of course this became a lesson in other things as well, since, hey, we are supposed to be teaching students about "global awareness" as well as "critical thinking" (or at least we used to be supposed to be doing that before the latest round of dumbing down the curriculum really got going). I would ask, "Can anyone tell us where East Timor is and who its powerful invading neighbor is?" Sometimes I would actually get somebody who would know. But more often nobody could answer either question. I would then give hints, such as that the invading neighbor has the fourth largest population in the world (this would allow for asking who has the first, second, and third largest populations, which seems to be easier to get out of them), and that it has the largest Muslim population of any nation in the world. If this did not draw forth an answer (sometimes by now it was guessed) I would start asking them where in the world we are talking about? Usually by the time it got pinned down to Southeast Asia somebody would finally get it. Anyway, it has proven to be useful exercise in political economy. I shall not mourn if it disappears as an example due to East Timor finally achieving its independence, although I suppose none of us should hold our breaths too long over what form that might take. Barkley Rosser
[PEN-L:10939] Re: Indigenous Epistemology
Craven, Jim wrote: From "Spirit and Reason: The Vine Deloria, Jr. Reader", Fulcrum Publishing, Golden CO, 1999 "...In 1920 George Sibley, the Indian agent for the Osages, a tribe in the Missouri region of the country, tried to convince Big Soldier, one of the more influencial chiefs, of the benefits of the white man's way. After enthusiastically describing the wonders of the white man's civilization, Sibley waited expectantly for the old man's response. Big Soldier did not disappoint him: ' I see and admire your manner of living, your good warm houses; your extensive fields of corn, your gardens, your cows, oxen, workhouses, wagons and a thousand machines, that I know not the use of. I see that you are able to clothe yourselves, even from weeds and grass. In short you can do almost what you choose. You whites possess the power of subduing almost every animal to your use. You are surrounded by slaves. Everything about you is in chains and you are slaves yourselves. I fear if I should exchange my pursuits for yours, I too should become a slave.' (Jedidiah Morse, A Report to the Secretary of War on Indian Affairs (1822), p. 207 quoted in Vine Deloria Ibid. pp 3-4) __ Is there a master-slave dialectics going on here? Please elaborate on this. __ "Many centuries ago the Senecas had a revelation. Three sisters appeared and informed them that they wished to establish a relationship with the people, the 'two-leggeds'. In return for the performance of certain ceremonies that helped the sisters to thrive, they would become plants and feed the people. Thus it was that the sisters' beans, corn and squash came to the Iroquois. These sisters had to be planted together and harvested together, and the Senecas complied with their wishes. The lands of the Senecas were never exhausted because these plants, were also [part of and formed] a sophisticated natural nitorgen cycle that kept the lands fertile and productive. ___ Now, the story of course is a good way to pass on the knowledge from generation to generation. But i wonder how did they come up with this knowledge? _ The white men came and planted only corn and wheat and very shortly exhausted the soil. After exhausting scientific experiments, the white man's scientists 'discovered' the nitrogen cycle and produced tons of chemical fertilizer to replace the natural nitrogen. But recently we have discovered that there are unpleasant by-products of commercial fertilizer that may have an even worse effect on us than they do on the soil... ( p. 12) For every scientific 'discovery', then, there may exist one or more alternative ways of understanding natural processes. But we cannot know what these alternatives are unless and until we begin to observe nature and lsiten to its rhythms and reject the idea of articifially forcing nature to tell us about herself. But science carelessly rejects alternative sources of information in favor of the clear idea, an absurd abstraction if ever there was one. Lacking a spiritual, social, or political dimension, it is difficult to understand why Western peoples believe they are so clever. Any damn fool can treat a living thing as if it were a machine and establish conditions under which it is required to perform certain functions--all that is required is a sufficient application of brute force. The result of brute force is Slavery, and whereas Big Soldier, the Osage chief, could see this dimension at once, George Sibley and his like have never been able to see the consequences of their beliefs about the world. Reductionism is about the least efficient way to garner knowledge." (p. 13) ___ It is not just reductionism. I think the knowledge claims based on causality are essentially mechanical in nature, and thus are rooted in the desire for control. Most of the people on this list are also basically control oriented. They only think that the leverage of control is in the hands of "bad guys" and they are the "good guys" who should have the control. These issues I think are most serious ones that needs to be thought through and debated. But Michael discourages it. Cheers, ajit sinha Jim Craven James Craven Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663 (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.earthlink.net/~blkfoot5 *My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected Opinion*
[PEN-L:10940] Re: Re: Re: IMF to become autonomous?
At 11:04 14/09/99 +0530, you wrote: Rod Hay wrote: Globalisation is a fact that lefties have to deal with. It is futile to oppose it. Chris is pointing in the right direction but he is point at the wrong path. Capitalism may have some room for progressive action. There are still feudal institutional remnants around the world. But it is not the place of leftist to cheer the progress of capitalism. Or to worry about the institutional arrangements of international financial regulators. It is the place of leftist to champion the rights of workers. To insist that workers have their rights inforced, that everyone has enough to eat, that health care be available to those who need it, that good free education be available, etc., etc., etc. It is this opposition that will build socialism not an uncritical promotion of elite institutional reform. World government is of interest only because it helps break down national barriers to the self-organisation of the working classes of the world. __ Rod, Will this world government allow workers from all over the world to move freely and work where ever they please? Free mobility of the workers of the world would be first and foremost opposed by the workers of the 1st world. Cheers, ajit sinha This not so little problem is indeed a consequence of Rod Hay's strictly economist approach to world financial institutions. Chris Burford London
[PEN-L:10941] Re: Re: Re: Re: IMF to become autonomous?
At 22:31 13/09/99 +, Patrick Bond wrote: ... Brown, a declared advocate of the reform of international finances, on a key IMF committee. That lackey of the City? Keep him OUT of reforming, please, Chris! Really, this is an elementary responsibility of UK comrades. That really is crying for the moon! But could you explain the apparent discrepancy between this remark Go for the nation-state, man, it is the only hope. and this remark in your post on Jubilee 2000 this movement is about neither a "final" or a "short" burst of activity up to 2000. An excellent network has launched a variety of superb campaigns out of this, and I would guess that not just the debt, but the very existence of the IMF and WB will soon come under the spotlight. Do you mean that you the IMF and the WB will not be reformed, but actually abolished? Chris Burford London
[PEN-L:10948] Allen Nairn Arrested In Indonesia
Call your rep and ask them to press the State Department to say what they are doing to win Allan's release and guarantee his safety. U.S. Journalist Detained in E.Timor Tuesday, September 14, 1999; 6:16 a.m. EDT JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- A U.S. journalist who has long accused Indonesia of human rights abuses in East Timor was detained today by security forces in the provincial capital. ``The embassy has been informed that he has been detained and that the military and police are questioning him,'' said John Vance, a U.S. Embassy spokesman. Allan Nairn writes for the New York-based Nation magazine. He has been deported from Indonesia twice for his reports about the army's brutal treatment of the people of East Timor, which Indonesia invaded in 1975. Nairn, of New York City, was detained while investigating the damage inflicted on Dili by Indonesian troops and the militias they support following a U.N.-supervised Aug. 30 referendum on independence. While being taken under armed escort from a military base to a police compound, Nairn telephoned Essential Information, a Washington-based nonprofit group founded by consumer advocate Ralph Nader. John Richard, a member of the group, said Nairn identified Indonesian army officers who questioned him, including Maj. Gen. Kiki Syahnakai, chief of the security operation in the province. Nairn has reported extensively on the Indonesian army's brutal special forces unit, known as Kopassus, which has been blamed by U.N. and other international observers for orchestrating much of the violence unleashed in East Timor over the past two weeks. © Copyright 1999 The Associated Press --- Robert Naiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center 1737 21st NW Washington, DC 20009 phone: 202-265-3263 x277 fax: 202-265-3647 http://www.preamble.org/ ---
[PEN-L:10950] Re: Re: IMF to become autonomous?
Charles Brown wrote: But doesn't the central committee of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie sit above both the IMF and its member governments, really , anyway ? "Who" is the IMF ? "The IMF is a toy of the United States to pursue its economic policy offshore." - MIT econ prof Rudi Dornbusch (the same guy who said that the upside of the Asian crisis was that Korea became a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. Treasury) Doug
[PEN-L:10953] Re: Allen Nairn Arrested In Indonesia
Nairn was on KPFA last night, calling from the police station. He seemed calm and said that he faced no particular danger. Still, he showed incredible courage sneaking in to Indonesia and eluding the militia for so long, while just about everybody else left. Someone with his talent could easily work for the NY Times, reporting from Dili from the Hilton in Djakarta. Three cheers for the few reporters with that sort of integrity and courage. Most have already been blackballed. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:10955] Re: Re: Re: Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
Brad De Long wrote: Imports from non-industrial-core countries equal to 3% of GDP--most of which have potential domestic substitute producers who are not *that* much more costly... Are you sure of what you just wrote? With far reaching mechanization, I suspect that we would not loose too much by producing textiles in the U.S., but what about raw materials? Think of how sensitive the economy seems to be to oil prices. Was W. Arthur Lewis completely wrong about terms of trade? Also, I wonder how much U.S. prosperity depends on our ability to foist our products on Third World countries. Anyway, I think that I can learn a lot if we follow through on this discussion. By the way, my comment about your acknowledging context was intended as a complement, Brad. Your "my, my" response seemed to suggest that you did not read it in that spirit. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
[PEN-L:10956] Indigenous Epistemology II
These remind me of a story my uncle Irvin Chrisjohn used to tell about the first Iroquois to encounter an European. The European pulled out an axe and chopped down a good-sized tree in a few minutes. The Iroquois was duly impressed, since the felling was accomplished much more quickly than was possible with stone axes (also, proper tree felling had a ceremonial aspect that required more time). The European held up the axe and said: "This is a superior technology, given to us by the Creator because we are his chosen people. The Creator smiles upon us, giving us dominion over the world and the creatures of the world, including other peoples. We are willing to share this technology with you, as long as you acknowledge our superior relation to the Creator, our domination of the land, and the priority of our status over you." The Iroquois thought for a second and replied: "I'll take the axe, thanks, but you can keep the bullshit." Roland
[PEN-L:10957] Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
Imports from non-industrial-core countries equal to 3% of GDP--most of which have potential domestic substitute producers who are not *that* much more costly... Brad DeLong The low figure in part results from artificially low wages paid to Third World workers + low prices paid to Third World commodities, no? Without the ruling class repression (crucially assisted by military and other aids from the USA, et al.), Mexican, Indonesian, and other workers could demand and command higher living standards. The countries that underwent self-directed industrialization earlier became the industrial core, so comparative advantages that the core now enjoys have been historically created through imperialism, which locked colonies into the production of primary resources (such as minerals), agricultural commodities, and manpower. Even after the nominal political independence of the countries that used to be colonies, it was difficult for the newly independent countries to close the gap, for comparative advantages, once created, have a way of perpetuating themselves. Then, debt-financed import substitution imploded, and the advantages gained by Third World workers during the times of relative progress after decolonization have once again been taken away, with the imposition of austerity. The insane never-ending treadmill to gain foreign exchange to service debts also has increased competition in the few export commodities in which Third World countries had advantages, which has depressed commodity prices. Meanwhile, capital has flowed from the Third World to the First World financial institutions. All the while, the countries and sections of the working class that wished to break out of this vicious circle have become targets of the collective wrath of the First World ruling class and governing elite. Yoshie
[PEN-L:10963] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
At 10:28 AM 9/14/99 -0700, Jim Devine wrote: According to the US ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT, 1999, Table B-105, total imports from non-Industrial countries in the first 3 quarters of 1998 (at an annual rate) equaled 414.9 billion US$, which is more than 45 percent of total US imports. Is that $415b the value of the imports at their wholesale or retail value? If the former, the thousand or so percent markup at retail will generate what, some $4,000 billion in profits for the capitalist class in the US, no? wojtek
[PEN-L:10966] Re: Re: Re: Re: Why China Failed to BecomeCapitalist
Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/14/99 02:53PM Charles Brown wrote: Wasn't Lenin's idea in _Imperialism_ that around 1900 there was a shift from a predominance of export of goods from the core imperialist countries (in exchange for raw materials) to a predominance of export of capital ? In other words, what Lenin said fits with what Brad says: 1900 marked a change from mainly ripping off raw materials from the colonies ( as had been occurring with cotton) to ripping off super surplus value from the newly established proletarians. Seems to me that there are about 10-12 countries that are heavy foreign investment targets - China, Mexico, Brazil, some Southeast Asian countries, etc. - but most of the rest of the so-called Third World - Africa, much of South Asia, the poorer countries of the Western Hemisphere - is pretty peripheral to capital's concerns in 1999. ((( Charles: Given the G-7 ,aren't there only about 7, main imperialist countries ? That's 1.4 to 1.7 main colonies per imperialist center. Do you have a way of calculating the profits made by imperialism from its main investment targets ? Why else would Ford and GM, etc, move plants to Mexico and Brazil, etc., except a much higher rate of profit ? By the way, I didn't mean to disagree with Brad that things are not exactly the same as in 1900. Just that Lenin was talking about profits coming from the colonies, not goods. On the other hand, the industrial plants established in Korea, Mexico, Brazil, China (et al ? South Africa) in the last 20 years continue the export of capital trend that Lenin (Hobson ?) marked. The plantclosing/runaway shop trend of the 80's was not an illusion , was it ? Charles Brown
[PEN-L:10969] Close to Friedman with a brain
Because of my web site, I often get questions from students. I answer them if I can, but this one has me stumped. ;-) "I've got an essay on "what agency costs are you prepared to bear in your business ?" I'm not sure I'm entirely aligned with Friedman and am interested in something a bit close to Friedman with a brain. Any sites you could recommend ?? regards," Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[PEN-L:10971] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why China Failed to BecomeCapitalist
Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/14/99 03:25PM Charles Brown wrote: Do you have a way of calculating the profits made by imperialism from its main investment targets ? Why else would Ford and GM, etc, move plants to Mexico and Brazil, etc., except a much higher rate of profit ? Yes, of course, but about 70% of the stock of foreign direct investment is inter-imperialist, and the main reason for that is penetrating new markets with local production. (( Charles: Yes, a huge proportion is exporting capital to the U.S., nowadays, no ? With its large markets, developed infrastructure, low percentage unionized work force. (( If you believe the official stats, MNCs aren't making outlandishly superprofits on their "Third World" investments. ((( Charles: Well, they are making them in the "outlands" , ha, ha. But seriously, I would be kind of skeptical about the official stats. Or maybe it's a critical core of the profits and their source that controls the whole strategy of the MNC's. This is a little old, but in _Superprofits and Crises_ , Victor Perlo says: (page 357), "The relative importance of foreign investments to the property income of the ruling class jumped from a previous peak of about 3% to close to 15% by 1984" and (this might be critical to argument) "Bear in mind that the principal recipients of income on foreign investments directly and indirectly, were a small circle of the very rich and powerful, connected with the New York and the smaller financial centers, and major stockholders in the giant TNCs. for the members of this ruling-class group, income on foreign investments would typically account for 25%-50% of their total revenue..." This suggests looking, not at the source of the great mass of the profits of the MNC's , but at that of a small elite minority , the financial oligarchy, who control the MNC's. The superprofits from foreign investment are had by a tiny minority, but that tiny minority is the ruling class and they direct and control the MNC's. Thus, the mass of the superprofitting doesn't have to be that big as a percentage of the total profits. Does this make sense ? The pea brain of the dinosaur directs the whole giant body. CB
[PEN-L:10972] Why China Failed to Become Capitalist/Who is the rulingclass ?
And that small minority elite who superprofit from direct foreign investment are the bourgeois dictators who control the U.S. economic policy, IMF, the President, The Treasury Secretary, Wall Street, etc.. They are the ruling class. CB "Charles Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/14/99 Or maybe it's a critical core of the profits and their source that controls the whole strategy of the MNC's. This is a little old, but in _Superprofits and Crises_ , Victor Perlo says: "Bear in mind that the principal recipients of income on foreign investments directly and indirectly, were a small circle of the very rich and powerful, connected with the New York and the smaller financial centers, and major stockholders in the giant TNCs. for the members of this ruling-class group, income on foreign investments would typically account for 25%-50% of their total revenue..." This suggests looking, not at the source of the great mass of the profits of the MNC's , but at that of a small elite minority , the financial oligarchy, who control the MNC's. The superprofits from foreign investment are had by a tiny minority, but that tiny minority is the ruling class and they direct and control the MNC's. Thus, the mass of the superprofitting doesn't have to be that big as a percentage of the total profits. Does this make sense ? The pea brain of the dinosaur directs the whole giant body. CB
[PEN-L:10973] Re: Fascism
"Craven, Jim" wrote: "Only one thing could have broken our movement: if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed with extreme brutality the nucleus of our new movement." Adolf Hitler (Speech to Nuremberg Congress, September 3, 1933) "I am afraid of those who proclaim that it can't happen here. . . . Jim, this displaces the debate, which is not over whether "it" can happen here but over the precise nature of the "it" -- which we need to know if we are going to fight against its appearance. Remember, one of the foundations for the joke about military intelligence being an oxymoron is the propensity of generals to be prepared to fight the last war but not the next war. Focusing too much on a carelessly defined "it" can have two separate disastrous consequences: (1) And you should know this better than anyone, the focus on fascism (and especially on fascism just defined as nastiness) can obscure just how horrible and intense repression up to and including genocide can be in a perfectly sound bourgeois democracy. About half or more of what often goes into definitions of "what can happen here" are simple descriptions of what can't happen here because it has always been here. (2) *If* (as really is possible) the fascism we are trying to define was in fact historically limited to a particular conjunction of circumstances, then a focus on it is preparing for the last war and not looking ahead to the next war. There is always a danger of losing democratic rights, of some sort of directly authoritarian and repressive regime. Just as Hitler was really quite different from Bonaparte, so the next round of threats of the same genus may look terribly and unpredictably different specifically. A focus on fascism can lead to blindness to new dangers. Sinclair Lewis's *It Can't Happen Here* was a lousy novel -- in part because Lewis was a lousy novelist but mostly because he defined the "it" that could or couldn't happen as a mere carbon copy, ignoring the probability that a U.S. fascist movement would of course campaign under an anti-fascist banner. My own best guess as to what an American "Hitler" would look like is Jerry Brown of California. It wouldn't be "fascism," it would probably be something worse. "Soft Fascism" made for a good and useful title, to catch people's attention to certain (dangerous) variations within u.s. democracy -- but in the long run it is mistaken to play games with words in this way. Carrol
[PEN-L:10979] Re: Re: Re: IMF to become autonomous?
Charles Brown wrote: But doesn't the central committee of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie sit above both the IMF and its member governments, really , anyway ? "Who" is the IMF ? Doug: "The IMF is a toy of the United States to pursue its economic policy offshore." - MIT econ prof Rudi Dornbusch (the same guy who said that the upside of the Asian crisis was that Korea became a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. Treasury) At 13:29 14/09/99 -0400, Charles wrote: Yes, one of those honest statements that slips out now and again. To press it a little further, using the old Marxist metphor, the U.S. government -Presidency, including The Treasury, Congress, Judiciary, Military - is still sort of the executive controlled by the Board of Directors (central committee) of the Dictatorship of Transnational Bourgeoisie. The U.S. economic policy (off shore and on) is not aimed at the best interests of the American People in their tens of millions or even the federal top bureaucrats, but the maximum profits for the owners of big private property. Can there be any doubt ? The U.S/IMF top bureaucrats, Clinton, the Treasury Secretary, Cadmusses (spelling) are not the actual rulers , but top servants of the rulers, aren't they ? "Who" is the ruling class, "The Board of Directors of the whole World" ? I know conspiracy theory is not favored, but the "system" is not like an mechanical object at the top. There are people there commanding anonymously, aren't there ? It's not Morgan's ghost running things on automatic. I don't know what we can do about it. But I refuse to be naive. For the sake of brevity I cut out of my previous post a discussion about how to formulate the idenity of the ultimate capitalist class. Yes admittedly the US is its main power base, but it has interests now that are to some extent global and not just in terms of exploitation. Charles has suggested the term "transnational bourgeoisie" The term "transnational" seems to be favoured in progressive development circles, but it can obscure the fact that the main centre of the capital involved is usually located in one country or another. This point is brought out better by the term "multinational". The main focus of their lobbying may be in one country, probably the USA, but ultimately capital is without any human body home and any country. I do not doubt for a moment that the present capitalist system is one of US hegemony even allowing for the pickings of lesser imperialist powers like Britain. It is a frank and pithy statement from Dornbusch, but not the complete truth. I suggess we also make some allowances for US blunt speaking. In fact the situation is a little more complex. The US has to accept certain constraints to protect its hegemony. Eg the convention of sharing senior posts in international agencies between the US and Europe. Do a transnational bourgeoisie exist separately from US imperialism? Not of course separately, but I would say a) the reported international competition for top corporation executives earning a six figure sum a year, creates a pool of senior finance capitalists who all know each other because they have similar interests and leisure pursuits which only their salaries admit. b) The marxist analysis is real. Ultimately capital has no country and no human body. There is a potential space for a world bank to serve this function even though for a long time to come it will be slanted towards US influence. The IMF will not become autonomous but the struggle to make it more autonomous is progessive. Chris Burford London
[PEN-L:10982] Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
Thank you Louis. I wish others would be less quick to throw in the towel. If your gut tells you the imperialist nations got and are getting something from the Third World, maybe we need to apply some mental energy to pinpointing it. Louis speaks of the Rodney portion of the Williams-Rodney thesis. The Williams part is named for Eric Williams (_Capitalism and Slavery_), who concentrated on what the industrializing nations got, while the Rodney portion concentrates on the negative impact on Africa. For a more recent exposition of the Williams-Rodney thesis, see Darity's work, e.g., William Darity, Jr., "A Model of 'Original Sin': Rise of the West and Lag of the Rest," _American Economic Review_, Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 162-67, May, 1992; William Darity, Jr., "Mercantilism, Slavery, and the Industrial Revolution," _Research in Political Economy_, Vol. 5, pp. 1-21, 1982; William Darity, Jr., "British Industry and the West Indies Plantations," in J. E. Inikori and S. L. Engerman (eds.): _The Atlantic Slave Trade_, Duke U. Press, 1992. Obviously, in the world we live in, it takes a lot more work to make the argument like the Williams-Rodney thesis than to argue that "well, the industrialized countries really didn't get that much out of it" or "capitalism was really good for Africa" etc. Unbelievable. Come on, "progressive economists"! I'd love to sponsor a debate between Darity and Brad, or between Darity and Wojtek for that matter. (Although we could use Wojtek's framework and just add in tons of what he is calling "externalities" and come up with a different bottom line.) Come on, Marxists, let's start with "Primitive Accumulation" and we'll take it from there. And reserve army for sure. But some of the horrors, theft, rape, plunder, slavery, murder, doesn't come up in the "percentages" (although Darity takes on the "small ratios" theory, in the last cite above, I believe.) By the way, how much pressure did Tanzania get over Ujamaa? mf -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 2:39 PM Subject: [PEN-L:10968] Why China Failed to Become Capitalist There are no statutes of limitation on imperialism. Just because US multinationals are ignoring most of Subsaharan Africa today, we can not forgive or forget that the damage was already done. Walter Rodney's "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" leaves no doubt that imperialism left the continent in a shattered state. The absence of foreign investment today is not so much a sign of "benign neglect", but rather that the bones have been already been picked clean. Colin Leys, on the Socialist Register editorial board, has written an analysis of underdevelopment in Africa that elaborates on these points. Titled "Rise and Fall of Development Theory", it attempts to skirt the dialectical poles of the sort of stagist Marxism represented by James Heartfield and the late Bill Zimmer, both of whom argue that more foreign investment was needed in Africa if anything, and "dependency theorists" on the other who blame everything on capitalist penetration. Leys's basic argument is that Africa is suspended between 2 modes of production. It has not fully uprooted precapitalist social and economic formations, but at the same time it has not been attractive enough to outside capitalist investors to warrant the full-scale transformation that has taken place in much of East Asia, for example. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:10986] Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
At 05:12 PM 9/14/99 -0700, Craven, Jim wrote: Add to all of that and more that fully 50% of all children born in Africa today are born HIV positive. I like to use the metaphor of imperialism as a gigantic "reverse Hoover" vacuum "cleaner".( actually a vacuum plunderer and dirtier) Whereas a normal vacuum cleaner takes out the dirt and leaves the furniture and rooms in tact and in fact cleaner than before, imperialism takes out the furniture (critical resources, talents, local capital, whole populations, savings, etc) and leaves even more dirt (strip bars, whore houses, tatoo parlors, orphanages full of unwanted mixed-race children, Coca-Colanization, ultra-selfish/rat-race individualism, military bases, Funny you mention this. These were my exact thoughts a half-hour ago when I was viewing the opening-night reception for a show at the Metropolitan titled "Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids", courtesy of a ticket that my friend, the estimable Henry Liu, laid on me. Most of this art was not seen by their makers as art, but permanent icons that belonged in tombs in order to establish the immortality of the inhabitants. Created in the 3rd century BC, it has an incredible freshness and vitality. One in particular stands out. It is a sculpture of a male and female member of the royal family who stand as if posing for a Polaroid, with their arms wrapped around each other's shoulders.. You can almost imagine them saying "Cheese". It is truly astonishing art. But the museum in which it is displayed is a monument to inhumanity. It is funded by the imperialist bourgeoisie who are largely responsible for turning Egypt into what is today: a miserably poor third world country which requires US aid in order to survive. Instead of graceful sculptures, you have monuments to the quarter-pounder instead. Charts depicting the building of the pyramids leave no doubt that this was a very despotic society. If Egypt had been left to its own devices, perhaps there would have been the development of a strong, peasant class that could have asserted its own rights and challenged the various feudal monarchies. We'll never know. Egypt, like China and the Incan empire, got swallowed whole by the Hoover vacuum of imperialism. There is a very deep ambivalence and anxiety about these kinds of precapitalist social formations in European and American bourgeois society. While we organize exhibits of the loot we stole from them, in clear deference to the transcendent spirit which animated these societies, we still consider them savages. Martin Bernal, the author of "Black Athena", is under constant attack for alleging that Egyptian culture shaped Greek thought. In the latest New Yorker, there's an review of a new book by a Brown professor named Shepard Krech III. Titled "The Ecological Indian: Myth and History," it is a compendium of all the bullshit that we hear over and over. Krech has assembled all of the arguments about Indians driving bison over the cliffs, dying by "accident" because the Europeans didn't intend to infect them with smallpox, etc. and packaged them into a $27.95 book sold by Norton Press. It is a companion volume, obviously, to David Stoll's ignorant attack on Rigobertu Menchu. These precapitalist societies are a constant reminder of what Matt Forstater (after Marx) refers to as "horrors, theft, rape, plunder, slavery, murder". I am always reminded of that wonderful scene in the movie Poltergeist when the land underneath the modern housing development comes churning up, vomiting the graves of the violated bodies whose sacred ground has been violated. These ideologists like Krech and Stoll just want to keep them buried. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:10988] Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
There is another professor from Wellesley, I believe, named Mary Lefkowitz, author of "Not Out of Africa" who has a whole little business of "refuting" Bernal and anyone who wants to study any contribution by African peoples. She's got a bunch of books all on this, she is funded by real right wing groups, and it's a whole industry she has going, with a following and I am sure there are a whole group of ph.d's coming up who all go to her panels and publish in her journals, etc, and so every time a Black Studies Dept. wanmmts to do anything, they have to spend all of their time answering to her and her kind, instead of doing productive stuff. This is how whole groups and dept.s and individuals get drained if they don't have the energy to spend all of their time demonstrating that these attacks are wrong, becvause you have to do it, otherwise it is assumed that if you don't answer that they must be right! AAAG!! -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Henry C.K. Liu ¹ù¤l¥ú [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 8:28 PM Subject: [PEN-L:10986] Why China Failed to Become Capitalist At 05:12 PM 9/14/99 -0700, Craven, Jim wrote: Add to all of that and more that fully 50% of all children born in Africa today are born HIV positive. I like to use the metaphor of imperialism as a gigantic "reverse Hoover" vacuum "cleaner".( actually a vacuum plunderer and dirtier) Whereas a normal vacuum cleaner takes out the dirt and leaves the furniture and rooms in tact and in fact cleaner than before, imperialism takes out the furniture (critical resources, talents, local capital, whole populations, savings, etc) and leaves even more dirt (strip bars, whore houses, tatoo parlors, orphanages full of unwanted mixed-race children, Coca-Colanization, ultra-selfish/rat-race individualism, military bases, Funny you mention this. These were my exact thoughts a half-hour ago when I was viewing the opening-night reception for a show at the Metropolitan titled "Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids", courtesy of a ticket that my friend, the estimable Henry Liu, laid on me. Most of this art was not seen by their makers as art, but permanent icons that belonged in tombs in order to establish the immortality of the inhabitants. Created in the 3rd century BC, it has an incredible freshness and vitality. One in particular stands out. It is a sculpture of a male and female member of the royal family who stand as if posing for a Polaroid, with their arms wrapped around each other's shoulders.. You can almost imagine them saying "Cheese". It is truly astonishing art. But the museum in which it is displayed is a monument to inhumanity. It is funded by the imperialist bourgeoisie who are largely responsible for turning Egypt into what is today: a miserably poor third world country which requires US aid in order to survive. Instead of graceful sculptures, you have monuments to the quarter-pounder instead. Charts depicting the building of the pyramids leave no doubt that this was a very despotic society. If Egypt had been left to its own devices, perhaps there would have been the development of a strong, peasant class that could have asserted its own rights and challenged the various feudal monarchies. We'll never know. Egypt, like China and the Incan empire, got swallowed whole by the Hoover vacuum of imperialism. There is a very deep ambivalence and anxiety about these kinds of precapitalist social formations in European and American bourgeois society. While we organize exhibits of the loot we stole from them, in clear deference to the transcendent spirit which animated these societies, we still consider them savages. Martin Bernal, the author of "Black Athena", is under constant attack for alleging that Egyptian culture shaped Greek thought. In the latest New Yorker, there's an review of a new book by a Brown professor named Shepard Krech III. Titled "The Ecological Indian: Myth and History," it is a compendium of all the bullshit that we hear over and over. Krech has assembled all of the arguments about Indians driving bison over the cliffs, dying by "accident" because the Europeans didn't intend to infect them with smallpox, etc. and packaged them into a $27.95 book sold by Norton Press. It is a companion volume, obviously, to David Stoll's ignorant attack on Rigobertu Menchu. These precapitalist societies are a constant reminder of what Matt Forstater (after Marx) refers to as "horrors, theft, rape, plunder, slavery, murder". I am always reminded of that wonderful scene in the movie Poltergeist when the land underneath the modern housing development comes churning up, vomiting the graves of the violated bodies whose sacred ground has been violated. These ideologists like Krech and Stoll just want to keep them buried. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:10989] Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
You could on and on with the moral outrage. War and conquest extract terrible penalties on the defeated. Inside Europe as well as outside it. Has no one read the history of the thirty years war? But the question is how dependent was the development of capitalism on the exploitation of the peripheral countries. Few of the quantitative studies indicate that the dependence was large. Capitalism depended and continues to depend for the most part upon the exploitation of workers within the core countries. Even with higher wages, the amount of surplus extracted is many, many times higher. This should not be surprizing given the differences in capital accumulation (both physical and human). Workers with higher educational accomplishments and more machines and more modern technology produce more. This is why the larger percentage of foreign investment is in already industrialised countries. That is where the surplus can be obtained more easily. Globalisation may change that, but even here the spread of industrial production is encompassing a small number of new countries. Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[PEN-L:10993] imperialism, china, and pen-l
I very much appreciate the quality of the discussion on imperialism. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10991] Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
You could on and on with the moral outrage. War and conquest extract terrible penalties on the defeated. Inside Europe as well as outside it. Has no one read the history of the thirty years war? But the question is how dependent was the development of capitalism on the exploitation of the peripheral countries. Few of the quantitative studies indicate that the dependence was large. British industrial revolution depended quite heavily on slave-grown cotton from the American south for a few decades in the early nineteenth century... Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:10987] Re: RE: Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
I say, it does matter, very much, but I agree it is not all that matters. But who said it is all that matters?! Of course, the point is to change it. But understanding it very much matters in terms of changing it. It matters in principle, and it matters as a matter of politics and policy. I for one am for reparations/restitution. Will that change evrything? No, but I am still for that and for changing it so more doesn't happen again. But who said we can only choose one? But there is something else going on here. The fact of the matter is that "progressive" groups in the industrialized nations have historically suffered from racism, sexism, eurocentrism that marginalize so-called Third World peoples. (Is there sexism in those nations, too? Yes, but that's not what was being discussed.) This could go on and on but I don't have the time or energy at the moment. mf -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 7:20 PM Subject: [PEN-L:10985] RE: Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist . . . Come on, "progressive economists"! I'd love to sponsor a debate between Darity and Brad, or between Darity and Wojtek for that matter. . . . I agree it is worth knowing the extent to which rents from resource extraction or unfair trade subsidized the rise of the "West" or the "North," both retrospectively and currently. Whether you get a result currently that is big or small, the disposition of it depends on politics in the U.S., EU, Japan, and OZ, not on our own conclusions about measured exploitation. Politically the implications can go both ways. Talk of our dependence on exploitation, the need for truth notwithstanding, could easily have the effect of hindering the case for aid in assorted forms. I say this not to discourage discussion, but to point out the implied political ambiguities. Whether the amount is big or small, the indubitable fact is that US/EU/Japan/OZ are rich and many other countries are economically and militarily helpless. Aid and the removal of oppressive institutions are the right thing to do. You can scream at, say, Americans all you like about the atrocities committed in our name. Some will be sympathetic to moral appeals, however weak their power. Some will take pity and buy some South American child a year's worth of meals. Most people are immersed in their own problems, and a crisis here may elevate that concern to one for the broader working class or "the people" in some formulation. But it's hard to see how a crisis connects people's thinking with the plight of the underdeveloped countries, nor how the latter effectively escape the implications of capitalist hegemony in its present form. The extent to which capitalism depends on the misery of certain areas of the world is less important than how this may be changed. The truth will not set anyone free, no matter how many times it is repeated. The other side can convey their own brand of internationalism a hundred times louder and more frequently. People who are repelled by this have been going right to Buchanan more often than left. So let me repeat that the question is interesting, but its importance from a political standpoint (not a moral one) seems to be prone to overstatement. mbs
[PEN-L:10985] RE: Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
. . . Come on, "progressive economists"! I'd love to sponsor a debate between Darity and Brad, or between Darity and Wojtek for that matter. . . . I agree it is worth knowing the extent to which rents from resource extraction or unfair trade subsidized the rise of the "West" or the "North," both retrospectively and currently. Whether you get a result currently that is big or small, the disposition of it depends on politics in the U.S., EU, Japan, and OZ, not on our own conclusions about measured exploitation. Politically the implications can go both ways. Talk of our dependence on exploitation, the need for truth notwithstanding, could easily have the effect of hindering the case for aid in assorted forms. I say this not to discourage discussion, but to point out the implied political ambiguities. Whether the amount is big or small, the indubitable fact is that US/EU/Japan/OZ are rich and many other countries are economically and militarily helpless. Aid and the removal of oppressive institutions are the right thing to do. You can scream at, say, Americans all you like about the atrocities committed in our name. Some will be sympathetic to moral appeals, however weak their power. Some will take pity and buy some South American child a year's worth of meals. Most people are immersed in their own problems, and a crisis here may elevate that concern to one for the broader working class or "the people" in some formulation. But it's hard to see how a crisis connects people's thinking with the plight of the underdeveloped countries, nor how the latter effectively escape the implications of capitalist hegemony in its present form. The extent to which capitalism depends on the misery of certain areas of the world is less important than how this may be changed. The truth will not set anyone free, no matter how many times it is repeated. The other side can convey their own brand of internationalism a hundred times louder and more frequently. People who are repelled by this have been going right to Buchanan more often than left. So let me repeat that the question is interesting, but its importance from a political standpoint (not a moral one) seems to be prone to overstatement. mbs
[PEN-L:10984] Re: Re: imports
I wrote: 3% does not sound like much (assuming that figure is about right). But if we assume that imports from non-industrial core countries are goods rather than services, and that about 2/3 of GDP is services, a more relevant figure for this discussion is 9%... Bill Burgess Brad replied: No it isn't. The relevant figure for this discussion is 3%--unless you're some weird material-physiocrat who doesn't believe that services really add value... Brad DeLong It't true, I have neo-physiocrat tendencies. Silly me, I still think there is an important difference between goods and services, especially that they are not substitutes for each other. If the U.S. and Canada lost our imports of nature and labour from other countries we couldn't make it up with more lawsuits and cosmetic surgery. That is why I think that in this discussion it is better to measure the impact of trade in terms of the goods economy rather than the bubble called GDP. On the other hand, after writing the above I remembered that when tourists spend money elsewhere this is an import (of tourist services), which are considerable, so it is probably not right to assume the 3% is all goods. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:10980] Re: imports
At 01:17 PM 14/09/99 -0400, Brad wrote: Imports from non-industrial-core countries equal to 3% of GDP--most of which have potential domestic substitute producers who are not *that* much more costly... Brad DeLong 3% does not sound like much (assuming that figure is about right). But if we assume that imports from non-industrial core countries are goods rather than services, and that about 2/3 of GDP is services, a more relevant figure for this discussion is 9%... Bill Burgess No it isn't. The relevant figure for this discussion is 3%--unless you're some weird material-physiocrat who doesn't believe that services really add value... Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:10981] Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
Brad De Long wrote: Imports from non-industrial-core countries equal to 3% of GDP--most of which have potential domestic substitute producers who are not *that* much more costly... Are you sure of what you just wrote? With far reaching mechanization, I suspect that we would not loose too much by producing textiles in the U.S., but what about raw materials? Think of how sensitive the economy seems to be to oil prices. There is a difference between short run and long run. Short-run a big rise in the price of oil is very disruptive. In the long run the U.S. has lots of coal, lots of shale... Now access to the U.S. market is very important for Mexico, Thailand, India, et cetera. But imports from LDCs are such a small part of GDP, and if there is one thing that market economies are good at finding it is substitutes...
[PEN-L:10978] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why China Failed toBecome Capitalist
I had written: According to the US ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT, 1999, Table B-105, total imports from non-Industrial countries in the first 3 quarters of 1998 (at an annual rate) equaled 414.9 billion US$, which is more than 45 percent of total US imports. wojtek asks: Is that $415b the value of the imports at their wholesale or retail value? If the former, the thousand or so percent markup at retail will generate what, some $4,000 billion in profits for the capitalist class in the US, no? I'm pretty sure these imports are priced using retail prices. However, we can't presume that all of the profits are taken by the US capitalist class. Some go to the rest of the OECD nations' capitalists. Some go to the Third World's home-grown capitalists. After all, here in LA, I've seen trucks for the Mexico-based Pan Bimbo company (which produces Wonder-like bread) and a branch of the Lippobank, the bank associated with those Indonesian richies who seem to have been involved in one of Clinton's many money-related scandals. Some go into numbered bank accounts. I'm not sure it matters what the nationality of the capitalist is. In response to Brad's original gee-whiz statistic, Bill Burgess writes: 3% does not sound like much (assuming that figure is about right). But if we assume that imports from non-industrial core countries are goods rather than services, and that about 2/3 of GDP is services, a more relevant figure for this discussion is 9%, without considering unequal exchange. Not only that, but the percentage of the US GDP spent on services is _rising_. This means that that along with the general rise in the share of imports from nonindustrial countries in US GDP that I mentioned before, there's another reason why imports from low-wage areas is rapidly becoming more important to the US economu. On this topic, there's an excellent article by Robert Feenstra in the Fall 1998 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES that sheds dramatic doubt on the Krugmaneque pooh-poohing of the importance of imports from low wages (that Brad shares). For example, he calculates the ratio of trade to domestic value-added of "merchandise" (tangible goods). For the US, this ratio fell from 14.3 in 1889 to 9.6 percent in 1960 (reflecting the major deglobalization of the interwar years and only partial recovery after that) but then _soared_ to 35.8 percent in 1990. Further, to quote Dani Rodrik's summary, "If globalization results in the outsourcing of activities, with the least skill-intensive processes _within_ manufacturing shifting to developing [sic] countries, skill upgrading of the type we have observed [i.e., a shift away from demand for unskilled labor and toward skilled labor in the US] would be the direct consequence of [increased] trade. In effect, trade and technological change could be observationally equivalent." Establishmentarian economists have been blaming the increased wage gap (between the wages at the bottom of the wage hierarchy and those at the top) on an unexplained _diablo ex machina_ who decided to punish the working poor with "skill-biased technical change" (p. 6). Feenstra is saying that we cannot presume that the _diablo_ is there (especially, I might add, since people like Jamie Galbraith have provided excellent criticisms of this skill bias theory), since the globalization of trade, including out-sourcing, has a similar impact. In the same issue, Maurice Obstfeld points to the fact that (in theory) capital mobility out of the rich countries tends to hurt workers there (p. 21). He then pooh-poohs this theory, based on what seems to be irrelevant data. BTW, this fits with the sociology of neoclassical economists I've noticed (at least in the US). The tribe worships International Trade and actively attacks those heretics who criticize It, while ignoring the fact that trade cannot be separated from capital flows. Strictly speaking, the worship of free trade doesn't really make sense even from a neoclassical position, since free markets aren't supposed to produce good results unless they're perfect, e.g., lacking external costs. But there are no markets that don't involve external costs, both technical and pecuniary. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:10977] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why China Failed to BecomeCapitalist
Doug Henwood wrote: I absolutely agree with Lou Proyect's point about the historical importance of imperialism to capitalism; I'm just trying to figure out how it matters today. The evidence that it is (somehow or other) important lies in the ferocity of the imperialists in defending it. But Doug is correct I believe in saying that there is no clear analysis of "How" available. Query. Say a given corporation has 3% of its capital invested in Africa. Since the returns are (as has been pointed out in this thread) low, does not the investment indicate that otherwise the capital would go begging, and capitalists are apt to become very excited about even a small percentage of their capital not having a home. Does this make sense? If not, what are the flaws in it? Also -- it seems that imperialist theorists and politicians really believe in one version of the domino theory: that national liberation is a contagious disease. Hence even if a given neo-colony offers no particular economic value to anyone any attempts on its part to free itself of capital would potentially infect those areas that are valuable, whether for investment or raw materials. ? This seems to me to be the most convincing argument in respect to Yugoslavia. Carrol
[PEN-L:10975] RE: Fascism
Hi Carrol, I agree with everything you have written 100%. That is why I also attached (to provoke thought not as any "proof")the comment by Bertram Gross about new forms of fascism under new historical/geopolitical/cultural/political/economic conditions not being a replica--in forms--of any older or prototypical examples of fascism. That was only to provoke some thought and discussion and not meant as any definitive treatment or even shorthand treatement of the subject. Thanks for your comments and yes, I indeed know very well how genocide can be conducted easily under the institutional frameworks and mechanisms of "bourgeois democracy" and about the dangers of "crying wolf" etc. Thanks, Jim C. James Craven Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663 (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.earthlink.net/~blkfoot5 *My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected Opinion* -Original Message- From: Carrol Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 1:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L:10916] Fascism "Craven, Jim" wrote: "Only one thing could have broken our movement: if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed with extreme brutality the nucleus of our new movement." Adolf Hitler (Speech to Nuremberg Congress, September 3, 1933) "I am afraid of those who proclaim that it can't happen here. . . . Jim, this displaces the debate, which is not over whether "it" can happen here but over the precise nature of the "it" -- which we need to know if we are going to fight against its appearance. Remember, one of the foundations for the joke about military intelligence being an oxymoron is the propensity of generals to be prepared to fight the last war but not the next war. Focusing too much on a carelessly defined "it" can have two separate disastrous consequences: (1) And you should know this better than anyone, the focus on fascism (and especially on fascism just defined as nastiness) can obscure just how horrible and intense repression up to and including genocide can be in a perfectly sound bourgeois democracy. About half or more of what often goes into definitions of "what can happen here" are simple descriptions of what can't happen here because it has always been here. (2) *If* (as really is possible) the fascism we are trying to define was in fact historically limited to a particular conjunction of circumstances, then a focus on it is preparing for the last war and not looking ahead to the next war. There is always a danger of losing democratic rights, of some sort of directly authoritarian and repressive regime. Just as Hitler was really quite different from Bonaparte, so the next round of threats of the same genus may look terribly and unpredictably different specifically. A focus on fascism can lead to blindness to new dangers. Sinclair Lewis's *It Can't Happen Here* was a lousy novel -- in part because Lewis was a lousy novelist but mostly because he defined the "it" that could or couldn't happen as a mere carbon copy, ignoring the probability that a U.S. fascist movement would of course campaign under an anti-fascist banner. My own best guess as to what an American "Hitler" would look like is Jerry Brown of California. It wouldn't be "fascism," it would probably be something worse. "Soft Fascism" made for a good and useful title, to catch people's attention to certain (dangerous) variations within u.s. democracy -- but in the long run it is mistaken to play games with words in this way. Carrol
[PEN-L:10974] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why China Failed to BecomeCapitalist
Charles Brown wrote: Charles: Well, they are making them in the "outlands" , ha, ha. But seriously, I would be kind of skeptical about the official stats. Or maybe it's a critical core of the profits and their source that controls the whole strategy of the MNC's. If there really were vast superprofits to be made by investing in the "Third World," there'd probably be more of it. So while the official stats may not tell the whole story, they're probably close to telling something like the truth. I absolutely agree with Lou Proyect's point about the historical importance of imperialism to capitalism; I'm just trying to figure out how it matters today. Doug
[PEN-L:10970] Re: IMF to become autonomous?
Indeed as I indicated divisions between workers of different countries is a problem. I don't know the full solution to it. But I don't see how making the IMF autonomous is going to help. Or how autonomous means democratic. And I don't see how my position is more "economist" than that of Chris or Ajit. Original Message Follows From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rod, Will this world government allow workers from all over the world to move freely and work where ever they please? Free mobility of the workers of the world would be first and foremost opposed by the workers of the 1st world. Cheers, ajit sinha This not so little problem is indeed a consequence of Rod Hay's strictly economist approach to world financial institutions. Chris Burford London __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[PEN-L:10968] Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
There are no statutes of limitation on imperialism. Just because US multinationals are ignoring most of Subsaharan Africa today, we can not forgive or forget that the damage was already done. Walter Rodney's "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" leaves no doubt that imperialism left the continent in a shattered state. The absence of foreign investment today is not so much a sign of "benign neglect", but rather that the bones have been already been picked clean. Colin Leys, on the Socialist Register editorial board, has written an analysis of underdevelopment in Africa that elaborates on these points. Titled "Rise and Fall of Development Theory", it attempts to skirt the dialectical poles of the sort of stagist Marxism represented by James Heartfield and the late Bill Zimmer, both of whom argue that more foreign investment was needed in Africa if anything, and "dependency theorists" on the other who blame everything on capitalist penetration. Leys's basic argument is that Africa is suspended between 2 modes of production. It has not fully uprooted precapitalist social and economic formations, but at the same time it has not been attractive enough to outside capitalist investors to warrant the full-scale transformation that has taken place in much of East Asia, for example. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
[PEN-L:10967] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why China Failed to BecomeCapitalist
Charles Brown wrote: Charles: Given the G-7 ,aren't there only about 7, main imperialist countries ? That's 1.4 to 1.7 main colonies per imperialist center. Don't forget the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Spain, etc. There are probably about 20 main imperialist countries all together. Do you have a way of calculating the profits made by imperialism from its main investment targets ? Why else would Ford and GM, etc, move plants to Mexico and Brazil, etc., except a much higher rate of profit ? Yes, of course, but about 70% of the stock of foreign direct investment is inter-imperialist, and the main reason for that is penetrating new markets with local production. If you believe the official stats, MNCs aren't making outlandishly superprofits on their "Third World" investments. On the other hand, the industrial plants established in Korea, Mexico, Brazil, China (et al ? South Africa) in the last 20 years continue the export of capital trend that Lenin (Hobson ?) marked. The plantclosing/runaway shop trend of the 80's was not an illusion , was it ? A lot of the "target" countries are becoming foreign investors in their own right - e.g. Taiwanese and Korean-owned sweatshops in Central America. Doug
[PEN-L:10965] Re: Re: Re: Re: Why China Failed to BecomeCapitalist
Charles Brown wrote: Wasn't Lenin's idea in _Imperialism_ that around 1900 there was a shift from a predominance of export of goods from the core imperialist countries (in exchange for raw materials) to a predominance of export of capital ? In other words, what Lenin said fits with what Brad says: 1900 marked a change from mainly ripping off raw materials from the colonies ( as had been occurring with cotton) to ripping off super surplus value from the newly established proletarians. Seems to me that there are about 10-12 countries that are heavy foreign investment targets - China, Mexico, Brazil, some Southeast Asian countries, etc. - but most of the rest of the so-called Third World - Africa, much of South Asia, the poorer countries of the Western Hemisphere - is pretty peripheral to capital's concerns in 1999. Doug
[PEN-L:10964] imports
At 01:17 PM 14/09/99 -0400, Brad wrote: Imports from non-industrial-core countries equal to 3% of GDP--most of which have potential domestic substitute producers who are not *that* much more costly... Brad DeLong 3% does not sound like much (assuming that figure is about right). But if we assume that imports from non-industrial core countries are goods rather than services, and that about 2/3 of GDP is services, a more relevant figure for this discussion is 9%, without considering unequal exchange. Bill Burgess
[PEN-L:10961] Re: Re: Re: Why China Failed to BecomeCapitalist
Wasn't Lenin's idea in _Imperialism_ that around 1900 there was a shift from a predominance of export of goods from the core imperialist countries (in exchange for raw materials) to a predominance of export of capital ? In other words, what Lenin said fits with what Brad says: 1900 marked a change from mainly ripping off raw materials from the colonies ( as had been occurring with cotton) to ripping off super surplus value from the newly established proletarians. Export of capital means setting up capitalist relations of production in the colonies, and setting up new markets (i.e. places to sell goods) in the colonies. These newly established ( and increasing numbers of ever since) capitalists relations of production and markets in the colonies were the basis for the superprofiteering. Lenin's point was not that consumers in the imperialist countries were getting lots of goods (imports) from the colonies, but that the imperialists were getting a higher rate of surplus-value from the newly established wage-laborers in the colonies than they were from the workers in the core countries. This extra surplus value was a basis for some concessions to workers in the imperialist core ( thus a basis for opportunism among those workers). That is with the rate of profit so high in the colonies, the bourgeoisie were not so pressed to increase the rate of surplus value in the imperialist centers. Charles Brown Brad De Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/14/99 09:50AM I would suggest another dimension to your equation. The U.S. is able to treat many of its people relatively well (materially) because of the pressure it exerts on other countries. We get clothes made for $.15-.20 per hour, Imports from non-industrial-core countries equal to 3% of GDP--most of which have potential domestic substitute producers who are not *that* much more costly... It is hard to argue that a shift to complete autarky vis-a-vis the periphery would reduce U.S. real material standards of living by more than 3%, and that only under the assumption that we in the U.S. are only half as productive on average at making import-competing as export goods. You can get big numbers for the economic impact of trade. But you have to work very hard to make dynamic learning-by-doing effects big. And the part of trade that then is a major source of wealth is trade with the rest of the industrial core... Lenin's idea that the prosperity of the industrial core is critically linked to a poor periphery from which the core can buy raw materials was perhaps true (but perhaps not) in 1900. (The best example of this, in my view, is the U.S.-British cotton trade of the first half of the nineteenth century.) But it is now 2000, not 1900. And the pattern of trade and wealth creation is very, very different... Brad DeLong cheap resources ... all which help U.S. consumers (but of course not workers). This I don't see at all. The consumers who shop for clothes at Target and T.J. Maxx *are* workers (well, are me too)... Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:10962] Re: Re: Re: Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
At 06:50 AM 9/14/99 -0700, Brad DeLong wrote: Lenin's idea that the prosperity of the industrial core is critically linked to a poor periphery from which the core can buy raw materials was perhaps true (but perhaps not) in 1900. (The best example of Was not that originally Rosa Luxemburg's idea? The critical linkage being constant expansion, cheap labor power source, new markets rather than straightforward expolitation. Using an analogy to automobile - the periphery is a radiator rather than a gasoline tank - its main function is dissipation of excess heat rather than the provision of the propellant. Since from a marxist perspective, it is the "excess heat" in the organic composition of capital that will bring capitalism to its meltdown - third world plays an important function of absobing that heat and keeping capitalism alive. If that is the case, that is even more true today than it was in 1900. This I don't see at all. The consumers who shop for clothes at Target and T.J. Maxx *are* workers (well, are me too)... Let's see... A T-shirt that cost $0.50 to produce in one of Asia's sweatshops sells at $12 at Target, which gives what - about 2,500% profit margin. How is that supposed to benefit the working class buyer is beyond me - unless perhaps we accept the advertisers' Orwellian logic that spending is saving. wojtek
[PEN-L:10960] Re: The Dalai Lama on Marxism
As the DL himself [Himself?] points out below, this kind of thing has been said by the Pope (though he mostly criticizes Marxism for its materialism and atheism), so we can recycle the debates concerning the progressive vs. reactionary nature of the Pontiff. Both the DL and the Pope come from precapitalist cultures with major emphases on the production for use rather than production for exchange-value and surplus-value. The emphasis on production for use is shared by the socialist traditions, though the latter typically embrace "modernism," seeing potential gains from the application of modern science under different social relations of production than those now predominant. At 12:18 AM 9/14/99 -0400, you wrote: With some of the debates recently on the progressive vs. reactionary nature of the Dalai Lama, this forwarded post seems interesting.--Nathan Newman -Original Message- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of ANDERSON DAVID "Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned with only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is the majority--as well as the with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article a paper where his holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism... The failure of the regime in the Soviet Union was, for me not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist." The Dalai Lama in Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses Hello Dalai! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:10959] Re: Re: Re: Re: Why China Failed to BecomeCapitalist
Michael writes: I would suggest another dimension to your equation. The U.S. is able to treat many of its people relatively well (materially) because of the pressure it exerts on other countries. We get clothes made for $.15-.20 per hour, Brad replies: Imports from non-industrial-core countries equal to 3% of GDP--most of which have potential domestic substitute producers who are not *that* much more costly... It is hard to argue that a shift to complete autarky vis-a-vis the periphery would reduce U.S. real material standards of living by more than 3%, and that only under the assumption that we in the U.S. are only half as productive on average at making import-competing as export goods. According to the US ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT, 1999, Table B-105, total imports from non-Industrial countries in the first 3 quarters of 1998 (at an annual rate) equaled 414.9 billion US$, which is more than 45 percent of total US imports. (I count the countries of Eastern Europe as low wage areas, since that is what the US victory in the Cold War caused them to be.) With nominal GDP for those three quarters averaging at $7464 billion, the total imports from the non-Industrial add up to about 5.5 percent, not 3 percent. This ratio is rising (as part of what's called "globalization"), making Brad's stat obsolete. We should also remember that the US gets almost 55 percent of its imports from Industrial countries. These countries in turn buy a lot of raw materials from low-wage countries. So the US gets subsidized indirectly. We should also bring in the fact that low wages in the non-Industrial areas subsidize the rich areas year after year, allowing the accumulation of benefits. And that the benefits of First World domination of the Third World are not simply a matter of getting cheap imports but also of preventing competition in export markets. For example, the British push for free trade in the US (before 1860) and in Latin America helped delay or even prevent the rise of competitors. You can get big numbers for the economic impact of trade. But you have to work very hard to make dynamic learning-by-doing effects big. And the part of trade that then is a major source of wealth is trade with the rest of the industrial core... Don't you think that England's smashing of the home-grown textile industry in India (not to mention the syphoning off of much of India's economic surplus and the dominattion of its economic policy by outsiders for more than a century) prevented the latter country from any possibility of having an industrial revolution at a time when such a thing could be bought on the cheap? That seems a crucial case of "dynamic learning-by-doing effects." It can be seen in Latin America on a smaller scale, as England encouraged those countries to avoid having their own industrial revolutions. Lenin's idea that the prosperity of the industrial core is critically linked to a poor periphery from which the core can buy raw materials was perhaps true (but perhaps not) in 1900. (The best example of this, in my view, is the U.S.-British cotton trade of the first half of the nineteenth century.) But it is now 2000, not 1900. And the pattern of trade and wealth creation is very, very different... Last time I checked, most oil -- so crucial to Industrial economies -- came from outside of the Industrial world (Alaska and the North Sea notwithstanding). I remember that George Bush was willing to fight (and even risk soldiers' lives!) Iraq when that a small bit of that oil supply was threatened. cheap resources ... all which help U.S. consumers (but of course not workers). This I don't see at all. The consumers who shop for clothes at Target and T.J. Maxx *are* workers (well, are me too)... The US is undergoing a transition from the era when US workers benefited from cheap imports to an era when US workers lose their jobs (and/or suffer wage cuts) because capital moves where wages are low (when feasible), usually taking high-productivity technology with it. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine
[PEN-L:10958] Re: Re: IMF to become autonomous?
Yes, one of those honest statements that slips out now and again. To press it a little further, using the old Marxist metphor, the U.S. government -Presidency, including The Treasury, Congress, Judiciary, Military - is still sort of the executive controlled by the Board of Directors (central committee) of the Dictatorship of Transnational Bourgeoisie. The U.S. economic policy (off shore and on) is not aimed at the best interests of the American People in their tens of millions or even the federal top bureaucrats, but the maximum profits for the owners of big private property. Can there be any doubt ? The U.S/IMF top bureaucrats, Clinton, the Treasury Secretary, Cadmusses (spelling) are not the actual rulers , but top servants of the rulers, aren't they ? "Who" is the ruling class, "The Board of Directors of the whole World" ? I know conspiracy theory is not favored, but the "system" is not like an mechanical object at the top. There are people there commanding anonymously, aren't there ? It's not Morgan's ghost running things on automatic. I don't know what we can do about it. But I refuse to be naive. Charles Brown Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/14/99 12:14PM Charles Brown wrote: But doesn't the central committee of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie sit above both the IMF and its member governments, really , anyway ? "Who" is the IMF ? "The IMF is a toy of the United States to pursue its economic policy offshore." - MIT econ prof Rudi Dornbusch (the same guy who said that the upside of the Asian crisis was that Korea became a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. Treasury) Doug
[PEN-L:10954] Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
Lenin's idea that the prosperity of the industrial core is critically linked to a poor periphery from which the core can buy raw materials was perhaps true (but perhaps not) in 1900. (The best example of this, in my view, is the U.S.-British cotton trade of the first half of the nineteenth century.) But it is now 2000, not 1900. And the pattern of trade and wealth creation is very, very different... Brad DeLong CAPITALISM AND INEQUALITY AMONG NATIONS Born in Western Europe, industrial capitalism spread in the course of a century over the entire world. But this expansion assumed a very special form: all the countries in the world became outlets, sources of raw material and, to a smaller extent, fields of investment for capital. But the capitalist mode of production, and in particular the capitalist factory, touched only the periphery of the economic life of three continents. This is, briefly, the cause of the phenomenon is today known, shamefacedly, by the euphemism of "underdevelopment". While capitalism has spread all over the world, the greater part of the world has experienced only its disintegrating effects, without benefit from its creative side. Indeed, the unlimited industrial advance of the Western world has been possible only at the expense of the under-developed world, which has been doomed to stagnation and regression. Three-quarters of a century after the start of the era, the United Nations have been compelled to recognise that in spite all the plans for aid to the under-developed countries, countries are becoming richer whereas the poor ones are becoming poorer. The present division of the world between industrialised nations and developed nations is not the result of an inescapable whim of nature, of an unequal distribution of natural resources, or of a comparatively large and small density of population as between this country and that. It is true that capitalist industry was established first place near substantial deposits of coal. But, while there is plenty of coal in England, Belgium, the Ruhr, the North and East of France--areas which were rapidly industrialised at the beginning of ineteenth century--immense quantities of coal are also to be found in easily workable conditions, in the Donbas, the Urals, Mali, India and South Africa, where industrialisation only began a century later, and in some cases has still not begun. Though the discovery of oilfields changed the economic history of the United States, even bigger oilfields existed at the same time in the Middle East, the Sahara and Libya, which did not begin to be developed until much later and then on a relatively modest scale. In order to refute the view that the degree of economic development or industrialisation depends on the density of population, it is enough to recall that areas so highly industrialised as Germany, the Netherlands or Belgium have today, and had already at the beginning of the nineteenth century, a density of population much greater than is found in countries such as Spain, Portugal, Turkey or Brazil. India and Japan were both under-developed countries in 1850. The country which became industrialised the sooner was also the one with the higher density of population. In reality, the division of the world into "rich" and "poor" nations can be explained only by historical and social reasons, and to a large extent by the history of capitalism itself. True, as we have shown above, the prehistory of capitalism, the extent of accumulation of commercial capital, the degree of penetration of money economy into agriculture, the totality of socio-economic conditions favourable or unfavourable for the application of scientific techniques to production, determined to a large extent the birth of industrial capitalism in Western Europe, and held back the same process in India, China, Japan, Java and other essentially agricultural civilisations. Nevertheless, this backwardness was not very marked in the middle of the eighteenth century, and above all was not insuperable. If it had become so a century later, the catastrophic aspect of under-development was due first and foremost to the particular way, that is, a violent and plundering way, in which contact was made between these two worlds. In the decisive formative period of the capitalist mode of production, extending from the sixteenth to the end of the eighteenth century, the creation of the world market was of crucial importance. Its main results for the primitive accumulation of capital in Western Europe have been examined above. But all through this period of the birth of capitalism the two forms of surplus-value appeared at each step. On one hand, it was the outcome of the surplus labour of the wage workers hired by the capitalists; on the other, it was the outcome of vales stolen, plundered, seized by tricks, pressure or violence from the overseas peoples with whom the western world had made contact. From the conquest and pillage of Mexico and Peru
[PEN-L:10952] Re: Re: Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
Brad, this is the first time that you have acknowledged context in this sort of discussion. My my... I would suggest another dimension to your equation. The U.S. is able to treat many of its people relatively well (materially) because of the pressure it exerts on other countries. We get clothes made for $.15-.20 per hour, Imports from non-industrial-core countries equal to 3% of GDP--most of which have potential domestic substitute producers who are not *that* much more costly... It is hard to argue that a shift to complete autarky vis-a-vis the periphery would reduce U.S. real material standards of living by more than 3%, and that only under the assumption that we in the U.S. are only half as productive on average at making import-competing as export goods. You can get big numbers for the economic impact of trade. But you have to work very hard to make dynamic learning-by-doing effects big. And the part of trade that then is a major source of wealth is trade with the rest of the industrial core... Lenin's idea that the prosperity of the industrial core is critically linked to a poor periphery from which the core can buy raw materials was perhaps true (but perhaps not) in 1900. (The best example of this, in my view, is the U.S.-British cotton trade of the first half of the nineteenth century.) But it is now 2000, not 1900. And the pattern of trade and wealth creation is very, very different... Brad DeLong cheap resources ... all which help U.S. consumers (but of course not workers). This I don't see at all. The consumers who shop for clothes at Target and T.J. Maxx *are* workers (well, are me too)... Brad DeLong
[PEN-L:10951] The Dalai Lama on Marxism
With some of the debates recently on the progressive vs. reactionary nature of the Dalai Lama, this forwarded post seems interesting.--Nathan Newman -Original Message- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of ANDERSON DAVID "Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned with only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is the majority--as well as the with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article a paper where his holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism... The failure of the regime in the Soviet Union was, for me not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist." The Dalai Lama in Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses
[PEN-L:10949] BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 __Finished producer prices rose 0.5 percent in August, boosted by a hefty 3.7 percent rise in energy costs from July, BLS reported. The overall producer price index for finished goods rose 0.2 percent in July and 0.1 percent in June. Over the 12-month period ended in August, the PPI rose an unadjusted 2.3 percent--mostly due to a 10.9 percent rise in the finished goods index. Prices for finished goods excluding food and energy prices -- the "core" index -- actually fell 0.1 percent in August, however, after posting no change in July. One question contemplated by analysts is how long consumer inflation will remain isolated from such dramatic gains in energy prices. ... (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). __A closely watched measurement of prices paid to producers fell, which analysts took as a sign that inflation remains tame. Overall, the PPI for finished goods other than food and energy fell 0.1 percent, for a year-over-year increase of just 1.3 percent, which economists said was benign. Economists and investors focused on this core PPI rather than the overall PPI, largely because of sharp spikes in the prices of gasoline, pork, soft drinks, and other food and energy items. ... (George Hager in Washington Post, Sept. 11, page E1). __The wholesale cost of food for the table and gasoline for the car rose, but almost everything else was cheaper. ... (Tristan Mabry in Wall Street Journal, page A2). __In the 1970s, a sudden jump in the price of energy or some other important commodity inevitably signaled a nasty chain reaction that would send inflationary ripples through the whole economy. These days, the prices of oil and other raw materials are climbing once again. But, so far, there are few signs of a ripple effect. ... (Sylvia Nasar in New York Times, Sept. 11, page B4). Martin N. Baily, the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, said that it is too soon to conclude that the recent upswing in productivity is permanent. ... Although government data show productivity -- that is, output per hour -- was up a sizzling 2.8 percent over the last 12 months, the new CEA chief asserted that the administration would have to see more data before it is convinced that this "trend" productivity rate has permanently moved beyond the 1.3 percent average of the last few decades. ... (Daily Labor Report, page A-2). DUE OUT TOMORROW: 1999 Report on the American Workforce Released application/ms-tnef
[PEN-L:10947] Re: Re: Why China Failed to Become Capitalist
At 08:31 PM 9/13/99 -0700, Brad DeLong ponders: Brezhnev. I know how to evaluate material welfare. I don't know how to evaluate the bad karma from living in a society in which the police shoot children on the one hand or living in a society in which dissidents are sent to mental hospitals on the other... Brad, that is really a no-brainer, so i am nonplussed by your hesitation. You can choose to be a dissident, but you cannot choose to be a poor child - so there is really no choice for a rat-choice person here. Martyrdom is the free choice of postmortem glory over the comfort of mundane life. So noone else but the individual himslef should be held responsible for making that choice. But noone chooses one's parents or their social class. Hence, every rat-choice person should respect not only the choice of a dissident to martyrdom but also a political systema that makes that choice possible - and condemn the system that mistreats people because of their ascribed status. wojtek
[PEN-L:10945] Disappearing wild salmon
NY Times, Tuesday, September 14, 1999 As a Species Vanishes, No One Can Say Why By WILLIAM K. STEVENS On a plate, where most people encounter them, all Atlantic salmon are pretty much alike: orange-pink fillets or steaks that melt in the mouth when baked, broiled, grilled or poached, or when smoked and combined with an onion slice and cream cheese on a bagel. But alive, in their North Atlantic habitat, salmon today come in two basic varieties, farm-bred and wild. The wild fish are sleek, silvery torpedoes that range from one side of the ocean to the other and whose beauty, heart and acrobatic grace have earned them a reputation as the aristocrat of aristocrats among game fish. The farm fish spend cramped lives in ocean pens just off the shorelines of North America, Europe and Chile. Comparatively short and fat, often with fins frayed or eroded as a result of close confinement, they are a marine equivalent of domesticated cattle. The odds are overwhelming that what a diner encounters is a farm fish, and that fact reflects a striking reversal: wild salmon, once abundant, are now outnumbered by their domesticated cousins at least 50 to 1, and probably more. According to recent estimates, the wild salmon population is in what appears to be an accelerating downward spiral; the number that are returning to spawn in their native streams has plummeted to what some scientists say is an all-time low. "Something terrible is happening in the ocean," said Bill Taylor, the president of the Atlantic Salmon Federation. . . The problem, scientists say, is not that too few salmon are being hatched in the wild. While many spawning rivers have been ruined by pollution, dams and silty runoff from farms and logged forests, experts say that there is still enough freshwater habitat on both sides of the Atlantic to produce reasonable numbers of young fish. But it appears that once in the ocean, proportionately fewer of these salmon are surviving to return to their natal rivers when it is their turn to reproduce. Commercial fishing that began in the 1960's has commonly been blamed for the longer-term decline. But fishing off North America and Greenland, in the area where salmon of North American origin congregate at sea, has been halted by international agreement, and yet North American salmon are still disappearing. On the Miramichi, only about 1 percent of the young, first-year fish that go to sea return to spawn, according to the Atlantic Salmon Federation, an international nonprofit conservation group based in St. Andrews, New Brunswick. Ten to 15 years ago, 6 percent to 12 percent returned -- at a time when large-scale commercial fisheries were taking wild salmon wholesale. Many things, including natural factors, could bring on a population crash by breaking the salmon's classic life-cycle chain. Among possible causes being investigated are a changing climate that alters water temperature; competition, genetic weakening and disease transmission from escaped farm fish, and increased killing of salmon by seals and other predators. . . But it seems clear, Mr. Taylor said, that apart from exceptions like the Kola Peninsula and Iceland, "there is not very much good news." While the number of salmon returning to spawn in their native rivers is the lowest on record, Dr. Windsor said, it is not clear whether it is the lowest ever; records have been kept only since 1960. "But," he said, "one has the feeling that things are not good for the salmon." Fish populations, like those of almost all creatures, fluctuate naturally, but scientists say that several new factors might be having an impact on wild salmon. One, conservationists say, might be the impact of farm fish on wild ones. While no one has any solid numbers, estimates of the number of farmed Atlantic salmon off Europe, eastern Canada, Maine, the Pacific coast of North America and Chile run from 100 million to 200 million each year. The potential threat to wild salmon posed by farmed ones is said to be threefold. First, it is argued, the farm fish are bred for selected characteristics like growth rate and tameness, and this could make them less genetically diverse and so less suited for survival in the wild. The concern is that when they escape and breed with wild fish, they may reduce the ability of the offspring to survive. Surveys on the Magaguadavic River in southern New Brunswick have found that fish escaped from offshore farm pens outnumbered wild ones by up to eight to one, and Dr. Windsor said large numbers had escaped in Europe. Experts say they have no difficulty distinguishing the two varieties. The farm fish "looks like a football as opposed to a sleek, well-tuned muscular fish," Mr. Taylor said. Second, farm fish may compete with wild ones for habitat and food. Third, diseases and parasites are said to flourish in salmon farm pens, and these may be transmitted to wild fish. Two parasites in particular, tiny brown sea
[PEN-L:10938] Re: Re: IMF to become autonomous?
Rod Hay wrote: Globalisation is a fact that lefties have to deal with. It is futile to oppose it. Chris is pointing in the right direction but he is point at the wrong path. Capitalism may have some room for progressive action. There are still feudal institutional remnants around the world. But it is not the place of leftist to cheer the progress of capitalism. Or to worry about the institutional arrangements of international financial regulators. It is the place of leftist to champion the rights of workers. To insist that workers have their rights inforced, that everyone has enough to eat, that health care be available to those who need it, that good free education be available, etc., etc., etc. It is this opposition that will build socialism not an uncritical promotion of elite institutional reform. World government is of interest only because it helps break down national barriers to the self-organisation of the working classes of the world. __ Rod, Will this world government allow workers from all over the world to move freely and work where ever they please? Free mobility of the workers of the world would be first and foremost opposed by the workers of the 1st world. Cheers, ajit sinha Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archives http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
[PEN-L:10929] Re: Re: Re: Graying Professoriate
At 01:33 13/09/99 -0700, you wrote: I will resist the temptation to flame. My comments were based in part on my own experience. As pennelers know, I am one of the last people on this list who would be described as a "ghetto leftist/marxist". And I have long been involved in many projects of a reformist nature, where I have worked side-by-side with mainstream economists. But I'm not the issue. Nothing personal was intended at all. I was commenting on the theme in general, and rather agreed with your points. The real point is that it doesn't matter whether one practices this or that style of political economy. The forces at work are structural, as I tried to make clear, and broadly exclusionary. I read your points as saying among other things that leftists have to get more papers published. For this topics have to be taken up that are topical and which can be illuminated from a marxist point of view even if not too stridently. Reform and perspectives in the world financial system should be one such subject. No? Chris Burford London
[PEN-L:10930] Re: Re: IMF to become autonomous?
At 10:56 13/09/99 -0400, you wrote: I can assure you that any proposal for the IMF to become more independent of member governments will be DOA in Washington. That's a personal guarantee. I doubt that IMF officials would dare to embrace such a proposal, but I would be delighted if they did so: we'll squash them. -bob --- Robert Naiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center 1737 21st NW Washington, DC 20009 The attack will have to be more subtle. And it will be. Meanwhile the missing billions of the Russian loan are embarrassing. Gordon Brown would not have been made chair of this "interim" committee of the IMF if he was seen by the US as a threat, but he still has the potentiality to scramble the frames of reference and pose the questions in different ways. Brown will be very diplomatic but there is no reason why he should not subtly exploit the embarrassment to have an opportunity to make his own mark on history. Charles Brown commented But doesn't the central committee of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie sit above both the IMF and its member governments, really , anyway ? "Who" is the IMF ? You mean the executive committee? and you are referring to the US government? Interesting point but when we come to look at these things close up they are not homogeneous entities. They have their own divisions within them. Also I would suggest that capitalism has developed to a size where some of its interests are not mainly located in a particular state but are located in the globe. Rod Hay wrote The issue of world government is much more complicated than Chris indicates. I am sure that is right. I wanted to risk the subject and get some debate going by writing up the news reports about this Geneva report on the IMF. I don't see how the IMF could be made independent of the USA. The technical constitution may be rewritten, but the practical matter is that the USA would not agree unless it a strong say in who these technical experts were. Without approval no appointment. Sure. It cannot be made totally independent. The Geneva Report seems to suggest some technical devices to make them *less* immediately dependent - longer term offices and a code of practice etc. A world government is more likely to come about in the same way that national governments did by the force of arms. That is the way it happened in Britain, France, the USA, etc. That is the way it will happen in the world. It will not happen by way of a committee report in Geneva. It will come about pragmatically. I agree it is like the nation states being formed at the end of the middle ages by all sorts of semi-random iniatives, and coalescences. Part of that will be about who manages international armed forces. The US did not get it all their own way. The British general defied the US general at Pristina airport and failed to put tanks on the runway to block the Russians landing. He got away with it, and the British defence minister got made head of NATO. Whether Europe is dependent on US arms to sort out a conflict in Moldova in 2005 will matter. But I would have thought the big decisions will be about the economic trading blocs. Globalisation is a fact that lefties have to deal with. It is futile to oppose it. Good Chris is pointing in the right direction but he is point at the wrong path. Capitalism may have some room for progressive action. There are still feudal institutional remnants around the world. But it is not the place of leftist to cheer the progress of capitalism. Or to worry about the institutional arrangements of international financial regulators. It is the place of leftist to champion the rights of workers. To insist that workers have their rights inforced, that everyone has enough to eat, that health care be available to those who need it, that good free education be available, etc., etc., etc. Important, but to limit the struggle to this is economist. Even more important than trying to get more buns for the workers is to take over the bakery. It is this opposition that will build socialism not an uncritical promotion of elite institutional reform. World government is of interest only because it helps break down national barriers to the self-organisation of the working classes of the world. No no. As with the individual state, so the argument also applies to the world: "the first step in the revolution of the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy." "Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." Unless we watch the skirmishing about the IMF we will not be able to formulate demands that will initially weaken the hold of the capitalists over the IMF and then take it from them, perhaps after restructuring into a more appropriate institution. But there should be no compromise on the ultimate objective: the
[PEN-L:10898] Re: Re: Varoufakis book as course textbookaccompaniment
G'day Michael, Is Stretton's *Political Essays* (1987) available in the UK? I ask because Oz is his focus in this excellent collection of essays. But then, the issues he writes about are as central to the Pommie or Kiwi experience as they are here. His essays on 'deregulation', the damage wrought by 'sloping credit' in the context of volatile inflation (and, boy, did that one come home to roost six months later), trying to make sense of social democracy in an institutional setting that rewards desertion from principle, and the need for political self-awareness and the dangers of narrowness in economic explanation - well, they're ALL terrific actually. Something for everybody, and the sort of thing an economics teacher could use to instil the values of general knowledge, looking out the window once in a while, and applying several modes of thought to each problem. In short, the voice of the sort of public service that built a damned comfy little society (comparatively speaking, anyway) and the one we've spent thirteen years consigning to the dustbin. Methinks our order is gonna learn the hard way how much it depended on these types, and how hard it is to get their like back. Oh, well. Worse is better, right? Right? Cheers, Rob. PS. Enjoyed this little Keaneyism: "Meanwhile, that glorious exception to the otherwise universally applicable law of diminishing marginal returns, the universal applicability of marginal analysis." -- From: "Michael Keaney" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:10895] Re: Varoufakis book as course textbook accompaniment Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:09:35 + Bill Lear wrote: Folks here might be interested in Yanis Varoufakis, *Foundations of Economics: A Beginner's Companion* (Routledge, 1998), which I think might make a very useful supplement to a standard textbook. I would second that recommendation wholeheartedly. Varoufakis is very readable, and is eager to engage readers in critical appraisal of the "truths" they would otherwise forcibly digest. I reviewed the MS of this for Routledge. Another MS I reviewed for Routledge, which that publisher eventually refused, but which will now see the light of day thanks to the folks at Pluto Press, is "Economics: A New Introduction", by Hugh Stretton. It is being launched at this fall's European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy conference in Prague. Further details of it can be found at https://secure.metronet.co.uk/pluto/cgi-bin/web_store/web_store.cgi?sc_quer y _subject=Economics It's an excellent, thoroughly heterodox introduction, quite unlike anything I've seen before. By all means give it a look. Pluto is also going to publish Doug Dowd's latest, entitled "Triumph or Calamity: A History of Capitalism and its Dismal Science". Michael
